Think the speaker takes sides? Seriously, you just pointed out all of the "faults" (some of which are actually faults, while most are misunderstandings at the hands of stupid christians past) in our point of view while washing over all of yours, as you so often accuse us of doing
I'm not saying that geology and biology are the same field in the least. What I'm saying, is that for the impossibility of an entire new protein to be added to a genome, one would need thousands of generations, and therefore an old earth to accomplish that feat. And the evolutionist perspective requires the old-earth theory. What I AM saying, is that he is using the assumption that the earth is old to support his case. I also, in no way, mean to be condescending.
Much love to you for this video. Remember that you can believe in God and science at the same time. The Bible is more or less a bad historical account.
(continued) vast amount of information would need to be added to the genome, which - without error- is nearly an impossibility, and would take many many generations to complete, each of which would have flawed DNA, since the frameshift would render the DNA useless unless the entire section was added all at once. And if it wasn't, the earth would have to be millions of years old to complete such a feat. And he is trying to vouch for that very point, while using it as "evidence". Just one example.
@MichaPawluk3 Sorry to be condescending, but it sounds like you think geology and biology are the same field. The two don't rely on each other for proof... Or are you just trolling?
I find it sad that people find this convincing in any way. The mediator's arguments themselves are seriously flawed. Example: frameshift mutation CAN add new information to a genome, but not on the scale of adding a whole new protein.. and his nylonase example doesn't prove anything... his whole argument hinges on a belief in evolution and an old-earth theory. He is using his own argument to try and prove his own argument, instead of using fact. For another proven to be added to a genome, a
"Check out my videos "Religion is Ridiculous" (specifically christianity)...good stuff...rate it! Christians i CHALLENGE you to watchit with an open mind.....Anti-theists watch my vids and give them a thumbs up! Help spread the truth!"
I think the Christians left because the moderator was obviously biased. :p He did make some good points, though. I would've liked to see him ban some atheist arguments.
@crazydudetz Technically yes and no. When talking about atheism one must first define what they mean by atheism, as it can mean both the lack of belief in a deity or the belief no god exists.
For the former, all that is required is not believing in something that has no physical evidence supporting it.
For the latter, its is a belief. However it is a belief supported or at least consistent with phat physical evidence tells us. Every system attributed to god, does not require god.
"do not misrepresent the other side or assert things about their worldview that is simply not true." and then he goes on for the next 9 minutes doing just that. Really, I did enjoy your "water tight arguments" while they were disguised as unfounded assertions, they did indeed seem to be infallible evidences!!! I must say that the video was very clever, but unconvincing.
The debate will always fail to convince because the two sides play by different rules, one side uses facts, data, observation, and trial...the other, personal revelation, the bible, and faith. How do you win when the other side wont ever even play by the same rules? I saw a cartoon where an atheist was playing chess with a theist. The theist grabbed his piece, bounced it across the board and proclaimed king me. I fear that is all the argument will ever be no matter how hard we try.
@22agreeksailor Remember the meta-game. Public discourse rarely changes the mind of the players on the spot. Almost no human being has the humility to admit they were wrong in front of a crowd.
However, it is the audience, the undecided, that you are playing for and in the process your opponents might later change their minds as well.
lol this is very "mis representing" and close minded. There are tons of logical arguments for God. Science doesn't disprove God lmaof. You can't "disprove" God.
@TheBeautyofTrance the teleological argument for God. You are very smart and "enlightened" so I'm guessing your familiar with theology. I'll let you figure it out.
@muslimgiga the teleological argument does nothing to prove "God". All it does is show that there could be a intelligent designer, not necessarily Yahweh. Also, on the concept of intelligent design, see the video "High Stakes Intelligent Designing" by NonStampCollector.
@muslimgiga I don't make any sense? Let me attempt to explain it in simpler terms for you. How do you know that this intelligent designer isn't Lord Brahma of the Hindu religion, who also supposedly created the world? Allah, of the Islam religion? Unkulunkulu, of the Zulu religion? Atum? Ptah? Viracocha? Marduk? Vishvakarman?
@muslimgiga The teleological argument for god has been debunked numerous times especially from the perspective of supporting a god. If you want to represent the logical assumptions for god you have made a terrible choice. I'll assume you are intelligent enough to go find the videos covering the common refutations of that argument for yourself. However, to get you started, I will say that on the outset claiming complexity implies intention makes for a very unintelligent god.
@AndreisEntaro what are you talking about? If an argument (such as the cosmological argument) proves the necessity for an intelligent cause then I don't see your logic AT ALL. I believe myself to be intelligent which is why I believe in a creator. An atheists claim is absurd. "There is NO God". That is a faulty argument because there is NO credible evidence for it.
Just ask Hitchens and Dawkins when they were spanked around by Lennox and others.
@muslimgiga First, the cosmological argument does not prove the necessity for an intelligent cause. Such a cause would also need a cause at least as complex as itself. Whatever caused the universe, if indeed it had a cause, will likely be simple or even stateless. But that is not even the discussion here. If you think yourself intelligent, then go look up the numerous videos here in YT covering why teleological and cosmological do not stand as good arguments.
@AndreisEntaro then we are getting into Plato's paradox. If you follow that trend, things would need to have infinite causes. Everything that BEGAN to exist has a cause. But the definition of God (well the muslim one at least) is that God is uncreated, he is immortal.
Btw, if you say "there's probably no god" that's agnosticism and skepticism. You gotta keep consistent with the definitions bro. Which one are you? A skeptic or Atheist?
@muslimgiga "God is uncreated" Then why not skip the extra step and say the universe is uncreated and timeless?
"Which one are you?" Atheist also tend to be skeptical so this is not an exclusive choice.
For me: I don't feel the need to wear a label here, they are of almost no use in these discussions. If you define "god is as likely as faeries and unicorns" as agnostic then, for the purpose of our discussion, I am agnostic.
@muslimgiga And so you demonstrate your ignorance. For an video introduction to cosmology: watch "A universe from nothing" by Lawrence Krauss: watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
Once you acquire your new objections to the video's content, get a copy of a college level astronomy book and "In search of the Big Bang" by John Gribbin.
At minimum you will find that not only is our universe not assured to be created but it very likely could be only one of many, and there are many other possibilities.
@muslimgiga The answers are out there, but you will have to do some serious reading to get them and you will have to begin by realizing how little you and indeed we as members of humanity actually know.
If you have a question, I can direction you towards still more sources for people really trying to find the answers.
@AndreisEntaro I don't think you understand. I'm not using God to "fill in" for unanswered questions. I believe God is a manifistation of the vast knowledge of scientific truth. In my mind, there is no conflict between science and God.
I love science (especially physics) and am eager to learn more. But I don't equate that as taking me away from God, but closer to Him.
@muslimgiga Define: "manifistation of the vast knowledge of scientific truth". It is fine to think science is bringing you closer to something we might call god. You, however, have made the claim that god, whatever that might be, is an intelligence; this is unsupported.
I also wonder about what you are calling a love of science (and especially physics) since you have demonstrated that you are not well read in cosmology, which should be right up your alley.
@AndreisEntaro so cosmology prove the universe in not created? Look, I believe in the Big Bang due to the astronomical evidence behind it. It is a THEORY. YES. That is exactly my point. But to claim that the opinion that the Universe has no definite beginning is a widespread and majority held opinion is lubricious. Because it's not.
@muslimgiga I also suggest that the wisest among us throughout history seem to have thought themselves mostly ignorant. It seems the trend is, the more you know, the more you realize just how ignorant you were and likely still are. It will not do to assume you have absolute truth, there is too much else that you do not know. As an aside: it appears you do not know your opponents very well as most Atheists seem to claim "there's probably no god" and relegate the belief to the realm of faeries.
@AgApE010 He was going through all the possible arguments..and there are some creationists in the Christian camp, no? As you may have noticed...only one guy got up and walked out when he couldn't argue creationism...the others got up for other reasons.
The existence of God is not a worthy argument. I was raised Christian. I became an Atheist when I actually read the Bible. I didn't have to spend all my energy defending it and justifying it's cruelty. I was able to read it without forcing myself to agree. There is no way of justifying, metaphorically or contextually smashing a baby against a rock(psalms 137). Arguing is a pure waste of time. I wouldn't debate those who believe the Moon is made of cheese. I am relieved to be free to think.
@paramattic70 Where do you live that you do not have to be concerned with people holding insane ideas trying to run your life and write your laws? I would love to be able to disregard religion, unfortunately the religious do not believe you have the right to do so. It is their mission to convert you or at least make you follow their laws. In the case of Islam this means death for non-believers.
If you live in a place untouched by the billions of religious people, please clue the rest of us in.
Withh all that said I think I will leave you to rant on about how the church did not effect the out come of so many deaths and why they should take no blame. I could care less that you keep ignoring the facts placed in front of you and expect me to prove you right. Blessed be
Finally in 1640s witch hunts began to decline. By this time the church had a strong foot hold in many nations. The Thirty Years War, a conflict that raged in several European states from 1618-1648 following an attempted rebellion by Protestants in Bohemia from the Roman Catholic Hapsburg rulers, produced slaughter and suffering that sparked additional witch hunts.
