This is terrible research. As a Religious Scholar outside Christianity, I can tell you this is beyond wrong. If you must blame any "Pseudo-Abrahamic" branch for being brainwashed and stupid, do so with all Protestants, Jews, Mormons, Muslims, Bahai's and similar others. Roman Catholicism and, to a greater extent, Zoroastrianism, have been far above all others for their impecable observations and interpretations. Read Thomas Aquinas, Meister Eckhart, Shkand-Gumanig Vizar and The Gathas.
Playing devil's advocate, the bible actually answers most of your criticism. The question "Why not go to the people when they were all one tribe, why not give everybody the same culture?" is answered in the "tower of babel" story.
I am an Atheist and generally agree with you but you should do your research better.
I think the fact is, if you think about it, there "would have been" more people sent at different times, in different places, sent randomly (supporting the randomness of life in the universe) into a society that then doesn't accept them (Jesus being crucified). The difference is records, or rather, the lack of their publicity. But that's just blending theories together, which makes less sense than the theory of religious belief in and of itself.
how about adding to your overbearing big picture, that our human condition over the centuries has always proved that man turns to religion (or philosophy, which is fine of course) in many instances when he isnt able to find the answers elsewhere - before we had science, religion was the only alternative to explaining our being, and of course, through lack of knowledge, of course any individual would buy into the fables, but having tasted the fruit of knowledge ... etc
Ironically enough, apologetics explain your questions on the "big picture". Put simply, if everyone in the world fully understood God and believed in him, then the belief in him would have no significance. Life from a Christian point of view is a test of faith, which is belief without evidence. Also, the Bible contains the understood physics at the time it was written because it was written by people of that time period.
>Also, the Bible contains the understood physics at the time it was written because it was written by people of that time period.
Which was my point. Humans wrote it. Scared, ignorant little humans. No sign of knowledge they shouldn't have, no sign of something smarter than a human. You've missed my entire argument, and you seem almost proud of it.
@SolRosenberg84 I'll try to enlighten you. You see, it's not if Mosheh saw YHWH behind the burning bus; it's not if Jesus was crucified and resurrected; it's not if Buddha was divinely inspired by his divinity: It's about a set of human rules and philosophies which, very advanced for their times, secured VERY healthy lives, both spiritual and physical, and both in plenitude. The Ethical aspect is the primary one of religion. Today, all are outdated except Roman Catholicism and Zorastrianism.
@SolRosenberg84 I'll try to enlighten you. You see, it's not if Mosheh saw YHWH behind the burning bus; it's not if Jesus was crucified and resurrected; it's not if Buddha was divinely inspired by his divinity: It's about a set of human rules and philosophies which, very advanced for their times, secured VERY healthy lives, both spiritual and physical, and both in plenitude. The Ethical aspect is the primary one of religion. Today, all are outdated except Roman Catholicism and Zorastrianism.
>Also, the Bible contains the understood physics at the time it was written because it was written by people of that time period.
So what you're saying is the people who wrote the bible wrote it with the understanding of the universe they would have had if they had never been in contact with an omniscient being?
Okay, Sol, step back and look at it.. Written on each tiny strand of DNA is a mind-boggling amount of information. Information comes from....where, exactly? Intelligence, of course. That's pretty "meta" to me. Christianity has an explanation for that Intelligence; atheism has a sketchy one at best. Seems pretty "meta" to me. Peace.
>Information comes from....where, exactly? Intelligence, of course.
No. Information with high complexity can be created via simple systems with simple rules. Fractal mathematics demonstrate this - simple math equations that feedback on themselves can produce infinite detail.
Replicators + selection is all that is needed to produce incredible complexity, no consciousness required.
I recommend you watch the BBC documentary "The Secret Life of Chaos." Its cool.
You're talking complexity. I'm talking intelligence. Those two are not the same, with all due respect. Our DNA demonstrates more than "complexity" it demonstrates an agonizing detail and sophistication which points to intelligence far superior to ours in its creation.
Life is highly organized, self-sustaining complexity. It is ordinary matter arranged in an extraordinary complex way.
Also, nice attempt to move the goalpost. We were discussing the complexity found in DNA and not intelligence. Our DNA was crafted by a relatively simple system with simple rules - its result was near infinite complexity. We clearly understand this process. For the origin of complexity itself, watch the documentary I sent you. Its pretty damn good.
I agree that we are all made of "ordinary" matter. The "extraordinary" is the crux, tho. Turing was clearly a genius in mathematics and the forerunner of computer sciences. Whether his theory applies to biology seems less certain. As with Darwin, his life story is interesting. What would REALLY blow the scientific world apart is if a diehard atheist looked at the complexity of DNA and made a change of heart. (oh, wait, I seem to remember a chap named Flew...)
>Whether his theory applies to biology seems less certain.
Well, we do know that fractals show up in nature. The basic concept behind fractals - systems that feed into themselves, is the basis of many biological structures and functions. Branching structures like those found in fractals are found throughout nature, from the structure of trees and animal circulatory systems, to the branching of lightning.
>diehard atheist looked at the complexity of DNA and made a change of heart.
Why would I care? He certainly isn't a good scientist if he falls for the hypothesis of ignorance that is intelligent design. Its not science; its a philosophy of ignorance. It has stunted the most brilliant minds this world has been gifted with again and again, stopped from solving relatively simple problems for their genius by evoking a god character to solve problems they could have solved.
apologetic's .. We should look them up. no, sorry, Once you've made the decision that astrology is a load of horse crap, why would you spend them time learning about all the little nuances. Once you've reached the conclusion that reading tea leaves actually have nothing to do with future events in your life, why launch into learning about how to read them.
Holocaust destroying Christians belief? What? Are you mistaking Jews for Christians? Most of the Germans, hence Nazis, were Christian. Its no secret.
Also, I don't see how free will can in any way remove the vast majority of the meta-problems I have discussed? Free will has jack shit to do with how god supposedly chose to spread his message, make his holy book the same as all the others, or forget to tell people that germs cause disease and pi does not equal three.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Pardon, I didn't realize that out of all your bull shit speak you were actually paying attention to an inferior being.
You canadian bred super bastard free will is the reason we have jack shit to deal with. And excuse me for missing one minor detail when you blow every grain of sand fact out to gigantic proportions.
As to the why God doesn't intervenem why would he want to save a bunch of ignorant assholes? That's his Son's Job now, we're on our own.
I agree with Sol's argument. However, I am concerned with the way Sol gives the argument by using voices (meant to be harmful) when speaking the arguing party's statements. As a fellow atheist who works in science and engineering, it pains me to have good information mixed in with what I would consider to be petty spitefulness. I would suggest not allowing harmful emotions to overcome discussing the topic at hand.
I must apologize for that. I was indeed being quite petty when I did an extremely effeminate voice to represent Kabane's post.
In attempting to be humorous, it is extremely easy to be pointlessly offensive. Being offensive to something which does not deserve respect is fine, but simply mocking someone is not.
