Dude! Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with this picture. The creationist are outright misconstruing the facts! Seriously, is this video going to lead people to a better understanding of humanity and it's complex history by employing misinformation? Religion is truly the opium of the people!
5) the belief that you need the bible to tell you right from wrong is ludicrous. We've all developed instinctual behaviors arising from the fact that certtain principles in a society allow that society to be more successful. If not believing in god made you a bad person then there would be hundreds of millions of murderers and rapists laying waste to the world.....and their wouldnt be religious people molesting altar boys.
1) "survival of the fittest" does not mean "survival of the meanest" it simply means those that respond better to their environment have a better chance to survive.
2) Who believes we came from a rock?
3) noone believes life just "sprang forth" suddenly except religious fundamentalists.
4) evolution follows much more logic than "we were all poofed here by a magical sky wizard!" Evolution is supported by fossil records, geology, biology, genetics, and nearly every respected scientist.
@RowanEvans123 How does a star ship navigate? I mean, considering that the universe is constantly expanding, and every celestial object is linked with every other celestial object via universal gravitation, there is no fixed point in the star trek universe for the starship to latch on to.
This is sickening! A travesty. Roddenberry would turn in his grave. Is this religion? Spitting on someone elses ideas? This is why people start to hate christians.
Very cool video. I find it very relaxing that atheism can be expressed without people instantly going against it. It's also interesting to see Sci-Fi shows like the Star Treks to explore religion through the religions of different alien species and refer to Earth religions as myths. *Suddenly feels like a total geek* But, yeah, great video.
In the very first episode of Star Trek, I believe it was 'Bones' who said either "Help me Lord " or "Forgive me Lord" near the end when he has to kill an alien that is trying to kill him but the alien looks like a woman he used to love.
TNG shied away from attacking religion after Roddenberry died though, whereas ToS, despite being campy and usually scientifically ridiculous, was almost evangelically atheist.
There's even a few times in ToS when not only is the allegory of the episode taking a shot at religion but the characters themselves reference the bible as ancient myths. It always brings a smile to my face that something like that made it onto TV in the 60's, but it depresses me that it probably wouldn't now.
Research will carry you far, my friends. In the meantime, no good is achieved by knowingly lying and twisting facts... kids may watch this and believe that people actually believe what the scientist characters are saying. I can promise you, no scientist believes in such a way. Learn the difference between DEductive and INductive study.
there are very very few atheists left on their death bed
You mean that many atheists convert on their death beds? Possibly. This could be the result of any number of things: fear of death finally getting to them, the apparition of some suppernatural entity, thewhite light caused by the failingof the nurons in the brain, a discontinunity between the preceived awareness of the mind and the frailty of the body ect.
c) Hope for continued existence after the grave: In a naturalistic universe when you die, you are dead. A healthy respect all the things that can kill you can be a good thing. I prefer to err on the side of caution on this matter, live life to the fullest, and if I get to keep on existing after I die, so much the better. Besides, death would only be indefinite unconsciousness.
b) meaning in life: I dont see the meaning of life as something that could be consistant among all humans, and I feel that as a spcies we are far too ambicious to surve our ultimate purpose in subservience, this is one of the reasons why I am an atheist; I dont think that religion could satisfy my purpose, so I turned elsewhere.
a) objective morality: morality is a function of what you are taught, the effect of your experiences, and your co-operative instinct. While the first two factors are widely variable, the natural co-operative instict or your consience is hardwired into the brain and is more or less universal to all human beings, with the exception of phycopaths.
Atheism should not be associated with moral relativism, irrationality (I would have hoped the opposite), and violence towards lab assistants. While some atheists may share one or more of these qualities, this relationship is independent of their being atheists.
I would argue that there are at least three things that naturalism (the philosophy of atheism) has no answer. Naturalism is void of a) objective morality. b) meaning in life c) hope for after the grave. All these things experience shows are essential for humans to have. I've spoken with a lot of atheists through the years. From all the testimonies I've heard, there are very very few atheists left on their death bed. Would welcome an IM chat with you.
As I said, I'm VERY willing to dialogue with you... IM is more efficient then trying to carry on multiple strings which I lose track of. I want to do our conversation justice. But - so far no takers...I guess nobody is serious about truly exploring the topic.
You are exposing your ignorance of hermaneutics. Thats NOT what those verses mean at all. And as I said, I'm VERY willing to dialogue with you... IM is more efficient then trying to carry on multiple strings which I lose track of. I want to do our conversation justice. But - so far no takers...I guess nobody is serious about truly exploring the topic.
I think its obvious that most of the folks posting here are not interested in a serious debate on the subject of God. My evidence of that is I have yet to have anybody take me up on my offer of a serious dialogue on the topic. The fact of the matter is that most people who post here are more interested in "Digital Graffiti" then a serious dialogue. They post "Christians are stupid" but are not willing to discuss the topic seriously.
I think its obvious that most of the folks posting here are not interested in a serious debate on the subject of God. My evidence of that is I have yet to have anybody take me up on my offer of a serious dialogue on the topic. The fact of the matter is that most people who post here are more interested in "Digital Graffiti" then a serious dialogue. They post "Christians are stupid" but are not willing to discuss the topic seriously.
Okay folks - if you're interested in a serious discussion, I'm willing to engage in an Instant Message dialogue with you. You can reach me through Yahoo chat at (s4t777 at yahoo *dot* com)
"So when you display part of a definition that makes the whole true?"
Are you a theologian? Are you qualified to define the THEOLOGICAL definition of faith? Christians DO define faith that way as trust in and reliance on. We trust in and rely upon the work of Christ. It just so happens that the theological definition IS the same! It means trust in what you KNOW to be true. If you're interested in how Christians define it, look up Hebrews 11:1.
"I just makes no sense to believe it when it is beyond my understanding. Therefore I don't.
Why do you reject logic?"
Now wait a second...slow down. Just because something doesn't make sense to you, doesn't mean it doesn't exist or its not true. When you were 5 years old, did algebra make sense to you? Does that mean it did not exist? Is it possible there's something in the universe that exists that you don't understand????
Yes you do - you BELIEVE that life came from non-life regarless if there is zero evidence to prove that happened. You believe that there is no God... Heck - you have faith every time you drive down the road and trust the other car isn't going to hit you! Everyone exercises faith.
"Please back this up. I know of no science that supports intelligent design."
Certainly - I refer you to the documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed."
"Atheists believe that everything had to have a beginning"
Actually that's an ID / Creationist view. Everything had a beginning...do you really believe that? Then welcome to our side of the fence... the logic is wonderful here....
Yes-the concept is illustrated by saying that naturalists must adhere to the notion of abiogensis.
"No one has the answer for that one either"
I didn't ask you if you understood abiogensis...just if you believe in it or not? Come on this isn't rocket science dude... A simple yes or no... your unwillingness to answer a simple question is very telling - it tells me you simply can't come to grips with the ramifications of your "faith."
"If you believe that god is eternal you're still left with the question. when did god occur and who or what caused god."
Um. No. By definition an eternal being does NOT have a cause---an eternal being is eternal, dude! And theologians do NOT say God came from nothing...we say God has ALWAYS been. HUGE, HUGE difference.
"You cant just use God as an answer when there is no answer for God."
That's a misnomer.That statement assumes there is no god. You're entire premise is based on an assumption there is no creator/beginner/uncaused cause.Forget about the name for a moment.You seem to be indicating that there is an uncaused cause, you just don't know what it is. Why do you have such a hard time believing in the possibility that a being exists beyond your understanding? And why is faith so bad? You have faith too.
Straw man, huh - I'll bet you not! I'm being very true to the logical ramifications of atheism. Let's take it one at a time. What about you, do you believe in abiogensis or not? Simple yes or no will do.
"I could believe that the universe did not come into existance"
But that would not logically fit the evidence now would it. If you believe the universe explodes and contracts constantly, you're still left with the question. when did the FIRST explosion occur and who or what caused it. And yes - God came from nothing - hence the definition of an "uncaused cause."
By definition, the Christian God never came into existence; that is, He is the uncaused cause (Psalm 90:2). He was always in existence and He is the one who created space, time, and matter. This means that the Christian God is the uncaused cause and is the ultimate creator. Some may ask, "But who created God?" But the answer is that by definition He is not created; He is eternal.
"The third option is to understand that no one knows"
Chuckle chuckle-that's not an "option" as it relates to origins theory. That's simply admitting ignorance. Well - I guess that is something. At least you've moved away a half a step from atheism into the realm of agnostic.
"we need to base our opinions on the best evidence."
And that's why evolution fails so miserably-If you want to believe in evolution, fine-but again, the BEST evidence for God lies in the person and work of Jesus Christ.
Wow - must have hit a nerve. You haven't answered my question. And I'm NOT saying all atheists believe in biogenisis...what I'm saying is that a logical ramification of naturalism is the belief in abiogensis. There is no option. So....I didn't ask you where the universe came from I asked you "Do you or do you not believe in abiogensis?" I'm proving a point here, my friend. I'm awaiting your reply. (If you asked me a question, I must have missed it... please feel free to repost.)
I think what atkmanchristmas is getting at is that trying to tell people what they think, and then ridiculing them for holding that belief even if they've never claimed to, is not exactly the most productive way of holding a dialog.
Besides which, two can play that game.
You believe that telepathically telling a cosmic jewish zombie that you accept him as your master will cause you to live again after you die as a blissed out spirit for all eternity.
trying to tell people what they think, and then ridiculing them.
1) first - if you note at the end of the video, its the Bible who calls you a fool for not believing in God. And quite frankly, its foolish to ignore the evidence.
2) Again - for the ump-teenth time... If I am guilty of a strawman, I'll change my video. Please tell me one thing about the video that is NOT a logical ramification of true naturalistic atheism.
Are you an atheist? If so, do you not adhere to abiogenisis? (google the term if you need to). If you don't adhere to abiogensis - how do you account for the appearance of life? If there's another option for the atheist, I'll alter my video.
