Matt's points still hold. There is not contemporary extra-biblical evidence of events of Jesus's life. This is significant in that it makes Jesus insignificant in his own lifetime.
After Jesus (probably) died on the cross, there is all manner of writing regarding him and his followers, but before that event nothing, even though he demonstrated such mind-boggling power by performing his miracles, that people "knew" he was God.
This kid hits WAY above the weight class of a 15 year old, but it'll take god himself to beat Matt & Co - and even that would probably go to the judges...
"For something as common as a crucifixion, we don't need contemporary evidence..." agree completely... but for something as UNcommon as the crucifixion of a man who claimed to be the son of a god, could perform miracles and rose from the dead two-or-three days after being so crucified, I think we're entitled to ask for it.
@PUREmed1a The kid calling got destroyed. He offered no real claims worth even debating lol.
Also, there hasn't been one credible shred of evidence for the possibility of even a weak god (One that just created the universe) Further more, there has been even less for proof of one that watches humans and judges them, performs miracles, etc etc. Then even if ALL that got proven one day, they'd still need to prove "Christianity" over the other 100000 gods. Good luck with that nonsense lol.
@DoctorSargeMD That's not accurate at all. Matt said there is no contemporary evidence for paranormal happenings related to a man who may have existed- jesus. The caller implies that you don't need contemporary evidence to make claims of widespread miracles true, and that there's no difference between contemporary/noncontemporary in terms of truth value... this is clearly false- you cannot cite religious texts for your only evidence.
@DoctorSargeMD The caller then asked matt to "cite a historian" over the fact that you cannot just use religious text as evidence for the existence of amazing paranormal happenings- and to cite a historian to justify the truth that contemporary evidence is needed to back up those massive paranormal happenings we see in the bible... really?
@DoctorSargeMD You misunderstood his point. He's saying he doesn't have to cite a historian to demonstrate the difference between contemporary evidence and non-contemporary evidence.
Seriously, this unusually talented boy was not "owned" in any way, whatsoever. Actually I think this video illustrates how many less-gifted people who actually call into this show, and it makes me skeptical about how bright Dillahunty really is. Maybe he just had a bad day, I don't know. Whether or not Tacitus is authentic or not remains another issue; what these guys debated and how well both the sides of arguments were, was not in any way dominated by the couch where Dillahunty was...
@matrixlone Thats because if you try to defend somthing as absurd as the existence of god or gods you will sound like an ignorant idiot by default... Kind of the point of the show is to destroy ignorant idiots.
And if you try to deny that we exist in a universe with set,predetermined constants if any of which were not exactly what they are,we would not be here having this conversation.You explain life as just some byproduct of random chance in a universe that just happens to be perfect for it's existence.It is the equivalent of a near infinite series of slot machines hitting all cherry's at the same time. Now that is absurd. The simplest conclusion is usually the correct conclusion.
@RCTPatriot75 If the constants weren't what they are, what makes you think that the physics equations that they apply to would still be the same? We have only one frame of reference, this universe. The probability that the universe is the way it is, is 1. Why? Because there is only one that we know of and we don't actually know if it could be any different. We can hypothesise all we like but it means nothing without evidence. The god hypothesis merely adds complexity.
Wow. Just being a neutral observer here and.....Aaronk was not pwned at all. You two were made complete fools of. I mean did you even watch your on video?
@theelusiveone Who are you talking to? This isn't those two's channel, someone posted this clip of the show up and edited in text of his -OWN OPINION-. Do not stick it on the hosts. Aaron did not provide evidence and the hosts respectfully called him on this, point me to the time where the two people were made "fools" of and explain how please?
@saintsons12 i have a bunch of books written by different authors that say leprechauns exist. none contradict each other, they all describe leprechauns as short men with beards and green top hats. It's obvious leprechauns exist by your standard. saying they support themselves is called circular logic, which is a fail of face palm proportions. As far as biblical contradictions goes, infidels dot org has a very long list of them, and common excuses for them.
don't see why Christians keep patting each other on the back for this. Matt simply stood his ground. Aaron didn't really say anything to rattle him or his position. I would, however, be interested to hear that kid call the show with more time allotted.
Oh jeez, who cares what the texts say. Walking on water is impossible, bringing the dead back to life is impossible, miraculous healing is a sham hence it DIDN'T happen.
@June28July its reasonable. erm. what the thing that shocks you does. when someone suffers a heart attack. The Son of God is more than capable of doing that. the proof that he exists. well is all in the history. and i really dont feel like debating that. not because i cant prove you wrong. its just. not what God wants us to do. until someone is ready to recieve him i dont go to them.
Typical....Athiests taking the sides of Athiests and Christians taking the sides of Christians. We all need to see the arguements of both sides and access them accordingly. I myself am a Christian, always have been. Although some Athiests arguements are good, there is undoubtably scriptural and non-scriptural evidence counteracting these arguements. Feel free to come back with anything you have.
"Although some Athiests arguements are good, there is undoubtably scriptural and non-scriptural evidence counteracting these arguements. Feel free to come back with anything you have."
- how exactly is anyone meant to reply to your comment, it's unfalsifiable as you dont make any specific claims.
@types10000 Sorry, it's late at night and i'm tired. But anyways, i'll start with the mosst basic question that you probably get asked 10,000,000 times a day, but, How did the Big Bang happen?
- the scientific evidence indicates that at the first instance of existance there was singularity composed of all the energy we have in our universe now and space-time itself.
- from the first instance this singularity began expanding (no it doesnt need something make it expand anymore than a star needs something to make it expend energy), it's simply what it does.
- the big bang is the scientific theory that explains/models this expansion.
@types10000 Yes and that aparently caused it to cool resulting in the diluded state of our universe today.
There are 3 words in "Big Bang Theory", right. The last one, "Theory" is defined as a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Therefore this is only an idea and can not be tested nor seen.
Do you have the scientific evidence that The Big Bang actually happened?
"There are 3 words in Big Bang Theory, right. The last one, Theory is defined as a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural"
- incorrect. the big bang is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY which is defined as a thoroughly tested and well evidenced principle that explains a set of facts. it is the HIGHEST level of scientific truth.
you have mistakenly confused it with the colloquial definition of theory which is a akin to hypothesis.
"Scientific Theory is defined on Dictionary. c o m as a theory that explains scientific observations...It says nothing about being thoroughly tested or fact"
- dictionaries provide coloquial definitoins, if you want a real definition you'll need to consult an encyclopedia.
- also for you to make that claim you'd need to have no understanding of how the scientific method works.
@types10000 Yeah sure, it may be informal, but it is still the exact same thing.
Encyclopedia Def. - A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts.
Dictionary Def. - A theory that explains scientific observations
@types10000 Lord almighty! WHAT IS THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE OF THE BIG BANG!?!?!? I want the actual evidence not just " the overwhelming evidence for the big bang is what led to it becoming recognized as a scientific theory in the first place!"
"Lord almighty! WHAT IS THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE OF THE BIG BANG!?"
- All the evidence is readily available to you through the peer reviewed literature. i suggest you get a book :)
that being said:
- Abundances of light elements
-Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
- Evolution of galaxies
- Hubble diagram
.etc .etc
Each of these is a confirmed, testable prediction of what we would expect had the big bang occurred and TP's are one of the best forms of evidences in science
@types10000 Well, since my family is a Christian one, we obviously don't have a Big Bang Theory book just lying around. I'm way too lazy to look something up on the internet much less read it.
"Each of these is a confirmed, testable prediction of what we would expect had the big bang occurred and TP's are one of the best forms of evidences in science"
What does Abundance of light elemants have anything to do with a giant expansion of mass?
"Well, since my family is a Christian one, we obviously don't have a Big Bang Theory book just lying around"
- it's something you should have covered in grade 9 science. Also your talking about something that's endorsed by the center of the largest christian denomination in the world ie. the catholic church.
@types10000 I'm just going in to 9th grade. Oh, and we aren't catholic and we don't like catholicism. We disagree with the fact that Mary was much more important than Jesus. We also don't really care about the Catholic Church either. :P
"What does Abundance of light elemants have anything to do with a giant expansion of mass?"
a). the rapid expansion of space-time was not an explosion
b).
OVERSIMPLIFIED:
-Part of the big bang theory constitutes that the universe was initially very hot and that this heat then rapidly dissipated; rapidly dropping heat means less time for heavy nuclei to form and thus lots of light elements.
@potatoblivion I'm also a Christian, and I somewhat agree. It's too often that Christians and Atheists take sides of their own just because they have other Christians or Atheists to back them up. I prefer to read the arguments on both sides, and do some thorough (and unbiased) research on each one before determining which argument is true and which argument is BS.
arguing over which religion is real is completely stupid.. people shouldn't have the rights to talk about one another religion.. just simply believe what YOU believe. and whatever happens when you die happens.. rather you go to hell, heaven or maybe nothing at all happens. none of us know you cant just sit here and try to prove whats real and whats not. Cause its all a matter of opinion. negotiating about it on Youtube is completely Pointless..
@dwtnigg PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO TALK ABOUT ANYTHING!
Atheists have NO religion and don't believe in gods. They don't argue about which religion is real. According to the faithful, (people who believe things without EVIDENCE.) THEIRS is the ONLY true & correct vision of godsness. Atheists hold that ALL religions are WRONG; NONE are correct, there are NO GODS. and while the religions themselves are REAL, they don't inform us about any reality.
@dwtnigg "people shouldn't have the rights to talk about one another religion"
Fucking what? Why are you in the US, where the First Amendment explicitly grants the right to criticize ANY religion to ALL citizens? You should be seeking out a fascist/totalitarian hivemind instead, where criticism and expression are made illegal. Goddamn, do you ever scare me.
@yermomsboxx haha okay. you know why people shouldn't have the rights? cause its fucking aggravating here'n a million people argue over what religion is real. its fucking stupid. you wasted your time writing all that bullshit.