Sol, don't beat yourself up over this one too much. Kabane does speak with a lisp, so your impression was actually rather relevant. Adding the lilt might have been over the top, but understandable :)
I loved the hand illustration of sex. Made me actually LOL (versus typing it or saying "ell oh ell" :)
I think I was skeptical of the voice characterization of Kabane at the start of the video, until I listened to the referenced video. Spot on and hilarious!
The biggest problem I always had with the whole idea of a creator is the whole nature of creation in itself makes no sense in the context of a creator.
If a deity just made us to be his friends or, whippingboys, or whatever why do we have these complex bodies? If he could do anything, why do we have an extremely complex and fragile inside? The body serves no real purpose if the biblical explanation of our existence is to hold any water.
That's one of the bigger meta-problems that I see.
Because creationists/deists would have us believe that their god is an overly complex, sadistic torturer who designed our existence to be based on suffering and challenges, but yet still love us enough to offer us a final carrot at the end of a stick should we still, ultimately, decide to lavish attention and worship upon him. See Job.
Accordingly, our bodies are designed to be burdens on us, and to tempt and distract us away from the sadist's ultimate path. That's love for ya. I'm so grateful
If meant to be a burden, it's not that effective either. If it doesn't need to ACTUALLY work, there could have been a magical way of inflicting suffering built in to directly torture the soul.
My real problem is that everything seems to actually work rather than being magic. Sort of the difference between an engine and a magic box with a rotating stick at the end.
There's no need for anything to work on a logical mechanical level, if it's all souls and creation... why bother?
Well, if the sadistic creator idea is correct, then the complexity is exactly the built-in torture device that you are looking for. The complexity itself prevents any brilliant human from brilliantly fixing "everything", so there will always be something that goes wrong, including the final old age card, which tortures everyone as they grow older.
Also having a built-in need for social interaction and generally not wanting to be alone may also be the torture factor you are looking for.
That argument only makes sense in the context of some desert tribe that doesn't know it's head from it's backside.
We probably know what causes aging now and we are getting quite decent at fixing our bodies.
If it were all magic we'd be truly powerless to do anything, yet through our brains and the 'mechanical' nature of everything we are actually empowered.
And I do think that, eventually, we will be able to fix 'anything', sadly probably not in my lifetime, but well. What can you do? :)
A creator-based argument would imply that for every thing we cure, something new to plague our bodies to torture us would surface, requiring additional struggle/torture on our part, that we will never know the end of it or have a perfect understanding of the human body.
I for one am looking forward to the day they can just run me through the Transporter every decade or so, resequence my pattern, and perfect my health. Or make me 12 again so I can save the Enterprise from the Ferengi.
That might be what it implies, but that's certainly not the observed reality. While sometimes new things do crop up, the amount of incurable diseases is most certainly going down. A magic solution would have made us completely powerless, yet because everything in the universe works on a mechanical level we get to manipulate and fix whatever we want, as soon as we figure out how it works.
The argument just doesn't work now that we've beaten ignorance.
I am wondering as to why kabanethechristian came in to leave a comment that has really nothing to do with the vid you posted and of which has ignited some dialogue between the youtube community. Well, it seems that human behaviour works in mysterious ways ;D
Don't you get the point? I know that you hate me, and I really could care less. You can cry and moan and weep in front of the computer screen, and I still won't care.
... following up on your video, though, I would not identify as an atheist, since I am an agnostic who is assessing the claims of Christianity (and Deism, and Islam, etc.) seriously. I am different from you, as I am actively searching, and you perhaps are not.
Why would an ancient culture produce theological and philosophical principals that are incorrect just because they did not understand modern-day science?
You are forgetting an important supposed attribute of these ancient cultures ,the one that causes people today to still believe what they did - the idea that their principals and beliefs were derived from the knowledge of a god; a being with more knowledge and intelligence than all of humanity combined.
Why would a being who created everything tell humans no more about the cosmos than a mere child observing the skies could have told them?
Why go through all the trouble to have massive first generation stars produce all the elements in their bodies and on their planet, than tell them nothing of this incredible fact?
Why not tell them that they are related to all life, from the animals that coat the land, sea, and air to even the trees that bring colour to our world?
Simply telling people that disease is caused by small lifeforms, rather than telling them demons are the cause, could have prevented much suffering.
Why would this god, with a complete understanding that the entire human species is one family, allow us to become splintered into tribes; and even play favourites amongst these tribes, supporting some tribes more than others - whilst knowing full well that they were all equally human?
Why would a god who loves the entire human species allow one group to slaughter another group and take their children for slavery and sexual exploitation in his name?
Why would this god not tell people the simple, consciousness expanding fact that the stars which twinkle dimly at night are the same thing as the sun which brightens and warms our day?
Why not tell them that matter, the thing which makes up everything we know and understand, is mostly nothing?
Why let humans gain this inflated sense of ego which led us to believing we are the centre of everything, knowing it is false, and doomed to cause harm before it is dispelled?
To me, this shows not the signature of the divine, but rather the crude handiwork of ignorant men who knew about as much about the cosmos as a uneducated child does. Why would the all knowing allowing such a bastardization of his work take place in the species he loves so much?
>I am different from you, as I am actively searching, and you perhaps are not.
I am not actively seeking any deity, only what is true (or degrees of what may be true), if it happens to be a deity, so be it.
Good questions, I don't see how they can be satisfyingly answered by clergics. The current Pope is reputed to be a brilliant intellectual, I wonder what he would say. Try asking the Vatican ;-)
I'm the author of the letter Kabane read in the video. You ask why I don't suggest anyone else from any religion, and I may agree with you there - although I feel Christian apologetics are best, I have studied other apologetics, such as the wonderful Muslim apologist Shabir Ally.
I sought Hindi apologists, and found virtually none; as far as Jewish apologetics go, they don't do much but go on about how Christ is not the Messiah. Deists don't have apologists, really.
the only counter argument that christians have about the bible when you explain and prove the bible wrong is "well it is meant to be inturpreted in many different ways." oh thats interesting. because if i wanted to explain something to a bunch of people, i would not explain it in a way that people would inturprut it in a way that i didn't intend on it to be inturpruted
It's also curious that an all-powerful God should be so keen on a permanent submissive worship of his own creatures. It's obviously a projection of very human aspirations, resembling the personality cult in many dictatorships. Authoritarian characters tend to see an authoritarian God, more "gentle" people tend to prefer a gentle God.
The best part is that while you raised great points as always, you barely scratched the surface of what's wrong with Christianity and why it's so clearly Bullshit. Great vid.
It never occurs to an Apologist that many have in fact studied it with an open mind and found it to be the morass of intellectual dumbfuckery that it is..
While the ghost ship of Apologetics still sails some of the stagnant philosophical backwaters, it's tattered sails take you nowhere..
