The religious are just dishonest. They have no reason to believe, that's why it is called faith. But they know this is irrational, they do not apply it outside of their religious delusion bubble. So, they try to claim that any position is faith: whether it be science, or atheism or whatever, they just want to think that everyone is as irrational as they are.
Your logic is strong and true, but perhaps there is more to life than logic...i am willing to admit that the rest of the 6 billion people are suffering from some kind of delusion, so can you not at the same time accept that there may be some controlling force that keeps things Status Quo?
Wouldn't it be more appropriate if the people that believe in such a force proved that it exists than the other way around e.g. by eliminating every other parameter in the equation until the only thing left is your claimed force, beyond the shadow of a doubt. If you have a thesis you can't put it onto others to prove it wrong to to prove it as a fact. It's up to you and anything else is intellectual corrupt and unworthy
just one question...and although I am not willing to engage in your debate...there is no reason for a humming bird or bumble bee to fly, their weight/wing ratio is a scientific impossibility that they get off the ground.
The Bible does not discuss science. God transcends man's understanding. It is trully by faith alone we know God. Now you can say this is not reasonable, I could call you the Nazi thought police. When MANS explanation is as elegant as God's than I'll listen. Before calling me a fool, I'm a fool with two master degrees, physics and mathematics. I do not commit intellectual suicide to have faith. Is it hard to understand man's mind may have capacity to communicate on a different plane with God?
Reason is defined by a methodology that is violated by religious faith.
Existence of god by appealing to the principles that govern the universe refutes most claims regarding the character of god made by religions, and such arguments do not support specific religions.
Religion is a philosophical convenience and psychological comfort, its speculations regarding an after life are just that, speculation.
I will take serious debate about dualism and pluralism before dogmatic fallacy any day.
We don't live in the days of Jesus to see miricles & healing, so why should you beleive. Its not REASONABLE to YOU. What if your critically ill daughter is removed from life support, expected to die, recoveries & you saw an angle? Google:
WCNC com Colleen Banton
Photo captures image of an 'angel' in Charlotte hospital
It's NOT reasonable to think it's an ANGLE..THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE..I DON'T BELEIVE IT, I REFUSE! IT CAN'T BE!! Right? Not reasonable. May be your just not intuned. ITS REAL.
I do not know, you seem convinced that you do know, what phenomena occured that resulted in what is observed in that photo, but is it honest to jump to supernatural conclusions?
Should one not first completely rule out natural phenomena before resorting to a supernatural explianation?
My question is if religious claims are true why was she in a hospital and not a church, why was she being treated by doctors instead of preists?
I DIDN'T SAY THAT, YOUR CONCLUSION, article implied it. Stop putting words in my mouth. Fact studies show people who are spiritual, pray or are prayed for recover faster, live longer. My girlfriends a Doctor, she sees it. I don't care if you beleive. If Jesus came down and pimp slapped you, you'd deny it, but God has better things to do then fool with fools. At some point denying will end and we'll all find out for sure. You're Jesus-phobic, chill. Hate & bitterness rots your body, mind & soul.
Ok if it is a fact that prayer is effective then my question still remains, why was she in a hospital and not a church?
I know the statistics regarding the health benefits of people that claim to be religious though I would relate it to cognitive therapeutic effects before I would subscribe to superstition.
I do not begrudge religious belief in and of itself, what bothers me are the unsubstantiated claims that religious fanatics use to justify irrational behavior that I consider unethical.
"unsubstantiated claims that religious fanatics use to justify irrational behavior that I consider unethical."
SUCH AS?
You're an anti-Christ fanatic. Read your rant and rave. You have Jesus-phobia. No you are not fine with religion. No one has said man hasn't made mistakes in the name of religion. That is man's fault not God. If religion was not around things would be better? Please, pagans, heathens and atheist have been around a long time, where are the atheist charities?
Indeed it is humans that are at fault, and the notion that faith trumps reason only excerbates the tendancy for humans to act irrationally and unethically, not to mention religious agendas often position themselves in opsition to progress of knowledge they deem threatening to their dogma.
I do object to this, and so should you if you are indeed rational as you claim.
For one example of fanatical explotation of religion see the Taiping Rebellion, two million people died in the name of religion
Fanatical any thing is bad my friend. I know faith & religion brings the best out in mankind, for God is good. Bad things get done in the name of religion. The simple test is, does it point to Jesus or not. Atheist love saying Hitler was a Catholic. No he said Jesus was not God because he was a Jew & was about a MASTER RACE. He reject faith full of anti-semitic hate, using religious like speech to front evil. This is the definition of Satan, the great deceiver. YES QUESTION FAITH, I DO ALWAYS.
This is not a debate about what historic figure held what religious belief.
Our discussion is concerned with whether or not is rational to accept religious claims on faith alone?
And is it rational to hold a separate standard for validating religious claims than for other extradonary claims?
I posit that is not intellectually honest nor is it rational, and certianly it is not a virtue to assume the attitude that faith should trump reason when reason conflicts with a system of belief.
What I challenge is the notion that faith before reason is something that should be considered a virtue.
I would assert that it is not a virtue and though in many cases it is a benign philosophy in religions, it is also a necessary ingredient for fanatical devotion to irrational beliefs within religious philosophy that eventually lead to behavior that I deem unethical because these people seek to infringe upon the rights those that do not share their beliefs.
Why do you assume you must check out reason or be fanatical to have faith and spirituality. Its using a whole different part of the brain, heart, soul?
I could turn it back on you, make a reasoned logical argument against atheism since there's no proof God doesn't exist. +5 billion feel an anecdotal/empirical God in their life, see, feel God in creation. This should make you wounder why? May be its you that is dilusional, left out, not getting it, not in tuned. Every one else is in the know.
The game atheist play, arms folded and a BIG OLD contrarian attitude, "PROVE IT!" ANY THING I SAY YOU'LL DENY, so why bother. I have faith, you have NOTHING. When you find proof God does not exist let me know. I answered your question 5 times, it's by faith alone, spirituality through God's word, prayer, worship, not YOUR reasoning. We are talking about the Creator of LIFE. Yea it blows your mind! Teaching your closed cold mind is like teaching a Dog Shakespeare, a waste of time. Cheers
Not true. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Carl Sagan, and Albert Einstein do/did in fact believe in a God. (in a spiritual context...not the religious definition). Bill Gates in India explained he was a believer in Spirituality. Carl Sagan's son said Carl was not an atheist (or religious) but spiritual, that God transcends Space, Time, Matter, and Consciousness and can only be found within you.
The majority of Physicists, Chemists and Biologists believe in a God or consider themselves spiritual.
Where do you get this idea medicine & science are counter to spirituality, faith in Jesus? God is on a different plane if you didn't hear. Majority of Doctors & Scientist beleive in God. In 1969 when three Christians landed on the moon, atheist where pushing Porn through the supriem court. Yea? In my tiny Church, members include science/medical doctors, many with masters (including myself) and lots of technical folks with degrees. Christianity isn't cult of pagans for gosh sakes. Grow up.
How is a person traditional or profession relevant to your claims that your spiritual beliefs reflect an aspect of reality.
And why is that I must first "have faith" before I can hope to experience that aspect of reality? This is a non-sequester, if it is truly an aspect of reality as you claim then I should be able to experience regardless of my skeptical reservations right?
Would you not demand the same standards of proof if I were making extraordinary claims about aliens?
The method of science and the method of faith are not compatible sorry but as of yet no reconciliation can be reached, simply have faith that something is true and believe it is real does not satisfy the criteria of the scientific method. And if christianity is not a pagan cult why do so many celebrate christmas in the current tradition that was derived from a pagan holiday?
If growing up means stop learning and stop asking question, no thanks I stay young.
The Bible doesn't explicitly state when Jesus Christ was born, Est's Jan 6 or March 28, 3BC to 1AD. Astronomer with computer software & celestial bodies charts claimed something spectacular happened on Jesus birth, aka star of Bethlehem. He THINKS it was June 17, 2BC. It doesn't matter what chosen date MAN OBSERVES the birth Christ. Jesus is cool with it because he gave us complete freedom in worship, just joyful & organized. It's what's in your heart. If Christians cooped a pagan date, SO WHAT?
It is not just the date that was adopted by christianity but many other traditions are still observed that are completely pagan in origin, the tree for instance.
This is not the only pagan holiday that was absorbed by the religion, many christians also celebrate halloween.
And the divine status of jesus was not initially included in the christian dogma.
But I am not here to discuss the details of your religions history.
I am concerned with honest inquiry into the nature of our existence.
Don't get dogma confused with Holy Scriptures. Your contempt and disrespect, flippant smart mouth is wearing on me. I'll warn you stop it.
Yes it's Church elders co-oped some pagan celebration traditions to make it more enticing. SO WHAT? WE WENT OVER THIS AGAIN & AGAIN. IT WAS CO-OPED AND MADE CHRISTIAN.
For you to imply Jesus Christ of Nazareth didn't exist is delusion, a pure act of defiance. Secular historians and scholars agree he was a real persons. Even Jews and Muslims know it.
I have asked you several question that I consider fair, if you do not mind I would appreciate it if you address them.
Is rational to accept religious claims on faith alone?
Is it rational to hold a separate standard for validating religious claims than for other extradonary claims? Should faith should trump reason when reason conflicts with a system of belief?
