ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
INTELLIGENT DESIGN ON ANOTHER PLANET? Imagine finding a planet where robots are programmed to make other robots just like themselves from raw materials. Now, imagine an alien scientist visiting the planet and, after studying these robots, comes to the conclusion that because science can explain how these robots work, function, and reproduce there's no reason to believe there was an intelligent designer behind them! Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or a cell works, but it's irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about either. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless.
The problem is that “atheist” is a word that's always been defined by people who aren't. Like “infidel” it's a catch-all derogatory term for outsiders. If Shakespeare had never written “Midsummer Night's Dream,” what word would you use to describe a person who doesn't believe in Puck?
@JonMoody47 Hi, yes, I understand what youre saying, but the point of the video is to push the movement of atheism in a particular direction. That is I am saying that it is not simply enough to not believe in god, you have to do that for the right reasons. You have to come to the conclusion properly or you will make the same mistakes that religious people make.
@HoneyIEducatedTheWeb I thought I gave some reasoning here. And that is also my point, the conclusion is not as important as the reasoning. An atheist should be an atheist because of his dedication to the scientific method and nothing else.
To your point about there not being enough violent verses in the Torah, I must disagree.
To account for the 'not enough power; not enough people' idea, I need only point out the situation with "Israel" that currently exists. Now that they have power, look at what they are doing. Now look at why. ;)
@HoneyIEducatedTheWeb about your point in israel you are right and I agree with you. But it actually enforces my point. The second israel got power, they were just as violent as any other society. As long as they did not have power they were victims. The point you made enforces my point.
About the "reasoning/conclusion" thing, yes I was merely re-inforcing what you said.
As for the point about Israel, I believe your reply contradicts the above, then.
"The second israel got power, they were just as violent as any other society. " But this is merely a conclusion. My point about looking to the "why" rather than the "what" was to point out that zionism is inspired by their holy book. It is every bit as destructive as the Qur'an (proportionally).
@HoneyIEducatedTheWeb I agree about your statement about christians, this is why I think we should have an educated scientific society so that this doesnt happen again.
Sure, if there weren't theists there wouldn't be the atheist label, but we'd still be atheists. Atheism is a disbelief in any gods, a refutation of claims that there are gods.
Rationality doesn't have much to do with atheism, but your point about rationality is well taken. In New Zealand I'm regularly accused of being racist because I object to Maori spiritual practices and cultural superstitions impinging on me. If we were all perfectly rational those differences wouldn't even occur.
'rationalists' is another label, while a cool one. Choosing to be an atheist is not about turning the world into a paradise, or solving all the worlds problems. Those goals can be taken up regardless of belief or lack of.
The only reason you become an atheist is because belief in invisible beings is pointless. Just because some atheists can be overbearing does not mean atheism is about being overbearing.
The comment about religion and judism. Religion is not solely the cause of war, but the issue is it is USED by those who want war to justify and convince the population to support war. Religion can bring out all the worst in people if the motive is strong enough. If religion was not an issue, would wars stop? No. But one cause for war would be gone from the world. Then we can work on the next cause (greed, bias, ignorance, etc).
Personally saying atheists 'hate' believers is not correct. Its like hating an aids victim.
The problem is NOT the individual but the organisation that pushes such practices on them. The ideal of a atheist crusade via a military role makes no sense. The only crusade that makes sense is using education to point out that a belief is illogical and hope that believers come to terms with that on their own.
The only time violence should be considered is to avoid being culled by religion.
you bring up valid points but I think you give too much weight to the concept of what an atheist is. An atheist does not HAVE to be scientific, or happy, or even moral. Its not a subculture. Its just a label for anyone, clever or stupid, tolerant or intolerant, honest or corrupt, that reject claims that a god exists. I think you are overthinking the label. Atheists are human, with all the same emotional and psychological hangups as believers BAR ONE. They don't accept a god exists. That is all.
As Nietzsche said, "Battle not with monsters lest ye become a monster; and if you gaze into the abyss the abyss gazes into you." That quote pretty much sums up your main argument, and it's a good argument. If people choose atheism, then they should choose some sort of moral or philosophic boundary. If not, that makes them no better than any normal theist.
Yes. You are correct. Aethism becoms a religon when people believe in it for no reason. However, for me, the term aethist itself is just shorthand for my belief that god simply does not exist. It is nice to see that other people around my age are not totally corrupt.
@SilverGalford Ok so the only one and true god is your god I'm assuming, like that's a new story lol. Anyways, who was YOUR god created by. Pagans too? Greeks? You've admitted gods are created by people, so why don't you just take that in as your own religion being created by people and accept that all gods are created by man, not man created by gods
@SilverGalford Without fanaticism, you can also do terrible things, yes, but there is always a reason for someone to do terrible things, be it despair, ignorance, anger, fear... Just take a close look at the criminals out there: they are either mentally ill, stupid, lost their minds during the crime, or something.
The idea that we do mistakes most of the time is a TERRIBLE MISTAKE of Christianity that actually makes Christians do bad things for fear of disobeying God or betraying their faith.
@SilverGalford Stalin was a communist dictator, not an atheist. Mythology. That's one reason I know "God" doesn't exist. Ancient civilizations each had a unique ruler, usually pivotal to the sun. Sacrifices were made in hope, faith, that their ruler would grace them (whether crops, rain, victory etc.). The flawed idea of god has existed since ancient dumb fuck humans who didn't understand the world invented it to have hope for their life on earth and the idea that they can have a life off of it.
@SilverGalford So, since there are some atheists that are intolerant, I can't criticize Christians because they are often intolerant? That doesn't make any sense. It would be hypocrisy if I was intolerant myself, or maybe if I ignored or denied intolerance in atheism.
I don't even believe there is a god, much less that he has any guilty on how people are. The guilt is not humans, but their fanaticism and blindness toward their beliefs. Stalin was a fanatic communist.
@SilverGalford Yes, true, but not nearly as much as Christians can be intolerant. It is risky to come out as an atheist or homosexual and not to get fired from your job, everyone turns against you, you lose your "close" friends, your family says non-stop for you to "come home". I've only seen a couple of atheists on the Internet that could do the same, and not in the name of Atheism, but in their own names. I also see that Spiritists don't do that either, don't know about other religions.
the mosque at ground zero may be a few blocks away but the debris and destruction after the collapse spread much further then a few blocks away and in my opinion I disagree with the location of the mosque they can have a mosque anywhere in new york why did they have to have it there, I have no hate for the muslim people or religion I just think the location of the mosque is very unsettling to many people and for good reason, it is disrespectful to the victims, its obvious no one gives a shit
I just want to say that I'm atheist and you have a point.
There is a significant amount of atheists that are on a crusade to destroy religion instead of trying to make people think about their lives and beliefs. However, that is hard when religious people around you are angry at your simple existence.
Atheism is a good thing because it goes against the intolerant Christian majority that does bad things in name of God, but It isn't perfect. We'll get there, at least that is my hope :)
@RealityGrapple sure Id be happy to hear from you. In fact Im still unsure myself on what to believe and what not to believe. I dont think I have yet reached the end of the journey and my views have already changed multiple times from conversations here on youtube.
Yeah, sorry kid, but you're an idiot. Your entire argument is based on the false premise that you can assume things about atheists aside from a lack of a belief in a supernatural deity, ie "god". Thus, your points explaining how atheists can be irrational or incorrect at times is completely moot. There's really nothing else to say... don't know what to tell you. You're simply ignorant.
@pumarunner88 no thats not the argument. If I was arguing over the definition of atheism then you would be correct and its also a pointless conversation to have. But Im arguing about the movement of atheism. i am arguing that rather than just defining the movement as a lack of belief in god in which allows for the inclusion of other irrationalities we should start from the scientific method so that atheism is included in this bubble but so that other irrationalities are excluded.
@pumarunner88 no problem. I also dont know what "that" is. If youre saying that I think all atheists are irrational, then I never said that, I give specific examples of popular atheists being irrational. If youre saying not all atheists think of atheism coming from a scientific perspective. thats the whole point of my video. Im saying atheism should be under the umbrella of the scientific method.
@pumarunner88 no thats not the argument. If I was arguing over the definition of atheism then you would be correct and its also a pointless conversation to have. But Im arguing about the movement of atheism. i am arguing that rather than just defining the movement as a lack of belief in god in which allows for the inclusion of other irrationalities we should start from the scientific method so that atheism is included in this bubble but so that other irrationalities are excluded.
@pumarunner88 also you should seriously skip on the arrogance. if you disagree with my argument then say so, but calling me an idiot without understanding what Im even arguing isnt whta you should be doing. peace.
@pumarunner88 infact i even say that the word "atheism" since its narrow definition refers only to the belief in god is a bad word to identify oneself as, since it ignores the inclusiveness of rationality in other unrelated fields. So youre not even arguing what Im arguing and yet you are calling me an idiot.