Hey dragonmaster - I thought I mentioned this to you before (maybe not) I've been studying this topic for longer than you've been alive, son. I know of what I speak. The ramifications of atheism are clearly outlined in this video. 1) There can be no objective morality without God. 2) Evolution (macro) is a violation of the basic principles of biology 3) Atheism demands a naturalistic approach to origins - thus abiogensis is a requirement (life from non-life)
We can argue semantics later. Anyways for the three "points" this video makes 1) What moral points do you need a God for? In other words what morals can 1 only follow by having a God? I find objective to be a very weird word to use with God 2) I don't understand what you mean when you write that Evolution violates the basic laws of biology. I can clarify specifics but that claim is too broad of a statement. 3) Abiogensis is not to be confused with evolution nor is it a requirement for Atheism
Lets distill this down to a single topic. Lets take abiogenisis. Alright so are you telling me you do not believe in the spontaneous appearance of life? What DO you believe,then that an intelligence created life? If you are a naturalist I don't see any other option but for you to adhere to abiogenisis (life spontaneously arising from non-living matter). Abiogensis is a prerequisite for neodarwinian evolution. While its not a requirement of atheism its a logical ramification of atheism.
I'm willing to admit that I don't know where life came from, I just don't think that an intelligent being made life and there is really no good reason to believe that it did. In my opinion it is better to think about how it may have happened and figure it out than to attribute it to a god. I still don't see how Abiogensis is a prerequisite for evolution as evolution explains how different species came to be from a common ancestor as well as how genetic and physical traits developed.
"Im willing to admit that I don't know where life came from,"
Alrighty then - then if you don't know...it COULD have come from an intelligent being...you're just saying you don't know - am i reading you correctly on that?
"ow Abiogensis is a prerequisite for evolution" - because wouldn't you agree that evolution applies only to living things? and in order to have living things to evolve, there must have been a FIRST living being, right? Seems like a no-brainer to me.
This is another thing that I don't understand with deists and theists, the assumption that they are right from a lack of an explaination, that this is a "no-brainer" kind of responce. I don't accept things that I don't know to be true. If you turn the argument on its side why is God (an intelligent being) the explaination if one does not know? I noticed could and first in all caps, why should I accept this frame of mind? Why is the intelligent being the best way to think about it?
"Why is the intelligent being the best way to think about it?"
Intelligent Design is the logical and philosophical position, combined with science, which says that the universe and life itself give strong evidence for intelligent design. In this particular sense, we're not identifying the "Designer." There are both Christians and non-Christians in this movement, as well as those who are agnostic. Thus it boils down to the fact that the bulk of evidence of observation leads to this conclusion.
I disagree with that claim. I don't think there is a bulk of evidence of observation for Intelligent Design and the Intelligent Design theory itself has been debunked in Kitzmiller v. Dover. With all things fair and even if you don't agree that Intelligent Design is "Creationism in a suit" it is incompatible with fossil evidence that supports Evolution. You cannot have a designer that made one of every animal (Intelligent Design) and also have new species develop over time (Evolution).
You cannot have a designer that made one of every animal (Intelligent Design) and also have new species develop over time (Evolution).
Actually there are those who believe exactly that. (I am not one)...Its called the "top theory" That essentially god wound up the universe like a top and let nature take its course and sits back and watches....so that's a non-issue.
1) There can be no objective morality WITH God, either. An extant deity, even one with strong opinions about what his little sentient creations ought to be doing, provides zero weight to the argument that morals are therefore somehow "objective".
I suppose one can call them authoritative, but to call God's opinions "objective" is a misuse of the word. Anyway, why should God's supposed opinions be regarded such except for the fact that he's ostensibly more powerful than us?
Not true. Oxford defines "objective" of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions. So in the sense of morality, we are looking at criteria BEYOND our own opinions or emotional feelings. Thus the only way to explain universal morality is through the fact that we have received our sense of morality from someone (or something?) beyond ourselves.
Reality must be a certain way because of how Oxford defines a given word? This is a very curious argument indeed.
And yet, the argument still fails given your own definition. Just because you decide to shift the moral feelings and opinions to a deity instead of a person does not make them suddenly not feelings and opinions.
In other words, what YOU call moral are the moral feelings and opinions of this disembodied mind that you believe in. It still doesn't meet your criteria.
Reality must be a certain way because of how Oxford defines a given word?
So you disagree with the Oxford dictionary? Seems to me you don't like ANY authority that disagrees with your opinion. If you think your opinion is the ultimate truth in the universe, then I don't think this conversation is worth having.
2) Poppycock. This micro/macro distinction is based on nothing. If I can walk a hundred feet in a minute, then I can walk from Manhattan to Los Angeles in a year.
Unless you can demonstrate a biological mechanism preventing a lot of small changes from adding up into big changes, your objections are baseless.
Oh icon - Of course we can demonstrate that a lot of small changes do not add up to macro changes...macro in the sense of species progression. Micro evolution describes variations in species. Macro evolution describes the species to species jump. There is micro differences in humans through time (height, color, slight jaw changes) but ALL are still HUMAN. Humans give birth to humans. We have yet to see a leap from human to a new species. Your analogy fails.
You misunderstand what speciation is. Individuals do not evolve. A member of one species does not suddenly give birth to an entirely different species. ENTIRE POPULATIONS EVOLVE. I can't stress that enough.
If you were to separate two different populations of the same species such that there is no gene flow between both groups, then after a million years it's likely that all the small adaptations that each group undergoes will accrue to the point that you have two different species.
It doesn't matter if you have 100 humans or millions...humans give birth to humans. The only thing you have is natural selection and mutation. Neither of these give rise to a different SPECIES - only variations on a theme. Example suppose it was advantageous to be really short. We could see a change in humans who prefer to marry and have children with dwarfs/midgets...that would not make a new species just small humans. Hope that clarifies things for you.
3) So what? Atheists don't claim abiogenesis never occurred, they simply point out that you shouldn't conflate abiogenesis with evolution. They're not even the same field for crying out loud, evolution is biology whereas abiogenesis is chemistry.
Naturalistic evolution IMPLIES a necessary belief in abiogenisis. The only other option is intelligent design - which contradicts the naturalist philosophy. Thus abiogenisis is step one in the naturalistic process of evolution. You can call it a separate field if you want, but you can't have evolution without it. If abiogenisis is NOT the prerequisite, please explain what is the first step in evolution...because that would be news to me! (Unless you adhere to theistic evolution...do you?)
Well technically, even creationists and theistic evolutionists believe in abiogenesis. Creation of life ex nihilo, or from the "dust on the ground" as Genesis puts it, or from a "black molded loam" as the Qur'an puts it--
That is not true. Christian creationists do NOT believe in abiogenisis - not only because its scientifically impossible, but the Bible teaches just the opposite. Geneisis teaches that the life of man came from the life of God (Look it up - Genesis 2:7
As for my precise opinion on the matter of how abiogenesis occured, well I don't have one. I don't know enough to make such a determination.
We can prove organic molecules were abundant on the primordial earth. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say that the first replicators were simple molecules something like RNA.
Evolution requires only reproduction, heredity, variation, and selection in order to work so once you have a simple self replicating molecule these mechanisms kick in.
Yes i do - i lived next to two atheists for years. He and his wife were nice people...(although he was indeed very arrogant and opinionated) the good news is that after years of sharing with him and his wife, his wife came to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ and renounced her atheist belief system!
This skit is such an insult to the real show of Stark Trek and its characters, as well as to atheists in general, and it goes to prove how bigoted the Christians are who produced it, as well as ignorant.
Being a man of reason, I would bet you anything that god would not help us even if a big meteorite was coming toward Earth to wipe out all life. This guy did not help out during the tsunami a few years ago and will never help us because he does of course not exist. On the downside there is no after life but the upshot is that I can stand on the top of a mountain and yell 'fuck you god!' without getting struck by lightning. The real reality is more fascinating than all this nonsense anyway.
My comment on this video is that we have a serious problem with the feeble-minded relgious idiots. I do not believe that they are idiots for real but they have been indoctrinated from birth. There is a fundamental flaw in the wiring in their brains. They seem to think that if science is correct then it is okay to punch someone in the face? These people are so severely brain-washed that it is a tremendous threat to our society.
Listen man, it seems you don't understand athiests and agnostics well at all. We're not totally different from religious people, it's just that we make a few logical decisions in our life that lead us to our own inevitable conclusions. When I became an athiest, I still believed that God existed. "How can that be?" I am sure you are asking. It is because I deemed him a god not worthy of worship, and I also deemed that I will not stoop myself so low as to worship anything.
So what was my thinking at the time? What did I think would happen to me? I believed that like all other people who are both good and do not worship God, I would be sent to Hell for eternity. I believed that God would torture me forever for not giving him my soul, and I accepted that because I believed it was the moral thing to do. I could not follow and worship a god who would do such horrible things to people simply out of jealousy and angst. To do what's right, I accepted your nightmare.
But I've changed since then; matured. I've come to see that nothing separates Christianity from paganism or cults. But all athiests and agnostics come to their own conclusion. I'd say it's best to be raised in a religious environment and find your own way to athiesm. However, that is not possible for an entire society, or even a large portion of it. Also, it takes a strong mind to accept that loneliness. And I've met many people who simply aren't strong enough for it, sadly.
I believe in evolution, and although I don't understand the physics or mathematics behind it, I take for granted the theory of the big bang. Evolution, however, is ridiculously simple and self-evident. But that doesn't mean that the laws of nature always apply to the world of man. Athiests are not cruel. Personally, I'm a very patient person and am known not to often lose my temper or hold grudges. I care about everyone, not just people I know directly, and certainly not just myself.
There is just one more thing: it's quite presumptuous to say that those who reject commonly-accepted scientific principles understand science better than those who make a profession of it and who hold themselves to extremely high standards in its pursuit, and who dedicate themselves to its improvement.
