What is the point of this video? Christian on Christian hate. What purpose does this have? Why are you so mad at Catholics? I don't think that this is what Jesus had in mind by "Spread the Good news." You spread hate and ignorance. I challenge you to take some RCIA classes at your local Catholic church before you create another video.
@marytate12 How is he spreading HATE of all things? :S I'm confused because I didn't hear him use the word "hate" or "dislike" or "disgust" or any other word with that type of negative connotation.. As far as ignorance goes, I can't see how teaching the Bible and quoting Catholic catechisms is spreading ignorance.. The dictionary defines "ignorance" as this: "The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed." He's spreading the opposite of that... (cont'd in next comment)
@marytate12 (cont'd) He's educating people because he's discussing things they do not know and that at the same time is making them aware. He's informing people about verses in the Bible they may or may not have known as well as basically everything else he said. So then, by what logic is this spreading hate or ignorance?
i would say a better title for this video would be are christians really christians ! and are they saved by faith alone or indeed by works alone . also why do they want to be saved at all ? out of a selfish sense of self preservation ! or for other reasons . i say if any christian condems any other person to hell fire out of spite he is not a christian at all . and many many of them do just that . jesus preached love not hate or fear who is man to judge another
James 2:14-26 faith witout works is dead ! i believe this 100% you cant just believe in christ then go on ignoring the needs of the poor FAITH + WORKS = Salvation i live by this now how can you be christ like without doing good works he said pick up your cross and follow me well he fed the poor healed the sick too many people think they are saved by faith but do nothing to help the needy the devil believes in jesus does he not .
salvation comes through THE teachings of the ESSENES who CHRIST was and JOHN were taught the essene gospel of peace are the true words of CHRIST GENESIS 1:29 must be obeyed there are WORKS by WHAT he taught in that book no murdering MEAT eaters go to HEAVEN
Either this guy is extremely Calvinistic beyond contextual measures, or he he is completely ignorant of the christian denomination of Catholicism. Could be both... I know that I have many catholic brothers and sisters in Christ. It's not up to him to decide who is saved and who isnt, that's God's job. Why doesn't he spend less time tearing the body of Christ apart and more time building it up?? God bless.
@mrlivingstons1 He admitted that no one can know a person's HEART. He already said that only God knows. But Catholics are susceptible to being lead down the wrong path IF (and only IF) they buy into the OFFICIAL Catholic doctrine which is that salvation is earned by faith and works. If you read the Bible then you will soon realize that this doctrine is contrary to what the Bible teaches. Now, this doesn't mean that all Catholics are not saved.. They must have faith alone.
@mrlivingstons1 Cont'd: Romans 4:3 "For the Scriptures tell us, "Abraham believed God, and God counted him as righteous because of his faith." (NLT). Even there, Paul was pulling from the Old Testament.. Many people believe that salvation by grace is only pertinent after Jesus died. But even before Christ, the Jews were still only deemed righteous (or had salvation) by their faith. What can a Christian do to please God? Nothing!
@mrlivingstons1 Cont'd (Part 3): Romans 3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:" (KJV). And again here in Isaiah 64:6 "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." That's how God views HUMAN righteousness.. Case in point: Salvation cannot be earned, because that would negate Christ's blood which was shed for our forgiveness.
I recommend the following YouTube links as a start:
v=gH9UvnrARf8
v=WQhd05ZVYWg
v=ljRKhZ81aqY&feature=related
v=Yw5sboPjOCo
These 4 YouTubes are merely a beginning on cosmology, comparative religion, and the cognitive psychology of superstitious belief.
The contingency argument is really a "god of the gaps" argument. As you learn about modern cosmology and quantum mechanics, you will begin to see that no external agent is required for the Cosmos to exist. Good luck in breaking your delusion!
@BrenttheSkeptic I don't know how you could claim that the contingency argument is a "god of the gaps" argument. Jews, Christians and Muslims have always believed that God created the universe. This was well before science ever postulated a beginning of the universe. For your statement to hold, it would be much more forceful for these events to have happened the other way around. As it is, science solidified the religious view of a creator. Is it not possible that yours is the skewed worldview?
@cburton103 Did you check out the videos, especially the one on Prof. Hawking?
The argument from contingency remains a "god of the gaps" argument. Even the early Greek philosophers postulated a "beginning" of the world as they knew it. For the religions of the desert---Judaism, Christianity, and Islam---a "creator" was postulated and this "god of the gaps" became their god---a personal, anthropocentric, anthropomorphic construct that filled the gap nicely.
@BrenttheSkeptic I haven't checked out the videos yet. I'm out of town this weekend, so my time on youtube is going to be reduced. I'll check them out Monday or Tuesday.
I'm science-oriented in science, and religiously-oriented in religion. Certainly, the two worldviews overlap, so I consider them both in the overlapping region. It doesn't makes sense, however, to view religion solely through science. That's as bad of a mistake as expecting Genesis to be a science textbook - it's not.
@BrenttheSkeptic (2) I don't follow your logic on why you claim the argument from contingency is a god of the gaps argument. As I understand it, the god of the gaps fallacy is seeing or thinking about something, not understanding how it occurs, and thus ascribing it to a god. This isn't the case with the Jewish, Christian, or Muslim faith.
@cburton103 The contingency argument explains the origin of the Cosmos as "god did it." That's a god of the gaps. ANYTIME one uses "god did it" as an "explanation" it's god of the gaps. You need to study more science and less bronze age mythology.
@BrenttheSkeptic The god of the gaps theory is this: "God of the gaps is a type of theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence."
You're going far beyond the boundaries of this fallacy, and claiming that God does nothing (at least in the physical realm). By definition, this fallacy says that it's fallacious to not understand something and therefore say, "God did it!". Learn the fallacy better if you're going to talk about it.
@cburton103 Written like a typical supernaturalist! You claim that "my god created the Cosmos." I say: "no god need be postulated for the Cosmos to exist based on our best cosmology." You therefore claim a "god did it." I say: "No god is needed." You are using your god to fill a gap, where no gap actually exists!
@cburton103 I'd bet that you've never carried out a publishable piece of science in your life. Let me explain why science and religion are intrinsically, inextricably, inevitably and eternally at odds. Science and scientists RELISH new verifiable evidence, especially evidence counter to preconceived notions and explanations. That's how science progresses. Religionists ABHOR evidence that is counter to their foundation dogmatic propositions and reject all such evidence instantly. Think!!!
@SgtPepperJack825 You really don't get it do you? Scientists are among the least arrogant people whom I know, in contrast to supernaturalists who are convinced that they're right based on no evidence at all. Scientists understand that we are ignorant. We understand that we are biased. We work hard to overcome those things.
You are the quintessential, evidence-free supernaturalist. You typify the characteristics that I renounce with your bronze age idiocy and I replace it with REASON.
@BrenttheSkeptic I think part of the problem here is that you're assuming that all religion is similar to Mormonism. This is absolutely not the case. Have you honestly read much from Catholic intellectuals?
Tell your theory about how religion and science are at odds to some of the greatest, most influential scientific minds throughout the ages who have also been devout Christians. Bacon, Pascal, Newton, Mendel, Planck, Lemaitre, Collins, and hundreds of others would beg to differ with you.
@cburton103 You note that you cite scientists who lived at the very earliest times in the development of science. Many of them had no choice but to profess belief---if they were to be given a job and to be published. Poor scientist Giordano Bruno learned the hard way that conflict with the autocratic all powerful Catholic Church led to a nail through your tongue and burning in the public square.