@dwtnigg So your argument is, because you personally find religious discussions "aggravating," people within the United States should not have the right to discuss and criticize a topic that greatly affects its social, political, and ideological landscape?
I'm sorry for what I said before, I stand corrected: your logic is flawless.
"people shouldn't have the rights to talk about one another religion"
- why should a persons religion be anymore 'offlimits' than their taste in music?
- debate is how stupidity is outed for what it is and history has shown that rational discourse is to religion like garlic is to vampires
"negotiating about it on Youtube is completely Pointles" - the internet is without a doubt the largest source of information in all of human history, if you were a fence-sitter where would you go?
Earlier in the show, the woman was making assertion after assertion that Aaron very rightly points out. Matt says NOTHING to her at the time by way of correcting her. Aaron comes in, points out her BS and they basically have to re-do their whole argument that they made at the beginning of the show. That is a rebuttal. Matt just didn't know what to say. He counldn't justify the erroneous standpoint they had at the beginning.
wow those atheist guys clearly need to do some more research... contemporary evidence my butt... do they believe Caesar existed? everything we know about him was recorded some 700 years after his murder.... thats real contemporary... how about Alexander the Great... smiler story to Caesar... but Christ? most of the stuff on him was written withing 10- lets say 50 years after his death.... and that evidence is not contemporary? wierd.....
You couldn't be more wrong; Plutarch wrote about Caesar 75 years after his death from the perspective of a historian, but that's just the earliest account of him in "history". As for Caesar's actual life, there is a plethora of evidence in writings from people AT THE TIME of his life, not to mention tons of writings written by CAESAR HIMSELF concerning the invasion of Gaul. Contemporary means DURING the life of the person, we have tons of that for Caesar. None for Jesus.
You aren't doing any better for yourself here; the man who lead the Macedonian Army to conquer territory spanning from Greece to the Ganges River in India obviously left similar "mountains" of evidence in support of his existence and exploits, perhaps to an even greater extent than Caesar (it can easily be argued as such). For example... you get ancient cities named "Alexandria" created along the exact route of Alexander's conquest, cities he founded himself.
ok so you have proven to me that it is clear that Caesar and Alexandr lived becasue of evidance of their time, now I ask you this... what evidence is there that Jesus did not exist?
And so you have engaged in the fallacy involving burden of proof. Those who believe Jesus not only existed, but actually performed miracles as stated in the Bible have the burden of proof to demonstrate this to be the case. Its not up to me to disprove it. It doesn't matter at all if a person named Jesus DID exist which inspired the fantasy of the Gospels; what matters to the religion is if the supernatural claims are true. For that, no sufficient evidence has been given.
@ShwaNerd no proof other than of course the gospels of which one... Luke i believe was written by a historian. who so happened be a Christian and therefore took the time to write it down.... i also have to point out that there are four separate texts (The Gospels) that all report incredibly similar accounts of Jesus doing supernatural things.
Incredibly similar accounts by biased authors who obviously stood to gain for a variety of factors (besides theological grounds) for corroborating their story. Since its part of the singular canon (Bible) you can't use one to "prove another" proving the Bible with other parts of the Bible is still circular reasoning even if you use separate books, which often show that they were purposely "fudged with" to make sure they fit in with other texts later.
Also, the standards of evidence for extraordinary supernatural claims are obviously much greater than mundane occurrences in the case of say Caesar or Alexander. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a good quote for this situation, and the biblical account is woefully lacking in that respect; literature and hearsay evidence alone is an incredibly poor reason to accept such claims which conflict so harshly with reality.
@ShwaNerd ok dude firstly how is death by crucifiction (most painful execution yet to be though up) a gain???? idk but i dont see that as my chosen way to die... second the Bible is a historical text that has been around for what almost 2000 years now... Christians just believe that it was inspire by God. and thirdly the books of the Bible, ask any scholar have completely different writing styles hence they were written by different people.
@ShwaNerd also you need to do a bit of a better study on the Bible if you think that they were "fudged with" if anything you are incredibly bias and unwilling to admit even in the slightest that some of what i say may be by the grace of God correct? atheists are bias people who keep such a closed mind... Agnostics at least keep an open mind... you just present facts and then plug your ears when a Christian tries to talk or you make up an excuse as to why something isnt credible.
Don't tell me what I have or haven't done in this regard; I read the whole bible several times over, while i was still a very devout christian for the express purpose of strengthening my religious belief. Despite this goal, all evidence has pointed to the contrary of any and all supernatural claims made in the text; as for historical accuracy, the Bible also leaves much to be desired, as its rife with errors or outright fabrications.
Also, you seem to not know enough about Agnosticism. I'm an Agnostic Atheist, so I am coming from a position of intellectual honesty and open-mindedness. Should reasonable justification or sufficient evidence be provided to "prove Christianity" I will be absolutely bound to accept it. That, however, has yet to be provided, from apologists, the Bible, or any other similar source.
Reason and evidence is the only accurate way about determining the Truth; if you provide a reason for believing in Christianity that is flawed, or insufficient, I will naturally have to give you the reasons WHY it doesn't measure up (which I have been doing thus far). It seems here that only one of us has an open mind towards demonstrable facts and evidence, and I'm not looking in your direction pal.
Did this video seriously say that arronk1994 would totally pwn Matt? Aaron completely failed to even understand what claim was being made, nonetheless address it..... I don't see hoe you can pwn someone by misrepresenting their claims....
@weirddudeonice Yeah, I was watching this video while working on some other things, so I missed some of the other comments, and it is very clear that it is not serious when it says it. :)
"Red herring, this is not the same way Jesus/god are portrayed in the bible and you know it"
Jesus and god are 2 different entities with 2 different names, father and son, son sent to the earth by the father, that's the truth. Am saying nothing more on that issue. Since you dont have common sense to know that a father and son cant be one being, continue living in your foolishness and ignorance. Even a 6 years old would know that a father and son are 2 different beings.
"Says the one that thinks common sense isnt looking up definitions in a dictionary"
Well, it depends on what you are looking up in the dictionary. A sane minded individual with common sense would say "Well, faith is a spiritual thing and is only mentioned in the bible, then maybe the bible would be the best place to find a definition of what faith is, it would be stupid to look up spiritual things in a non spiritual source", but you dont have d common sense to think that way.
"Well, faith is a spiritual thing and is only mentioned in the bible"
LOL WOW JUST WOW!!!
"because looking up spiritual things from a non spiritual source"
You need to prove spirits exist before saying there's a spiritual source. Can you prove it? You keep dodging this, i'm going to press this until you answer a clear yes or no.
"Listen, am talking of supernatural knowledge here"
There is no such thing as supernatural knowledge, what is verifiably known about it?
'because looking up definitions for words in a dictionary is dumb, right?"
No, because looking up spiritual things from a non spiritual source is the dumbest think to do ever. Its highly probable that those who put the dictionary together had no idea what faith is, they defined it from a physical perspective rather from a spiritual perspective. Sorry sir, but you dont look up spiritual things in the "dictionary", get that into your head!
That kiddo doesn't make sense. The fact that there are Christians mentioned in extra-biblical sources doesn't prove that Jesus itself is verified by extra-biblical sources.
Um I hear Aaron correcting Mr. Atheist on a couple points not the other way around. Sounds like a 14 year old is standing very tall to veteran Atheists. I
Atheist, I am just warming up. FAGS!!! lol... no one seems to answer my question.. its either all assumption or making jokes... wow.. ATHEIST made the meaning of assumption to the next level......
ok first of all I believe in god I don't take a bible and preach and I don't care if your a atheist or a Jew or a Muslim we should be living in peace. second You atheist are acting like a bunch of Christians except a bible your breaching its science and logic point is stop breaching this shit to people it makes you look stupid. How about you just call your self a religion and hand out books and a meeting on Sundays because thats what your acting like a religion. We need to all get along people.
Okay im at work now but I will answer all your question you hypocrite. You told me to not to accuse you a liar but then u call me a liar.. Anyways ill msg back.
You guys are all retarded, why would you want to prove something to someone who will deny any fact you throw in his face? This is pointless. Those who don't want to believe it- those will never believe, no matter what they see.
You can present your facts to open-minded people but not to closed-minded as those two "Atheist Experience" suckers are - they don't want to find out the truth, they just want to oppose you.
Up until now none of you non believer can answer my question. Just answer my question. How do you explain my comment from awhile back. You know TRIPAYANE you havent answer my question.
@gianboy2001 I can't disprove god in the most generic sense, but I can disprove the biblical god quite easily.
One of Jesus' main purposes was to share with us the knowledge of heaven and the afterlife, etc. Yet, science has continually proven there is no such thing as a soul. Worse, there is not even the possibility of having some sort of conscious experience AFTER you're dead. Consciousness requires cells, but cells die. In short, jesus is a proven liar; so the bible is 100% unreliable.
@YourBrainOnReligion you interp[ret the bible wrong. I dont know what you are saying about the afterlife..
Jesus didnt say that you'll keep your own body when you go to heaven. And jesus wanted us to be save on judgment day so he taught us how to live a life here on earth. He also predicted about the non believers and anti christ and that they will go to Hell for eternity. I am not judging you but it is written in the Bibble. You want to know if God exist, look at all the prophecy in the bible.
@gianboy You're missing the point. Your body would HAVE to go to heaven otherwise you cannot experience anything. Your senses provide your consciousness with every detail about your current situation, and obviously, in order for your senses to work, you'd need your body. How are you going to see without eyes, for example?
There is NOT legitimate prophecy in the bible. Your requirements for evidence are appallingly low and is the very reason you believe such tripe nonsense.
@YourBrainOnReligion It you guys who are stubborn and only hear what you want to hear. If you read the book of revelation and thinks that all the those prophecy are just coincidence then clearly you guys are just blind minded and will never know if God existed until you open your heart...
@gianboy2001 "you guys who are stubborn and only hear what you want to hear" That is called psychological projection. How dare you tell people who have taken the time to research these things and came to the conclusion that is AGAINST the "social norm" and then accuse us of "only hearing what we want to hear". You're a god damn moron. People don't become atheists because it's "COOL" —intelligence ITSELF isn't even BARELY valued in our society. How can you be so dumb?