Why is marinating faith when it conflicts with reason a virtue?
The best answer is I don't know. I'm still searching for truth, questioning, doubting. This the best case for God.
As some one with a science & technical background I'm all about logic, facts & data only. If left to only my reason or mans knowledge, I wouldn't beleive. However God even says we *man* can't follow him on our own. It is through the holy spirit. God transcends our understanding, call it metaphysical, spiritual, very personal and real. Turn it around I understand doubt.
I get it that you have faith despite the conflict of reason, but I am curious about is why it should be considered a virtue considering that this is precisely the requirement of irrational and unethical fanaticism?
If we were able to reason with fanatics there would be no dilemma, but we can not because their faith trumps reason.
This is a virtue?
I can not agree that it is nor can I agree that anyone that says that it is a virtue should be considered a rational and reasonable person.
I suspect that we will not reach agreement, so I will thank you for your time and your effort.
It seems that you are unable to answer my questions, though I am not surprised I have asked many believers and many admit that they can not provide these answers.
I lack religious faith because I have not encountered sound and valid reasoning supporting religious claims, until such time I will remain non-religious and oppose to the fallacies used to support religious claims.
Ha ha, WTF? Not surprised? No Christian will tell you more than IT'S BY FAITH ALONE. So is atheism. You don't get it. You want tangible SIGNS by God to MAKE YOU beleive. Sorry I suggest you stop being ignorant of the teachings of God & study it. Try it. What are you are afraid of. Atheism offers NOTHING. Agnostic, better, still a BIG OL I DON'T KNOW. Deist? Not having faith doesn't take courage, intellect or logic, just NOTHING. Lazy may be. It's easy. I ANSWERED YOU. YOU'RE JUST NOT LISTENING.
You seem to be assuming I am atheist, more like anti-theist.
I feel the concept of god is rendered incoherent by the religious tendency to anthropomorphize the nature of god.
As a concept it can be philosophically useful, but religions tend to cease upon it and fallaciously assert authority regarding other philosophical matters.
Also you never provided a single argument to validate the claim that faith over reason is rational and virtuous.
Why does being agnostic imply laziness? As humans, the only true answer to the existence of god is "i dont know". Anything else( theists and atheists) is based on predispositions and wishful thinking. I will say this though, even though the question of the existence of god may be contested, silly myths such as christianity and islam and such have as much of a chance of being correct as a God shaped like a crab with balls hanging from his chin.
My respect for agnostics are LIGHT YEARS higher than Atheist, which is true ignorance, arrogance or something satanic, who knows, but DEMANDING you know God doesn't exist is silly. Than prove it right. Secular reason and logic can easily lead one to a possible "Designer". Universe and life has purpose. Honest no political agenda scientist will tell you random chance accident to make everything we see is improbable at best to impossible.
Don't be silly, silly. NO ONE demands You believe. That's in your warped fragile little mind. I concede You are special & have nothing to do with God and are an actual, accidental fluke of the universe.
I think you're overly sensitive, high or possessed. Good luck with that.
You are typical of the metal prepubescent rebelling Children playing on YouTube. When you study, religion, philosophy, science, no longer live with Mom, we can talk.
You did not read what I wrote at all. All the rage you expressed has nothing to do with what I wrote. May be you should read slowly, think about it, than write next time. May be get your Mom to help you with reading comprehension. I know at your mental age you are spring loaded to RAGE and rebel against God. You just don't want God to exist for some reason, in your little fluke of the universe (no God) mind. It would be bad news if there was a God? Get help. You are deaf, dumb and blind.
NOT TRUE. May be you don't live in the USA (they already killed Jesus in Europe thus opening the Islamic invasion door). There's OPEN attack on Religion, especially Christians. If you speak any view not per the Liberal Secular Gay agenda, you'll be attacked in aggressive, vile & threatening ways.
There are very unhappy hate filled Atheist who state they want to destroy religion, DRIVE OUT GOD. PROOF? Youtube Atheist channels. Dick Dawkins.
That's funny, because Christians are quite notorious for being ignorant bigots and assholes in general. "Damnation in hell for eternity" anyone? Religion has been the cause of million deaths throughout human history... I find it quite hypocritical that you, as a christian, think that Atheists are the only ones who "demand". Please present to me your endless knowledge of religion, philosophy, science, or maybe you should stick your head out your asshole once in a while
Even Christians can be lazy. If you NEVER try spirituality that's lazy. If you hate Christ but never read his book, shame. Stop growing, seeking knowledge with an open mind, that's lazy. Being Christian doesn't mean mental suicide. Man's mind can work w/ FACTS & DATA and spirituality. Rejecting either is folly. Science has NO clue how the Universe came to be & extrapolates well past the observed. Christians take the Bible on faith, at times project more than what's there (6000 yrs isn't there).
You trivialize religion. Just because you don't get it or see it does not mean its not real. That is logic. You pit different religions against each other? First Judea-Christianity is pretty much the same thing, just a little variation on who Jesus is. BTW Jesus was a Jew. Mohammad said Islam is NOT a new religion but a continuation of Jews and Christians, the same God. Eastern religion, Hindu, Buddhist theology not sure but I'll assume they vary. SO WHAT? That does not disprove God.
Why am I not suprised that you have not ever taken the time to learn about religions that exist outside your sphere of belief.
I trivialize religions because the fallacious dogma and obvious myth are trivial and far removed from the reality I experience.
As for the existence of god, I can not say for certian. But I can use reason and determine that most religions were simply guessing about the nature of god, if god exists, and that what they describe is highly improbable.
"not surprised that you have not taken the time to learn about religions that exist"
Oh Bull shit. I've taken comparative religion classes at my own Church. I have read and studied the quran, hadiths of Islam for 5 yrs, and read several books on religion. SO THERE! LOL!
"I trivialize religions because the fallacious dogma and obvious myth "
Such as? No you trivialize because you are ignorant, don't have a clue or are mental. You're an anti-religion bigot, mocking and hating. That is all.
What is interesting is Cosmologists end up creating theories that sound like elaborate explanations of a God creator.
I am not arguing a creationist standpoint at all, but once even some of the smartest people in society ask the really hard questions they find it impossible to have any other explanation. This dances in the real of quantum physics and the very explanation of existence itself.
I hold more of an Anthropic view. The only reason anything has meaning is because we can observe it.
I gave you a one star because you use a stupid example of someones idiotic explanation of faith to make your point in this video. Car turning into a butterfly??!! what!? jesus still loves you. lol
it's funny when theists say "jesus still loves you" to atheists. I'm always amazed how is that you don't get it. Let me put an example. Imagine you come to me and you start giving explanations about the Lord and how wonderful is Heaven and you start telling me lots of things, and just after you finish I say "yeah, ok, but Ace Ventura is cool!".get the point? it's ridiculous. Atheists doesn't give a shit if Jesus still love us because we don't believe it, I can't put it more easy...
and how does "whatever I can say to get under your skin...haha" helps your argument exactly? hey, wait a sec, you've made no argument at all. just a childish comment; congratulations! from here to University and beyond yahooooooo! (see? I can say bullshit if I want too; not that often than theists are used to but I can try.. oh, jesus loves me anyway, I don't give a shit about that but Ace Ventura is cool... just trying to get my mind at the level of your comment, not easy to fly that low...)
fast and easy reply huh?... let's say things by their name don't you think? "there's nothing here you can or want to argue on..." ther's a difference, do you expect to go to Atheists, say what you said and don't be replyed explaining why it's nonse to say it? that is expect too much... but at least this comment is an opinnion and not like the other one, that's good.
ops *Atheists don't give a shit (English is not my mother tongue I always have trouble with this basic things, I don't know why; I'm quite good with english, I try to give my best shot; well, despite that my point it's quite clear I think)
You're right! One could say it's "faith" to be sitting on a chair, or trusting Science. However, it is (crucially) common-sense faith, of the type that if one were to renounce it completely and consistently, he would not be able to survive alive more than a few hours. Of course it is "faith" to believe that if I get a bite I might not starve in the end. This "faith" surely does not require a leap. It is a human necessity. So is that in Science ('lucky people' get others to do the work for them).
All I know is that if there is a God we're doomed. If a ceator can put something like man in control of a planet he just has to be dangerous. There's enough emprical evidence to back up that charge.
To whom? Deus ex machina? And most of all, if atheism is true, who should forbid you to pray? Or to leave cookies for the garden faeries, for that matter.
"I used to be an atheist, until I realized I had nothing to shout during blowjobs.'Oh Random Chance! Oh Random Chance!' just doesn't cut it..." -- Robert Anton Wilson
I like your video. The problem is, I used to be an atheist, but my studies in science and history actually led to my belief in the possibility of "God." I couldn't agree more with religious folk using their religious texts to prove their beliefs. Using the bible to disprove science is like me explaining the inner workings of a computer with a book on philosophy.
hehe, liked your computer analogy. In any rate ikarac727, I study socio-evolution/mechanics and religion. I have found absolutely nothing that would make me believe in "god". Care to share?
Both. For clarity, science is not in the business of explaining "why" we are here. That said, it is perfectly possible there is no reason, in the sense you mean. We just are. It's like the "I am that I am" business with God. Why should God exist, where did he come from? Now just push that back a step and replace "God" with "the universe".