93% of scientists in the highly prestigious U.S. Natl Acad of Sci. profess NO BELIEF.
@cburton103 Re: Catholic intellectuals. Some are smart enough to cloak the magic and superstition in language that obfuscates its underlying absurdity. The impregnation of a Jewish virgin by a bronze-age tribal war god is quite simply ABSURD. The reanimation of a 3 day corpse is equally absurd. One can write volumes about this ridiculous magic but it remains just that----fundamentally and intrinsically ridiculous. Mormonism is no more or less absurd---it's just more recent.
@BrenttheSkeptic The very fact that these occurrences are, at first view, absurd, is exactly what makes them miraculous. If Jesus did not rise from the dead and have hundreds of witnesses, how would Christianity have grown so quickly under such great persecution at various parts of its early life?
I didn't only note scientists from long ago. I also noted the man who proposed the Big Bang theory (a Catholic priest) and the leader of the Human Genome Project (former atheist). I'll pm you a link.
@cburton103 You REALLY think there were "hundreds of witnesses?" What evidence do you have other than the reports of highly biased persons desiring to convert others? That's evidence? Not to me, pal.
Mormonism is growing exponentially. It was persecuted with hundreds of martyrs. Such things don't constitute evidence of anything but human credulity.
I know of both scientists. Francis Collins admits that it's based on faith, not evidence. All people are susceptible to superstition.
@BrenttheSkeptic Mormonism is indeed growing exponentially. However, trying to claim that Mormonism experiences even similar persecution to the early Christians is extremely ignorant with respect to history.
Collins and Lemaitre are both great examples of very accomplished modern scientists who find no schism between Christianity and science. What makes you think that they're just subject to superstition and not actual reality? Just because they disagree with you doesn't count as a reason.
@cburton103 You should go back and read the newspaper accounts of Mormon persecution. Mormons were HATED in the U.S. Many were attacked and murdered in a country that supposedly had law enforcement. They had to migrate all over to escape the persecution. You should read your history. Numbers of martyrs (hundreds compared with thousands) is not the sole metric of persecution.
Because there are theist scientists does not mean that there isn't an essential conflict between (contd)
@cburton103 science and religion. As Francis Collins has indicated repeatedly, he isolates his science from his religion. He cannot justify his religious notions using evidence, and yet verifiable evidence is the fuel for his science. He simply says that religion is based on "faith." Religion and science are inextricably at odds. Theist scientists have no choice but to put each in a box, isolated from one another. How they do that is beyond me. (contd)
@cburton103 Finally, regarding superstition. from Wikipedia: Superstition is a belief in supernatural causality: that one event leads to the cause of another without any process in the physical world linking the two events.
Is that not precisely what you believe when you attest to the reanimation of a 3-day dead corpse? or the impregnation of a Jewish virgin by a bronze-age tribal war god?
You obviously believe in magic, superstition, and supernaturalism.
@BrenttheSkeptic These boxes are not as isolated from one another as you expect. What I mean by this is that there's no cognitive dissonance that need exist in the mind of a knowledgeable Catholic, for instance.
Read the Merriam-Webster definitions for superstition. According to those, my faith is not superstitious. I too disregard superstition.
I watched most of those videos, btw. I found them anywhere from elementary to downright ridiculous. No facts were presented that contradict my views.
@cburton103 If no facts were presented that contradict your views, I declare you an atheist! Excellent! You believe that the Cosmos required no creator!
Re: boxes. Scientists who accept superstition, like yours, have no choice but to compartmentalize their superstition, just as Collins does, by his own admission. Read his many quotes on the subject. He understands the problem. Even he, though, must argue with other evangelicals about evolution. It's a fascinating set of contradictions.
@cburton103 I'm sorry, bud. The Catholic scientist (there are some, but they are declining in number precipitously) has no choice but to isolate his / her science from his / her dogmatic religion. No rational person would accept the reanimation of a 3-day corpse or the impregnation of a Jewish virgin by a bronze-age tribal war god. Such things are irrational and without evidence. Yet, because they are said to occur n the physical Cosmos, they are fit for rejection by science.
@BrenttheSkeptic So would it be correct to conclude that you believe in materialism, that all of existence is material and nothing more? Essentially, this would mean that all events have material causes and that free will is an illusion. Do you believe this?
@cburton103 It's not at all a matter of "believing in" anything at all. I look for verifiable evidence and robust, broad, predictive, falsifiable explanations, at the same time fully realizing that both evidence and explanations are provisional, always subject to new evidence or new thinking. Philosophers and theologians thoroughly enjoy deceptive labels: materialism, scientism, existentialism, on and on and on. Scientists are not into that stuff at all. Give us verifiable evidence!
@cburton103 Put in a way that it might be easier for you to grasp, scientists are utterly open to any verifiable evidence. If you presented science with verifiable evidence that a corpse reanimated, scientists would be MOST interested. We'd examine the evidence, debate it, replicate it, publish it, speculate about it, and have a lot of intellectual fun with it. We're open to supernaturalism----but so far, there's not a whit, not a scintilla, not an iota of verifiable evidence for it.
@cburton103 Do I think that free will is an illusion? Well, there's certainly a great deal of verifiable evidence that indicates that both time itself and free will are illusions created by our brains and that both illusions have evolutionary survival value for our species. Yet, the evidence is not conclusive. Even if both were illusions, they are useful illusions. Illusions are not bad---if you know they're illusions!
@BrenttheSkeptic So you clearly wouldn't believe in anything miraculous despite the numerous well-documented miracles from throughout the years. Take Blessed Alexandrina Da Costa, who lived for numerous years with no food except for the Eucharist. She observed a strict fast for forty days and nights under the supervision of doctors in a hospital in 1943. These doctors concluded that there was no possible physical way for this to occur, and all wrote and signed statements about it. Your thoughts?
@cburton103 Over the many years that I've lived, I've learned to distrust all sorts of testimony. I've also learned that even the finest scientists and clinicians can easily be fooled. For that reason, many scientists who investigate the paranormal and "miraculous" solicit the aid of magicians who know precisely what to look for.
Many people have lived for 40 days on very little food. That's hardly miraculous.
Beyond that time, I strongly doubt that it was a well-controlled study.
@cburton103 I do hope that you cultivate a far more skeptical attitude than you apparently have when you begin to practice dentistry. You will find that your patients will tell you all sorts of things that simply aren't the case-----even if they personally "believe" them to be the case and have fooled themselves into thinking so.
We humans have an enormous capacity for self-delusion. We desperately want to believe certain things, if only for anxiolysis.
@BrenttheSkeptic I agree with you that humans have an enormous capacity for self-delusion, and possibly an even larger propensity towards confirmation bias. However, how can you decide without looking at the study that it was poorly run? It should interest you - perhaps a negation bias is at work in you.
The Church finely dissects miraculous claims, throwing out many and affirming some. If the miracles that the Church affirms are so clearly false, wouldn't it be great to prove that to the world?
@cburton103 I've had an extensive clinical background & have read of numerous "miraculous" cures. It means only that medical science hasn't sufficient evidence for a definitive explanation It does NOT mean that a "god did it." The church has a huge motivation to create saints---they're great for business! That makes me even more skeptical of such "phenomena." I'm similarly skeptical of secular "paranormal phenomena."
Far more likely that the person in your example stealthily obtained food.
