Opposing the factitious beauty wich religious minds attempt comforting themselves with, in their metaphysicall vision; is there more beautiful of an entity than a rationnal mind and more transcendent than its responsible scepticism?
Where one's beauty is a distraction from existencial anxiety and the other, a true appreciation of the concerned subject- the human subject- overcoming one's own immanent supterfuge.
I trully have a distinguished affection for critical thinkers.
Wonderful video! Cuts to the most important question which, if I interpret you correctly, is "what can I do to help, to be productive, to further our knowledge and understanding." This should be seen in every classroom in the world.
You are uninformed, the evidence for Christ is all over Israel in archeology and historical books and even in hostile secular writings but willingly ignored by atheistic academia since they willingly want nothing to do with Jesus, by blinding themselves tight enough, He might disappear they think foolishly but the Bible will always be there and so will be God also, free thinkers? my eye...
@Serge1965 jesus was a person. just like any other profit. he took advantage of prophecies and wanted to be famous. now he was real. but the things he said he has done are not.
@drfoxcourt And tell me, what serious source do you use? zeitgeists addendum over addendum over addendum and a silly production by amateurs? Cooommmme on, be serious here, what other source did you listen to, bring them all here and let us see where you shiop for truth, Da Vinci code??? I mean sheeeshh people, do you love truth or willingly embrace the lies of the enemy?
Sources of truth include peer reviewed journals, articles with evidence of critical thinking, objectively verifiable tests with resulting predictive value. The truth remains elusive nonetheless.
God is clearly not established fact, which does not mean it is entirely fiction, but all religions of the world have one thing right, that all the other religions are fictions and are wrong.
@drfoxcourt Jesus Christ is established historicly from as early as 100 AD as the early church fathers were going thru severe persecutions, even hostile writings towards Jesus Christ confirm+attest that He lived, was crucified+resurrected, Simon Greenleaf has produced a solid court case along with the work of Josh Macdowell's research, every serious historian knows that Christ is a historical fact based on serious documents and archeolgy finds as well, Jesus Christ is no religion but God Himself
@Serge1965 Grant every part of the Bible and you still can't demonstrate the divinity of Jesus the Nazerene. Miracles were preformed by people all over the world, people were born of virgin mothers, people were resurrected. By that standard Jesus is nothing unusual except the CLAIM that he was the son of God/God himself. Frankly outrageous claims demand outrageous amounts of evidence (that isn't there).
@drfoxcourt You are free to disbelieve but i can't deny the results i got from my own homework, there are more than 365 prophecies in the Old testament that deal with Christ's 1st coming 2000 years ago which were fulfilled with 100% acuracy to the point of explaining how He'd die, if the 1845 prophecies in the whole Bible that deal with His 2nd coming are as acurate as the first ones, that means He is at the door and you will soon have the opportunity to debate with Him if He's real or not
@drfoxcourt ironicly, He did indeed proclaim to be the Son of God which the Jews understood that He was claiming to be sent by God but also that He was God and thus why they crucified Him as implied by the whole chapter 8 of John in which Jesus said: Before abraham was, I AM. that said, He did more than this by saying He was The Almighty in Rev 1:8 and sealed it by His own words in Rev 2:8, don't believe me? Fine, i am justa man but He is God
@drfoxcourt The enemy i was refering to is the one who runs this fallen world and who owns the money and most of the political elites and puppets of this world, you know the United Nations most assuredly, just google the Lucist trust and see for yourself...
Great video. On the question of morals (good/evil), I would offer that it is mans abilityor inability to use is human intelligence to overcome is animal instincts.
God is not mankinds interpretation of Magick. I have a real teacher, one that does not rape alter boys. To Rate a Religion by what men do is pefection. If You rape children you are not of God but self. claiming to be a spokesman for God.The pope is satan, not God. Let John 14:26 speak for itself
What do you mean "little evidence"? I offer one million dollars to anyone who can present one tiny shred of evidence for anything supernatural at all. I think you should have written *no evidence* : )
@alexross8 If you seriously believe in the supernatural crap and want to be sure the skeptics have money, you should talk to for instance James Randi or Criss Angel. There are also prizes other places in the world, but those two are the only ones who offer a million.. But neither you nor anybody else should worry very much about ever winning any of it, though. It is not going to happen. : )
I know I cannot get that million dollars , even if one of them were to offer , and I had the nerve to explain to them the PROOF that supernatural things happen.
It's not that I don't have the proof. I do have the proof. They will hear , but not listen.
The only wars I have ever heard of since I were a child , have not been religious wars. Politics Cause wars. Religion causes motivation. Science causes knowledge. Philosophy causes wisdom. The crusades was a political campaign that was motivated by the Catholic church , specifically , the pope.
Politics invested in science and gained the Nuclear bomb. Politics gained us Canadians Free health care through philosophical thought . All things can be good and bad at the same time.
google it, it's all over the place. I won't explain it because anywhere on the internet you look, they'll do a pretty good job of explaining it, offering examples, etc.
Sweet me too! We should hang out, maybe go rape, murder, and pillage some people that dont believe like we do. Just let me know how many slaves I should bring! :) Just the other day I was living my unique center of the universe life and some kids called me bald but its cool. God sent out a couple bears and they mauled those pagans. woohoo God is great. Later maybe we can make ourselves eunuchs, dip each other in some water, and drink some blood (figuratively speaking of course)
i think we have conflict because the majority of us believe in unreality. eg1 life after death there is no proof of this happening to anyone yet most of us believe wholeheartedly that such a thing is possible think about the sentence 'life after death' an you'll realise it is an idiom. eg2 rise in carbon leads to rise in temp wich is false and illogical one only needs to step outside the climate change hysteria for 5 minuets of thought to realise this.
I still can't understand why people past age 18 still believe in afterlife. I thought most would mature at that point, but I guess fear and stupidity still has the upper hand....
"eg2 rise in carbon leads to rise in temp wich is false and illogical"
Unfortunately, that is reality. The science is conclusive. To what degree may be up for argument, but there is no doubt that humanity is involved in climate change.
The only 'hysteria' I see surrounding climate change involves those attempting to deny it is happening (it is) and claiming that humans are not involved (we are).
so how does a rise in carbon result in a rise in temp? see i believe that it is the SUN that drives the earths climate. remember the planet produced us. when the sun heats up so do the planets an everything that produces CO2 produces more ie oceans (evaporation) dead plants an animals/humans (decompose/persperation/BREATHING) Y don't you get out there an start telling people to hold their breath so that we can save the fucking planet? humans is a bacterium that is full of itself
"so how does a rise in carbon result in a rise in temp?"
I recommend googling "how global warming works". Or 'greenhouse effect.
3 problems with your theory: 1. if the sun were to shine more, plants would grow more and produce more oxygen(via photosynthesis), not CO2. 2. since the industrial revolution, humans have been ARTIFICIALLY adding HUGE amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. 3. the rate at which we artificially add CO2 to the atmosphere is increasing geometrically
Other planets are also experiencing a rise in temperature. That is because we are in what is called the solar maximum. Solar Maximum is a 20 year cycle that goes from Peak Sunspot activity to Minimum Sunspot Activity. We are currently coming out of Solar Maximum. In ten years cooling will become readily apparent to everyone. It is why this summer is cooler then last summer. If humans are the cause of global warming then when we get to solar minimum it will be hotter then the last solar minimum.
Studies have shown that the trend is in the opposite direction. That is, based on solar output, temps should be going DOWN, not up.
Anthropogenic global warming deniers have to deny the 35% increase in CO2 over the last 150+ years, higher than in the last 420,000. The 27 gigatons of CO2 released each year by burning fossil fuels. Massive deforestation. Forests are huge CO2 'sinks'. They must deny these huge anthropogenic increases in CO2 have any effect.
What study? I have yet to read a study that shows that sort of a trend. We are just now coming out of Solar Maximum. Any Study should be taken from Solar Minimums and should be self evident.
You cite one duplicated study that says that the difference between Solar Minimum coming to the one 40 years ago is so huge that it shows a man made cause is behind it.
"The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that this warming is likely attributable to human influence has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries. At present, no scientific body of national or international standing has issued a dissenting statement." Wikipedia
You need to prove that all the major science academies are wrong. Good luck.
Wikipedia is your source. Laughable. Cite a Study. You can't because there isn't one that is accurate or takes into account the Solar Minimums and Maximums to eliminate error.
It seems the study you claim refutes all of respected science is lacking as well. The facts are that no major science academy denies anthropogenic climate change. There are hundreds to possibly thousands of studies implicating human involvement in climate change. Where are the thousands which refute them? I would cite sources but that seems ridiculous when the data is overwhelming and easily available. I think your burden of proof is much more elusive.
Actually I wouldn't believe that to be the case. When a volcano explodes it releases large amounts of Sulfur Dioxide into the upper atmosphere. Sulfur Dioxide reflects sunlight off of the atmosphere and would cool the planet. One of the worst things that could happen is if the Yellowstone National Park Culdara(not spelled right probably) were to collapse. Then most people on the Northern side of the planet would be boned because of the dust and the sudden blockage of the sun.
True. Volcanoes in the past have been associated with cooler weather.
But, it is a fact the carbon dioxide in the air will trap more heat. Are we not throwing tons of this in the air daily, and are we not creating heat in the process? Where does that exhaust heat go?
The majority of Greenhouse gases that go into the atmosphere come from the decay of plant based materials on the planet during seasonal shifts. Human contributions to greenhouse gases to the planet are minute in comparison. Yet it only takes a tiny change to change climate a lot. IT would be better if we could collect our carbon dioxide emissions and figure out a chemical process to turn it back into some sort of fuel. Plants have been turning CO2 into sugar for years. Why can't we?