I apreciate this video as far as I have watched, but I had to stop it when you started in with the scientific method and the null hypothesis. These do not determine atheism. My personal disbelief has nothing to do with science, but more to do with philosophy and theology.
@GallusSapien thanks, if you read other comments below you will see that many people have also rightly said that there are many ways to determine atheism not just science. That is my mistake. But your mistake is saying that the scientific method does not determine atheism when in fact it is one possible route.
Atheism is a label, some apply it to themselves others have it applied to them. It's a very small thing, in what it means. A person may arrive at atheism by a variety of routes and everyone has different priorities. Does there have to be an 'atheist' manifesto now? I don't like labels very much.
As for YT. You can't prescribe how others run their channels. Obviously you're free to comment, or video response. But you know what? even a scientist, is entitled to voice an opinion in an open forum.
I don't see atheism as the default. If it was than we would have evolved without the need of churches and transcendental figures to inspire progression.
I agree with the majority of your point, but what do u have against Pat? His anger is a reaction to the brainwashing of religion and those who weild religion as a weapon of hate. It is not those who react to the blow that r hateful....it's defense. We don't despise the rights of others, we despise the disrespect, arrogance and hypocrisy of others. Jews understand their doctrine better than Xtians do. Replacing theism with atheism is not 1 blief 4 another. it's replacing many beliefs w/ NONE!
Not all atheists are atheists due to a lack of scientific evidence....it is merely and simply the LACK of belief in any god! Now, I agree that most atheists probably have much more to say than just to wear the atheist label and, if asked, they usually DO say more....we vary greatly often times. Tolerance or OVER tolerance is irrelevant to science! And worshipping an intolerant god just like worshipping a tryannical god and claiming 2 b tolerant or loving is hypocritical at best!
i guess that once an individual decides to cite the 'null hypothesis' it ceases to be valid in that particular argument. i tend to agree with itsminutemaid. the very declaration of the 'null hypthesis' transforms it into a contradiction in the context of whatever debate it is being used in. it diminishes the argument of it's wielder.
@TheSuda lucky for me the scientific community disagrees with you because they use the null hypothesis as the default for every single scientific hypothesis. The idea that it diminishes the argument is silly and baseless.
@truthofevolution i really did like your video actually... the ' null hypothesis' is actually quite old fashioned... it cannot be used as an affirmation of any point of discussion - it is, by definition, a negation, as i'm sure you are aware... i think we might actually be on a pretty similar page... but i think we're more open-minded here in europe.... peace
@TheSuda thanks for the compliment. I dont know why you said the null hypothesis is old fashioned. I just used it the other day in a college class and I know scientists use it all the time.
It is a negation until further evidence for the hypothesis is wrong. To use Dawkin's example, the hypothesis that a magic teacup is orbiting the sun is wrong, until evidence to the contrary is provided. Thats the null hyp. Also be careful about being openminded to baseless claims.
@TheSuda Believe me, you've got just as many morons as we've got here in the United States. The REAL difference between you and I in this matter is that I'm willing to admit our flaws to their proper extent, whereas you choose to sell yourself a false sense of superiority. Don't get me wrong, I'm well aware that there are Americans who do this as well with the U.S., but that doesn't excuse anyone from any other country in being stupid as well.
Let me put it this way; What does debating the existence of God ultimately achieve? Everyone goes around and around in circles until they get the other side to believe things that, that other person cannot prove by any means? Or, debate until one or the other side gets angry and inevitably causes violence and wars. Seriously, tell me what logical basis humans have for debating on an issue that NO ONE has any proof of what-so-ever. Please, tell me.
@itsMinuteMaid I wasnt debating god. I was debating the use of the logic of atheism. Also its not a matter of debate. You have to consider the null hypothesis. Anything that is without evidence is doomed to failure. I dont need to prove that god doesnt exist. As long as there is no evidence of god, he doesnt exist. Thats the null hypothesis.
@truthofevolution "as long as there is no evidence of God, He doesn't exist". Now I'm not sure if you're trolling, or that you've completely gone bonkers. Some crimes are commited with no evidence left behind, OR, the people investigating can't find that evidence. So, if a human can do something and go undetected, don't you think the ultimate creator could even more, and so be absolutely non-detectable? P.S. "logic of atheism"? THERE IS NO LOGIC TO ATHEISM!! Or theism. Frivolous discussion.
@itsMinuteMaid dude im sorry but as someone who is an MD/ PhD and understands science pretty well I can tell you that your statement does not account for the scientific concept of the null hypothesis. I have to sleep now. Ill talk to you later.
@truthofevolution Hypotheses require facts, evidence, no matter how minimal. You cannot, I repeat, CANNOT, falsify, assess, assert, or in any minute way even suggest or otherwise even GUESS, as to any conclusion in either direction, without at least SOME form of those said facts, proof, or otherwise evidence. In that, there are some things that are beyond hypotheses or theories, things like the existence of God. No evidence = no hypotheses what-so-ever = frivolous, non-sensical discussions.
You have a lot of confusion. First off, there is no word, term, or phrase for not believing in Santa Claus, for no rational minded person even DOES believe in him, he is all but excepted as a fictional character, again, besides unrational people or children. As far as Athesim, you seem to be confused on what that word means. Being atheist means quite literally "one whom does not BELIEVE" in God. There is no facts to prove God either way, so you believe, you don't, or you don't know/care. Period.
@itsMinuteMaid well that santa claus point is an example of why other people dont like the word atheist. I say that thats not what bothers me.
Also this video does not apply to all atheists. Just those who claim to be following hte scientific method to reach their conclusion. I should have made that clearer. The rest of my video follows on that.
@truthofevolution That's what you don't seem to be understanding though, there IS no scientific logic, or reasoning for the belief/disbelief in God. There is absolutely not ONE piece of evidence for either side. It is all speculation, hearsay, assumption... and this is why it is a BELIEF, not a factual assertion, again, for either side. The whole discussion of God is quite frivolous, it really is.
@itsMinuteMaid it doesnt matter that there are no facts to prove god either way. The fact that there is no evidence to prove god means that you have to apply the null hypothesis. That is the default for any scientific hypothesis.
It is most certainly better than antitheism or untheists. What would you dictate we call ourselves? The-People-that-decide-that-their-is-no-God-through-logic-and-science? Just like something being asymmetrical does not mean it is wrong nor is it bad, atheism is a fine alternative to any of the other options. But as with much of the english language, for instance what you had said "homophobia" They do not always mean what their proper definition would entail.
@bigfatmadmaggy how about scienceophiles? Im not saying atheism is bad, i just think it is incomplete. I didnt say atheism was not a fine alternative, yes it is. but its only a small piece of what a scienceophile should consider. Why use a word that limits rationality to religion, we should use a word that defines us better.
Well, truthofevolution I am glad that you pointed out what you did, but you also have to consider that what you are calling "Christianity" is and was Roman Catholicism not "Christianity."
Also I see your argument though it is weak towards the idea of Atheism being a bad name. For instance, Asantaclausism or the like is not a religion of sorts. It is the fact that Theistic insights is where the world has come from therefore it would only make sense to say Not like the rest of the world.
I submitted a video response, I think may be relevant.
I didn't get a chance to watch the full video, but the gist I got was, that atheists should rely more on facts. I'll say I agree, but I feel a need to remind you that humans are flawed creatures, who often like emotionally motivated discourse, and sometimes ignore facts.
Anyway, I hope I didn't strawman your argument :)Take care man, I hope I'll be able to help you with a video soon :D
I disagree on a couple points. Atheism is not exclusively a result of science. Epicurus disproved the tri-omni god 2300 years ago. I would call his argument philosophy and reason, not science. Yes, this is somewhat semantic. Science is reason + technology. Before technology science was called natural philosophy.
You missed sociopolitical aspects in the difference in violence between some groups.
And if you don't want your parents to kill you stop at 7 wives. ;)
@SueDoeNimm3 haha Im glad Im making decentish videos. Also sociopolitical factors impact education, resources, and stability of the family, so it is encompassed in those factors.
The trouble with substituting the word atheist with rationalist is that some atheists develop their atheism through personal experience just as most Christians develop their belief. Such atheists don't understand their own conformational bias, nor the problems inherent to using anecdotal evidence. And as you say, they are ignorant of the scientific method. And thus they often mis-attribute the causal effect of certain experiences. They assume their opinions are correct without due consideration.
your problem with atheism should be that it has been hijacked by hateful far left liberal loons who have taken this position simply to attack religion, specifically Christianity here in America
@frictionRx5 in science, any ideas without evidence are brutally shut down really hard and really fast. There is nothing wrong in my opinion on a conquest of religion as long as that conquest is done with open dialogue and evidence, the way it is done in science.