@BrenttheSkeptic I'm talking about this specific one - I'm not sure which cases you're talking about. Here's the bottom line: I've presented you with a relatively recent case that was monitored by doctors, and you blew it off because it doesn't fit into your worldview. That's not scientific.
You really haven't presented any information that contradicts my faith as a Catholic - you've only said my evidence (philosophical, medical, etc) isn't actually evidence. Seek the Truth, Brent. God bless.
@cburton103 Frankly, you've presented me with nothing but hearsay. Where are the published papers in peer-reviewed first line journals? I sincerely hope that you become far more skeptical as you proceed with your studies in dentistry. I understand your desperate need to "believe" in magic and superstition. Your need is shared by billions of people. That still doesn't make it an attractive quality. You need your magic now. Perhaps someday you'll wake from your delusion.
(2) Re: supernaturalism, magic, superstition. As long as supernaturalists make no claim of an interaction between the "supernatural sphere"---whatever the hell that could be---and the natural Cosmos, I'd have no quarrel. But--unassisted human parthenogenesis because of the impregnation of a Jewish virgin by the god Yahweh, the reanimation of Yahweh's 3-day corpse, and the unaided propulsion of said corpse skyward are all SCIENTIFIC, physical claims---bizarre and w/o evidence.
Your desire for scientific evidence from a period before the advent of modern science is completely absurd. The only evidence you can have from a period 2,000 years ago is evidence from witnesses. Nearly all modern historians agree that it is historically reliable that Jesus walked the earth. There were many (over 500) first hand witnesses to Christ walking the earth after his death on the cross. What other type of evidence could you possibly request form that age?
@cburton103 I'd expect evidence of the kind that we have for many other events of that age, viz. 3rd party, contemporaneous, unbiased, uninvolved, multiple reports of all of that magic. Nothing like that exists---but it could have. You don't honestly mean to tell me that you would accept a reanimated corpse based only on the evidence that you cite? Come on! You're an educated person.Why is it that supernaturalists like you would immediately recognize the absurdity of say, Islam, but not this?
@BrenttheSkeptic Josephus, Pliny the Younger, and other contemporaneous and slightly later sources would fulfill this desire of yours. Many historical figures weren't documented for hundreds of years, yet you don't deny their existence. Also, it doesn't make sense to not include the reports of those closest to Jesus. Why would those closest to him make up extravagant lies just to die as martyrs? 11/12 apostles died as martyrs - St. Peter was even crucified upside down, yet he did not deny Jesus.
@cburton103 Wrong again! There is abundant evidence that Pliny and other reports were doctored by early supernaturalists anxious to prove their point. Martyrdom is common. Check out the history of Mormonism. Check out Jonestown---hundreds drank the Kool Aid. Martyrdom is a useless and unconvincing metric. Sorry.
@BrenttheSkeptic You're confusing martyrdom with these other events that fall short of the level of being a martyr. Joseph Smith died with a gun in his hand (that he shot at men with) in a jailhouse where he was being tried for various crimes. This isn't martyrdom. The Jonestown people committed suicide - that's not martyrdom.
Check out Ignatius of Antioch. He was a bishop around the turn of the first century who was martyred at the Coliseum.
@cburton103 As a former priest of the Mormon Church, I assure you that hundred died at the hands of fervent supernaturalists who opposed the new religion. They were martyrs, dying for their beliefs as shown to them by the great prophet Joseph Smith. Martyrs are martyrs, bud. The Jonestown people died for their beliefs, just as Christians did. How dare you denigrate their religious and righteous deaths!
@BrenttheSkeptic Merriam-Webster definition for martyr: a person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religion
I think it would be quite a stretch to apply that definition to people who commit suicide or die with a gun in their hands. I'm speaking about Jonestown people and Joseph Smith, respectively. I don't know about other Mormon claims to martyrs. I do not doubt that there have been some, especially in the 1800's, who died for their faith.
@cburton103 So the followers of Smith were unwilling? So the Jonestown folks didn't willingly drink the Kool Aid? And none of them believed the magical teachings of their leaders? Come on! Be f'n' real here
Re: fear of death. The big selling point of most supernaturalisms is that death is NOT death---it's a transition to something bigger, better---maybe with 70 virgins--which is pretty damned good! Supernaturalist myth replaces death with....well...myth. Anxiolytic. Better than Xanax!
@cburton103 What makes you think that skeptics are "convinced" that there's "no god?" That's a common misconception among supernaturalists, who are taught by their preachers about the evils of atheism.
Every skeptic and atheist whom I know says simply that they find insufficient evidence to accept the existence of ANY of the countless gods ever invented by humans throughout history.
You, yourself, find insufficient evidence for Thor and Zeus. I carry your thought one god further is all.
In what ways do you find the evidence for the Christian God (historic Christianity - Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants - not the Mormon God/s) to be insufficient? Since you at one point presumably believed in at least some god, what changed your mind if you don't mind me asking?
@cburton103 Buddy, it isn't semantics at all. Recall that countless gods have been invented. Yours is just one of them. For you to ask me why no evidence, you have to define your god with great precision. Every Christian that I've ever met, even from the same denomination, defines his god differently. Some use the old saw "ground of all being"---whatever the hell that means---others respond with "what a friend we have in Jesus."Tell me what your god is, precisely, and what evidence You have.
@BrenttheSkeptic God is the first Cause. He is the great "I am" - the very essence of existence.
Evidence: The argument from contingency, for one. Essentially, it is that you, I, and everything else that exists (except God) depend on other things for their existence. You and I depend on our parents, food, and air, to name a few. These things also are contingent. Logically, contingency cannot extend infinitely into the past. There must be something that began the series. That is God.
@cburton103 Sorry, bud. The ARGUMENT from contingency is just that: a speculative argument. It is NOT verifiable evidence in any sense of the word. I've never understood why philosophers and especially theologians consider speculation, opinion, and argument to be evidence. Scientists speculate but would NEVER consider speculation to be evidentiary or definitive. But you guys do. Amazing.
You should check out YouTubes by brilliant physicists and cosmologists such as Stephen Hawking.
@BrenttheSkeptic So are you requesting evidence limited to that which is scientifically verifiable? Please define the parameters for what you're asking here.
@cburton103 How can evidence be anything that isn't verifiable? One can speculate, of course, and opine, and argue. But no conclusion from such activities could possibly be called evidentiary. Speculation can be very valuable as a step toward verifiable evidence.
Historical evidence can be verified by multiple, unbiased, 3rd party, contemporaneous reports.
You should also understand that even the best evidence is provisional. New evidence may always appear to counter the original.
@BrenttheSkeptic As a dental student, I certainly understand that the best evidence is provisional. My education in biology and biomechanics proves that fact time and time again.
I think the bottom line, if we're being honest here, is that there is no hard, verifiable evidence for or against the existence of the Christian God. I think it's a bit obscure to expect verifiable evidence for anything metaphysical. However, I think there are numerous speculative arguments that form a (cont)
@BrenttheSkeptic very thorough, logical basis for the existence of God that meshes perfectly with everything that we understand about our lives and the world we live in. I would highly recommend the book "Handbook of Catholic Apologetics" by Peter Kreeft, in addition to "What's So Great About Christianity" by Dinesh D'Souza. They both have great sections that build the argument for God from all different sides. Dr. Kreeft's book is more philosophical, and D'Souza's takes many different angles.