@YourBrainOnReligion you are the moron and stupid piece of shit. Im until now the intellegent human being you are talking about still not able to prove the evolution. Up until now it remains a theory dip shit. If you can't feel the love of God then you can't jump into conclusion that God doesnt exist. If you were very ill and sick and you can feel it then you go to a Doctor but could not find anything and sent you home and told you that you're not sick. Thats excatly how we believer feel.
@gianboy2001 We can evolution after you acknowledge that there is no scientifically valid evidence supporting a soul or the concept of an afterlife. Trying to shift the subject without acknowledging error is what is called a red herring fallacy. But most importantly, this is also a clear case of cognitive dissonance on your part. You force yourself to stay stupid because you refuse to be honest with yourself, and correct your thinking—even in the face of flat out facts to the contrary. Why?
@YourBrainOnReligion my goodness, you are the one who is stupid and flat our retarded. The way you think is just out of this world. If I can't scientifically prove it that doesnt mean Its not there. If you go back in time and tell everyone that in 2000 years there will be a helicopter ppl will just stone you to death. Can you see how low you are? Stupid...
@gianboy2 Easy: In order for you to both accept you heard the same thing, one of you had to first verbalize what you "heard". This is an opportunity for the other person to either purposely exaggerate or lie (in agreement) or your words guided him to (innocently) remembering incorrectly.
How about this possible explanation: there really was a voice and it was someone outside of your house.... (wow, what a thought!)
Point is, other explanations exist and nothing about that confirms "IT'S GOD!"
@YourBrainOnReligion Really you would go that far just to prove that I am wrong. And yes you are right my brother lied to me and yes we didnt hear it the same time and it was out not in the MIDST of us. Just like what you said. You guys think that all believers are liars so there is no point. The fact is you made you assumption.
Hey but ask yourself. What if my BROTHER was not lying to me and a sound of a whisper cannot be coming from outside.
@gianboy2001 Uh I didn't try to prove you wrong, I offered you alternative and plausible natural explanations that show you that is doesn't HAVE to be "god". I can actually prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that every believer is a pathological liar. You see, it's a fundamental requirement of all religions: to assert what you could never know for certain as absolute fact. And that's exactly what you're doing right here. So don't accuse us of lying here, bud. Again you're projecting.
@gianboy2001 I concluded you are a pathological liar after explaining my justification. You never called me a liar so I don't know what you're talking about on that point.
No, science does not know everything—NOR DOES IT NEED TO. That's like claiming every architect needs to be educated in quantum physics before they're qualified to build a safe building. That's absurdly retarded non-logic.
All we need to know is our senses feed our brain and that senses run on electricity. The end!
@gianboy2001 A sound of a whisper most certainly can be heard when it originated outside. Did it ever occur to you maybe it was your neightbor who had their stereo turned up real loud on a song that had a guy whispering? Oh boy what a thought!!! And no, this is not making an assumption - you are dumb as a bag of hammers. This is called OFFERING ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS. The power of suggestion is strong and it's likely you both heard SOMETHING and then agreed out of confusion. So what??
@YourBrainOnReligion like you said on your first sentence(A sound of a whisper most certainly can be heard when it originated outside). MOST.... anyways are you just making this up and pulling it out from your ass or what because it sounds like you know everything... You dont have the whole story don't assume. This is how close minded you are. You are trying your best to be a dumbass. Has it ever accur to you that maybe im not done telling the whole story?
@gianboy2001 I'm going on the information you gave me. I don't need to know what you guys thought you heard, where your house is located, etc etc etc. I am merely explaining to you that alternative explanations exist so to conclude that "IT MUST HAVE BEEN GOD" is an asinine and imbecilic conclusion. Can I possibly break it down any more simply for you???? Don't get offended and defensive because I'm pointing out your errors, LEARN! Register these points and adjust your thinking accordingly!
@YourBrainOnReligion Don't offer an alternative explanation because you weren't there you dumbass piece of shit. You assume to much. You are assuming that the voice I heard was from God himselft. You would not find a single sentence that me saying that the souond I heard was from God. There you go I just proved your stupid has that you are assuming. That would not go that far if all you can do is assume. Its irritating to argue with someone who assume...
@YourBrainOnReligion Did it every come to your sence that if the neighbor had their stereo on it would sound continuously not one at a time. It called my name 5 or 6 times. The first call was not very clear and it travel from left to right infront of my face with a sound of a wind(not very clear). The second one sounded something. The third time I heard my name again all travelling infront of me(my brother was facing his computer and the sound was in the middle)
@YourBrainOnReligion The fourth time I ask my brother to listen and stop using the computer(so no sound coming from the computer) He ignored me but before he said something we then both heard it with a clear voice of a woman of a husky voice(no one in our family has that voice or can't be a neighbor because my neighbor doesn't know me). He then got really scared and their who ever it was to say it again. Then we heard it again and the voice travel in the midst of us with a cleared voice...
@YourBrainOnReligion So now be an open mind and try to explain that. If there is no fact but me just saying it will that be void and you will assume that it doesnt not exist that me and my brother just happend to hear the same voice at the same time and we are delusional and pathological liars?
@YourBrainOnReligion If you really are that smart then you should know that noone from outside will whisper just to call someone from outside right...
And I wasn't saying that it was a God. All i am saying is atheist don't believe in Ghost, Devil or something that is not scientifically proven right.
If you ask me, I dont really care if you go to hell but I know clearly where you are going afterlife. I am not losing anything just to let you know. Just dont brainwash anyone with your stupidity
@gianboy2001 Lastly, don't you fucking DARE insult MY intelligence after you verbally vomit something so fucking ABSURDLY stupid. "Just because we can't prove it doesn't exist doesn't mean it doesn't - that's like going back in time and saying we'll have helicopters in the future!"
How the hell that even made the most REMOTE sense in your head, I'll never understand. I guess it's easier to dismiss your opp than recognize when you're in the presence of someone far more educated than yourself.
@YourBrainOnReligion Don't give up and think that I am stupid because I am proving you wrong every second. I guess nobody stood up infront of you pathetic low life and spend time to actually prove you wrong. Now you are mad and doesnt have all the answer instead you insult me and try to dismiss the conversation. How pathetic. This is exactly what you are doing, You are basing everything with Science Knowledge now answer me this. DOES SCIENCE OF TODAY KNOW EVERYTHING? If not then don't come and .
@gianboy2001 Why do you think I'd be mad? I'm flabbergasted you don't get something this simple. I already did answer you, apparently your reading comprehension isn't so hot.
To repeat: No, science does not know everything—NOR DOES IT NEED TO. That's like claiming every architect needs to be educated in quantum physics before they're qualified to build a safe building. That's absurdly retarded non-logic.
SCIENCE believe the If its not a fact it doesnt not exist.
Therefore EVOLUTION is void because up until now it is not proven because of the missing link.
PS.
Maybe you are the missing link.....I'm just OFFERING ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS why the evolution is still a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. You should step up and be tested.
@gianboy2001 How old are you? I'm starting to wonder if I'm talking to a 13 year old? You're not making a lick of sense either. I'm starting to think TRIP is right - you need to see a doctor. Look at what you write. Those are not statements of someone healthy or happy.
Evolution is a scientifically proven fact and every single fossil IS a transitional fossil. You're just uneducated, and apparently, happily so.
@YourBrainOnReligion You are calling me stupid but my english is very simple. Your backbone is Science, am I right? Come on man just answer me dont run away and pretend that you think I'm stupid.. Your foundation is science since science can provide facts right?
You are trying to avoid because you know where this is all going to end up. Stupid Atheist who contradicts themselves... APE!
@gianboy2001 The world's backbone is science. Where exactly do you think your computer came from, for example??? You think this is a product of worship??????
But, yes, the sole goal of science is to determine how the world works and, if possible, its origins. I'm not trying to avoid anything. Make your point already...??
@YourBrainOnReligion How then can you say that God doesn't exist if Science can't even fully understand Humans..
Up until now you can't explain to me about the voices I heard. Just to let you know I am not lying about it and most certainly not my neighbor or anything that you can SEE!
Can you explain it or not? simple question. I just need your intelligent answer on it not alternative explanations.
OR maybe me and my brother just happend to be delusional at that moment?
@gianboy2001 Because humans have nothing to do with humans. The bible assigns demonstrably testable things to God, such as healing, the power of prayer, etc.
How is it my duty to explain your experience? You heard a voice, there are a dozen different reasons why - everything from an audible hallucination to natural explanations like it coming from outside or through a television. Do you honestly think you're the first person who has "heard a voice" ? (And this proves god how????)
@YourBrainOnReligion Blah... huge error, hah. I wrote: "Because humans have nothing to do with humans." but I meant "Because GOD has nothing to do with humans."
@YourBrainOnReligion Are you just going to discredit all the the Historians accurate bible location findings and fulfilled prophecies? I can't make my point until you answer questions.
BTW, Evolution is still a theory, there is no solid evidence and even up until now Theories tend to contradict or compete with each other.
@gianboy2001 Biblical locations mean absolutely nothing. The majority of fictional stories of the earlier times were based IN actual cities. That's akin to saying "Because Mississippi is a real place, Huckleberry Finn was obviously a real boy." That's absurd, imbecilic non-logic. Regarding the prophecies, this is also another case of just plain and simple stupidity. What is compelling about a book claiming it's made predictions—and in that very same book —claim they were fulfilled...? DUH?
@YourBrainOnReligion Wow, you really call yourself an open minded person. Clearly you are just as bad as your asshole. Only opens up when you have to take a shit. Be open minded you retard. Are you going to discredit SODOM & GOMORRAH? or you are just going to jump into an assumption like you always do that it is a hoax? My goodness you are that low. You are smart but you being close minded just destroys that..