Here are some definitions from different (Eng.) dictionaries:
Belief that there is no God. Belief that God does not exist. Rejection of belief in God or gods. The doctrine or belief that there is no God. Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. Disbelief in the existence of deity. The doctrine that there is no deity. Belief that God or gods do not exist. Disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme Intelligent Being. Lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
You Sol of course made note of this hypocritical "phenomena" of apologist begging for open mindedness when you mentioned how the whole enterprise of apologetics is based on systematically begging the question
So you see the "TRICK" of begging for "open mindedness". Apologists come from a position of UTTER close-mindedness, a place of JUSTIFICATIONISM, and therefore "open mindedness" with regard to apologetics is completely UNWARRANTED, a waste, apologetics is UNDESERVERING of "open mindedness", to the point it would be obstructing the truth to give apologetics unwarranted "open mindedness" in the same way that it would be obstructive to be open minded about CREATIONISM, or paranormal activity, etc
its stupid, and lame, and pretentious, not to mention so incredibly fucking obnoxious once youve been in this debate long enough, for christian apologists to beg "open mindedness" of their opponents
this is because something that is VERY important to keep in mind regarding apologetics and "open mindedness", is that people begging for "open mindedness" in regards to subjects like "christian apologetics" is often a complete FARCE and a TRICK and has nothing to do with actual open mindedness,
because "actual open mindedness" is the willingness to consider the evidence for something without any reactionary judgement, putting your pre-conceptions or 'beliefs' behind the evidence being presented to you,
AND apologetics on the whole IS a series of reactionary judgements that is automatically putting beliefs and pre-notions before what is being discussed, that is the nature of apologetics, thusly, its the antithesis of open mindedness.
I think Kabane might need a course in diachronic linguistics. If he's really going to pin down "atheism" on a certain meaning in certain dictionaries written in a certain period, then you might as well go all the way back to Roman times and say that atheism is Christianity, i.e. the rejection of the Roman gods.
I've actually gone see the "A Letter..." video you replied to. It's my feeling the guy is ismply projecting.
And yes, I agree with you, reading apologetics is no good when the "big picture" is fucked up and their very premises are flawed.
Ironically, I've seen many a time the exact same type of "skepticism" from people who buy into astrology, homeopathy, ghosts, hollow earth, alien abductions and other kookish concoctions.
remember sol that the apologist will tell you that the god could not make its existence unambiguous lest the "test" of faith be voided. the doctrine of free will, in other words, is what it boils down to. it really is a mindfuck eh. i see that the bongs are back in the background. alriiiiiiiight.
yes, as of late, there have been several vids popping up by christians and apologetics who are going outside the safety of their comprehension bubbles by placing definitions on already defined words. I am trying not to sound facetious, yet it seems that these two groups seem to reach out with l'il deviant fists at invisible straws in an attempt to plug the huge holes in the consciousness ships they have set sail upon. Heeheehee Sorry about the analogy ;D
Duuuuude! Is that a fucking volcano I see? God damn, I am jealous of you.
Wait, i don't believe in a god... so can I say "god damn"? Oh well, its too well integrated into the english language to stop using it. Same with jesus christ, oh my god, and many others...
Um, no, academia is heavily secular. Recently that has been changing, particularly in philosophy departments, but atheism dominated philosophy departments for most of the 20th century.
PS- I don't think that was an accurate impression of my voice.
My mistake. By traditionally, I thought you meant much further back in time. I still think the point I was chasing stands - I'd be amazed if the term atheist was originally defined by atheists. Its usage has shifted though, and many people who now use the term to describe their beliefs simply lack a belief in a deity, not outright reject the possibility.
The voice wasn't accurate, but it was entertaining to record.
I did a quick check, and was not surprised to find it reported that the term atheist was a label that no one actually used to describe themselves until the late eighteenth century despite being introduced in the sixteenth century. It seems to have been used as a term to denote "godlessness", and was seen as an negative label when introduced to English.
What do you know - in the English language atheism really was originally defined by theists.
A quick google search also shows that there is evidence that some atheists since the 19th century have been arguing that atheism is not the rejection of deities, but rather the disbelief in them.
"[T]he Oracle pursued a logical course of confuting theism, and leaving "a-theism" the negative result. It did not, in the absurd terms of common religious propaganda, "deny the existence of God." It affirmed that God was a term for an existence imagined by man in terms of his own personality and irreducible to any tenable definition. (cont)
(cont) It did not even affirm that "there are no Gods"; it insisted that the onus of proof as to any God lay with the theist, who could give none compatible with his definitions."
J.M. Robertson, A History of Freethought in the Nineteenth Century (London, 1929). Pages 74-75
Kabane. Romans called Christians atheist, and homosexuality was defined as a se3xual disorder and illness. All defined by social norms. I use definitions too to prove points, but even I acknowledge and point out this flaw. I always add info for someones argument cause its intellectually honest and because I know the info is easy to crush. So fuck off and become educated and stop idiotically simplifying stuff.
So kabanetheatheistbasedonromansocietydefinitions. I also want to point out that "scholars" [people who make a living off defending bullshit ] Say eyewitness accounts dating for years and years and present say text and eyewitness alone proves thew NJ devil exists.
Did the humanist philosophical enlightenment never occur in your version of history, that you think there is some sort of "shift" in favor of theology in MODERN philosophy deparments?
Where do yuo get your evidence for "phenomenal change" change in "philosophy deparments"?
Are you involved in any philosophy deparment, anywhere, to be making that judgement?
Who are you trying to fool Kabane, you pretenious twat?
lol...I just mentioned the humanist movement in philosophy, and it's receding in favor of theism. Look at what atheist philosopher Quentin Smith says:
"Naturalists passively watched as realist versions of theism, most influenced by Plantinga's writings, began to sweep through the philosophical community, until today perhaps one-quarter or one-third of philosophy professors are theists, with most being orthodox Christians. . . the naturalist referee could at most hope the outcome would be that 'no definite conclusion can be drawn regarding the rationality of faith,' although
I expect the most probable outcome is that the naturalist, wanting to be a fair and objective referee, would have to concludethat the theists definitely had the upper hand in every single argument or debate. God is not "dead" in academia; He returned to life in the late 1960s and is now alive and well in his last academic stronghold, philosophy departments... in philosophy, it became, almost overnight, academically respectable to argue for theism, making philosophy a favored field of entry for
@KabaneTheChristian "God is not "dead" in academia; He returned to life in the late 1960s and is now alive and well in his last academic stronghold, philosophy departments... in philosophy, it became, almost overnight, academically respectable to argue for theism,"
I honestly want to know where you get this from because I see most philosophers are atheist/agnostic and philosophy of religion is one of the smallest departments in secular universities.
Stop embarassing yourself, you get everything your looking for in one quote, don't you Kabane, and then you ignore everything else.
"Oh the naturalists could do not but sit passively by as the grand theistic overhaul of philosophy gained theists the UPPER HAND in EVERY DEBATE"
"Arguing for God" is TOLERATED at BEST in analytic departments around the world, Kabane, but the FACT that "arguing for theism" NECESSITATES fallacious argumentation at every turn has been well established for years
Ever heard of W.V.O. Quine, Richard Rorty, John Searle, Jaegwon Kim? The burgeoning field of neurophilosophy?