1591 King James authorizes the torture of suspected witches in Scotland. Dozens of condemned witches in the North Berwick area were burned at the stake in what would be the largest witch-hunt in British history. By 1597, James began to address some of the worst prosecutorial abuses, and witch-hunting abated somewhat.
@niinja2 Your a thick one. Its called LAW. They can no longer kill what they deem evil. But since your to thick to understand that Ill just let you go back to your window licking
early to mid-1500s ~ Outbreaks of witchcraft hysteria, with subsequent mass executions, began to appear in the early 1500s. Authorities in Geneva, Switzerland burned 500 acccused witches at the stake in 1515. Nine years later in Como, Italy, a spreading spiral of witchcraft charges led to as many as 1000 executions. Just to name a few
So with that the church ignored the Bible its self in stating witches do not exist. Yet another statement they back track on to fit there agenda. But you will have people believe the church is not at fault for there actions. Now shall we believe the bible that witches are real or shall we go for this statement? Once again the church covering its tracks
It was the "error of the pagans" to believe in "some other divine power than the one God." Of course, if witches are indeed powerless, the Church need not overly concern itself with their spells or other attempts at mischief.
St. Augustine argues witchcraft is an impossibility Saint Augustine of Hippo, an influential theologian in the early Christian Church, argued in the early 400s that God alone could suspend the normal laws of the universe. In his view, neither Satan nor witches had supernatural powers or were capable of effectively invoking magic of any sort.
Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. (KJV)
Leviticus 20:27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them. (KJV) From the Bible its self. Murder is not allowed? The 10 comandments do not apply?
During the Early Middle Ages, the Church did not conduct witch trials.[3] The Council of Paderborn in 785 explicitly outlawed the very belief in witches,, and Charlemagne later confirmed the law. Among Eastern Christians belief in witchcraft was regarded as deisdemonia—superstition—and by the 9th and 10th centuries in the West, belief in witchcraft had begun to be seen as heresy.
@niinja2 Why? You can not explain why the bible back tracked. In the mid-1400s Torture inflicted on heretics suspected of magical pacts or demon-driven sexual misconduct led to alarming confessions. TORTURE BY THE CHURCH. The very church that decided years later "Oh witches do not exist" so they can cover there crimes as false accusations.
@niinja2 "it apologized for almost everything it has done wrong in the past" Perhaps a mere "we're sorry" is not enough for ages of mass death and torture, especially when the subject in question is supposed to be god's own and only representative on earth.
Everything we have seen from the church suggests that it is merely human and worth no special treatment or concern. Yet, that is exactly the position it still appears to enjoy even in your own mind.
only one thing the video misses, just like atheists will say communist killings were caused by a myriad of social reasons so should they say that which burnings are not caused by religion, but by also myriad of social reasons , otherwise which burning would be present as a constant through entire Christendom from the start of Christianity.
@niinja2 I thought about it and really tried to go for it but, on inspection, witch burning was actually motivated by ignorance, fear, and superstition. Which the church, orthodox catholic especially, provided the foundation in both scripture and doctrine for said superstitions, and also provided laid out the method of punishment, trial processes, and priests to carry them out. In fact, history seems to show that witch burning has been fairly constant throughout Christendom.
which burning were not a constant through christian history, in ninth century church even said officially that there are no witches, 600 years later that changes. In span and russia around 10 witches were burned, and in eastern france and western german around 20 000. Its obviously that treatment of witches is not a constant in christianity.
Why do people treat the church like its the devil that can me blamed for every bad thing in history?
@niinja2 If you recall, my claim is that the church played an active role in the causes behind the practice of witch burning. Whether it was wide spread does not matter, the church's position on it does. Even taking your argument to be fully true and correctly represented, the church is then at least as complicit in witch burning as it is now in the rampant cases of pedophilia among it's priests.
"the church is then at least as complicit in witch burning"
The church is responsible, yes, as was the rest of society.
But what i dont buy is the idea that they knew witches do not exist and they still burned them.
why the fuck would they do that. By implying this you are making the church to be the "devil" and i assume its because of your ignorance about their motivations...
Where did you get this idea of devilchurch? Did some authority tell you that?
Where did you get this idea of devilchurch who knew they were not witches and burned people anyway? Did some authority tell you that? Or did you concluded it yourself?
do you see how this works!!!
its part of our psychology to demonize people like witches and organizations like the church.
or are you telling me that you actually know better but you demonize the church anyway, like you think the church did?
@niinja2 "Why do people treat the church like its the devil"
I cannot speak for others but I personally hold the church as an organization responsible for crimes which it had a role in.
What is perfectly obvious is that the church has been at least partially responsible for a lot of evil throughout history and never really faced judgement for any of it. Furthermore, if it purports to be god's own it ought to hold to a higher standard.
You dont have foundation for ignorance , you are ignorant by default.
Church did not cause us to go from knowledge to ignorance , actually church added greatly to our fund of knowledge and preserved knowledge from destruction but thats another topic. Most which burnings were done by pesant mobs, church entered the arena to try to bring some kind of law and order to the process of trialing witches.
@niinja2 Witch burnings were instated by the church because they feared what they did not understand and wanted control of the people. Not to mention the whole reason the people left was to run from the religious persecution. Please do not try to justify the killing of innocent people by stating it was a "mob effort". The mob felt it would please the church and rid them of problems if "witches" were removed from the community. ....
@niinja2 I didnt blame the church for every thing, you on the other hand like to assume it had nothing to do with the murder of innocent people. There were far more people killed. {other ways than the burning}
i didnt say church had nothing to do with killing innocent people, but it did not cause it.
its like saying the state is guilty for capital punishment. The sate did execute capital punishment but it was a reaction to the reaction of the people and notion of what was just.
Nobody "told" people witches are the cause of problems , they figured that themselves.
@niinja2 And do tell, how did an uneducated peoples learn that there elders were "evil" and were the cause of there community struggles? Oh thats right...the church. Please do some reading on this subject before you come here and look like a total fool. Im done arguing with a person who cant step out side there own simple ways long enough to understand and learn that not every thing your force fed is reality.
your the one calling me ignorant but when i ask you to explain why didnt witch burning happen all through time and space of Christendom you say ... what? church did it? keep repeating ti like a prayer it will come true
@niinja2 Simple. The church changed its method but not its views. Till this very day if your any part of a religion that is "witch like" your deemed evil. The only reason they cant and dont kill now is because we have laws and freedoms. You focus on the "burnings" and not the real fact. Many were killed not by fire but by other methods. Yes the church even had an order out to bring in the "witch" for trials BY the CHURCH. They cause it by simple cause and effect....
@niinja2 Point A. man in pew hears pastor speak of unholy actions like the use of herbs and nature. He is told this is of the devil. B Man goes home and finds his cattle have died. He is angry,upset and confused as to why. C Blame sets in. He happens to see a person picking herbs {weather for food or other} and assumes WITCH. D Causes of this assumption - church. Effect - death of a human life. SO yes the church caused this to happen
@niinja2 It seems they want to blame the "mobs ignorance" for these actions. Well for one our elders fled religious persecution...persecution from the CHURCH. Second the mobs would not have thought to kill a witch had it not been told to them that they were the sole cause of issues in there community.
@niinja2 So to make this short and sweet: Had the church not breed ignorance and fear into the people the people would not have killed in the name of god. As humans we fear what we can not control nor understand. In this case it just happened to be a religion. Do I feel ALL christians "owe me"? No. I feel that they should know there past,as I do with my religion, so they can be well informed and not make asses of them selves on a public forum.
"can be well informed and not make asses of them selves on a public forum."
i agree i also feel that you should learn something about the past
and i also feel that you should explain how is it that a constant religion is to be blamed for variable in time and space in killing witches. You ignored this.
Secondly,people are ignorant and fearful by default, you dont have to breed it into them.
How did the church breed ignorance when church founded the first schools?
@niinja2 I do not feel that any religion is 100% right. How ever I have to dis agree with people who dont look at the fact that yes,Christian based religion had a major role in defining a fear factor with the people. The church forced actions and religion onto the people, if you did not conform they found ways to force you to do so. While modern day believers dont go to this extream they should know there past and learn from it.
@niinja2 Now take into consideration it was the church that made the methods of proving weather or not people were witches. Like the Iron Maiden was made by the church, tie a rock to the person and if they floated they were a witch, if not they still drown and were not a witch..again the churchs bright idea of a "test". The church did in fact cause people to go forget aids we used before we were FORCED to take up that religion, so in a way they did take us into ignorance..........
@Neesharani Ignorance fuled by the fact that they feared people would continue to follow the old ways and not "god". The people forgot how to use nature to heal and help them selves because the church deemed this practice "un holy". So yes they DID in fact take away knowledge from the people, by force and fear. The church feared what they did not understand and fear breeds ignorance.
So your saying because church has taken away the knowledge of how to make healing herbs people get stupid and then they burned witches
Look you cant explain a variable with a constant, the bible did not change, religion did nto change much, but witch burnings did change through time and space. It means that it certainly is not religions fault...
you are aware that many of the things we " know" about the church is acutaly propaganda. Im willing to concede that church had crude methods in determining witches, but those were the best methods they could come up with, but even that is better then accusations without evidence that people often did.
what aids did we use before we were forced to take that religion? How did the church cause people to forget? forget what?
