@1212surface yes, spirituality can not be studied by anything but religion, because spirituality is a PRODUCT of religion.
the heart is an organ that pumps blood. if you are saying that this organ is responsible for emotion/feeling then you are in no position to say what physics can understand.
but if you are using the word heart, to mean the emotional side of your consciousness, then your case may not be quite as ludicrous, but no more sound.
@1212surface Simple; you make judgements on what works. Science works. Tell me what great discoveries have been made by religion? Did religion figure out how the solar system works or how a cell works? Did religion put a stop to polio? Did religion build a robot and accurately send it to Mars and have it outlast it's original 90 day mission by what...6-7 years? You don't know that "another dimension" exists.
@1212surface Thomas Huxley said: “Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing” Facts are not a matter of the heart, only the head, my friend.
@1212surface Best not to use emotions to decide what reality is...highly unreliable. Does not the heart of a Muslim tell him that Mohammad has the truth, whereas you say it's Jesus? Emotions are fine for deciding what OUGHT to the case, but you should use your intellect for deciding what IS the case. See next post:
@KillerSwift7 Hey numbnuts, praying is useless. If you really want to get the god's attention you have to throw your first-born child into a volcano. Dipshit.
@grazzly1 actually sacrifice is no longer accepted by God, and is looked down upon. Maybe you should look for other sources for your facts other than youtube.
Whats funny is that people follow atheism as one would follow religion, so atheism in a sense is a religion...
And its a fact that most satanic cults stem from atheist followers and are rooted in atheism...so believe what you will and I WILL pray that you find the truth Grazzly
@KillerSwift7 Wow where do you get your information from, slick? Atheism is a belief like "off" is a TV channel. Why would you pray to someone who tells you to kill your own children in the first place? I thought your god considered life sacred? Don't pray for me. Thats insulting. Keep my name out your mouth when you talk to your invisible friend.
@grazzly1 How do you know he prays to somthing like that? That is of your mind, your image and your belief. Bad analogy... Atheism IS "off" as xtheism IS "on", and vice verca - depending on who is making the assumption and how arrogant they are. Arrogance is of belief. Atheism IS a belief, it excludes reasonable options. Agnosticism MAY not be...
@stripedcat Agnosticism... is for people too punked out by society to admit that they are Atheists. If you read the Buybull, it's all in there. Killing your children, executing non-virgin brides, eating shrimp is an abomination, the buybull is literally FILLED with stupid shit that promotes violence and hatred. And yet you douchebags push this on YOUR OWN CHILDREN! You know that is child abuse, right? Adam and Eve is justification for incest. Why is it always Kristians who rape their own kids?
@stripedcat Agnosticism... is for people too punked out by society to admit that they are Atheists. If you read the Buybull, it's all in there. Killing your children, executing non-virgin brides, eating shrimp is an abomination, the buybull is literally FILLED with stupid shit that promotes violence and hatred. And yet you douchebags push this on YOUR OWN CHILDREN! You know that is child abuse, right? Adam and Eve is justification for incest. Why is it always Kristians who rape their own kids?
@grazzly1 Haha! You really are messed up. An agnostic is not an atheist, and they don't have to lean towards xtianity. Most I know are buddhists... I bet you haven't read the bible, just quoting what others have reported. Yes, there is some messed up s there, but mostly good, and that is what I would teach my children. And it is not always xtians, but of all groups, because of fear, arrogance and hatred, what you seems so fond of...
@stripedcat Have you actually read the bible cover to cover? There are dozens of passages about God commanding the genocides of cities and civilizations, the murder of men women and children and babies. And I don't merely mean implied I mean implicit references to babies being put to the sword.
@Draslin No, I have read 30-something books, and skimmed alot. I read it to gain personal knowledge, not to reinforce knowledge I already have(criticize). Yes there are passages I find cruel, maybe I don't have a proper understanding of it. But if I find it cruel, I don't live by it nor do I teach it. And what has the bible to do with anything we are discussing? The bible is a book, and is not essential in a belief of godlikeness.
@stripedcat In other words you belief in word of god is someone you cobble together from various passages you have chosen to believe. The bible (or any holy text) has something to do with our discussion because without such holy texts you would not believe in a god. You believe in a god, because someone told you it exists. There is no proof of a god in the physical world, you're belief is based entirely on Authority. Someone told you it was true, and without any proof at all you accept it.
@Draslin No, that is not what I said, I said knowledge. And how do you know anything about my belief in god, I haven't told you anything. Well, I can tell you, I believe in experience of God, that's it, and that experience is real as any other. As I have said like two times already, physical evidence does not promise proof. And btb, my belief is based on rebellion of authority, I WAS an atheist. Someone told YOU what is true, and without any proof at all you accept it, just as EVERYONE.
@stripedcat I know that your belief in god is an argument based on ignorance. Particular since you state physical evidence isn't proof. Even more so since you simply wish to rebel. Nobody told me something was true and I simply accepted it. There are things I accept as true because they work or I can make predictions with them that work. There are things I simply accept as true, because they come from sources that have so far proved to be reliable. On the other hand, I can't even speak with god.
@Draslin I don't have a belief in god. I didn't say it isn't proof, I said it doesn't promise proof. And physical world is only part of human.experience. I don't wish to rebel, I used to, in my teens. Then the workiness of it all, told you it was true. Sure you can, everybody can! You simply have to come in contact with your highest ethics, while alienating them, and believe in that experience as real. But to do that, I don't know, maybe god decides...
@Draslin I don't have a belief in god. I didn't say it isn't proof, I said it doesn't promise proof. And physical world is only part of human.experience. I don't wish to rebel, I used to, in my teens. Then the workiness of it all, told you it was true. Sure you can, everybody can! You simply have to come in contact with your highest ethics, while alienating them, and believe in that experience as real. But to do that, I don't know, maybe god decides...
@stripedcat If you accept that proof is only proof part of the time, then everything we know is suspect and unreliable. We can't operate that way in science. Half the reason science works is because proof is real. It exists. We might interpret it wrong, but that's our error. As for the latter part, I'm not sure how to respond, it just runs right off the logic rails. Ethics aren't physical objects out there waiting for you to discover, ethics are something you refine internally.
@Draslin So a teqnique of science promise proof, from its BELIEF that it does so, - "This happened, so it must be so again, no? Why? Oh because that happened, so this happens then and that happens when, so it mus be again, no? Why? Etc." The reason science works is because of EXPERIENCE OF PATTERNS. Same you can say about godlikeness: We might interpret it wrong, but that's our error. You can discover ethics demonstrated externally yes, that is God(s)/likeness. I was making a joke.
@stripedcat Science doesn't promise proof. Proof is emergent. If your theory works, and you can make a prediction with it, you can literally foretell the future with it. The proof is that it works consistently, that physical not only does not contradict it but supports the conclusions of the theory. Science works, because it does not attempt to twist the facts to a preconception of the truth, but that the truth must fit the facts.
@Draslin "you can literally foretell the future with it", no you cannot, you can guess. "That physical not only does not contradict it but supports the conclusions of the theory"=conformance. "Science works, because it does not attempt to twist the facts to a preconception of the truth, but that the truth must fit the facts.", There is nothing but preconception of truth so yes it does, and yet agian you admit to conformance. You are talking about the IDEAL of science,
@stripedcat So your saying for example, that utilizing the theory of gravity I can not tell you exactly how long it will take an object to fall to the ground? Or how an object might orbit our planet and interact with other planets. Which is incredibly odd to say since we have used that theory to navigate robotic probes through billions of miles of space over decades of time. Each time we communicate with that probe we have to know very nearly exactly where it is. Your statement is false.
@Draslin You can guess, and be really arrogant and say "it is", but it is not everytime "it is", of "human error" as you say, perhaps, but "human error" is inevitable, even for established facts. And it never is, it is just of the conforming of ages that we have "unshakeable" facts, which in deed are - as for reason - shakeable, because we DO NOT know, even when there is six billion claiming so, even if they are all intellectuals. All you, me, anybody knows are patterns and conformance thereof.
@stripedcat No it's not really arrogant to say it is when the margin for error there is virtually non-existent. And that margin for error btw was likewise determined by the science. We don't merely know what we know, but also what we don't know, and by how much. There is error, that's why the scientific process has built in error checking to eliminate bias and human error as much as possible. In science nothing is unshakable, merely considered so because we haven't manage to so far.
@Draslin Yes, it is arrogant to say "it is", when it is never "it is", and not to support that "fact" aswell. Because both are from belief. "We don't merely know what we know, but also what we don't know, and by how much.", no you have a sense of knowing what you know and don't know. "as much as possible" - conformance, not really relevant - the unknown is UNKNOWN. Yet you are talking about science itself as unshakable.
@stripedcat And no, it is not arrogant. And you are on the verge of babbling. Science is a method by which we systematically attempt to understand the physical world. Science is not unshakable, but one can not simply seize upon that to say that science is merely a belief of personal preference. There is a difference between a house of cards, and a house built out of steel and concrete. Both can be shook, but it takes a lot more than hot air to shake one of them.
@Draslin "And you are on the verge of babbling.", just because YOU don't understand? Arrogance yet again. I did not seize upon that to say that science is merely a belief of personal preference. YOUR concept of science is however of belief and conformance. "Both can be shook, but it takes a lot more than hot air to shake one of them." - So one don't know when it is hot air about or an earthquake, and not being on guard because of ones strong choice makes one arrogant and weak.
@stripedcat Unless we both use terms according to the accepted definitions of the words, yes there is going to be a problem understanding one another. And since I am holding to the accepted definition of the words I'm using while you are not, then yes I'm going to call your usage of those words babbling. The sentences might be grammatically correct, and phrased in an appropriate way, but that doesn't mean it conveys a coherent statement. Ergo you are babbling. Science is not conformance.
@Draslin Sure, that is why I am explaining the words I am using, which you are mocking me for doing. So you are overriding me on the decision that is on us together: Not accepting to communicate. I conform to your words, you should do the same for me. I might have a slightly different use of language, but I make up for it by explaination. Still you won't listen. Practice and theory of science is conformance. Prove me wrong.
@Draslin So a teqnique of science promise proof, from its BELIEF that it does so, - "This happened, so it must be so again, no? Why? Oh because that happened, so this happens then and that happens when, so it mus be again, no? Why? Etc." The reason science works is because of EXPERIENCE OF PATTERNS. Same you can say about godlikeness: We might interpret it wrong, but that's our error. You can discover ethics demonstrated externally yes, that is God(s)/likeness. I was making a joke.