@cburton103 I do not find there is a "thorough, logical basis for the existence" of ANY of the countless gods ever invented by humans. None of the speculative arguments are convincing in the least. Indeed, there is excellent evidence that the Christian God cannot exist viz. the problem of evil, as just one example. Modern cosmology is utterly undermining the argument from contingency. May I suggest YouTube videos by brilliant cosmologists such as Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, (contd)
@BrenttheSkeptic Recommend a specific video or group of videos and I will gladly watch them. Anything I have heard that "undermines" the argument from contingency has fallen well short.
Your data does not really prove any point. Jesus doesn't promise us how our prayers will be answered, so there's no way to know what data to collect even.
@cburton103 (2) So, I well understand all of the apologetics and the arguments for the existence of various gods, and of course, the Christian God, Yahweh-Yeshua.
One interesting bit of data: Yeshua is reported to have promised that prayers to the Christian God would be heard and answered. In numerous well-designed, double-blind trials sponsored by the Templeton Foundation, NO EVIDENCE whatever was found for the efficacy of prayers said by Christian believers to that God. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
@BrenttheSkeptic There's no short way to address why I recognize Islam as not being of divine origin. Here are a couple points though:
1) The Quran claims that Christians believe Mary is part of the Trinity. This stems from a heretical para-Christian sect around Muhammad's time. It displays that the origin of this book is human, not divine.
2) The tenants of Islam do not accurately portray the deepest longing of humans; to love.
3) They deny historical events, such as the Crucifixion of Christ.
@cburton103 You can so easily see that Islam is absurd. Yet, its claims are based upon exactly the same level of evidence as early Christianity---perhaps better. You supernaturalists suspend reason to give yourselves anxiolysis. It's stupid and sad.
Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works. (James 2:20-22) For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father's glory, and then he will repay everyone according to his conduct. (Mt 16:27) What you are doing, Carm, is actuallly going against the Holy Bible.
In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. (James 2:17.) Maintain good conduct among the Gentiles, so that if they speak of you as evildoers, they may observe your good works and glorify God on the day of visitation. (1 Pet 2:12).
Therefore, my beloved brothers, be firm, steadfast, always fully devoted to the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain. (1 Cor 15:58). Should I add more?
He replied, "Go your way, Daniel, because the words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end. Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand. Dan. 12:9-10.
It's always a delight to see these supernaturalists bicker with each other. "I'm saved." "No, you're not. I'm the only one who is saved." "No you're not saved." ad infinitum. This is all so incredibly ridiculous. These people have fought wars, tortured each other, burned each other over such silliness. Amazing!
@BrentGrainger2000 Sure, there are plenty of people who have done terrible things in the name of religion over the years, and there's absolutely no excuse for this. However, this does not address whether or not said religion is true, false, or some mix of the two. This is the question that any true seeker should ask. God bless.
@cburton103 It's one thing to fight to defend democracy, or the rights of minorities, etc. and even give up one's life for a good cause. It's incredibly stupid either to kill or be killed over something as ridiculous and evidence-free as supernaturalism. That's the reason that as a skeptic I find it so wonderfully amusing to see supernaturalists fight with each other over nothing of any value whatever. Amazing. But definitely amusing.
@sciencelives2000 Firstly, "supernaturalism" isn't evidence free. I can proved scientific and philosophical evidence for God if you'd like.
Secondly, I don't support most loss of life in the name of religion, and neither would most devout Catholics. I too can understand your bewilderment in the midst of religious violence, so this can in no way count against my viewpoint. To me as a Catholic, this is a total straw man.
@cburton103 Philosophy does NOT and NEVER CAN provide verifiable evidence. Ask any of your philosophy professors. 2nd--there is not a whit, not a scintilla, not an iota of verifiable evidence for the existence of any of the countless gods invented by humans, including whichever one you happen to worship.
Frankly, I am totally amused---not at all bewildered---at quarreling, bickering supernaturalists. It goes with supernaturalism---intrinsic to evidence-free living.
@sciencelives2000 Philosophy does provide an avenue by which we can logically deduce things. The simplest form of the argument for God is that there was once nothing, and now there is something. Modern science verifies that there was once nothing. The laws of conservation of energy and mass show us that it must be something from outside of the system of the universe that acted outside of these laws in order to bring the universe into being. To what part of this basic thesis do you object?
@cburton103 I object to all of it! 1) Philosophy is speculation, opinion, and argument. It can "prove" nothing at all. Perfect philosophical "logic" has been wrong innumerable times in the light of verifiable evidence, which is the gold standard of "knowing." 2) Modern cosmology has produced verifiable evidence that "nothing" is intrinsically unstable. Please view YouTubes by cosmologists Hawking, Krauss, Carroll, and Susskind for further information. 3) The net energy of the Universe(contd)
@sciencelives2000 How can nothing be stable or unstable, as it is nothing? Now, either there was actually nothing at one point or there was actually something. You seem to be confusing the two.
Also, you seem to be confusing the bounds of what science can and cannot determine. You claim that verifiable evidence (I'm guessing you mean science) is the gold standard of knowing. However, physical science cannot make the metaphysical claims that you espouse. Where (continued)
@cburton103 I really don't have time to teach you supernaturalists a course in elementary physics. Please employ YouTube for your edification. There are excellent lectures and videos. Search: Stephen Hawking, Sean M. Carroll, Leonard Susskind, Lawrence Krauss, Steven Weinberg, Brian Greene. All of these physicists are superb communicators. Their videos will answer your questions and help you to understand modern cosmology.
@sciencelives2000 (cont) does that leave you? It leaves you in the position of making claims that you can't support; namely, that the world is composed only of material things. There have been many verified miracles that have happened throughout the ages that support the idea that there is something beyond the physical. The Incorruptibles are an example of this. If you'd like, I'll provide you with a good link for this.
@cburton103 If you think that the so-called "incorruptibles" are somehow "miraculous," I have a bridge over the Mississippi to sell you. Come on! Have you ever had even an elementary course in science? You can't be that ignorant.
@sciencelives2000 My friend, it's quite likely that I am much more educated (at least formally) than you in science. I received a bachelor's degree in Biology from Texas A&M, and I am currently studying for my DDS. While biological and health sciences are my forte, I always enjoyed learning a bit about physics (mainly mechanical physics - electricity and magnetism never appealed to me much). So let's leave behind the petty insults calling me ignorant and such. (Cont)
@sciencelives2000 (cont) Now, to the point. The fact of the matter is that you're using the wrong tools to determine whether or not anything supernatural exists. You simply cannot use physical tools to test the metaphysical - that's completely illogical, and science, by definition, can only test the material world.
Also, how are bodies that do not corrupt (partial in some cases and whole bodies in others) not count as miraculous? The normal process would be necrosis.
@cburton103 Without immodesty, let me say that I am far better educated in science than you are.
Re: "incorruptibles." First off, my dad was an embalmer and through him I know a few things about the decay of corpses. You know, it's an add thing. So much chemistry is involved, along with desiccation rate and a host of other things. For you, with a science background, and no research on the topic, to stake your reputation on such a claim is amazing! Go study putrefaction! (contd)
@sciencelives2000 What's your field of science? And suggesting that I study physics on youtube? Come on.
I studied putrefaction in my Pathology course. You didn't post the second part of your comment, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. I'm not sure why you've assumed that I haven't researched the topic of the Incorruptibles. No, I haven't personally studied the bodies of these saints, but it's been scientifically verified multiple times.
@cburton103 Actually, bud, Leonard Susskind, the great Stanford physicist, has his entire course in quantum mechanics available on YouTube. Haven't you heard? YouTube and other media like it are becoming a most welcome method to receive instruction on many topics. Check out the lectures of Lawrence Krauss, Sean M Carroll, Steven Weinberg, Stephen Hawking, Brian Greene, et al.