@niinja2 "You dont have foundation for ignorance" When you teach your children to believe in witchcraft and believe that it is of the devil then you are laying the foundation for ignorance in regard to pagan religions. Theologians have always been aware of the nature of pagan religions yet have always condemned them a devil worshipers. Where do you think the peasant mobs got the idea?
"church entered the arena to try" Was/Is it too much trouble to tell the people that witchcraft is a fantasy?
"Was/Is it too much trouble to tell the people that witchcraft is a fantasy?"
they did not believe that in the 16 century. Especially when you had people who say they were witches, you even have them today, they are called wickans...
you think people back then knew better and still for some unknown reason made stuff up?
@niinja2 You are quite correct to point out that ignorance is the default when introduced to a new religion, however, you should should inspect this claim more if you choose to use it as a defense for witch burning.
Imagine you never knew Christianity, and just met a person claiming to worship the mother goddess in ,say, 1520. What about this encounter suggests to you that you should burn this person at the stake? I contend that the fear and idea of burning pagans was an invention of the church.
"When you teach your children to believe in witchcraft and believe that it is of the devil then you are laying the foundation for ignorance in regard to pagan religions"
and that is because a parent itself is ignorant of true nature of witchcraft and cannot be blamed for his ignorance because its the default position.
"Theologians have always been aware of the nature of pagan religions"
no they did not, they thought it is from the devil in the 16 century.
@niinja2 The church actively sought out all ideas not listed as good in the Bible, labeled them heresy and burned people at the stake for thought crimes. This was the exact intention of the inquisition and no branch of the church made a serious attempt to stop it or even criticize it. I'll remind you that it was St. Augustine who advocated for the use of torture on "heretics" against Aquinas who advocated for death outright. For crime of thinking differently. For this the church is responsible.
@niinja2 then cite your refutations, surely you do not claim to refute what is taught even in basic history classes merely by the claim alone?
For stating a view publicly, obviously nothing. What, did you assume I would care about that? I think your focus on the tribal component of human nature has colored your view of everything else. People are multifaceted and tribalism is merely one component of human nature.
@niinja2 "if the church is the sole culprit of witch burnings then why were there no in the 10-th century" this is the same question as above with witch burnings not being done everywhere the church was.
I'm not going to play games with you: You called two of my claims flat out false, cite your refutations.
If you do not have any then recognize that the purpose of the inquisition was to force people to change their minds, whatever the cost, or die for thinking differently.
"I'm not going to play games with you: You called two of my claims flat out false, cite your refutations."
Oh sorry , you will first answer this question because i asked this on the forum before you wrote anything , or shortly after you did write something, since its crucial to the main argument at hand, and then i will respond to your claims about the nature and purpose of inquisition which are not the point of debate now.
Was to uphold that people think what they hold to be the Truth because their eternal souls were in jeopardy if they did not do so. The inquisition persecuted people who taught openly what is not "true" and "mislead" other people. You cant blame the church for not respecting pluralist ideas before ideas of pluralism came to be.
We cant talk about this , but i would rather obtain the answer to my question.
@niinja2 "..answer to my question." See above where I have addressed it again. Make a point on it or drop it, your choice.
Seriously? The church cannot be blamed for torturing and killing people for not believing what they believed to be true due to a book written by iron age desert tribesmen?
Are you forgetting that there actually was something approaching a rational society prior to the spread of Christianity by force?
You said you mentioned the bible once, like its of no relevance, its obvious that you consider it not only relevant but crucial for churches stand on things. So witch one is it?
If they believed in witches because of the bible they would believe it in 5-th, 10-th and 15-th century. This did not happen. Ergo its not due to a book.
"Are you forgetting that there actually was something approaching a rational society prior to the spread of Christianity by force?"
society was never rational, post enlightenment massacres done by non religious people testify to that. I would gladly hear about this rational society we would be in much sooner if the church was not around, but this is beside the point right now.
@niinja2 and further that the church as an organization and in it's many parts, did little or nothing to discourage the inquisition and in several cases actively encouraged it.
This is taught in even basic history classes, if you wish to call it flat out false then cite you refutations.
I think there was a slight misunderstanding here.Yes the church did encourage inquisition, the methods used by inquisition in determining truth are the ones which were debated.
@niinja2 Reposting another then: newadvent(dot)org/cathen/02084a(dot)htm
"I dont follow how is this related" - You seem to be under the misconception that if the church or one of it's members has ever taken a position they have never subsequently reversed their stance. People are not static like this, doubly so for the church.
In the case of Augustine, in his early years he argued that it was nonsense to torture for heresy and later changed his mind while dealing with the Donatists.
"People are not static like this, doubly so for the church."
I agree , but if things change you cant blame this change on the text that was there before the change happen. The bible did not change. What is the cause of the change. Il answer about augustine when i get the time to read it.
@niinja2 Now, my question for you is: why defend this? Why associate yourself with all this bad history for the sake of an organization that so clearly, even to day, does not care about you or your family in spite of your local priest's claims to the contrary.
It should be perfectly clear, if you only tried to meet the Pope, what this organization is actually about and yet you wonder why people call it out on the blatant human rights violations it has never been made to answer for. Why?
@niinja2 As you will see above, I hold to no particular group. As you correctly point out, tribalism has been a component of atrocities in human history of far too long and I don't care to play along with that. What I was getting at with that question is the observation that you seem quite passionate in defending the organization from any blame, although it should be clear it deserves at least some. This seems an abnormal affinity for someone merely seeking the truth of the matter.
I dont defend the church, im trying to explain the reasons behind what it did in the past, while some people are content with just demonizing it. Im doing this to show the double standard people have when they explain their groups actions but demonize outher groups actions, im trying to show that its not about rationality and the truth , its about TRIBALISM.
And in that respect everybody are the same as the church.
@niinja2 Here we positively agree. I simply adhere to no particular group, expect to be held accountable for my own actions and demand that other individuals be held accountable for their actions. For any organization created by people for any specific purpose, said organization ought also be held accountable for that which people have done as an organization under it's name. Much the same as companies and gov'ts are held accountable today. This has typically not been the case with the church.
"I contend that the fear and idea of burning pagans was an invention of the church."
ok then explain why were the witch burnings NOT present everywhere where the church was present, and explain why the church said in the 10 century that witches do not exist.
@niinja2 Very possibly because there were not people who could be accused of witchcraft everywhere the church was present.
By the same token, if people were simply ignorant then why were witch burnings not happening everywhere people were?
Although the church at one time said witches are not real, they also persecuted people for thinking otherwise and later (1400s) resumed trials for magical pacts with demons ect. and with the printing of the Malleus Maleficarum, define the crime of witchcraft.
@niinja2 "anybody anywhere could be accused of witchcraft" are you intentionally misreading at this point? This is equivalent in modern times to saying "anyone anywhere could be accused of pedophilia". Yes...this is possible, but the accused must first do something to arouse suspicion.
"not just ignorance that causes it" precisely, ignorance combined with suspicion on an individual combined with church preaching and texts describing what qualifies as witchcraft.
"but the accused must first do something to arouse suspicion."
Like being a priest you mean? That is good enough reason for accusation today.
Due to hyperactive agency detection people assigned fault to their neighbors just on speculation, so no you did not have to do anything.
Explain how you have 10 witches killed in spain and 20000 thousand killed in france and germany,and supposedly church that is present in all places is blamed for both.
@niinja2 "Like being a priest you mean?" Hardly, this is an ad hoc assumption you have projected onto my statement. I choose pedophilia because it has acquired a prominent position in the public psyche at this moment in history.
Here you are again, making no progress with this variable/constant idea.
Have you completely ignored my position? I 100% agree that the people per area have a huge effect on the witch burnings. I contend that the church had significant role in it as well.
@niinja2 To properly address your variable/constant issue for the last time, the church is not a constant. It was most assuredly different in different areas, had a varying effect on people's lives in different areas and it's preachings were more assuredly taken more/less seriously in different areas. Even if it were a constant, this would not negate the official church position on witchcraft and pacts with the devil as an instigating factor in witch burnings.
@AndreisEntaro and as I cited above, the church did indeed promote the idea that witches were real, of the devil, and should be tortured/killed to change their mind or prevent their influence on the local people even if this stance was not a constant in church history.
This does not negate the churches position that was constant through the whole Christendom. At some places were burned 10 witches, and at other places 20000 witches, how can a constant position of a church influence so high a discrepancy?
"the church did indeed promote the idea that witches were real"
what were the causes of the change in thinking through the centuries.
@niinja2 You completely ignored this yet again so here you have it in as simple terms as I can make it: "some places were burned 10 witches" Church influence may have been weak in those places.
"other places 20000 witches" church influence may have been stronger in those places.
"how can a constant" it most assuredly was not constant.
And even had it been, this would not excuse the endorsement. You personally would still be called evil for encouraging witch burning even if everyone ignored you.
"combined with church preaching and texts describing what qualifies as witchcraft."