Still, it is pretty amazing that of all the creatures on the earth, we are the only ones capable of wondering why . . . we exist. I thought that science is all about finding the reason why things are the way they are and in respect to humans, I think, they just go a bit too far. I also think that we were created to be in relationship with God and that has nothing to do with religion. Its a spiritual power that we can tap into.
He designed us with a big hole in our hearts that only He can fill. People try all kinds of things that just don't work like; drugs, sex, alcohol, under eating or over eating, controlling other people, even shopping is way of people trying to get some power into their lives. All of these things end with the opposite effect. That is what I am talking about on my video when I talk about people losing the power to control their own will.
Maggie, there is much truth in your last two comments here. However, the experiences you relate are common to all religions, to all peoples in time and space. Spirituality is not bound by any particular religion, that it appears in all of them suggests a common experience in humanity that has nothing to do with a particular God.
What it is exactly, a mental state, connection to something beyond ourselves ... I don't know. The honest answer is that no one currently knows, what we can be absolutely certain about is that we do <i>not</i> need to embrace the unreason of the Bible or Koran or any other holy book, to beleive the unbeleivable to experience the transcendent. There is much to be gained by investigating this stripped of all the religious mumbo jumbo, and that process is starting.
How do you know that we are the only animals capable of wondering why? That's a fairly speciesist statement. Dolphins are known to be exceptionally intelligent, they're capable of speech (in their own language only) so who's to say they can't contemplate the universe?
> I thought that science is all about finding the reason why things are the way they are
Not in the sense of "why" and "reason" that you mean. It's more of looking for the "how", to find the formulas that approximate reality best. If you ask a scientist "Why am I?", expect less of a "To do X." and more of a "Because your parents mated, resulting in conception, growth... I know some good books on the topic, if you'd like to know more."
Just think about it, scientists have never been able to explain why WE exist. . . . What would you breed with a monkey to get a human? Oh, I know a dolphin, right?
Maggie with respect that statement simply doesn't make any sense. You may consider it a ringing witty soundbite, but it's not and I'd suggest you find out why that is.
How do you know your talking to whacked out fundie who knows little to nothing about what their saying?
"What would you breed with a monkey to get a human? Oh, I know a dolphin, right?"
This.
/Oh BTW assuming the monkey thing was about evo we share our closest *common ancestry* with apes not monkeys, so next time you go spouting off nonsense like a nut bag you won't sound like such a fool. Easiest way to tell the diff. one has a tail the other doesn't.
Oh my God. No one has EVER thought of this before! Get used to the sarcasm. The short answer is that apes are still evolving Maggie, just like humans are evolving. That is why far more asians are lactose intolerant than Europeans, for example. We still see ancient species because they exploit and occupy an ecological niche, often too specifically, which is why about 99% of all the species that have ever existed are now extinct. Apes occupy just such a niche, and today are very nearly extinct.
Oh Your God?? Right . . . and I suppose you are evolving as you speak! If you happen to notice, everything is this world is decomposing, or devolving as you might say. If science were accurate they would be telling us that we shouldn't exist at all. Hmm, but that would mean we must all be miracles.
Maggie, your comments betray a basic lack of understanding of the processes you are trying to critique. For example, a single individual cannot evolve. Evolution occurs from one generation to the next. You also make statements that are simply wrong, "everything in this world is decomposing". Mere observation determines that this is not the case. Are your questions posed genuinely, or are you just trotting out creationist carnards? If the former, I'd be happy to expand my responses.
All living things, that is. Unless, of course, you think crystals are alive. Survival of the fittest and selective breeding have not changed the aging process in the least.
Maggie, assertion is not fact. Everything you have posted on this subject is demonstrably wrong. Are you interested in finding out the detail of why, or persisting in your current state of appalling ignorance?
I'm genuinely trying to help, and I do take that seriously. What you say about evolution and science is simply flat earth stuff. It's complete idiocy. I'm doing you a favour by being so blunt in a relatively anonymous forum. Seriously, either wise up or stop talking in public. You are just making a fool of yourself, and anyone, even modestly informed on these subjects sees it immediately.
maggie, you'd be right if there wasn't a giant nuclear fireball beaming sunlight at the Earth. If the sun wasn't there, then life would of course inevitably and quickly fall into decay and entropy. The sun has provided the energy that fuelled evolution for billions of years. You know plants, photosynthesis. Animals eat plants. It's not that complicated. Energy from the sun turned into food by plants which we then eat, keeps us from falling apart and decaying. People without food tend to die.
Sure. However, I'm functionally atheist about the Gods of most organised religions. Allah <i>may</I> exist, but it's about as likely as the easter bunny, Santa or Thor.
Haven't you ever heard of the war that has gone for centuries between the church of the state and the church of the common people? The church of the common people was declared by Martin Luther when he nailed his thesis to the door of the Vatican back in the 1500s.
The church of the common became known as Protestants, but this was the first time in history when the Bible was actually made available to "the common people" before that everything came from the Pope and whatever king was on the throne. The common people were persecuted for breaking away but the vatican couldn't stop it.
What has that to do with anything? I am an atheist (not agnostic). You are mostly atheist - you don't believe in Zeus, Xenu, Odin, Aphrodite, Ares and many other 1000's of gods considered every bit as valid as you consider yours by their believers. I choose not to believe in just one more of those...
The logic you are referring to is called the equivocation fallacy. This happens any time a person uses to different definitions for a word but acts like they are the same things. For example, you sitting in a chair having "faith" that it will hold you up is a belief based on previous experience. Faith in a god is belief without evidence and completely different. 2leghumanist has a pretty good list of different fallacies and how to identify and refute them.
You talk about how religion provides no good and how apocalyptic visions destroy lives. Here's a refutation of both the generalization there AND of the claimed inherent 'danger' of millennial visions. Go to pbs and find their streaming edition of their documentary on my faith. It's segmented into two parts. Find 'reaching out to the wider world' in part two. It's also designated as Chapter 16
I'm afraid my mind is actually made up on these subjects. Probably like yours is made up on the subject of UFO's, there may be something out there, but I'm done looking. Let it come to me. He's the creator of the universe right?
I hope you will, and do, understand that my primary goal is not to specifically convince you. This forum is rather open ended. Certainly this portion is over seen by yourself and subjected to the whims of what you wish to allow here. But my interchange, as I believe to be true with yours, is not focused at any single person or entity, rather it's a demonstration of my position for all to see. I'll not commit to any end on my part. I'll allow the reader to stop participating at their whim.
Well certainly I rarely block users or remove comments, and yours have always been polite and articulate, and given me no reason to behave in such a way. So you are free to post your hearts content:-) My frustration is with the thrust of your argument is that is semantically true, everything is provisional and nothing can be proven to the "hyper" sceptic.
So as a mode of discourse it's useless, to me at least. We must start with some assumptions and work within that framework. In that context the scientific method is absolute King, and leaves religion in the dust. If nothing is real and everything is provisional, well then science and religion are equally useless. But thats get you nowhere fast, so why bother going down that road? Hence my occasionally testy responses.
But the scientific method is inherently limited. It can not, by it's own admission, give conclusive answers on any sizable, or ultimately meaningful, questions. Our capacity increases, and is exercised, in every direction. Thus disruptive interference it causes equals or exceeds the constructive.
Now your just tying yourself in knots. You've already cut the branch of reason out from underneath yourself, so how can you even use a word like "meaningful"? Your entire preamble leaves you powerless to define it "meaningfully".
The issue is not science and it's promise, rather it's open impotence beyond simple empowerment. Empowerment on it's own is fine if all you seek is a purpose you've pulled out of the air, but how is your contrived meaning for existence then any better than that which I find in my own faith?
Both our world views are founded on a set of assumptions about the universe. Mine can be proven, within the context of those assumptions. <b>Yours never has been</B>, not even from your own point of view. This is the critical difference.
Certainly mine has been proven withing the context of my assumptions. Simply because this proof is not transferable from human to human doesn't mean it has not been proven. It would be sad indeed if someone's decided on assumptions did not prove their world view. So the claim that mine <b>"never has been"</b> is patently false.
How can it be <i>anything</I> but a subjective feeling? I'm a little white mouse, I just <b>KNOW</B>. You can see that I'm not, everyone else can see that I'm not, yet according to your position this is as valid as observation, (perhaps more so!!), than "the earth orbits the sun". C'mon!! This is an intellectual dead end, it delivers nothing tangible.
That's not an equivalent situation to my claim. That is presenting something empirically, and observable by other humans, obtainable. My claim is not refuted by merely looking at something or observing something. You can't merely look at me and say "God hasn't spoken to you" and have THAT be anything approaching a concrete statement supported by empirical and quantifiable data. You cannot tap into my conscious mind.
actually, I would submit that we very nearly can. We can now do detailed MRI scans on the brains of subjects claiming what you are claiming, and those we are not, and see different mental states applying in each case. We can verify the claims and compare the states and their material source. You might have got away with this fluff 10 years ago, but not today.
The capacity to measure, in some degree, mental states, cannot, in and of itself, nullify divine intervention as a possible cause. There are a great many phenomena that we can observe and map, yet cannot explain.
Really when you get to the core of it we cannot ultimately explain cause. That's part of the reason there's all the effort to find a unified theory.
Look at some of the counter-intuitive stuff the likes of superstring theory produces to get an idea of what I'm talking about.