@BrenttheSkeptic Is there any video in particular that you recommend? I'd be more than happy to watch them. Almost all parts of science fascinate me.
Christians recognize creation itself to be part of what's called general revelation. It helps us see the beauty of God and what he wants for us. The mere fact that the world around us is intelligible is quite improbable, don't you think?
@cburton103 (2) Re: supernaturalism, magic, superstition. As long as supernaturalists make no claim of an interaction between the "supernatural sphere"---whatever the hell that could be---and the natural Cosmos, I'd have no quarrel. But--unassisted human parthenogenesis because of the impregnation of a Jewish virgin by the god Yahweh, the reanimation of Yeshua's 3-day corpse, and the unaided propulsion of said corpse skyward are all SCIENTIFIC, physical claims---bizarre and w/o evidence.
@cburton103 is precisely ZERO. There was no need whatever for anything "outside" the Universe to give rise to it. No energy input was required whatever. Again, please study quantum physics, modern cosmology, and small particle physics to gain an understanding of the what cosmologists are proposing today about the origin of our Universe.
I don't understand why you would call a church apostate because they believe in justification in works and faith, and not by faith alone. If you have true faith, then wouldn't you then also perform good works?
@cburton103 the reason why he said your arguments are illogical is because he couldn't refute them and now he is being a chicken and won't continue discussing with you. (Most atheist say stuff like that when they cant refute anything you say or point out. So instead they say you are stupid or something like that and they burst off with nothing but anger.)
Has this guy ever read the book of James? Obviously we aren't justified by our works (that's biblical enough), but we certainly aren't saved if faith is all we have.
James 2:14 - "What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them?"
James 2:17 - "... faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead."
James 2.24 says "You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do *and not by faith alone*" (emphasis added). As I understand it, James is saying that if somebody already has faith then, to be considered righteous, the works must follow. That's because we aren't justified by our faith if our faith is all we have, nor are we justified if our works are all we have.
That's closer, but not exactly. As I understand it, we are initially justified by faith but if this does not express itself in love then our faith is dead. Does that help?
@TheOshag So would it be accurate to say that works in some way maintain our faith (or complete it, as James says), and therefore they also maintain our justification? Or does this place a greater emphasis on works than you would personally?
You should be ashamed of yourself for posting a video of this magnitude of ignorance. Pick up a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and watch each and every one of your "teachings" about the Catholic Church refuted. You speak as if you are an expert in Catholicism, yet you have no clue.
religeion is a sickness constucted from fear... fear of the unknown and that the end is just that..as an athiest i challenge you to make me less moral than you. i need nothing more than what i feel as a human.. i had no father or god to tell me what is right and that i shall beat my slaves(lol) i am a better person than you hands down... and i know not one other athiest that is less that me... all better than you.. you and you.. and any one page of your myth book.
@tainted705 My friend, you're not proving any points here. You're just continually making baseless insults. I'm quite happy for you that you attempt to live your life in a moral way. I agree that we can understand much of what is moral and immoral based on reason. I too try to live my life in such a manner.
Whether you realize it or not, you are making more absurd "statements of faith" than I am. By saying there is no God, you put yourself into quite a predicament of understand why we are here.
@cburton103 you are sick and your time has to pass for man to become moral.i feel sick just talking to you.. lowering myself to a level of stupid that is ill in itself.man is evil and good by its own standards god is evil by mans standards and jesus was made up to redeem that failure. man made god to fail and failed at it.why do you idiots need to cling to such crap to feel fulfilled in life.just be good and live life.enjoy and let others enjoy.when it ends there is nothin not just darkness
@tainted705 Honestly, you're not making any sense.
The best philosophical arguments and the best scientific data all point towards there being a beginning. A beginning would not be possible without something to make it begin. This is what I call God. Unless you have a comment on the philosophical or scientific arguments for a beginning or where my logic is flawed here, then there's not really anything left for us to say.
@cburton103 yes there is you are a fool and only want to hear what you want to hear and consider only what conforms to what you want to be true. you cant be beaten or convinced in any way shape or form that you are wrong. another point for me. you are unwilling to consider that that "i dont know" is a good answer so you take what you gave to to fill in the blanks. the sickness spreads as more and more of you are brainwashing the youth.
@tainted705 I'm willing to admit I don't know if I truly don't. I'm not sure why you think I'm trying to fill in the blanks with God with respect to the beginning of the universe. Jews, Christians and Muslims have always believed in a Creator, and thus a beginning. Speaking strictly scientifically, it's not possible for there to be a true beginning, because something can never come from nothing. It's inescapable that the best evidence points to a Creator - you calling me crazy doesn't deny that.
@cburton103 dur... smart people will see my point proven.. you and many others that are as blind or have your same blinders on will not see it.. faith blinds you from truth.. you maybe will never see it and thats fine but what a waste. why not spend some time reading and learning from something other than the bible... i bet you can cast off you blindness and you "will be healed!!!" lol.
@tainted705 I spend plenty of time reading things besides the Bible. I have a degree in Biology from a well-respected university and I'm continuing my education currently in Dental School. So it's probably quite a safe assumption that I've had more formal education than you, so I think you should drop your "smarter than thou" attitude. Besides, you haven't even addressed any points I've made, you've just continually implied that I'm dumb.
@cburton103 i cant address the lies that you have faith in because i cant help people like you. i will continue to tell you are lost and you will continue to bla out lies and crap you cant prove. so you think school makes you smart? haw haw. i have forgotten more than you could ever know and i don't have to make up any crap like.i am a rocket scientist and am on my way to the moon as we speak.lol. dont make me resort to animal instincts and throw poo at you.. like the primates we evolved from.
@tainted705 Telling someone that they're lost has nothing to do with the arguments of why they're lost. Your comments have had absolutely no substance.
By the way, I believe evolution is how we've arrived at such a diversity of life forms.
@cburton103 so you say that if there where a creator that his creations where not good enough on there own? all had to change to adapt or what? did he make an error or just change his mind? is this conversation with a factory worker making you hot?? lol just kidding. you really are a blast my man. for being a holy roller you sure are a wild man. now then i think i shall not waste anymore time on this..been there done that and when it is all said and done i feel fine "knowing" there is no god
@tainted705 Evolution selects for characteristics of organisms that help them to survive better in a changing environment. "Better" in this case is dependent upon the environment, not an absolute advantage, so your comment doesn't stand.
By definition, you cannot know there is no God. I can testify to you that God exists, and that there are multiple good arguments for his existence. Also, living a life for God brings great satisfaction to my life. If you're ever interested, feel free to PM me.
@cburton103 i will use your words and testify that there is no god. there are no good arguments that there is or there would be no doubt (or less doubt) and less religions(or just one) you are an epic fail as most of your kind are.. as the masses come to the knowlege that there is no god man shall move forward knowing we are the masters and slaves on this on place where we populate. we have to make a grasp at being humane to each other without the soiled false morals of a dictator god.
@tainted705 Then how do you explain the beginning of the universe? Both science and philosophy point to a beginning. This is extremely strong evidence for a creator. If you need me to elaborate more, let me know.
@tainted705 I'm the narrow minded one? I've presented you with substantial information multiple times and you've been the one to ignore it. Ignoring information is what makes one narrow minded. I've followed the truth where it has led me. You've ignored important questions, displaying the inability of the average atheist to support his position logically. Instead you, like many others, resort to sarcasm and insults to "prove" your point. I'm not impressed.