Since christianity is not based on evidence, there is nothing scientific about it, it is an irrational belief.
@frictionRx5 also christians attack atheists all the time and all throughout history. Except in their case it is impossible to make a scientific argument for christianity, so their attack is based on fear and reward, not facts.
In other words atheists are fighting back, I just think they should stay above the fray and rely on scientific priniciples, not the base emotions that christians use.
a rightwing atheist, if you wanna apply that term, is a person who doesn't give a 2nd thought to religion or religious symbols. they are aware of religion but don't think about it, it's not part of their daily lives.
hateful liberals however think atheism means they must go out of their way to be offended by everything about Christianity, prove it's wrong, mock and ridicule it at every opportunity all for the simple reason that liberals are smug obnoxious mean people
there is no Christian fundamentalist takeover of the U.S.
there is however a far left loon fringe segment of annoying smug obnoxious hateful liberals who, instead of minding their own business, go out of their way to be offended by crosses, Christmas Trees, Bibles in hotel rooms, "In God We Trust" on our money, etc.etc.
these mean nasty bitter liberals have hijacked atheism and redefined it to mean attack, mock and disprove Christian beliefs. it's like a cause with you
@frictionRx5 As far as i have understood it, you have separation of church and state in the US. So the goverment should stay out of the religious business.
The only objections i have seen raised by atheists is to the usage of tax money to support specifik religious views, be it the spending of tax money on a religious holiday or supporting the view of some religions that one god exists.
There is no opposition to your right to buy christmas trees, only to government buying ones, with tax money
So all you got is your unmotivated anger against 'liberals' who are standing up to kooky christians who want public money to teach their nonsense to our chilren.
It sounds like you're a member of the lunatic fringe who's afraid of democracy.
lolz, here's a good example of a no-life hateful atheist liberal
the "everything is my business" atheist liberal says "hey that war memorial in the shape of a cross in the middle of the Mojave desert offends me, I will file a lawsuit to have it removed"
the courts say "no, the cross can remain", so then the miserable hateful atheist liberal goes and steals the cross.
Even if an individual who happens to be an atheist does something wrong, that has nothing to do with 'liberals'. Perhaps you could talk to someone whose native language is English for some help?
There's no evidence an atheist stole any such cross.
This nation was founded by liberals, who established a wall of separation between church and state. Why radical religious fanatics want to destroy this country I don't know.
@frictionRx5 " they must go out of their way to be offended by everything about Christianity, prove it's wrong, mock and ridicule it at every opportunity all for the simple reason that liberals are smug obnoxious mean people" It is the duty of a good scientist to destroy false theories in any field of science. It is their duty to spread reason and evidence. Doctors who think that HIV does not cause AIDs must lose their license. Similarly, religious people must be addressed head on.
@frictionRx5 Id also like you not to forget that it is christians who deny gay people the right to marry. If they dont want atheists forcing their views on them, why do they force their views on gays?
While lib atheists mock christians on youtube, christians are BANNING gay marriage. Until atheists BAN christianity, your bigotry is much much worse than ours, which is not bigotry at all since it is based on scientific priciples.
Bill Maher is an example of the hateful far left loon atheist liberal I described, he's not a scientist, the religious beliefs of others really isn't any of his business, he's just a hateful smug lib who gets off by calling Christians stupid and making fun of them.
marriage is a religious institution created specifically as the union between a man and a woman
gays think it should be for any 2 people but that wasn't the intent
@frictionRx5 "marriage is a religious institution created specifically as the union between a man and a woman" gay people disagree with that definition. As long as you are IMPOSING that definition onto a gay couple, you have no right to talk about hateful left loons.
Considering that Bill Maher is not IMPOSING anything on christianity, you are much much more hateful than he is, for IMPOSING your point of view.
I'm well aware the gays don't agree with that definition but that doesn't make them right. there are certain things and places that were created specifically for certain people, marriage is just 1 example and the gays are just gonna have to accept that.
I already defined what a true atheist is and I defined what annoying hateful liberal loons think the definition of atheism is
@frictionRx5 no they dont. Courts everywhere are striking that down man. Your point of view goes against the constitution. Use your logic without your bias and you will become an atheist.
Your point of view is clearly wrong, there is no evidence for god, then why cant you live with science purging god from life? Why cant you accept that? Thats just how certain things are done. Science destroys things without evidence, your religion is just one example.
@frictionRx5 I defined how hateful liberal loons actually use the scientific principle of destroying false theories. That same principle is practiced in all of science. So when you say they are hateful, they are actually practicing good science, and you cant handle that.
Its interesting that you think just because other people do not agree with you doesnt make them right, so you can IMPOSE your definition on them, but if you are wrong (about religion) their definition cannot be imposed on you.
@frictionRx5 also your definition of marriage is not objective: you cannot do an experiment on it, you cannot confirm it. You just have a belief of the definition of marriage. So your definition does not make you right. Thtas your point of view. You cant impose that on people.
Your hate is much worse than Bill Maher because he is not imposing his point of view on you. Imposing a viewpoitn is what fascists do, ironically, since you guys keep calling obama a fascist.
@frictionRx5 dude you have a serious misunderstanding of the constitution. Think about it this way: the constitution mandates that your rights end at the bridge of my nose. That is you do not have the right to enter a girl's locker room because that violates a woman's right to privacy. However, gay marriage does not violate any of your rights because you are not involved in the marriage. Its not about what you think, its about rights
Theyre not "just gonna have to", they are winning everywhere.
the ladies locker room has a place for me to put my stuff, it has showers and toilet facilities. it exists so therefore I should have access to those amenities and it is irrelevant if me using them makes some women uncomfortable
@frictionRx5 thats ok if you disagree with me, the constitution disagrees with you and its the law of the land. Thats the whole point, it doesnt matter what you think, it matters what the rights are and what rights are violated. In the case of the locker room, a woman's right to privacy is violated, so it doesnt matter what you think. In the case of gay marriage, no rights of yours are violated. In fact THEIR rights are violated.
@frictionRx5 then I can say that you are pushing for rights that you never had in the first place. Your religion is unscientific. You have no right to call anyone bigoted for putting your religion where it belongs.
Also why would anyone fight for rights that they have? That makes no sense. Obviously, gays never had the right to marry.
" it was created to recognize the union of a man and woman, not 2 guys or 2 chicks" No it wasnt. Also the supreme court has said marriage is a right.
@frictionRx5 Can I say freedom was created to recognize whites not indians? Rights apply to all americans, not just one group. Thats why your argument fails. If marriage is a right, then it is a right for all groups of americans. The supreme court has delcared marriage to be a right many decades ago. Therefore, unless you have a scientific reason to deny marriage to gays, its their right too.
@frictionRx5 I frankly dont understand what you lose when gays marry. How does it affect your life? How does it affect anything? This is none of yoru business, but if you think it is, then an atheist has a right to think that your unscientific views are his business.
@frictionRx5 Im glad you asked me this. First of all, the bible allowed polygamy, so when you say "one man one woman" thats simply false.
Regardless of what happened in history, I only care about evidence. If I see ANY reasonable scientific evidence concluding that polygamy does not destabilize society, I will be for it, if I see evidence for the opposite I will be against it. While they should have that right to marry whomever they want, I would wait for the evidence before making a judgment.
@frictionRx5 never assume anything. It might be true that jealousy may play such an important role that it might lead to a break down of society. In both mormon society and muslim society where polygamy is allowed, women are more or less subjugated. Thats why I want to see real evidence before making a conclusion. Also the supreme court can only address cases that are brought to them, it cannot make up cases to address.
@frictionRx5 I know that, thats why I havent reached the decision to be against polygamy. Polygamy MIGHT work or it MIGHT NOT work. Both possibilities are open until we get serious scientific data.
yeah but polygamists are not interested in nor do they care to wait for some other group of people to collect scientific data, they just wanna do what they wanna do.
the gays don't wanna have to wait for people like you to do studies and collect data just so they can be allowed to get married or serve in the military.
why are you making the polygamists wait for your data and studies?
@frictionRx5 are you kidding, we absolutely made gays wait. The gay pride movement started 30 years ago, but why are courts just starting to overturn the laws against them now? Its because scientists have spent the last 30 years collecting data to see if children who grow up with gay parents grow up worse than parents with straight parents. The argument was that you need both a male and female role model.
That turned out to be a myth. So its ok to let them marry.
well there you go, people like you spent the last 30 yrs doing research just to verify what the gays were saying 30 yrs ago
people like you held up gay marriage for 30 yrs and now you propose holding up polygamy marriages for another 30 yrs just to verify what the polygamists are saying today
@frictionRx5 youre not understanding the concept of rights: your rights end at the bridge of my nose. That is gays have the right to marry, but if their marriage means that children grow up worse, then they do not have the right since the child loses his rights. Of course science showed this isnt true.