@stripedcat Then you know nothing about science. Science is not about conforming. Science is about observation. Then attempting to explain your observations. Then testing your explanation as rigorously as possible to see if it breaks, to see if fails. Then, you post it in a journal where your peers will do everything in their power to make your explanation break, to find holes, to falsify your observations. The things which we hold to be true, hold up in spite of all attempts to tear it down.
@Draslin Science is about conforming to truth, where one does not know truth: One observe to conform, one test to see if one is properly conformed, one tries to get others to conform, some conform to something else("evidence"), so they criticize one. Sometimes one welcomes critization when one is not occypied conforming to evidence but to truth, by peers, so one and peers together can have greater conformance. When a bunch of people are conforming endlessly, you get solid conformance=facts.
@stripedcat If you want to define conformance as, observing the natural world and developing a theory that produces consistent and reliable predictions which fit the evidence available and withstand any and all testing you attempt to strain the theory then sure. But you are obviously not defining it that way. Science is not about conforming. Science is about understanding through observation and reason.
@stripedcat Understanding and reasoning is not conformance. Flat out. You might describe education as conformance, as one is taking in at face value that which you are being taught, but Science is not. Science is the pursuit of the unknown and you can not by definition conform to a standard that doesn't exist yet.
@Draslin Understanding is the conformance of what is to be understood, reasoning is the conformance of the reason. Science is the pursuit of the unknown=The ideal of science, not science in practice. You can conform to anything that is a concept or an idea. Science is a pursuit of the known, from the unknown, which is belief.
@stripedcat Look, if you're determined to engage in mere semantics and make up definitions of the various terms to suit the point you wish to make you are not going to be taken seriously. You can't make a term mean what you want it to mean while the rest of the world takes it to mean something else. Science is not about conformity. It's about explaining our observations and when you can use that explanation to predict observations you haven't made yet, then you've got some good science.
@Draslin Oh no, am I not to be taken seriously? Oh my god.. "the rest of the world"=you? Enough funtime.. So you think definitions are facts.. In fact definitions are vague, because of spread and different use and usage, so you are actually lucky I tell you what I mean by using them. You too have used "false" definitions trough this discussion. Process of observance to explaination is conformance, as explaination itself IS conformance.
@stripedcat No the rest of the world does not equal me. But you are making up your own definition of science. Look it up. No really, go on. Your definition will contrast sharply with any definition you can find in a dictionary. You could describe Education as conformance, but not Science. Science is, once again, a systematic method by which we attempt to understand the natural world.
@Draslin As I said defintions are not facts. I've looked it up many times, thank you, I still don't agree, but conform to what you want - so will I to what I want. Systematic method=(Method of)conformance of system.
@stripedcat I didn't say definitions are facts, they are not facts. I agree. But definitions of words are not whatever you want them to be. If that were the case we would none of us be able to communicate anything with one another. To have communication we all agree to use the same definitions for the words we intend to use. Please do so. You can not, by force of will, make science something it is not. What you describe requires a word other than science. Because science is already defined.
@Draslin No, so I used the wrong words, I am really sorry, but since I provided definitions of them, you can read out my meaning irregardless. You to have used wrong definitions. We don't have to use the same words, but understand what the other is meaning, that is communication. And sorry for defining "communication" not according to your bible. As I've said, you are talking about "the ideal of science", that is not as in practice: Communities, scientists, facts of science, etc.
@Draslin I understand that you are attempting to create your own definitions, but that's not really my contention. My contention is that you are attempting to get me to accept your definition of one word in particular. Science. And to persuade me to accept your definition you are redefining other words to support your redefinition of science. I'm not mocking you. I'm stating that you are wrong.
@Draslin You too are creating your own definitions, even when conforming to the dictionary. If you think people speak mainly trough dictionaries, you are delusional. Also there are different dictionaries with different meanings. Science is defined by the scientific community. I am not, I am trying to get you to understand my point of view, that is discussion and communication. Well I am not wrong, you are saying I am wrong, and you cannot prove it, so you are mocking me.
@stripedcat You may choose to believe I am mocking you, I can only assure you that I am not. There are different dictionaries, and while the wording of definitions may vary slightly between them, they invariably do not directly contradict one another. I will not find a dictionary that defines "falling" as an "upward motion" nor will I find Science defined as "mere belief".
@Draslin Bottom line: You only have a "sense" of knowing, so you only have beliefs despite all your efforts, sorry! And by definition, from your bibles, agnosticism has not any claim(belief) of existence or non-existence of any deity, as atheism does(of belief).
@Draslin Bottom line: You only have a "sense" of knowing, so you only have beliefs despite all your efforts, sorry! And by definition, from your bibles, agnosticism has not any claim(belief) of existence or non-existence of any deity, as atheism does(of belief).
@Draslin Bottom line: You only have a "sense" of knowing, so you only have beliefs despite all your efforts, sorry! And by definition, from your bibles, agnosticism has not any claim(belief) of existence or non-existence of any deity, as atheism does(of belief).
@Draslin Bottom line: You only have a "sense" of knowing, so you only have beliefs despite all your efforts, sorry! And by definition, from your bibles, agnosticism has not any claim(belief) of existence or non-existence of any deity, as atheism does(of belief).
@Draslin Bottom line: You only have a "sense" of knowing, so you only have beliefs despite all your efforts, sorry! And by definition, from your bibles, agnosticism has not any claim(belief) of existence or non-existence of any deity, as atheism does(of belief).
@Draslin Not saying it is useless, far from it. So when you are internally experiencing patterns, that are stricly personal to you, your values and your identity in this world, how you can make the best out of it, and make a science of that, that is the religious, the very same you are trying to undermine, and it IS a science, conscious or not. So one can rely on ones internal authority(God), as one would with external when confronted with arguments one really know nothing about.
@stripedcat Religion is not a science. Science is based on evidence and reason. Religion is based on authority and blind faith. Science is about understanding our physical world. Science has nothing to say about morality or justice, though it can inform our decisions about morality and justice. For example DNA evidence that can prove a man did not rape a victim because his DNA does not match the semen found. Religion has never given us anything like the science behind DNA typing.
@Draslin Never claimed religion is a science, though it actually is. Authority as well as blind faith is a science. I am talking about the search for the religious, which is a process of science, of reasoning, of finding (evidence of) truth. Religious and philosophical institutions, are communities of people in search of the religious(/internal truth or what you want to call it). Societies of science are communities of people in search of the external truth. Disputes of belief are everywhere.
@stripedcat You did actually claim religion was a science, though it may have been inadvertently done due to poor sentence structure. However, you definitely claimed it was a science the second time. Religion is not science, science is based on evidence and reason and that process is responsible for everything you enjoy today; the keyboard you're typing on, the medicine you take, even the water you drink. Religion has not provided us with a single bit understanding of the natural world ever.
@Draslin No I did not. Maybe you should learn to observe a little better. Religion is an institution, and like all institutions there is science involved. The inward search is not religion, it is however religious, and it too is based on reason and evidence.
@stripedcat "Never claimed religion is a science, though it actually is" So this is not you claiming that religion is a science? There is no science involved in Religion, in fact science is not involved as a requisite for any institution, unless that institution is founded to pursue science. The inward search does not have to be religion I quite agree, and it could be based on reason, but evidence is a little harder to come by. One can not place your inner thoughts in a sample jar.
@Draslin Yes, but you claimed I did so before I actually did, it was way beside the point. Everything is science man.. There is no science involved in Religion, yes there is, brainwash as one example. Science is a necessary requisite for ANY institution. And as I've said before, "physical evidence" is not the only "evidence".
@stripedcat The manner in which you assembled your sentence implied that claim. Fine. Only science is science. English is not science. Philosophy is not science. Art is not science. Religion is not Science. All sorts of things are not science. Science can be employed in the pursuit of those things of course, but that doesn't make those things science. Science is not a necessary requisite for an institute. And evidence is by definition, physical directly or not. It is quantifiable. Observable.
@Draslin So, it's not true? You think your reason is from yourself, intelligence. If I put you in a rat cage, you would be like a rat, so much for intelligence. Without reason, reasoning would not exist. Reason can exist without reasoning. So here you have that arrogance again..All things you mentioned is science. Science has a purpose, which promises a result. The one making the purpose, and thus science, is need, and you think it is from creative and ideal intelligence.
@stripedcat No. Art is not science. Art is not a collection of observations and evidence upon which you form a hypothesis explaining those observations and evidence which you then go on to test and experiment repeatedly in an attempt to falsify your hypothesis until eventually you fail to break it consistently enough that your hypothesis earns the right to be called a Theory. Likewise English is not science. Likewise philosophy is not science. You clearly do not know what science is.
@Draslin Definitions are not facts. Art is a collection of observations and evidence which is selfexplaining trough the observer. One test and experience as to create perfect art. As one test and experiment to falsify ones hypothesis - to find the perfect hypothesis. There is no perfect hypothesis, that is my point. "You clearly do not know what science is", arrogance by belief yet again. Maybe you don't know what science is?
@stripedcat And here we go again, congratulations, you've lost all credibility. Art is not a collection of observations and evidence. Evidence of what? Observation of what? One can use art to make a statement, which itself may be the result of an observation, just as literature can be. But it is a medium only, which people use to communicate in one fashion or another. And it is certainly not a test. You might call it an experiment, but not in the same context as a scientific one.
@Draslin Observations and evidence of feelings.As I've said many times, "physical evidence" is not the only "evidence". One can use art for many things. In the same context yes, on the same scale, no.
@stripedcat Feelings are not evidence. Feelings are bias as often as not. The scientific process employees many forms of testing and experiment to eliminate bias. Double blind trials for example, where neither the testee or nor the tester know which medicines they are testing are real and which placebos.
@stripedcat "Evidence of feeling, is evidence, of what brings the feeling is observation, that observation is evidence." - This is gobbledeegook. I know no other way to respond to this. I could just as easily say, Evidence of erection, is evidence, of what brings the erection is boobs, those boobs are evidence. But you know what? My statement is more like scientifically useful than yours. Feelings are not currently quantifiable. Boobs and erections are. Usually in a 2 to 1 ratio.
It is not gobbledeegook, it is a part of reality as we know it, though you just might call reality that. So it has evidence, observation, and appliance, so it is a science.