No Im afraid I don't go, anywhere
It doesn't follow that theism is "winning" over naturalism/humanism/physicalism etc in philosophy simply because you can cherry pick a random, comforting quote from soem unknown philosopher, atheist or not. Ever tried an originial thought, Kabane? Thats not really your style, is it? Do you know what the post-metaphysical age is?
Well thats a nice quote, but do you have any studies to reference?
Just curious, as similar studies on the religious beliefs of scientists are done quite frequently - I wonder if the same thing has been done in philosophy departments.
lotanddaughters, you are wrong, Kabane is certainly not a fool. Do you honestly think he would believe that a loving god would give him such an ugly, pig face? Or that He is in God's image? No ones that dumb. Kabane knew his chance for popularity was about 0, so, he did the only sensible thing to make friends: He joined a cult. He just made the best of a bad situation.
Is that supposed to be a penis or a smiley face? I'm not 'hip' with you young kids and your internet lingo. Carrier pigeons are the best way to communicate. Sure, they may have been messy, but they got the job done...when they weren't eaten by cats, and you never had to wonder whether someone was trying to send you a smiley face or a penis!
@KabaneTheChristian lol, I think your completely Real God might have a problem with you loving another mine. Yeah, he actually looks down on that kind of stuff. But, you're probably just lying, so its cool. Even though it says lying's wrong in the 10 commandments, it seems that God doesn't care about that, since nearly all theists lie to others (and themselves). Guess that was just another one of those 'metaphorical' verses in the bible.
lol, seriously? I'm changing that status on my channel. I had that up because I was presently involved in three debates with atheists at once. Now I've completed those and am once again available for challenges.
Well thats all and good, but what I suggested was one book that would be introduced before all the others, and contain enough scientific fact that we would be learning from it and referring to it for centuries. The Koran says stars are lamps to scare away demons for crap's sake - not exactly scientific, despite various Muslims ludicrous claims. It also came from earlier religions, and does nothing to refute what i suggested about better plans to spread god's supposed truth.
Plus, isn't it funny how "science" in holy texts is discovered and pointed to AFTER actual scientists do the actual discovery?
Also, I loved your point about Christians not being openminded to the apologetics of other religions.
Reminds me of an anecdote of gothatfunk's where, after telling a Christian lady he has read the Bible AND other "holy" books too, she can only surmise he "must be confused."
Kabane and many other theists have this irritating tendency to focus too hard on labels. If he wants to ignore the reason for the existence of the terms "weak" and "strong" atheism and if he wants to treat agnosticism and atheism as though they're mutually exclusive, then that's fine. All that would do is leave we weak atheists in exactly the same position as before, only calling ourselves agnostic instead. I don't see what the purpose is besides being a smartarse, and not even deservedly so.
This is terrible research. As a Religious Scholar outside Christianity, I can tell you this is beyond wrong. If you must blame any "Pseudo-Abrahamic" branch for being brainwashed and stupid, do so with all Protestants, Jews, Mormons, Muslims, Bahai's and similar others. Roman Catholicism and, to a greater extent, Zoroastrianism, have been far above all others for their impecable observations and interpretations. Read Thomas Aquinas, Meister Eckhart, Shkand-Gumanig Vizar and The Gathas.
ganondorf59 3 months ago
Playing devil's advocate, the bible actually answers most of your criticism. The question "Why not go to the people when they were all one tribe, why not give everybody the same culture?" is answered in the "tower of babel" story.
I am an Atheist and generally agree with you but you should do your research better.
PeterK1984 5 months ago
I think the fact is, if you think about it, there "would have been" more people sent at different times, in different places, sent randomly (supporting the randomness of life in the universe) into a society that then doesn't accept them (Jesus being crucified). The difference is records, or rather, the lack of their publicity. But that's just blending theories together, which makes less sense than the theory of religious belief in and of itself.
KruegerLou 6 months ago
Nice bong collection, dude.
lomonosov31 8 months ago
friggin awesome
Darkmage133 1 year ago
how about adding to your overbearing big picture, that our human condition over the centuries has always proved that man turns to religion (or philosophy, which is fine of course) in many instances when he isnt able to find the answers elsewhere - before we had science, religion was the only alternative to explaining our being, and of course, through lack of knowledge, of course any individual would buy into the fables, but having tasted the fruit of knowledge ... etc
cashox3 1 year ago
I appreciate your words and your very pretty bong. :)
ThatEthanGuy 1 year ago
well said
latterdayhertic 1 year ago
Ironically enough, apologetics explain your questions on the "big picture". Put simply, if everyone in the world fully understood God and believed in him, then the belief in him would have no significance. Life from a Christian point of view is a test of faith, which is belief without evidence. Also, the Bible contains the understood physics at the time it was written because it was written by people of that time period.
DrPhilIsKool 2 years ago
>Also, the Bible contains the understood physics at the time it was written because it was written by people of that time period.
Which was my point. Humans wrote it. Scared, ignorant little humans. No sign of knowledge they shouldn't have, no sign of something smarter than a human. You've missed my entire argument, and you seem almost proud of it.
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
Comment removed
ganondorf59 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SolRosenberg84 I'll try to enlighten you. You see, it's not if Mosheh saw YHWH behind the burning bus; it's not if Jesus was crucified and resurrected; it's not if Buddha was divinely inspired by his divinity: It's about a set of human rules and philosophies which, very advanced for their times, secured VERY healthy lives, both spiritual and physical, and both in plenitude. The Ethical aspect is the primary one of religion. Today, all are outdated except Roman Catholicism and Zorastrianism.
ganondorf59 3 months ago
@SolRosenberg84 I'll try to enlighten you. You see, it's not if Mosheh saw YHWH behind the burning bus; it's not if Jesus was crucified and resurrected; it's not if Buddha was divinely inspired by his divinity: It's about a set of human rules and philosophies which, very advanced for their times, secured VERY healthy lives, both spiritual and physical, and both in plenitude. The Ethical aspect is the primary one of religion. Today, all are outdated except Roman Catholicism and Zorastrianism.
ganondorf59 3 months ago
@DrPhilIsKool
>Also, the Bible contains the understood physics at the time it was written because it was written by people of that time period.
So what you're saying is the people who wrote the bible wrote it with the understanding of the universe they would have had if they had never been in contact with an omniscient being?
So how is this a point in your favour?
SolRosenberg84 3 months ago
Great video Sol
mcdoogs87 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You are smart and funny... but incorrect.
fortruth8989 2 years ago
Okay, Sol, step back and look at it.. Written on each tiny strand of DNA is a mind-boggling amount of information. Information comes from....where, exactly? Intelligence, of course. That's pretty "meta" to me. Christianity has an explanation for that Intelligence; atheism has a sketchy one at best. Seems pretty "meta" to me. Peace.
Sweet92Sue 2 years ago
>Information comes from....where, exactly? Intelligence, of course.