Polygamists may have the right to marry, but if their marriage means a woman's freedoms are supressed, then they dont have the right. Thats why we wait for the evidence. Do you follow now?
@frictionRx5 its not about making them wait for no reason, its about getting the facts so that we can make smart decisions, you cannot sacrifice one person's rights for another. Thats the point. We have to make sure women dont lose rights first in a polygamist family before going ahead with that decision.
see there you go again sticking your nose into someone else's life and bedroom
you're telling a group of men and women, pick whatever combination of gender you want, who love each other and want to marry that they must wait until you're satisfied that each person is treated with dignity and respect and that society is not harmed
those polygamists would be outraged and offended that some stranger like you is standing in their way just so you can study the issue b4 u decide
@frictionRx5 you just ignored the point I made. I am repeating myself: The courts have to see whose constitutional rights have been violated. If the courts allow polygamy and it turns out that decision reduces the rights of women, thats an unconstitutional decision they made.
Therefore only the results of the study can show the constitutionality of the decision. My conclusion is an obvious one, Im surprised you are not able to follwo it.
@frictionRx5 it doesnt matter if polygamists are outraged, no one has the right to take away the rights of another person.
Im not angry that gays had to wait. Thats normal. What is sad for me is that people like you ignore the 30 years of scientific evidence saying that gays should have the right to marry since they would not adversely affect society.
you are basically supporting the notion of guilty until proven innocent
you are in essence telling some guy that you have to determine 1st that he won't subjugate the 3 women that want to marry him and all based on your theories and assumptions
@frictionRx5 No, from my point of view, polygamists are neither guilty nor not guilty. All I am saying is when we make a decision we have to make sure we are making the right one. Its called being responsible.
I am not making any theories or assumptions. Thats the whole point, I am not reaching any conclusion. I want to see the evidence first before I reach any conclusions. Thats what any good scientist should do.
you ARE making assumptions, you seem to think it's possible polygamy could lead to the subjugation of women here in America
you won't support marriage between multiple partners cuz you think it's possible the husband might keep his 3 wives from taking jobs or voting or having friends and make them work in the fields all day
your argument against accepting polygamy is ludicrous
@frictionRx5 You are completely misunderstanding what I am saying. Im not making any arguments against accepting polygamy. Infact Im pretty much in favor of it. The only thing that is holding me back from reaching a conclusion is that I dont know the consequences of that conclusion. Thats why I want to see the evidence before I make a decision.
I keep repeating that I will only make a decision based on evidence and you pretend that thats a statement against polygamy.
perhaps you should ask a polygamist, a man or a woman take your pick, to show you a scientific study proving that their multiple partner marriage won't harm society and see if they get offended
then you should try to explain to them why their definition of marriage is any of your business
@frictionRx5 Dude its not about getting offended. Its about rights. Im fine with their definition of marriage as long as the consequences of the decision promotes individual rights. Im just making sure I know the consequences of that decision. I did the same thing about global wamring and gay marriage.
@frictionRx5 in gay marriage, their definition of marriage is my business only until it is clear that they do not harm the child they are raising. They have passed that hurdle. So Im for gay marriage.
My argument is very consistent dude. Even if I agree that gays have the right to be married, I need to be aware of the consequence of that decision. The science tells me its fine, so Im all for gay marriage.
so now you're bringing in the tired old "what about the children" argument to justify why you need scientific evidence before you can personally approve or disapprove of other people's relationship choices
the gays and the polygamists are gonna want to know why you, a stranger, are entitled to any kind of evidence before you fully condone their personal relationship and family choices
@frictionRx5 Ive always brought the children argument, I repeated over and over that gay marriage does not affect the child's life, therefore there is no reason to be against it. I dont think that its a tired argument at all. In fact I think its very important.
Im not entitled to anything, but the courts require that an individual's constitutional rights are not sacrificed by their decision. Im not a judge, striking down laws or a cop enforcing them.
@frictionRx5 see if you stopped using emotion as an argument and used scientific evidence and the constitution as an argument, you would understand, and you would also be pro gay marriage. Instead, you are a conservative.
@frictionRx5 before endorsing gay adoption, the american academy of peds made sure that the children will get all the care they need. You can pretend that children dont matter to spread your hate. But I think children are very important. ONLY AFTER they made sure children were ok did the AAP endorse gay adoption.
you're still supporting the notion that people's personal relationship and family choices need to be justified by others 1st before those choices should be allowed and recognized by the law
if the AAP followed the Constitution to begin with they shouldn't have had any reservations or felt the need to conduct any studies
I will agree that legal unions between gays and legal unions between straights are Constitutional
I will submit that gays want to participate in what is considered in America to be the traditional definition of marriage, a union between a man and a woman, and I understand why many people don't want that tradition altered
the reasons why people don't want the tradition altered vary
@frictionRx5 You clearly evaded my question. I put every effort in trying to answer yours. If you care about truth and not just about winning, please answer my question in a straight forward way. Do you believe gay marriage as recognized by the govt is constitutional? Yes or no. Im not asking about civil unions or about what other people believe. Answer the question please.
@frictionRx5 see this is why I think we have a problem, the constitution as it was originally written did nto automatically grant freedom to slaves either. But the PRINCIPLE of the right to marriage as recognized by the govt has been present in the constitution, as recognized by the supreme court.
So you believe that the govt has the right to deny certain citizens this right without justification correct?
then maybe you should not exits.
TheGuyWhoReviewGames 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
INTELLIGENT DESIGN ON ANOTHER PLANET? Imagine finding a planet where robots are programmed to make other robots just like themselves from raw materials. Now, imagine an alien scientist visiting the planet and, after studying these robots, comes to the conclusion that because science can explain how these robots work, function, and reproduce there's no reason to believe there was an intelligent designer behind them! Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or a cell works, but it's irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about either. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless.
Mogley52 5 months ago
The problem is that “atheist” is a word that's always been defined by people who aren't. Like “infidel” it's a catch-all derogatory term for outsiders. If Shakespeare had never written “Midsummer Night's Dream,” what word would you use to describe a person who doesn't believe in Puck?
JonMoody47 5 months ago
@JonMoody47 Hi, yes, I understand what youre saying, but the point of the video is to push the movement of atheism in a particular direction. That is I am saying that it is not simply enough to not believe in god, you have to do that for the right reasons. You have to come to the conclusion properly or you will make the same mistakes that religious people make.
truthofevolution 4 months ago
@truthofevolution
The way I put it is to say:
I don't care about your conclusion; give me your reasoning.
I know too many stupid atheists who put their intellect on a par with mine merely because they have the same conclusion.
HoneyIEducatedTheWeb 3 months ago
@HoneyIEducatedTheWeb I thought I gave some reasoning here. And that is also my point, the conclusion is not as important as the reasoning. An atheist should be an atheist because of his dedication to the scientific method and nothing else.
truthofevolution 3 months ago
@truthofevolution
To your point about there not being enough violent verses in the Torah, I must disagree.
To account for the 'not enough power; not enough people' idea, I need only point out the situation with "Israel" that currently exists. Now that they have power, look at what they are doing. Now look at why. ;)
HoneyIEducatedTheWeb 3 months ago
@HoneyIEducatedTheWeb about your point in israel you are right and I agree with you. But it actually enforces my point. The second israel got power, they were just as violent as any other society. As long as they did not have power they were victims. The point you made enforces my point.
truthofevolution 3 months ago
@truthofevolution
About the "reasoning/conclusion" thing, yes I was merely re-inforcing what you said.
As for the point about Israel, I believe your reply contradicts the above, then.
"The second israel got power, they were just as violent as any other society. " But this is merely a conclusion. My point about looking to the "why" rather than the "what" was to point out that zionism is inspired by their holy book. It is every bit as destructive as the Qur'an (proportionally).
HoneyIEducatedTheWeb 3 months ago
@truthofevolution
And to the, "Jesus preached peace" thing. Yes, he did.
But as Gandhi said, "I like your Christ...not your Christians" (don't remember it exactly).
Christians read the Bible (well they don't because most of them are too lazy) and most of the Bible does not really consist of Jesus' teachings.
HoneyIEducatedTheWeb 3 months ago
@HoneyIEducatedTheWeb I agree about your statement about christians, this is why I think we should have an educated scientific society so that this doesnt happen again.
truthofevolution 3 months ago
I was an atheist long before I knew what the word was.
I didn't change to fit the label, I adopted it because if fit me.
FrankLightheart 5 months ago
Sure, if there weren't theists there wouldn't be the atheist label, but we'd still be atheists. Atheism is a disbelief in any gods, a refutation of claims that there are gods.