Actually we aren't gaining more carbon. You see we are putting back carbon that was sequestered in deposits millions of years ago back when the earth was warmer. All the doom and gloom people act like if we add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere that we will get a world that is uninhabitable. That isn't true. What will happen is sea levels will rise and coastal cities will be put under water. When we run out of oil in 2050 and coal in 2200 we will have no more carbon to add.
At that point Atmospheric Carbon will gradually disappear from the atmosphere through natural processes in Peat Bogs and Swamp Lands. Human kind will never be able to make the planet completely uninhabitable by CO2 emissions alone. Even Deforistation will not result in anything close to what the alarmist believe. They are afraid of the large death toll that will happen in the mean time from starvation. Oil or cheap energy is what is driving food production today.
If we could turn CO2 back into coal for instance that would be great.Some how remove CO2 from the atmosphere and tunr it into a block of some sort of carbon fuel or sugar would be sweet too. =D
I DO think that we can build a religion that will bring us peace and prosperity.
While Scientology is NOT that religion. Scientology does prove that a religion can be built in this modern age we live in.
I have a great hope that we can build a religion that we can all embrace that will meet our needs and create the better but not absolutely perfect world we would hope for for our children and our children's children.
Why? It's still believing in something that isn't true. Why not just go for Science. Science unites the world in many ways and hasn't caused any conflict like religion. Not to mention it's based on fact, logic, and reason. Religion isn't what this world needs, it's the opposite that it needs.
No. Sagan had a view point, possibly an ideology, but nowhere near a religion. There was no God involved, and everything else was based on facts.
Science can obviously benefit humanity in many ways. I'm not saying turn to Science in a way of a religion. I'm saying go for Science because it's factual information. It's the truth, as best as emperical proof can give.
Confucianism, some forms of Buddhism and possibly Shintoism do not have as part of their makeup a worship of a deity. Religion without god(s) is nothing new.
I promise you if I start a new religion you will be allowed not to join it ok? :-)
Yeah, but they still believe in afterlife and other things that aren't logically possible and have no evidence to arbitrate them. Science is factually proven theories. That's the difference. I'm not saying religion has to have a deity.
"There were ZERO spelling errors. "your" is definitely a word which is spelled correctly."
Unfortunately the word you were trying to spell was "you're" but what you wrote was "your". That's a spelling error.
Irony and hypocrisy 101
You are trying to make a logical/rational argument while behaving illogically and irrationally. Further, you attempt to insult my intelligence while exhibiting a lack of it. Priceless.
"This has NOTHING to do with YOU and ME or ANYONE alive today."
So, I guess that would mean that almost everything Jesus preached does not apply. Excellent.
"The TRUE fact of the matter is, division is brought about by NONBELIEVERS."
Uh, no. The longest standing current conflicts are between two(or more) religious groups. Within each group, all others are regarded as 'non-believers'. To a Muslim, a Christian AND an atheist are both 'infidels'. To a non-believer, we are all humans.
The Nationalism era that ruled Europe during the first half of the 20th century is a good example as to why it isn't religion which is evil, but rather the belief that one's own "way" or "people" are better than those who "are not". It is the idea of inclusion and exclusion and the willingness to kill those not included which is the true evil here. Belief is just another way to define who is included and who is not.
I'd have to say scaliwag5, that you are pretty much right imho.
I don't believe it is the ideology which makes us evil, but our own evils which allow us to find ways to manipulate popular idology to justify evil actions.
There are so many anti-relgion activists who believe that religion is the root of all evil. This is so delusional imo. Read the Bible and tell me where Jesus spoke of evil intentions. Tell me one quote please.
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a mans enemies will be the members of his household." -Jesus in Matthew 10:34-36
IMO, that is evil.
His msgs of peace were completely unoriginal, he lied, was inconsistent, was rude and even violent at times.
The greatest divider among all humans is religion.
"IMO, that is evil." (in response to Matthew 10:34-36
You clearly don't understand the Bible. In this passage, Jesus is actually quoting Micah 7:6 of the Old Testament. The reason he does this is to show what reaction the disciples will receive from nonbelievers. The message the disciples will be preaching will be met with opposition which may be strong enough to break family ties. The disciples will have to live with those who oppose them."
"I can't think of a single society that believes this."
Argument from ignorance. Just because you don't know does not mean it is not so.
"is paraded by vertually ALL societies"
Argumentum ad populum. Just because a large group of people believe/think something does not make it true or right. Most societies also once believed slavery was acceptable, does that make it so?
"What does this have to do with Jesus?"
Everything. Repeating: the concept wasn't a part of the Bible UNTIL Jesus.
"Adam and Eve were punished for disobedience, not for eating fruit."
Do you know the story? The fruit was from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. They were ignorant of what/who was good and what was wrong/bad in the first place. God punished them, and hence all of humanity, for something they were utterly clueless about. In fact, God lied to them about it.
Are you defending punishment/torture/damnation of all humanity based on 2 fools' 'disobedience'? Sounds futile.
Those two passages have almost nothing in common. Literally and certainly contextually.
The underlying point of the passage in Matthew, and you seem to understand this, is that Jesus has come to divide...even families. Religion as a cause for division is only proven by the teachings of Jesus himself.
How do you plan to deny the Bible when its clear those who wrote it knew it would be a cause for division?
"Please point out the inconsistencies and untruthfulness rather than simply throwing verses out and expecting your point to be taken."
Please take your own advice and explain why they are both truthful and 2. consistent as opposed to just saying they are and expecting YOUR point to be taken. Those verses fit the discussion surrounding Jesus in particular. The Bible in general is FULL of inconsistencies, half-truths and plagiarized myths.
False, this was addressed to the 12 disciples, that THEY would be divided from THEIR families. This has NOTHING to do with YOU and ME or ANYONE alive today.
The TRUE fact of the matter is, division is brought about by NONBELIEVERS. For instance, I am divided from you (engaging in argumentative discussion) about religion. Who is guilty of this division? You? Me? or the argument itself? Arguments can't create divisions, only people can.
"They were ignorant of what/who was good and what was wrong/bad in the first place."
False statement... They new that they aught not eat of the tree. It says it right in scripture. Their creator told them.
"Are you defending punishment/torture/damnation of all humanity"
Only those who have sinned against God... ups... looks like all of us. Fortunately, I am advocating the position that, if you ask for forgiveness of your sins, you will be forgiven.
No, it was/is 100% correct. They had no understanding of the concept of good/evil, hence why they defied their God! Duh!
Understanding what one 'ought' to do implies understanding right from wrong, good from evil. These concepts were completely lost on them. They didn't know any better, so they ate the fruit.
And in any case, why should ALL HUMANITY suffer for their ignorance or disobedience? If they never did it we would all be living fat, naked and happy in Eden, right?
"Just because you don't know does not mean it is not so."
The point of the me saying I can't think of a society that believes your assertion to be true was to give you the opportunity to present me with a society that does. You FAILED to do so, thus YOU have been proven wrong.
"Just because a large group of people believe/think something does not make it true or right."
If you are an ethical relativist (which almost every atheist/non-religious person is, then it does make me right.
"You FAILED to do so, thus YOU have been proven wrong."
Your point was a logical fallacy. I only need point out that what you said was logically fallacious, I need prove nothing.
"If you are an ethical relativist (which almost every atheist/non-religious person is, then it does make me right. "
'If' being the operative word. I am not a relativist, so your straw man will fail here and for the same reason your original one did. You make assumptions about 'all' or 'almost every' person.
I can't think of a single society that believes this. In fact, self-sacrifice for that of others is paraded by vertually ALL societies as a symbol of heroism and is deemed righteous in all regards.
"The concept of eternal damnation/burning/'gnashing of teeth' for 2 ignorant fools eating a fruit thousands of years ago = evil"
What does this have to do with Jesus?...
Adam and Eve were punished for disobedience, not for eating fruit.
"Adam and Eve were punished for disobedience, not for eating fruit."
It would be more accurate to say that ALL HUMANITY was punished for 2 fools 'disobedience'. I take it you find such 'justice' fair and equitable. If you do, then I pity you and I fear you have no moral compass or sense of fairness and decency. It would be a quick way to end this argument because why bother arguing with a person who has no understanding of those concepts?
So just because they didn't do what God said, it has led up to babies being born into starving disease ridden countries? How the fuck is that logical at all? God either doesn't exist, or is an evil ass hole. Which one is it kid? Think for once in your life and recognize the bullshit you preach.
true, but it is religion that is the most divisive thing on earth. so often i've heard 'you're this faith or you're against us'. and that sentiment is expressed constantly in religion. religion therefore is too dangerous to be kept going for too many use it for evil
I detect some overtones of fascism in what you are saying. Outlawing religion is just as dangerous as propagating religious extremism. It is a slippery slope. If you outlaw one form of expression or thought it becomes easier and easier to outlaw additional forms. It is the actions or deeds which must be prevented and not the philosophies behind them. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" and I feel the same could be said for religion.
no outlawing, it should die a natural death as it has in europe. education is key. i'm fine with spirituality, but for the established dogmas they must not be taken literaly
The gold standard is broken because it doesn't allow for an expanding economy. There is only so much gold on earth which means that there is a finite amount of money that could be created....
This means that our economy can't grow without more and more gold being obtained.
You are exactly right about gold. Gold is nothing more than a currency play. It is amazing to me how Americans are so dumbed down about economics. I've viewed these zeitgeist vids and I don't see one ounce of truth in any of their conclusions. Zeitgeist is for the uneducated who are eager to follow.