"Atheists are not cruel"... well, a lot of people use atheism as an excuse to be cruel in the same way that people use religion as an excuse to be cruel.
I was debating whether to respond to this, so I'll keep it simple so as not to start a flame war. Historically, can you think of any examples? Save the USSR, I can't think of a single atheist state. And using that as an example would be like me using Italy 1940s as an example of a Christian state. Do you regularly hear of atheists bombing abortion clinics or some such? That's not to say a person has never committed an act for "atheist reasons," just that it's not as common as religious ones.
Well I meant more than people resorting to physical violence such as people insisting that theists, usually Christians and Muslims are all ignorant and "bigotted" (whatever that means) but somehow atheists are perfect. But, in any case, "atheist acts" are any acts comitted by an atheist leader to get rid of a particular religious group like Christians "for the good of society" like in China. As far as I'm concerned that's "killing in the name of atheism"
I'm not sure I regularly hear of people bombing abortion clinics either. Once in a great while something like that may happen but it's extremely rare. I don't log on to the internet, look at current events/news/whatever, and find out that an abortion clinic has been bombed every other day.
You seem like a nice person-one of the few "respectful" atheists I've met on the net.I appreciate that.Could it be POSSIBLE, my friend, that you are mistaken on your analysis? For example, could it be that your view of God is not entirely accurate?Did you know that the theology behind hell is not how you describe it?The fact is nobody exactly knows what hell is like.I find it interesting that you choose to place faith in something that has less evidence (naturalism)then that which does (Theism)
Yes, it is possible that I am mistaken on my view of God. But you see, I don't disbelieve in gods so much as I refuse to worship them. I believe it's POSSIBLE for gods to exist. I'd respect and I'd even love a god who'd create a beautiful universe with choice, but I do not respect a god who demands obedience from his creations. And respect does not mean worship either; even if I found a god who perfectly fit my ideals, I think it would rather I found fulfillment and strength elsewhere.
As for heaven and hell... I'm not sure what could possibly keep me happy and sane for eternity. Hell... I imagine would be a much simpler afterlife to make. Haha. Of course, I don't want my existence to be snuffed out and given the choice, I'd actually prefer hell to that. Whatever hell is, if that's the worst God will do to me, it's better than the *traditional* atheist idea of afterlife. But it's important to understand that there is no "Church of Atheism;" we're all different in many ways.
Sorry to post some more and take up more room, but I'll give some examples of that difference. Some atheists believe that our perception of reality is not accurate; that our death doesn't carry so much weight because the rules of the game aren't what we think they are. Some cling to certain scientific theories and try to make spiritual theories out of them: for instance, that quantum mechanics means that even if we die, we still exist connected to the rest of the space and time.
Personally, I think we're essentially erased existence because the continuity of our thought is broken forever. Even if our life is connected to the universe in a grander way, it probably wouldn't be consciously. It's sobering, and for years it scared me greatly. But somehow I've come to deal with it, and if there is an afterlife out there I'd be grateful for even the lowest level of hell.
accept yourself of course...and a your car..and a your job.. and a your bamk account..and a your pad ..and a your sports team...and a...and a....and a...praise B to the almighty you...amen
I completely agree. Why atheists think their belief structure makes sense is beyond me. I think we've provided a pretty kindergarten presentation of the ramifications of atheistic thought... the logical ramifications of atheism are indeed "stupid" and completely absurd.
well - the problem is that most atheists don't want to think through the logical problems with THEIR faith. And when someone points out the logical absurdities - one gets accused of setting up a straw man (which is a convenient way for an atheist to say "I'm not going to deal with the logical dilemma of my belief structure." A true atheist has nothing to hang his/her hat on in regards to a universal morality. They either must say there is no such thing, or try to explain it through sociology.
You start thinking that atheists have a faith. That's inexact, it's only "incredulity" that makes you an atheist, so you have degrees and exceptions, that's why each atheist has a different view than another atheist. You can be called an atheist for not believing in Odin, Appolo, Anubis or Mose opening the red sea. Then moral is something we are all forced to think about, all you need is at least a minimum of common sense, ethics in philosophy, dogmas with religion.
It is a statement of faith to stand up and say "I know there is no god." How do you KNOW that? Perhaps he lives on Jupiter - have you been there? So atheism is indeed a "faith." Why is morality we "all are forced to think about?" Why even bother with it? If we're animals, what makes your morality better then mine? Morality is an illusion if you are an atheist.
I don't know I just fail to believe in because I don't have enough elements (not only rationnal ones) to believe in it, then organized religions like christianism islam and judaism are just horrible and full of contradictions, I could eventually believe in a will to create the world a "demiurge", but I see no reasons to worship such a Demiurge if it existed. Aztecs had a religion glorifying human sacrifices, does religion provides a good moral ? I'd say it depends on the religion...
Each human being whatever his beliefs have his own moral, I base mine on compassion. We are not just animals we are conscient of what we do, so we have the choice to do it or not, we have feelings and naturally sort them in two categories those we dislike and those we like. Then we are social, so we have to think collectively, but as we are free we must also take freedom and tolerance in consideration.
I would disagree - there is no naturalistic explanation for morality. According to naturalism, we should simply grab the most attractive woman on the street, fight among our selves and mate with her right there on the spot. Wonder why we don't? Universal morality cannot be explained through naturalistic reasoning.
Based on what? You mention a "Core ideal of right and wrong" what is that core ideal? Whose core ideal? Where did that core ideal come from. I'm not talking about punishment or anything. I'm talking about that core ideal you mention - where does it come from?
yeah, ok....whatever-as many atheists, you're more interested in name calling then actually providing a rational response or discussing the issue. You make some pretty wild claims...but what facts do you base your belief that the Bible is equivalent to a Harry Potter book?-alas, as so often the case, you're uninterested in actually addressing facts and more interested in emotional rants. best wishes-I pray the fog lifts from your mind. (By the way, you spell ignorance with "ance," not "ants.")
whatever-if you must know I have a Masters degree and have been studying this topic for 25 years. To be frank, it is frustrating to discuss the topic with atheists because you folks never answer the question posed to you. You are very typical. I've yet to encounter very many intellectually honest atheists-the one star is the result of angry atheists-it has nothing to do with the facts presented in the clip.FACT-atheists by definition MUST believe in abiogensis,there's no option. Prove me wrong.
(eye roll) - the idea that we evolved from a monkey is simply a simplified presentation of the theory of evolution... get a life and present a rebuttal - so far you have not...are you saying that atheists CAN believe in a creator God? why is it that you folks never address the point? hmmm.....
For the record - of course I know Star Trek is NOT a Christian show...(Though it does tip its hat toward spiritual issues). In fact I am completely aware that Roddenberry was a humanist. That's exactly why i love the irony in using the characters to point out the fallacy of atheism.
Did you REALLY say "no scientist ever stated that monkeys evolved into man?" That's the standard evolutionary theory! Have you ever read a scientific text book or even watched COSMOS with Mr. Sagan? Talk about someone who know's nothing about their subject...AND what exactly are you saying, that an atheists DOES allow for a creator God??? please elaborate.
I'm sorry - but you obviously know nothing of history. If it wasn't for Christianity, there would be no science and you'd still be thinking everything happened at the whim of Zeus. It was Christians who stood up and proclaimed that the universe should be orderly and thus examined because of the fact it was created by an orderly God...and guess what...they where right. You like science? Thank a Christian.
As I've explained to others - its not a strawman if you're simply pointing out the logical "next steps" in the atheistic belief system. Example - how many atheists believe that God created life? None, right (that's not allowed per definition of atheist)? well the only alternative is abiogensis and evolution... We're just ponting out how foolish abiogensis is...and as an atheist, that's your only option... unless i'm missing something, please enlighten me.
no need, the startrek writer was an atheist and there for the series was based in an atheist world. further more we would have a very peaceful planet if not for religion and it's mental slavery that compels anybody to hate people of different religions. without religion we'd still have morals and we'd be far more advanced then we are at the moment. virtually all wars are for religion including WWII. so no god=no big deal and lots and lots of peace and love. good luck with your side of the story
The "everything would be better without religion" is completely irrelevant to the conversation. It does nothing to argue as to whether or not there is a God. That you don't like the idea of a God does not mean he does not exist.
actually it has everything to do with it. bible = word of god, religion follows the word of god and if you read the bible (or any other holy book) you'll find it full of hate. also i never said there is no god, i just said if there is no god there would be no problems. and as for morals, hitler's actions in WWII, the curusades, the inqisations and countless more "just and moral killings in the name of christ. good to see that we need religion anyway :P
Whether or not God exists is a completely DIFFERENT question then how people respond to the Bible. oh --- well, I apologize, I thought you were an atheist... i take it from your last post then you must be a theist then, eh? or perhaps an agnostic?
well i believe in god, what i have lost faith in is organized religion, all of them. they all say the same thing, we're right and the others are wrong. so to me all are wrong and don't get me started on the bible, a pretty brutal and bloody book that looks down on women and accepts slavery (including selling your own daughters). so i believe in god but i'd prefer to see a religion free world. :)
Well - i can respect that. You're the first person to present a response worth discussing. Take a look at so many of the other posts and you can see people are more interested in name calling then in actually discussing the issue. I think you're right to a certain extent. A lot of bad things are done in the name of Christianity. I think, tho, that if one were to look at it, those things were an abomination and not what Christ would have taught. Would you agree?
While the teachings of a 200 year old Rabi can have valuable teachings for us today, saying that second-hand reports of some of his actions are the only source of human morality is extremely delusional, and I think selling humanity a little short.
Um - that's not what the video stated -- it said, No GOD, no morality... go back and take another look. So - there's the question - how do you account for morality without a source of that moral code? (The Bible is far older than 200 years, by the way...)