Rationality doesn't have much to do with atheism, but your point about rationality is well taken. In New Zealand I'm regularly accused of being racist because I object to Maori spiritual practices and cultural superstitions impinging on me. If we were all perfectly rational those differences wouldn't even occur.
CeilingCatAKAStu 7 months ago
'rationalists' is another label, while a cool one. Choosing to be an atheist is not about turning the world into a paradise, or solving all the worlds problems. Those goals can be taken up regardless of belief or lack of.
The only reason you become an atheist is because belief in invisible beings is pointless. Just because some atheists can be overbearing does not mean atheism is about being overbearing.
AMomentOfClarity2011 7 months ago
The comment about religion and judism. Religion is not solely the cause of war, but the issue is it is USED by those who want war to justify and convince the population to support war. Religion can bring out all the worst in people if the motive is strong enough. If religion was not an issue, would wars stop? No. But one cause for war would be gone from the world. Then we can work on the next cause (greed, bias, ignorance, etc).
AMomentOfClarity2011 7 months ago
Personally saying atheists 'hate' believers is not correct. Its like hating an aids victim.
The problem is NOT the individual but the organisation that pushes such practices on them. The ideal of a atheist crusade via a military role makes no sense. The only crusade that makes sense is using education to point out that a belief is illogical and hope that believers come to terms with that on their own.
The only time violence should be considered is to avoid being culled by religion.
AMomentOfClarity2011 7 months ago
you bring up valid points but I think you give too much weight to the concept of what an atheist is. An atheist does not HAVE to be scientific, or happy, or even moral. Its not a subculture. Its just a label for anyone, clever or stupid, tolerant or intolerant, honest or corrupt, that reject claims that a god exists. I think you are overthinking the label. Atheists are human, with all the same emotional and psychological hangups as believers BAR ONE. They don't accept a god exists. That is all.
AMomentOfClarity2011 7 months ago
As Nietzsche said, "Battle not with monsters lest ye become a monster; and if you gaze into the abyss the abyss gazes into you." That quote pretty much sums up your main argument, and it's a good argument. If people choose atheism, then they should choose some sort of moral or philosophic boundary. If not, that makes them no better than any normal theist.
1337Tempest 7 months ago
I have a problem with Derpisom. Stupid people who have the default position of Derp.
Shawn21769 8 months ago
Yes. You are correct. Aethism becoms a religon when people believe in it for no reason. However, for me, the term aethist itself is just shorthand for my belief that god simply does not exist. It is nice to see that other people around my age are not totally corrupt.
iamthemudkip 8 months ago
@SilverGalford Ok so the only one and true god is your god I'm assuming, like that's a new story lol. Anyways, who was YOUR god created by. Pagans too? Greeks? You've admitted gods are created by people, so why don't you just take that in as your own religion being created by people and accept that all gods are created by man, not man created by gods
Prankxter 9 months ago
@SilverGalford Without fanaticism, you can also do terrible things, yes, but there is always a reason for someone to do terrible things, be it despair, ignorance, anger, fear... Just take a close look at the criminals out there: they are either mentally ill, stupid, lost their minds during the crime, or something.
The idea that we do mistakes most of the time is a TERRIBLE MISTAKE of Christianity that actually makes Christians do bad things for fear of disobeying God or betraying their faith.
gugamilare 9 months ago
@SilverGalford Stalin was a communist dictator, not an atheist. Mythology. That's one reason I know "God" doesn't exist. Ancient civilizations each had a unique ruler, usually pivotal to the sun. Sacrifices were made in hope, faith, that their ruler would grace them (whether crops, rain, victory etc.). The flawed idea of god has existed since ancient dumb fuck humans who didn't understand the world invented it to have hope for their life on earth and the idea that they can have a life off of it.
Prankxter 9 months ago
@SilverGalford So, since there are some atheists that are intolerant, I can't criticize Christians because they are often intolerant? That doesn't make any sense. It would be hypocrisy if I was intolerant myself, or maybe if I ignored or denied intolerance in atheism.
I don't even believe there is a god, much less that he has any guilty on how people are. The guilt is not humans, but their fanaticism and blindness toward their beliefs. Stalin was a fanatic communist.
gugamilare 9 months ago
@SilverGalford Yes, true, but not nearly as much as Christians can be intolerant. It is risky to come out as an atheist or homosexual and not to get fired from your job, everyone turns against you, you lose your "close" friends, your family says non-stop for you to "come home". I've only seen a couple of atheists on the Internet that could do the same, and not in the name of Atheism, but in their own names. I also see that Spiritists don't do that either, don't know about other religions.
gugamilare 9 months ago
the mosque at ground zero may be a few blocks away but the debris and destruction after the collapse spread much further then a few blocks away and in my opinion I disagree with the location of the mosque they can have a mosque anywhere in new york why did they have to have it there, I have no hate for the muslim people or religion I just think the location of the mosque is very unsettling to many people and for good reason, it is disrespectful to the victims, its obvious no one gives a shit
kratoslinkmaster 9 months ago
I just want to say that I'm atheist and you have a point.
There is a significant amount of atheists that are on a crusade to destroy religion instead of trying to make people think about their lives and beliefs. However, that is hard when religious people around you are angry at your simple existence.
Atheism is a good thing because it goes against the intolerant Christian majority that does bad things in name of God, but It isn't perfect. We'll get there, at least that is my hope :)
gugamilare 11 months ago
@RealityGrapple sure Id be happy to hear from you. In fact Im still unsure myself on what to believe and what not to believe. I dont think I have yet reached the end of the journey and my views have already changed multiple times from conversations here on youtube.
truthofevolution 11 months ago
@truthofevolution Keep learning about reality and you will cease to believe in a god.
buddcinder 9 months ago
Yeah, sorry kid, but you're an idiot. Your entire argument is based on the false premise that you can assume things about atheists aside from a lack of a belief in a supernatural deity, ie "god". Thus, your points explaining how atheists can be irrational or incorrect at times is completely moot. There's really nothing else to say... don't know what to tell you. You're simply ignorant.
pumarunner88 1 year ago
@pumarunner88 no thats not the argument. If I was arguing over the definition of atheism then you would be correct and its also a pointless conversation to have. But Im arguing about the movement of atheism. i am arguing that rather than just defining the movement as a lack of belief in god in which allows for the inclusion of other irrationalities we should start from the scientific method so that atheism is included in this bubble but so that other irrationalities are excluded.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution Alright, but I wouldn't say that everyone in the "atheist movement" is just about that. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
pumarunner88 1 year ago
@pumarunner88 no problem. I also dont know what "that" is. If youre saying that I think all atheists are irrational, then I never said that, I give specific examples of popular atheists being irrational. If youre saying not all atheists think of atheism coming from a scientific perspective. thats the whole point of my video. Im saying atheism should be under the umbrella of the scientific method.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@pumarunner88 no thats not the argument. If I was arguing over the definition of atheism then you would be correct and its also a pointless conversation to have. But Im arguing about the movement of atheism. i am arguing that rather than just defining the movement as a lack of belief in god in which allows for the inclusion of other irrationalities we should start from the scientific method so that atheism is included in this bubble but so that other irrationalities are excluded.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution Perhaps I just misunderstood your point in your video. My error. Sorry about that.
pumarunner88 1 year ago
@pumarunner88 also you should seriously skip on the arrogance. if you disagree with my argument then say so, but calling me an idiot without understanding what Im even arguing isnt whta you should be doing. peace.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@pumarunner88 infact i even say that the word "atheism" since its narrow definition refers only to the belief in god is a bad word to identify oneself as, since it ignores the inclusiveness of rationality in other unrelated fields. So youre not even arguing what Im arguing and yet you are calling me an idiot.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
I apreciate this video as far as I have watched, but I had to stop it when you started in with the scientific method and the null hypothesis. These do not determine atheism. My personal disbelief has nothing to do with science, but more to do with philosophy and theology.
GallusSapien 1 year ago
@GallusSapien thanks, if you read other comments below you will see that many people have also rightly said that there are many ways to determine atheism not just science. That is my mistake. But your mistake is saying that the scientific method does not determine atheism when in fact it is one possible route.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution Alright I'll give you that.
GallusSapien 1 year ago
Atheism is a label, some apply it to themselves others have it applied to them. It's a very small thing, in what it means. A person may arrive at atheism by a variety of routes and everyone has different priorities. Does there have to be an 'atheist' manifesto now? I don't like labels very much.
As for YT. You can't prescribe how others run their channels. Obviously you're free to comment, or video response. But you know what? even a scientist, is entitled to voice an opinion in an open forum.
6Untitled9 1 year ago
I don't see atheism as the default. If it was than we would have evolved without the need of churches and transcendental figures to inspire progression.