False statement. Instead of watching zeitgeist, you should probably take a macro-economics class from which you will learn that the system for counting the money supply (M1) only counts money that is readily accessible to be used in free-markets. Money, such as that in a savings account, is NOT part of the money supply. When someone takes out a loan, money is NOT simply created, it is just transferred from unreadily available money to readily available.
Let me demonstrate this concept to those of you who are a little slow:
I have $500 in my pocket. That counts for $500 in the money supply (M1). Money that is in the bank isn't counted in M1 so as far as M1 is concerned, it doesn't exist. If I take out a loan, for $1 million, then that money is transfered from the bank (doesn't exist) to my pocket (does exist) and thus the money supply just increased by $1 million. The money wasn't created, it was just moved.
The belief that any particular group of people is more likely to create violence than any other particular group of people is a false assumption...
For all people are equally capable of evil... All ideology can be a means to evil ends. If we remove all religion, a new ideology will arise to fill the place of the old. It is our vices which create evil, not the ideology used to justify them.
"Unless you can prove otherwise, you can't say its a false assumption.."
For someone who is attempting to use logic and philosophy, you of all people should know that burden of proof is placed squarely on the one making the claim. You made the claim/assumption that if all religions were removed a new ideology would take its place. Prove it, its your claim. Good luck.
"The belief that any particular group of people is more likely to create violence than any other particular group of people is a false assumption..."
"Unless you can prove otherwise, you can't say its a false assumption.."
Prove otherwise. So far, you have proved nothing with your holocaust example. Besides, your original statement was that "any particular group of people" and not limited to "regular ordinary people". Quite a task, good luck.
"You contradict yourself. You say there is no solution, yet you offered one."
Your right... but if you were even an bit thoughtful you would realise that the solution I offered leaves us all worse off than if we were to not implament the solution at all. MORON!
I figured you were smart enough to figure that out on your own... but perhaps being dominated and having your freedoms stripped from you is worth it in your opinion.
That is all you needed to say. The rest of your statement is as pointless as your original. And nice ad hominem. Its a tactic used by those who have failed to make a cogent argument. Just like when you speculate about my opinions in order to build a straw man. Both are logically fallacious.
"yes they were."
This based on your opinion that "all people" are exactly alike in one respect or another. A ridiculous assertion.
The true question you are considering instead of whether "Nazis were regular or not" is actually whether Germans are regular or not. The evil propagated by the Nazis was a reaction to the void left in Germany by WWI. The true question is whether the German reaction was unique to the Germanic people or if it would have occurred had the French, British, etc. been in the Germans' shoes. Keep in mind anti-Semitism wasn't exactly in short supply at this time in Europe.
"Nice try. The point is that YOU need to support you claim. You haven't done that. Burden of proof, remember?"
You're a complete idiot. I supported my claim with a real life example. You then made a claim saying that my evidence was falsifiable. YOU NEED TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM! How can you be so ignorant?
"Give up, you can't even come close to supporting such a claim. You fail"
OK then, hotshot, by disagreeing with my claim that all people are equally capable of evil, you are also admitting that some people have an immunity to evil acts, or are incapable of doing evil things, thus, don't have free will.
After reading through some of yalls' arguments I have to say I think you all waste a lot of energy insulting each other. Classical idealists wouldn't likely waste so much time doing this and if they did it would be done in a very crafty and eloquent manner. I also wanted to comment on the statement: "All people are equally capable of evil." I have to disagree not in a moral sense, but in the sense that deep, deep evil requires a sort of creativity which we are not all equally capable of.
There's no such thing as true freedom. We all live by a set of rules and regs ect. But that apart I see where you're coming from, I just don't think my mortgage holds me back much, after all, I'd still need a roof over my head and I'd only be still shelling out monies for rental accommodation. In other words, I'd still have constraints upon my life. Mind you, they don't burden me.
But if backwards countries such as North Korea, various African states and the Islamic states did not need currency and outside help there would be no way of improving their govts and helping their people without regime change through violent means. Besides, by recognising that we owe others it promotes civility and respect, and as long as we owe others there'll be currency in some form. I think it better to have currency around than to have an increase in selfishness and war.
Currency isn't all bad. It brings social mobility. While this is clearly noticed when people are going downwards it also allows people to better themselves as well. Without currency if you are born into a poor family doing a certain job you will do the same job and be just as poor and there's almost nothing you can do about it. Also, currency leads to international trade which acts as an extremely powerful global incentive towards peace and cooperation.
In fact this cooperation is often used as a way of encouraging countries to take steps towards modernisation and better treatment and rights of the populace without resorting to war or ignoring the problem.
You forget some people: Adolf Hitler: no christ, no muslim: Murdering 6 milliom Jews because they were jews, beginning a war, that caused 200 000 000 dead people. Stalin, an strong atheist, bringing 20 000 000 people into KZ`s because they were christians or had another opinion like he had.
And so on...
So called religious wars are mostly very bad, I agree with you.
Do you know, that the revelation of John tells us about the end of false religion?
Jews were not the only people Hitler exterminated. He also killed Gypsies, defective people, mentally handicapped, Poles, Political advisaries, and others. AND One the Mormon Church would agree with killing - HOMOSEXUALS.
Actually, I have known many Mormons, and as people I don't think you could meet nicer ones.
Truly. But, their dogma is NOT forgiving, and while killing homosexuals is probably not on their list of things to do, shunning H's is like death to those removed from their church. Family members pretend that H's are dead for all praticial purposes..
The early Mormon church had a very clouded history.
If there was no religion, but one man came to lead and slaughtered 900 million humans the atheists would say that the man created a religion around himself which would be convient to blame religion, but not change the fact of millions killed in typical human behavior.
If somebody did manage to kill 900 million people you can bet that faith would be involved. Faith and the certain belief in absurdities. Whether you call that a religion is a matter of semantics. Faith and the certain belief in unquestionable certainties is what creates tyranny and atrocities.
Monotheism and faith will tend to generate intolerance and violence when they have the strength to do so. Nobody ever kills people in big numbers in the name of doubt, only in the name of certainty.
Atheist are safe behind words which are all symbolic and lord knows religion is symbolism too.
But upon studying the behavior of man no religion is necessary to condemn him. If you don't like self-knowledge then open the Bible and find the same to be true.
I have opened the Bible and read it. Every single word. Front to back. It's a bunch of Hebrew mythology written by men of profound ignorance, men who would not understand what science was. The world of the Bible was literally smaller than the flight range of a 767, a universe light milliseconds across. These people were so ignorant their prophets didn't know where Rome was until after the Romans conquered them.
Good for you. I've read the KJV six times from front to back and know there is no information that contradicts with science.
The first five books of the Bible give more rights to women than all the other documents of the world summated prior to 1930 A.D. and ended in a society that talked about their women according to Proverbs 31 and those same women continued to condition other women until the Jewish woman led the Feminist movement in Europe and America.
Reading it willing it to speak to you is not reading at all. If you read what's there you can see how the character of God changes enormously through the text and how the God-did-it theory evolves over time. You will notice how there is no hint of afterlife until Daniel and how the New Testament is about little else. All biblical figures make the Taliban look like progressive and open-minded scientists. They are primitive religious lunatics who revel in their ignorance and superstition.
That is simply not true. It is another libel against my species by the religious.
How is it that slandering a person's family is seen as a reasonable excuse to punch them, slandering a person's nation is an excuse to invade them, slandering a person's race is a criminal matter but slandering my species is a fucking institution protected by national and international law employing hundreds of thousands of people on a full time basis?
Enough. Stop it. We don't have to take it any more.
I think that Hitler was slandered prior to America invading Germany or was it Hitler slandering Jews prior to invading them or was it Incas slandering the nearby village prior to invading them or was it Alexander the Great slandering the world prior to invading them or is it merely the behavior of man?
For religious people: Atheism is not a religion or faith, you cannot hear one Atheist say something and believe all Atheists believe that. With Atheism we have FREE WILL, you can think for your life, not some big groups ideas, you dont have to worship a flying spaghetti monster. You can be good for goodness, human emotion, not because of a God. If you didnt worship God then you wouldnt say: Im allowed to kill people now so I will! would you. goodbye
That is great that you say that but the majority I have spoken with condem people who do follow religion. Why? If an athiest is on the right path and is free to what ever then why the condemnation? organized religion is a control method created by man in my opinion. But because I think this does that mean I am no longer free to believe in god and the supernatural the way I want. I have not condemend anyone for being an athiest merely stated my beliefs and made some points!
How the hell is following Athiesm going to solve any more problems the following God? I do not attend church I don't think a hunam should be put on such a high pedestal! Is this shit for real? You think that if the entire world reads books based only on theories and not on fact and stops believing in god that will save the world? Personally who gives a fuck what you believe!Ihis idea is no better then origanized religion has been for the last millenium! Pass the control from one to the next!
We won't know until we try. Humans haven't given rational, logical thinking a serious chance yet. We still elect leaders who believe in god and religion.
Religion has had it's chance for thousands of years and it has failed. It has not done any good for us. Time to apple a new method. Rational thinking. Way out the pros and the cons. Not obeying dated texts from thousands of years ago.
But csincali, if you think religion and rational thinking are not the answers, then what is?
Humans never give to rational and logical thinking! That is a part of being human! The only problem with voting for a leader who is religious is if that leader attempts to force that religion on the masses! Just because you understand the mechanics of how something works doesn't mean it is anything less than a miracle!
I think people need a belief in something more. If you can go outside on a clear night and stare at the sky and believe that humans are it and there is nothing more in this universe and that when we die we go no where you life has really got to suck! I am not a fanatical person I just think there is so much more to humans the universe then we know.