What is the cause that caused the church to adopt this view in the 16-th century and not in the 10-th century?
If its the churches fault why wasn't this widespread through all of Christendom. Spain had 10 witches killed, germany and france 20 000. Did (spacial constant) church contribute with 10 to those 20 000?
another explanation is tensions from reformation caused it.
"and with the printing of the Malleus Maleficarum, define the crime of witchcraft."
yes they did, and one of the explanation in that book, was that it is possible that these "magical" events could be caused by something else other then witches...
@niinja2 Cop out: We both know that book was primarily used to help justify witch burnings. A situation which is not possible with a book purely written against such a thing.
You spend so much time defending this but compare the history of the church to the history of, say, the Jainists as an organized religion. One organization is clearly more evil and more deserving of responsibility for past atrocities than the other and one has texts that can be used to justify evil while the other does not.
"Cop out: We both know that book was primarily used to help justify witch burnings"
to justify is not the same as to cause
And you sped to much time accusing the bible for something the people obviously arbitrary adhered to. It does not matter what the holy books say, and Christianity is the best example, since the core of Christianity is surrendering , humbling yourself, not acting violently to the violence done to you, while "Christians" acted opposite of that
@niinja2 First: I have mentioned the bible once in this discourse. Yet it seems now that you have repeatedly equated my critique of the quite variable church with what you are calling the constant (bible).
Secondly: One person can act without justification, in order to convince others to act however, one needs a justification. In this sense, the book is a cause. We are done playing word games now. Lend the slightest credit to my words (esp. given the limitation on YT) or we are done talking.
If the church is variable not depending on the bible , the it is the cause of change withing the church that is also the cause of everything the church did, as for the good things, so for the bad ones.
"In this sense, the book is a cause"
No the cause is the man that does convincing , the book is a tool he is doing it with.
"We are done playing word games now."
well i really hope so, and i hope you do answer my question.
@niinja2 I further object to your assertion that "the core of Christianity is..." non-violence.
The core of Jainism is non-violence. The first half of the Bible alone has a very good foundation in violence and the New testament does precious little to overturn this.
It seems a major source of confusion for you in your analysis of history is this very notion that there is nothing in the Bible which could support violence. On inspection, this is simply not true.
"and the New testament does precious little to overturn this."
And earth is a square.
For every christian the core of Christianity are the gospel's, and Jesus. Christian means little Christ, and to be christian means to emulate Christ. The bible could support violence , if you completely ignore everything the founder of Christian religion - Jesus said.
Think the speaker takes sides? Seriously, you just pointed out all of the "faults" (some of which are actually faults, while most are misunderstandings at the hands of stupid christians past) in our point of view while washing over all of yours, as you so often accuse us of doing
ThePrepay 23 hours ago
I'm not saying that geology and biology are the same field in the least. What I'm saying, is that for the impossibility of an entire new protein to be added to a genome, one would need thousands of generations, and therefore an old earth to accomplish that feat. And the evolutionist perspective requires the old-earth theory. What I AM saying, is that he is using the assumption that the earth is old to support his case. I also, in no way, mean to be condescending.
MichaPawluk3 1 day ago
Much love to you for this video. Remember that you can believe in God and science at the same time. The Bible is more or less a bad historical account.
panicspreadwide 2 days ago
(continued) vast amount of information would need to be added to the genome, which - without error- is nearly an impossibility, and would take many many generations to complete, each of which would have flawed DNA, since the frameshift would render the DNA useless unless the entire section was added all at once. And if it wasn't, the earth would have to be millions of years old to complete such a feat. And he is trying to vouch for that very point, while using it as "evidence". Just one example.
MichaPawluk3 4 days ago
@MichaPawluk3 Sorry to be condescending, but it sounds like you think geology and biology are the same field. The two don't rely on each other for proof... Or are you just trolling?
interwebcrusader 1 day ago
I find it sad that people find this convincing in any way. The mediator's arguments themselves are seriously flawed. Example: frameshift mutation CAN add new information to a genome, but not on the scale of adding a whole new protein.. and his nylonase example doesn't prove anything... his whole argument hinges on a belief in evolution and an old-earth theory. He is using his own argument to try and prove his own argument, instead of using fact. For another proven to be added to a genome, a
MichaPawluk3 4 days ago
Comment removed
AustinIndieMusic 4 days ago
Wonderful.
schreix27 5 days ago
I am humbled you are smarter than me. I need to read more books and take more Ginko Bilobo!
Zackarot 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Check out my videos "Religion is Ridiculous" (specifically christianity)...good stuff...rate it! Christians i CHALLENGE you to watchit with an open mind.....Anti-theists watch my vids and give them a thumbs up! Help spread the truth!"
gasmask4poop 6 days ago
Single handed wipeout... but the moderator was going all the way too hard...
iSOisoleucine 6 days ago
love it
OliverUnderTheMoon 1 week ago 6
Comment removed
paraplegicgiraffe 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The United States of America, is as of from This Moment in a State of Marshal Law !! See my YouTube Channel to see how to survive World War III !!
polterguy2 1 week ago
I think the Christians left because the moderator was obviously biased. :p He did make some good points, though. I would've liked to see him ban some atheist arguments.
Vane5a 1 week ago
@Vane5a Which ones?
Sneeedable 1 week ago
@Vane5a
Atheist arguments? How about a little theist evidence.
MrNeodarwinian 1 week ago
I'll pray for you:
Dear Lord Vader,
Please forgive him he is ignorant of the truth.
deadshot1995 1 week ago 16
@deadshot1995 I find your lack of faith disturbing
Kenneth1238 6 days ago
I'm an atheist, and I agree with the moderator, but I have to say he might have been a little bias.
HurdRandy 1 week ago 2
@HurdRandy
As long as his bias is in the same direction as reality's, I don't have a problem.
rkyeun 2 days ago
Technically, atheism is a belief
crazydudetz 1 week ago
@crazydudetz
...and? What does that change / how is that an insight?
xXNickPXx 1 week ago
@crazydudetz Technically yes and no. When talking about atheism one must first define what they mean by atheism, as it can mean both the lack of belief in a deity or the belief no god exists.
For the former, all that is required is not believing in something that has no physical evidence supporting it.
For the latter, its is a belief. However it is a belief supported or at least consistent with phat physical evidence tells us. Every system attributed to god, does not require god.
(continued)
TheFreezingVoid 1 week ago
@crazydudetz (Continued) Thus it follows that a god may not be required for the creation of the universe to begin with.
TheFreezingVoid 1 week ago
I love how these videos all have a religious study advertisement next to them.
ufojoedude 1 week ago
Most christians are too stupid too understand half of this.
HoBustinJopson 1 week ago
"do not misrepresent the other side or assert things about their worldview that is simply not true." and then he goes on for the next 9 minutes doing just that. Really, I did enjoy your "water tight arguments" while they were disguised as unfounded assertions, they did indeed seem to be infallible evidences!!! I must say that the video was very clever, but unconvincing.
michaelbirkhead 1 week ago
The debate will always fail to convince because the two sides play by different rules, one side uses facts, data, observation, and trial...the other, personal revelation, the bible, and faith. How do you win when the other side wont ever even play by the same rules? I saw a cartoon where an atheist was playing chess with a theist. The theist grabbed his piece, bounced it across the board and proclaimed king me. I fear that is all the argument will ever be no matter how hard we try.
22agreeksailor 2 weeks ago
@22agreeksailor Remember the meta-game. Public discourse rarely changes the mind of the players on the spot. Almost no human being has the humility to admit they were wrong in front of a crowd.
However, it is the audience, the undecided, that you are playing for and in the process your opponents might later change their minds as well.
AndreisEntaro 1 week ago
Will religious people ever give a good argument for their religion or their god? EVER?
Why can't their god simply show himself? why the hiding?
Is it for the sake of "FREE WILL"?........ If so, then in order to Preserve "Free Will" there has to be NO EVIDENCE!
if no evidence then.....no reason to be-LIE-ve!
nazmibest 2 weeks ago in playlist More videos from NonStampCollector
lol this is very "mis representing" and close minded. There are tons of logical arguments for God. Science doesn't disprove God lmaof. You can't "disprove" God.
muslimgiga 2 weeks ago
@muslimgiga name one logical argument for god then? saying that there are arguments for god proves nothing unless you actually state it...
TheBeautyofTrance 2 weeks ago
@TheBeautyofTrance the teleological argument for God. You are very smart and "enlightened" so I'm guessing your familiar with theology. I'll let you figure it out.
muslimgiga 2 weeks ago
@muslimgiga the teleological argument does nothing to prove "God". All it does is show that there could be a intelligent designer, not necessarily Yahweh. Also, on the concept of intelligent design, see the video "High Stakes Intelligent Designing" by NonStampCollector.
TheBeautyofTrance 2 weeks ago
@TheBeautyofTrance just listen to your self. "there could be an intelligent designer, not necessarily Yahweh"
You will realize you don't make any sense.
muslimgiga 2 weeks ago
@muslimgiga I don't make any sense? Let me attempt to explain it in simpler terms for you. How do you know that this intelligent designer isn't Lord Brahma of the Hindu religion, who also supposedly created the world? Allah, of the Islam religion? Unkulunkulu, of the Zulu religion? Atum? Ptah? Viracocha? Marduk? Vishvakarman?