The Bottom line - I have asked in this forum what specifically would convince an atheist of God's existance. The answers came back "something supernatural" (one example was like the stars spelling out words or something). Well, that requirement has been met in the person, work and resurrection of Jesus Christ and you still don't believe - conclusion: Atheists aren't interested in the evidence because they don't like the IDEA of a God...
rayh007, you conveniently ignore every "transitional form" fossil/creature proposed to you. Tiktaalik is one such fossil of an animal that is clearly an intermediary between fish and land therapods.
If you want to believe otherwise, I won't stop you. Science, society and the world will continue to march on, recognizing that evolution of life is evident in fossils and in DNA, with Natural Selection being the Theory that explains how it happened. Thinking otherwise leaves you in the dark ages.
I don't think you're reading all my posts - I responded to you about Tiktaalik and I responded on good 'ol Archaeopterx. So I'm not sure what you're talking about. And again, science (society???) has nothing of significance to offer in regards to TRUE transitional forms. All the so-called transitional ape-man fossil's I've studied have been debunked. (aka Lucy, Peltdown man, etc.) If you desire to believe in transitional forms - you have more faith than I!
For the record, Lucy: (proclaimed as the best evidence for evolution) Found by Johansen. Found a group of bones (from different "individuals") and chips of a skull cap. The entire skull model was based upon a few "chips" of bone. So Lucy is NOT a transitional "ape-man" fossil.
No, the bones included one complete pelvic bone, many fragments from the skull; in total about 40% of a complete, single individual skeleton was recovered. (Johanson, Donald & Maitland Edey (1981), written at St Albans, Lucy, the Beginnings of Humankind, Granada, ISBN 0-586-08437-1)
Wow, using social Darwinism to criticize Evolutionary Biology. Yeah, typical creationist argument. Use simplistic idiocy to explain away a complicated subject. By the way, Vulcans are atheists.
Just how does evolution automatically equate to atheism? Is your God's capabilities so limited that He could not have created the Universe in such a way that His Humans came about by natural processes that He set in motion 15 Billion years ago?
Wasnt the creator of startrek an atheist? and no one died of hunger and humans lived in peace, that was his vision of the human race...alot of evangelical christians also have a vision, they say lets rape this world of all its resorces (coal,oil trees) and dont worry about global warming because it doesnt matter, jesus is comming...were better off without religion.
Many of you when asked 'what would it take to change your mind about the existence of God?' have responded 'if he did something miraculous that has no natural explanation. The good news is - He has! God has revealed himself in the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth and proved who he was by raising himself up from the dead! For sake of argument for a minute - let's assume that event really happened - wouldn't that be a deal closer for you?
If I believed that Jesus came back to life then yes I would be a Christian. However, I think I can see where this is going. I do not believe Jesus rose from the dead, and I would present a short essay by David Hume, "On Miracles", as my first line of argument. Besides, isn't it your turn to answer what would change your mind? Perhaps I missed it in the deluge of posts.
That's a fair question, TrueBZ -- As in a court of law, if I could be convinced that the preponderance of the evidence pointed AGAINST intelligent design and that Jesus is NOT who he said he was, then I would need to follow where the evidence lies. As in any debate the person holding the negative has the burden of proof...thus the burden of proof is on those who say there is no God. So far the evidence I've seen is overwhelmingly convincing that there is indeed a God.
There's no evidence against intangible invisible dragons that live in people's garages. There can't be evidence against them, because by definition they're indetectable. If you don't want to believe in them, burden of proof is on you cause you're holding the negative belief. See where this gets us? Burden of proof is NOT on the person holding the negative, where did you hear that?
That's debate 101. IF you say "there is no santa clause" the burden of proof is on you else "how do you KNOW there is no Santa Clause? Have you been to the North Pole? The assumption could be that there is unless proved otherwise. So the burden of proof is yours. Therefore a) there is a God. b) the evidence supports his existence c) its up to you to prove the claim wrong (especially since we've already provided evidence in the positive).
Well, we disagree about the evidence in the positive that supports it. However, only strong atheists claim there absolutely is no God. Weak atheists(the majority, I think) are simply people who refrain from proclaiming there is a god, without making a claim of knowledge themselves. So they actually don't have a claim to prove themselves, except generally that the evidence is insufficient to prove God's existence.
Well, it isn't a matter of opinion, it is a matter of the definition of atheist. It's a common misunderstanding that all atheists declare that there is absolutely no chance that a God exists.
As Koukle pointed out, David Hume argued against miracles. He said they just don't seem to happen very much, so when someone claims they do happen, we are not rationally obliged to believe in such a thing because they certainly aren't very probable. But no act of history is very probable. All acts are arguably unique in some sense. It's precisely because they are rare that they are relevant to the claims of Jesus Christ. So in essence - do historical facts matter to you or not?
Well, that's not the only thing David Hume said in that essay, and he puts his point much more strongly than that. Have you read his essay or just Koukle's critique? Anyway, not all improbability is significant. If you draw a random poker hand whatever you get is very improbable, but that improbability isn't significant like the improbability of a royal flush. I'm surprised you aren't familiar with specification(Dembski), given how you are so anti-evolution.
I would encourage you to read "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" (Josh McDowell) if you're really interested. Its a college-level book - but you seem like a pretty smart guy. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
I actually own it. It has been awhile since I read the book though, so correct me if I'm wrong about what it says. It seems, though, that he used his belief that the gospels match up with history (which I've seen disputed in The Unauthorized Version: Fact and Fiction in the Bible, by Robin Lane Fox) to mean that they must be accurate where the miracles are concerned as well. Then he argued various reasons that the disciples couldn't have been mistaken about what happened.
clearly this video is fake. They always send a redshirt down with them.
Sakasma 2 weeks ago
Morality lessons, without a guy in a red shirt dying on the whim of a omnipotent being, are worthless.
elwyn5150 2 months ago
Dude! Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with this picture. The creationist are outright misconstruing the facts! Seriously, is this video going to lead people to a better understanding of humanity and it's complex history by employing misinformation? Religion is truly the opium of the people!
notfarfromhome 6 months ago
funny
agents1986 8 months ago
wtf
dimichi13 9 months ago
As Captain Kirk once said, " What does God need with a starship?"
CalicoVall 9 months ago
I can't even finish this crap. Moving on.
HitodamaKyrie 1 year ago
My type of planet.
neomysterio 1 year ago
silly.
ScienceReasonBelief 1 year ago
5) the belief that you need the bible to tell you right from wrong is ludicrous. We've all developed instinctual behaviors arising from the fact that certtain principles in a society allow that society to be more successful. If not believing in god made you a bad person then there would be hundreds of millions of murderers and rapists laying waste to the world.....and their wouldnt be religious people molesting altar boys.
stiimuli 1 year ago
1) "survival of the fittest" does not mean "survival of the meanest" it simply means those that respond better to their environment have a better chance to survive.
2) Who believes we came from a rock?
3) noone believes life just "sprang forth" suddenly except religious fundamentalists.
4) evolution follows much more logic than "we were all poofed here by a magical sky wizard!" Evolution is supported by fossil records, geology, biology, genetics, and nearly every respected scientist.
stiimuli 1 year ago
wow Spok put on weight.
stiimuli 1 year ago
@RowanEvans123 How does a star ship navigate? I mean, considering that the universe is constantly expanding, and every celestial object is linked with every other celestial object via universal gravitation, there is no fixed point in the star trek universe for the starship to latch on to.
tgz1000 1 year ago
A disgusting insult to Gene Roddenberry's work and his vision of the future.
fragglet 1 year ago 2
This is sickening! A travesty. Roddenberry would turn in his grave. Is this religion? Spitting on someone elses ideas? This is why people start to hate christians.
Koffiemoklepel 1 year ago 6
Very cool video. I find it very relaxing that atheism can be expressed without people instantly going against it. It's also interesting to see Sci-Fi shows like the Star Treks to explore religion through the religions of different alien species and refer to Earth religions as myths. *Suddenly feels like a total geek* But, yeah, great video.
madogNikky 2 years ago
it's not star trek, its 4 blokes talking. duhhhhh
hazzario 2 years ago
In the very first episode of Star Trek, I believe it was 'Bones' who said either "Help me Lord " or "Forgive me Lord" near the end when he has to kill an alien that is trying to kill him but the alien looks like a woman he used to love.
bantumwt 2 years ago
TNG shied away from attacking religion after Roddenberry died though, whereas ToS, despite being campy and usually scientifically ridiculous, was almost evangelically atheist.
There's even a few times in ToS when not only is the allegory of the episode taking a shot at religion but the characters themselves reference the bible as ancient myths. It always brings a smile to my face that something like that made it onto TV in the 60's, but it depresses me that it probably wouldn't now.
SeekerLancer 2 years ago 3
Research will carry you far, my friends. In the meantime, no good is achieved by knowingly lying and twisting facts... kids may watch this and believe that people actually believe what the scientist characters are saying. I can promise you, no scientist believes in such a way. Learn the difference between DEductive and INductive study.
scottyIIhotty 2 years ago 3
reaaallly? Okay -- please show me one naturalistic scientist who does NOT believe in abiogensis. There is not a single "untruth" in this video.
rayh007 2 years ago
Why do all that work when you are going to dismiss it like all creation-myth supporters do.
If Gene Roddenberry were alive to see this, he'd vomit.
scarmullet 2 years ago 2
this is why creation is NOT taught in schools. it's based on a complete lack of knowledge, and understanding!
LMAO!!!
justPLAINolEZ 3 years ago
there are very very few atheists left on their death bed
You mean that many atheists convert on their death beds? Possibly. This could be the result of any number of things: fear of death finally getting to them, the apparition of some suppernatural entity, thewhite light caused by the failingof the nurons in the brain, a discontinunity between the preceived awareness of the mind and the frailty of the body ect.
MagikosEksMaikhina 3 years ago
All these things experience shows are essential for humans to have.
I dissagree, depending on your definintion of essential.
a) Objective morality is essential for human co-operation
b) Finding meaning in life is something I think that many people sadly never accomplish.
c) While having hope for some sort of life after death is comforting at times,it is not nessesary to many peoples mental states.