@stripedcat No, art is not a science. It is an aptitude, a pursuit, a vocation, a skill, a hobby, a gift, a career, a job, but it is not a science. There is no universal method or process by which one creates art. If we had been talking about art this whole time, some of what you say would make more sense. Art is about emotion or thought and seeks to provoke emotion or thought. But all Science is governed by the same Scientific method through which we can understand the physical world.
@Draslin My final saying: You only have a "sense" of knowing, so you only have beliefs despite all your efforts, sorry! And by definition, from your bibles the dictionaries, agnosticism has not any CLAIM(of belief) of existence or non-existence of any deity, whereas atheism does(of belief).
@Draslin My final saying: You only have a "sense" of knowing, so you only have beliefs despite all your efforts, sorry! And by definition, from your bibles the dictionaries, agnosticism has not any CLAIM(of belief) of existence or non-existence of any deity, whereas atheism does(of belief).
@Draslin My final saying: You only have a "sense" of knowing, so you only have beliefs despite all your efforts, sorry! And by definition, from your bibles the dictionaries, agnosticism has not any CLAIM(of belief) of existence or non-existence of any deity, whereas atheism does(of belief).
@Draslin My final saying: You only have a "sense" of knowing, so you only have beliefs despite all your efforts, sorry! And by definition, from your bibles the dictionaries, agnosticism has not any CLAIM(of belief) of existence or non-existence of any deity, whereas atheism does(of belief).
@stripedcat Dictionaries are not bibles. But an Agnostic is defined as a person who holds that the ultimate cause is God. Ergo, Agnostics claim God exists where as Atheist do not though they refuse to accept the baseless claim that a God exists. Atheists don't believe in god but can not claim he doesn't anymore than they can claim he does. An atheist claims that no one can say God exists. I can claim the celestial teapot exists with exactly the same authority that I can claim god exists. Zilch.
@Draslin You've got your definitions mixed up there. Atheist say there is no god. Agnostic says you can't prove it either way - that the existence or non-existence of a deity is unknowable. You can argue all you like about whether it's belief or opinion or whatever, but at least get your theists right.
@EdwardPearse Negative. There are two definitions of Agnostic one means undecided, so you could say Agnostic Theist or Agnostic Atheist (with a narrower definition of atheist). The definition I refer, and by extension the people, are those that have decided that there is absolutely a god, an ultimate cause, BUT that God/Cause is unknowable. It's exists but you can't describe what it is, wants, intends to do or has done. So when one uses an unqualified Agnostic in reference to god, it is the 2nd.
@Draslin My final saying: You only have a "sense" of knowing, so you only have beliefs despite all your efforts, sorry! And by definition, from your bibles the dictionaries, agnosticism has not any CLAIM(of belief) of existence or non-existence of any deity, whereas atheism does(of belief).
@Draslin I don't have a belief in god. I didn't say it isn't proof, I said it doesn't promise proof. And physical world is only part of human.experience. I don't wish to rebel, I used to, in my teens. Then the workiness of it all, told you it was true. Sure you can, everybody can! You simply have to come in contact with your highest ethics, while alienating them, and believe in that experience as real. But to do that, I don't know, maybe god decides...
@Draslin Arrogance is very expensive, believe me, you will soon burn out. And if you don't find any other source of fuel, you will freeze horribly. You are no better than anybody, in fact you are driving yourself so deep in the ground, that the only one able to help you up is your enemy. How far will you go until you accept that you are NOBODY? Not that you are, but that you truly accept it, and can respect yourself and others? The only one mocking you and your truth is yourself.
1 Where two words are the same they are equal to one word, where not the same they are two seperate words completely different. One would say free as in total free, other would say free as in fewer ties, and third would say free as in respectable ties. Do the same with word tied, commonground they are both equally respected in common meaning, but by themselves completely different meanings. Where there is difference , there is complete difference, where there is common, there is nothing but.
@Draslin You obvious are rebelling against is those inbred breadheads that takes the bible literary, and are utterly psychotic, yes I agree, but you find them in any society of ideas. They cling to authority not self development, and particulary what is mainstream. Xtianity and bible is a perfect tool for them to ruin the world, yes, but FAR from the only tool, think about democracy and commercialism. And atheism - perfect - we are intellectual because we parrot what is generally safe to claim.
@stripedcat Yes, I'm primarily concerned with the extremists, but the middle of the roader's are in their own way equally intolerant. Homosexuality for example. The resistance to people's sexual preference is entirely driven by religious intolerance. Democracy I agree, is the worst form of government, except for all the other forms of government that we've tried so far. :-) But I sincerely doubt Atheism can be used to destroy the world. It's an assertion that god is not true, that's it.
@Draslin Yes, they are most of the problem. Extremist can hide behind them, and they tend to have more of a provocating expression without thinking, respect and tolerance. They use "slogans", that actually hurt people. In Norway that is not much of a problem, regarding homosexuality thankfully, but there is equal lack of understanding I belive. Worst about democracy is, lack of democracy, and lack of understanding when there is, but of course we have had faaar worse!
@Draslin And I agree , I sincerly doubt atheism is a tool for destruction :P I believe people are what they are irregardless of what they are calling themselves, and that our worst enemy is (extreme) intolerance, lack of information and willingness to expand our understanding, fear, and (overindulgence from) stress. And many churches preaches these problems as solutions. Still, much wisdom from the religious as Jesus, Spinoza, Buddha, Eckhart, etc. What a world! :)
@stripedcat This I can not argue with. There are thoughts in the bible and other holy scripts that can be interpreted and exemplified to good effect and even called wise. It's not god at work there, its good people. People with a refined sense of morality and innate human solidarity in which the golden rule is paramount. People who use the stories and words in the bible to teach what is innate in most of us, our human solidarity, to bring that goodness into focus. Morality does't come from god.
@grazzly1 Agnosticism is a legitimate view point. An atheist would not accept the existence of God in the absence of proof. On the other hand an Agnostic is convinced there is a God or primer mover, which is ok. It can't be proven or disproven. The great thing about an Agnostic is that they don't then go out and tell everyone what to do with their lives because they at least acknowledge that they can not know the purpose or intentions or desires of this prime mover or even that it exists.
@KillerSwift7 its funny you say that Atheist are Self Absorbed when most religions only care about themselves and whom is in their flock...and try to create laws based on their own religion, despite FREEDOM of others. I have never EVER met a self Absorbed Atheist in my life. I have however, seen that statement FULL of people that promote religion.
@KillerSwift7 That's brilliant dude.. You are actually following in the steps of a long line of friendly normal people who have the word killer in their nick name. If there is something that tells me you are trust-worthy, it is the word killer and swift, which might indicate swiftly which would indicate kindness and love.
"I won't let you suffer, I'll kill your swiftly", he said and all was good.
You should be praying for us, the bible says, you should be reading Deuteronomy 17..
Respond to this video... Multiple forms of atheism don't exist. Atheism means one thing and one thing only, and that is that one lacks a belief in a deity. You can't have multiple forms of that.
@ChuckyJesus666 The very fact that you said this demonstrates that there are infact varying forms of "Atheism" (better?), as I have met Atheists who've said there are varying forms of "Atheism".
Some are abusive and controlling. Some don't give a shit what anyone else believes. And some are personal sex slaves of Richard Dawkins.
Now... I don't see why anyone needs to get anal about this.
It's a fact of life that people make cults out of EVERYTHING.
@LordShivasServant Really. You met atheists who said there were various forms of atheism. What forms, exactly? Who is abusive and controlling? OK, you totally lost any credibility with "personal sex slaves of Richard Dawkins."
@ChuckyJesus666 Ok. This is ridiculous. You have absolutely no interest in what I'm offering, so why don't you just be an adult and not respond.... or better yet, do some thinking, and DO respond to what I've said.
Oh yeah... you're trying to make a point... how could that have flew over my head? lol
@ChuckyJesus666 There are as many forms atheism, as there are atheists, and even more so regarding schizofrenics with atheist personalities. So there are different communities proclaimed atheist, with different values and interests, as with "religious" communities. In each community there are conflicting ideas and values, even in cults. Communities are all political, religious or not. Atheism IS a belief, agnosticism MAY not be. Each belief is personal and unique, despite common interests.
You forgot to mention [possible] losing of friends post-apostasy, possible post religious trauma disorder post-apostacy, and male and female genital mutilation, as side effects. ;)
@viiScorp Absolutely!! Well said! The silver lining to losing friends post-apostasy is that you can make some really great friends in the freethought community!
I find it hard to believe that Youtube pulled this video. There are far more controversial videos on here than this. There must be more to this story.
Interesting video, I am 'religous'so, several things were a little harsh, but its honestly impossible for anyone could justify flipping out because of it. Mostly because atheists get ridiculed & harrased 100 x's more than us. Also, I just wanted to point something out. The belief in God is not the problem with religions, the problem is thats its evolved into a ridiculous symphony to control large #'s of people by greedy azzholes. This is why 60% of their holy books is nonsense.
@xinecallaw Thank you for your thoughtful post. I wonder though, if the willingness to believe what they're being told to believe in order to control them doesn't start with the god belief. If you can believe one unsupported premise, it can go on from there.... (hope you aren't offended by that, but I call it like I see it...LOL)
@ChuckyJesus666 Belief in a god comes from absolutism, and it's something you should believe in too if you believe in evolution. It is integrated in out being, because it is reality as we know it. We all believe in some form of God, wheter you like it or not, wheter it's called mathematics and its attributes, or energy and its behaviour, or God and Gods will, or whatever. You too have a (un)willingness to believe what you are told, as everybody else.
@xinecallaw The problem with religion isn't the belief in god per say, its the ABSOLUTE belief in god and the belief that you know what he wants us to do. It is accepting claims of truth without any material evidence whatsoever. It is the suspension of critical thinking. "I believe, because I believe, and that is all the logic I need".
@Draslin Logic is absolute, material "evidence" is not. Evidence is perception trough belief, belief of logic, belief of God, of whatever. So critical thinking is king? Not proven wrong does not equal truth. Anyways one tends to go to great lenghts not to be proven wrong, religious or not...
@stripedcat Yeah I would say critical thinking is King. It pursues provisional truth, truth in light of the evidence at hand, truth based on what we know so far. Critical thinking does not always give us the whole truth as revealed when we discover new evidence, but it gives us part of the truth. Any revision of what we know to be true because of new evidence, must explain both the old evidence and the new evidence. Evidence is a sharpening stone for the truth, where faith dulls or destroys it.