No. Information with high complexity can be created via simple systems with simple rules. Fractal mathematics demonstrate this - simple math equations that feedback on themselves can produce infinite detail.
Replicators + selection is all that is needed to produce incredible complexity, no consciousness required.
I recommend you watch the BBC documentary "The Secret Life of Chaos." Its cool.
/watch?v=YEpZFEIDHdc
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
You're talking complexity. I'm talking intelligence. Those two are not the same, with all due respect. Our DNA demonstrates more than "complexity" it demonstrates an agonizing detail and sophistication which points to intelligence far superior to ours in its creation.
Sweet92Sue 2 years ago
Life is highly organized, self-sustaining complexity. It is ordinary matter arranged in an extraordinary complex way.
Also, nice attempt to move the goalpost. We were discussing the complexity found in DNA and not intelligence. Our DNA was crafted by a relatively simple system with simple rules - its result was near infinite complexity. We clearly understand this process. For the origin of complexity itself, watch the documentary I sent you. Its pretty damn good.
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
I agree that we are all made of "ordinary" matter. The "extraordinary" is the crux, tho. Turing was clearly a genius in mathematics and the forerunner of computer sciences. Whether his theory applies to biology seems less certain. As with Darwin, his life story is interesting. What would REALLY blow the scientific world apart is if a diehard atheist looked at the complexity of DNA and made a change of heart. (oh, wait, I seem to remember a chap named Flew...)
Anyway, thanks for the link.
Sweet92Sue 2 years ago
>Whether his theory applies to biology seems less certain.
Well, we do know that fractals show up in nature. The basic concept behind fractals - systems that feed into themselves, is the basis of many biological structures and functions. Branching structures like those found in fractals are found throughout nature, from the structure of trees and animal circulatory systems, to the branching of lightning.
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
>diehard atheist looked at the complexity of DNA and made a change of heart.
Why would I care? He certainly isn't a good scientist if he falls for the hypothesis of ignorance that is intelligent design. Its not science; its a philosophy of ignorance. It has stunted the most brilliant minds this world has been gifted with again and again, stopped from solving relatively simple problems for their genius by evoking a god character to solve problems they could have solved.
/watch?v=YotBtibsuh0
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
apologetic's .. We should look them up. no, sorry, Once you've made the decision that astrology is a load of horse crap, why would you spend them time learning about all the little nuances. Once you've reached the conclusion that reading tea leaves actually have nothing to do with future events in your life, why launch into learning about how to read them.
troyboulay 2 years ago
Joker voice at 4:53
"I don't know"
villeppi 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Two words; Free Will. None of this makes any sense to me. Has this bastard made it his goal to try and tear Christianity apart?
News flash pal, if the Roman Empire, Inquisition and Holocaust couldn't destroy our beliefs then what hope have you?
UsurperDunamis 2 years ago
Holocaust destroying Christians belief? What? Are you mistaking Jews for Christians? Most of the Germans, hence Nazis, were Christian. Its no secret.
Also, I don't see how free will can in any way remove the vast majority of the meta-problems I have discussed? Free will has jack shit to do with how god supposedly chose to spread his message, make his holy book the same as all the others, or forget to tell people that germs cause disease and pi does not equal three.
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Pardon, I didn't realize that out of all your bull shit speak you were actually paying attention to an inferior being.
You canadian bred super bastard free will is the reason we have jack shit to deal with. And excuse me for missing one minor detail when you blow every grain of sand fact out to gigantic proportions.
As to the why God doesn't intervenem why would he want to save a bunch of ignorant assholes? That's his Son's Job now, we're on our own.
Pick a side grammar nazi.
UsurperDunamis 2 years ago
Sol, given your recent video regarding trying to treat all people, even those who disagree with you, as human beings...good luck with this one :)
LaerenMisha 2 years ago 2
I agree with Sol's argument. However, I am concerned with the way Sol gives the argument by using voices (meant to be harmful) when speaking the arguing party's statements. As a fellow atheist who works in science and engineering, it pains me to have good information mixed in with what I would consider to be petty spitefulness. I would suggest not allowing harmful emotions to overcome discussing the topic at hand.
leephawk 2 years ago
I must apologize for that. I was indeed being quite petty when I did an extremely effeminate voice to represent Kabane's post.
In attempting to be humorous, it is extremely easy to be pointlessly offensive. Being offensive to something which does not deserve respect is fine, but simply mocking someone is not.
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
Sol, don't beat yourself up over this one too much. Kabane does speak with a lisp, so your impression was actually rather relevant. Adding the lilt might have been over the top, but understandable :)
LaerenMisha 2 years ago
I loved the hand illustration of sex. Made me actually LOL (versus typing it or saying "ell oh ell" :)
I think I was skeptical of the voice characterization of Kabane at the start of the video, until I listened to the referenced video. Spot on and hilarious!
LaerenMisha 2 years ago
The biggest problem I always had with the whole idea of a creator is the whole nature of creation in itself makes no sense in the context of a creator.
If a deity just made us to be his friends or, whippingboys, or whatever why do we have these complex bodies? If he could do anything, why do we have an extremely complex and fragile inside? The body serves no real purpose if the biblical explanation of our existence is to hold any water.
That's one of the bigger meta-problems that I see.
TheMMaster2007 2 years ago
Because creationists/deists would have us believe that their god is an overly complex, sadistic torturer who designed our existence to be based on suffering and challenges, but yet still love us enough to offer us a final carrot at the end of a stick should we still, ultimately, decide to lavish attention and worship upon him. See Job.
Accordingly, our bodies are designed to be burdens on us, and to tempt and distract us away from the sadist's ultimate path. That's love for ya. I'm so grateful
LaerenMisha 2 years ago
If meant to be a burden, it's not that effective either. If it doesn't need to ACTUALLY work, there could have been a magical way of inflicting suffering built in to directly torture the soul.
My real problem is that everything seems to actually work rather than being magic. Sort of the difference between an engine and a magic box with a rotating stick at the end.
There's no need for anything to work on a logical mechanical level, if it's all souls and creation... why bother?
TheMMaster2007 2 years ago
Well, if the sadistic creator idea is correct, then the complexity is exactly the built-in torture device that you are looking for. The complexity itself prevents any brilliant human from brilliantly fixing "everything", so there will always be something that goes wrong, including the final old age card, which tortures everyone as they grow older.
Also having a built-in need for social interaction and generally not wanting to be alone may also be the torture factor you are looking for.
LaerenMisha 2 years ago
That argument only makes sense in the context of some desert tribe that doesn't know it's head from it's backside.
We probably know what causes aging now and we are getting quite decent at fixing our bodies.
If it were all magic we'd be truly powerless to do anything, yet through our brains and the 'mechanical' nature of everything we are actually empowered.
And I do think that, eventually, we will be able to fix 'anything', sadly probably not in my lifetime, but well. What can you do? :)
TheMMaster2007 2 years ago
A creator-based argument would imply that for every thing we cure, something new to plague our bodies to torture us would surface, requiring additional struggle/torture on our part, that we will never know the end of it or have a perfect understanding of the human body.