@cburton103 your information is based on faith and not real. i base everything in my life on fact and only that. the fact is you have no proof.. and the sarcasm thing is only because common sence eludes you folk so being nice is a waste of time with crazies. if you have one shread of proof that there is a god.. not a beggining! not the bible! you prove there is a god and i will stand down.. until then you are a nut. for i see with my eyes and feel with my body and i know the truth.
@tainted705 My information is based on faith and science. The two fit together perfectly for me. You see, before the Big Bang Theory came out most scientists thought that the universe was eternal. Now, most scientists agree that the universe had a beginning. We know from science and from common sense that everything in our universe (and now, even our universe itself) has a cause. What is the cause of the universe?
You say you base everything in your life on fact. Let's see how you fare here.
@cburton103 very good.. the fact is there is no cause and no purpose and no common sense does not say that.. you do.. and "old science said this" does not hold any weight mister.. so i think for a scientist you are not very knowledgeable about science you said most scientists said bla... but most say there is no god.. pick and choose your argument if you must. no fact leads to god.
@tainted705 All facts lead to God, for he is Truth itself.
You say there is no cause. This is impossible, because there was a beginning. How can something come from nothing? You see, this is one of the problems with denying a Creator - you have to say that something can come from nothing, which is just preposterous.
A scientist is trained to observe the physical world - not the metaphysical world. Also, there are tons of misconceptions about what God is, so it can be difficult to wade through.
@cburton103 i dont think you are very smart and am now done with you. you are to circular in your thinking and are are waste of good logic. i know more than you can conceive and it is a shame that i cant put into words the truth that would make you not stupid... maybe someday they can make a pill to help you, if you reply(unless you have something smart to say that i have not heard over and over)it will fall on deaf ears because i close them to your static and spend my time learning.
@tainted705 My arguments were in no way circular. If you choose to ignore the information I've presented you with, then that is your choice. Calling it circular without just basis to do so only shows that you are unable or unwilling to dialogue on the subject. Once again, that's your choice. Best of luck in all your future endeavors.
@tainted705 I'm willing to admit I don't know if I truly don't. I'm not sure why you think I'm trying to fill in the blanks with God with respect to the beginning of the universe. Jews, Christians and Muslims have always believed in a Creator, and thus a beginning. Speaking strictly scientifically, it's not possible for there to be a true beginning, because something can never come from nothing. It's inescapable that the best evidence points to a Creator - you calling me crazy doesn't deny that.
@tainted705 I could not have said it better. Religion is a delusion, an hallucination, a brain fart---a disease---constructed because ordinary people are so f'n' scared of dying that they would rather construct fantasy than face the truth squarely and with courage.
@BrenttheSkeptic Making the claim that religion is a delusion doesn't make it true. Many religion are delusional to varying degrees. However, this doesn't discount all religions.
Saying that religious people are cowards simply doesn't cover the first Christians. How could you possibly claim that they were so scared of dying that they believed things and acted on them, thus expediting their deaths? Doesn't this seem counterintuitive? Maybe they were the ones who faced the truth squarely.
i have been around for a long long time.more years i can count and have met and learned from people.i have met and taught even more.i have read the bible and did everything the church has to offer in search for more. i have judged human nature and reflected it on myself.i feel that my actions are more moral than the masses and that the masses are lost in doubt,unable to just exept that we are here.we are what we are and our actions have an effect on others that reflect back to our own happiness
Is the guy who is in this video saved or a Christian? Who knows? He spouts the right script as far as one branch of Protestant Christianity is concerned, but big deal. This doesn't mean he is saved. It doesn't mean he is a Christian. IMO if you follow the two major moral and theological precepts taught by Jesus you are saved. If not you are likely bound for a less than fun after life.
Most Protestants make right believing in a set of "fundamental" teachings about Jesus and the Bible a work. If we are saved by anything other than the grace of God--free gift--no works of acceptance we are just arguing about different kinds of works.
@tainted705 The root of your question is a misunderstanding of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Basically, we believe that there is one God, and this one God is three persons; God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. So Mary is not the mother of God the Father, but she is the mother of God the Son, although God the Son (Jesus) existed since the beginning of time as the Word (see John 1). Please don't be so quick to insult others' beliefs. God bless.
@cburton103 ya sure bud. whatever you say *coo coo*. i read john 1 and it is the same old lies as the rest.. you are all out of your minds.. nuff said. logic.
@tainted705 I find my belief system quite logical, actually. There's nothing that you've shown in your comments here (nor in any other comments I've seen from leading atheists) that can stand up to the logic of solid Catholic scholars.
So before you go on insulting me and my fellow religious people's beliefs, make sure you have a solid case. If you'd like to discuss this matter more fully, feel free to PM me. If not, it's your choice. May God bless you.
@cburton103 my point proven you are a coo coo.. take your meds and come back to reality we could use you here ..helping real things in real time.. real people asking for real help.. like i do with my real morals.. morals in me.. from my logical mind.. i help and lead and care..not because a myth scares me with forever torture... wow you people are so messed up..ever see that person so in love with the wrong person they dont see it.. there friends tell them and they are blind to it..that is you.
@chieduagain ok if he is all on three than explain. matthew 5 17 and explain how when he died it changes the rules from the old testement to the new? how many murders has he asked in his name and torture? if i rape a young girl and make her pregnant do i have right to marry her? now clear this up for me without changing the subjuct.. share with friends if you must.... convince me. did jesus (as god and the holy ghost) contradict himself and his laws? let me guess man laws change god laws. lol
@chieduagain now explain the proof without using the lying bible. pls (talking down as to a naive student) copy and paste some real historical data that is peer reveiwed and accepted as truth.. with the names of the person that wrote it and there credentals( forgive my spelling i am drunk but still not stupid)
I want to know something, why do Protestants out of the 3 major sub-groups in Christianity that being the Roman Catholics, Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox, why do Protestants mostly attack the Roman Catholics and hardly ever talk about the Eastern Orthodox because they also disagree with the Protestants in many areas, but instead Protestants mostly zero in on the Catholics.
The Eastern Orthodox has to recently been a very small player in the American religious landscape so they have not been targeted the way Roman Catholics have been. Truth is Jesus taught a work based salvation and Paul taught a grace based salvation.
Catholics don't believe we are saved by works. Catholics and Protestants both agree that we are saved by grace alone. What we disagree on is whether we are justified based on our faith and works or our faith alone. Please stop misrepresenting the Catholic position.
@chieduagain Penance is many things. It is a sacrament in the Catholic Church, and it is also disciplining oneself as a part of repenting (aka turning away from) one's sins. Do you disagree that penance should play a role in a believer's faith journey?
This guy is impressively stupid.