@Draslin What we know so far=belief. Provisional truth=faith. Very nice analogy btw! However imo it is belief that dulls, whereas faith sharpens it. What I see, is that being is king, and critical thinking is a tool for it.
@stripedcat Provisional truth is faith? So you're saying someone with religious faith is willing to believe their god does not exist? I've never met one that was. Further, that would require that their faith is contingent upon some kind of physical evidence which it is categorically not. Faith exists in the absence of evidence. Otherwise people could not described their faith as "unshakable". Evidence doesn't matter to people of faith, unless it favors their faith. Everything else is ignored.
@Draslin Faith is of being and non-being, united in experience. Belief is separated into being and/or non-being, and becoming and uncoming, separated in experience.
It is religious belief, but in search of religious is faith. Same goes for any other system of promise, ie science.
"I've never met one that was." Agnostics.
Physical evidence is not promising truth.
"Evidence doesn't matter...unless it favors their [belief]." Very true, you can see that clearly in religion as well as science.
@stripedcat Three parts. 1 how is Faith and Belief two different things? The answer? Because you just made up definitions that make them different. Faith and Belief are the same thing. 2, Agnostics are Agnostics precisely because they are not willing to believe god does not exist. 3, evidence in science matters whether it supports or contradicts the science. If the evidence contradicts, it implies we've misunderstood something, and that clues us in to explore the matter to get better science.
@Draslin 1. They are two different things. You can have faith in good outcome, without any belief backing it up. Belief makes up ideas based on values. I defined them to make out my point, but you clearly don't listen. 2. Wrong, some are willing, that is what makes them agnostics.. 3. Science has a always promise. So same thing. Just because you cult says you're objective, dosen't mean you are. Take a look on science communities, look at all the disputes.
@stripedcat 1. You admit to defining them to make your point, differently, as I said. 2. Negative, an Agnostic believes in a God, but does not ascribe to a specific faith due to doubt. There is no doubt there, that there is a god or force at work. 3. Science promises nothing, it pursues the provisional truth through evidence and reason. It's just as important in science to prove out that which is is false. Time won't be wasted on things that don't work in the future as a result.
@Draslin 1. I define them, to communicate, but you don't want to. They still are seperate. 2. Very wrong. Some have no doubt in (un/)god(s/likeness), others do, some reserve their definite opinion, as admiting "belief" is not always right. "Faith" pursues them. 3. You are talking about the ideal of science, same goes for ideal of the religious, which both conflicts with reality. You are "proving" your point very in an excellent manner: "Evidence doesn't matter...unless it favors their [belief]."
@stripedcat 1. Belief and Faith are defined in nearly the same way. You are attempting to create a difference where there is none. 2. Not wrong. Agnosticism is a belief in god, but that human knowledge of that god is limited to experience. You suggest a person who leans in one direction or the other. Undecided. If you are agnostic, you believe, if you are atheist you do not. 3. The ideal of religion is absolute blind faith, no matter the evidence. Diametrically opposed to the ideal of science.
@Draslin 1 nearly the same=not the same. Still ignoring my point, regardless of words used. 2 I am suggesting nothing, just what is, one does not have to lean in towards one belief(godlike/atheism), but accept th FACT that one does not know. 3 Evidence does not have to be physical, that is from YOUR belief. Ideal of the religious(not religion) is truth, and good and evil, all that s. Same with ideal of science. Science society is the cult of science, based on belief, as religion is of religious
@stripedcat 1. Nearly the same is NOT EQUAL TO completely different definitions. You are trying to make the words into apples and oranges, when in fact they are oranges and grapefruits. 2. Excellent you've admitted the fact that you can not know one way or the other. Welcome to the club. 3. No cult. There is the scientific process. Anything a scientist claims is fact checked, experimented upon, and ruthlessly scrutinized by other scientists. If it doesn't work, reputation suffers. Not so on God.
@Draslin : Actually agnostic only means not knowing. It has nothing to with belief as atheism has nothing to do with knowledge. That's why it's possible to be an agnostic atheist, one who doesn't know if a god exists but also doesn't believe that a god exists. You are talking more about an agnostic theist, a believer that doesn't know if a god exists. Agnostics can be either theists or atheists as the word is not mutually exclusive to theism or atheism.
@Angelalynx999 *facepalm* Yes, it means that. But as it pertains to the specific belief in god it is defined as follows. "a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience." There is more than one definition for many words, context determines the appropriate definition.
@Angelalynx999 No. An Agnostic believes there is a prime mover, a God, but doesn't know what that god is, or what it wants. An agnostic believes in a god, but does not believe (effectively) in religion.
@Draslin : Now you are talking about a deist. You should be mindful of your terms, for to label a deist an agnostic is incorrect. Again, to be agnostic in regards to theism or atheism is to simply not claim knowledge of a god or gods existence. Since it is separate from belief it is compatible with theism and atheism but is not a separate form of belief since it deals with knowledge, not belief. It would be wise to make a note of the proper definitions so as to not appear ignorant in the future.
@Draslin : Now you are talking about a deist. You should be mindful of your terms, for to label a deist an agnostic is incorrect. Again, to be agnostic in regards to theism or atheism is to simply not claim knowledge of a god or gods existence. Since it is separate from belief it is compatible with theism and atheism but is not a separate form of belief since it deals with knowledge, not belief. It would be wise to make a note of the proper definitions so as to not appear ignorant in the future.
@Draslin Logic is absolute, material "evidence" is not. Evidence is perception trough belief, belief of logic, belief of God, of whatever. So critical thinking is king? Not proven wrong does not equal truth. Anyways one tends to go to great lenghts not to be proven wrong, religious or not...
I could not have put it any better on top of my own religious research I can show this to my cristian acquaintances I wish I made this video must say just purely awesome!!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
For there not being a God, I find it more than a little amusing that atheists spend so much time and energy attacking that idea. How can you even have an argument about something that doesn't even exist?
@swampratzozzle We would have nothing to say if you theists didn't go on about it all the time, now would we? You have umpteen radio, TV, and cable outlets spewing god belief 24/7 and billboards, etc, to convince everyone of the veracity of that nonsense. On top of that, you insist on using the government to spread your beliefs. Seems to me that you are the ones spending an awful lot of time and money convincing yourselves and others that this thing exists.
I can tell u y it was removed. some1 had a problem with the anal sex drawing. 2 b honest, it was unnecessary and gross. the rest of it was funny (note, its that that I disagree that religion is f*cked up but kids get on this channel an there should b certain standards we should abide by because of that)
Not all Christians are like that.I'm a Christian and I believe in free speech.And all I'm saying is were not all uptight and arrogant.And to the people who are just stirring up shit SHUT UP and enjoy the video!
:)) bravooo!!!
majinleoking 2 weeks ago
good work here
khijasmith 3 weeks ago
I wonder if all the souls in Paradise are laughing at this right now
Recordbhoy 3 weeks ago
i enjoyed this vid
sprattysy 3 weeks ago
in a nutshell.
kram83au 1 month ago
love the video man
willbirful 1 month ago
give me cathulu any day ...
warpunk1 1 month ago
@1212surface yes, spirituality can not be studied by anything but religion, because spirituality is a PRODUCT of religion.
the heart is an organ that pumps blood. if you are saying that this organ is responsible for emotion/feeling then you are in no position to say what physics can understand.
but if you are using the word heart, to mean the emotional side of your consciousness, then your case may not be quite as ludicrous, but no more sound.
panda0100 1 month ago
@1212surface Simple; you make judgements on what works. Science works. Tell me what great discoveries have been made by religion? Did religion figure out how the solar system works or how a cell works? Did religion put a stop to polio? Did religion build a robot and accurately send it to Mars and have it outlast it's original 90 day mission by what...6-7 years? You don't know that "another dimension" exists.
ChuckyJesus666 4 months ago
@ChuckyJesus666 No religion didn't do any of those things ..it's too busy sending souls to eternal joy in paradise
Recordbhoy 3 weeks ago
@1212surface Thomas Huxley said: “Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing” Facts are not a matter of the heart, only the head, my friend.
ChuckyJesus666 4 months ago
@1212surface Best not to use emotions to decide what reality is...highly unreliable. Does not the heart of a Muslim tell him that Mohammad has the truth, whereas you say it's Jesus? Emotions are fine for deciding what OUGHT to the case, but you should use your intellect for deciding what IS the case. See next post:
ChuckyJesus666 4 months ago
@1212surface You're a nice guy, but awfully confused. I wish we could visit in person.
ChuckyJesus666 4 months ago
@1212surface Well congratulations; you're half-way there....
ChuckyJesus666 4 months ago
This is absolute garbage.... Pollution of the mind, I can't believe that this trash is what the "new" movement in America is.
atheist are the most narcissistic self absorbed lost people. Youtube is trashing youths mind with this.
I don't hate atheist I pray for them.
KillerSwift7 5 months ago
@KillerSwift7 You're an idiot.
AshiePashy1 5 months ago
@KillerSwift7 Hey numbnuts, praying is useless. If you really want to get the god's attention you have to throw your first-born child into a volcano. Dipshit.
grazzly1 5 months ago
@grazzly1 actually sacrifice is no longer accepted by God, and is looked down upon. Maybe you should look for other sources for your facts other than youtube.
Whats funny is that people follow atheism as one would follow religion, so atheism in a sense is a religion...
And its a fact that most satanic cults stem from atheist followers and are rooted in atheism...so believe what you will and I WILL pray that you find the truth Grazzly
KillerSwift7 5 months ago
@KillerSwift7 Wow where do you get your information from, slick? Atheism is a belief like "off" is a TV channel. Why would you pray to someone who tells you to kill your own children in the first place? I thought your god considered life sacred? Don't pray for me. Thats insulting. Keep my name out your mouth when you talk to your invisible friend.
grazzly1 5 months ago
@grazzly1 Read the bible and find out for your self....it's a great book regardless.....