Someone who doesn't believe in an afterlife is living a sad life? Is that what your trying to say?
I beg to differ. This life in my only life and because of that I cherish it even more. I personally think that humans believe in an afterlife because we are self-aware. We know we're going to die one day and that scares people. So they beleive in an afterlife to help them cope with death.
I don't believe in god, spirits, an afterlife, a soul, fate, etc. and my life is fun and full filling.
Of course there is more to the universe that we don't understand. Atheism never claims to know everything. Religion does.
Why do you assume atheists think there is nothing more to the universe and humans?
Some people have a tough time accepting atheism because it means accpeting death and the end of life, but at the same time they know they don't want to be part of an organized religion because of the bad rep it has. So they try to find a middle ground. Is that what your trying to do?
Your life sounds lame and hopeless! There is a god beyond your silly human comprehension! Spirits the pictures of them are proof enough. An afterlife is very real as is fate. What a horrible existence you have!
Believe what you like, but making a rash (and almost certainly untrue) judgment about another's existence is as ridiculous as the "proof" you provide for your beliefs. I don't believe in a god or an afterlife and my existence is far from horrible, thank you very much!
Your option is salvation or condemnation according to Romans 6:23 so Psalms 49:20 would suggest the condemnation is treatment equal to the treatment of animals.
I do ignore the bible for the most part. It was written by men who hated women. Perhaps there may be some truth in it but do I follow it as a book of law no. I do believe in god or a higher power I dont think the universie or any life form just showed up from nothing. Nothing comes from nothing. Knowing how the machine works is good but why the machine is needed and what is working for is the real question.
The zeitgiest movement
willweeverlearn 4 months ago
Islam and Chrisianity, arguing who is right and who is wrong, is like two bald men fighting over a comb.
daverigby23 5 months ago
You forgot the conquerors!
hedleypanama 6 months ago
Opposing the factitious beauty wich religious minds attempt comforting themselves with, in their metaphysicall vision; is there more beautiful of an entity than a rationnal mind and more transcendent than its responsible scepticism?
Where one's beauty is a distraction from existencial anxiety and the other, a true appreciation of the concerned subject- the human subject- overcoming one's own immanent supterfuge.
I trully have a distinguished affection for critical thinkers.
Great video.
EyeFed 1 year ago
Wonderful video! Cuts to the most important question which, if I interpret you correctly, is "what can I do to help, to be productive, to further our knowledge and understanding." This should be seen in every classroom in the world.
mcrd2001 1 year ago
completely agree, except for the intuition part, intuition has nothing to do with religion, it is our brains already knowing whats right.
colevanblaricom 1 year ago
Wonderful! Splendid!
noonespecia2007 1 year ago
Only 13,000 views? Dude, this video is a damn classic! WTF!
TheAtheistAllegiance 1 year ago
You are uninformed, the evidence for Christ is all over Israel in archeology and historical books and even in hostile secular writings but willingly ignored by atheistic academia since they willingly want nothing to do with Jesus, by blinding themselves tight enough, He might disappear they think foolishly but the Bible will always be there and so will be God also, free thinkers? my eye...
Serge1965 1 year ago
@Serge1965 jesus was a person. just like any other profit. he took advantage of prophecies and wanted to be famous. now he was real. but the things he said he has done are not.
deathgun666 1 year ago
@Serge1965 Religiously funded archeologic work in the Holy land has revealed:
Jesus was probably not born in Bethlehem
Graves did not open and the dead walk about after Jesus' resurrection.
Tampering with the Josephus text (non-christian contemporary commentary on Jesus) long after it was written to include references to Jesus
No Exodus of the Jews from Egypt
What are we to make of this when the Bible is the inerrant word of God?
drfoxcourt 1 year ago
@drfoxcourt And tell me, what serious source do you use? zeitgeists addendum over addendum over addendum and a silly production by amateurs? Cooommmme on, be serious here, what other source did you listen to, bring them all here and let us see where you shiop for truth, Da Vinci code??? I mean sheeeshh people, do you love truth or willingly embrace the lies of the enemy?
Serge1965 1 year ago
@Serge1965 What enemy? Haters of truth?
Sources of truth include peer reviewed journals, articles with evidence of critical thinking, objectively verifiable tests with resulting predictive value. The truth remains elusive nonetheless.
God is clearly not established fact, which does not mean it is entirely fiction, but all religions of the world have one thing right, that all the other religions are fictions and are wrong.
drfoxcourt 1 year ago
@drfoxcourt Jesus Christ is established historicly from as early as 100 AD as the early church fathers were going thru severe persecutions, even hostile writings towards Jesus Christ confirm+attest that He lived, was crucified+resurrected, Simon Greenleaf has produced a solid court case along with the work of Josh Macdowell's research, every serious historian knows that Christ is a historical fact based on serious documents and archeolgy finds as well, Jesus Christ is no religion but God Himself
Serge1965 1 year ago
@Serge1965 Grant every part of the Bible and you still can't demonstrate the divinity of Jesus the Nazerene. Miracles were preformed by people all over the world, people were born of virgin mothers, people were resurrected. By that standard Jesus is nothing unusual except the CLAIM that he was the son of God/God himself. Frankly outrageous claims demand outrageous amounts of evidence (that isn't there).
drfoxcourt 1 year ago
@drfoxcourt You are free to disbelieve but i can't deny the results i got from my own homework, there are more than 365 prophecies in the Old testament that deal with Christ's 1st coming 2000 years ago which were fulfilled with 100% acuracy to the point of explaining how He'd die, if the 1845 prophecies in the whole Bible that deal with His 2nd coming are as acurate as the first ones, that means He is at the door and you will soon have the opportunity to debate with Him if He's real or not
Serge1965 1 year ago
@drfoxcourt ironicly, He did indeed proclaim to be the Son of God which the Jews understood that He was claiming to be sent by God but also that He was God and thus why they crucified Him as implied by the whole chapter 8 of John in which Jesus said: Before abraham was, I AM. that said, He did more than this by saying He was The Almighty in Rev 1:8 and sealed it by His own words in Rev 2:8, don't believe me? Fine, i am justa man but He is God
Serge1965 1 year ago
Comment removed
Strangerinasland 6 months ago
@drfoxcourt The enemy i was refering to is the one who runs this fallen world and who owns the money and most of the political elites and puppets of this world, you know the United Nations most assuredly, just google the Lucist trust and see for yourself...
Serge1965 1 year ago
Yeah, established religions had power for thousands of year and messed up all they can... Time to try somtehing else...
Acrimonator 1 year ago
Tell me the guy standing in front of Hitler at 1:32 is not Ben Stein!
mikespulligan 1 year ago 2
Great video. On the question of morals (good/evil), I would offer that it is mans abilityor inability to use is human intelligence to overcome is animal instincts.
GodsAMyth 2 years ago
Superb video. Morals come from man, not god. We need to think hard about our morals, especially as technology changes.
Ramshobraja 2 years ago
God is not mankinds interpretation of Magick. I have a real teacher, one that does not rape alter boys. To Rate a Religion by what men do is pefection. If You rape children you are not of God but self. claiming to be a spokesman for God.The pope is satan, not God. Let John 14:26 speak for itself
purveyor100 2 years ago
What do you mean "little evidence"? I offer one million dollars to anyone who can present one tiny shred of evidence for anything supernatural at all. I think you should have written *no evidence* : )
winterstellar 2 years ago 32
@winterstellar
I could provide more than enough evidence.
But how can you provide the million dollars?
alexross8 1 year ago
@alexross8 If you seriously believe in the supernatural crap and want to be sure the skeptics have money, you should talk to for instance James Randi or Criss Angel. There are also prizes other places in the world, but those two are the only ones who offer a million.. But neither you nor anybody else should worry very much about ever winning any of it, though. It is not going to happen. : )
winterstellar 1 year ago
@winterstellar
I know I cannot get that million dollars , even if one of them were to offer , and I had the nerve to explain to them the PROOF that supernatural things happen.
It's not that I don't have the proof. I do have the proof. They will hear , but not listen.
If I showed them , they will look , but not see.
alexross8 1 year ago
Add the Ugandan death penalty for homosexuality supported and funded by the Christian right.
Seven years just for advocating gay rights.
It is terror and suffering.
Christians should not be proud of this.
Reason, humanity, honesty, compassion. make us people and not monsters.
Religion makes us monsters.
dogma, means the most dogmatic win, they always have it written, thus humanity are trapped and strangled by dogmatic morons.
whether you believe in God or not.
dump religion.
marsCubed 2 years ago 18
@marsCubed
The only wars I have ever heard of since I were a child , have not been religious wars. Politics Cause wars. Religion causes motivation. Science causes knowledge. Philosophy causes wisdom. The crusades was a political campaign that was motivated by the Catholic church , specifically , the pope.
Politics invested in science and gained the Nuclear bomb. Politics gained us Canadians Free health care through philosophical thought . All things can be good and bad at the same time.
alexross8 1 year ago
Very good, pointing out how irrational it is to make huge decisions based on irrational superstition.
Wadfoster 2 years ago 3
I think that you made a straw-man argument in this video.
krinorik 2 years ago
can you explain what the straw-man/strawman argument is? i've heard it mentioned several times before, not really knowing what it is.
glebber 2 years ago
google it, it's all over the place. I won't explain it because anywhere on the internet you look, they'll do a pretty good job of explaining it, offering examples, etc.
Apotheosis275 1 year ago
0:24 Thermite liquid spits out!
papasmurfXXX 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
All of you over think everything...
your all wrong because you use to much facts that also leads to nowhere.