I for one am looking forward to the day they can just run me through the Transporter every decade or so, resequence my pattern, and perfect my health. Or make me 12 again so I can save the Enterprise from the Ferengi.
LaerenMisha 2 years ago
That might be what it implies, but that's certainly not the observed reality. While sometimes new things do crop up, the amount of incurable diseases is most certainly going down. A magic solution would have made us completely powerless, yet because everything in the universe works on a mechanical level we get to manipulate and fix whatever we want, as soon as we figure out how it works.
The argument just doesn't work now that we've beaten ignorance.
also: hell yeah! ;)
TheMMaster2007 2 years ago
"Nothing can be more contrary to religion and the clergy than reason and common sense."Voltaire
KasparHauser4 2 years ago
That twit was thinking of "Apostate", as his definition of "Atheist" is the one that presupposes that Atheists believe, but deny God.
RyuDarragh 2 years ago
I am wondering as to why kabanethechristian came in to leave a comment that has really nothing to do with the vid you posted and of which has ignited some dialogue between the youtube community. Well, it seems that human behaviour works in mysterious ways ;D
thedeeliciousplum 2 years ago
This was an excellent video that really did highlight the big problem with apologetics. Thanks!
StreetlightEagle 2 years ago
wow. what an eloquent and brilliant rant! great video!
theheinzification 2 years ago
I'm gonna love you forever...
Don't you get the point? I know that you hate me, and I really could care less. You can cry and moan and weep in front of the computer screen, and I still won't care.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
aww, that stinks! Because I love you.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
... following up on your video, though, I would not identify as an atheist, since I am an agnostic who is assessing the claims of Christianity (and Deism, and Islam, etc.) seriously. I am different from you, as I am actively searching, and you perhaps are not.
Why would an ancient culture produce theological and philosophical principals that are incorrect just because they did not understand modern-day science?
darrinrasberry 2 years ago
You are forgetting an important supposed attribute of these ancient cultures ,the one that causes people today to still believe what they did - the idea that their principals and beliefs were derived from the knowledge of a god; a being with more knowledge and intelligence than all of humanity combined.
Why would a being who created everything tell humans no more about the cosmos than a mere child observing the skies could have told them?
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
Why go through all the trouble to have massive first generation stars produce all the elements in their bodies and on their planet, than tell them nothing of this incredible fact?
Why not tell them that they are related to all life, from the animals that coat the land, sea, and air to even the trees that bring colour to our world?
Simply telling people that disease is caused by small lifeforms, rather than telling them demons are the cause, could have prevented much suffering.
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
Why would this god, with a complete understanding that the entire human species is one family, allow us to become splintered into tribes; and even play favourites amongst these tribes, supporting some tribes more than others - whilst knowing full well that they were all equally human?
Why would a god who loves the entire human species allow one group to slaughter another group and take their children for slavery and sexual exploitation in his name?
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
Why would this god not tell people the simple, consciousness expanding fact that the stars which twinkle dimly at night are the same thing as the sun which brightens and warms our day?
Why not tell them that matter, the thing which makes up everything we know and understand, is mostly nothing?
Why let humans gain this inflated sense of ego which led us to believing we are the centre of everything, knowing it is false, and doomed to cause harm before it is dispelled?
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
To me, this shows not the signature of the divine, but rather the crude handiwork of ignorant men who knew about as much about the cosmos as a uneducated child does. Why would the all knowing allowing such a bastardization of his work take place in the species he loves so much?
>I am different from you, as I am actively searching, and you perhaps are not.
I am not actively seeking any deity, only what is true (or degrees of what may be true), if it happens to be a deity, so be it.
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
Good questions, I don't see how they can be satisfyingly answered by clergics. The current Pope is reputed to be a brilliant intellectual, I wonder what he would say. Try asking the Vatican ;-)
eltamin1966 2 years ago
//I am not actively seeking any deity, only what is true (or degrees of what may be true), if it happens to be a deity, so be it.//
I'm right with you on this.
darrinrasberry 2 years ago
Sol (I love that name!) -
I'm the author of the letter Kabane read in the video. You ask why I don't suggest anyone else from any religion, and I may agree with you there - although I feel Christian apologetics are best, I have studied other apologetics, such as the wonderful Muslim apologist Shabir Ally.
I sought Hindi apologists, and found virtually none; as far as Jewish apologetics go, they don't do much but go on about how Christ is not the Messiah. Deists don't have apologists, really.
darrinrasberry 2 years ago
I love you too man.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
fantastic video..one of your best in my opinion.
kalsolarUK 2 years ago
Hilarious video. Keep posting.
NeedsEvidence 2 years ago
the only counter argument that christians have about the bible when you explain and prove the bible wrong is "well it is meant to be inturpreted in many different ways." oh thats interesting. because if i wanted to explain something to a bunch of people, i would not explain it in a way that people would inturprut it in a way that i didn't intend on it to be inturpruted
kiddhitta 2 years ago 2
LOL true
epanek 2 years ago
It's also curious that an all-powerful God should be so keen on a permanent submissive worship of his own creatures. It's obviously a projection of very human aspirations, resembling the personality cult in many dictatorships. Authoritarian characters tend to see an authoritarian God, more "gentle" people tend to prefer a gentle God.
eltamin1966 2 years ago
I love how you're able characterize the believers so well and your manner of rational for the arguments is quite entertaining. Love the vids.
Jerig128 2 years ago
The best part is that while you raised great points as always, you barely scratched the surface of what's wrong with Christianity and why it's so clearly Bullshit. Great vid.
agnosticman77 2 years ago 2
@agnosticman77
I love Theoretical Bullshit's "God's Checklist 2.0". That really nails the absurdity of it on the head.
wimvandenberghe 2 years ago
If I had infinite power.... hmm, let's see, I would make everyone happy, even my enemies.
Vote me for god. ;)
IceHammer58 2 years ago
"None of this makes sense from the perspective of 'I'm a being with infinite power..'"
Nail on head, great video and subbed.
bewarethelizards42 2 years ago
It never occurs to an Apologist that many have in fact studied it with an open mind and found it to be the morass of intellectual dumbfuckery that it is..
While the ghost ship of Apologetics still sails some of the stagnant philosophical backwaters, it's tattered sails take you nowhere..
SofaKingLoaded 2 years ago
I guess biblical literalists would claim that God did have everyone in on place and one language until the Tower of Babel. lol
Brianswers 2 years ago
He should be open minded towards the arguments against apologetics, but that's not going to happen.