I understand what you mean and string theory is a good example. Nonetheless empiricism is orders of magnitude more effective at delivering understanding of the world we find ourselves in than faith. In both cases we have a flawed foundation, the limits of our reason and senses, and yet when pitched against each other in that agreed context, Science makes headway while faith flounders.
> The capacity to measure [...] cannot [...] nullify divine intervention
Well, yes. That's its problem. Divine intervention has been defined in a way that it can never be ruled out, thus making it both untestable and indistiguishable from nothingness. That's why science employs Occams Razor.
HiveRadical: "contrived meaning for existence"? Are you aware of what you just said? TheModestAgnostic just said that there may be no meaning for existence and yet you accuse him (and other like him) of contriving a meaning for existence. Wow, I'm speechless.
Implicit in your whole tone is that there is some truth religion can deliver that science can't, and this is nonsense. If you want to contemplate your own navel, by all means, but we are not obliged to play this pointless game. When you have something approaching an empirical proof of a God, because this is the system that has "delivered" us from short brutal lives, lets hear it. Otherwise, please stop cluttering the thread with metaphysical nonsense.
Why you demand an empirical proof for God for this to be the case seems rather disconnected. I don't have to believe in dark matter to apply physics innovations in my day to day life. Likewise you don't have to have God proven to you to benefit from his revelations and his workings in these days.
Yet you are hopping over an enormous issue. Why on earth would I assume the ramblings in the Bible are valid? Why would I try and apply behaviours that are clearly detrimental? Wether you "believe" in dark matter or not is irrelevant, yet if you accept the premise of God all sorts of unpleasant implications follow. So yes, I demand conclusive empricial proof. My own personal burning bush, or Thomas experience would be nice. He did it for them, why not me?
burning bush? good idea there. it brings to mind to me thoughts of gods intervention.why did god intervene in mans life in the past so much?noah and the flood,moses,soddom and gamorha? then all of a sudden...poof!....gone! no more intervention.sounds to me the bible got a new writer that sucked......
You can have personal empirical proof. But it will not be transferable on an interhuman level nor will it be quantifiable. The question then is whether or not you would be open to fully and completely following in an experiment that didn't produce quantifiable results BUT still produced personally discernible empirical results.
you make an assumption there hiveradical,believing in dark matter or god are 2 different things. there is evidence to support the existence of dark matter and none for the existence of god and so your point here falls immediately to dust for lack of substance......
The question then is, when a goal is unachievable, and one continues to pursue it, isn't THAT the definition of following after a fairy tale? Isn't living life, for whatever reason you make for living it, just as irrational as one who claims divine intervention in their life?
No this is a depressed, nihilistic way of thinking, which seeks to leave us bewildered and helpless, simultaneously remove from our hands the most powerful tool for divining truth that we have. What have 6000 years of religion delivered in terms of useful truth? Nothing. A mere 300 years of science are responsible for <i>everything</I> of importance in your life, including almost certainly the fact of your reaching your current age. I find that convincing, and the semantic pussyfooting tiresome.
What landed the Greco-Roman era in turmoil was it's adherence to secularism and a "make your own" view of the meaning or purpose of life. It turned the sciences into tools of exploitation and personal gratification.
The advocation of <b><i>nil admirari</b></i> as a sort of social gospel is what damned the western world to the dark ages. The same is coming for our secularist friends all around the world. Europe cannot sustain it's present culture for more than a few decades, to think such defies demographics.
But when it comes to telling us the eschatology or protology it is forced into impotence. For it's assumptions increase in correspondence with the scope it tries to cover.
Your analysis of science and comparative levels of faith is largely correct. The issue that science has is that it's great for telling us the composition of the stage of life, the properties of paint and the temperature fluctuations caused by the various lighting configurations.
i cant handle this bullshit ur starting to sound like a bible thumping christian trying get people to beleive in
christianity ( make the non beleivers beleive ) but instead ur a non beleiver trying to get the beleivers to NOT BELEIVE WTF LET PEOPLE BELEIVE IN WHAT THEY WANT WHY THE HELL DO YOU CARE IF PEOPLE BELEIVE IN JESUS OR IF THEY BELEIVE IN ISLAM, LET THEM DO THERE THING AND U DO UR THING, BUT DONT GO FUCKIN WIT RELIGON PRICK. religion is still bullshit..
xXx - you do have the choice of NOT clicking on his vids if you do not like what he has to say. There are those of us who want to think about, and discuss, the topics here. I'm sure you can find other things to look at on YouTube, or elsewhere on the internet.
hey prick i thot this was a conversation about peopels opinions on the topic, if you dont like my opinion then why dont you NOT click on his video and fuck off.
lmao weak come back dude- after watching penn & teller i decided that im positively sure that im athiest- i knew that from the start- but now i know for sure. so why dont u go blow a cow
wow. you can actually leave a comment without it being full of profanities.
And okay, the response i left may have been weak, but really, you tell me to fuck off because of what I wrote, but look at what you said to TheModestAgnostic... If it is okay for you to express your opinions, then why did you hate on him for expressing his - on his own channel? It is not cool to do that. Make a point if you are going to post a comment. Don't just scream hateful obscenities. Please.
its ok to have an opinion about someones stupid religous video thats what free speech is all about. jesus christ ur obviously a huge bible thumper so why don't u go grab ur bible n shove it as far up ur ass as possible- and then get back to me.
This is a very overlooked video. I should favorite it on principle
R1ckr011 10 months ago
The religious are just dishonest. They have no reason to believe, that's why it is called faith. But they know this is irrational, they do not apply it outside of their religious delusion bubble. So, they try to claim that any position is faith: whether it be science, or atheism or whatever, they just want to think that everyone is as irrational as they are.
stevehayes13 1 year ago
great video.
adantesoup 2 years ago
Very well thought out and intelligent video, nice work.
5* for sure.
twholland1 2 years ago
Well said.
Awpsbane 2 years ago
Comment removed
svcollapse 2 years ago
Comment removed
svcollapse 2 years ago
Comment removed
svcollapse 2 years ago
Comment removed
svcollapse 2 years ago
Comment removed
svcollapse 2 years ago
Comment removed
svcollapse 2 years ago
Comment removed
svcollapse 2 years ago
Comment removed
svcollapse 2 years ago
Comment removed
svcollapse 2 years ago
Comment removed
svcollapse 2 years ago
Comment removed
svcollapse 2 years ago
Your logic is strong and true, but perhaps there is more to life than logic...i am willing to admit that the rest of the 6 billion people are suffering from some kind of delusion, so can you not at the same time accept that there may be some controlling force that keeps things Status Quo?
lofty123456789 3 years ago
Wouldn't it be more appropriate if the people that believe in such a force proved that it exists than the other way around e.g. by eliminating every other parameter in the equation until the only thing left is your claimed force, beyond the shadow of a doubt. If you have a thesis you can't put it onto others to prove it wrong to to prove it as a fact. It's up to you and anything else is intellectual corrupt and unworthy
heyawhaw 2 years ago
just one question...and although I am not willing to engage in your debate...there is no reason for a humming bird or bumble bee to fly, their weight/wing ratio is a scientific impossibility that they get off the ground.
lofty123456789 3 years ago
It's either
A) Not a scientific impossibility
B) The science is wrong
I'm guessing it's A.
kklol7 3 years ago 2
It is A and thats why he's not wililng to engage in a debate
SHFUTS 2 years ago
The Bible does not discuss science. God transcends man's understanding. It is trully by faith alone we know God. Now you can say this is not reasonable, I could call you the Nazi thought police. When MANS explanation is as elegant as God's than I'll listen. Before calling me a fool, I'm a fool with two master degrees, physics and mathematics. I do not commit intellectual suicide to have faith. Is it hard to understand man's mind may have capacity to communicate on a different plane with God?
gmcjetpilot 3 years ago
Reason is defined by a methodology that is violated by religious faith.
Existence of god by appealing to the principles that govern the universe refutes most claims regarding the character of god made by religions, and such arguments do not support specific religions.
Religion is a philosophical convenience and psychological comfort, its speculations regarding an after life are just that, speculation.
I will take serious debate about dualism and pluralism before dogmatic fallacy any day.
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
We don't live in the days of Jesus to see miricles & healing, so why should you beleive. Its not REASONABLE to YOU. What if your critically ill daughter is removed from life support, expected to die, recoveries & you saw an angle? Google:
WCNC com Colleen Banton
Photo captures image of an 'angel' in Charlotte hospital
It's NOT reasonable to think it's an ANGLE..THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE..I DON'T BELEIVE IT, I REFUSE! IT CAN'T BE!! Right? Not reasonable. May be your just not intuned. ITS REAL.
gmcjetpilot 3 years ago
Is this intellectually honest?
I do not know, you seem convinced that you do know, what phenomena occured that resulted in what is observed in that photo, but is it honest to jump to supernatural conclusions?
Should one not first completely rule out natural phenomena before resorting to a supernatural explianation?
My question is if religious claims are true why was she in a hospital and not a church, why was she being treated by doctors instead of preists?
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
I DIDN'T SAY THAT, YOUR CONCLUSION, article implied it. Stop putting words in my mouth. Fact studies show people who are spiritual, pray or are prayed for recover faster, live longer. My girlfriends a Doctor, she sees it. I don't care if you beleive. If Jesus came down and pimp slapped you, you'd deny it, but God has better things to do then fool with fools. At some point denying will end and we'll all find out for sure. You're Jesus-phobic, chill. Hate & bitterness rots your body, mind & soul.
gmcjetpilot 3 years ago
Ok if it is a fact that prayer is effective then my question still remains, why was she in a hospital and not a church?