Have you ever tried? Or are you just going by what you have heard other people regurgitate?
anyways....check out this song "valley of decision" its hardcore rap not christian, but its very interesting lyrically. Maybe you will relate
KillerSwift7 5 months ago
@grazzly1 How do you know he prays to somthing like that? That is of your mind, your image and your belief. Bad analogy... Atheism IS "off" as xtheism IS "on", and vice verca - depending on who is making the assumption and how arrogant they are. Arrogance is of belief. Atheism IS a belief, it excludes reasonable options. Agnosticism MAY not be...
stripedcat 5 months ago
@stripedcat Agnosticism... is for people too punked out by society to admit that they are Atheists. If you read the Buybull, it's all in there. Killing your children, executing non-virgin brides, eating shrimp is an abomination, the buybull is literally FILLED with stupid shit that promotes violence and hatred. And yet you douchebags push this on YOUR OWN CHILDREN! You know that is child abuse, right? Adam and Eve is justification for incest. Why is it always Kristians who rape their own kids?
grazzly1 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stripedcat Agnosticism... is for people too punked out by society to admit that they are Atheists. If you read the Buybull, it's all in there. Killing your children, executing non-virgin brides, eating shrimp is an abomination, the buybull is literally FILLED with stupid shit that promotes violence and hatred. And yet you douchebags push this on YOUR OWN CHILDREN! You know that is child abuse, right? Adam and Eve is justification for incest. Why is it always Kristians who rape their own kids?
grazzly1 5 months ago
@grazzly1 Haha! You really are messed up. An agnostic is not an atheist, and they don't have to lean towards xtianity. Most I know are buddhists... I bet you haven't read the bible, just quoting what others have reported. Yes, there is some messed up s there, but mostly good, and that is what I would teach my children. And it is not always xtians, but of all groups, because of fear, arrogance and hatred, what you seems so fond of...
stripedcat 5 months ago
@stripedcat Have you actually read the bible cover to cover? There are dozens of passages about God commanding the genocides of cities and civilizations, the murder of men women and children and babies. And I don't merely mean implied I mean implicit references to babies being put to the sword.
Draslin 5 months ago
@Draslin No, I have read 30-something books, and skimmed alot. I read it to gain personal knowledge, not to reinforce knowledge I already have(criticize). Yes there are passages I find cruel, maybe I don't have a proper understanding of it. But if I find it cruel, I don't live by it nor do I teach it. And what has the bible to do with anything we are discussing? The bible is a book, and is not essential in a belief of godlikeness.
stripedcat 5 months ago
@stripedcat In other words you belief in word of god is someone you cobble together from various passages you have chosen to believe. The bible (or any holy text) has something to do with our discussion because without such holy texts you would not believe in a god. You believe in a god, because someone told you it exists. There is no proof of a god in the physical world, you're belief is based entirely on Authority. Someone told you it was true, and without any proof at all you accept it.
Draslin 5 months ago
@Draslin No, that is not what I said, I said knowledge. And how do you know anything about my belief in god, I haven't told you anything. Well, I can tell you, I believe in experience of God, that's it, and that experience is real as any other. As I have said like two times already, physical evidence does not promise proof. And btb, my belief is based on rebellion of authority, I WAS an atheist. Someone told YOU what is true, and without any proof at all you accept it, just as EVERYONE.
stripedcat 5 months ago
@stripedcat I know that your belief in god is an argument based on ignorance. Particular since you state physical evidence isn't proof. Even more so since you simply wish to rebel. Nobody told me something was true and I simply accepted it. There are things I accept as true because they work or I can make predictions with them that work. There are things I simply accept as true, because they come from sources that have so far proved to be reliable. On the other hand, I can't even speak with god.
Draslin 5 months ago
@Draslin I don't have a belief in god. I didn't say it isn't proof, I said it doesn't promise proof. And physical world is only part of human.experience. I don't wish to rebel, I used to, in my teens. Then the workiness of it all, told you it was true. Sure you can, everybody can! You simply have to come in contact with your highest ethics, while alienating them, and believe in that experience as real. But to do that, I don't know, maybe god decides...
stripedcat 5 months ago
@Draslin I don't have a belief in god. I didn't say it isn't proof, I said it doesn't promise proof. And physical world is only part of human.experience. I don't wish to rebel, I used to, in my teens. Then the workiness of it all, told you it was true. Sure you can, everybody can! You simply have to come in contact with your highest ethics, while alienating them, and believe in that experience as real. But to do that, I don't know, maybe god decides...
stripedcat 5 months ago
@stripedcat If you accept that proof is only proof part of the time, then everything we know is suspect and unreliable. We can't operate that way in science. Half the reason science works is because proof is real. It exists. We might interpret it wrong, but that's our error. As for the latter part, I'm not sure how to respond, it just runs right off the logic rails. Ethics aren't physical objects out there waiting for you to discover, ethics are something you refine internally.
Draslin 5 months ago
@Draslin So a teqnique of science promise proof, from its BELIEF that it does so, - "This happened, so it must be so again, no? Why? Oh because that happened, so this happens then and that happens when, so it mus be again, no? Why? Etc." The reason science works is because of EXPERIENCE OF PATTERNS. Same you can say about godlikeness: We might interpret it wrong, but that's our error. You can discover ethics demonstrated externally yes, that is God(s)/likeness. I was making a joke.
stripedcat 5 months ago
@stripedcat Science doesn't promise proof. Proof is emergent. If your theory works, and you can make a prediction with it, you can literally foretell the future with it. The proof is that it works consistently, that physical not only does not contradict it but supports the conclusions of the theory. Science works, because it does not attempt to twist the facts to a preconception of the truth, but that the truth must fit the facts.
Draslin 4 months ago
@Draslin "you can literally foretell the future with it", no you cannot, you can guess. "That physical not only does not contradict it but supports the conclusions of the theory"=conformance. "Science works, because it does not attempt to twist the facts to a preconception of the truth, but that the truth must fit the facts.", There is nothing but preconception of truth so yes it does, and yet agian you admit to conformance. You are talking about the IDEAL of science,
stripedcat 4 months ago
@stripedcat So your saying for example, that utilizing the theory of gravity I can not tell you exactly how long it will take an object to fall to the ground? Or how an object might orbit our planet and interact with other planets. Which is incredibly odd to say since we have used that theory to navigate robotic probes through billions of miles of space over decades of time. Each time we communicate with that probe we have to know very nearly exactly where it is. Your statement is false.
Draslin 4 months ago
@Draslin You can guess, and be really arrogant and say "it is", but it is not everytime "it is", of "human error" as you say, perhaps, but "human error" is inevitable, even for established facts. And it never is, it is just of the conforming of ages that we have "unshakeable" facts, which in deed are - as for reason - shakeable, because we DO NOT know, even when there is six billion claiming so, even if they are all intellectuals. All you, me, anybody knows are patterns and conformance thereof.
stripedcat 4 months ago
@stripedcat No it's not really arrogant to say it is when the margin for error there is virtually non-existent. And that margin for error btw was likewise determined by the science. We don't merely know what we know, but also what we don't know, and by how much. There is error, that's why the scientific process has built in error checking to eliminate bias and human error as much as possible. In science nothing is unshakable, merely considered so because we haven't manage to so far.
Draslin 4 months ago
@Draslin Yes, it is arrogant to say "it is", when it is never "it is", and not to support that "fact" aswell. Because both are from belief. "We don't merely know what we know, but also what we don't know, and by how much.", no you have a sense of knowing what you know and don't know. "as much as possible" - conformance, not really relevant - the unknown is UNKNOWN. Yet you are talking about science itself as unshakable.
stripedcat 4 months ago
@stripedcat And no, it is not arrogant. And you are on the verge of babbling. Science is a method by which we systematically attempt to understand the physical world. Science is not unshakable, but one can not simply seize upon that to say that science is merely a belief of personal preference. There is a difference between a house of cards, and a house built out of steel and concrete. Both can be shook, but it takes a lot more than hot air to shake one of them.
Draslin 4 months ago
@Draslin "And you are on the verge of babbling.", just because YOU don't understand? Arrogance yet again. I did not seize upon that to say that science is merely a belief of personal preference. YOUR concept of science is however of belief and conformance. "Both can be shook, but it takes a lot more than hot air to shake one of them." - So one don't know when it is hot air about or an earthquake, and not being on guard because of ones strong choice makes one arrogant and weak.
stripedcat 4 months ago
@stripedcat Unless we both use terms according to the accepted definitions of the words, yes there is going to be a problem understanding one another. And since I am holding to the accepted definition of the words I'm using while you are not, then yes I'm going to call your usage of those words babbling. The sentences might be grammatically correct, and phrased in an appropriate way, but that doesn't mean it conveys a coherent statement. Ergo you are babbling. Science is not conformance.
Draslin 4 months ago
@Draslin Sure, that is why I am explaining the words I am using, which you are mocking me for doing. So you are overriding me on the decision that is on us together: Not accepting to communicate. I conform to your words, you should do the same for me. I might have a slightly different use of language, but I make up for it by explaination. Still you won't listen. Practice and theory of science is conformance. Prove me wrong.
stripedcat 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Draslin So a teqnique of science promise proof, from its BELIEF that it does so, - "This happened, so it must be so again, no? Why? Oh because that happened, so this happens then and that happens when, so it mus be again, no? Why? Etc." The reason science works is because of EXPERIENCE OF PATTERNS. Same you can say about godlikeness: We might interpret it wrong, but that's our error. You can discover ethics demonstrated externally yes, that is God(s)/likeness. I was making a joke.
stripedcat 5 months ago
@Draslin Science is nothing but conformance, to ANYTHING!
stripedcat 5 months ago
@stripedcat Then you know nothing about science. Science is not about conforming. Science is about observation. Then attempting to explain your observations. Then testing your explanation as rigorously as possible to see if it breaks, to see if fails. Then, you post it in a journal where your peers will do everything in their power to make your explanation break, to find holes, to falsify your observations. The things which we hold to be true, hold up in spite of all attempts to tear it down.
Draslin 5 months ago
@Draslin Science is about conforming to truth, where one does not know truth: One observe to conform, one test to see if one is properly conformed, one tries to get others to conform, some conform to something else("evidence"), so they criticize one. Sometimes one welcomes critization when one is not occypied conforming to evidence but to truth, by peers, so one and peers together can have greater conformance. When a bunch of people are conforming endlessly, you get solid conformance=facts.
stripedcat 5 months ago
@Draslin Still only conformance, not truth.
stripedcat 5 months ago
@stripedcat If you want to define conformance as, observing the natural world and developing a theory that produces consistent and reliable predictions which fit the evidence available and withstand any and all testing you attempt to strain the theory then sure. But you are obviously not defining it that way. Science is not about conforming. Science is about understanding through observation and reason.
Draslin 4 months ago
@Draslin Understanding and reasoning is conformance, don't kid yourself.
stripedcat 4 months ago
@stripedcat Understanding and reasoning is not conformance. Flat out. You might describe education as conformance, as one is taking in at face value that which you are being taught, but Science is not. Science is the pursuit of the unknown and you can not by definition conform to a standard that doesn't exist yet.