NoslemProductions 1 year ago
I agree with the majority of your point, but what do u have against Pat? His anger is a reaction to the brainwashing of religion and those who weild religion as a weapon of hate. It is not those who react to the blow that r hateful....it's defense. We don't despise the rights of others, we despise the disrespect, arrogance and hypocrisy of others. Jews understand their doctrine better than Xtians do. Replacing theism with atheism is not 1 blief 4 another. it's replacing many beliefs w/ NONE!
julzabro 1 year ago
Not all atheists are atheists due to a lack of scientific evidence....it is merely and simply the LACK of belief in any god! Now, I agree that most atheists probably have much more to say than just to wear the atheist label and, if asked, they usually DO say more....we vary greatly often times. Tolerance or OVER tolerance is irrelevant to science! And worshipping an intolerant god just like worshipping a tryannical god and claiming 2 b tolerant or loving is hypocritical at best!
julzabro 1 year ago
i guess that once an individual decides to cite the 'null hypothesis' it ceases to be valid in that particular argument. i tend to agree with itsminutemaid. the very declaration of the 'null hypthesis' transforms it into a contradiction in the context of whatever debate it is being used in. it diminishes the argument of it's wielder.
TheSuda 1 year ago
@TheSuda lucky for me the scientific community disagrees with you because they use the null hypothesis as the default for every single scientific hypothesis. The idea that it diminishes the argument is silly and baseless.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution i really did like your video actually... the ' null hypothesis' is actually quite old fashioned... it cannot be used as an affirmation of any point of discussion - it is, by definition, a negation, as i'm sure you are aware... i think we might actually be on a pretty similar page... but i think we're more open-minded here in europe.... peace
TheSuda 1 year ago
@TheSuda thanks for the compliment. I dont know why you said the null hypothesis is old fashioned. I just used it the other day in a college class and I know scientists use it all the time.
It is a negation until further evidence for the hypothesis is wrong. To use Dawkin's example, the hypothesis that a magic teacup is orbiting the sun is wrong, until evidence to the contrary is provided. Thats the null hyp. Also be careful about being openminded to baseless claims.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@TheSuda science isnt openminded. It openly and ruthlessly crushes any claims that are made without evidence. Take care of yourself buddy.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@TheSuda Believe me, you've got just as many morons as we've got here in the United States. The REAL difference between you and I in this matter is that I'm willing to admit our flaws to their proper extent, whereas you choose to sell yourself a false sense of superiority. Don't get me wrong, I'm well aware that there are Americans who do this as well with the U.S., but that doesn't excuse anyone from any other country in being stupid as well.
pumarunner88 1 year ago
Let me put it this way; What does debating the existence of God ultimately achieve? Everyone goes around and around in circles until they get the other side to believe things that, that other person cannot prove by any means? Or, debate until one or the other side gets angry and inevitably causes violence and wars. Seriously, tell me what logical basis humans have for debating on an issue that NO ONE has any proof of what-so-ever. Please, tell me.
itsMinuteMaid 1 year ago
@itsMinuteMaid I wasnt debating god. I was debating the use of the logic of atheism. Also its not a matter of debate. You have to consider the null hypothesis. Anything that is without evidence is doomed to failure. I dont need to prove that god doesnt exist. As long as there is no evidence of god, he doesnt exist. Thats the null hypothesis.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution "as long as there is no evidence of God, He doesn't exist". Now I'm not sure if you're trolling, or that you've completely gone bonkers. Some crimes are commited with no evidence left behind, OR, the people investigating can't find that evidence. So, if a human can do something and go undetected, don't you think the ultimate creator could even more, and so be absolutely non-detectable? P.S. "logic of atheism"? THERE IS NO LOGIC TO ATHEISM!! Or theism. Frivolous discussion.
itsMinuteMaid 1 year ago
@itsMinuteMaid dude im sorry but as someone who is an MD/ PhD and understands science pretty well I can tell you that your statement does not account for the scientific concept of the null hypothesis. I have to sleep now. Ill talk to you later.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution Hypotheses require facts, evidence, no matter how minimal. You cannot, I repeat, CANNOT, falsify, assess, assert, or in any minute way even suggest or otherwise even GUESS, as to any conclusion in either direction, without at least SOME form of those said facts, proof, or otherwise evidence. In that, there are some things that are beyond hypotheses or theories, things like the existence of God. No evidence = no hypotheses what-so-ever = frivolous, non-sensical discussions.
itsMinuteMaid 1 year ago
You...young man are sheck shi as hellllllllllllllll... .
AND you are smart too!!!
Hot damn!!!
:-D
BigGurlzDoCry 1 year ago
...
BigGurlzDoCry 1 year ago
@BigGurlzDoCry awkward laugh and thanks!
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution You're welcome!
;-)
BigGurlzDoCry 1 year ago
You have a lot of confusion. First off, there is no word, term, or phrase for not believing in Santa Claus, for no rational minded person even DOES believe in him, he is all but excepted as a fictional character, again, besides unrational people or children. As far as Athesim, you seem to be confused on what that word means. Being atheist means quite literally "one whom does not BELIEVE" in God. There is no facts to prove God either way, so you believe, you don't, or you don't know/care. Period.
itsMinuteMaid 1 year ago
@itsMinuteMaid well that santa claus point is an example of why other people dont like the word atheist. I say that thats not what bothers me.
Also this video does not apply to all atheists. Just those who claim to be following hte scientific method to reach their conclusion. I should have made that clearer. The rest of my video follows on that.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution That's what you don't seem to be understanding though, there IS no scientific logic, or reasoning for the belief/disbelief in God. There is absolutely not ONE piece of evidence for either side. It is all speculation, hearsay, assumption... and this is why it is a BELIEF, not a factual assertion, again, for either side. The whole discussion of God is quite frivolous, it really is.
itsMinuteMaid 1 year ago
@itsMinuteMaid where do you think the null hypothesis fits into this?
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@itsMinuteMaid it doesnt matter that there are no facts to prove god either way. The fact that there is no evidence to prove god means that you have to apply the null hypothesis. That is the default for any scientific hypothesis.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
It is most certainly better than antitheism or untheists. What would you dictate we call ourselves? The-People-that-decide-that-their-is-no-God-through-logic-and-science? Just like something being asymmetrical does not mean it is wrong nor is it bad, atheism is a fine alternative to any of the other options. But as with much of the english language, for instance what you had said "homophobia" They do not always mean what their proper definition would entail.
bigfatmadmaggy 1 year ago
@bigfatmadmaggy how about scienceophiles? Im not saying atheism is bad, i just think it is incomplete. I didnt say atheism was not a fine alternative, yes it is. but its only a small piece of what a scienceophile should consider. Why use a word that limits rationality to religion, we should use a word that defines us better.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
Well, truthofevolution I am glad that you pointed out what you did, but you also have to consider that what you are calling "Christianity" is and was Roman Catholicism not "Christianity."
Also I see your argument though it is weak towards the idea of Atheism being a bad name. For instance, Asantaclausism or the like is not a religion of sorts. It is the fact that Theistic insights is where the world has come from therefore it would only make sense to say Not like the rest of the world.
bigfatmadmaggy 1 year ago
@bigfatmadmaggy hi thanks for the compliment. I thought roman chatholics were christians, I dont see how Im being incorrect.
Also about asantaclausism- that was just an example of what other people have a problem with in atheism. I said that thats not what bothers me.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@bigfatmadmaggy also Im pretty sure protestants werent exactly angels. They had their own violent tendencies.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
I love u cutie xxx
desigayboi 1 year ago
I submitted a video response, I think may be relevant.
I didn't get a chance to watch the full video, but the gist I got was, that atheists should rely more on facts. I'll say I agree, but I feel a need to remind you that humans are flawed creatures, who often like emotionally motivated discourse, and sometimes ignore facts.
Anyway, I hope I didn't strawman your argument :)Take care man, I hope I'll be able to help you with a video soon :D
ReasonGuysCopyright 1 year ago
Not bad. Cogent.
I disagree on a couple points. Atheism is not exclusively a result of science. Epicurus disproved the tri-omni god 2300 years ago. I would call his argument philosophy and reason, not science. Yes, this is somewhat semantic. Science is reason + technology. Before technology science was called natural philosophy.
You missed sociopolitical aspects in the difference in violence between some groups.
And if you don't want your parents to kill you stop at 7 wives. ;)
SueDoeNimm3 1 year ago
@SueDoeNimm3 haha Im glad Im making decentish videos. Also sociopolitical factors impact education, resources, and stability of the family, so it is encompassed in those factors.