TheBeautyofTrance 2 weeks ago
@muslimgiga The teleological argument for god has been debunked numerous times especially from the perspective of supporting a god. If you want to represent the logical assumptions for god you have made a terrible choice. I'll assume you are intelligent enough to go find the videos covering the common refutations of that argument for yourself. However, to get you started, I will say that on the outset claiming complexity implies intention makes for a very unintelligent god.
AndreisEntaro 2 weeks ago
@AndreisEntaro what are you talking about? If an argument (such as the cosmological argument) proves the necessity for an intelligent cause then I don't see your logic AT ALL. I believe myself to be intelligent which is why I believe in a creator. An atheists claim is absurd. "There is NO God". That is a faulty argument because there is NO credible evidence for it.
Just ask Hitchens and Dawkins when they were spanked around by Lennox and others.
muslimgiga 2 weeks ago
@muslimgiga First, the cosmological argument does not prove the necessity for an intelligent cause. Such a cause would also need a cause at least as complex as itself. Whatever caused the universe, if indeed it had a cause, will likely be simple or even stateless. But that is not even the discussion here. If you think yourself intelligent, then go look up the numerous videos here in YT covering why teleological and cosmological do not stand as good arguments.
AndreisEntaro 2 weeks ago
@AndreisEntaro then we are getting into Plato's paradox. If you follow that trend, things would need to have infinite causes. Everything that BEGAN to exist has a cause. But the definition of God (well the muslim one at least) is that God is uncreated, he is immortal.
Btw, if you say "there's probably no god" that's agnosticism and skepticism. You gotta keep consistent with the definitions bro. Which one are you? A skeptic or Atheist?
muslimgiga 2 weeks ago
@muslimgiga "God is uncreated" Then why not skip the extra step and say the universe is uncreated and timeless?
"Which one are you?" Atheist also tend to be skeptical so this is not an exclusive choice.
For me: I don't feel the need to wear a label here, they are of almost no use in these discussions. If you define "god is as likely as faeries and unicorns" as agnostic then, for the purpose of our discussion, I am agnostic.
AndreisEntaro 2 weeks ago
@AndreisEntaro the universe isn't an intelligent entity.
muslimgiga 2 weeks ago
@muslimgiga 1st: You know this with certainty do you?
2ndly: For what reason would the universe need to be intelligent in order to be eternal?
AndreisEntaro 2 weeks ago
@AndreisEntaro dude science proves the universe is created. It is undisputed fact. So your entire preposition is baseless lol.
muslimgiga 2 weeks ago
@muslimgiga And so you demonstrate your ignorance. For an video introduction to cosmology: watch "A universe from nothing" by Lawrence Krauss: watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
Once you acquire your new objections to the video's content, get a copy of a college level astronomy book and "In search of the Big Bang" by John Gribbin.
At minimum you will find that not only is our universe not assured to be created but it very likely could be only one of many, and there are many other possibilities.
AndreisEntaro 1 week ago
@muslimgiga The answers are out there, but you will have to do some serious reading to get them and you will have to begin by realizing how little you and indeed we as members of humanity actually know.
If you have a question, I can direction you towards still more sources for people really trying to find the answers.
AndreisEntaro 1 week ago
@AndreisEntaro I don't think you understand. I'm not using God to "fill in" for unanswered questions. I believe God is a manifistation of the vast knowledge of scientific truth. In my mind, there is no conflict between science and God.
I love science (especially physics) and am eager to learn more. But I don't equate that as taking me away from God, but closer to Him.
:)
muslimgiga 1 week ago
@muslimgiga Define: "manifistation of the vast knowledge of scientific truth". It is fine to think science is bringing you closer to something we might call god. You, however, have made the claim that god, whatever that might be, is an intelligence; this is unsupported.
I also wonder about what you are calling a love of science (and especially physics) since you have demonstrated that you are not well read in cosmology, which should be right up your alley.
AndreisEntaro 1 week ago
@AndreisEntaro so cosmology prove the universe in not created? Look, I believe in the Big Bang due to the astronomical evidence behind it. It is a THEORY. YES. That is exactly my point. But to claim that the opinion that the Universe has no definite beginning is a widespread and majority held opinion is lubricious. Because it's not.
muslimgiga 1 week ago
@muslimgiga I also suggest that the wisest among us throughout history seem to have thought themselves mostly ignorant. It seems the trend is, the more you know, the more you realize just how ignorant you were and likely still are. It will not do to assume you have absolute truth, there is too much else that you do not know. As an aside: it appears you do not know your opponents very well as most Atheists seem to claim "there's probably no god" and relegate the belief to the realm of faeries.
AndreisEntaro 2 weeks ago
@AndreisEntaro that's being agnostic.
muslimgiga 2 weeks ago
Congratulations! You've made the "Stupid YT Atheists" playlist. One of your qualifications was equating "Christianity" with "Creationism."
AgApE010 2 weeks ago in playlist Stupid videos by YT Atheists
@AgApE010 He was going through all the possible arguments..and there are some creationists in the Christian camp, no? As you may have noticed...only one guy got up and walked out when he couldn't argue creationism...the others got up for other reasons.
Nark15 2 weeks ago 2
classic and I love it.
117alikat 2 weeks ago
@AndreisEntaro Can't you understand? that is my defining about the Christianity you stupid asshole :)
immortaltendency 2 weeks ago
The existence of God is not a worthy argument. I was raised Christian. I became an Atheist when I actually read the Bible. I didn't have to spend all my energy defending it and justifying it's cruelty. I was able to read it without forcing myself to agree. There is no way of justifying, metaphorically or contextually smashing a baby against a rock(psalms 137). Arguing is a pure waste of time. I wouldn't debate those who believe the Moon is made of cheese. I am relieved to be free to think.
paramattic70 2 weeks ago
@paramattic70
"Arguing is a pure waste of time...I am relieved to be free to think"
Apparently "free to think" means not engaging with those who disagree with you. Is that how freethinking works? :-)
AgApE010 2 weeks ago in playlist Stupid videos by YT Atheists
@paramattic70 Where do you live that you do not have to be concerned with people holding insane ideas trying to run your life and write your laws? I would love to be able to disregard religion, unfortunately the religious do not believe you have the right to do so. It is their mission to convert you or at least make you follow their laws. In the case of Islam this means death for non-believers.
If you live in a place untouched by the billions of religious people, please clue the rest of us in.
AndreisEntaro 1 week ago
Withh all that said I think I will leave you to rant on about how the church did not effect the out come of so many deaths and why they should take no blame. I could care less that you keep ignoring the facts placed in front of you and expect me to prove you right. Blessed be
Neesharani 2 weeks ago
@Neesharani
ARE YOU EVEN READING WHAT IM WRITING
YOU FUCKING MORON FU
IDIOT
niinja2 2 weeks ago
@Neesharani
"I think I will leave you to rant on about how the church did not effect the out come of so many deaths and why they should take no blame."
i didnt say that, they should take some responsibility and i believe they did
niinja2 2 weeks ago
@Neesharani
"I think I will leave you to rant on"
i think you should first learn to read and achieve some intellectual honesty to actually answer the question your being asked
and i will leave you with that to ponder on.
niinja2 2 weeks ago
Finally in 1640s witch hunts began to decline. By this time the church had a strong foot hold in many nations. The Thirty Years War, a conflict that raged in several European states from 1618-1648 following an attempted rebellion by Protestants in Bohemia from the Roman Catholic Hapsburg rulers, produced slaughter and suffering that sparked additional witch hunts.
Neesharani 2 weeks ago
1591 King James authorizes the torture of suspected witches in Scotland. Dozens of condemned witches in the North Berwick area were burned at the stake in what would be the largest witch-hunt in British history. By 1597, James began to address some of the worst prosecutorial abuses, and witch-hunting abated somewhat.
Neesharani 2 weeks ago
@Neesharani
ANSWER
WHY DIDNT ALL THIS HAPPEN 500 YEARS AGO IF IT WAS CAUSED BY THE SAME THING ---> THE CHURCH
FOR FUCKS SAKE
niinja2 2 weeks ago
@niinja2 Your a thick one. Its called LAW. They can no longer kill what they deem evil. But since your to thick to understand that Ill just let you go back to your window licking
Neesharani 2 weeks ago
@Neesharani
Just answer the BLOODY QUESTION
IF THE CHURCH CAUSED WITCH BURNINGS IN 16 CENTURY WHY DIDNT IT CAUSE IT IN 10 CENTURY???????
niinja2 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
niinja2 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
niinja2 2 weeks ago
early to mid-1500s ~ Outbreaks of witchcraft hysteria, with subsequent mass executions, began to appear in the early 1500s. Authorities in Geneva, Switzerland burned 500 acccused witches at the stake in 1515. Nine years later in Como, Italy, a spreading spiral of witchcraft charges led to as many as 1000 executions. Just to name a few
Neesharani 2 weeks ago
@Neesharani
If the church caused these accusations in 1500s why didnt the church cause it 500 years earlier?
niinja2 2 weeks ago
So with that the church ignored the Bible its self in stating witches do not exist. Yet another statement they back track on to fit there agenda. But you will have people believe the church is not at fault for there actions. Now shall we believe the bible that witches are real or shall we go for this statement? Once again the church covering its tracks
Neesharani 2 weeks ago
@Neesharani
you are not making any sense, what agenda? what track covering?
explain variable with a constant
niinja2 2 weeks ago
It was the "error of the pagans" to believe in "some other divine power than the one God." Of course, if witches are indeed powerless, the Church need not overly concern itself with their spells or other attempts at mischief.