I know the statistics regarding the health benefits of people that claim to be religious though I would relate it to cognitive therapeutic effects before I would subscribe to superstition.
I do not begrudge religious belief in and of itself, what bothers me are the unsubstantiated claims that religious fanatics use to justify irrational behavior that I consider unethical.
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
"unsubstantiated claims that religious fanatics use to justify irrational behavior that I consider unethical."
SUCH AS?
You're an anti-Christ fanatic. Read your rant and rave. You have Jesus-phobia. No you are not fine with religion. No one has said man hasn't made mistakes in the name of religion. That is man's fault not God. If religion was not around things would be better? Please, pagans, heathens and atheist have been around a long time, where are the atheist charities?
gmcjetpilot 3 years ago
Indeed it is humans that are at fault, and the notion that faith trumps reason only excerbates the tendancy for humans to act irrationally and unethically, not to mention religious agendas often position themselves in opsition to progress of knowledge they deem threatening to their dogma.
I do object to this, and so should you if you are indeed rational as you claim.
For one example of fanatical explotation of religion see the Taiping Rebellion, two million people died in the name of religion
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
Fanatical any thing is bad my friend. I know faith & religion brings the best out in mankind, for God is good. Bad things get done in the name of religion. The simple test is, does it point to Jesus or not. Atheist love saying Hitler was a Catholic. No he said Jesus was not God because he was a Jew & was about a MASTER RACE. He reject faith full of anti-semitic hate, using religious like speech to front evil. This is the definition of Satan, the great deceiver. YES QUESTION FAITH, I DO ALWAYS.
gmcjetpilot 3 years ago
This is not a debate about what historic figure held what religious belief.
Our discussion is concerned with whether or not is rational to accept religious claims on faith alone?
And is it rational to hold a separate standard for validating religious claims than for other extradonary claims?
I posit that is not intellectually honest nor is it rational, and certianly it is not a virtue to assume the attitude that faith should trump reason when reason conflicts with a system of belief.
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
What I challenge is the notion that faith before reason is something that should be considered a virtue.
I would assert that it is not a virtue and though in many cases it is a benign philosophy in religions, it is also a necessary ingredient for fanatical devotion to irrational beliefs within religious philosophy that eventually lead to behavior that I deem unethical because these people seek to infringe upon the rights those that do not share their beliefs.
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
Why do you assume you must check out reason or be fanatical to have faith and spirituality. Its using a whole different part of the brain, heart, soul?
I could turn it back on you, make a reasoned logical argument against atheism since there's no proof God doesn't exist. +5 billion feel an anecdotal/empirical God in their life, see, feel God in creation. This should make you wounder why? May be its you that is dilusional, left out, not getting it, not in tuned. Every one else is in the know.
gmcjetpilot 3 years ago
"Why do you assume you must check out reason or be fanatical to have faith.."
Because the reasoning I encounter that is used to support religious claims is fallacious.
Also you got it backwards I said faith was a requirement of fanaticism not that faith always results in fanaticism.
"..5 billion feel an anecdotal/empirical God in.." See argumentum ad populum.
We were discussing a specific religious claims not the existence of god.
Nor did you answer my questions.
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
The game atheist play, arms folded and a BIG OLD contrarian attitude, "PROVE IT!" ANY THING I SAY YOU'LL DENY, so why bother. I have faith, you have NOTHING. When you find proof God does not exist let me know. I answered your question 5 times, it's by faith alone, spirituality through God's word, prayer, worship, not YOUR reasoning. We are talking about the Creator of LIFE. Yea it blows your mind! Teaching your closed cold mind is like teaching a Dog Shakespeare, a waste of time. Cheers
gmcjetpilot 3 years ago
Bill Gates has donated vast amounts to charity and he is a confirmed atheist.
This is a red herring anyway, what does charity have to do with your reality of your spiritual claims?
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
Not true. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Carl Sagan, and Albert Einstein do/did in fact believe in a God. (in a spiritual context...not the religious definition). Bill Gates in India explained he was a believer in Spirituality. Carl Sagan's son said Carl was not an atheist (or religious) but spiritual, that God transcends Space, Time, Matter, and Consciousness and can only be found within you.
The majority of Physicists, Chemists and Biologists believe in a God or consider themselves spiritual.
gmcjetpilot 3 years ago
Many iconic thinkers were NOT confirmed believers in religion but rather agnostic or deist.
It is really simple in my opinion.
Is there good cause to accept religious claims and are those claims rational and consistent with reason?
Note that this is not about the question of gods existence but religious claims about god and his expectation, intentions and nature.
Intellectual honesty forces us to ask difficult questions that religions do not address, that is why faith is a requirement.
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
Where do you get this idea medicine & science are counter to spirituality, faith in Jesus? God is on a different plane if you didn't hear. Majority of Doctors & Scientist beleive in God. In 1969 when three Christians landed on the moon, atheist where pushing Porn through the supriem court. Yea? In my tiny Church, members include science/medical doctors, many with masters (including myself) and lots of technical folks with degrees. Christianity isn't cult of pagans for gosh sakes. Grow up.
gmcjetpilot 3 years ago
How is a person traditional or profession relevant to your claims that your spiritual beliefs reflect an aspect of reality.
And why is that I must first "have faith" before I can hope to experience that aspect of reality? This is a non-sequester, if it is truly an aspect of reality as you claim then I should be able to experience regardless of my skeptical reservations right?
Would you not demand the same standards of proof if I were making extraordinary claims about aliens?
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
The method of science and the method of faith are not compatible sorry but as of yet no reconciliation can be reached, simply have faith that something is true and believe it is real does not satisfy the criteria of the scientific method. And if christianity is not a pagan cult why do so many celebrate christmas in the current tradition that was derived from a pagan holiday?
If growing up means stop learning and stop asking question, no thanks I stay young.
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
The Bible doesn't explicitly state when Jesus Christ was born, Est's Jan 6 or March 28, 3BC to 1AD. Astronomer with computer software & celestial bodies charts claimed something spectacular happened on Jesus birth, aka star of Bethlehem. He THINKS it was June 17, 2BC. It doesn't matter what chosen date MAN OBSERVES the birth Christ. Jesus is cool with it because he gave us complete freedom in worship, just joyful & organized. It's what's in your heart. If Christians cooped a pagan date, SO WHAT?
gmcjetpilot 3 years ago
It is not just the date that was adopted by christianity but many other traditions are still observed that are completely pagan in origin, the tree for instance.
This is not the only pagan holiday that was absorbed by the religion, many christians also celebrate halloween.
And the divine status of jesus was not initially included in the christian dogma.
But I am not here to discuss the details of your religions history.
I am concerned with honest inquiry into the nature of our existence.
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
Don't get dogma confused with Holy Scriptures. Your contempt and disrespect, flippant smart mouth is wearing on me. I'll warn you stop it.
Yes it's Church elders co-oped some pagan celebration traditions to make it more enticing. SO WHAT? WE WENT OVER THIS AGAIN & AGAIN. IT WAS CO-OPED AND MADE CHRISTIAN.
For you to imply Jesus Christ of Nazareth didn't exist is delusion, a pure act of defiance. Secular historians and scholars agree he was a real persons. Even Jews and Muslims know it.
gmcjetpilot 3 years ago
I have asked you several question that I consider fair, if you do not mind I would appreciate it if you address them.
Is rational to accept religious claims on faith alone?
Is it rational to hold a separate standard for validating religious claims than for other extradonary claims? Should faith should trump reason when reason conflicts with a system of belief?
Why is marinating faith when it conflicts with reason a virtue?
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
I was not intentionally being disrespectful, I apologize.
I was merely trying to keep our discussion on the topic I consider the most important.
You say your book is holy, how do you validate this claim?
Keep in mind that many religions assert the same thing, what is your method of differentiation?
Please note that these other religions also have prophesies they claim have come to pass.
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
The best answer is I don't know. I'm still searching for truth, questioning, doubting. This the best case for God.
As some one with a science & technical background I'm all about logic, facts & data only. If left to only my reason or mans knowledge, I wouldn't beleive. However God even says we *man* can't follow him on our own. It is through the holy spirit. God transcends our understanding, call it metaphysical, spiritual, very personal and real. Turn it around I understand doubt.
gmcjetpilot 3 years ago
I get it that you have faith despite the conflict of reason, but I am curious about is why it should be considered a virtue considering that this is precisely the requirement of irrational and unethical fanaticism?
If we were able to reason with fanatics there would be no dilemma, but we can not because their faith trumps reason.
This is a virtue?
I can not agree that it is nor can I agree that anyone that says that it is a virtue should be considered a rational and reasonable person.
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
I suspect that we will not reach agreement, so I will thank you for your time and your effort.
It seems that you are unable to answer my questions, though I am not surprised I have asked many believers and many admit that they can not provide these answers.
I lack religious faith because I have not encountered sound and valid reasoning supporting religious claims, until such time I will remain non-religious and oppose to the fallacies used to support religious claims.