TheGlaxnor 6 minutes ago
What is the point of this video? Christian on Christian hate. What purpose does this have? Why are you so mad at Catholics? I don't think that this is what Jesus had in mind by "Spread the Good news." You spread hate and ignorance. I challenge you to take some RCIA classes at your local Catholic church before you create another video.
marytate12 2 days ago
@marytate12 How is he spreading HATE of all things? :S I'm confused because I didn't hear him use the word "hate" or "dislike" or "disgust" or any other word with that type of negative connotation.. As far as ignorance goes, I can't see how teaching the Bible and quoting Catholic catechisms is spreading ignorance.. The dictionary defines "ignorance" as this: "The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed." He's spreading the opposite of that... (cont'd in next comment)
bulletstobroadway 8 hours ago
@marytate12 (cont'd) He's educating people because he's discussing things they do not know and that at the same time is making them aware. He's informing people about verses in the Bible they may or may not have known as well as basically everything else he said. So then, by what logic is this spreading hate or ignorance?
bulletstobroadway 8 hours ago
i would say a better title for this video would be are christians really christians ! and are they saved by faith alone or indeed by works alone . also why do they want to be saved at all ? out of a selfish sense of self preservation ! or for other reasons . i say if any christian condems any other person to hell fire out of spite he is not a christian at all . and many many of them do just that . jesus preached love not hate or fear who is man to judge another
DiscosMobileKent 3 days ago
James 2:14-26 faith witout works is dead ! i believe this 100% you cant just believe in christ then go on ignoring the needs of the poor FAITH + WORKS = Salvation i live by this now how can you be christ like without doing good works he said pick up your cross and follow me well he fed the poor healed the sick too many people think they are saved by faith but do nothing to help the needy the devil believes in jesus does he not .
DiscosMobileKent 3 days ago
salvation comes through THE teachings of the ESSENES who CHRIST was and JOHN were taught the essene gospel of peace are the true words of CHRIST GENESIS 1:29 must be obeyed there are WORKS by WHAT he taught in that book no murdering MEAT eaters go to HEAVEN
healthyone100 5 days ago
Either this guy is extremely Calvinistic beyond contextual measures, or he he is completely ignorant of the christian denomination of Catholicism. Could be both... I know that I have many catholic brothers and sisters in Christ. It's not up to him to decide who is saved and who isnt, that's God's job. Why doesn't he spend less time tearing the body of Christ apart and more time building it up?? God bless.
mrlivingstons1 1 week ago
@mrlivingstons1 He admitted that no one can know a person's HEART. He already said that only God knows. But Catholics are susceptible to being lead down the wrong path IF (and only IF) they buy into the OFFICIAL Catholic doctrine which is that salvation is earned by faith and works. If you read the Bible then you will soon realize that this doctrine is contrary to what the Bible teaches. Now, this doesn't mean that all Catholics are not saved.. They must have faith alone.
bulletstobroadway 8 hours ago
@mrlivingstons1 Cont'd: Romans 4:3 "For the Scriptures tell us, "Abraham believed God, and God counted him as righteous because of his faith." (NLT). Even there, Paul was pulling from the Old Testament.. Many people believe that salvation by grace is only pertinent after Jesus died. But even before Christ, the Jews were still only deemed righteous (or had salvation) by their faith. What can a Christian do to please God? Nothing!
bulletstobroadway 8 hours ago
@mrlivingstons1 Cont'd (Part 3): Romans 3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:" (KJV). And again here in Isaiah 64:6 "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." That's how God views HUMAN righteousness.. Case in point: Salvation cannot be earned, because that would negate Christ's blood which was shed for our forgiveness.
bulletstobroadway 8 hours ago
I recommend the following YouTube links as a start:
v=gH9UvnrARf8
v=WQhd05ZVYWg
v=ljRKhZ81aqY&feature=related
v=Yw5sboPjOCo
These 4 YouTubes are merely a beginning on cosmology, comparative religion, and the cognitive psychology of superstitious belief.
The contingency argument is really a "god of the gaps" argument. As you learn about modern cosmology and quantum mechanics, you will begin to see that no external agent is required for the Cosmos to exist. Good luck in breaking your delusion!
BrenttheSkeptic 1 week ago
@BrenttheSkeptic I don't know how you could claim that the contingency argument is a "god of the gaps" argument. Jews, Christians and Muslims have always believed that God created the universe. This was well before science ever postulated a beginning of the universe. For your statement to hold, it would be much more forceful for these events to have happened the other way around. As it is, science solidified the religious view of a creator. Is it not possible that yours is the skewed worldview?
cburton103 1 week ago
@cburton103 Did you check out the videos, especially the one on Prof. Hawking?
The argument from contingency remains a "god of the gaps" argument. Even the early Greek philosophers postulated a "beginning" of the world as they knew it. For the religions of the desert---Judaism, Christianity, and Islam---a "creator" was postulated and this "god of the gaps" became their god---a personal, anthropocentric, anthropomorphic construct that filled the gap nicely.
Are you really science-oriented?
BrenttheSkeptic 1 week ago
@BrenttheSkeptic I haven't checked out the videos yet. I'm out of town this weekend, so my time on youtube is going to be reduced. I'll check them out Monday or Tuesday.
I'm science-oriented in science, and religiously-oriented in religion. Certainly, the two worldviews overlap, so I consider them both in the overlapping region. It doesn't makes sense, however, to view religion solely through science. That's as bad of a mistake as expecting Genesis to be a science textbook - it's not.
cburton103 1 week ago
@BrenttheSkeptic (2) I don't follow your logic on why you claim the argument from contingency is a god of the gaps argument. As I understand it, the god of the gaps fallacy is seeing or thinking about something, not understanding how it occurs, and thus ascribing it to a god. This isn't the case with the Jewish, Christian, or Muslim faith.
cburton103 1 week ago
@cburton103 The contingency argument explains the origin of the Cosmos as "god did it." That's a god of the gaps. ANYTIME one uses "god did it" as an "explanation" it's god of the gaps. You need to study more science and less bronze age mythology.
BrenttheSkeptic 1 week ago
@BrenttheSkeptic The god of the gaps theory is this: "God of the gaps is a type of theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence."
You're going far beyond the boundaries of this fallacy, and claiming that God does nothing (at least in the physical realm). By definition, this fallacy says that it's fallacious to not understand something and therefore say, "God did it!". Learn the fallacy better if you're going to talk about it.
cburton103 1 week ago
@cburton103 Written like a typical supernaturalist! You claim that "my god created the Cosmos." I say: "no god need be postulated for the Cosmos to exist based on our best cosmology." You therefore claim a "god did it." I say: "No god is needed." You are using your god to fill a gap, where no gap actually exists!
BrenttheSkeptic 1 week ago
@cburton103 I'd bet that you've never carried out a publishable piece of science in your life. Let me explain why science and religion are intrinsically, inextricably, inevitably and eternally at odds. Science and scientists RELISH new verifiable evidence, especially evidence counter to preconceived notions and explanations. That's how science progresses. Religionists ABHOR evidence that is counter to their foundation dogmatic propositions and reject all such evidence instantly. Think!!!
BrenttheSkeptic 1 week ago
@BrenttheSkeptic
Arrogance + Ignorance + Immorality + Bigotry + Illogic + Closemindedness = Atheism.
Think!
SgtPepperJack825 1 week ago
@SgtPepperJack825 You really don't get it do you? Scientists are among the least arrogant people whom I know, in contrast to supernaturalists who are convinced that they're right based on no evidence at all. Scientists understand that we are ignorant. We understand that we are biased. We work hard to overcome those things.
You are the quintessential, evidence-free supernaturalist. You typify the characteristics that I renounce with your bronze age idiocy and I replace it with REASON.
BrenttheSkeptic 1 week ago
@BrenttheSkeptic I think part of the problem here is that you're assuming that all religion is similar to Mormonism. This is absolutely not the case. Have you honestly read much from Catholic intellectuals?