Neesharani 2 weeks ago
St. Augustine argues witchcraft is an impossibility Saint Augustine of Hippo, an influential theologian in the early Christian Church, argued in the early 400s that God alone could suspend the normal laws of the universe. In his view, neither Satan nor witches had supernatural powers or were capable of effectively invoking magic of any sort.
Neesharani 2 weeks ago
Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. (KJV)
Leviticus 20:27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them. (KJV) From the Bible its self. Murder is not allowed? The 10 comandments do not apply?
Neesharani 2 weeks ago
@Neesharani
During the Early Middle Ages, the Church did not conduct witch trials.[3] The Council of Paderborn in 785 explicitly outlawed the very belief in witches,, and Charlemagne later confirmed the law. Among Eastern Christians belief in witchcraft was regarded as deisdemonia—superstition—and by the 9th and 10th centuries in the West, belief in witchcraft had begun to be seen as heresy.
explain this
niinja2 2 weeks ago
@niinja2 Why? You can not explain why the bible back tracked. In the mid-1400s Torture inflicted on heretics suspected of magical pacts or demon-driven sexual misconduct led to alarming confessions. TORTURE BY THE CHURCH. The very church that decided years later "Oh witches do not exist" so they can cover there crimes as false accusations.
Neesharani 2 weeks ago
@Neesharani
"The very church that decided years later "Oh witches do not exist" so they can cover there crimes as false accusations. "
you are making stuff up.
the church actually did not cover stuff about witches and it apologized for almost everything it has done wrong in the past.
niinja2 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@niinja2 "it apologized for almost everything it has done wrong in the past" Perhaps a mere "we're sorry" is not enough for ages of mass death and torture, especially when the subject in question is supposed to be god's own and only representative on earth.
Everything we have seen from the church suggests that it is merely human and worth no special treatment or concern. Yet, that is exactly the position it still appears to enjoy even in your own mind.
AndreisEntaro 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
immortaltendency 2 weeks ago
I demand this to be the opening speech of every debate involving religion.
Aragashia 3 weeks ago 5
only one thing the video misses, just like atheists will say communist killings were caused by a myriad of social reasons so should they say that which burnings are not caused by religion, but by also myriad of social reasons , otherwise which burning would be present as a constant through entire Christendom from the start of Christianity.
niinja2 3 weeks ago
@niinja2 I thought about it and really tried to go for it but, on inspection, witch burning was actually motivated by ignorance, fear, and superstition. Which the church, orthodox catholic especially, provided the foundation in both scripture and doctrine for said superstitions, and also provided laid out the method of punishment, trial processes, and priests to carry them out. In fact, history seems to show that witch burning has been fairly constant throughout Christendom.
AndreisEntaro 2 weeks ago in playlist NonStampCollector entire catalogue - in reverse order
@AndreisEntaro
which burning were not a constant through christian history, in ninth century church even said officially that there are no witches, 600 years later that changes. In span and russia around 10 witches were burned, and in eastern france and western german around 20 000. Its obviously that treatment of witches is not a constant in christianity.
Why do people treat the church like its the devil that can me blamed for every bad thing in history?
niinja2 2 weeks ago
@niinja2 If you recall, my claim is that the church played an active role in the causes behind the practice of witch burning. Whether it was wide spread does not matter, the church's position on it does. Even taking your argument to be fully true and correctly represented, the church is then at least as complicit in witch burning as it is now in the rampant cases of pedophilia among it's priests.
AndreisEntaro 2 weeks ago
@AndreisEntaro
"the church is then at least as complicit in witch burning"
The church is responsible, yes, as was the rest of society.
But what i dont buy is the idea that they knew witches do not exist and they still burned them.
why the fuck would they do that. By implying this you are making the church to be the "devil" and i assume its because of your ignorance about their motivations...
Where did you get this idea of devilchurch? Did some authority tell you that?
niinja2 2 weeks ago
@AndreisEntaro
"Whether it was wide spread does not matter"
oh it matters alright, it matters on determining the causes of witch burnings.
Church =X
X is present in spain, russia, france and germany.
Y is witch burning.
Y is present in germany and france and its negligible in russia and spain.
HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN Y THAT VARIES WITH A CONSTANT X.
If by your theory X told people to burn witches in germany and france why didnt X do the same in russia and spain?
niinja2 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AndreisEntaro
Where did you get this idea of devilchurch who knew they were not witches and burned people anyway? Did some authority tell you that? Or did you concluded it yourself?
do you see how this works!!!
its part of our psychology to demonize people like witches and organizations like the church.
or are you telling me that you actually know better but you demonize the church anyway, like you think the church did?
niinja2 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@niinja2 "Why do people treat the church like its the devil"
I cannot speak for others but I personally hold the church as an organization responsible for crimes which it had a role in.
What is perfectly obvious is that the church has been at least partially responsible for a lot of evil throughout history and never really faced judgement for any of it. Furthermore, if it purports to be god's own it ought to hold to a higher standard.
AndreisEntaro 2 weeks ago
@AndreisEntaro
You dont have foundation for ignorance , you are ignorant by default.
Church did not cause us to go from knowledge to ignorance , actually church added greatly to our fund of knowledge and preserved knowledge from destruction but thats another topic. Most which burnings were done by pesant mobs, church entered the arena to try to bring some kind of law and order to the process of trialing witches.
niinja2 2 weeks ago
@niinja2 Witch burnings were instated by the church because they feared what they did not understand and wanted control of the people. Not to mention the whole reason the people left was to run from the religious persecution. Please do not try to justify the killing of innocent people by stating it was a "mob effort". The mob felt it would please the church and rid them of problems if "witches" were removed from the community. ....
Neesharani 2 weeks ago
@Neesharani
"Witch burnings were instated by the church because they feared what they did not understand"
why were only 10 witches burned in spain and russia and around 20000 in france and germany
why did the church said in the ninth century that witches do not exist?
Nobody is justifying anything, but blaming church for everything is not the answer.
niinja2 2 weeks ago
@niinja2 I didnt blame the church for every thing, you on the other hand like to assume it had nothing to do with the murder of innocent people. There were far more people killed. {other ways than the burning}
Neesharani 2 weeks ago
@Neesharani
i didnt say church had nothing to do with killing innocent people, but it did not cause it.
its like saying the state is guilty for capital punishment. The sate did execute capital punishment but it was a reaction to the reaction of the people and notion of what was just.
Nobody "told" people witches are the cause of problems , they figured that themselves.
niinja2 2 weeks ago
@niinja2 And do tell, how did an uneducated peoples learn that there elders were "evil" and were the cause of there community struggles? Oh thats right...the church. Please do some reading on this subject before you come here and look like a total fool. Im done arguing with a person who cant step out side there own simple ways long enough to understand and learn that not every thing your force fed is reality.
Neesharani 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
niinja2 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
niinja2 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
niinja2 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
niinja2 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
niinja2 2 weeks ago
@Neesharani
your the one calling me ignorant but when i ask you to explain why didnt witch burning happen all through time and space of Christendom you say ... what? church did it? keep repeating ti like a prayer it will come true
your an idiot
niinja2 2 weeks ago
@Neesharani
the same way people accused witches back then the same way people today accuse church
by making shit up
niinja2 2 weeks ago
@niinja2
let me be clear
if church caused witch burnings and church had a constant view on this, why did witch burnings vary over time and space
answer this question.
niinja2 2 weeks ago
@niinja2 Simple. The church changed its method but not its views. Till this very day if your any part of a religion that is "witch like" your deemed evil. The only reason they cant and dont kill now is because we have laws and freedoms. You focus on the "burnings" and not the real fact. Many were killed not by fire but by other methods. Yes the church even had an order out to bring in the "witch" for trials BY the CHURCH. They cause it by simple cause and effect....
Neesharani 2 weeks ago
@niinja2 Point A. man in pew hears pastor speak of unholy actions like the use of herbs and nature. He is told this is of the devil. B Man goes home and finds his cattle have died. He is angry,upset and confused as to why. C Blame sets in. He happens to see a person picking herbs {weather for food or other} and assumes WITCH. D Causes of this assumption - church. Effect - death of a human life. SO yes the church caused this to happen
Neesharani 2 weeks ago
@niinja2 It seems they want to blame the "mobs ignorance" for these actions. Well for one our elders fled religious persecution...persecution from the CHURCH. Second the mobs would not have thought to kill a witch had it not been told to them that they were the sole cause of issues in there community.