Bakas...
geminielf7 2 years ago
I'll stick with the bible thanks. Its got everything I need to live a happy content life. Nice try though:)
lonewulf2009 2 years ago
genocide, damnation, stoning, rape, slavery and much more evil things. yup thats something you should base your life on.
atheistnarutofan 2 years ago 2
I have heard the rape arguement before. Where is rape endorsed in the bible please?
stevepalmerssolid 2 years ago
have you read the bible?
atheistnarutofan 2 years ago
No. Mainly predigested teachings from peers. All that sort of stuff, undiluted was too frightening.
stevepalmerssolid 2 years ago
Numbers 31:7-18. sorry had to find it. i havent memorized the bible.
atheistnarutofan 2 years ago
stevepalmer.: Read Joshua. What did God tell the Jewish victors to do with the young women?
What did god tell them to do to their enemies?
Slaughter ALL the breaths, which includes the live stock.
I hope they killed the roaches too!
The Bible: what an absurd book to hold as the word of God.
gjsterp 2 years ago
At face value is does have shades of The Yorkshire Ripper about it.
stevepalmerssolid 2 years ago
Your life is a 'nice try'. Sorry for being mean ":)".
rhadiel 2 years ago 2
@lonewulf2009 -
Sweet me too! We should hang out, maybe go rape, murder, and pillage some people that dont believe like we do. Just let me know how many slaves I should bring! :) Just the other day I was living my unique center of the universe life and some kids called me bald but its cool. God sent out a couple bears and they mauled those pagans. woohoo God is great. Later maybe we can make ourselves eunuchs, dip each other in some water, and drink some blood (figuratively speaking of course)
Animeabe 2 years ago
i think we have conflict because the majority of us believe in unreality. eg1 life after death there is no proof of this happening to anyone yet most of us believe wholeheartedly that such a thing is possible think about the sentence 'life after death' an you'll realise it is an idiom. eg2 rise in carbon leads to rise in temp wich is false and illogical one only needs to step outside the climate change hysteria for 5 minuets of thought to realise this.
strom56 2 years ago
I still can't understand why people past age 18 still believe in afterlife. I thought most would mature at that point, but I guess fear and stupidity still has the upper hand....
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago
"the majority of us believe in unreality"
"eg2 rise in carbon leads to rise in temp wich is false and illogical"
Unfortunately, that is reality. The science is conclusive. To what degree may be up for argument, but there is no doubt that humanity is involved in climate change.
The only 'hysteria' I see surrounding climate change involves those attempting to deny it is happening (it is) and claiming that humans are not involved (we are).
itry2brational 2 years ago
so how does a rise in carbon result in a rise in temp? see i believe that it is the SUN that drives the earths climate. remember the planet produced us. when the sun heats up so do the planets an everything that produces CO2 produces more ie oceans (evaporation) dead plants an animals/humans (decompose/persperation/BREATHING) Y don't you get out there an start telling people to hold their breath so that we can save the fucking planet? humans is a bacterium that is full of itself
strom56 2 years ago
"so how does a rise in carbon result in a rise in temp?"
I recommend googling "how global warming works". Or 'greenhouse effect.
3 problems with your theory: 1. if the sun were to shine more, plants would grow more and produce more oxygen(via photosynthesis), not CO2. 2. since the industrial revolution, humans have been ARTIFICIALLY adding HUGE amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. 3. the rate at which we artificially add CO2 to the atmosphere is increasing geometrically
itry2brational 2 years ago
Other planets are also experiencing a rise in temperature. That is because we are in what is called the solar maximum. Solar Maximum is a 20 year cycle that goes from Peak Sunspot activity to Minimum Sunspot Activity. We are currently coming out of Solar Maximum. In ten years cooling will become readily apparent to everyone. It is why this summer is cooler then last summer. If humans are the cause of global warming then when we get to solar minimum it will be hotter then the last solar minimum.
NoogLeader 2 years ago
NoogLeader,
Studies have shown that the trend is in the opposite direction. That is, based on solar output, temps should be going DOWN, not up.
Anthropogenic global warming deniers have to deny the 35% increase in CO2 over the last 150+ years, higher than in the last 420,000. The 27 gigatons of CO2 released each year by burning fossil fuels. Massive deforestation. Forests are huge CO2 'sinks'. They must deny these huge anthropogenic increases in CO2 have any effect.
itry2brational 2 years ago
What study? I have yet to read a study that shows that sort of a trend. We are just now coming out of Solar Maximum. Any Study should be taken from Solar Minimums and should be self evident.
You cite one duplicated study that says that the difference between Solar Minimum coming to the one 40 years ago is so huge that it shows a man made cause is behind it.
NoogLeader 2 years ago
"The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that this warming is likely attributable to human influence has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries. At present, no scientific body of national or international standing has issued a dissenting statement." Wikipedia
You need to prove that all the major science academies are wrong. Good luck.
itry2brational 2 years ago
Wikipedia is your source. Laughable. Cite a Study. You can't because there isn't one that is accurate or takes into account the Solar Minimums and Maximums to eliminate error.
NoogLeader 2 years ago
"You can't because there isn't one..."
It seems the study you claim refutes all of respected science is lacking as well. The facts are that no major science academy denies anthropogenic climate change. There are hundreds to possibly thousands of studies implicating human involvement in climate change. Where are the thousands which refute them? I would cite sources but that seems ridiculous when the data is overwhelming and easily available. I think your burden of proof is much more elusive.
itry2brational 2 years ago
Noog, you're an ignorant moron. Fuck off! : )
winterstellar 2 years ago
Prove it. Look up Solar Maximum and Minimums.
NoogLeader 2 years ago
I have, and the hundreds of thousands of scientists with competence on climate change are aware of them too, don't you worry.
winterstellar 2 years ago
Well, the start of the rise in the earths temperature coincides with the use of fossil fuels.
Can a large volcano effect the earth's climate?
You bet!
What does burning all the fossil fuels equate to?
A large volcano erupting every day?
May be close.
gjsterp 2 years ago
Actually I wouldn't believe that to be the case. When a volcano explodes it releases large amounts of Sulfur Dioxide into the upper atmosphere. Sulfur Dioxide reflects sunlight off of the atmosphere and would cool the planet. One of the worst things that could happen is if the Yellowstone National Park Culdara(not spelled right probably) were to collapse. Then most people on the Northern side of the planet would be boned because of the dust and the sudden blockage of the sun.
NoogLeader 2 years ago
True. Volcanoes in the past have been associated with cooler weather.
But, it is a fact the carbon dioxide in the air will trap more heat. Are we not throwing tons of this in the air daily, and are we not creating heat in the process? Where does that exhaust heat go?
gjsterp 2 years ago
The majority of Greenhouse gases that go into the atmosphere come from the decay of plant based materials on the planet during seasonal shifts. Human contributions to greenhouse gases to the planet are minute in comparison. Yet it only takes a tiny change to change climate a lot. IT would be better if we could collect our carbon dioxide emissions and figure out a chemical process to turn it back into some sort of fuel. Plants have been turning CO2 into sugar for years. Why can't we?
NoogLeader 2 years ago
NoogLeader: I don't profess to be an expert, but every expert that I have heard address this issue shows concern for the gases WE produce.
Are they ALL wrong?
Are the polar ice caps melting because of sun spots or other solar cycles?
Consider this, and I haven't heard anything on it from any source.
If you take a liquid like gasoline, it has a certain volume. If you burn it it expands.
What effect does this have on ballooning our atmosphere?
It would seem to me that we are driving gases off.
gjsterp 2 years ago
Actually we aren't gaining more carbon. You see we are putting back carbon that was sequestered in deposits millions of years ago back when the earth was warmer. All the doom and gloom people act like if we add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere that we will get a world that is uninhabitable. That isn't true. What will happen is sea levels will rise and coastal cities will be put under water. When we run out of oil in 2050 and coal in 2200 we will have no more carbon to add.
NoogLeader 2 years ago
At that point Atmospheric Carbon will gradually disappear from the atmosphere through natural processes in Peat Bogs and Swamp Lands. Human kind will never be able to make the planet completely uninhabitable by CO2 emissions alone. Even Deforistation will not result in anything close to what the alarmist believe. They are afraid of the large death toll that will happen in the mean time from starvation. Oil or cheap energy is what is driving food production today.
NoogLeader 2 years ago
you're a nut job with no idea of what you're talking about.
tiefkuhler 2 years ago
I don't think you know anything and what you do know is only the tip of the iceberg.
NoogLeader 2 years ago
If we could turn CO2 back into coal for instance that would be great.Some how remove CO2 from the atmosphere and tunr it into a block of some sort of carbon fuel or sugar would be sweet too. =D
lmcdowall 2 years ago
Actually there is a way to produce a type of diesel fuel from CO2 and something else with the help of a fungus that was found in Venezuela.
NoogLeader 2 years ago
Wow, I did not know that.I'm going to see what I can learn about it. Thanks =D
lmcdowall 2 years ago
I DO think that we can build a religion that will bring us peace and prosperity.
While Scientology is NOT that religion. Scientology does prove that a religion can be built in this modern age we live in.
I have a great hope that we can build a religion that we can all embrace that will meet our needs and create the better but not absolutely perfect world we would hope for for our children and our children's children.
KasparHauser4 2 years ago
Why? It's still believing in something that isn't true. Why not just go for Science. Science unites the world in many ways and hasn't caused any conflict like religion. Not to mention it's based on fact, logic, and reason. Religion isn't what this world needs, it's the opposite that it needs.