@gianboy2001 "Are you going to discredit SODOM & GOMORRAH?" Uh, yes, you idiot. Sodom and Gomorrah are not historically verified to have ever had a mass murder of any kind like the bible claims. You are seriously fucking stupid, stop replying to me because you've made it MORE THAN CLEAR that you're not here to learn - you're here to proselytize. Fuck off you brainwashed child.
@YourBrainOnReligion You can't answer(voices) my question because science can't explain such thing so you will just step aside and try to branch out our debate and call me close minded.. hahaha wow! After all science is your foundation without it you are a retard who doesnt believe on anything without facts... THATS EXACTLY MY POINT... You only believe what science have accomplished.
@TripAyane Again you proved my point. You retards only believe on facts and evidence. 300 years back you wouldn't believe in evolution... Again, can't you take away science for a moment and explain to me what might have happend that night(when I heard the voice not just me but my brother also.)?
Don't say anything else if you are not going to answer this.
@gianboy2001 "You retards only believe on facts and evidence." What the hell is retarded about that?
"300 years back you wouldn't believe in evolution" NO SHIT, cuz the evidence wasn't there!! Your POINT? That is called being HONEST (a concept you're oblivious to as pointed out earlier!)
I already fucking did you babbling moron. I explained to you at least three different times now what possible alternative explanations exist. Your parents TRULY need to get you a psychological evaluation.
@gianboy2001 holy fuck...."You retards only believe on facts and evidence". Again I will ask you, in what scenario would it be a benefit to believe in something without facts or evidence? I dont even know why im replying to your comment. I could come up with probably a hundred different answers then..IT WAS GAWD. But for now Im either gonna call you a fat fucking liar or you and your brother had a gay midget hiding in your closet and he wanted to get out to play. Am i close?
@TripAyane Wow, a very smart answer.. Sure you will win a debate with that kind of logic... retarded dumb ass...
Let me ask you this, If it has no facts or evidence then the subject is useless? do you believe in the ghost or the devil then? I know an athiest who believe in ghost. Again that alone contradicts the whole no facts no evidence then it doesn't exist. What is it really? You can believe to whatever you chose to believe in? Now answer me then, what is it really? Bias?
@gianboy2001 Yes and evolution will ALWAYS be a theory. What, do you think that it's supposed to be a law like every other fundamentalist retard? A "scientific theory" is the highest accolade an idea gets. "Laws" are reserved for mathematics only. I.E.: the Law of Gravity provides the EQUATIONS required to make calculations involving gravity, whereas the Theory of Gravity explains HOW/WHY gravity works.
You should REALLY, TRULY stop talking about things you clearly know fuck all about.
@YourBrainOnReligion Lets not go there and assume that I wanted it to be called LAW. I was referring to the Evolution how up until now is still has a flaw.
Now this it about the 5 time im gonna ask you this. Explain the voices I heard you freak!
@gianboy2001 Also, Science is always changing and we will always be gaining new information and facts. Thats a good thing!! Its not like one day all the scientists are going to find the last and final answer then hang up their lab coats and go sit on their ass for the rest of their lives. If science DIDNT change we would still believe the earth was flat, that we were the center of everything, the sun and planets revolved around us, exc.....
@gianboy2001 Science is wrong, ALOT. There is nothing wrong with that. That is what science is about, asking BOLD questions and giving definite answers. That is how we come to our answers. I bet I cant say the same for you. You say your right, no matter what youll say...Im only a young kid and I have all the answers to life cause I read a book mommy and daddy told me to read... IM RIGHT AND I KNOW IT. Well what if your wrong? If you cant ask yourself that honestly you are a sad human being.
@YourBrainOnReligion Hey, If you are happy and proud that you are the descendents of a bunch of dumb, maggot infested, ass sniffing monkeys more power to you.
@YourBrainOnReligion I can't get what you said bcause you are now starting to redirect the conversation into something and chose to dismiss the conversation. Why dont you go ahead and read through to what I said and stay open minded.
If the Science of today doesnt know everything then how can you be so positive and confident that what they are saying is right? What if they are wrong since they don't know the answer to everything. All this should be simple but you are the one who's close minded
@gianboy2001 I have read everything you said, there is nothing to be open-minded about. You're just babbling like a lunatic about all sorts of things. I already explained twice that science does not need to know everything to be able to eliminate the possibility of an afterlife. And jesus christ kid, you are really annoying.
@gianboy2001 Its funny that you never told us who the voice was from, so we assumed you were going to say god. Then you comment afterwards saying how retarded and stupid we are for assuming you thought it was god and for us not to assume. Wha
the kid Aaron kick matt's butt....simple...not to mention her...bla bla bla
creeman007 1 month ago
Matt's points still hold. There is not contemporary extra-biblical evidence of events of Jesus's life. This is significant in that it makes Jesus insignificant in his own lifetime.
After Jesus (probably) died on the cross, there is all manner of writing regarding him and his followers, but before that event nothing, even though he demonstrated such mind-boggling power by performing his miracles, that people "knew" he was God.
Many other "gods" did too (Mithras...).
drfoxcourt 2 months ago
Comment removed
mentalphysicalism 3 months ago
3 minutes to long
Casper3417 4 months ago 2
What song is that?
TheNarcMan 6 months ago
This kid hits WAY above the weight class of a 15 year old, but it'll take god himself to beat Matt & Co - and even that would probably go to the judges...
"For something as common as a crucifixion, we don't need contemporary evidence..." agree completely... but for something as UNcommon as the crucifixion of a man who claimed to be the son of a god, could perform miracles and rose from the dead two-or-three days after being so crucified, I think we're entitled to ask for it.
JMUDoc 6 months ago
None of Aaron's arguments ever make any impact. Even on his own videos he doesn't offer anything worth while. Good job Matt!
madahpesojnothgual 6 months ago
I was blown away when they said this: 2:27
PUREmed1a 7 months ago
@PUREmed1a P.S: by the way, aaron nailed those atheists.
PUREmed1a 7 months ago
@PUREmed1a The kid calling got destroyed. He offered no real claims worth even debating lol.
Also, there hasn't been one credible shred of evidence for the possibility of even a weak god (One that just created the universe) Further more, there has been even less for proof of one that watches humans and judges them, performs miracles, etc etc. Then even if ALL that got proven one day, they'd still need to prove "Christianity" over the other 100000 gods. Good luck with that nonsense lol.
Sanosukeafo 7 months ago
You can claim anything is real if the only basis for believing it is that nobody's proved it doesn't exist. Like "god".
mikefromwa 7 months ago
"why would I cite a historian?" thats like saying if I were debating you about science and I said "Why would I cite a scientist"
DoctorSargeMD 7 months ago 10
@DoctorSargeMD That's not accurate at all. Matt said there is no contemporary evidence for paranormal happenings related to a man who may have existed- jesus. The caller implies that you don't need contemporary evidence to make claims of widespread miracles true, and that there's no difference between contemporary/noncontemporary in terms of truth value... this is clearly false- you cannot cite religious texts for your only evidence.
Buddypalbro 4 months ago
@DoctorSargeMD The caller then asked matt to "cite a historian" over the fact that you cannot just use religious text as evidence for the existence of amazing paranormal happenings- and to cite a historian to justify the truth that contemporary evidence is needed to back up those massive paranormal happenings we see in the bible... really?
Buddypalbro 4 months ago
@DoctorSargeMD You misunderstood his point. He's saying he doesn't have to cite a historian to demonstrate the difference between contemporary evidence and non-contemporary evidence.
asteroixiii 3 months ago
@DoctorSargeMD I was just about to write that very thing, then I read your comment. The "rationality" of atheists in action.
WilliamTyndale1 2 months ago
Dillahunty is a moron.
empreme 7 months ago
@empreme Whats your bases for that comment? he sounds pretty legit to me.
wachnathan 7 months ago
@empreme Why?
MrJaydee827 7 months ago
Seriously, this unusually talented boy was not "owned" in any way, whatsoever. Actually I think this video illustrates how many less-gifted people who actually call into this show, and it makes me skeptical about how bright Dillahunty really is. Maybe he just had a bad day, I don't know. Whether or not Tacitus is authentic or not remains another issue; what these guys debated and how well both the sides of arguments were, was not in any way dominated by the couch where Dillahunty was...
Stinukli 7 months ago
matt debates mostly ignorant idiots hes show also sucks
matrixlone 7 months ago
@matrixlone Thats because if you try to defend somthing as absurd as the existence of god or gods you will sound like an ignorant idiot by default... Kind of the point of the show is to destroy ignorant idiots.
translucentorb 7 months ago
@translucentorb nah just chek my playlist there is evidence just not the kind that you want let me know when matt debates someone worthy mkay thanks
matrixlone 7 months ago
@translucentorb
And if you try to deny that we exist in a universe with set,predetermined constants if any of which were not exactly what they are,we would not be here having this conversation.You explain life as just some byproduct of random chance in a universe that just happens to be perfect for it's existence.It is the equivalent of a near infinite series of slot machines hitting all cherry's at the same time. Now that is absurd. The simplest conclusion is usually the correct conclusion.
RCTPatriot75 6 months ago
@RCTPatriot75 If the constants weren't what they are, what makes you think that the physics equations that they apply to would still be the same? We have only one frame of reference, this universe. The probability that the universe is the way it is, is 1. Why? Because there is only one that we know of and we don't actually know if it could be any different. We can hypothesise all we like but it means nothing without evidence. The god hypothesis merely adds complexity.
DuTriDu 6 months ago 2
Wow. Just being a neutral observer here and.....Aaronk was not pwned at all. You two were made complete fools of. I mean did you even watch your on video?
theelusiveone 7 months ago 2
@theelusiveone Who are you talking to? This isn't those two's channel, someone posted this clip of the show up and edited in text of his -OWN OPINION-. Do not stick it on the hosts. Aaron did not provide evidence and the hosts respectfully called him on this, point me to the time where the two people were made "fools" of and explain how please?