MagikosEksMaikhina 3 years ago
c) Hope for continued existence after the grave: In a naturalistic universe when you die, you are dead. A healthy respect all the things that can kill you can be a good thing. I prefer to err on the side of caution on this matter, live life to the fullest, and if I get to keep on existing after I die, so much the better. Besides, death would only be indefinite unconsciousness.
MagikosEksMaikhina 3 years ago
b) meaning in life: I dont see the meaning of life as something that could be consistant among all humans, and I feel that as a spcies we are far too ambicious to surve our ultimate purpose in subservience, this is one of the reasons why I am an atheist; I dont think that religion could satisfy my purpose, so I turned elsewhere.
MagikosEksMaikhina 3 years ago
Would welcome an IM chat As would I.
I dissagree on a) and b), and to some degree c)
a) objective morality: morality is a function of what you are taught, the effect of your experiences, and your co-operative instinct. While the first two factors are widely variable, the natural co-operative instict or your consience is hardwired into the brain and is more or less universal to all human beings, with the exception of phycopaths.
MagikosEksMaikhina 3 years ago
"Would welcome an IM chat As would I"
You can connect with me via my yahoo ID of s4t777.
rayh007 3 years ago
Atheism should not be associated with moral relativism, irrationality (I would have hoped the opposite), and violence towards lab assistants. While some atheists may share one or more of these qualities, this relationship is independent of their being atheists.
MagikosEksMaikhina 3 years ago
Magikos:
I would argue that there are at least three things that naturalism (the philosophy of atheism) has no answer. Naturalism is void of a) objective morality. b) meaning in life c) hope for after the grave. All these things experience shows are essential for humans to have. I've spoken with a lot of atheists through the years. From all the testimonies I've heard, there are very very few atheists left on their death bed. Would welcome an IM chat with you.
rayh007 3 years ago
As I said, I'm VERY willing to dialogue with you... IM is more efficient then trying to carry on multiple strings which I lose track of. I want to do our conversation justice. But - so far no takers...I guess nobody is serious about truly exploring the topic.
rayh007 3 years ago
You are exposing your ignorance of hermaneutics. Thats NOT what those verses mean at all. And as I said, I'm VERY willing to dialogue with you... IM is more efficient then trying to carry on multiple strings which I lose track of. I want to do our conversation justice. But - so far no takers...I guess nobody is serious about truly exploring the topic.
rayh007 3 years ago
to atkiman and others:
I think its obvious that most of the folks posting here are not interested in a serious debate on the subject of God. My evidence of that is I have yet to have anybody take me up on my offer of a serious dialogue on the topic. The fact of the matter is that most people who post here are more interested in "Digital Graffiti" then a serious dialogue. They post "Christians are stupid" but are not willing to discuss the topic seriously.
rayh007 3 years ago
to atkiman and others:
I think its obvious that most of the folks posting here are not interested in a serious debate on the subject of God. My evidence of that is I have yet to have anybody take me up on my offer of a serious dialogue on the topic. The fact of the matter is that most people who post here are more interested in "Digital Graffiti" then a serious dialogue. They post "Christians are stupid" but are not willing to discuss the topic seriously.
rayh007 3 years ago
Okay folks - if you're interested in a serious discussion, I'm willing to engage in an Instant Message dialogue with you. You can reach me through Yahoo chat at (s4t777 at yahoo *dot* com)
rayh007 3 years ago
"So when you display part of a definition that makes the whole true?"
Are you a theologian? Are you qualified to define the THEOLOGICAL definition of faith? Christians DO define faith that way as trust in and reliance on. We trust in and rely upon the work of Christ. It just so happens that the theological definition IS the same! It means trust in what you KNOW to be true. If you're interested in how Christians define it, look up Hebrews 11:1.
rayh007 3 years ago
"Faith is was exists when you through understanding and logic out the window."
ABSOLUTELY NOT! Where on earth did you get that? Faith simply means "trust"
"Your definition of faith is completely wrong! Look it up."
Um - yes I did. Oxford defines faith as "1 complete trust or confidence in someone or something."
You have some serious errors in thinking, my friend.
rayh007 3 years ago
"I just makes no sense to believe it when it is beyond my understanding. Therefore I don't.
Why do you reject logic?"
Now wait a second...slow down. Just because something doesn't make sense to you, doesn't mean it doesn't exist or its not true. When you were 5 years old, did algebra make sense to you? Does that mean it did not exist? Is it possible there's something in the universe that exists that you don't understand????
rayh007 3 years ago
"No I do not have a 'faith'."
Yes you do - you BELIEVE that life came from non-life regarless if there is zero evidence to prove that happened. You believe that there is no God... Heck - you have faith every time you drive down the road and trust the other car isn't going to hit you! Everyone exercises faith.
rayh007 3 years ago
"Please back this up. I know of no science that supports intelligent design."
Certainly - I refer you to the documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed."
"Atheists believe that everything had to have a beginning"
Actually that's an ID / Creationist view. Everything had a beginning...do you really believe that? Then welcome to our side of the fence... the logic is wonderful here....
rayh007 3 years ago
"Did you mention abiogenisis in the video?"
Yes-the concept is illustrated by saying that naturalists must adhere to the notion of abiogensis.
"No one has the answer for that one either"
I didn't ask you if you understood abiogensis...just if you believe in it or not? Come on this isn't rocket science dude... A simple yes or no... your unwillingness to answer a simple question is very telling - it tells me you simply can't come to grips with the ramifications of your "faith."
rayh007 3 years ago
"If you believe that god is eternal you're still left with the question. when did god occur and who or what caused god."
Um. No. By definition an eternal being does NOT have a cause---an eternal being is eternal, dude! And theologians do NOT say God came from nothing...we say God has ALWAYS been. HUGE, HUGE difference.
rayh007 3 years ago
"You cant just use God as an answer when there is no answer for God."
That's a misnomer.That statement assumes there is no god. You're entire premise is based on an assumption there is no creator/beginner/uncaused cause.Forget about the name for a moment.You seem to be indicating that there is an uncaused cause, you just don't know what it is. Why do you have such a hard time believing in the possibility that a being exists beyond your understanding? And why is faith so bad? You have faith too.
rayh007 3 years ago
Straw man, huh - I'll bet you not! I'm being very true to the logical ramifications of atheism. Let's take it one at a time. What about you, do you believe in abiogensis or not? Simple yes or no will do.
rayh007 3 years ago
"I could believe that the universe did not come into existance"
But that would not logically fit the evidence now would it. If you believe the universe explodes and contracts constantly, you're still left with the question. when did the FIRST explosion occur and who or what caused it. And yes - God came from nothing - hence the definition of an "uncaused cause."
rayh007 3 years ago
By definition, the Christian God never came into existence; that is, He is the uncaused cause (Psalm 90:2). He was always in existence and He is the one who created space, time, and matter. This means that the Christian God is the uncaused cause and is the ultimate creator. Some may ask, "But who created God?" But the answer is that by definition He is not created; He is eternal.
rayh007 3 years ago
Soo...are you asking, "Where does God come from?"
rayh007 3 years ago
"The third option is to understand that no one knows"
Chuckle chuckle-that's not an "option" as it relates to origins theory. That's simply admitting ignorance. Well - I guess that is something. At least you've moved away a half a step from atheism into the realm of agnostic.
"we need to base our opinions on the best evidence."
And that's why evolution fails so miserably-If you want to believe in evolution, fine-but again, the BEST evidence for God lies in the person and work of Jesus Christ.
rayh007 3 years ago
"Wrong; there is a third option."
Please - do tell.
rayh007 3 years ago
Wow - must have hit a nerve. You haven't answered my question. And I'm NOT saying all atheists believe in biogenisis...what I'm saying is that a logical ramification of naturalism is the belief in abiogensis. There is no option. So....I didn't ask you where the universe came from I asked you "Do you or do you not believe in abiogensis?" I'm proving a point here, my friend. I'm awaiting your reply. (If you asked me a question, I must have missed it... please feel free to repost.)
rayh007 3 years ago
I think what atkmanchristmas is getting at is that trying to tell people what they think, and then ridiculing them for holding that belief even if they've never claimed to, is not exactly the most productive way of holding a dialog.
Besides which, two can play that game.
You believe that telepathically telling a cosmic jewish zombie that you accept him as your master will cause you to live again after you die as a blissed out spirit for all eternity.
iconoclastic23 3 years ago
trying to tell people what they think, and then ridiculing them.
1) first - if you note at the end of the video, its the Bible who calls you a fool for not believing in God. And quite frankly, its foolish to ignore the evidence.
2) Again - for the ump-teenth time... If I am guilty of a strawman, I'll change my video. Please tell me one thing about the video that is NOT a logical ramification of true naturalistic atheism.
rayh007 3 years ago
Are you an atheist? If so, do you not adhere to abiogenisis? (google the term if you need to). If you don't adhere to abiogensis - how do you account for the appearance of life? If there's another option for the atheist, I'll alter my video.
rayh007 3 years ago
Whoever made this video doesn't understand the basics of Evolution, Atheism, Logic, or Morality.