Brianswers 2 years ago
Here are some definitions from different (Eng.) dictionaries:
Belief that there is no God. Belief that God does not exist. Rejection of belief in God or gods. The doctrine or belief that there is no God. Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. Disbelief in the existence of deity. The doctrine that there is no deity. Belief that God or gods do not exist. Disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme Intelligent Being. Lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
wimvandenberghe 2 years ago
You Sol of course made note of this hypocritical "phenomena" of apologist begging for open mindedness when you mentioned how the whole enterprise of apologetics is based on systematically begging the question
GnomesAmok 2 years ago
So you see the "TRICK" of begging for "open mindedness". Apologists come from a position of UTTER close-mindedness, a place of JUSTIFICATIONISM, and therefore "open mindedness" with regard to apologetics is completely UNWARRANTED, a waste, apologetics is UNDESERVERING of "open mindedness", to the point it would be obstructing the truth to give apologetics unwarranted "open mindedness" in the same way that it would be obstructive to be open minded about CREATIONISM, or paranormal activity, etc
GnomesAmok 2 years ago
its stupid, and lame, and pretentious, not to mention so incredibly fucking obnoxious once youve been in this debate long enough, for christian apologists to beg "open mindedness" of their opponents
this is because something that is VERY important to keep in mind regarding apologetics and "open mindedness", is that people begging for "open mindedness" in regards to subjects like "christian apologetics" is often a complete FARCE and a TRICK and has nothing to do with actual open mindedness,
GnomesAmok 2 years ago
(cont..)
because "actual open mindedness" is the willingness to consider the evidence for something without any reactionary judgement, putting your pre-conceptions or 'beliefs' behind the evidence being presented to you,
AND apologetics on the whole IS a series of reactionary judgements that is automatically putting beliefs and pre-notions before what is being discussed, that is the nature of apologetics, thusly, its the antithesis of open mindedness.
GnomesAmok 2 years ago
I think Kabane might need a course in diachronic linguistics. If he's really going to pin down "atheism" on a certain meaning in certain dictionaries written in a certain period, then you might as well go all the way back to Roman times and say that atheism is Christianity, i.e. the rejection of the Roman gods.
wimvandenberghe 2 years ago 2
I've actually gone see the "A Letter..." video you replied to. It's my feeling the guy is ismply projecting.
And yes, I agree with you, reading apologetics is no good when the "big picture" is fucked up and their very premises are flawed.
Ironically, I've seen many a time the exact same type of "skepticism" from people who buy into astrology, homeopathy, ghosts, hollow earth, alien abductions and other kookish concoctions.
krrypton 2 years ago
remember sol that the apologist will tell you that the god could not make its existence unambiguous lest the "test" of faith be voided. the doctrine of free will, in other words, is what it boils down to. it really is a mindfuck eh. i see that the bongs are back in the background. alriiiiiiiight.
shadyvista 2 years ago
Let's create a religion and have sects. lol
mrHBski 2 years ago
This video seems extremely familiar..
joegt123 2 years ago
Excellent video, as usual.
5 stars :)
mastermind2566 2 years ago
You're on a roll with all these videos recently.
They've all been pretty interesting, even though I know most of the material you cover... it's a nice refresher.
TomConger 2 years ago
WONDERFUL! Yes, definitions are based on society. Words change all the time. 5 stars!
jay666KJ 2 years ago
yes, as of late, there have been several vids popping up by christians and apologetics who are going outside the safety of their comprehension bubbles by placing definitions on already defined words. I am trying not to sound facetious, yet it seems that these two groups seem to reach out with l'il deviant fists at invisible straws in an attempt to plug the huge holes in the consciousness ships they have set sail upon. Heeheehee Sorry about the analogy ;D
thedeeliciousplum 2 years ago 2
Hey Sol!
Great Video! I almost completely agree with everything you said. ; )
theprodigy2186 2 years ago
Duuuuude! Is that a fucking volcano I see? God damn, I am jealous of you.
Wait, i don't believe in a god... so can I say "god damn"? Oh well, its too well integrated into the english language to stop using it. Same with jesus christ, oh my god, and many others...
mrbobsevil 2 years ago 2
It actually isn't a Volcano - I'm not that rich lol. Its a V-Tower Extreme.
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
Excellent, it's funny I was bringing up the same points when talking with someone today .
MST3KonBlog 2 years ago
Um, no, academia is heavily secular. Recently that has been changing, particularly in philosophy departments, but atheism dominated philosophy departments for most of the 20th century.
PS- I don't think that was an accurate impression of my voice.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
My mistake. By traditionally, I thought you meant much further back in time. I still think the point I was chasing stands - I'd be amazed if the term atheist was originally defined by atheists. Its usage has shifted though, and many people who now use the term to describe their beliefs simply lack a belief in a deity, not outright reject the possibility.
The voice wasn't accurate, but it was entertaining to record.
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
I did a quick check, and was not surprised to find it reported that the term atheist was a label that no one actually used to describe themselves until the late eighteenth century despite being introduced in the sixteenth century. It seems to have been used as a term to denote "godlessness", and was seen as an negative label when introduced to English.
What do you know - in the English language atheism really was originally defined by theists.
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
A quick google search also shows that there is evidence that some atheists since the 19th century have been arguing that atheism is not the rejection of deities, but rather the disbelief in them.
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
For example -
"[T]he Oracle pursued a logical course of confuting theism, and leaving "a-theism" the negative result. It did not, in the absurd terms of common religious propaganda, "deny the existence of God." It affirmed that God was a term for an existence imagined by man in terms of his own personality and irreducible to any tenable definition. (cont)
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
(cont) It did not even affirm that "there are no Gods"; it insisted that the onus of proof as to any God lay with the theist, who could give none compatible with his definitions."
J.M. Robertson, A History of Freethought in the Nineteenth Century (London, 1929). Pages 74-75
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
I find it interesting and not surprising that Kabane only attacked your one point about atheists, and not your big picture points.
crazycrazycaleb 2 years ago
Kabane. Romans called Christians atheist, and homosexuality was defined as a se3xual disorder and illness. All defined by social norms. I use definitions too to prove points, but even I acknowledge and point out this flaw. I always add info for someones argument cause its intellectually honest and because I know the info is easy to crush. So fuck off and become educated and stop idiotically simplifying stuff.
jay666KJ 2 years ago
So kabanetheatheistbasedonromansocietydefinitions. I also want to point out that "scholars" [people who make a living off defending bullshit ] Say eyewitness accounts dating for years and years and present say text and eyewitness alone proves thew NJ devil exists.
Just so ya know.
jay666KJ 2 years ago
RELIGION is taking over PHILOSOPHY deparments?
Did the humanist philosophical enlightenment never occur in your version of history, that you think there is some sort of "shift" in favor of theology in MODERN philosophy deparments?
Where do yuo get your evidence for "phenomenal change" change in "philosophy deparments"?
Are you involved in any philosophy deparment, anywhere, to be making that judgement?
Who are you trying to fool Kabane, you pretenious twat?
YOURSELF?