Buddypalbro 4 months ago
@shwanerd actually aaron is exactly rite, lol get a clue, and Matt totally goes back on what he was wrongly saying earlier lol
NWOkillaful 7 months ago 2
@saintsons12 i have a bunch of books written by different authors that say leprechauns exist. none contradict each other, they all describe leprechauns as short men with beards and green top hats. It's obvious leprechauns exist by your standard. saying they support themselves is called circular logic, which is a fail of face palm proportions. As far as biblical contradictions goes, infidels dot org has a very long list of them, and common excuses for them.
Roc099 8 months ago
don't see why Christians keep patting each other on the back for this. Matt simply stood his ground. Aaron didn't really say anything to rattle him or his position. I would, however, be interested to hear that kid call the show with more time allotted.
RaggedM88 8 months ago
If that kid was given much time Dillahunty would of ran off.
opengates777 8 months ago
the kid devastated the atheist imbeciles ...their body language was total defeat and confusion.
whiteliketar 8 months ago
Matt is the one that got owned lol. Interesting how relaxed Matt's look got when it was time to end the show. lol
virtualguitarist 8 months ago
@saintsons12 LOL
bapee105 8 months ago
you call this a pwn? it wasn't a pwn, it was just a verbal misunderstanding. you fail at life.
NumbuhOneHater 8 months ago
Oh jeez, who cares what the texts say. Walking on water is impossible, bringing the dead back to life is impossible, miraculous healing is a sham hence it DIDN'T happen.
June28July 9 months ago
@June28July haha. sure bud w/e you wana think.
nintendude60 9 months ago
@nintendude60
You saying bringing the dead back to life is possible or something?
June28July 9 months ago
@June28July its reasonable. erm. what the thing that shocks you does. when someone suffers a heart attack. The Son of God is more than capable of doing that. the proof that he exists. well is all in the history. and i really dont feel like debating that. not because i cant prove you wrong. its just. not what God wants us to do. until someone is ready to recieve him i dont go to them.
nintendude60 9 months ago
@nintendude60
I don't expect you to prove me wrong. I expect you to prove scripture right.
If there is no debate then there can be no progress.
June28July 9 months ago
@June28July aye. im not in the debating mood at the moment. maybe some day i will.
nintendude60 9 months ago
@nintendude60 lol
XxJJxX13 8 months ago
Typical....Athiests taking the sides of Athiests and Christians taking the sides of Christians. We all need to see the arguements of both sides and access them accordingly. I myself am a Christian, always have been. Although some Athiests arguements are good, there is undoubtably scriptural and non-scriptural evidence counteracting these arguements. Feel free to come back with anything you have.
potatoblivion 9 months ago
@potatoblivion
"Although some Athiests arguements are good, there is undoubtably scriptural and non-scriptural evidence counteracting these arguements. Feel free to come back with anything you have."
- how exactly is anyone meant to reply to your comment, it's unfalsifiable as you dont make any specific claims.
types10000 9 months ago
@types10000 Sorry, it's late at night and i'm tired. But anyways, i'll start with the mosst basic question that you probably get asked 10,000,000 times a day, but, How did the Big Bang happen?
potatoblivion 9 months ago
@potatoblivion
"How did the Big Bang happen?"
- the scientific evidence indicates that at the first instance of existance there was singularity composed of all the energy we have in our universe now and space-time itself.
- from the first instance this singularity began expanding (no it doesnt need something make it expand anymore than a star needs something to make it expend energy), it's simply what it does.
- the big bang is the scientific theory that explains/models this expansion.
types10000 9 months ago
@types10000 Yes and that aparently caused it to cool resulting in the diluded state of our universe today.
There are 3 words in "Big Bang Theory", right. The last one, "Theory" is defined as a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Therefore this is only an idea and can not be tested nor seen.
Do you have the scientific evidence that The Big Bang actually happened?
potatoblivion 9 months ago
@potatoblivion
"There are 3 words in Big Bang Theory, right. The last one, Theory is defined as a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural"
- incorrect. the big bang is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY which is defined as a thoroughly tested and well evidenced principle that explains a set of facts. it is the HIGHEST level of scientific truth.
you have mistakenly confused it with the colloquial definition of theory which is a akin to hypothesis.
types10000 9 months ago
@types10000 Scientific Theory is defined on Dictionary. c o m as a theory that explains scientific observations
EX: "scientific theories must be falsifiable"
It says nothing about being thoroughly tested or fact.
You must be confusing this for what I call "Good Science" which is described and scientific fact that are proven time and time again
And yes I might have confused that definition of Theory for Scientific Theory. Thank you for catching me before I brought myself down anymore.
potatoblivion 9 months ago
@potatoblivion
"Scientific Theory is defined on Dictionary. c o m as a theory that explains scientific observations...It says nothing about being thoroughly tested or fact"
- dictionaries provide coloquial definitoins, if you want a real definition you'll need to consult an encyclopedia.
- also for you to make that claim you'd need to have no understanding of how the scientific method works.
types10000 9 months ago
@types10000 Yeah sure, it may be informal, but it is still the exact same thing.
Encyclopedia Def. - A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts.
Dictionary Def. - A theory that explains scientific observations
Not much difference there, eh?
potatoblivion 9 months ago
@potatoblivion
"Do you have the scientific evidence that The Big Bang actually happened?"
- the overwhelming evidence for the big bang is what led to it becoming recognized as a scientific theory in the first place!
types10000 9 months ago
@types10000 Lord almighty! WHAT IS THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE OF THE BIG BANG!?!?!? I want the actual evidence not just " the overwhelming evidence for the big bang is what led to it becoming recognized as a scientific theory in the first place!"
potatoblivion 9 months ago
@potatoblivion
"Lord almighty! WHAT IS THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE OF THE BIG BANG!?"
- All the evidence is readily available to you through the peer reviewed literature. i suggest you get a book :)
that being said:
- Abundances of light elements
-Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
- Evolution of galaxies
- Hubble diagram
.etc .etc
Each of these is a confirmed, testable prediction of what we would expect had the big bang occurred and TP's are one of the best forms of evidences in science
types10000 9 months ago
@types10000 Well, since my family is a Christian one, we obviously don't have a Big Bang Theory book just lying around. I'm way too lazy to look something up on the internet much less read it.
"Each of these is a confirmed, testable prediction of what we would expect had the big bang occurred and TP's are one of the best forms of evidences in science"
What does Abundance of light elemants have anything to do with a giant expansion of mass?
potatoblivion 9 months ago
@potatoblivion
"Well, since my family is a Christian one, we obviously don't have a Big Bang Theory book just lying around"
- it's something you should have covered in grade 9 science. Also your talking about something that's endorsed by the center of the largest christian denomination in the world ie. the catholic church.
types10000 9 months ago
@types10000 I'm just going in to 9th grade. Oh, and we aren't catholic and we don't like catholicism. We disagree with the fact that Mary was much more important than Jesus. We also don't really care about the Catholic Church either. :P
potatoblivion 9 months ago
@potatoblivion
"What does Abundance of light elemants have anything to do with a giant expansion of mass?"
a). the rapid expansion of space-time was not an explosion
b).
OVERSIMPLIFIED:
-Part of the big bang theory constitutes that the universe was initially very hot and that this heat then rapidly dissipated; rapidly dropping heat means less time for heavy nuclei to form and thus lots of light elements.
types10000 9 months ago
@potatoblivion I'm also a Christian, and I somewhat agree. It's too often that Christians and Atheists take sides of their own just because they have other Christians or Atheists to back them up. I prefer to read the arguments on both sides, and do some thorough (and unbiased) research on each one before determining which argument is true and which argument is BS.
blueshogun96 9 months ago
This is the amazing trouncing Matt was supposed to have received! Ridiculous
jimjamerman 9 months ago
arguing over which religion is real is completely stupid.. people shouldn't have the rights to talk about one another religion.. just simply believe what YOU believe. and whatever happens when you die happens.. rather you go to hell, heaven or maybe nothing at all happens. none of us know you cant just sit here and try to prove whats real and whats not. Cause its all a matter of opinion. negotiating about it on Youtube is completely Pointless..
dwtnigg 10 months ago
@dwtnigg PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO TALK ABOUT ANYTHING!
Atheists have NO religion and don't believe in gods. They don't argue about which religion is real. According to the faithful, (people who believe things without EVIDENCE.) THEIRS is the ONLY true & correct vision of godsness. Atheists hold that ALL religions are WRONG; NONE are correct, there are NO GODS. and while the religions themselves are REAL, they don't inform us about any reality.
psycotria 10 months ago
@dwtnigg "people shouldn't have the rights to talk about one another religion"
Fucking what? Why are you in the US, where the First Amendment explicitly grants the right to criticize ANY religion to ALL citizens? You should be seeking out a fascist/totalitarian hivemind instead, where criticism and expression are made illegal. Goddamn, do you ever scare me.
yermomsboxx 10 months ago
@yermomsboxx haha okay. you know why people shouldn't have the rights? cause its fucking aggravating here'n a million people argue over what religion is real. its fucking stupid. you wasted your time writing all that bullshit.
dwtnigg 10 months ago
@dwtnigg So your argument is, because you personally find religious discussions "aggravating," people within the United States should not have the right to discuss and criticize a topic that greatly affects its social, political, and ideological landscape?
I'm sorry for what I said before, I stand corrected: your logic is flawless.
yermomsboxx 10 months ago
@dwtnigg
"people shouldn't have the rights to talk about one another religion"
- why should a persons religion be anymore 'offlimits' than their taste in music?
- debate is how stupidity is outed for what it is and history has shown that rational discourse is to religion like garlic is to vampires
"negotiating about it on Youtube is completely Pointles" - the internet is without a doubt the largest source of information in all of human history, if you were a fence-sitter where would you go?
types10000 9 months ago
Earlier in the show, the woman was making assertion after assertion that Aaron very rightly points out. Matt says NOTHING to her at the time by way of correcting her. Aaron comes in, points out her BS and they basically have to re-do their whole argument that they made at the beginning of the show. That is a rebuttal. Matt just didn't know what to say. He counldn't justify the erroneous standpoint they had at the beginning.