Neesharani 2 weeks ago
@niinja2 So to make this short and sweet: Had the church not breed ignorance and fear into the people the people would not have killed in the name of god. As humans we fear what we can not control nor understand. In this case it just happened to be a religion. Do I feel ALL christians "owe me"? No. I feel that they should know there past,as I do with my religion, so they can be well informed and not make asses of them selves on a public forum.
Neesharani 2 weeks ago
@Neesharani
"can be well informed and not make asses of them selves on a public forum."
i agree i also feel that you should learn something about the past
and i also feel that you should explain how is it that a constant religion is to be blamed for variable in time and space in killing witches. You ignored this.
Secondly,people are ignorant and fearful by default, you dont have to breed it into them.
How did the church breed ignorance when church founded the first schools?
niinja2 2 weeks ago
@niinja2 I do not feel that any religion is 100% right. How ever I have to dis agree with people who dont look at the fact that yes,Christian based religion had a major role in defining a fear factor with the people. The church forced actions and religion onto the people, if you did not conform they found ways to force you to do so. While modern day believers dont go to this extream they should know there past and learn from it.
Neesharani 2 weeks ago
@niinja2 Now take into consideration it was the church that made the methods of proving weather or not people were witches. Like the Iron Maiden was made by the church, tie a rock to the person and if they floated they were a witch, if not they still drown and were not a witch..again the churchs bright idea of a "test". The church did in fact cause people to go forget aids we used before we were FORCED to take up that religion, so in a way they did take us into ignorance..........
Neesharani 2 weeks ago
@Neesharani Ignorance fuled by the fact that they feared people would continue to follow the old ways and not "god". The people forgot how to use nature to heal and help them selves because the church deemed this practice "un holy". So yes they DID in fact take away knowledge from the people, by force and fear. The church feared what they did not understand and fear breeds ignorance.
Neesharani 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
niinja2 2 weeks ago
@Neesharani
So your saying because church has taken away the knowledge of how to make healing herbs people get stupid and then they burned witches
Look you cant explain a variable with a constant, the bible did not change, religion did nto change much, but witch burnings did change through time and space. It means that it certainly is not religions fault...
niinja2 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Neesharani
you are aware that many of the things we " know" about the church is acutaly propaganda. Im willing to concede that church had crude methods in determining witches, but those were the best methods they could come up with, but even that is better then accusations without evidence that people often did.
what aids did we use before we were forced to take that religion? How did the church cause people to forget? forget what?
niinja2 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
niinja2 2 weeks ago
@niinja2 "You dont have foundation for ignorance" When you teach your children to believe in witchcraft and believe that it is of the devil then you are laying the foundation for ignorance in regard to pagan religions. Theologians have always been aware of the nature of pagan religions yet have always condemned them a devil worshipers. Where do you think the peasant mobs got the idea?
"church entered the arena to try" Was/Is it too much trouble to tell the people that witchcraft is a fantasy?
AndreisEntaro 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
niinja2 2 weeks ago
@AndreisEntaro
"Was/Is it too much trouble to tell the people that witchcraft is a fantasy?"
they did not believe that in the 16 century. Especially when you had people who say they were witches, you even have them today, they are called wickans...
you think people back then knew better and still for some unknown reason made stuff up?
WHY?
niinja2 2 weeks ago
@niinja2 You are quite correct to point out that ignorance is the default when introduced to a new religion, however, you should should inspect this claim more if you choose to use it as a defense for witch burning.
Imagine you never knew Christianity, and just met a person claiming to worship the mother goddess in ,say, 1520. What about this encounter suggests to you that you should burn this person at the stake? I contend that the fear and idea of burning pagans was an invention of the church.
AndreisEntaro 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
niinja2 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AndreisEntaro
"When you teach your children to believe in witchcraft and believe that it is of the devil then you are laying the foundation for ignorance in regard to pagan religions"
and that is because a parent itself is ignorant of true nature of witchcraft and cannot be blamed for his ignorance because its the default position.
"Theologians have always been aware of the nature of pagan religions"
no they did not, they thought it is from the devil in the 16 century.
niinja2 2 weeks ago
@niinja2 The church actively sought out all ideas not listed as good in the Bible, labeled them heresy and burned people at the stake for thought crimes. This was the exact intention of the inquisition and no branch of the church made a serious attempt to stop it or even criticize it. I'll remind you that it was St. Augustine who advocated for the use of torture on "heretics" against Aquinas who advocated for death outright. For crime of thinking differently. For this the church is responsible.
AndreisEntaro 2 weeks ago
@AndreisEntaro
"and burned people at the stake for thought crimes. This was the exact intention of the inquisition"
this is false, you do not understand the role of inquisition.
"and no branch of the church made a serious attempt to stop it or even criticize it"
this is also false, historically ignorant.
"For crime of thinking differently. For this the church is responsible."
what should a society do to a creationist that publicly states his own views?
niinja2 2 weeks ago
@niinja2 then cite your refutations, surely you do not claim to refute what is taught even in basic history classes merely by the claim alone?
For stating a view publicly, obviously nothing. What, did you assume I would care about that? I think your focus on the tribal component of human nature has colored your view of everything else. People are multifaceted and tribalism is merely one component of human nature.
AndreisEntaro 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AndreisEntaro
"then cite your refutations, surely you do not claim to refute what is taught even in basic history classes merely by the claim alone?"
alright but i think you first need to answer my question
if the church is the sole culprit of witch burnings then why were there no in the 10-th century.
what refutations are you interested in particular?
niinja2 2 weeks ago
@niinja2 "if the church is the sole culprit of witch burnings then why were there no in the 10-th century" this is the same question as above with witch burnings not being done everywhere the church was.
I'm not going to play games with you: You called two of my claims flat out false, cite your refutations.
If you do not have any then recognize that the purpose of the inquisition was to force people to change their minds, whatever the cost, or die for thinking differently.
AndreisEntaro 1 week ago
@AndreisEntaro
"I'm not going to play games with you: You called two of my claims flat out false, cite your refutations."
Oh sorry , you will first answer this question because i asked this on the forum before you wrote anything , or shortly after you did write something, since its crucial to the main argument at hand, and then i will respond to your claims about the nature and purpose of inquisition which are not the point of debate now.
niinja2 1 week ago
@AndreisEntaro
"that the purpose of the inquisition..."
Was to uphold that people think what they hold to be the Truth because their eternal souls were in jeopardy if they did not do so. The inquisition persecuted people who taught openly what is not "true" and "mislead" other people. You cant blame the church for not respecting pluralist ideas before ideas of pluralism came to be.
We cant talk about this , but i would rather obtain the answer to my question.
niinja2 1 week ago
@niinja2 "..answer to my question." See above where I have addressed it again. Make a point on it or drop it, your choice.
Seriously? The church cannot be blamed for torturing and killing people for not believing what they believed to be true due to a book written by iron age desert tribesmen?
Are you forgetting that there actually was something approaching a rational society prior to the spread of Christianity by force?
AndreisEntaro 1 week ago
@AndreisEntaro
"what they believed to be true due to a book"
1 step forward one step back
You said you mentioned the bible once, like its of no relevance, its obvious that you consider it not only relevant but crucial for churches stand on things. So witch one is it?
If they believed in witches because of the bible they would believe it in 5-th, 10-th and 15-th century. This did not happen. Ergo its not due to a book.
Q.E.D
Its due to social reasons.
niinja2 1 week ago
@AndreisEntaro
"Are you forgetting that there actually was something approaching a rational society prior to the spread of Christianity by force?"
society was never rational, post enlightenment massacres done by non religious people testify to that. I would gladly hear about this rational society we would be in much sooner if the church was not around, but this is beside the point right now.
niinja2 1 week ago
@niinja2 and further that the church as an organization and in it's many parts, did little or nothing to discourage the inquisition and in several cases actively encouraged it.
This is taught in even basic history classes, if you wish to call it flat out false then cite you refutations.
AndreisEntaro 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AndreisEntaro
"This is taught in even basic history classes"
I think there was a slight misunderstanding here.Yes the church did encourage inquisition, the methods used by inquisition in determining truth are the ones which were debated.
niinja2 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AndreisEntaro
"I'll remind you that it was St. Augustine who advocated for the use of torture on "heretics" against Aquinas who advocated for death outright"
i would rather that you prove this assertion.
niinja2 2 weeks ago
@niinja2 See above for citation related to the Donatist heresey and Augustine as a theorist of the Inquisition.
It is possible for people, even historic figures, to change their minds.
AndreisEntaro 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AndreisEntaro
"See above for citation "
what citation?
"It is possible for people, even historic figures, to change their minds."
i dont follow how is this related
niinja2 2 weeks ago
@niinja2 Reposting another then: newadvent(dot)org/cathen/02084a(dot)htm
"I dont follow how is this related" - You seem to be under the misconception that if the church or one of it's members has ever taken a position they have never subsequently reversed their stance. People are not static like this, doubly so for the church.
In the case of Augustine, in his early years he argued that it was nonsense to torture for heresy and later changed his mind while dealing with the Donatists.
AndreisEntaro 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AndreisEntaro
"People are not static like this, doubly so for the church."