I will consider stopping at seven wives haha!
truthofevolution 1 year ago
awesome video.
strynate 1 year ago
@strynate thanks!
truthofevolution 1 year ago
The trouble with substituting the word atheist with rationalist is that some atheists develop their atheism through personal experience just as most Christians develop their belief. Such atheists don't understand their own conformational bias, nor the problems inherent to using anecdotal evidence. And as you say, they are ignorant of the scientific method. And thus they often mis-attribute the causal effect of certain experiences. They assume their opinions are correct without due consideration.
unseenstrings 1 year ago
your problem with atheism should be that it has been hijacked by hateful far left liberal loons who have taken this position simply to attack religion, specifically Christianity here in America
frictionRx5 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 in science, any ideas without evidence are brutally shut down really hard and really fast. There is nothing wrong in my opinion on a conquest of religion as long as that conquest is done with open dialogue and evidence, the way it is done in science.
Since christianity is not based on evidence, there is nothing scientific about it, it is an irrational belief.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 also christians attack atheists all the time and all throughout history. Except in their case it is impossible to make a scientific argument for christianity, so their attack is based on fear and reward, not facts.
In other words atheists are fighting back, I just think they should stay above the fray and rely on scientific priniciples, not the base emotions that christians use.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@frictionRx5
Plenty of rightwing atheists to go around.
Your problem seems to be that you're in an adversarial relationship with reality.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz
a rightwing atheist, if you wanna apply that term, is a person who doesn't give a 2nd thought to religion or religious symbols. they are aware of religion but don't think about it, it's not part of their daily lives.
hateful liberals however think atheism means they must go out of their way to be offended by everything about Christianity, prove it's wrong, mock and ridicule it at every opportunity all for the simple reason that liberals are smug obnoxious mean people
frictionRx5 1 year ago
@frictionRx5
Oh, I thought you were talking about *actual* right v left political posturings as commonly used in the English language.
Instead you're just saying 'anyone who resists christian fundamentalist takeover of US' is a 'liberal'.
i.e. you're just making stuff up because you're angwy.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz
there is no Christian fundamentalist takeover of the U.S.
there is however a far left loon fringe segment of annoying smug obnoxious hateful liberals who, instead of minding their own business, go out of their way to be offended by crosses, Christmas Trees, Bibles in hotel rooms, "In God We Trust" on our money, etc.etc.
these mean nasty bitter liberals have hijacked atheism and redefined it to mean attack, mock and disprove Christian beliefs. it's like a cause with you
frictionRx5 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 As far as i have understood it, you have separation of church and state in the US. So the goverment should stay out of the religious business.
The only objections i have seen raised by atheists is to the usage of tax money to support specifik religious views, be it the spending of tax money on a religious holiday or supporting the view of some religions that one god exists.
There is no opposition to your right to buy christmas trees, only to government buying ones, with tax money
Turha101 1 year ago
@frictionRx5
So all you got is your unmotivated anger against 'liberals' who are standing up to kooky christians who want public money to teach their nonsense to our chilren.
It sounds like you're a member of the lunatic fringe who's afraid of democracy.
Go do your boo-hooing somewhere else, freak.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz
lolz, here's a good example of a no-life hateful atheist liberal
the "everything is my business" atheist liberal says "hey that war memorial in the shape of a cross in the middle of the Mojave desert offends me, I will file a lawsuit to have it removed"
the courts say "no, the cross can remain", so then the miserable hateful atheist liberal goes and steals the cross.
atheist liberal fail
frictionRx5 1 year ago
@frictionRx5
Even if an individual who happens to be an atheist does something wrong, that has nothing to do with 'liberals'. Perhaps you could talk to someone whose native language is English for some help?
There's no evidence an atheist stole any such cross.
This nation was founded by liberals, who established a wall of separation between church and state. Why radical religious fanatics want to destroy this country I don't know.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 " they must go out of their way to be offended by everything about Christianity, prove it's wrong, mock and ridicule it at every opportunity all for the simple reason that liberals are smug obnoxious mean people" It is the duty of a good scientist to destroy false theories in any field of science. It is their duty to spread reason and evidence. Doctors who think that HIV does not cause AIDs must lose their license. Similarly, religious people must be addressed head on.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 Id also like you not to forget that it is christians who deny gay people the right to marry. If they dont want atheists forcing their views on them, why do they force their views on gays?
While lib atheists mock christians on youtube, christians are BANNING gay marriage. Until atheists BAN christianity, your bigotry is much much worse than ours, which is not bigotry at all since it is based on scientific priciples.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution
I'll address both of your points
Bill Maher is an example of the hateful far left loon atheist liberal I described, he's not a scientist, the religious beliefs of others really isn't any of his business, he's just a hateful smug lib who gets off by calling Christians stupid and making fun of them.
marriage is a religious institution created specifically as the union between a man and a woman
gays think it should be for any 2 people but that wasn't the intent
frictionRx5 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 "marriage is a religious institution created specifically as the union between a man and a woman" gay people disagree with that definition. As long as you are IMPOSING that definition onto a gay couple, you have no right to talk about hateful left loons.
Considering that Bill Maher is not IMPOSING anything on christianity, you are much much more hateful than he is, for IMPOSING your point of view.
Did you get the key word of this conversation?
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution
I'm well aware the gays don't agree with that definition but that doesn't make them right. there are certain things and places that were created specifically for certain people, marriage is just 1 example and the gays are just gonna have to accept that.
I already defined what a true atheist is and I defined what annoying hateful liberal loons think the definition of atheism is
frictionRx5 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 no they dont. Courts everywhere are striking that down man. Your point of view goes against the constitution. Use your logic without your bias and you will become an atheist.
Your point of view is clearly wrong, there is no evidence for god, then why cant you live with science purging god from life? Why cant you accept that? Thats just how certain things are done. Science destroys things without evidence, your religion is just one example.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 I defined how hateful liberal loons actually use the scientific principle of destroying false theories. That same principle is practiced in all of science. So when you say they are hateful, they are actually practicing good science, and you cant handle that.
Its interesting that you think just because other people do not agree with you doesnt make them right, so you can IMPOSE your definition on them, but if you are wrong (about religion) their definition cannot be imposed on you.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 also your definition of marriage is not objective: you cannot do an experiment on it, you cannot confirm it. You just have a belief of the definition of marriage. So your definition does not make you right. Thtas your point of view. You cant impose that on people.
Your hate is much worse than Bill Maher because he is not imposing his point of view on you. Imposing a viewpoitn is what fascists do, ironically, since you guys keep calling obama a fascist.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution
perhaps you should think of marriage as a private club, a club that only accepts male/female couples
not widows, not bachelors, not 2 guys and so on
it is what it is
frictionRx5 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 no its not, it WAS polygamy, it IS between one man, one woman, it WILL BE between two guys.
The definition is always changing, it never is what it is.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution
look dude, the ladies restroom or the ladies locker room was created specifically for certain people
just cuz those things exist doesn't mean I get to have access to them just cuz I think I should
same with gays and marriage, they're just gonna have to pursue those civil union things that were created for them
frictionRx5 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 dude you have a serious misunderstanding of the constitution. Think about it this way: the constitution mandates that your rights end at the bridge of my nose. That is you do not have the right to enter a girl's locker room because that violates a woman's right to privacy. However, gay marriage does not violate any of your rights because you are not involved in the marriage. Its not about what you think, its about rights
Theyre not "just gonna have to", they are winning everywhere.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution
nope, I'm gonna have to disagree with you
the ladies locker room has a place for me to put my stuff, it has showers and toilet facilities. it exists so therefore I should have access to those amenities and it is irrelevant if me using them makes some women uncomfortable
frictionRx5 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 thats ok if you disagree with me, the constitution disagrees with you and its the law of the land. Thats the whole point, it doesnt matter what you think, it matters what the rights are and what rights are violated. In the case of the locker room, a woman's right to privacy is violated, so it doesnt matter what you think. In the case of gay marriage, no rights of yours are violated. In fact THEIR rights are violated.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution
no no no, see your pushing this nonsense that "rights" the gays never had in the 1st place are being violated
marriage is not like a restaurant or a job or an apartment, it was created to recognize the union of a man and woman, not 2 guys or 2 chicks
not just anyone is welcome to use it, the answer is NO
frictionRx5 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 then I can say that you are pushing for rights that you never had in the first place. Your religion is unscientific. You have no right to call anyone bigoted for putting your religion where it belongs.
Also why would anyone fight for rights that they have? That makes no sense. Obviously, gays never had the right to marry.
" it was created to recognize the union of a man and woman, not 2 guys or 2 chicks" No it wasnt. Also the supreme court has said marriage is a right.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 Can I say freedom was created to recognize whites not indians? Rights apply to all americans, not just one group. Thats why your argument fails. If marriage is a right, then it is a right for all groups of americans. The supreme court has delcared marriage to be a right many decades ago. Therefore, unless you have a scientific reason to deny marriage to gays, its their right too.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 I frankly dont understand what you lose when gays marry. How does it affect your life? How does it affect anything? This is none of yoru business, but if you think it is, then an atheist has a right to think that your unscientific views are his business.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution
I wanna know your opinion on multiple wives and husbands in American society
frictionRx5 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 Im glad you asked me this. First of all, the bible allowed polygamy, so when you say "one man one woman" thats simply false.