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago
IFloridaMotocrossl
cohesiveness to form a common basis and definition of interpersonal morality and a common shared overarching goal for humanity.
Carl Sagan in his series "Cosmos" had almost a religion going there.
KasparHauser4 2 years ago
No. Sagan had a view point, possibly an ideology, but nowhere near a religion. There was no God involved, and everything else was based on facts.
Science can obviously benefit humanity in many ways. I'm not saying turn to Science in a way of a religion. I'm saying go for Science because it's factual information. It's the truth, as best as emperical proof can give.
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago
IFloridaMotocrossI
Confucianism, some forms of Buddhism and possibly Shintoism do not have as part of their makeup a worship of a deity. Religion without god(s) is nothing new.
I promise you if I start a new religion you will be allowed not to join it ok? :-)
KasparHauser4 2 years ago
Yeah, but they still believe in afterlife and other things that aren't logically possible and have no evidence to arbitrate them. Science is factually proven theories. That's the difference. I'm not saying religion has to have a deity.
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago
"There were ZERO spelling errors. "your" is definitely a word which is spelled correctly."
Unfortunately the word you were trying to spell was "you're" but what you wrote was "your". That's a spelling error.
Irony and hypocrisy 101
You are trying to make a logical/rational argument while behaving illogically and irrationally. Further, you attempt to insult my intelligence while exhibiting a lack of it. Priceless.
itry2brational 2 years ago
"This has NOTHING to do with YOU and ME or ANYONE alive today."
So, I guess that would mean that almost everything Jesus preached does not apply. Excellent.
"The TRUE fact of the matter is, division is brought about by NONBELIEVERS."
Uh, no. The longest standing current conflicts are between two(or more) religious groups. Within each group, all others are regarded as 'non-believers'. To a Muslim, a Christian AND an atheist are both 'infidels'. To a non-believer, we are all humans.
itry2brational 2 years ago
song?
rmac40 2 years ago
The Nationalism era that ruled Europe during the first half of the 20th century is a good example as to why it isn't religion which is evil, but rather the belief that one's own "way" or "people" are better than those who "are not". It is the idea of inclusion and exclusion and the willingness to kill those not included which is the true evil here. Belief is just another way to define who is included and who is not.
scaliwag5 2 years ago
I'd have to say scaliwag5, that you are pretty much right imho.
I don't believe it is the ideology which makes us evil, but our own evils which allow us to find ways to manipulate popular idology to justify evil actions.
There are so many anti-relgion activists who believe that religion is the root of all evil. This is so delusional imo. Read the Bible and tell me where Jesus spoke of evil intentions. Tell me one quote please.
collins1188 2 years ago
"Read the Bible and tell me where Jesus spoke of evil intentions."
First I was say, define 'evil intentions'. But beside the point I will offer a couple things to ponder:
IMO
Vicarious redemption via human sacrifice = evil
The concept of eternal damnation/burning/'gnashing of teeth' for 2 ignorant fools eating a fruit thousands of years ago = evil
(this concept/punishment did not come into play until Jesus)
Quotes to follow-
itry2brational 2 years ago
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a mans enemies will be the members of his household." -Jesus in Matthew 10:34-36
IMO, that is evil.
His msgs of peace were completely unoriginal, he lied, was inconsistent, was rude and even violent at times.
The greatest divider among all humans is religion.
itry2brational 2 years ago
"IMO, that is evil." (in response to Matthew 10:34-36
You clearly don't understand the Bible. In this passage, Jesus is actually quoting Micah 7:6 of the Old Testament. The reason he does this is to show what reaction the disciples will receive from nonbelievers. The message the disciples will be preaching will be met with opposition which may be strong enough to break family ties. The disciples will have to live with those who oppose them."
You are a fool to believe this is relevant.
collins1188 2 years ago
"His msgs of peace were completely unoriginal"
Proof?
"He lied"
Evidence?
"was inconsistent"
Examples?
"was rude and even violent at times."
Your an idiot...
collins1188 2 years ago
"I can't think of a single society that believes this."
Argument from ignorance. Just because you don't know does not mean it is not so.
"is paraded by vertually ALL societies"
Argumentum ad populum. Just because a large group of people believe/think something does not make it true or right. Most societies also once believed slavery was acceptable, does that make it so?
"What does this have to do with Jesus?"
Everything. Repeating: the concept wasn't a part of the Bible UNTIL Jesus.
-cont
itry2brational 2 years ago 2
"Adam and Eve were punished for disobedience, not for eating fruit."
Do you know the story? The fruit was from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. They were ignorant of what/who was good and what was wrong/bad in the first place. God punished them, and hence all of humanity, for something they were utterly clueless about. In fact, God lied to them about it.
Are you defending punishment/torture/damnation of all humanity based on 2 fools' 'disobedience'? Sounds futile.
itry2brational 2 years ago
"You clearly don't understand the Bible."
Those two passages have almost nothing in common. Literally and certainly contextually.
The underlying point of the passage in Matthew, and you seem to understand this, is that Jesus has come to divide...even families. Religion as a cause for division is only proven by the teachings of Jesus himself.
How do you plan to deny the Bible when its clear those who wrote it knew it would be a cause for division?
itry2brational 2 years ago
"Proof?"
"Do to the doer to cause that he do" Egypt c. 2040-1650 BCE
"That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another" Egyptian papyrus c. 1080-332 BCE
Various Greek philosphers, all circa 500+ years before Christ.
"Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" Confucianism: Analects 15:23 c. 500+ BCE
itry2brational 2 years ago
"Evidence?"
"Examples?"
Matthew 7:7-8, Matthew 16:28, Matthew 24:33-34, Mark 9:1, Luke 21:32, Matthew 21:12, Matthew 21:17-19(cursed a fig tree to death, lol)
Again, there is so much more where these came from but so little space. If you had the need and motivation you could easily find them yourself.
"Your an idiot..."
LOL What a priceless example of irony. Let me try: Your bad at speling. I know its nit-picky, but its still funny.
itry2brational 2 years ago
The examples that you give for inconsistency and untruthfulness of the bible, are both truthful and consistent.
Please point out the inconsistencies and untruthfulness rather than simply throwing verses out and expecting your point to be taken.
"Let me try: Your bad at speling."
Ok, firstly, it was a grammatical error over YouTube. There were ZERO spelling errors. "your" is definitely a word which is spelled correctly.
Secondly, its YouTube so you can suck a nut. YOU'RE an idiot.
collins1188 2 years ago
"...are both truthful and consistent."
Says you.
"Please point out the inconsistencies and untruthfulness rather than simply throwing verses out and expecting your point to be taken."
Please take your own advice and explain why they are both truthful and 2. consistent as opposed to just saying they are and expecting YOUR point to be taken. Those verses fit the discussion surrounding Jesus in particular. The Bible in general is FULL of inconsistencies, half-truths and plagiarized myths.
itry2brational 2 years ago
"Jesus has come to divide...even families"
False, this was addressed to the 12 disciples, that THEY would be divided from THEIR families. This has NOTHING to do with YOU and ME or ANYONE alive today.
The TRUE fact of the matter is, division is brought about by NONBELIEVERS. For instance, I am divided from you (engaging in argumentative discussion) about religion. Who is guilty of this division? You? Me? or the argument itself? Arguments can't create divisions, only people can.
collins1188 2 years ago
"They were ignorant of what/who was good and what was wrong/bad in the first place."
False statement... They new that they aught not eat of the tree. It says it right in scripture. Their creator told them.
"Are you defending punishment/torture/damnation of all humanity"
Only those who have sinned against God... ups... looks like all of us. Fortunately, I am advocating the position that, if you ask for forgiveness of your sins, you will be forgiven.
Don't be foolish please.
collins1188 2 years ago
"False statement"
No, it was/is 100% correct. They had no understanding of the concept of good/evil, hence why they defied their God! Duh!
Understanding what one 'ought' to do implies understanding right from wrong, good from evil. These concepts were completely lost on them. They didn't know any better, so they ate the fruit.
And in any case, why should ALL HUMANITY suffer for their ignorance or disobedience? If they never did it we would all be living fat, naked and happy in Eden, right?
itry2brational 2 years ago
"Just because you don't know does not mean it is not so."
The point of the me saying I can't think of a society that believes your assertion to be true was to give you the opportunity to present me with a society that does. You FAILED to do so, thus YOU have been proven wrong.
"Just because a large group of people believe/think something does not make it true or right."
If you are an ethical relativist (which almost every atheist/non-religious person is, then it does make me right.
collins1188 2 years ago
"You FAILED to do so, thus YOU have been proven wrong."
Your point was a logical fallacy. I only need point out that what you said was logically fallacious, I need prove nothing.
"If you are an ethical relativist (which almost every atheist/non-religious person is, then it does make me right. "
'If' being the operative word. I am not a relativist, so your straw man will fail here and for the same reason your original one did. You make assumptions about 'all' or 'almost every' person.
itry2brational 2 years ago
"Vicarious redemption via human sacrifice = evil"
I can't think of a single society that believes this. In fact, self-sacrifice for that of others is paraded by vertually ALL societies as a symbol of heroism and is deemed righteous in all regards.
"The concept of eternal damnation/burning/'gnashing of teeth' for 2 ignorant fools eating a fruit thousands of years ago = evil"
What does this have to do with Jesus?...
Adam and Eve were punished for disobedience, not for eating fruit.
collins1188 2 years ago
"Adam and Eve were punished for disobedience, not for eating fruit."