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
Ha ha, WTF? Not surprised? No Christian will tell you more than IT'S BY FAITH ALONE. So is atheism. You don't get it. You want tangible SIGNS by God to MAKE YOU beleive. Sorry I suggest you stop being ignorant of the teachings of God & study it. Try it. What are you are afraid of. Atheism offers NOTHING. Agnostic, better, still a BIG OL I DON'T KNOW. Deist? Not having faith doesn't take courage, intellect or logic, just NOTHING. Lazy may be. It's easy. I ANSWERED YOU. YOU'RE JUST NOT LISTENING.
gmcjetpilot 3 years ago
You seem to be assuming I am atheist, more like anti-theist.
I feel the concept of god is rendered incoherent by the religious tendency to anthropomorphize the nature of god.
As a concept it can be philosophically useful, but religions tend to cease upon it and fallaciously assert authority regarding other philosophical matters.
Also you never provided a single argument to validate the claim that faith over reason is rational and virtuous.
You gave me the impression that you did not know.
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
Why does being agnostic imply laziness? As humans, the only true answer to the existence of god is "i dont know". Anything else( theists and atheists) is based on predispositions and wishful thinking. I will say this though, even though the question of the existence of god may be contested, silly myths such as christianity and islam and such have as much of a chance of being correct as a God shaped like a crab with balls hanging from his chin.
cozos 2 years ago
"Why does being agnostic imply laziness?"
My respect for agnostics are LIGHT YEARS higher than Atheist, which is true ignorance, arrogance or something satanic, who knows, but DEMANDING you know God doesn't exist is silly. Than prove it right. Secular reason and logic can easily lead one to a possible "Designer". Universe and life has purpose. Honest no political agenda scientist will tell you random chance accident to make everything we see is improbable at best to impossible.
gmcjetpilot 2 years ago
Demanding you know God exists is just as silly. Theists and Atheists are equally stupid. Agnosticism is a cop-out, and is just as stupid.
Unfortunately for us monkeys, we can only be either theist, atheist, or agnostic, rendering all of us hopelessly stupid.
cozos 2 years ago
"Demanding you know God exists is just as silly"
Don't be silly, silly. NO ONE demands You believe. That's in your warped fragile little mind. I concede You are special & have nothing to do with God and are an actual, accidental fluke of the universe.
I think you're overly sensitive, high or possessed. Good luck with that.
You are typical of the metal prepubescent rebelling Children playing on YouTube. When you study, religion, philosophy, science, no longer live with Mom, we can talk.
gmcjetpilot 2 years ago
You did not read what I wrote at all. All the rage you expressed has nothing to do with what I wrote. May be you should read slowly, think about it, than write next time. May be get your Mom to help you with reading comprehension. I know at your mental age you are spring loaded to RAGE and rebel against God. You just don't want God to exist for some reason, in your little fluke of the universe (no God) mind. It would be bad news if there was a God? Get help. You are deaf, dumb and blind.
gmcjetpilot 2 years ago
Well. Atheists don't demand you don't believe either. That's a funny strawman argument you started.
Sorry , your silly attempts at ad hominem proves your point, how?
cozos 2 years ago
"Atheists don't demand you don't believe either"
NOT TRUE. May be you don't live in the USA (they already killed Jesus in Europe thus opening the Islamic invasion door). There's OPEN attack on Religion, especially Christians. If you speak any view not per the Liberal Secular Gay agenda, you'll be attacked in aggressive, vile & threatening ways.
There are very unhappy hate filled Atheist who state they want to destroy religion, DRIVE OUT GOD. PROOF? Youtube Atheist channels. Dick Dawkins.
gmcjetpilot 2 years ago
That's funny, because Christians are quite notorious for being ignorant bigots and assholes in general. "Damnation in hell for eternity" anyone? Religion has been the cause of million deaths throughout human history... I find it quite hypocritical that you, as a christian, think that Atheists are the only ones who "demand". Please present to me your endless knowledge of religion, philosophy, science, or maybe you should stick your head out your asshole once in a while
cozos 2 years ago
Even Christians can be lazy. If you NEVER try spirituality that's lazy. If you hate Christ but never read his book, shame. Stop growing, seeking knowledge with an open mind, that's lazy. Being Christian doesn't mean mental suicide. Man's mind can work w/ FACTS & DATA and spirituality. Rejecting either is folly. Science has NO clue how the Universe came to be & extrapolates well past the observed. Christians take the Bible on faith, at times project more than what's there (6000 yrs isn't there).
gmcjetpilot 2 years ago
You trivialize religion. Just because you don't get it or see it does not mean its not real. That is logic. You pit different religions against each other? First Judea-Christianity is pretty much the same thing, just a little variation on who Jesus is. BTW Jesus was a Jew. Mohammad said Islam is NOT a new religion but a continuation of Jews and Christians, the same God. Eastern religion, Hindu, Buddhist theology not sure but I'll assume they vary. SO WHAT? That does not disprove God.
gmcjetpilot 3 years ago
Why am I not suprised that you have not ever taken the time to learn about religions that exist outside your sphere of belief.
I trivialize religions because the fallacious dogma and obvious myth are trivial and far removed from the reality I experience.
As for the existence of god, I can not say for certian. But I can use reason and determine that most religions were simply guessing about the nature of god, if god exists, and that what they describe is highly improbable.
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
"not surprised that you have not taken the time to learn about religions that exist"
Oh Bull shit. I've taken comparative religion classes at my own Church. I have read and studied the quran, hadiths of Islam for 5 yrs, and read several books on religion. SO THERE! LOL!
"I trivialize religions because the fallacious dogma and obvious myth "
Such as? No you trivialize because you are ignorant, don't have a clue or are mental. You're an anti-religion bigot, mocking and hating. That is all.
gmcjetpilot 2 years ago
Comment removed
Tris10 2 years ago
Isnt every aspect of morality, sacrifice and human kindness enhanced without faith.
Tris10 2 years ago
Comment removed
Tris10 2 years ago
What is interesting is Cosmologists end up creating theories that sound like elaborate explanations of a God creator.
I am not arguing a creationist standpoint at all, but once even some of the smartest people in society ask the really hard questions they find it impossible to have any other explanation. This dances in the real of quantum physics and the very explanation of existence itself.
I hold more of an Anthropic view. The only reason anything has meaning is because we can observe it.
jaasum 3 years ago
five stars
naomi94 3 years ago
I gave you a one star because you use a stupid example of someones idiotic explanation of faith to make your point in this video. Car turning into a butterfly??!! what!? jesus still loves you. lol
chris7777777777777 3 years ago
Lucky me, do I get to go to heaven?
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
it's funny when theists say "jesus still loves you" to atheists. I'm always amazed how is that you don't get it. Let me put an example. Imagine you come to me and you start giving explanations about the Lord and how wonderful is Heaven and you start telling me lots of things, and just after you finish I say "yeah, ok, but Ace Ventura is cool!".get the point? it's ridiculous. Atheists doesn't give a shit if Jesus still love us because we don't believe it, I can't put it more easy...
Athrek 3 years ago
whatever I can say to get under your skin...haha
chris7777777777777 3 years ago
and how does "whatever I can say to get under your skin...haha" helps your argument exactly? hey, wait a sec, you've made no argument at all. just a childish comment; congratulations! from here to University and beyond yahooooooo! (see? I can say bullshit if I want too; not that often than theists are used to but I can try.. oh, jesus loves me anyway, I don't give a shit about that but Ace Ventura is cool... just trying to get my mind at the level of your comment, not easy to fly that low...)
Athrek 3 years ago
there's nothing here to argue on...
chris7777777777777 3 years ago
fast and easy reply huh?... let's say things by their name don't you think? "there's nothing here you can or want to argue on..." ther's a difference, do you expect to go to Atheists, say what you said and don't be replyed explaining why it's nonse to say it? that is expect too much... but at least this comment is an opinnion and not like the other one, that's good.
Athrek 3 years ago
ops *Atheists don't give a shit (English is not my mother tongue I always have trouble with this basic things, I don't know why; I'm quite good with english, I try to give my best shot; well, despite that my point it's quite clear I think)
Athrek 3 years ago
You're right! One could say it's "faith" to be sitting on a chair, or trusting Science. However, it is (crucially) common-sense faith, of the type that if one were to renounce it completely and consistently, he would not be able to survive alive more than a few hours. Of course it is "faith" to believe that if I get a bite I might not starve in the end. This "faith" surely does not require a leap. It is a human necessity. So is that in Science ('lucky people' get others to do the work for them).
schrodcat 4 years ago
All I know is that if there is a God we're doomed. If a ceator can put something like man in control of a planet he just has to be dangerous. There's enough emprical evidence to back up that charge.
Is it allowed to pray that atheism is true? :D
Telcontar1962 4 years ago
To whom? Deus ex machina? And most of all, if atheism is true, who should forbid you to pray? Or to leave cookies for the garden faeries, for that matter.
"I used to be an atheist, until I realized I had nothing to shout during blowjobs.'Oh Random Chance! Oh Random Chance!' just doesn't cut it..." -- Robert Anton Wilson
garouHH 4 years ago 3
hahahaha
Telcontar1962 4 years ago
LOL .... I'm keeping that one!:-)
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
That has got to be the funniest quote i've heard all day.