GoldenbanjoDJ 11 months ago
This conversation is a mess - both of the parties have no time to say what they have in mind.
twooffour 11 months ago
Aaron sounds like such a dishonest little brad :P
Blinding himself, but i can not blame him. His parents i could though.
Well not that it's a good thing, but he at least *tries* to make some work for it. Aaron that is.
gunblade64 11 months ago
Pleez proovid evidinc tat ateism iz acurate and korect
DeadlyRedRing 11 months ago
wow those atheist guys clearly need to do some more research... contemporary evidence my butt... do they believe Caesar existed? everything we know about him was recorded some 700 years after his murder.... thats real contemporary... how about Alexander the Great... smiler story to Caesar... but Christ? most of the stuff on him was written withing 10- lets say 50 years after his death.... and that evidence is not contemporary? wierd.....
sk8er4god737 11 months ago
@sk8er4god737
You couldn't be more wrong; Plutarch wrote about Caesar 75 years after his death from the perspective of a historian, but that's just the earliest account of him in "history". As for Caesar's actual life, there is a plethora of evidence in writings from people AT THE TIME of his life, not to mention tons of writings written by CAESAR HIMSELF concerning the invasion of Gaul. Contemporary means DURING the life of the person, we have tons of that for Caesar. None for Jesus.
ShwaNerd 11 months ago
ok, so Caesar was a bad person to use as an example.... but Alexander the great.... any thoughts on that?
sk8er4god737 11 months ago
@sk8er4god737
You aren't doing any better for yourself here; the man who lead the Macedonian Army to conquer territory spanning from Greece to the Ganges River in India obviously left similar "mountains" of evidence in support of his existence and exploits, perhaps to an even greater extent than Caesar (it can easily be argued as such). For example... you get ancient cities named "Alexandria" created along the exact route of Alexander's conquest, cities he founded himself.
ShwaNerd 11 months ago
ok so you have proven to me that it is clear that Caesar and Alexandr lived becasue of evidance of their time, now I ask you this... what evidence is there that Jesus did not exist?
sk8er4god737 11 months ago
@sk8er4god737
And so you have engaged in the fallacy involving burden of proof. Those who believe Jesus not only existed, but actually performed miracles as stated in the Bible have the burden of proof to demonstrate this to be the case. Its not up to me to disprove it. It doesn't matter at all if a person named Jesus DID exist which inspired the fantasy of the Gospels; what matters to the religion is if the supernatural claims are true. For that, no sufficient evidence has been given.
ShwaNerd 11 months ago
@ShwaNerd no proof other than of course the gospels of which one... Luke i believe was written by a historian. who so happened be a Christian and therefore took the time to write it down.... i also have to point out that there are four separate texts (The Gospels) that all report incredibly similar accounts of Jesus doing supernatural things.
sk8er4god737 11 months ago
@sk8er4god737
Incredibly similar accounts by biased authors who obviously stood to gain for a variety of factors (besides theological grounds) for corroborating their story. Since its part of the singular canon (Bible) you can't use one to "prove another" proving the Bible with other parts of the Bible is still circular reasoning even if you use separate books, which often show that they were purposely "fudged with" to make sure they fit in with other texts later.
ShwaNerd 11 months ago
@sk8er4god737 (part 2)
Also, the standards of evidence for extraordinary supernatural claims are obviously much greater than mundane occurrences in the case of say Caesar or Alexander. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a good quote for this situation, and the biblical account is woefully lacking in that respect; literature and hearsay evidence alone is an incredibly poor reason to accept such claims which conflict so harshly with reality.
ShwaNerd 11 months ago
@ShwaNerd ok dude firstly how is death by crucifiction (most painful execution yet to be though up) a gain???? idk but i dont see that as my chosen way to die... second the Bible is a historical text that has been around for what almost 2000 years now... Christians just believe that it was inspire by God. and thirdly the books of the Bible, ask any scholar have completely different writing styles hence they were written by different people.
sk8er4god737 11 months ago
@ShwaNerd also you need to do a bit of a better study on the Bible if you think that they were "fudged with" if anything you are incredibly bias and unwilling to admit even in the slightest that some of what i say may be by the grace of God correct? atheists are bias people who keep such a closed mind... Agnostics at least keep an open mind... you just present facts and then plug your ears when a Christian tries to talk or you make up an excuse as to why something isnt credible.
sk8er4god737 11 months ago
@sk8er4god737
Don't tell me what I have or haven't done in this regard; I read the whole bible several times over, while i was still a very devout christian for the express purpose of strengthening my religious belief. Despite this goal, all evidence has pointed to the contrary of any and all supernatural claims made in the text; as for historical accuracy, the Bible also leaves much to be desired, as its rife with errors or outright fabrications.
ShwaNerd 11 months ago
@sk8er4god737 (Part 2)
Also, you seem to not know enough about Agnosticism. I'm an Agnostic Atheist, so I am coming from a position of intellectual honesty and open-mindedness. Should reasonable justification or sufficient evidence be provided to "prove Christianity" I will be absolutely bound to accept it. That, however, has yet to be provided, from apologists, the Bible, or any other similar source.
ShwaNerd 11 months ago
@sk8er4god737 (Part 3)
Reason and evidence is the only accurate way about determining the Truth; if you provide a reason for believing in Christianity that is flawed, or insufficient, I will naturally have to give you the reasons WHY it doesn't measure up (which I have been doing thus far). It seems here that only one of us has an open mind towards demonstrable facts and evidence, and I'm not looking in your direction pal.
ShwaNerd 11 months ago
If there was any evidence, there would be no need for faith!
acme181169 1 year ago 2
Did this video seriously say that arronk1994 would totally pwn Matt? Aaron completely failed to even understand what claim was being made, nonetheless address it..... I don't see hoe you can pwn someone by misrepresenting their claims....
LeonhardEuler1 1 year ago
@LeonhardEuler1 no, it didn't.
weirddudeonice 1 year ago
@weirddudeonice Yeah, I was watching this video while working on some other things, so I missed some of the other comments, and it is very clear that it is not serious when it says it. :)
LeonhardEuler1 1 year ago
@theaccousticaddict
"A man and a wife are considered to be one"
Red herring, this is not the same way Jesus/god are portrayed in the bible and you know it
"Am yet to be convinced that you possess common sense"
Says the one that thinks common sense isnt looking up definitions in a dictionary
"first you look up faith in the dictionary (which is d dumbest thing to do ever"
because looking up definitions for words in a dictionary is dumb, right?
Feralus69 1 year ago
@Feralus69
"Red herring, this is not the same way Jesus/god are portrayed in the bible and you know it"
Jesus and god are 2 different entities with 2 different names, father and son, son sent to the earth by the father, that's the truth. Am saying nothing more on that issue. Since you dont have common sense to know that a father and son cant be one being, continue living in your foolishness and ignorance. Even a 6 years old would know that a father and son are 2 different beings.
theaccousticaddict 1 year ago
@Feralus69
"Says the one that thinks common sense isnt looking up definitions in a dictionary"
Well, it depends on what you are looking up in the dictionary. A sane minded individual with common sense would say "Well, faith is a spiritual thing and is only mentioned in the bible, then maybe the bible would be the best place to find a definition of what faith is, it would be stupid to look up spiritual things in a non spiritual source", but you dont have d common sense to think that way.
theaccousticaddict 1 year ago
@theaccousticaddict
"Well, faith is a spiritual thing and is only mentioned in the bible"
LOL WOW JUST WOW!!!
"because looking up spiritual things from a non spiritual source"
You need to prove spirits exist before saying there's a spiritual source. Can you prove it? You keep dodging this, i'm going to press this until you answer a clear yes or no.
"Listen, am talking of supernatural knowledge here"
There is no such thing as supernatural knowledge, what is verifiably known about it?
Feralus69 1 year ago
@Feralus69
'because looking up definitions for words in a dictionary is dumb, right?"
No, because looking up spiritual things from a non spiritual source is the dumbest think to do ever. Its highly probable that those who put the dictionary together had no idea what faith is, they defined it from a physical perspective rather from a spiritual perspective. Sorry sir, but you dont look up spiritual things in the "dictionary", get that into your head!
theaccousticaddict 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theaccousticaddict
"A man and a wife are considered to be one"
Red herring, this is not the same way Jesus/god are portrayed in the bible and you know it
"Am yet to be convinced that you possess common sense"
Says the one that thinks common sense isnt looking up definitions in a dictionary
"first you look up faith in the dictionary (which is d dumbest thing to do ever"
DEEEERRRRPPPP BECUZ FINDING DEFINISHUNS UV WERDS IN A DICKSHUNARY IS STOOPID
Feralus69 1 year ago
Comment removed
Feralus69 1 year ago
"aaronk"? LOL ronk means jerking off in norwegian, hahaha!
0pteryx 1 year ago
byyYeeEey
AncientGamer1 1 year ago
That kiddo doesn't make sense. The fact that there are Christians mentioned in extra-biblical sources doesn't prove that Jesus itself is verified by extra-biblical sources.
lagerbaer 1 year ago
Um I hear Aaron correcting Mr. Atheist on a couple points not the other way around. Sounds like a 14 year old is standing very tall to veteran Atheists. I
MayonR 1 year ago
Atheist, I am just warming up. FAGS!!! lol... no one seems to answer my question.. its either all assumption or making jokes... wow.. ATHEIST made the meaning of assumption to the next level......
gianboy2001 1 year ago
Wow....... That's all I'm going to say
Aleneden 1 year ago
ok first of all I believe in god I don't take a bible and preach and I don't care if your a atheist or a Jew or a Muslim we should be living in peace. second You atheist are acting like a bunch of Christians except a bible your breaching its science and logic point is stop breaching this shit to people it makes you look stupid. How about you just call your self a religion and hand out books and a meeting on Sundays because thats what your acting like a religion. We need to all get along people.
bigmike4534 1 year ago
Okay im at work now but I will answer all your question you hypocrite. You told me to not to accuse you a liar but then u call me a liar.. Anyways ill msg back.
gianboy2001 1 year ago
You guys are all retarded, why would you want to prove something to someone who will deny any fact you throw in his face? This is pointless. Those who don't want to believe it- those will never believe, no matter what they see.