GnomesAmok 2 years ago
lol...I just mentioned the humanist movement in philosophy, and it's receding in favor of theism. Look at what atheist philosopher Quentin Smith says:
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
"Naturalists passively watched as realist versions of theism, most influenced by Plantinga's writings, began to sweep through the philosophical community, until today perhaps one-quarter or one-third of philosophy professors are theists, with most being orthodox Christians. . . the naturalist referee could at most hope the outcome would be that 'no definite conclusion can be drawn regarding the rationality of faith,' although
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
I expect the most probable outcome is that the naturalist, wanting to be a fair and objective referee, would have to concludethat the theists definitely had the upper hand in every single argument or debate. God is not "dead" in academia; He returned to life in the late 1960s and is now alive and well in his last academic stronghold, philosophy departments... in philosophy, it became, almost overnight, academically respectable to argue for theism, making philosophy a favored field of entry for
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
@KabaneTheChristian "God is not "dead" in academia; He returned to life in the late 1960s and is now alive and well in his last academic stronghold, philosophy departments... in philosophy, it became, almost overnight, academically respectable to argue for theism,"
I honestly want to know where you get this from because I see most philosophers are atheist/agnostic and philosophy of religion is one of the smallest departments in secular universities.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the most intelligent and talented theists entering academia today."
There you go. I'm sorry that you were unaware of this fact.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Stop embarassing yourself, you get everything your looking for in one quote, don't you Kabane, and then you ignore everything else.
"Oh the naturalists could do not but sit passively by as the grand theistic overhaul of philosophy gained theists the UPPER HAND in EVERY DEBATE"
"Arguing for God" is TOLERATED at BEST in analytic departments around the world, Kabane, but the FACT that "arguing for theism" NECESSITATES fallacious argumentation at every turn has been well established for years
GnomesAmok 2 years ago 3
Ever heard of W.V.O. Quine, Richard Rorty, John Searle, Jaegwon Kim? The burgeoning field of neurophilosophy?
No Im afraid I don't go, anywhere
It doesn't follow that theism is "winning" over naturalism/humanism/physicalism etc in philosophy simply because you can cherry pick a random, comforting quote from soem unknown philosopher, atheist or not. Ever tried an originial thought, Kabane? Thats not really your style, is it? Do you know what the post-metaphysical age is?
GnomesAmok 2 years ago
Well thats a nice quote, but do you have any studies to reference?
Just curious, as similar studies on the religious beliefs of scientists are done quite frequently - I wonder if the same thing has been done in philosophy departments.
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
I don't give a fuck WHAT you say.
FACT:
Christianity is BULLSHIT.
FACT:
The Bible COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE the True Word of the CREATOR of the universe.
FACT:
If YOU are a Christian, then YOU are a Goddamned FOOL.
Drop Chrisitanity, THEN come back with your vague, out-of-reach deist philosophy.
When it comes to philosophy, you CAN'T take a brainwashed Christian seriously(especially one who suckles the CUM out of the preacher's COCK).
lotanddaughters 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This was perhaps the most amusing comment I've read all day. Thank you.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
lotanddaughters, you are wrong, Kabane is certainly not a fool. Do you honestly think he would believe that a loving god would give him such an ugly, pig face? Or that He is in God's image? No ones that dumb. Kabane knew his chance for popularity was about 0, so, he did the only sensible thing to make friends: He joined a cult. He just made the best of a bad situation.
Sav3TheWorld 2 years ago 2
<3!!!
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Is that supposed to be a penis or a smiley face? I'm not 'hip' with you young kids and your internet lingo. Carrier pigeons are the best way to communicate. Sure, they may have been messy, but they got the job done...when they weren't eaten by cats, and you never had to wonder whether someone was trying to send you a smiley face or a penis!
Sav3TheWorld 2 years ago
It's a heart. It means I love you!
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
@KabaneTheChristian lol, I think your completely Real God might have a problem with you loving another mine. Yeah, he actually looks down on that kind of stuff. But, you're probably just lying, so its cool. Even though it says lying's wrong in the 10 commandments, it seems that God doesn't care about that, since nearly all theists lie to others (and themselves). Guess that was just another one of those 'metaphorical' verses in the bible.
Sav3TheWorld 2 years ago
shhh... ;)
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
<3!
Sav3TheWorld 2 years ago
@KabaneTheChristian
I second Sol, Kabane. It's a very pretty quote, but what I'd really like to hear, or see, are some of Sol's questions answered.
In point of fact, the questions Sol asks, along with a plethora of others, are what drove me to take an interest in this subject.
threewiseman1 2 years ago
I fucking loved the god accent dude. Not why I subbed, but I subbed nonetheless.
Keippernicus 2 years ago
Kabane doesn't debate people? Dammit, I already had one with Mig . . . Veritas is busy with the whole Rational Dawn thing . . . who is left?
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
He's debated creationists before. I think he doesn't debate atheists be cause he thinks he'll lose.
Brianswers 2 years ago
lol, seriously? I'm changing that status on my channel. I had that up because I was presently involved in three debates with atheists at once. Now I've completed those and am once again available for challenges.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
@KabaneTheChristian Nah, not entirely serios. I was being unneccesarily snarky. sorry. ;)
Brianswers 2 years ago
I am very much a believer in Open Mindedness and all of what you say makes perfect sense, I have been asking myself these questions all my life
ccofmight 2 years ago
You know not sex as having fun like sects the boring and often violent kind...well unless you're into that sort of thing ;)
SleepsAvatar 2 years ago
Sol,
I'm sure you know this, but I feel it must be explicited.
Actually, your "one book for all" and "many prophets for many peoples" arguments actually are arguments of Islam.
Only problem: they say THE QUR'AN is THAT one book - plus the messengers are human - and the last one is You-Know-Who.
Oh, well - sounded good for a moment.
amoxtlacatl 2 years ago
Well thats all and good, but what I suggested was one book that would be introduced before all the others, and contain enough scientific fact that we would be learning from it and referring to it for centuries. The Koran says stars are lamps to scare away demons for crap's sake - not exactly scientific, despite various Muslims ludicrous claims. It also came from earlier religions, and does nothing to refute what i suggested about better plans to spread god's supposed truth.
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
Sol,
As I said: "SOUNDED good" (emphasis added).
Never said it actually WAS - and it ain't.
Plus, isn't it funny how "science" in holy texts is discovered and pointed to AFTER actual scientists do the actual discovery?
Also, I loved your point about Christians not being openminded to the apologetics of other religions.
Reminds me of an anecdote of gothatfunk's where, after telling a Christian lady he has read the Bible AND other "holy" books too, she can only surmise he "must be confused."
amoxtlacatl 2 years ago
great video
rabidchipmunk2641 2 years ago
Kabane and many other theists have this irritating tendency to focus too hard on labels. If he wants to ignore the reason for the existence of the terms "weak" and "strong" atheism and if he wants to treat agnosticism and atheism as though they're mutually exclusive, then that's fine. All that would do is leave we weak atheists in exactly the same position as before, only calling ourselves agnostic instead. I don't see what the purpose is besides being a smartarse, and not even deservedly so.
BrianTheGoldfish 2 years ago 2
HE COULDNT DO THAT CUZ WE NEEDZ FREE WILLZ!!!! D:
(jk)
AnarchistOpposition 2 years ago
Error! >:(
dylanErr1994 2 years ago