DragonmasterA1ex 3 years ago
Hey dragonmaster - I thought I mentioned this to you before (maybe not) I've been studying this topic for longer than you've been alive, son. I know of what I speak. The ramifications of atheism are clearly outlined in this video. 1) There can be no objective morality without God. 2) Evolution (macro) is a violation of the basic principles of biology 3) Atheism demands a naturalistic approach to origins - thus abiogensis is a requirement (life from non-life)
rayh007 3 years ago
We can argue semantics later. Anyways for the three "points" this video makes 1) What moral points do you need a God for? In other words what morals can 1 only follow by having a God? I find objective to be a very weird word to use with God 2) I don't understand what you mean when you write that Evolution violates the basic laws of biology. I can clarify specifics but that claim is too broad of a statement. 3) Abiogensis is not to be confused with evolution nor is it a requirement for Atheism
DragonmasterA1ex 3 years ago
Lets distill this down to a single topic. Lets take abiogenisis. Alright so are you telling me you do not believe in the spontaneous appearance of life? What DO you believe,then that an intelligence created life? If you are a naturalist I don't see any other option but for you to adhere to abiogenisis (life spontaneously arising from non-living matter). Abiogensis is a prerequisite for neodarwinian evolution. While its not a requirement of atheism its a logical ramification of atheism.
rayh007 3 years ago
I'm willing to admit that I don't know where life came from, I just don't think that an intelligent being made life and there is really no good reason to believe that it did. In my opinion it is better to think about how it may have happened and figure it out than to attribute it to a god. I still don't see how Abiogensis is a prerequisite for evolution as evolution explains how different species came to be from a common ancestor as well as how genetic and physical traits developed.
DragonmasterA1ex 3 years ago
"Im willing to admit that I don't know where life came from,"
Alrighty then - then if you don't know...it COULD have come from an intelligent being...you're just saying you don't know - am i reading you correctly on that?
"ow Abiogensis is a prerequisite for evolution" - because wouldn't you agree that evolution applies only to living things? and in order to have living things to evolve, there must have been a FIRST living being, right? Seems like a no-brainer to me.
rayh007 3 years ago
This is another thing that I don't understand with deists and theists, the assumption that they are right from a lack of an explaination, that this is a "no-brainer" kind of responce. I don't accept things that I don't know to be true. If you turn the argument on its side why is God (an intelligent being) the explaination if one does not know? I noticed could and first in all caps, why should I accept this frame of mind? Why is the intelligent being the best way to think about it?
DragonmasterA1ex 3 years ago
"Why is the intelligent being the best way to think about it?"
Intelligent Design is the logical and philosophical position, combined with science, which says that the universe and life itself give strong evidence for intelligent design. In this particular sense, we're not identifying the "Designer." There are both Christians and non-Christians in this movement, as well as those who are agnostic. Thus it boils down to the fact that the bulk of evidence of observation leads to this conclusion.
rayh007 3 years ago
I disagree with that claim. I don't think there is a bulk of evidence of observation for Intelligent Design and the Intelligent Design theory itself has been debunked in Kitzmiller v. Dover. With all things fair and even if you don't agree that Intelligent Design is "Creationism in a suit" it is incompatible with fossil evidence that supports Evolution. You cannot have a designer that made one of every animal (Intelligent Design) and also have new species develop over time (Evolution).
DragonmasterA1ex 3 years ago
You cannot have a designer that made one of every animal (Intelligent Design) and also have new species develop over time (Evolution).
Actually there are those who believe exactly that. (I am not one)...Its called the "top theory" That essentially god wound up the universe like a top and let nature take its course and sits back and watches....so that's a non-issue.
rayh007 3 years ago
1) There can be no objective morality WITH God, either. An extant deity, even one with strong opinions about what his little sentient creations ought to be doing, provides zero weight to the argument that morals are therefore somehow "objective".
I suppose one can call them authoritative, but to call God's opinions "objective" is a misuse of the word. Anyway, why should God's supposed opinions be regarded such except for the fact that he's ostensibly more powerful than us?
iconoclastic23 3 years ago
Not true. Oxford defines "objective" of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions. So in the sense of morality, we are looking at criteria BEYOND our own opinions or emotional feelings. Thus the only way to explain universal morality is through the fact that we have received our sense of morality from someone (or something?) beyond ourselves.
rayh007 3 years ago
Reality must be a certain way because of how Oxford defines a given word? This is a very curious argument indeed.
And yet, the argument still fails given your own definition. Just because you decide to shift the moral feelings and opinions to a deity instead of a person does not make them suddenly not feelings and opinions.
In other words, what YOU call moral are the moral feelings and opinions of this disembodied mind that you believe in. It still doesn't meet your criteria.
iconoclastic23 3 years ago
Reality must be a certain way because of how Oxford defines a given word?
So you disagree with the Oxford dictionary? Seems to me you don't like ANY authority that disagrees with your opinion. If you think your opinion is the ultimate truth in the universe, then I don't think this conversation is worth having.
rayh007 3 years ago
2) Poppycock. This micro/macro distinction is based on nothing. If I can walk a hundred feet in a minute, then I can walk from Manhattan to Los Angeles in a year.
Unless you can demonstrate a biological mechanism preventing a lot of small changes from adding up into big changes, your objections are baseless.
iconoclastic23 3 years ago
Oh icon - Of course we can demonstrate that a lot of small changes do not add up to macro changes...macro in the sense of species progression. Micro evolution describes variations in species. Macro evolution describes the species to species jump. There is micro differences in humans through time (height, color, slight jaw changes) but ALL are still HUMAN. Humans give birth to humans. We have yet to see a leap from human to a new species. Your analogy fails.
rayh007 3 years ago
You misunderstand what speciation is. Individuals do not evolve. A member of one species does not suddenly give birth to an entirely different species. ENTIRE POPULATIONS EVOLVE. I can't stress that enough.
If you were to separate two different populations of the same species such that there is no gene flow between both groups, then after a million years it's likely that all the small adaptations that each group undergoes will accrue to the point that you have two different species.
iconoclastic23 3 years ago
It doesn't matter if you have 100 humans or millions...humans give birth to humans. The only thing you have is natural selection and mutation. Neither of these give rise to a different SPECIES - only variations on a theme. Example suppose it was advantageous to be really short. We could see a change in humans who prefer to marry and have children with dwarfs/midgets...that would not make a new species just small humans. Hope that clarifies things for you.
rayh007 3 years ago
3) So what? Atheists don't claim abiogenesis never occurred, they simply point out that you shouldn't conflate abiogenesis with evolution. They're not even the same field for crying out loud, evolution is biology whereas abiogenesis is chemistry.
iconoclastic23 3 years ago
Naturalistic evolution IMPLIES a necessary belief in abiogenisis. The only other option is intelligent design - which contradicts the naturalist philosophy. Thus abiogenisis is step one in the naturalistic process of evolution. You can call it a separate field if you want, but you can't have evolution without it. If abiogenisis is NOT the prerequisite, please explain what is the first step in evolution...because that would be news to me! (Unless you adhere to theistic evolution...do you?)
rayh007 3 years ago
Well technically, even creationists and theistic evolutionists believe in abiogenesis. Creation of life ex nihilo, or from the "dust on the ground" as Genesis puts it, or from a "black molded loam" as the Qur'an puts it--
It's still all life from non life.
iconoclastic23 3 years ago
That is not true. Christian creationists do NOT believe in abiogenisis - not only because its scientifically impossible, but the Bible teaches just the opposite. Geneisis teaches that the life of man came from the life of God (Look it up - Genesis 2:7
rayh007 3 years ago
As for my precise opinion on the matter of how abiogenesis occured, well I don't have one. I don't know enough to make such a determination.
We can prove organic molecules were abundant on the primordial earth. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say that the first replicators were simple molecules something like RNA.
Evolution requires only reproduction, heredity, variation, and selection in order to work so once you have a simple self replicating molecule these mechanisms kick in.
iconoclastic23 3 years ago
this is awful in every sense of the word.
BENY0HAMA 3 years ago
How about in the sense where teenagers use the word "bad" to mean "good?" (lol)
rayh007 3 years ago
I have a question for the maker of this video: Do you actualy know any REAL athiests ?
lordpimpd 3 years ago
Yes i do - i lived next to two atheists for years. He and his wife were nice people...(although he was indeed very arrogant and opinionated) the good news is that after years of sharing with him and his wife, his wife came to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ and renounced her atheist belief system!
rayh007 3 years ago
This skit is pretty ironic considering that Gene Roddenberry, the originator of the series this is paying homage to, was an atheist.
iconoclastic23 3 years ago
f.u. I was just about to say the same thing. good point.
lordpimpd 3 years ago
Even though many episodes were very spiritual in nature.
rayh007 3 years ago
Yes, well, one can adhere to philosophical naturalism and still have a sense of the numinous. Besides which, it makes for good entertainment.
iconoclastic23 3 years ago
This skit is such an insult to the real show of Stark Trek and its characters, as well as to atheists in general, and it goes to prove how bigoted the Christians are who produced it, as well as ignorant.
stormsiren609 3 years ago
Being a man of reason, I would bet you anything that god would not help us even if a big meteorite was coming toward Earth to wipe out all life. This guy did not help out during the tsunami a few years ago and will never help us because he does of course not exist. On the downside there is no after life but the upshot is that I can stand on the top of a mountain and yell 'fuck you god!' without getting struck by lightning. The real reality is more fascinating than all this nonsense anyway.
drandersw 3 years ago
My comment on this video is that we have a serious problem with the feeble-minded relgious idiots. I do not believe that they are idiots for real but they have been indoctrinated from birth. There is a fundamental flaw in the wiring in their brains. They seem to think that if science is correct then it is okay to punch someone in the face? These people are so severely brain-washed that it is a tremendous threat to our society.
drandersw 3 years ago
This video is so terrible, but I can't stop laughing.
"Yup, a rock."
Triundi 3 years ago
this video is so moronic it hurts.
GentleSavage1 3 years ago
Listen man, it seems you don't understand athiests and agnostics well at all. We're not totally different from religious people, it's just that we make a few logical decisions in our life that lead us to our own inevitable conclusions. When I became an athiest, I still believed that God existed. "How can that be?" I am sure you are asking. It is because I deemed him a god not worthy of worship, and I also deemed that I will not stoop myself so low as to worship anything.
TKnightcrawler 3 years ago
So what was my thinking at the time? What did I think would happen to me? I believed that like all other people who are both good and do not worship God, I would be sent to Hell for eternity. I believed that God would torture me forever for not giving him my soul, and I accepted that because I believed it was the moral thing to do. I could not follow and worship a god who would do such horrible things to people simply out of jealousy and angst. To do what's right, I accepted your nightmare.