You can present your facts to open-minded people but not to closed-minded as those two "Atheist Experience" suckers are - they don't want to find out the truth, they just want to oppose you.
libed91 1 year ago
666 LIKES HAIL SATAN
ItsGettingColder1 1 year ago
wow matt powned you i really don't see how you your winning from him i do see now how selective your cut of this show was in your own video. haha
kalyoub 1 year ago
Up until now none of you non believer can answer my question. Just answer my question. How do you explain my comment from awhile back. You know TRIPAYANE you havent answer my question.
gianboy2001 1 year ago
@gianboy2001 I can't disprove god in the most generic sense, but I can disprove the biblical god quite easily.
One of Jesus' main purposes was to share with us the knowledge of heaven and the afterlife, etc. Yet, science has continually proven there is no such thing as a soul. Worse, there is not even the possibility of having some sort of conscious experience AFTER you're dead. Consciousness requires cells, but cells die. In short, jesus is a proven liar; so the bible is 100% unreliable.
YourBrainOnReligion 1 year ago
@YourBrainOnReligion you interp[ret the bible wrong. I dont know what you are saying about the afterlife..
Jesus didnt say that you'll keep your own body when you go to heaven. And jesus wanted us to be save on judgment day so he taught us how to live a life here on earth. He also predicted about the non believers and anti christ and that they will go to Hell for eternity. I am not judging you but it is written in the Bibble. You want to know if God exist, look at all the prophecy in the bible.
gianboy2001 1 year ago
@gianboy You're missing the point. Your body would HAVE to go to heaven otherwise you cannot experience anything. Your senses provide your consciousness with every detail about your current situation, and obviously, in order for your senses to work, you'd need your body. How are you going to see without eyes, for example?
There is NOT legitimate prophecy in the bible. Your requirements for evidence are appallingly low and is the very reason you believe such tripe nonsense.
YourBrainOnReligion 1 year ago
@YourBrainOnReligion It you guys who are stubborn and only hear what you want to hear. If you read the book of revelation and thinks that all the those prophecy are just coincidence then clearly you guys are just blind minded and will never know if God existed until you open your heart...
gianboy2001 1 year ago
@gianboy2001 "you guys who are stubborn and only hear what you want to hear" That is called psychological projection. How dare you tell people who have taken the time to research these things and came to the conclusion that is AGAINST the "social norm" and then accuse us of "only hearing what we want to hear". You're a god damn moron. People don't become atheists because it's "COOL" —intelligence ITSELF isn't even BARELY valued in our society. How can you be so dumb?
YourBrainOnReligion 1 year ago
@YourBrainOnReligion you are the moron and stupid piece of shit. Im until now the intellegent human being you are talking about still not able to prove the evolution. Up until now it remains a theory dip shit. If you can't feel the love of God then you can't jump into conclusion that God doesnt exist. If you were very ill and sick and you can feel it then you go to a Doctor but could not find anything and sent you home and told you that you're not sick. Thats excatly how we believer feel.
gianboy2001 1 year ago
@gianboy2001 We can evolution after you acknowledge that there is no scientifically valid evidence supporting a soul or the concept of an afterlife. Trying to shift the subject without acknowledging error is what is called a red herring fallacy. But most importantly, this is also a clear case of cognitive dissonance on your part. You force yourself to stay stupid because you refuse to be honest with yourself, and correct your thinking—even in the face of flat out facts to the contrary. Why?
YourBrainOnReligion 1 year ago
@YourBrainOnReligion my goodness, you are the one who is stupid and flat our retarded. The way you think is just out of this world. If I can't scientifically prove it that doesnt mean Its not there. If you go back in time and tell everyone that in 2000 years there will be a helicopter ppl will just stone you to death. Can you see how low you are? Stupid...
gianboy2001 1 year ago
@gianboy2001 We can DISCUSS* evolution --- woops somehow left out an entire word, lol.
YourBrainOnReligion 1 year ago
@YourBrainOnReligion up until now no one has has answered my question...
How do you explain when I hear voice?
I bet you are going to call me delusional are you?
Well guess what I was in a room with my brother and he heard it too?
How you explain that
gianboy2001 1 year ago
Comment removed
YourBrainOnReligion 1 year ago
@gianboy2 Easy: In order for you to both accept you heard the same thing, one of you had to first verbalize what you "heard". This is an opportunity for the other person to either purposely exaggerate or lie (in agreement) or your words guided him to (innocently) remembering incorrectly.
How about this possible explanation: there really was a voice and it was someone outside of your house.... (wow, what a thought!)
Point is, other explanations exist and nothing about that confirms "IT'S GOD!"
YourBrainOnReligion 1 year ago
@YourBrainOnReligion Really you would go that far just to prove that I am wrong. And yes you are right my brother lied to me and yes we didnt hear it the same time and it was out not in the MIDST of us. Just like what you said. You guys think that all believers are liars so there is no point. The fact is you made you assumption.
Hey but ask yourself. What if my BROTHER was not lying to me and a sound of a whisper cannot be coming from outside.
gianboy2001 1 year ago
@gianboy2001 Uh I didn't try to prove you wrong, I offered you alternative and plausible natural explanations that show you that is doesn't HAVE to be "god". I can actually prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that every believer is a pathological liar. You see, it's a fundamental requirement of all religions: to assert what you could never know for certain as absolute fact. And that's exactly what you're doing right here. So don't accuse us of lying here, bud. Again you're projecting.
YourBrainOnReligion 1 year ago
@YourBrainOnReligion Wow, you are calling believers a pathological liar? wow just wow..
its funny how you call us pathological liar then you tell me to stop accusing you of lying.
You hypocrite. you don't have to private message me because I want everyone to see what we are talking about.
So my answer to your question if I can stay open minded YES, I've been doing that since you came along with my comment.
Now answer me this. Does science of TODAY KNOW EVERYTHING?
gianboy2001 1 year ago
@gianboy2001 I concluded you are a pathological liar after explaining my justification. You never called me a liar so I don't know what you're talking about on that point.
No, science does not know everything—NOR DOES IT NEED TO. That's like claiming every architect needs to be educated in quantum physics before they're qualified to build a safe building. That's absurdly retarded non-logic.
All we need to know is our senses feed our brain and that senses run on electricity. The end!
YourBrainOnReligion 1 year ago
@gianboy2001 A sound of a whisper most certainly can be heard when it originated outside. Did it ever occur to you maybe it was your neightbor who had their stereo turned up real loud on a song that had a guy whispering? Oh boy what a thought!!! And no, this is not making an assumption - you are dumb as a bag of hammers. This is called OFFERING ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS. The power of suggestion is strong and it's likely you both heard SOMETHING and then agreed out of confusion. So what??
YourBrainOnReligion 1 year ago
@YourBrainOnReligion like you said on your first sentence(A sound of a whisper most certainly can be heard when it originated outside). MOST.... anyways are you just making this up and pulling it out from your ass or what because it sounds like you know everything... You dont have the whole story don't assume. This is how close minded you are. You are trying your best to be a dumbass. Has it ever accur to you that maybe im not done telling the whole story?
gianboy2001 1 year ago
@gianboy2001 I'm going on the information you gave me. I don't need to know what you guys thought you heard, where your house is located, etc etc etc. I am merely explaining to you that alternative explanations exist so to conclude that "IT MUST HAVE BEEN GOD" is an asinine and imbecilic conclusion. Can I possibly break it down any more simply for you???? Don't get offended and defensive because I'm pointing out your errors, LEARN! Register these points and adjust your thinking accordingly!
YourBrainOnReligion 1 year ago
@YourBrainOnReligion Don't offer an alternative explanation because you weren't there you dumbass piece of shit. You assume to much. You are assuming that the voice I heard was from God himselft. You would not find a single sentence that me saying that the souond I heard was from God. There you go I just proved your stupid has that you are assuming. That would not go that far if all you can do is assume. Its irritating to argue with someone who assume...
gianboy2001 1 year ago
@YourBrainOnReligion Did it every come to your sence that if the neighbor had their stereo on it would sound continuously not one at a time. It called my name 5 or 6 times. The first call was not very clear and it travel from left to right infront of my face with a sound of a wind(not very clear). The second one sounded something. The third time I heard my name again all travelling infront of me(my brother was facing his computer and the sound was in the middle)
gianboy2001 1 year ago
@YourBrainOnReligion The fourth time I ask my brother to listen and stop using the computer(so no sound coming from the computer) He ignored me but before he said something we then both heard it with a clear voice of a woman of a husky voice(no one in our family has that voice or can't be a neighbor because my neighbor doesn't know me). He then got really scared and their who ever it was to say it again. Then we heard it again and the voice travel in the midst of us with a cleared voice...
gianboy2001 1 year ago
@YourBrainOnReligion So now be an open mind and try to explain that. If there is no fact but me just saying it will that be void and you will assume that it doesnt not exist that me and my brother just happend to hear the same voice at the same time and we are delusional and pathological liars?
gianboy2001 1 year ago
@YourBrainOnReligion If you really are that smart then you should know that noone from outside will whisper just to call someone from outside right...
And I wasn't saying that it was a God. All i am saying is atheist don't believe in Ghost, Devil or something that is not scientifically proven right.
If you ask me, I dont really care if you go to hell but I know clearly where you are going afterlife. I am not losing anything just to let you know. Just dont brainwash anyone with your stupidity
gianboy2001 1 year ago
@gianboy2001 Lastly, don't you fucking DARE insult MY intelligence after you verbally vomit something so fucking ABSURDLY stupid. "Just because we can't prove it doesn't exist doesn't mean it doesn't - that's like going back in time and saying we'll have helicopters in the future!"