I agree , but if things change you cant blame this change on the text that was there before the change happen. The bible did not change. What is the cause of the change. Il answer about augustine when i get the time to read it.
niinja2 1 week ago
@niinja2 Now, my question for you is: why defend this? Why associate yourself with all this bad history for the sake of an organization that so clearly, even to day, does not care about you or your family in spite of your local priest's claims to the contrary.
It should be perfectly clear, if you only tried to meet the Pope, what this organization is actually about and yet you wonder why people call it out on the blatant human rights violations it has never been made to answer for. Why?
AndreisEntaro 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AndreisEntaro
"Now, my question for you is: why defend this?"
because i care about the FUCKING TRUTH and so should you.
"does not care about you or your family in spite of your local priest's claims to the contrary."
so because you think church does not care about me i should not defend it? So its ultimately a tribal thing is it?
I thought justice and truth is what you value, or does it justice and truth do not apply one people outside of your group?
niinja2 2 weeks ago
@niinja2 As you will see above, I hold to no particular group. As you correctly point out, tribalism has been a component of atrocities in human history of far too long and I don't care to play along with that. What I was getting at with that question is the observation that you seem quite passionate in defending the organization from any blame, although it should be clear it deserves at least some. This seems an abnormal affinity for someone merely seeking the truth of the matter.
AndreisEntaro 2 weeks ago
@AndreisEntaro
This is my answer to you.
I dont defend the church, im trying to explain the reasons behind what it did in the past, while some people are content with just demonizing it. Im doing this to show the double standard people have when they explain their groups actions but demonize outher groups actions, im trying to show that its not about rationality and the truth , its about TRIBALISM.
And in that respect everybody are the same as the church.
niinja2 2 weeks ago
@niinja2 Here we positively agree. I simply adhere to no particular group, expect to be held accountable for my own actions and demand that other individuals be held accountable for their actions. For any organization created by people for any specific purpose, said organization ought also be held accountable for that which people have done as an organization under it's name. Much the same as companies and gov'ts are held accountable today. This has typically not been the case with the church.
AndreisEntaro 2 weeks ago
@AndreisEntaro
St. Augustine, City of God, 426 AD — Book XIX, Chapter 6
augustine advocates about pointless of torture, your turn
niinja2 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AndreisEntaro
So lets start from the top
"I contend that the fear and idea of burning pagans was an invention of the church."
ok then explain why were the witch burnings NOT present everywhere where the church was present, and explain why the church said in the 10 century that witches do not exist.
answer this or dont bother responding.
niinja2 2 weeks ago
@niinja2 Very possibly because there were not people who could be accused of witchcraft everywhere the church was present.
By the same token, if people were simply ignorant then why were witch burnings not happening everywhere people were?
Although the church at one time said witches are not real, they also persecuted people for thinking otherwise and later (1400s) resumed trials for magical pacts with demons ect. and with the printing of the Malleus Maleficarum, define the crime of witchcraft.
AndreisEntaro 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AndreisEntaro
"there were not people who could be accused of witchcraft everywhere the church was present."
anybody anywhere could be accused of witchcraft
"if people were simply ignorant then why were witch burnings not happening everywhere people were?"
that means its not just ignorance that causes it.
"they also persecuted people for thinking otherwise"
people did this all through the ages and it has nothing to do with the debate.
niinja2 2 weeks ago
@niinja2 "anybody anywhere could be accused of witchcraft" are you intentionally misreading at this point? This is equivalent in modern times to saying "anyone anywhere could be accused of pedophilia". Yes...this is possible, but the accused must first do something to arouse suspicion.
"not just ignorance that causes it" precisely, ignorance combined with suspicion on an individual combined with church preaching and texts describing what qualifies as witchcraft.
AndreisEntaro 1 week ago
@AndreisEntaro
"but the accused must first do something to arouse suspicion."
Like being a priest you mean? That is good enough reason for accusation today.
Due to hyperactive agency detection people assigned fault to their neighbors just on speculation, so no you did not have to do anything.
Explain how you have 10 witches killed in spain and 20000 thousand killed in france and germany,and supposedly church that is present in all places is blamed for both.
variable/ constant
niinja2 1 week ago
@niinja2 "Like being a priest you mean?" Hardly, this is an ad hoc assumption you have projected onto my statement. I choose pedophilia because it has acquired a prominent position in the public psyche at this moment in history.
Here you are again, making no progress with this variable/constant idea.
Have you completely ignored my position? I 100% agree that the people per area have a huge effect on the witch burnings. I contend that the church had significant role in it as well.
AndreisEntaro 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AndreisEntaro
"I 100% agree that the people per area have a huge effect on the witch burnings. I contend that the church had significant role in it as well."
Hah, now we are getting somewhere.
OK , how much of a significant role in your opinion?
niinja2 1 week ago
@niinja2 To properly address your variable/constant issue for the last time, the church is not a constant. It was most assuredly different in different areas, had a varying effect on people's lives in different areas and it's preachings were more assuredly taken more/less seriously in different areas. Even if it were a constant, this would not negate the official church position on witchcraft and pacts with the devil as an instigating factor in witch burnings.
AndreisEntaro 1 week ago
@AndreisEntaro and as I cited above, the church did indeed promote the idea that witches were real, of the devil, and should be tortured/killed to change their mind or prevent their influence on the local people even if this stance was not a constant in church history.
AndreisEntaro 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AndreisEntaro
"Even if it were a constant..."
This does not negate the churches position that was constant through the whole Christendom. At some places were burned 10 witches, and at other places 20000 witches, how can a constant position of a church influence so high a discrepancy?
"the church did indeed promote the idea that witches were real"
what were the causes of the change in thinking through the centuries.
niinja2 1 week ago
@niinja2 You completely ignored this yet again so here you have it in as simple terms as I can make it: "some places were burned 10 witches" Church influence may have been weak in those places.
"other places 20000 witches" church influence may have been stronger in those places.
"how can a constant" it most assuredly was not constant.
And even had it been, this would not excuse the endorsement. You personally would still be called evil for encouraging witch burning even if everyone ignored you.
AndreisEntaro 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AndreisEntaro
"some places were burned 10 witches" Church influence may have been weak in those places."
yeah like Spain after the Spanish inquisition, really negligible influence of the church.
"it most assuredly was not constant."
well it most assuredly did not vary by the factor of 2000
"And even had it been, this would not excuse the endorsement."
but it would explain it.
yes yes we need to spank the church... im tired...
niinja2 1 week ago
@AndreisEntaro
"combined with church preaching and texts describing what qualifies as witchcraft."
What is the cause that caused the church to adopt this view in the 16-th century and not in the 10-th century?
If its the churches fault why wasn't this widespread through all of Christendom. Spain had 10 witches killed, germany and france 20 000. Did (spacial constant) church contribute with 10 to those 20 000?
another explanation is tensions from reformation caused it.
niinja2 1 week ago
@AndreisEntaro
"and with the printing of the Malleus Maleficarum, define the crime of witchcraft."
yes they did, and one of the explanation in that book, was that it is possible that these "magical" events could be caused by something else other then witches...
niinja2 2 weeks ago
@niinja2 Cop out: We both know that book was primarily used to help justify witch burnings. A situation which is not possible with a book purely written against such a thing.
You spend so much time defending this but compare the history of the church to the history of, say, the Jainists as an organized religion. One organization is clearly more evil and more deserving of responsibility for past atrocities than the other and one has texts that can be used to justify evil while the other does not.
AndreisEntaro 1 week ago
@AndreisEntaro
"Cop out: We both know that book was primarily used to help justify witch burnings"
to justify is not the same as to cause
And you sped to much time accusing the bible for something the people obviously arbitrary adhered to. It does not matter what the holy books say, and Christianity is the best example, since the core of Christianity is surrendering , humbling yourself, not acting violently to the violence done to you, while "Christians" acted opposite of that
niinja2 1 week ago
@niinja2 First: I have mentioned the bible once in this discourse. Yet it seems now that you have repeatedly equated my critique of the quite variable church with what you are calling the constant (bible).
Secondly: One person can act without justification, in order to convince others to act however, one needs a justification. In this sense, the book is a cause. We are done playing word games now. Lend the slightest credit to my words (esp. given the limitation on YT) or we are done talking.
AndreisEntaro 1 week ago
@AndreisEntaro
"First:"
If the church is variable not depending on the bible , the it is the cause of change withing the church that is also the cause of everything the church did, as for the good things, so for the bad ones.
"In this sense, the book is a cause"
No the cause is the man that does convincing , the book is a tool he is doing it with.
"We are done playing word games now."
well i really hope so, and i hope you do answer my question.
niinja2 1 week ago
@niinja2 I further object to your assertion that "the core of Christianity is..." non-violence.
The core of Jainism is non-violence. The first half of the Bible alone has a very good foundation in violence and the New testament does precious little to overturn this.
It seems a major source of confusion for you in your analysis of history is this very notion that there is nothing in the Bible which could support violence. On inspection, this is simply not true.
AndreisEntaro 1 week ago
@AndreisEntaro
"and the New testament does precious little to overturn this."
And earth is a square.
For every christian the core of Christianity are the gospel's, and Jesus. Christian means little Christ, and to be christian means to emulate Christ. The bible could support violence , if you completely ignore everything the founder of Christian religion - Jesus said.
niinja2 1 week ago