Regardless of what happened in history, I only care about evidence. If I see ANY reasonable scientific evidence concluding that polygamy does not destabilize society, I will be for it, if I see evidence for the opposite I will be against it. While they should have that right to marry whomever they want, I would wait for the evidence before making a judgment.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution
well just like gay marriage you are never gonna see rational scientific evidence that multiple spouses harms society either
the SC might as well address polygamy now and get it out of the way
frictionRx5 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 never assume anything. It might be true that jealousy may play such an important role that it might lead to a break down of society. In both mormon society and muslim society where polygamy is allowed, women are more or less subjugated. Thats why I want to see real evidence before making a conclusion. Also the supreme court can only address cases that are brought to them, it cannot make up cases to address.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution
we do not live in a muslim society
you cannot make the assumption that since polygamy doesn't work out so well in a muslim country then it might not work out so well in America either
frictionRx5 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 I know that, thats why I havent reached the decision to be against polygamy. Polygamy MIGHT work or it MIGHT NOT work. Both possibilities are open until we get serious scientific data.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution
yeah but polygamists are not interested in nor do they care to wait for some other group of people to collect scientific data, they just wanna do what they wanna do.
the gays don't wanna have to wait for people like you to do studies and collect data just so they can be allowed to get married or serve in the military.
why are you making the polygamists wait for your data and studies?
frictionRx5 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 are you kidding, we absolutely made gays wait. The gay pride movement started 30 years ago, but why are courts just starting to overturn the laws against them now? Its because scientists have spent the last 30 years collecting data to see if children who grow up with gay parents grow up worse than parents with straight parents. The argument was that you need both a male and female role model.
That turned out to be a myth. So its ok to let them marry.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution
well there you go, people like you spent the last 30 yrs doing research just to verify what the gays were saying 30 yrs ago
people like you held up gay marriage for 30 yrs and now you propose holding up polygamy marriages for another 30 yrs just to verify what the polygamists are saying today
frictionRx5 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 youre not understanding the concept of rights: your rights end at the bridge of my nose. That is gays have the right to marry, but if their marriage means that children grow up worse, then they do not have the right since the child loses his rights. Of course science showed this isnt true.
Polygamists may have the right to marry, but if their marriage means a woman's freedoms are supressed, then they dont have the right. Thats why we wait for the evidence. Do you follow now?
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 its not about making them wait for no reason, its about getting the facts so that we can make smart decisions, you cannot sacrifice one person's rights for another. Thats the point. We have to make sure women dont lose rights first in a polygamist family before going ahead with that decision.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution
see there you go again sticking your nose into someone else's life and bedroom
you're telling a group of men and women, pick whatever combination of gender you want, who love each other and want to marry that they must wait until you're satisfied that each person is treated with dignity and respect and that society is not harmed
those polygamists would be outraged and offended that some stranger like you is standing in their way just so you can study the issue b4 u decide
frictionRx5 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 you just ignored the point I made. I am repeating myself: The courts have to see whose constitutional rights have been violated. If the courts allow polygamy and it turns out that decision reduces the rights of women, thats an unconstitutional decision they made.
Therefore only the results of the study can show the constitutionality of the decision. My conclusion is an obvious one, Im surprised you are not able to follwo it.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 it doesnt matter if polygamists are outraged, no one has the right to take away the rights of another person.
Im not angry that gays had to wait. Thats normal. What is sad for me is that people like you ignore the 30 years of scientific evidence saying that gays should have the right to marry since they would not adversely affect society.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 I am waiting for scientific evidence and you are ignoring it. Thats the difference between us.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution
you are basically supporting the notion of guilty until proven innocent
you are in essence telling some guy that you have to determine 1st that he won't subjugate the 3 women that want to marry him and all based on your theories and assumptions
frictionRx5 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 No, from my point of view, polygamists are neither guilty nor not guilty. All I am saying is when we make a decision we have to make sure we are making the right one. Its called being responsible.
I am not making any theories or assumptions. Thats the whole point, I am not reaching any conclusion. I want to see the evidence first before I reach any conclusions. Thats what any good scientist should do.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution
you ARE making assumptions, you seem to think it's possible polygamy could lead to the subjugation of women here in America
you won't support marriage between multiple partners cuz you think it's possible the husband might keep his 3 wives from taking jobs or voting or having friends and make them work in the fields all day
your argument against accepting polygamy is ludicrous
frictionRx5 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 You are completely misunderstanding what I am saying. Im not making any arguments against accepting polygamy. Infact Im pretty much in favor of it. The only thing that is holding me back from reaching a conclusion is that I dont know the consequences of that conclusion. Thats why I want to see the evidence before I make a decision.
I keep repeating that I will only make a decision based on evidence and you pretend that thats a statement against polygamy.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution
it is not your place to reserve judgement until you're aware of the consequences or see evidence
as with regular marriages between 1 man and 1 woman, multiple partner marriages will have the same consequences
some will work out, some won't
some husbands will be jerks, some won't
some will be bad parents, some will be good parents
you must immediately and unconditionally accept multiple partner marriages
frictionRx5 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 sure just show me a scientific study.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution
I'm not a polygamist
perhaps you should ask a polygamist, a man or a woman take your pick, to show you a scientific study proving that their multiple partner marriage won't harm society and see if they get offended
then you should try to explain to them why their definition of marriage is any of your business
frictionRx5 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 Dude its not about getting offended. Its about rights. Im fine with their definition of marriage as long as the consequences of the decision promotes individual rights. Im just making sure I know the consequences of that decision. I did the same thing about global wamring and gay marriage.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 in gay marriage, their definition of marriage is my business only until it is clear that they do not harm the child they are raising. They have passed that hurdle. So Im for gay marriage.
My argument is very consistent dude. Even if I agree that gays have the right to be married, I need to be aware of the consequence of that decision. The science tells me its fine, so Im all for gay marriage.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution
so now you're bringing in the tired old "what about the children" argument to justify why you need scientific evidence before you can personally approve or disapprove of other people's relationship choices
the gays and the polygamists are gonna want to know why you, a stranger, are entitled to any kind of evidence before you fully condone their personal relationship and family choices
frictionRx5 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 Ive always brought the children argument, I repeated over and over that gay marriage does not affect the child's life, therefore there is no reason to be against it. I dont think that its a tired argument at all. In fact I think its very important.
Im not entitled to anything, but the courts require that an individual's constitutional rights are not sacrificed by their decision. Im not a judge, striking down laws or a cop enforcing them.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 see if you stopped using emotion as an argument and used scientific evidence and the constitution as an argument, you would understand, and you would also be pro gay marriage. Instead, you are a conservative.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 before endorsing gay adoption, the american academy of peds made sure that the children will get all the care they need. You can pretend that children dont matter to spread your hate. But I think children are very important. ONLY AFTER they made sure children were ok did the AAP endorse gay adoption.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution
you're still supporting the notion that people's personal relationship and family choices need to be justified by others 1st before those choices should be allowed and recognized by the law
if the AAP followed the Constitution to begin with they shouldn't have had any reservations or felt the need to conduct any studies
frictionRx5 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 perhaps, but lets break this down bit by bit. First Im sure we both agree that gay marriage is constitutional. Correct?
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution
I will agree that legal unions between gays and legal unions between straights are Constitutional
I will submit that gays want to participate in what is considered in America to be the traditional definition of marriage, a union between a man and a woman, and I understand why many people don't want that tradition altered
the reasons why people don't want the tradition altered vary
frictionRx5 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 You clearly evaded my question. I put every effort in trying to answer yours. If you care about truth and not just about winning, please answer my question in a straight forward way. Do you believe gay marriage as recognized by the govt is constitutional? Yes or no. Im not asking about civil unions or about what other people believe. Answer the question please.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution
the federal government does not currently recognize gay marriage as constitutional
I believe each state has the right to pass laws legalizing and recognizing gay marriage (I use the term marriage as a general descriptive term)
do I believe the U.S. Constitution as it was originally written automatically granted the right to marry to gay people? no I do not believe that
frictionRx5 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 see this is why I think we have a problem, the constitution as it was originally written did nto automatically grant freedom to slaves either. But the PRINCIPLE of the right to marriage as recognized by the govt has been present in the constitution, as recognized by the supreme court.
So you believe that the govt has the right to deny certain citizens this right without justification correct?
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution
I don't believe marriage is a right
frictionRx5 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 so you are disagreeing with the supreme court's interpretation on this one yes?
truthofevolution