How the hell that even made the most REMOTE sense in your head, I'll never understand. I guess it's easier to dismiss your opp than recognize when you're in the presence of someone far more educated than yourself.
YourBrainOnReligion 1 year ago
@YourBrainOnReligion Don't give up and think that I am stupid because I am proving you wrong every second. I guess nobody stood up infront of you pathetic low life and spend time to actually prove you wrong. Now you are mad and doesnt have all the answer instead you insult me and try to dismiss the conversation. How pathetic. This is exactly what you are doing, You are basing everything with Science Knowledge now answer me this. DOES SCIENCE OF TODAY KNOW EVERYTHING? If not then don't come and .
gianboy2001 1 year ago
@gianboy2001 Why do you think I'd be mad? I'm flabbergasted you don't get something this simple. I already did answer you, apparently your reading comprehension isn't so hot.
To repeat: No, science does not know everything—NOR DOES IT NEED TO. That's like claiming every architect needs to be educated in quantum physics before they're qualified to build a safe building. That's absurdly retarded non-logic.
YourBrainOnReligion 1 year ago
@YourBrainOnReligion Again, so basing to what you just said.
SCIENCE believe the If its not a fact it doesnt not exist.
Therefore EVOLUTION is void because up until now it is not proven because of the missing link.
PS.
Maybe you are the missing link.....I'm just OFFERING ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS why the evolution is still a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. You should step up and be tested.
gianboy2001 1 year ago
@gianboy2001 How old are you? I'm starting to wonder if I'm talking to a 13 year old? You're not making a lick of sense either. I'm starting to think TRIP is right - you need to see a doctor. Look at what you write. Those are not statements of someone healthy or happy.
Evolution is a scientifically proven fact and every single fossil IS a transitional fossil. You're just uneducated, and apparently, happily so.
YourBrainOnReligion 1 year ago
@YourBrainOnReligion You are calling me stupid but my english is very simple. Your backbone is Science, am I right? Come on man just answer me dont run away and pretend that you think I'm stupid.. Your foundation is science since science can provide facts right?
You are trying to avoid because you know where this is all going to end up. Stupid Atheist who contradicts themselves... APE!
gianboy2001 1 year ago
@gianboy2001 The world's backbone is science. Where exactly do you think your computer came from, for example??? You think this is a product of worship??????
But, yes, the sole goal of science is to determine how the world works and, if possible, its origins. I'm not trying to avoid anything. Make your point already...??
YourBrainOnReligion 1 year ago
@YourBrainOnReligion How then can you say that God doesn't exist if Science can't even fully understand Humans..
Up until now you can't explain to me about the voices I heard. Just to let you know I am not lying about it and most certainly not my neighbor or anything that you can SEE!
Can you explain it or not? simple question. I just need your intelligent answer on it not alternative explanations.
OR maybe me and my brother just happend to be delusional at that moment?
gianboy2001 1 year ago
@gianboy2001 Because humans have nothing to do with humans. The bible assigns demonstrably testable things to God, such as healing, the power of prayer, etc.
How is it my duty to explain your experience? You heard a voice, there are a dozen different reasons why - everything from an audible hallucination to natural explanations like it coming from outside or through a television. Do you honestly think you're the first person who has "heard a voice" ? (And this proves god how????)
YourBrainOnReligion 1 year ago
@YourBrainOnReligion Blah... huge error, hah. I wrote: "Because humans have nothing to do with humans." but I meant "Because GOD has nothing to do with humans."
YourBrainOnReligion 1 year ago
@YourBrainOnReligion Are you just going to discredit all the the Historians accurate bible location findings and fulfilled prophecies? I can't make my point until you answer questions.
BTW, Evolution is still a theory, there is no solid evidence and even up until now Theories tend to contradict or compete with each other.
gianboy2001 1 year ago
@gianboy2001 Biblical locations mean absolutely nothing. The majority of fictional stories of the earlier times were based IN actual cities. That's akin to saying "Because Mississippi is a real place, Huckleberry Finn was obviously a real boy." That's absurd, imbecilic non-logic. Regarding the prophecies, this is also another case of just plain and simple stupidity. What is compelling about a book claiming it's made predictions—and in that very same book —claim they were fulfilled...? DUH?
YourBrainOnReligion 1 year ago
@YourBrainOnReligion Wow, you really call yourself an open minded person. Clearly you are just as bad as your asshole. Only opens up when you have to take a shit. Be open minded you retard. Are you going to discredit SODOM & GOMORRAH? or you are just going to jump into an assumption like you always do that it is a hoax? My goodness you are that low. You are smart but you being close minded just destroys that..
PS. noone is saying Huckleberry Finn is real..
gianboy2001 1 year ago
@gianboy2001 "Are you going to discredit SODOM & GOMORRAH?" Uh, yes, you idiot. Sodom and Gomorrah are not historically verified to have ever had a mass murder of any kind like the bible claims. You are seriously fucking stupid, stop replying to me because you've made it MORE THAN CLEAR that you're not here to learn - you're here to proselytize. Fuck off you brainwashed child.
YourBrainOnReligion 1 year ago
@YourBrainOnReligion Answer my question you freak!
gianboy2001 1 year ago
@YourBrainOnReligion You can't answer(voices) my question because science can't explain such thing so you will just step aside and try to branch out our debate and call me close minded.. hahaha wow! After all science is your foundation without it you are a retard who doesnt believe on anything without facts... THATS EXACTLY MY POINT... You only believe what science have accomplished.
gianboy2001 1 year ago
@gianboy2001 In what scenario would it be a benefit to believe in something without facts or evidence? Other than ignorance is bliss.
TripAyane 1 year ago
@TripAyane Again you proved my point. You retards only believe on facts and evidence. 300 years back you wouldn't believe in evolution... Again, can't you take away science for a moment and explain to me what might have happend that night(when I heard the voice not just me but my brother also.)?
Don't say anything else if you are not going to answer this.
gianboy2001 1 year ago
@gianboy2001 "You retards only believe on facts and evidence." What the hell is retarded about that?
"300 years back you wouldn't believe in evolution" NO SHIT, cuz the evidence wasn't there!! Your POINT? That is called being HONEST (a concept you're oblivious to as pointed out earlier!)
I already fucking did you babbling moron. I explained to you at least three different times now what possible alternative explanations exist. Your parents TRULY need to get you a psychological evaluation.
YourBrainOnReligion 1 year ago
@gianboy2001 holy fuck...."You retards only believe on facts and evidence". Again I will ask you, in what scenario would it be a benefit to believe in something without facts or evidence? I dont even know why im replying to your comment. I could come up with probably a hundred different answers then..IT WAS GAWD. But for now Im either gonna call you a fat fucking liar or you and your brother had a gay midget hiding in your closet and he wanted to get out to play. Am i close?
TripAyane 1 year ago
@TripAyane Wow, a very smart answer.. Sure you will win a debate with that kind of logic... retarded dumb ass...
Let me ask you this, If it has no facts or evidence then the subject is useless? do you believe in the ghost or the devil then? I know an athiest who believe in ghost. Again that alone contradicts the whole no facts no evidence then it doesn't exist. What is it really? You can believe to whatever you chose to believe in? Now answer me then, what is it really? Bias?
gianboy2001 1 year ago
Comment removed
YourBrainOnReligion 1 year ago
@gianboy2001 Yes and evolution will ALWAYS be a theory. What, do you think that it's supposed to be a law like every other fundamentalist retard? A "scientific theory" is the highest accolade an idea gets. "Laws" are reserved for mathematics only. I.E.: the Law of Gravity provides the EQUATIONS required to make calculations involving gravity, whereas the Theory of Gravity explains HOW/WHY gravity works.
You should REALLY, TRULY stop talking about things you clearly know fuck all about.
YourBrainOnReligion 1 year ago
@YourBrainOnReligion Lets not go there and assume that I wanted it to be called LAW. I was referring to the Evolution how up until now is still has a flaw.
Now this it about the 5 time im gonna ask you this. Explain the voices I heard you freak!
gianboy2001 1 year ago
@gianboy2001 Also, Science is always changing and we will always be gaining new information and facts. Thats a good thing!! Its not like one day all the scientists are going to find the last and final answer then hang up their lab coats and go sit on their ass for the rest of their lives. If science DIDNT change we would still believe the earth was flat, that we were the center of everything, the sun and planets revolved around us, exc.....
TripAyane 1 year ago
@gianboy2001 Science is wrong, ALOT. There is nothing wrong with that. That is what science is about, asking BOLD questions and giving definite answers. That is how we come to our answers. I bet I cant say the same for you. You say your right, no matter what youll say...Im only a young kid and I have all the answers to life cause I read a book mommy and daddy told me to read... IM RIGHT AND I KNOW IT. Well what if your wrong? If you cant ask yourself that honestly you are a sad human being.
TripAyane 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@YourBrainOnReligion Hey, If you are happy and proud that you are the descendents of a bunch of dumb, maggot infested, ass sniffing monkeys more power to you.
gianboy2001 1 year ago
@YourBrainOnReligion I can't get what you said bcause you are now starting to redirect the conversation into something and chose to dismiss the conversation. Why dont you go ahead and read through to what I said and stay open minded.
If the Science of today doesnt know everything then how can you be so positive and confident that what they are saying is right? What if they are wrong since they don't know the answer to everything. All this should be simple but you are the one who's close minded
gianboy2001 1 year ago
@gianboy2001 I have read everything you said, there is nothing to be open-minded about. You're just babbling like a lunatic about all sorts of things. I already explained twice that science does not need to know everything to be able to eliminate the possibility of an afterlife. And jesus christ kid, you are really annoying.
YourBrainOnReligion 1 year ago
@gianboy2001 Its funny that you never told us who the voice was from, so we assumed you were going to say god. Then you comment afterwards saying how retarded and stupid we are for assuming you thought it was god and for us not to assume. Wha