Draslin 4 months ago
@Draslin Understanding is the conformance of what is to be understood, reasoning is the conformance of the reason. Science is the pursuit of the unknown=The ideal of science, not science in practice. You can conform to anything that is a concept or an idea. Science is a pursuit of the known, from the unknown, which is belief.
stripedcat 4 months ago
@stripedcat Look, if you're determined to engage in mere semantics and make up definitions of the various terms to suit the point you wish to make you are not going to be taken seriously. You can't make a term mean what you want it to mean while the rest of the world takes it to mean something else. Science is not about conformity. It's about explaining our observations and when you can use that explanation to predict observations you haven't made yet, then you've got some good science.
Draslin 4 months ago
@Draslin Oh no, am I not to be taken seriously? Oh my god.. "the rest of the world"=you? Enough funtime.. So you think definitions are facts.. In fact definitions are vague, because of spread and different use and usage, so you are actually lucky I tell you what I mean by using them. You too have used "false" definitions trough this discussion. Process of observance to explaination is conformance, as explaination itself IS conformance.
stripedcat 4 months ago
@stripedcat No the rest of the world does not equal me. But you are making up your own definition of science. Look it up. No really, go on. Your definition will contrast sharply with any definition you can find in a dictionary. You could describe Education as conformance, but not Science. Science is, once again, a systematic method by which we attempt to understand the natural world.
Draslin 4 months ago
@Draslin As I said defintions are not facts. I've looked it up many times, thank you, I still don't agree, but conform to what you want - so will I to what I want. Systematic method=(Method of)conformance of system.
stripedcat 4 months ago
@stripedcat I didn't say definitions are facts, they are not facts. I agree. But definitions of words are not whatever you want them to be. If that were the case we would none of us be able to communicate anything with one another. To have communication we all agree to use the same definitions for the words we intend to use. Please do so. You can not, by force of will, make science something it is not. What you describe requires a word other than science. Because science is already defined.
Draslin 4 months ago
@Draslin No, so I used the wrong words, I am really sorry, but since I provided definitions of them, you can read out my meaning irregardless. You to have used wrong definitions. We don't have to use the same words, but understand what the other is meaning, that is communication. And sorry for defining "communication" not according to your bible. As I've said, you are talking about "the ideal of science", that is not as in practice: Communities, scientists, facts of science, etc.
stripedcat 4 months ago
@Draslin I understand that you are attempting to create your own definitions, but that's not really my contention. My contention is that you are attempting to get me to accept your definition of one word in particular. Science. And to persuade me to accept your definition you are redefining other words to support your redefinition of science. I'm not mocking you. I'm stating that you are wrong.
Draslin 4 months ago
@Draslin You too are creating your own definitions, even when conforming to the dictionary. If you think people speak mainly trough dictionaries, you are delusional. Also there are different dictionaries with different meanings. Science is defined by the scientific community. I am not, I am trying to get you to understand my point of view, that is discussion and communication. Well I am not wrong, you are saying I am wrong, and you cannot prove it, so you are mocking me.
stripedcat 4 months ago
@stripedcat You may choose to believe I am mocking you, I can only assure you that I am not. There are different dictionaries, and while the wording of definitions may vary slightly between them, they invariably do not directly contradict one another. I will not find a dictionary that defines "falling" as an "upward motion" nor will I find Science defined as "mere belief".
Draslin 4 months ago
@Draslin Bottom line: You only have a "sense" of knowing, so you only have beliefs despite all your efforts, sorry! And by definition, from your bibles, agnosticism has not any claim(belief) of existence or non-existence of any deity, as atheism does(of belief).
stripedcat 4 months ago
@Draslin Bottom line: You only have a "sense" of knowing, so you only have beliefs despite all your efforts, sorry! And by definition, from your bibles, agnosticism has not any claim(belief) of existence or non-existence of any deity, as atheism does(of belief).
stripedcat 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Draslin Bottom line: You only have a "sense" of knowing, so you only have beliefs despite all your efforts, sorry! And by definition, from your bibles, agnosticism has not any claim(belief) of existence or non-existence of any deity, as atheism does(of belief).
stripedcat 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Draslin Bottom line: You only have a "sense" of knowing, so you only have beliefs despite all your efforts, sorry! And by definition, from your bibles, agnosticism has not any claim(belief) of existence or non-existence of any deity, as atheism does(of belief).
stripedcat 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Draslin Bottom line: You only have a "sense" of knowing, so you only have beliefs despite all your efforts, sorry! And by definition, from your bibles, agnosticism has not any claim(belief) of existence or non-existence of any deity, as atheism does(of belief).
stripedcat 4 months ago
@Draslin Not saying it is useless, far from it. So when you are internally experiencing patterns, that are stricly personal to you, your values and your identity in this world, how you can make the best out of it, and make a science of that, that is the religious, the very same you are trying to undermine, and it IS a science, conscious or not. So one can rely on ones internal authority(God), as one would with external when confronted with arguments one really know nothing about.
stripedcat 5 months ago
@stripedcat Religion is not a science. Science is based on evidence and reason. Religion is based on authority and blind faith. Science is about understanding our physical world. Science has nothing to say about morality or justice, though it can inform our decisions about morality and justice. For example DNA evidence that can prove a man did not rape a victim because his DNA does not match the semen found. Religion has never given us anything like the science behind DNA typing.
Draslin 5 months ago
@Draslin Never claimed religion is a science, though it actually is. Authority as well as blind faith is a science. I am talking about the search for the religious, which is a process of science, of reasoning, of finding (evidence of) truth. Religious and philosophical institutions, are communities of people in search of the religious(/internal truth or what you want to call it). Societies of science are communities of people in search of the external truth. Disputes of belief are everywhere.
stripedcat 5 months ago
@stripedcat You did actually claim religion was a science, though it may have been inadvertently done due to poor sentence structure. However, you definitely claimed it was a science the second time. Religion is not science, science is based on evidence and reason and that process is responsible for everything you enjoy today; the keyboard you're typing on, the medicine you take, even the water you drink. Religion has not provided us with a single bit understanding of the natural world ever.
Draslin 4 months ago
@Draslin No I did not. Maybe you should learn to observe a little better. Religion is an institution, and like all institutions there is science involved. The inward search is not religion, it is however religious, and it too is based on reason and evidence.
stripedcat 4 months ago
@stripedcat "Never claimed religion is a science, though it actually is" So this is not you claiming that religion is a science? There is no science involved in Religion, in fact science is not involved as a requisite for any institution, unless that institution is founded to pursue science. The inward search does not have to be religion I quite agree, and it could be based on reason, but evidence is a little harder to come by. One can not place your inner thoughts in a sample jar.
Draslin 4 months ago
@Draslin Yes, but you claimed I did so before I actually did, it was way beside the point. Everything is science man.. There is no science involved in Religion, yes there is, brainwash as one example. Science is a necessary requisite for ANY institution. And as I've said before, "physical evidence" is not the only "evidence".
stripedcat 4 months ago
@stripedcat The manner in which you assembled your sentence implied that claim. Fine. Only science is science. English is not science. Philosophy is not science. Art is not science. Religion is not Science. All sorts of things are not science. Science can be employed in the pursuit of those things of course, but that doesn't make those things science. Science is not a necessary requisite for an institute. And evidence is by definition, physical directly or not. It is quantifiable. Observable.
Draslin 4 months ago
@Draslin So, it's not true? You think your reason is from yourself, intelligence. If I put you in a rat cage, you would be like a rat, so much for intelligence. Without reason, reasoning would not exist. Reason can exist without reasoning. So here you have that arrogance again..All things you mentioned is science. Science has a purpose, which promises a result. The one making the purpose, and thus science, is need, and you think it is from creative and ideal intelligence.
stripedcat 4 months ago
@stripedcat No. Art is not science. Art is not a collection of observations and evidence upon which you form a hypothesis explaining those observations and evidence which you then go on to test and experiment repeatedly in an attempt to falsify your hypothesis until eventually you fail to break it consistently enough that your hypothesis earns the right to be called a Theory. Likewise English is not science. Likewise philosophy is not science. You clearly do not know what science is.
Draslin 4 months ago
@Draslin Definitions are not facts. Art is a collection of observations and evidence which is selfexplaining trough the observer. One test and experience as to create perfect art. As one test and experiment to falsify ones hypothesis - to find the perfect hypothesis. There is no perfect hypothesis, that is my point. "You clearly do not know what science is", arrogance by belief yet again. Maybe you don't know what science is?
stripedcat 4 months ago
@stripedcat And here we go again, congratulations, you've lost all credibility. Art is not a collection of observations and evidence. Evidence of what? Observation of what? One can use art to make a statement, which itself may be the result of an observation, just as literature can be. But it is a medium only, which people use to communicate in one fashion or another. And it is certainly not a test. You might call it an experiment, but not in the same context as a scientific one.
Draslin 4 months ago
@Draslin Observations and evidence of feelings.As I've said many times, "physical evidence" is not the only "evidence". One can use art for many things. In the same context yes, on the same scale, no.
stripedcat 4 months ago
@stripedcat Feelings are not evidence. Feelings are bias as often as not. The scientific process employees many forms of testing and experiment to eliminate bias. Double blind trials for example, where neither the testee or nor the tester know which medicines they are testing are real and which placebos.
Draslin 4 months ago
@Draslin Evidence of feeling, is evidence, of what brings the feeling is observation, that observation is evidence.
stripedcat 4 months ago
@stripedcat "Evidence of feeling, is evidence, of what brings the feeling is observation, that observation is evidence." - This is gobbledeegook. I know no other way to respond to this. I could just as easily say, Evidence of erection, is evidence, of what brings the erection is boobs, those boobs are evidence. But you know what? My statement is more like scientifically useful than yours. Feelings are not currently quantifiable. Boobs and erections are. Usually in a 2 to 1 ratio.
Draslin 4 months ago
It is not gobbledeegook, it is a part of reality as we know it, though you just might call reality that. So it has evidence, observation, and appliance, so it is a science.
stripedcat 4 months ago
@stripedcat No, art is not a science. It is an aptitude, a pursuit, a vocation, a skill, a hobby, a gift, a career, a job, but it is not a science. There is no universal method or process by which one creates art. If we had been talking about art this whole time, some of what you say would make more sense. Art is about emotion or thought and seeks to provoke emotion or thought. But all Science is governed by the same Scientific method through which we can understand the physical world.