01smitw 4 years ago
I like your video. The problem is, I used to be an atheist, but my studies in science and history actually led to my belief in the possibility of "God." I couldn't agree more with religious folk using their religious texts to prove their beliefs. Using the bible to disprove science is like me explaining the inner workings of a computer with a book on philosophy.
lkarac727 4 years ago
hehe, liked your computer analogy. In any rate ikarac727, I study socio-evolution/mechanics and religion. I have found absolutely nothing that would make me believe in "god". Care to share?
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
Which statement are you refering to; the one about proof for why we exist, or the one about breeding the monkey?
maggielaneink 4 years ago
Both. For clarity, science is not in the business of explaining "why" we are here. That said, it is perfectly possible there is no reason, in the sense you mean. We just are. It's like the "I am that I am" business with God. Why should God exist, where did he come from? Now just push that back a step and replace "God" with "the universe".
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
Still, it is pretty amazing that of all the creatures on the earth, we are the only ones capable of wondering why . . . we exist. I thought that science is all about finding the reason why things are the way they are and in respect to humans, I think, they just go a bit too far. I also think that we were created to be in relationship with God and that has nothing to do with religion. Its a spiritual power that we can tap into.
maggielaneink 4 years ago
He designed us with a big hole in our hearts that only He can fill. People try all kinds of things that just don't work like; drugs, sex, alcohol, under eating or over eating, controlling other people, even shopping is way of people trying to get some power into their lives. All of these things end with the opposite effect. That is what I am talking about on my video when I talk about people losing the power to control their own will.
maggielaneink 4 years ago
Maggie, there is much truth in your last two comments here. However, the experiences you relate are common to all religions, to all peoples in time and space. Spirituality is not bound by any particular religion, that it appears in all of them suggests a common experience in humanity that has nothing to do with a particular God.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
What it is exactly, a mental state, connection to something beyond ourselves ... I don't know. The honest answer is that no one currently knows, what we can be absolutely certain about is that we do <i>not</i> need to embrace the unreason of the Bible or Koran or any other holy book, to beleive the unbeleivable to experience the transcendent. There is much to be gained by investigating this stripped of all the religious mumbo jumbo, and that process is starting.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
How do you know that we are the only animals capable of wondering why? That's a fairly speciesist statement. Dolphins are known to be exceptionally intelligent, they're capable of speech (in their own language only) so who's to say they can't contemplate the universe?
sisyphereantask 4 years ago
> I thought that science is all about finding the reason why things are the way they are
Not in the sense of "why" and "reason" that you mean. It's more of looking for the "how", to find the formulas that approximate reality best. If you ask a scientist "Why am I?", expect less of a "To do X." and more of a "Because your parents mated, resulting in conception, growth... I know some good books on the topic, if you'd like to know more."
garouHH 4 years ago
Do you believe in intelligent design (an all powerful creator)? Or do you belive in the theory of evolution?
quiksilver87 4 years ago
isn't it sort of obvious? Watch a few more vids.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
Just think about it, scientists have never been able to explain why WE exist. . . . What would you breed with a monkey to get a human? Oh, I know a dolphin, right?
maggielaneink 4 years ago
Maggie with respect that statement simply doesn't make any sense. You may consider it a ringing witty soundbite, but it's not and I'd suggest you find out why that is.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
How do you know your talking to whacked out fundie who knows little to nothing about what their saying?
"What would you breed with a monkey to get a human? Oh, I know a dolphin, right?"
This.
/Oh BTW assuming the monkey thing was about evo we share our closest *common ancestry* with apes not monkeys, so next time you go spouting off nonsense like a nut bag you won't sound like such a fool. Easiest way to tell the diff. one has a tail the other doesn't.
SIP100 4 years ago
That was suppose to be sarcasm, not literal. But now that you bring it up, tell me why apes are not still evolving?
maggielaneink 4 years ago
Oh my God. No one has EVER thought of this before! Get used to the sarcasm. The short answer is that apes are still evolving Maggie, just like humans are evolving. That is why far more asians are lactose intolerant than Europeans, for example. We still see ancient species because they exploit and occupy an ecological niche, often too specifically, which is why about 99% of all the species that have ever existed are now extinct. Apes occupy just such a niche, and today are very nearly extinct.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
Oh Your God?? Right . . . and I suppose you are evolving as you speak! If you happen to notice, everything is this world is decomposing, or devolving as you might say. If science were accurate they would be telling us that we shouldn't exist at all. Hmm, but that would mean we must all be miracles.
maggielaneink 4 years ago
Maggie, your comments betray a basic lack of understanding of the processes you are trying to critique. For example, a single individual cannot evolve. Evolution occurs from one generation to the next. You also make statements that are simply wrong, "everything in this world is decomposing". Mere observation determines that this is not the case. Are your questions posed genuinely, or are you just trotting out creationist carnards? If the former, I'd be happy to expand my responses.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
"everything is this world is decomposing"
Yeah, I agree. Crystals don't exist.
soulhunger1 4 years ago
All living things, that is. Unless, of course, you think crystals are alive. Survival of the fittest and selective breeding have not changed the aging process in the least.
maggielaneink 4 years ago
Maggie, assertion is not fact. Everything you have posted on this subject is demonstrably wrong. Are you interested in finding out the detail of why, or persisting in your current state of appalling ignorance?
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
You really make me laugh at how seriously you take yourself and you say you are not religious!
maggielaneink 4 years ago
I'm genuinely trying to help, and I do take that seriously. What you say about evolution and science is simply flat earth stuff. It's complete idiocy. I'm doing you a favour by being so blunt in a relatively anonymous forum. Seriously, either wise up or stop talking in public. You are just making a fool of yourself, and anyone, even modestly informed on these subjects sees it immediately.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
maggie, you'd be right if there wasn't a giant nuclear fireball beaming sunlight at the Earth. If the sun wasn't there, then life would of course inevitably and quickly fall into decay and entropy. The sun has provided the energy that fuelled evolution for billions of years. You know plants, photosynthesis. Animals eat plants. It's not that complicated. Energy from the sun turned into food by plants which we then eat, keeps us from falling apart and decaying. People without food tend to die.
theinquisitor 4 years ago
What ever gave you the idea that apes are not evolving anymore?
Superphilipp 4 years ago
I'm glad i subscribed you are awesome!!
GuiltySpark347 4 years ago
So you claim to be agnostic . . . does that mean that you don't believe in God but you are open to knowing if He exists?
maggielaneink 4 years ago
Sure. However, I'm functionally atheist about the Gods of most organised religions. Allah <i>may</I> exist, but it's about as likely as the easter bunny, Santa or Thor.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
Do you understand the difference between Christianity and Catholisism?
maggielaneink 4 years ago
There is a difference!?
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
Absolutly!
maggielaneink 4 years ago
But they are the one true church ... the pope just said so!
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
Haven't you ever heard of the war that has gone for centuries between the church of the state and the church of the common people? The church of the common people was declared by Martin Luther when he nailed his thesis to the door of the Vatican back in the 1500s.
maggielaneink 4 years ago
The church of the common became known as Protestants, but this was the first time in history when the Bible was actually made available to "the common people" before that everything came from the Pope and whatever king was on the throne. The common people were persecuted for breaking away but the vatican couldn't stop it.
maggielaneink 4 years ago
Just to nitpick a little, if at all, it was the Vaticans embassy in Wittenberg, and even that is contested.
garouHH 4 years ago
What has that to do with anything? I am an atheist (not agnostic). You are mostly atheist - you don't believe in Zeus, Xenu, Odin, Aphrodite, Ares and many other 1000's of gods considered every bit as valid as you consider yours by their believers. I choose not to believe in just one more of those...
therealspacejunkie 4 years ago
The logic you are referring to is called the equivocation fallacy. This happens any time a person uses to different definitions for a word but acts like they are the same things. For example, you sitting in a chair having "faith" that it will hold you up is a belief based on previous experience. Faith in a god is belief without evidence and completely different. 2leghumanist has a pretty good list of different fallacies and how to identify and refute them.
stevogvsu 4 years ago
Nice:-)I shall look that up:-)
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
I totally agree with you... but there are SOME deeply religious people that have no faith...
Jesus, Moses, Noah, etc... Have no faith... because they spoked to god.
:) fun fun...
RosieDesire 4 years ago
You talk about how religion provides no good and how apocalyptic visions destroy lives. Here's a refutation of both the generalization there AND of the claimed inherent 'danger' of millennial visions. Go to pbs and find their streaming edition of their documentary on my faith. It's segmented into two parts. Find 'reaching out to the wider world' in part two. It's also designated as Chapter 16
HiveRadical 4 years ago
I'm afraid my mind is actually made up on these subjects. Probably like yours is made up on the subject of UFO's, there may be something out there, but I'm done looking. Let it come to me. He's the creator of the universe right?