TKnightcrawler 3 years ago
But I've changed since then; matured. I've come to see that nothing separates Christianity from paganism or cults. But all athiests and agnostics come to their own conclusion. I'd say it's best to be raised in a religious environment and find your own way to athiesm. However, that is not possible for an entire society, or even a large portion of it. Also, it takes a strong mind to accept that loneliness. And I've met many people who simply aren't strong enough for it, sadly.
TKnightcrawler 3 years ago
I believe in evolution, and although I don't understand the physics or mathematics behind it, I take for granted the theory of the big bang. Evolution, however, is ridiculously simple and self-evident. But that doesn't mean that the laws of nature always apply to the world of man. Athiests are not cruel. Personally, I'm a very patient person and am known not to often lose my temper or hold grudges. I care about everyone, not just people I know directly, and certainly not just myself.
TKnightcrawler 3 years ago
There is just one more thing: it's quite presumptuous to say that those who reject commonly-accepted scientific principles understand science better than those who make a profession of it and who hold themselves to extremely high standards in its pursuit, and who dedicate themselves to its improvement.
TKnightcrawler 3 years ago
"Atheists are not cruel"... well, a lot of people use atheism as an excuse to be cruel in the same way that people use religion as an excuse to be cruel.
Avg501 3 years ago
I was debating whether to respond to this, so I'll keep it simple so as not to start a flame war. Historically, can you think of any examples? Save the USSR, I can't think of a single atheist state. And using that as an example would be like me using Italy 1940s as an example of a Christian state. Do you regularly hear of atheists bombing abortion clinics or some such? That's not to say a person has never committed an act for "atheist reasons," just that it's not as common as religious ones.
TKnightcrawler 3 years ago
Well I meant more than people resorting to physical violence such as people insisting that theists, usually Christians and Muslims are all ignorant and "bigotted" (whatever that means) but somehow atheists are perfect. But, in any case, "atheist acts" are any acts comitted by an atheist leader to get rid of a particular religious group like Christians "for the good of society" like in China. As far as I'm concerned that's "killing in the name of atheism"
Avg501 3 years ago
I'm not sure I regularly hear of people bombing abortion clinics either. Once in a great while something like that may happen but it's extremely rare. I don't log on to the internet, look at current events/news/whatever, and find out that an abortion clinic has been bombed every other day.
Avg501 3 years ago
You seem like a nice person-one of the few "respectful" atheists I've met on the net.I appreciate that.Could it be POSSIBLE, my friend, that you are mistaken on your analysis? For example, could it be that your view of God is not entirely accurate?Did you know that the theology behind hell is not how you describe it?The fact is nobody exactly knows what hell is like.I find it interesting that you choose to place faith in something that has less evidence (naturalism)then that which does (Theism)
rayh007 3 years ago
Yes, it is possible that I am mistaken on my view of God. But you see, I don't disbelieve in gods so much as I refuse to worship them. I believe it's POSSIBLE for gods to exist. I'd respect and I'd even love a god who'd create a beautiful universe with choice, but I do not respect a god who demands obedience from his creations. And respect does not mean worship either; even if I found a god who perfectly fit my ideals, I think it would rather I found fulfillment and strength elsewhere.
TKnightcrawler 3 years ago
As for heaven and hell... I'm not sure what could possibly keep me happy and sane for eternity. Hell... I imagine would be a much simpler afterlife to make. Haha. Of course, I don't want my existence to be snuffed out and given the choice, I'd actually prefer hell to that. Whatever hell is, if that's the worst God will do to me, it's better than the *traditional* atheist idea of afterlife. But it's important to understand that there is no "Church of Atheism;" we're all different in many ways.
TKnightcrawler 3 years ago
Sorry to post some more and take up more room, but I'll give some examples of that difference. Some atheists believe that our perception of reality is not accurate; that our death doesn't carry so much weight because the rules of the game aren't what we think they are. Some cling to certain scientific theories and try to make spiritual theories out of them: for instance, that quantum mechanics means that even if we die, we still exist connected to the rest of the space and time.
TKnightcrawler 3 years ago
Personally, I think we're essentially erased existence because the continuity of our thought is broken forever. Even if our life is connected to the universe in a grander way, it probably wouldn't be consciously. It's sobering, and for years it scared me greatly. But somehow I've come to deal with it, and if there is an afterlife out there I'd be grateful for even the lowest level of hell.
TKnightcrawler 3 years ago
accept yourself of course...and a your car..and a your job.. and a your bamk account..and a your pad ..and a your sports team...and a...and a....and a...praise B to the almighty you...amen
mreloo 3 years ago
This is infinitely more offensive as a fan of "Star Trek" then as an atheist.
BayerLexan 3 years ago
Wow there are no limits to stupidity...
itsbizbuz 3 years ago
I completely agree. Why atheists think their belief structure makes sense is beyond me. I think we've provided a pretty kindergarten presentation of the ramifications of atheistic thought... the logical ramifications of atheism are indeed "stupid" and completely absurd.
rayh007 3 years ago
Actually that's the way you portray atheists that is absurd and stupid, that's why many of them favorited your video to make a point.
itsbizbuz 3 years ago
well - the problem is that most atheists don't want to think through the logical problems with THEIR faith. And when someone points out the logical absurdities - one gets accused of setting up a straw man (which is a convenient way for an atheist to say "I'm not going to deal with the logical dilemma of my belief structure." A true atheist has nothing to hang his/her hat on in regards to a universal morality. They either must say there is no such thing, or try to explain it through sociology.
rayh007 3 years ago
You start thinking that atheists have a faith. That's inexact, it's only "incredulity" that makes you an atheist, so you have degrees and exceptions, that's why each atheist has a different view than another atheist. You can be called an atheist for not believing in Odin, Appolo, Anubis or Mose opening the red sea. Then moral is something we are all forced to think about, all you need is at least a minimum of common sense, ethics in philosophy, dogmas with religion.
itsbizbuz 3 years ago
It is a statement of faith to stand up and say "I know there is no god." How do you KNOW that? Perhaps he lives on Jupiter - have you been there? So atheism is indeed a "faith." Why is morality we "all are forced to think about?" Why even bother with it? If we're animals, what makes your morality better then mine? Morality is an illusion if you are an atheist.
rayh007 3 years ago
I don't know I just fail to believe in because I don't have enough elements (not only rationnal ones) to believe in it, then organized religions like christianism islam and judaism are just horrible and full of contradictions, I could eventually believe in a will to create the world a "demiurge", but I see no reasons to worship such a Demiurge if it existed. Aztecs had a religion glorifying human sacrifices, does religion provides a good moral ? I'd say it depends on the religion...
itsbizbuz 3 years ago
Each human being whatever his beliefs have his own moral, I base mine on compassion. We are not just animals we are conscient of what we do, so we have the choice to do it or not, we have feelings and naturally sort them in two categories those we dislike and those we like. Then we are social, so we have to think collectively, but as we are free we must also take freedom and tolerance in consideration.
itsbizbuz 3 years ago
I thought morality was a extension of human emotion and a core ideal of right and wrong, not based on fear of punishment or expectation of reward
TCmoru 3 years ago
I would disagree - there is no naturalistic explanation for morality. According to naturalism, we should simply grab the most attractive woman on the street, fight among our selves and mate with her right there on the spot. Wonder why we don't? Universal morality cannot be explained through naturalistic reasoning.
rayh007 3 years ago
Based on what? You mention a "Core ideal of right and wrong" what is that core ideal? Whose core ideal? Where did that core ideal come from. I'm not talking about punishment or anything. I'm talking about that core ideal you mention - where does it come from?
rayh007 3 years ago
yeah, ok....whatever-as many atheists, you're more interested in name calling then actually providing a rational response or discussing the issue. You make some pretty wild claims...but what facts do you base your belief that the Bible is equivalent to a Harry Potter book?-alas, as so often the case, you're uninterested in actually addressing facts and more interested in emotional rants. best wishes-I pray the fog lifts from your mind. (By the way, you spell ignorance with "ance," not "ants.")
rayh007 3 years ago
whatever-if you must know I have a Masters degree and have been studying this topic for 25 years. To be frank, it is frustrating to discuss the topic with atheists because you folks never answer the question posed to you. You are very typical. I've yet to encounter very many intellectually honest atheists-the one star is the result of angry atheists-it has nothing to do with the facts presented in the clip.FACT-atheists by definition MUST believe in abiogensis,there's no option. Prove me wrong.
rayh007 3 years ago
(eye roll) - the idea that we evolved from a monkey is simply a simplified presentation of the theory of evolution... get a life and present a rebuttal - so far you have not...are you saying that atheists CAN believe in a creator God? why is it that you folks never address the point? hmmm.....
rayh007 3 years ago
For the record - of course I know Star Trek is NOT a Christian show...(Though it does tip its hat toward spiritual issues). In fact I am completely aware that Roddenberry was a humanist. That's exactly why i love the irony in using the characters to point out the fallacy of atheism.
rayh007 3 years ago
Did you REALLY say "no scientist ever stated that monkeys evolved into man?" That's the standard evolutionary theory! Have you ever read a scientific text book or even watched COSMOS with Mr. Sagan? Talk about someone who know's nothing about their subject...AND what exactly are you saying, that an atheists DOES allow for a creator God??? please elaborate.
rayh007 3 years ago
I'm sorry - but you obviously know nothing of history. If it wasn't for Christianity, there would be no science and you'd still be thinking everything happened at the whim of Zeus. It was Christians who stood up and proclaimed that the universe should be orderly and thus examined because of the fact it was created by an orderly God...and guess what...they where right. You like science? Thank a Christian.
rayh007 3 years ago
As I've explained to others - its not a strawman if you're simply pointing out the logical "next steps" in the atheistic belief system. Example - how many atheists believe that God created life? None, right (that's not allowed per definition of atheist)? well the only alternative is abiogensis and evolution... We're just ponting out how foolish abiogensis is...and as an atheist, that's your only option... unless i'm missing something, please enlighten me.
rayh007 3 years ago
I used to believe in god. Then I saw this video.