Draslin 4 months ago
@Draslin My final saying: You only have a "sense" of knowing, so you only have beliefs despite all your efforts, sorry! And by definition, from your bibles the dictionaries, agnosticism has not any CLAIM(of belief) of existence or non-existence of any deity, whereas atheism does(of belief).
stripedcat 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Draslin My final saying: You only have a "sense" of knowing, so you only have beliefs despite all your efforts, sorry! And by definition, from your bibles the dictionaries, agnosticism has not any CLAIM(of belief) of existence or non-existence of any deity, whereas atheism does(of belief).
stripedcat 4 months ago
Comment removed
stripedcat 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Draslin My final saying: You only have a "sense" of knowing, so you only have beliefs despite all your efforts, sorry! And by definition, from your bibles the dictionaries, agnosticism has not any CLAIM(of belief) of existence or non-existence of any deity, whereas atheism does(of belief).
stripedcat 4 months ago
Comment removed
stripedcat 4 months ago
@Draslin My final saying: You only have a "sense" of knowing, so you only have beliefs despite all your efforts, sorry! And by definition, from your bibles the dictionaries, agnosticism has not any CLAIM(of belief) of existence or non-existence of any deity, whereas atheism does(of belief).
stripedcat 4 months ago
@stripedcat Dictionaries are not bibles. But an Agnostic is defined as a person who holds that the ultimate cause is God. Ergo, Agnostics claim God exists where as Atheist do not though they refuse to accept the baseless claim that a God exists. Atheists don't believe in god but can not claim he doesn't anymore than they can claim he does. An atheist claims that no one can say God exists. I can claim the celestial teapot exists with exactly the same authority that I can claim god exists. Zilch.
Draslin 4 months ago
@Draslin You've got your definitions mixed up there. Atheist say there is no god. Agnostic says you can't prove it either way - that the existence or non-existence of a deity is unknowable. You can argue all you like about whether it's belief or opinion or whatever, but at least get your theists right.
EdwardPearse 4 months ago
@EdwardPearse Negative. There are two definitions of Agnostic one means undecided, so you could say Agnostic Theist or Agnostic Atheist (with a narrower definition of atheist). The definition I refer, and by extension the people, are those that have decided that there is absolutely a god, an ultimate cause, BUT that God/Cause is unknowable. It's exists but you can't describe what it is, wants, intends to do or has done. So when one uses an unqualified Agnostic in reference to god, it is the 2nd.
Draslin 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Draslin My final saying: You only have a "sense" of knowing, so you only have beliefs despite all your efforts, sorry! And by definition, from your bibles the dictionaries, agnosticism has not any CLAIM(of belief) of existence or non-existence of any deity, whereas atheism does(of belief).
stripedcat 4 months ago
@Draslin I don't have a belief in god. I didn't say it isn't proof, I said it doesn't promise proof. And physical world is only part of human.experience. I don't wish to rebel, I used to, in my teens. Then the workiness of it all, told you it was true. Sure you can, everybody can! You simply have to come in contact with your highest ethics, while alienating them, and believe in that experience as real. But to do that, I don't know, maybe god decides...
stripedcat 5 months ago
@Draslin Arrogance is very expensive, believe me, you will soon burn out. And if you don't find any other source of fuel, you will freeze horribly. You are no better than anybody, in fact you are driving yourself so deep in the ground, that the only one able to help you up is your enemy. How far will you go until you accept that you are NOBODY? Not that you are, but that you truly accept it, and can respect yourself and others? The only one mocking you and your truth is yourself.
stripedcat 5 months ago
@Draslin Rebellion of authority is authority.
stripedcat 5 months ago
1 Where two words are the same they are equal to one word, where not the same they are two seperate words completely different. One would say free as in total free, other would say free as in fewer ties, and third would say free as in respectable ties. Do the same with word tied, commonground they are both equally respected in common meaning, but by themselves completely different meanings. Where there is difference , there is complete difference, where there is common, there is nothing but.
stripedcat 5 months ago
@Draslin You obvious are rebelling against is those inbred breadheads that takes the bible literary, and are utterly psychotic, yes I agree, but you find them in any society of ideas. They cling to authority not self development, and particulary what is mainstream. Xtianity and bible is a perfect tool for them to ruin the world, yes, but FAR from the only tool, think about democracy and commercialism. And atheism - perfect - we are intellectual because we parrot what is generally safe to claim.
stripedcat 5 months ago
@stripedcat Yes, I'm primarily concerned with the extremists, but the middle of the roader's are in their own way equally intolerant. Homosexuality for example. The resistance to people's sexual preference is entirely driven by religious intolerance. Democracy I agree, is the worst form of government, except for all the other forms of government that we've tried so far. :-) But I sincerely doubt Atheism can be used to destroy the world. It's an assertion that god is not true, that's it.
Draslin 5 months ago
@Draslin Yes, they are most of the problem. Extremist can hide behind them, and they tend to have more of a provocating expression without thinking, respect and tolerance. They use "slogans", that actually hurt people. In Norway that is not much of a problem, regarding homosexuality thankfully, but there is equal lack of understanding I belive. Worst about democracy is, lack of democracy, and lack of understanding when there is, but of course we have had faaar worse!
stripedcat 5 months ago
@Draslin And I agree , I sincerly doubt atheism is a tool for destruction :P I believe people are what they are irregardless of what they are calling themselves, and that our worst enemy is (extreme) intolerance, lack of information and willingness to expand our understanding, fear, and (overindulgence from) stress. And many churches preaches these problems as solutions. Still, much wisdom from the religious as Jesus, Spinoza, Buddha, Eckhart, etc. What a world! :)
stripedcat 5 months ago
@stripedcat This I can not argue with. There are thoughts in the bible and other holy scripts that can be interpreted and exemplified to good effect and even called wise. It's not god at work there, its good people. People with a refined sense of morality and innate human solidarity in which the golden rule is paramount. People who use the stories and words in the bible to teach what is innate in most of us, our human solidarity, to bring that goodness into focus. Morality does't come from god.
Draslin 5 months ago
@grazzly1 Agnosticism is a legitimate view point. An atheist would not accept the existence of God in the absence of proof. On the other hand an Agnostic is convinced there is a God or primer mover, which is ok. It can't be proven or disproven. The great thing about an Agnostic is that they don't then go out and tell everyone what to do with their lives because they at least acknowledge that they can not know the purpose or intentions or desires of this prime mover or even that it exists.
Draslin 5 months ago
@KillerSwift7 Yeah, ya do, Killer....yeah ya do.
ChuckyJesus666 5 months ago
@KillerSwift7 its funny you say that Atheist are Self Absorbed when most religions only care about themselves and whom is in their flock...and try to create laws based on their own religion, despite FREEDOM of others. I have never EVER met a self Absorbed Atheist in my life. I have however, seen that statement FULL of people that promote religion.
madincx 4 months ago
@KillerSwift7 That's brilliant dude.. You are actually following in the steps of a long line of friendly normal people who have the word killer in their nick name. If there is something that tells me you are trust-worthy, it is the word killer and swift, which might indicate swiftly which would indicate kindness and love.
"I won't let you suffer, I'll kill your swiftly", he said and all was good.
You should be praying for us, the bible says, you should be reading Deuteronomy 17..
afroschlan 4 months ago in playlist More videos from ChuckyJesus666
this is to good love it!!!!!! :) simply awesome and funny
GeniusAtheist 5 months ago
where can i buy it? i will buy islam for my son and buddhism for my daughter
and of course a bunch of christian religions for the rest of my family..
i hope i can some "how to hijack a plane" and "build your own bomb belt" guides for my son too
realbojay 6 months ago
lol @ 0:58 Hey, that's kinda like some forms of Atheism, too!
LordShivasServant 6 months ago
Respond to this video... Multiple forms of atheism don't exist. Atheism means one thing and one thing only, and that is that one lacks a belief in a deity. You can't have multiple forms of that.
ChuckyJesus666 6 months ago
@ChuckyJesus666 The very fact that you said this demonstrates that there are infact varying forms of "Atheism" (better?), as I have met Atheists who've said there are varying forms of "Atheism".
Some are abusive and controlling. Some don't give a shit what anyone else believes. And some are personal sex slaves of Richard Dawkins.
Now... I don't see why anyone needs to get anal about this.
It's a fact of life that people make cults out of EVERYTHING.
LordShivasServant 6 months ago 2
@LordShivasServant Really. You met atheists who said there were various forms of atheism. What forms, exactly? Who is abusive and controlling? OK, you totally lost any credibility with "personal sex slaves of Richard Dawkins."
ChuckyJesus666 6 months ago
@ChuckyJesus666 Ok. This is ridiculous. You have absolutely no interest in what I'm offering, so why don't you just be an adult and not respond.... or better yet, do some thinking, and DO respond to what I've said.
Oh yeah... you're trying to make a point... how could that have flew over my head? lol
LordShivasServant 6 months ago
@ChuckyJesus666 There are as many forms atheism, as there are atheists, and even more so regarding schizofrenics with atheist personalities. So there are different communities proclaimed atheist, with different values and interests, as with "religious" communities. In each community there are conflicting ideas and values, even in cults. Communities are all political, religious or not. Atheism IS a belief, agnosticism MAY not be. Each belief is personal and unique, despite common interests.
stripedcat 5 months ago
@LordShivasServant You're referring to strong and weak degrees of atheism. You're relying on a semantic debate, which is pretty revealing.
evilyig 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@evilyig Yeah. Because if you'd care to notice, what I said word-for-word is this:
"lol @ 0:58 Hey, that's kinda like some forms of Atheism, too!"
Notice the subtly of my language denoting I'm talking about "SOME FORMS". It's fucking obvious I'm talking about different degrees of Atheism.
If you wanna sound smart, buy yourself a Thesaraus.
In b4 - you whinging like a little bitch because I used all-caps once or twice.
LordShivasServant 5 months ago
You forgot to mention [possible] losing of friends post-apostasy, possible post religious trauma disorder post-apostacy, and male and female genital mutilation, as side effects. ;)
viiScorp 7 months ago 4
@viiScorp Absolutely!! Well said! The silver lining to losing friends post-apostasy is that you can make some really great friends in the freethought community!