It would be more accurate to say that ALL HUMANITY was punished for 2 fools 'disobedience'. I take it you find such 'justice' fair and equitable. If you do, then I pity you and I fear you have no moral compass or sense of fairness and decency. It would be a quick way to end this argument because why bother arguing with a person who has no understanding of those concepts?
itry2brational 2 years ago
So just because they didn't do what God said, it has led up to babies being born into starving disease ridden countries? How the fuck is that logical at all? God either doesn't exist, or is an evil ass hole. Which one is it kid? Think for once in your life and recognize the bullshit you preach.
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago
true, but it is religion that is the most divisive thing on earth. so often i've heard 'you're this faith or you're against us'. and that sentiment is expressed constantly in religion. religion therefore is too dangerous to be kept going for too many use it for evil
oddjob29 2 years ago
I detect some overtones of fascism in what you are saying. Outlawing religion is just as dangerous as propagating religious extremism. It is a slippery slope. If you outlaw one form of expression or thought it becomes easier and easier to outlaw additional forms. It is the actions or deeds which must be prevented and not the philosophies behind them. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" and I feel the same could be said for religion.
scaliwag5 2 years ago
no outlawing, it should die a natural death as it has in europe. education is key. i'm fine with spirituality, but for the established dogmas they must not be taken literaly
oddjob29 2 years ago
The gold standard is broken because it doesn't allow for an expanding economy. There is only so much gold on earth which means that there is a finite amount of money that could be created....
This means that our economy can't grow without more and more gold being obtained.
It doesn't work.
collins1188 2 years ago
Greetings.
You are exactly right about gold. Gold is nothing more than a currency play. It is amazing to me how Americans are so dumbed down about economics. I've viewed these zeitgeist vids and I don't see one ounce of truth in any of their conclusions. Zeitgeist is for the uneducated who are eager to follow.
marketwatch101 2 years ago
"you cant have money without debt"
False statement. Instead of watching zeitgeist, you should probably take a macro-economics class from which you will learn that the system for counting the money supply (M1) only counts money that is readily accessible to be used in free-markets. Money, such as that in a savings account, is NOT part of the money supply. When someone takes out a loan, money is NOT simply created, it is just transferred from unreadily available money to readily available.
collins1188 2 years ago
Let me demonstrate this concept to those of you who are a little slow:
I have $500 in my pocket. That counts for $500 in the money supply (M1). Money that is in the bank isn't counted in M1 so as far as M1 is concerned, it doesn't exist. If I take out a loan, for $1 million, then that money is transfered from the bank (doesn't exist) to my pocket (does exist) and thus the money supply just increased by $1 million. The money wasn't created, it was just moved.
collins1188 2 years ago
The belief that any particular group of people is more likely to create violence than any other particular group of people is a false assumption...
For all people are equally capable of evil... All ideology can be a means to evil ends. If we remove all religion, a new ideology will arise to fill the place of the old. It is our vices which create evil, not the ideology used to justify them.
collins1188 2 years ago
"It is our vices which create evil, not the ideology used to justify them."
Religion is a vice.
"If we remove all religion, a new ideology will arise to fill the place of the old."
In answer to this, I will use your own words:
"a false assumption..."
BTW, your statements provide no solution. Would you like to offer one?
"For all people are equally capable of evil..."
Prove it.
itry2brational 2 years ago
"Religion is a vice"
Take a philosophy class and stop being ignorant
"In answer to this, I will use your own words:"
Unless you can prove otherwise, you can't say its a false assumption....
"BTW, your statements provide no solution. Would you like to offer one?"
World peace can only be accomplished by world dominance... the elimination of freedom In short, the solution is there is no solution.
"Prove it"
The holocaust is a good example. Regular ordinary people conditioned to kill.
collins1188 2 years ago
"Take a philosophy class and stop being ignorant"
I have, and I am not.
"Unless you can prove otherwise, you can't say its a false assumption.."
For someone who is attempting to use logic and philosophy, you of all people should know that burden of proof is placed squarely on the one making the claim. You made the claim/assumption that if all religions were removed a new ideology would take its place. Prove it, its your claim. Good luck.
-cont
itry2brational 2 years ago
Again, keeping within your OWN logic/words:
"The belief that any particular group of people is more likely to create violence than any other particular group of people is a false assumption..."
"Unless you can prove otherwise, you can't say its a false assumption.."
Prove otherwise. So far, you have proved nothing with your holocaust example. Besides, your original statement was that "any particular group of people" and not limited to "regular ordinary people". Quite a task, good luck.
-cont
itry2brational 2 years ago
"World peace can only be accomplished by world dominance... the elimination of freedom In short, the solution is there is no solution."
Only? Prove it.
You contradict yourself. You say there is no solution, yet you offered one.
BTW, there are many groups of people who practice peace and would never harm anyone. Nazis were not 'regular ordinary people'.
Saying 'all people are equally capable of' anything is ridiculous.
To clarify, religions exploit our vices of greed, power and fear.
itry2brational 2 years ago
"You contradict yourself. You say there is no solution, yet you offered one."
Your right... but if you were even an bit thoughtful you would realise that the solution I offered leaves us all worse off than if we were to not implament the solution at all. MORON!
I figured you were smart enough to figure that out on your own... but perhaps being dominated and having your freedoms stripped from you is worth it in your opinion.
"Nazis were not 'regular ordinary people'."
yes they were.
collins1188 2 years ago
"Your right..."
That is all you needed to say. The rest of your statement is as pointless as your original. And nice ad hominem. Its a tactic used by those who have failed to make a cogent argument. Just like when you speculate about my opinions in order to build a straw man. Both are logically fallacious.
"yes they were."
This based on your opinion that "all people" are exactly alike in one respect or another. A ridiculous assertion.
itry2brational 2 years ago
"The rest of your statement is as pointless as your original."
It is only pointless to you because it shows how much of an idiot you are.
"nice ad hominem"
suck a dick.
"Just like when you speculate about my opinions"
I made an assumption to prove a point. It was not against you, but instead against those who believe in what I assumed you did.
In calculous, every single proof begins with "assume f(x) is differentiable and continuous." basically... Making assumptions is not bad.
collins1188 2 years ago
The true question you are considering instead of whether "Nazis were regular or not" is actually whether Germans are regular or not. The evil propagated by the Nazis was a reaction to the void left in Germany by WWI. The true question is whether the German reaction was unique to the Germanic people or if it would have occurred had the French, British, etc. been in the Germans' shoes. Keep in mind anti-Semitism wasn't exactly in short supply at this time in Europe.
scaliwag5 2 years ago
"So far, you have proved nothing with your holocaust example"
Elaborate... tell me why that isn't an observable example in our history proving my statements viable?
collins1188 2 years ago
"Elaborate... tell me why that isn't an observable example in our history proving my statements viable?"
Nice try. The point is that YOU need to support you claim. You haven't done that. Burden of proof, remember?
itry2brational 2 years ago
"Nice try. The point is that YOU need to support you claim. You haven't done that. Burden of proof, remember?"
You're a complete idiot. I supported my claim with a real life example. You then made a claim saying that my evidence was falsifiable. YOU NEED TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM! How can you be so ignorant?
collins1188 2 years ago
"I made an assumption to prove a point."
Yep, you were wrong and haven't a clue what you're talking about.
"Making assumptions is not bad."
But all of yours ARE, including your ASSumption that "all people are equally capable of evil".
"I supported my claim with a real life example."
No, you havent even come close. Your statement only proved that SOME ppl were capable of evil acts, not that ALL are EQUALLY capable.
Give up, you can't even come close to supporting such a claim. You fail.
itry2brational 2 years ago
"Give up, you can't even come close to supporting such a claim. You fail"
OK then, hotshot, by disagreeing with my claim that all people are equally capable of evil, you are also admitting that some people have an immunity to evil acts, or are incapable of doing evil things, thus, don't have free will.
explain that please.
collins1188 2 years ago
After reading through some of yalls' arguments I have to say I think you all waste a lot of energy insulting each other. Classical idealists wouldn't likely waste so much time doing this and if they did it would be done in a very crafty and eloquent manner. I also wanted to comment on the statement: "All people are equally capable of evil." I have to disagree not in a moral sense, but in the sense that deep, deep evil requires a sort of creativity which we are not all equally capable of.
scaliwag5 2 years ago
There's no such thing as true freedom. We all live by a set of rules and regs ect. But that apart I see where you're coming from, I just don't think my mortgage holds me back much, after all, I'd still need a roof over my head and I'd only be still shelling out monies for rental accommodation. In other words, I'd still have constraints upon my life. Mind you, they don't burden me.
mireah 2 years ago
But if backwards countries such as North Korea, various African states and the Islamic states did not need currency and outside help there would be no way of improving their govts and helping their people without regime change through violent means. Besides, by recognising that we owe others it promotes civility and respect, and as long as we owe others there'll be currency in some form. I think it better to have currency around than to have an increase in selfishness and war.
BobTKaye 2 years ago
Currency isn't all bad. It brings social mobility. While this is clearly noticed when people are going downwards it also allows people to better themselves as well. Without currency if you are born into a poor family doing a certain job you will do the same job and be just as poor and there's almost nothing you can do about it. Also, currency leads to international trade which acts as an extremely powerful global incentive towards peace and cooperation.
BobTKaye 2 years ago
In fact this cooperation is often used as a way of encouraging countries to take steps towards modernisation and better treatment and rights of the populace without resorting to war or ignoring the problem.
BobTKaye 2 years ago
Russia ,China and North Korea replace god with the all powerful state they see religion as a threat to that power.
misterwrightjos 2 years ago
You forget some people: Adolf Hitler: no christ, no muslim: Murdering 6 milliom Jews because they were jews, beginning a war, that caused 200 000 000 dead people. Stalin, an strong atheist, bringing 20 000 000 people into KZ`s because they were christians or had another opinion like he had.