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
I hope you will, and do, understand that my primary goal is not to specifically convince you. This forum is rather open ended. Certainly this portion is over seen by yourself and subjected to the whims of what you wish to allow here. But my interchange, as I believe to be true with yours, is not focused at any single person or entity, rather it's a demonstration of my position for all to see. I'll not commit to any end on my part. I'll allow the reader to stop participating at their whim.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
Well certainly I rarely block users or remove comments, and yours have always been polite and articulate, and given me no reason to behave in such a way. So you are free to post your hearts content:-) My frustration is with the thrust of your argument is that is semantically true, everything is provisional and nothing can be proven to the "hyper" sceptic.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
So as a mode of discourse it's useless, to me at least. We must start with some assumptions and work within that framework. In that context the scientific method is absolute King, and leaves religion in the dust. If nothing is real and everything is provisional, well then science and religion are equally useless. But thats get you nowhere fast, so why bother going down that road? Hence my occasionally testy responses.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
But the scientific method is inherently limited. It can not, by it's own admission, give conclusive answers on any sizable, or ultimately meaningful, questions. Our capacity increases, and is exercised, in every direction. Thus disruptive interference it causes equals or exceeds the constructive.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
Now your just tying yourself in knots. You've already cut the branch of reason out from underneath yourself, so how can you even use a word like "meaningful"? Your entire preamble leaves you powerless to define it "meaningfully".
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
The issue is not science and it's promise, rather it's open impotence beyond simple empowerment. Empowerment on it's own is fine if all you seek is a purpose you've pulled out of the air, but how is your contrived meaning for existence then any better than that which I find in my own faith?
HiveRadical 4 years ago
Both our world views are founded on a set of assumptions about the universe. Mine can be proven, within the context of those assumptions. <b>Yours never has been</B>, not even from your own point of view. This is the critical difference.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
Certainly mine has been proven withing the context of my assumptions. Simply because this proof is not transferable from human to human doesn't mean it has not been proven. It would be sad indeed if someone's decided on assumptions did not prove their world view. So the claim that mine <b>"never has been"</b> is patently false.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
How can it be <i>anything</I> but a subjective feeling? I'm a little white mouse, I just <b>KNOW</B>. You can see that I'm not, everyone else can see that I'm not, yet according to your position this is as valid as observation, (perhaps more so!!), than "the earth orbits the sun". C'mon!! This is an intellectual dead end, it delivers nothing tangible.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
That's not an equivalent situation to my claim. That is presenting something empirically, and observable by other humans, obtainable. My claim is not refuted by merely looking at something or observing something. You can't merely look at me and say "God hasn't spoken to you" and have THAT be anything approaching a concrete statement supported by empirical and quantifiable data. You cannot tap into my conscious mind.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
actually, I would submit that we very nearly can. We can now do detailed MRI scans on the brains of subjects claiming what you are claiming, and those we are not, and see different mental states applying in each case. We can verify the claims and compare the states and their material source. You might have got away with this fluff 10 years ago, but not today.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
The capacity to measure, in some degree, mental states, cannot, in and of itself, nullify divine intervention as a possible cause. There are a great many phenomena that we can observe and map, yet cannot explain.
Really when you get to the core of it we cannot ultimately explain cause. That's part of the reason there's all the effort to find a unified theory.
Look at some of the counter-intuitive stuff the likes of superstring theory produces to get an idea of what I'm talking about.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
I understand what you mean and string theory is a good example. Nonetheless empiricism is orders of magnitude more effective at delivering understanding of the world we find ourselves in than faith. In both cases we have a flawed foundation, the limits of our reason and senses, and yet when pitched against each other in that agreed context, Science makes headway while faith flounders.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
> The capacity to measure [...] cannot [...] nullify divine intervention
Well, yes. That's its problem. Divine intervention has been defined in a way that it can never be ruled out, thus making it both untestable and indistiguishable from nothingness. That's why science employs Occams Razor.
garouHH 4 years ago
"How can it be anything but a subjective feeling? I'm a little white mouse, I just KNOW." ...If comments could be rated: 5/5! =D
CalvinCoooolidge 4 years ago
HiveRadical: "contrived meaning for existence"? Are you aware of what you just said? TheModestAgnostic just said that there may be no meaning for existence and yet you accuse him (and other like him) of contriving a meaning for existence. Wow, I'm speechless.
sisyphereantask 4 years ago
Implicit in your whole tone is that there is some truth religion can deliver that science can't, and this is nonsense. If you want to contemplate your own navel, by all means, but we are not obliged to play this pointless game. When you have something approaching an empirical proof of a God, because this is the system that has "delivered" us from short brutal lives, lets hear it. Otherwise, please stop cluttering the thread with metaphysical nonsense.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
Certainly there is.
Why you demand an empirical proof for God for this to be the case seems rather disconnected. I don't have to believe in dark matter to apply physics innovations in my day to day life. Likewise you don't have to have God proven to you to benefit from his revelations and his workings in these days.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
Yet you are hopping over an enormous issue. Why on earth would I assume the ramblings in the Bible are valid? Why would I try and apply behaviours that are clearly detrimental? Wether you "believe" in dark matter or not is irrelevant, yet if you accept the premise of God all sorts of unpleasant implications follow. So yes, I demand conclusive empricial proof. My own personal burning bush, or Thomas experience would be nice. He did it for them, why not me?
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
burning bush? good idea there. it brings to mind to me thoughts of gods intervention.why did god intervene in mans life in the past so much?noah and the flood,moses,soddom and gamorha? then all of a sudden...poof!....gone! no more intervention.sounds to me the bible got a new writer that sucked......
hellshade2 4 years ago
You can have personal empirical proof. But it will not be transferable on an interhuman level nor will it be quantifiable. The question then is whether or not you would be open to fully and completely following in an experiment that didn't produce quantifiable results BUT still produced personally discernible empirical results.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
If it is not demonstrable, it is not proof. When something is indistinguishable from self-delusion, it might actually be self-delusion.
garouHH 4 years ago
revelation is first person only, to everyone else is hear say
C0wbiFunk 3 years ago
Can you ever accept something that comes to your conscious mind as being beyond mere cause and effect in the body of known physical laws?
HiveRadical 4 years ago
you make an assumption there hiveradical,believing in dark matter or god are 2 different things. there is evidence to support the existence of dark matter and none for the existence of god and so your point here falls immediately to dust for lack of substance......
hellshade2 4 years ago
The question then is, when a goal is unachievable, and one continues to pursue it, isn't THAT the definition of following after a fairy tale? Isn't living life, for whatever reason you make for living it, just as irrational as one who claims divine intervention in their life?
HiveRadical 4 years ago
No this is a depressed, nihilistic way of thinking, which seeks to leave us bewildered and helpless, simultaneously remove from our hands the most powerful tool for divining truth that we have. What have 6000 years of religion delivered in terms of useful truth? Nothing. A mere 300 years of science are responsible for <i>everything</I> of importance in your life, including almost certainly the fact of your reaching your current age. I find that convincing, and the semantic pussyfooting tiresome.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
What landed the Greco-Roman era in turmoil was it's adherence to secularism and a "make your own" view of the meaning or purpose of life. It turned the sciences into tools of exploitation and personal gratification.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
The advocation of <b><i>nil admirari</b></i> as a sort of social gospel is what damned the western world to the dark ages. The same is coming for our secularist friends all around the world. Europe cannot sustain it's present culture for more than a few decades, to think such defies demographics.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
"otherwise" in place of "such" would properly convey my intended meaning.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
But when it comes to telling us the eschatology or protology it is forced into impotence. For it's assumptions increase in correspondence with the scope it tries to cover.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
Your analysis of science and comparative levels of faith is largely correct. The issue that science has is that it's great for telling us the composition of the stage of life, the properties of paint and the temperature fluctuations caused by the various lighting configurations.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
the faith that something exists and won't vanish is different to the faith that says something exists when it has never appeared in the first place.
genghis6199 4 years ago
good f**king point!
MaxSafeheaD 3 years ago
i cant handle this bullshit ur starting to sound like a bible thumping christian trying get people to beleive in
christianity ( make the non beleivers beleive ) but instead ur a non beleiver trying to get the beleivers to NOT BELEIVE WTF LET PEOPLE BELEIVE IN WHAT THEY WANT WHY THE HELL DO YOU CARE IF PEOPLE BELEIVE IN JESUS OR IF THEY BELEIVE IN ISLAM, LET THEM DO THERE THING AND U DO UR THING, BUT DONT GO FUCKIN WIT RELIGON PRICK. religion is still bullshit..
xXxTeashxXx 4 years ago
xXx - you do have the choice of NOT clicking on his vids if you do not like what he has to say. There are those of us who want to think about, and discuss, the topics here. I'm sure you can find other things to look at on YouTube, or elsewhere on the internet.
lookingforananswer 4 years ago
hey prick i thot this was a conversation about peopels opinions on the topic, if you dont like my opinion then why dont you NOT click on his video and fuck off.
xXxTeashxXx 4 years ago
hater
lookingforananswer 4 years ago
lmao weak come back dude- after watching penn & teller i decided that im positively sure that im athiest- i knew that from the start- but now i know for sure. so why dont u go blow a cow
xXxTeashxXx 4 years ago
wow. you can actually leave a comment without it being full of profanities.
And okay, the response i left may have been weak, but really, you tell me to fuck off because of what I wrote, but look at what you said to TheModestAgnostic... If it is okay for you to express your opinions, then why did you hate on him for expressing his - on his own channel? It is not cool to do that. Make a point if you are going to post a comment. Don't just scream hateful obscenities. Please.
lookingforananswer 4 years ago
its ok to have an opinion about someones stupid religous video thats what free speech is all about. jesus christ ur obviously a huge bible thumper so why don't u go grab ur bible n shove it as far up ur ass as possible- and then get back to me.
xXxTeashxXx 4 years ago
Great video. Simple, reasonable, rational and short! I love concise video logging!
connortru 4 years