ChuckyJesus666 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is great!
canbuyu 7 months ago
This is heat!
canbuyu 7 months ago
I find it hard to believe that Youtube pulled this video. There are far more controversial videos on here than this. There must be more to this story.
smegmasaurus 8 months ago
Interesting video, I am 'religous'so, several things were a little harsh, but its honestly impossible for anyone could justify flipping out because of it. Mostly because atheists get ridiculed & harrased 100 x's more than us. Also, I just wanted to point something out. The belief in God is not the problem with religions, the problem is thats its evolved into a ridiculous symphony to control large #'s of people by greedy azzholes. This is why 60% of their holy books is nonsense.
xinecallaw 8 months ago 7
@xinecallaw Thank you for your thoughtful post. I wonder though, if the willingness to believe what they're being told to believe in order to control them doesn't start with the god belief. If you can believe one unsupported premise, it can go on from there.... (hope you aren't offended by that, but I call it like I see it...LOL)
ChuckyJesus666 8 months ago 9
@ChuckyJesus666 Belief in a god comes from absolutism, and it's something you should believe in too if you believe in evolution. It is integrated in out being, because it is reality as we know it. We all believe in some form of God, wheter you like it or not, wheter it's called mathematics and its attributes, or energy and its behaviour, or God and Gods will, or whatever. You too have a (un)willingness to believe what you are told, as everybody else.
stripedcat 5 months ago
@xinecallaw The problem with religion isn't the belief in god per say, its the ABSOLUTE belief in god and the belief that you know what he wants us to do. It is accepting claims of truth without any material evidence whatsoever. It is the suspension of critical thinking. "I believe, because I believe, and that is all the logic I need".
Draslin 7 months ago 2
@Draslin Logic is absolute, material "evidence" is not. Evidence is perception trough belief, belief of logic, belief of God, of whatever. So critical thinking is king? Not proven wrong does not equal truth. Anyways one tends to go to great lenghts not to be proven wrong, religious or not...
stripedcat 5 months ago
@stripedcat Yeah I would say critical thinking is King. It pursues provisional truth, truth in light of the evidence at hand, truth based on what we know so far. Critical thinking does not always give us the whole truth as revealed when we discover new evidence, but it gives us part of the truth. Any revision of what we know to be true because of new evidence, must explain both the old evidence and the new evidence. Evidence is a sharpening stone for the truth, where faith dulls or destroys it.
Draslin 5 months ago
@Draslin What we know so far=belief. Provisional truth=faith. Very nice analogy btw! However imo it is belief that dulls, whereas faith sharpens it. What I see, is that being is king, and critical thinking is a tool for it.
stripedcat 5 months ago
@stripedcat Provisional truth is faith? So you're saying someone with religious faith is willing to believe their god does not exist? I've never met one that was. Further, that would require that their faith is contingent upon some kind of physical evidence which it is categorically not. Faith exists in the absence of evidence. Otherwise people could not described their faith as "unshakable". Evidence doesn't matter to people of faith, unless it favors their faith. Everything else is ignored.
Draslin 5 months ago
@Draslin Faith is of being and non-being, united in experience. Belief is separated into being and/or non-being, and becoming and uncoming, separated in experience.
It is religious belief, but in search of religious is faith. Same goes for any other system of promise, ie science.
"I've never met one that was." Agnostics.
Physical evidence is not promising truth.
"Evidence doesn't matter...unless it favors their [belief]." Very true, you can see that clearly in religion as well as science.
stripedcat 5 months ago
@stripedcat Three parts. 1 how is Faith and Belief two different things? The answer? Because you just made up definitions that make them different. Faith and Belief are the same thing. 2, Agnostics are Agnostics precisely because they are not willing to believe god does not exist. 3, evidence in science matters whether it supports or contradicts the science. If the evidence contradicts, it implies we've misunderstood something, and that clues us in to explore the matter to get better science.
Draslin 5 months ago
@Draslin 1. They are two different things. You can have faith in good outcome, without any belief backing it up. Belief makes up ideas based on values. I defined them to make out my point, but you clearly don't listen. 2. Wrong, some are willing, that is what makes them agnostics.. 3. Science has a always promise. So same thing. Just because you cult says you're objective, dosen't mean you are. Take a look on science communities, look at all the disputes.
stripedcat 5 months ago
@stripedcat 1. You admit to defining them to make your point, differently, as I said. 2. Negative, an Agnostic believes in a God, but does not ascribe to a specific faith due to doubt. There is no doubt there, that there is a god or force at work. 3. Science promises nothing, it pursues the provisional truth through evidence and reason. It's just as important in science to prove out that which is is false. Time won't be wasted on things that don't work in the future as a result.
Draslin 5 months ago
@Draslin 1. I define them, to communicate, but you don't want to. They still are seperate. 2. Very wrong. Some have no doubt in (un/)god(s/likeness), others do, some reserve their definite opinion, as admiting "belief" is not always right. "Faith" pursues them. 3. You are talking about the ideal of science, same goes for ideal of the religious, which both conflicts with reality. You are "proving" your point very in an excellent manner: "Evidence doesn't matter...unless it favors their [belief]."
stripedcat 5 months ago
@stripedcat 1. Belief and Faith are defined in nearly the same way. You are attempting to create a difference where there is none. 2. Not wrong. Agnosticism is a belief in god, but that human knowledge of that god is limited to experience. You suggest a person who leans in one direction or the other. Undecided. If you are agnostic, you believe, if you are atheist you do not. 3. The ideal of religion is absolute blind faith, no matter the evidence. Diametrically opposed to the ideal of science.
Draslin 5 months ago
@Draslin 1 nearly the same=not the same. Still ignoring my point, regardless of words used. 2 I am suggesting nothing, just what is, one does not have to lean in towards one belief(godlike/atheism), but accept th FACT that one does not know. 3 Evidence does not have to be physical, that is from YOUR belief. Ideal of the religious(not religion) is truth, and good and evil, all that s. Same with ideal of science. Science society is the cult of science, based on belief, as religion is of religious
stripedcat 5 months ago
@stripedcat 1. Nearly the same is NOT EQUAL TO completely different definitions. You are trying to make the words into apples and oranges, when in fact they are oranges and grapefruits. 2. Excellent you've admitted the fact that you can not know one way or the other. Welcome to the club. 3. No cult. There is the scientific process. Anything a scientist claims is fact checked, experimented upon, and ruthlessly scrutinized by other scientists. If it doesn't work, reputation suffers. Not so on God.
Draslin 5 months ago
@Draslin : Actually agnostic only means not knowing. It has nothing to with belief as atheism has nothing to do with knowledge. That's why it's possible to be an agnostic atheist, one who doesn't know if a god exists but also doesn't believe that a god exists. You are talking more about an agnostic theist, a believer that doesn't know if a god exists. Agnostics can be either theists or atheists as the word is not mutually exclusive to theism or atheism.
Angelalynx999 5 months ago
@Angelalynx999 Well said!!
ChuckyJesus666 5 months ago
@Angelalynx999 *facepalm* Yes, it means that. But as it pertains to the specific belief in god it is defined as follows. "a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience." There is more than one definition for many words, context determines the appropriate definition.
Draslin 5 months ago
@Draslin : As I said, you are describing an agnostic theist. Someone who doesn't know if there is a god but believes that there is one (or more).
Angelalynx999 5 months ago
@Angelalynx999 No. An Agnostic believes there is a prime mover, a God, but doesn't know what that god is, or what it wants. An agnostic believes in a god, but does not believe (effectively) in religion.
Draslin 5 months ago
@Draslin : Now you are talking about a deist. You should be mindful of your terms, for to label a deist an agnostic is incorrect. Again, to be agnostic in regards to theism or atheism is to simply not claim knowledge of a god or gods existence. Since it is separate from belief it is compatible with theism and atheism but is not a separate form of belief since it deals with knowledge, not belief. It would be wise to make a note of the proper definitions so as to not appear ignorant in the future.
Angelalynx999 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Draslin : Now you are talking about a deist. You should be mindful of your terms, for to label a deist an agnostic is incorrect. Again, to be agnostic in regards to theism or atheism is to simply not claim knowledge of a god or gods existence. Since it is separate from belief it is compatible with theism and atheism but is not a separate form of belief since it deals with knowledge, not belief. It would be wise to make a note of the proper definitions so as to not appear ignorant in the future.
Angelalynx999 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Draslin Logic is absolute, material "evidence" is not. Evidence is perception trough belief, belief of logic, belief of God, of whatever. So critical thinking is king? Not proven wrong does not equal truth. Anyways one tends to go to great lenghts not to be proven wrong, religious or not...
stripedcat 5 months ago
I could not have put it any better on top of my own religious research I can show this to my cristian acquaintances I wish I made this video must say just purely awesome!!
falloutmanist 8 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
For there not being a God, I find it more than a little amusing that atheists spend so much time and energy attacking that idea. How can you even have an argument about something that doesn't even exist?
swampratzozzle 8 months ago
@swampratzozzle We would have nothing to say if you theists didn't go on about it all the time, now would we? You have umpteen radio, TV, and cable outlets spewing god belief 24/7 and billboards, etc, to convince everyone of the veracity of that nonsense. On top of that, you insist on using the government to spread your beliefs. Seems to me that you are the ones spending an awful lot of time and money convincing yourselves and others that this thing exists.
ChuckyJesus666 8 months ago 41
@ChuckyJesus666 LIke I said....... :)
swampratzozzle 8 months ago
I can tell u y it was removed. some1 had a problem with the anal sex drawing. 2 b honest, it was unnecessary and gross. the rest of it was funny (note, its that that I disagree that religion is f*cked up but kids get on this channel an there should b certain standards we should abide by because of that)
cruelbusiness1984 8 months ago
Not all Christians are like that.I'm a Christian and I believe in free speech.And all I'm saying is were not all uptight and arrogant.And to the people who are just stirring up shit SHUT UP and enjoy the video!
calvin4765 8 months ago
If you're religious get out.
redsoxown34 9 months ago
Freedom of speech is not absolute on youtube. Great video.
fatouche99 9 months ago 2
@fatouche99 I realize that; but there's nothing in this video which violated terms of service....
ChuckyJesus666 9 months ago 2
'Les règlements sont faits pour les médiocres et les indécis; rien de grand ne se fait sans l'imagination.' Napoleon Bonaparte
pdrquay 9 months ago
Ironic, the one thing that God doesn't have - a sense of humour - is the one thing that destroyed him.
superhamzah85 9 months ago
Maybe YouTube pulled it because it made total sense?? Satire it may be but every bit of this video is dead right! Hilarious as well -LOL
Lennon4ever1 9 months ago
i can see the spaghetti monsters balls
Dahak753 9 months ago