And so on...
So called religious wars are mostly very bad, I agree with you.
Do you know, that the revelation of John tells us about the end of false religion?
First READ the bible and then argue.
mormontube 2 years ago
Hitler WAS a member of the roman catholic church.
KampfKeks04 2 years ago
So, that doesnt mean, that he was a christian.
Juengerchristi 2 years ago
Not necessarily, but it makes it very likely he was. It cannot be proven what he was, but all the background indicates that he was christian.
KampfKeks04 2 years ago
Jews were not the only people Hitler exterminated. He also killed Gypsies, defective people, mentally handicapped, Poles, Political advisaries, and others. AND One the Mormon Church would agree with killing - HOMOSEXUALS.
gjsterp 2 years ago
You dont say the truth: Mormons wouldnt agree at all with killing homosexuals.
They love all humans and help, where they can.
Juengerchristi 2 years ago
Actually, I have known many Mormons, and as people I don't think you could meet nicer ones.
Truly. But, their dogma is NOT forgiving, and while killing homosexuals is probably not on their list of things to do, shunning H's is like death to those removed from their church. Family members pretend that H's are dead for all praticial purposes..
The early Mormon church had a very clouded history.
I am sure it was all politically motivated.
gjsterp 2 years ago
I only wander, why it is better to destroy, than create, for us?...
Gebek593 2 years ago
Fantastic vid.
MHCABI 2 years ago
*as a joke* Amen. More Science, technology, and creativity.
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
Science creates models which have meaning and words have symbolism which means they have meaning.
People live and breath, but it is still in question if they have meaning.
When you solve that let me know as I care for solutions, but if you don't record it then realize doubt will enter my mind.
ABAisSCIENCE 2 years ago
Meaning is for words, purpose is for tools.
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
Us.
Them.
Fear.
This is how the elite accrue power, by creating fear.
Dare to think for yourself.
Question historical revision, whether by King James' henchmen, Islamic scholars, or whomever.
Do not be afraid to THINK.
ANewNormalcy 2 years ago 2
If there was no religion, but one man came to lead and slaughtered 900 million humans the atheists would say that the man created a religion around himself which would be convient to blame religion, but not change the fact of millions killed in typical human behavior.
ABAisSCIENCE 2 years ago
If somebody did manage to kill 900 million people you can bet that faith would be involved. Faith and the certain belief in absurdities. Whether you call that a religion is a matter of semantics. Faith and the certain belief in unquestionable certainties is what creates tyranny and atrocities.
Monotheism and faith will tend to generate intolerance and violence when they have the strength to do so. Nobody ever kills people in big numbers in the name of doubt, only in the name of certainty.
MartinJWillett 2 years ago
Atheist are safe behind words which are all symbolic and lord knows religion is symbolism too.
But upon studying the behavior of man no religion is necessary to condemn him. If you don't like self-knowledge then open the Bible and find the same to be true.
ABAisSCIENCE 2 years ago
I have opened the Bible and read it. Every single word. Front to back. It's a bunch of Hebrew mythology written by men of profound ignorance, men who would not understand what science was. The world of the Bible was literally smaller than the flight range of a 767, a universe light milliseconds across. These people were so ignorant their prophets didn't know where Rome was until after the Romans conquered them.
MartinJWillett 2 years ago 2
Good for you. I've read the KJV six times from front to back and know there is no information that contradicts with science.
The first five books of the Bible give more rights to women than all the other documents of the world summated prior to 1930 A.D. and ended in a society that talked about their women according to Proverbs 31 and those same women continued to condition other women until the Jewish woman led the Feminist movement in Europe and America.
ABAisSCIENCE 2 years ago
Reading it willing it to speak to you is not reading at all. If you read what's there you can see how the character of God changes enormously through the text and how the God-did-it theory evolves over time. You will notice how there is no hint of afterlife until Daniel and how the New Testament is about little else. All biblical figures make the Taliban look like progressive and open-minded scientists. They are primitive religious lunatics who revel in their ignorance and superstition.
MartinJWillett 2 years ago
Comment removed
csincali 2 years ago
Man seems to do wicked things regardless of which religion or even if there is a religion.
That is man's legacy and I doubt it will change any time soon.
ABAisSCIENCE 2 years ago
That is simply not true. It is another libel against my species by the religious.
How is it that slandering a person's family is seen as a reasonable excuse to punch them, slandering a person's nation is an excuse to invade them, slandering a person's race is a criminal matter but slandering my species is a fucking institution protected by national and international law employing hundreds of thousands of people on a full time basis?
Enough. Stop it. We don't have to take it any more.
MartinJWillett 2 years ago
I think that Hitler was slandered prior to America invading Germany or was it Hitler slandering Jews prior to invading them or was it Incas slandering the nearby village prior to invading them or was it Alexander the Great slandering the world prior to invading them or is it merely the behavior of man?
ABAisSCIENCE 2 years ago
Excellent video! Wonderful!
JEFFtheATHEIST 2 years ago
This video rocks. Question isn't what are answers as what must be done.
Man is faced with question of whether or not to fight against Islam spreading whether Europe is Christian or not.
Christianity fought with people like Vlad the Impaler leading them.
The Spanish Inquisition in the first 30 yrs ended centuries of Islamic rule in Spain.
Muslims slaughtered 4,000 Jews in Spain in one day in 1066 A.D. crucifying the jewish vizier of Granada, Spain.
What will atheists accomplish?
ABAisSCIENCE 2 years ago
For religious people: Atheism is not a religion or faith, you cannot hear one Atheist say something and believe all Atheists believe that. With Atheism we have FREE WILL, you can think for your life, not some big groups ideas, you dont have to worship a flying spaghetti monster. You can be good for goodness, human emotion, not because of a God. If you didnt worship God then you wouldnt say: Im allowed to kill people now so I will! would you. goodbye
G3org3Master 2 years ago
That is great that you say that but the majority I have spoken with condem people who do follow religion. Why? If an athiest is on the right path and is free to what ever then why the condemnation? organized religion is a control method created by man in my opinion. But because I think this does that mean I am no longer free to believe in god and the supernatural the way I want. I have not condemend anyone for being an athiest merely stated my beliefs and made some points!
csincali 2 years ago
How the hell is following Athiesm going to solve any more problems the following God? I do not attend church I don't think a hunam should be put on such a high pedestal! Is this shit for real? You think that if the entire world reads books based only on theories and not on fact and stops believing in god that will save the world? Personally who gives a fuck what you believe!Ihis idea is no better then origanized religion has been for the last millenium! Pass the control from one to the next!
csincali 2 years ago
We won't know until we try. Humans haven't given rational, logical thinking a serious chance yet. We still elect leaders who believe in god and religion.
Religion has had it's chance for thousands of years and it has failed. It has not done any good for us. Time to apple a new method. Rational thinking. Way out the pros and the cons. Not obeying dated texts from thousands of years ago.
But csincali, if you think religion and rational thinking are not the answers, then what is?
Bojaxs 2 years ago
Time to "apply" a new method.
Screw youtube not having an edit feature.
Bojaxs 2 years ago
Humans never give to rational and logical thinking! That is a part of being human! The only problem with voting for a leader who is religious is if that leader attempts to force that religion on the masses! Just because you understand the mechanics of how something works doesn't mean it is anything less than a miracle!
csincali 2 years ago
I think people need a belief in something more. If you can go outside on a clear night and stare at the sky and believe that humans are it and there is nothing more in this universe and that when we die we go no where you life has really got to suck! I am not a fanatical person I just think there is so much more to humans the universe then we know.
csincali 2 years ago
Someone who doesn't believe in an afterlife is living a sad life? Is that what your trying to say?
I beg to differ. This life in my only life and because of that I cherish it even more. I personally think that humans believe in an afterlife because we are self-aware. We know we're going to die one day and that scares people. So they beleive in an afterlife to help them cope with death.
I don't believe in god, spirits, an afterlife, a soul, fate, etc. and my life is fun and full filling.
Bojaxs 2 years ago
Of course there is more to the universe that we don't understand. Atheism never claims to know everything. Religion does.
Why do you assume atheists think there is nothing more to the universe and humans?
Some people have a tough time accepting atheism because it means accpeting death and the end of life, but at the same time they know they don't want to be part of an organized religion because of the bad rep it has. So they try to find a middle ground. Is that what your trying to do?
Bojaxs 2 years ago
Your life sounds lame and hopeless! There is a god beyond your silly human comprehension! Spirits the pictures of them are proof enough. An afterlife is very real as is fate. What a horrible existence you have!
csincali 2 years ago
Believe what you like, but making a rash (and almost certainly untrue) judgment about another's existence is as ridiculous as the "proof" you provide for your beliefs. I don't believe in a god or an afterlife and my existence is far from horrible, thank you very much!
kingoskatat 2 years ago
Is that not what you are doing with my fate by attempting to force your belief of nothing on to me?
csincali 2 years ago
Your option is salvation or condemnation according to Romans 6:23 so Psalms 49:20 would suggest the condemnation is treatment equal to the treatment of animals.
Or you could choose John 10:10b.
Or you could choose ignoring the Bible.
ABAisSCIENCE 2 years ago
I do ignore the bible for the most part. It was written by men who hated women. Perhaps there may be some truth in it but do I follow it as a book of law no. I do believe in god or a higher power I dont think the universie or any life form just showed up from nothing. Nothing comes from nothing. Knowing how the machine works is good but why the machine is needed and what is working for is the real question.
csincali 2 years ago 2