EscapePodFilms 3 years ago 3
asinine
sumadartsan 3 years ago 2
BTW, in the time of startrek the human race stopped believing in religion, so they are all atheists in that time. :P
caribian 3 years ago 2
Please reference "Of Bread and Circuses."
rayh007 3 years ago
no need, the startrek writer was an atheist and there for the series was based in an atheist world. further more we would have a very peaceful planet if not for religion and it's mental slavery that compels anybody to hate people of different religions. without religion we'd still have morals and we'd be far more advanced then we are at the moment. virtually all wars are for religion including WWII. so no god=no big deal and lots and lots of peace and love. good luck with your side of the story
caribian 3 years ago
The "everything would be better without religion" is completely irrelevant to the conversation. It does nothing to argue as to whether or not there is a God. That you don't like the idea of a God does not mean he does not exist.
rayh007 3 years ago
actually it has everything to do with it. bible = word of god, religion follows the word of god and if you read the bible (or any other holy book) you'll find it full of hate. also i never said there is no god, i just said if there is no god there would be no problems. and as for morals, hitler's actions in WWII, the curusades, the inqisations and countless more "just and moral killings in the name of christ. good to see that we need religion anyway :P
caribian 3 years ago
Whether or not God exists is a completely DIFFERENT question then how people respond to the Bible. oh --- well, I apologize, I thought you were an atheist... i take it from your last post then you must be a theist then, eh? or perhaps an agnostic?
rayh007 3 years ago
well i believe in god, what i have lost faith in is organized religion, all of them. they all say the same thing, we're right and the others are wrong. so to me all are wrong and don't get me started on the bible, a pretty brutal and bloody book that looks down on women and accepts slavery (including selling your own daughters). so i believe in god but i'd prefer to see a religion free world. :)
caribian 3 years ago
Well - i can respect that. You're the first person to present a response worth discussing. Take a look at so many of the other posts and you can see people are more interested in name calling then in actually discussing the issue. I think you're right to a certain extent. A lot of bad things are done in the name of Christianity. I think, tho, that if one were to look at it, those things were an abomination and not what Christ would have taught. Would you agree?
rayh007 3 years ago
"No bible, No morality" - What a crock!!!
While the teachings of a 200 year old Rabi can have valuable teachings for us today, saying that second-hand reports of some of his actions are the only source of human morality is extremely delusional, and I think selling humanity a little short.
sagarat 3 years ago
Um - that's not what the video stated -- it said, No GOD, no morality... go back and take another look. So - there's the question - how do you account for morality without a source of that moral code? (The Bible is far older than 200 years, by the way...)
rayh007 3 years ago
Wow... this acting and script are... nearly as bad as the original. Good job.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
what about renouncing atheism - that's what I'm most interested in...?
rayh007 3 years ago
The Bottom line - I have asked in this forum what specifically would convince an atheist of God's existance. The answers came back "something supernatural" (one example was like the stars spelling out words or something). Well, that requirement has been met in the person, work and resurrection of Jesus Christ and you still don't believe - conclusion: Atheists aren't interested in the evidence because they don't like the IDEA of a God...
rayh007 3 years ago
rayh007, you conveniently ignore every "transitional form" fossil/creature proposed to you. Tiktaalik is one such fossil of an animal that is clearly an intermediary between fish and land therapods.
If you want to believe otherwise, I won't stop you. Science, society and the world will continue to march on, recognizing that evolution of life is evident in fossils and in DNA, with Natural Selection being the Theory that explains how it happened. Thinking otherwise leaves you in the dark ages.
OrbitalMike 4 years ago
I don't think you're reading all my posts - I responded to you about Tiktaalik and I responded on good 'ol Archaeopterx. So I'm not sure what you're talking about. And again, science (society???) has nothing of significance to offer in regards to TRUE transitional forms. All the so-called transitional ape-man fossil's I've studied have been debunked. (aka Lucy, Peltdown man, etc.) If you desire to believe in transitional forms - you have more faith than I!
rayh007 4 years ago
I meant tetrapod.
And no, Lucy has not been debunked, and is not a Chimp, despite the creationist press.
OrbitalMike 4 years ago
For the record, Lucy: (proclaimed as the best evidence for evolution) Found by Johansen. Found a group of bones (from different "individuals") and chips of a skull cap. The entire skull model was based upon a few "chips" of bone. So Lucy is NOT a transitional "ape-man" fossil.
rayh007 3 years ago
No, the bones included one complete pelvic bone, many fragments from the skull; in total about 40% of a complete, single individual skeleton was recovered. (Johanson, Donald & Maitland Edey (1981), written at St Albans, Lucy, the Beginnings of Humankind, Granada, ISBN 0-586-08437-1)
OrbitalMike 3 years ago
Wow, using social Darwinism to criticize Evolutionary Biology. Yeah, typical creationist argument. Use simplistic idiocy to explain away a complicated subject. By the way, Vulcans are atheists.
sjbenson101 4 years ago
Just how does evolution automatically equate to atheism? Is your God's capabilities so limited that He could not have created the Universe in such a way that His Humans came about by natural processes that He set in motion 15 Billion years ago?
OrbitalMike 4 years ago
Its the other way around - atheism by its definition requires a belief in evolution.
rayh007 4 years ago
oh really? my dad believes in evolution within species and he's a christian. ever thought about god-induced evolution?
morwenna 4 years ago
IF you want to believe in evolution - that's you're right...just don't blame God for it. Theistic evolution is an oxymoron.
rayh007 4 years ago
that was a piece of poo.......!
ss3012a 4 years ago
Wasnt the creator of startrek an atheist? and no one died of hunger and humans lived in peace, that was his vision of the human race...alot of evangelical christians also have a vision, they say lets rape this world of all its resorces (coal,oil trees) and dont worry about global warming because it doesnt matter, jesus is comming...were better off without religion.
kwgmaxamillion 4 years ago
Many of you when asked 'what would it take to change your mind about the existence of God?' have responded 'if he did something miraculous that has no natural explanation. The good news is - He has! God has revealed himself in the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth and proved who he was by raising himself up from the dead! For sake of argument for a minute - let's assume that event really happened - wouldn't that be a deal closer for you?
rayh007 4 years ago
If I believed that Jesus came back to life then yes I would be a Christian. However, I think I can see where this is going. I do not believe Jesus rose from the dead, and I would present a short essay by David Hume, "On Miracles", as my first line of argument. Besides, isn't it your turn to answer what would change your mind? Perhaps I missed it in the deluge of posts.
TheTrueBZ 4 years ago
That's a fair question, TrueBZ -- As in a court of law, if I could be convinced that the preponderance of the evidence pointed AGAINST intelligent design and that Jesus is NOT who he said he was, then I would need to follow where the evidence lies. As in any debate the person holding the negative has the burden of proof...thus the burden of proof is on those who say there is no God. So far the evidence I've seen is overwhelmingly convincing that there is indeed a God.
rayh007 4 years ago
There's no evidence against intangible invisible dragons that live in people's garages. There can't be evidence against them, because by definition they're indetectable. If you don't want to believe in them, burden of proof is on you cause you're holding the negative belief. See where this gets us? Burden of proof is NOT on the person holding the negative, where did you hear that?
TheTrueBZ 4 years ago
That's debate 101. IF you say "there is no santa clause" the burden of proof is on you else "how do you KNOW there is no Santa Clause? Have you been to the North Pole? The assumption could be that there is unless proved otherwise. So the burden of proof is yours. Therefore a) there is a God. b) the evidence supports his existence c) its up to you to prove the claim wrong (especially since we've already provided evidence in the positive).
rayh007 4 years ago
Well, we disagree about the evidence in the positive that supports it. However, only strong atheists claim there absolutely is no God. Weak atheists(the majority, I think) are simply people who refrain from proclaiming there is a god, without making a claim of knowledge themselves. So they actually don't have a claim to prove themselves, except generally that the evidence is insufficient to prove God's existence.
TheTrueBZ 4 years ago
Well, in my opinion - that makes them agnostics, not atheists.
rayh007 4 years ago
Well, it isn't a matter of opinion, it is a matter of the definition of atheist. It's a common misunderstanding that all atheists declare that there is absolutely no chance that a God exists.
TheTrueBZ 4 years ago
As Koukle pointed out, David Hume argued against miracles. He said they just don't seem to happen very much, so when someone claims they do happen, we are not rationally obliged to believe in such a thing because they certainly aren't very probable. But no act of history is very probable. All acts are arguably unique in some sense. It's precisely because they are rare that they are relevant to the claims of Jesus Christ. So in essence - do historical facts matter to you or not?
rayh007 4 years ago
Well, that's not the only thing David Hume said in that essay, and he puts his point much more strongly than that. Have you read his essay or just Koukle's critique? Anyway, not all improbability is significant. If you draw a random poker hand whatever you get is very improbable, but that improbability isn't significant like the improbability of a royal flush. I'm surprised you aren't familiar with specification(Dembski), given how you are so anti-evolution.
TheTrueBZ 4 years ago
Anyway, so what are the historical facts that prove Jesus was resurrected? I've read the gospels and I'm unconvinced, do you have something else?
TheTrueBZ 4 years ago
I would encourage you to read "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" (Josh McDowell) if you're really interested. Its a college-level book - but you seem like a pretty smart guy. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
rayh007 4 years ago
I actually own it. It has been awhile since I read the book though, so correct me if I'm wrong about what it says. It seems, though, that he used his belief that the gospels match up with history (which I've seen disputed in The Unauthorized Version: Fact and Fiction in the Bible, by Robin Lane Fox) to mean that they must be accurate where the miracles are concerned as well. Then he argued various reasons that the disciples couldn't have been mistaken about what happened.
TheTrueBZ 4 years ago