Tell your theory about how religion and science are at odds to some of the greatest, most influential scientific minds throughout the ages who have also been devout Christians. Bacon, Pascal, Newton, Mendel, Planck, Lemaitre, Collins, and hundreds of others would beg to differ with you.
cburton103 1 week ago
@cburton103 You note that you cite scientists who lived at the very earliest times in the development of science. Many of them had no choice but to profess belief---if they were to be given a job and to be published. Poor scientist Giordano Bruno learned the hard way that conflict with the autocratic all powerful Catholic Church led to a nail through your tongue and burning in the public square.
93% of scientists in the highly prestigious U.S. Natl Acad of Sci. profess NO BELIEF.
BrenttheSkeptic 1 week ago
@cburton103 Re: Catholic intellectuals. Some are smart enough to cloak the magic and superstition in language that obfuscates its underlying absurdity. The impregnation of a Jewish virgin by a bronze-age tribal war god is quite simply ABSURD. The reanimation of a 3 day corpse is equally absurd. One can write volumes about this ridiculous magic but it remains just that----fundamentally and intrinsically ridiculous. Mormonism is no more or less absurd---it's just more recent.
BrenttheSkeptic 1 week ago
@BrenttheSkeptic The very fact that these occurrences are, at first view, absurd, is exactly what makes them miraculous. If Jesus did not rise from the dead and have hundreds of witnesses, how would Christianity have grown so quickly under such great persecution at various parts of its early life?
I didn't only note scientists from long ago. I also noted the man who proposed the Big Bang theory (a Catholic priest) and the leader of the Human Genome Project (former atheist). I'll pm you a link.
cburton103 1 week ago
@cburton103 You REALLY think there were "hundreds of witnesses?" What evidence do you have other than the reports of highly biased persons desiring to convert others? That's evidence? Not to me, pal.
Mormonism is growing exponentially. It was persecuted with hundreds of martyrs. Such things don't constitute evidence of anything but human credulity.
I know of both scientists. Francis Collins admits that it's based on faith, not evidence. All people are susceptible to superstition.
BrenttheSkeptic 1 week ago
@BrenttheSkeptic Mormonism is indeed growing exponentially. However, trying to claim that Mormonism experiences even similar persecution to the early Christians is extremely ignorant with respect to history.
Collins and Lemaitre are both great examples of very accomplished modern scientists who find no schism between Christianity and science. What makes you think that they're just subject to superstition and not actual reality? Just because they disagree with you doesn't count as a reason.
cburton103 1 week ago
@cburton103 You should go back and read the newspaper accounts of Mormon persecution. Mormons were HATED in the U.S. Many were attacked and murdered in a country that supposedly had law enforcement. They had to migrate all over to escape the persecution. You should read your history. Numbers of martyrs (hundreds compared with thousands) is not the sole metric of persecution.
Because there are theist scientists does not mean that there isn't an essential conflict between (contd)
BrenttheSkeptic 6 days ago
@cburton103 science and religion. As Francis Collins has indicated repeatedly, he isolates his science from his religion. He cannot justify his religious notions using evidence, and yet verifiable evidence is the fuel for his science. He simply says that religion is based on "faith." Religion and science are inextricably at odds. Theist scientists have no choice but to put each in a box, isolated from one another. How they do that is beyond me. (contd)
BrenttheSkeptic 6 days ago
@cburton103 Finally, regarding superstition. from Wikipedia: Superstition is a belief in supernatural causality: that one event leads to the cause of another without any process in the physical world linking the two events.
Is that not precisely what you believe when you attest to the reanimation of a 3-day dead corpse? or the impregnation of a Jewish virgin by a bronze-age tribal war god?
You obviously believe in magic, superstition, and supernaturalism.
BrenttheSkeptic 6 days ago
@BrenttheSkeptic These boxes are not as isolated from one another as you expect. What I mean by this is that there's no cognitive dissonance that need exist in the mind of a knowledgeable Catholic, for instance.
Read the Merriam-Webster definitions for superstition. According to those, my faith is not superstitious. I too disregard superstition.
I watched most of those videos, btw. I found them anywhere from elementary to downright ridiculous. No facts were presented that contradict my views.
cburton103 6 days ago
@cburton103 If no facts were presented that contradict your views, I declare you an atheist! Excellent! You believe that the Cosmos required no creator!
Re: boxes. Scientists who accept superstition, like yours, have no choice but to compartmentalize their superstition, just as Collins does, by his own admission. Read his many quotes on the subject. He understands the problem. Even he, though, must argue with other evangelicals about evolution. It's a fascinating set of contradictions.
BrenttheSkeptic 6 days ago
@cburton103 I'm sorry, bud. The Catholic scientist (there are some, but they are declining in number precipitously) has no choice but to isolate his / her science from his / her dogmatic religion. No rational person would accept the reanimation of a 3-day corpse or the impregnation of a Jewish virgin by a bronze-age tribal war god. Such things are irrational and without evidence. Yet, because they are said to occur n the physical Cosmos, they are fit for rejection by science.
BrenttheSkeptic 6 days ago
@BrenttheSkeptic So would it be correct to conclude that you believe in materialism, that all of existence is material and nothing more? Essentially, this would mean that all events have material causes and that free will is an illusion. Do you believe this?
cburton103 6 days ago
@cburton103 It's not at all a matter of "believing in" anything at all. I look for verifiable evidence and robust, broad, predictive, falsifiable explanations, at the same time fully realizing that both evidence and explanations are provisional, always subject to new evidence or new thinking. Philosophers and theologians thoroughly enjoy deceptive labels: materialism, scientism, existentialism, on and on and on. Scientists are not into that stuff at all. Give us verifiable evidence!
BrenttheSkeptic 6 days ago
@cburton103 Put in a way that it might be easier for you to grasp, scientists are utterly open to any verifiable evidence. If you presented science with verifiable evidence that a corpse reanimated, scientists would be MOST interested. We'd examine the evidence, debate it, replicate it, publish it, speculate about it, and have a lot of intellectual fun with it. We're open to supernaturalism----but so far, there's not a whit, not a scintilla, not an iota of verifiable evidence for it.
BrenttheSkeptic 6 days ago
@cburton103 Do I think that free will is an illusion? Well, there's certainly a great deal of verifiable evidence that indicates that both time itself and free will are illusions created by our brains and that both illusions have evolutionary survival value for our species. Yet, the evidence is not conclusive. Even if both were illusions, they are useful illusions. Illusions are not bad---if you know they're illusions!
BrenttheSkeptic 6 days ago
@BrenttheSkeptic So you clearly wouldn't believe in anything miraculous despite the numerous well-documented miracles from throughout the years. Take Blessed Alexandrina Da Costa, who lived for numerous years with no food except for the Eucharist. She observed a strict fast for forty days and nights under the supervision of doctors in a hospital in 1943. These doctors concluded that there was no possible physical way for this to occur, and all wrote and signed statements about it. Your thoughts?
cburton103 4 days ago
@cburton103 Over the many years that I've lived, I've learned to distrust all sorts of testimony. I've also learned that even the finest scientists and clinicians can easily be fooled. For that reason, many scientists who investigate the paranormal and "miraculous" solicit the aid of magicians who know precisely what to look for.
Many people have lived for 40 days on very little food. That's hardly miraculous.
Beyond that time, I strongly doubt that it was a well-controlled study.
BrenttheSkeptic 4 days ago
@cburton103 I do hope that you cultivate a far more skeptical attitude than you apparently have when you begin to practice dentistry. You will find that your patients will tell you all sorts of things that simply aren't the case-----even if they personally "believe" them to be the case and have fooled themselves into thinking so.
We humans have an enormous capacity for self-delusion. We desperately want to believe certain things, if only for anxiolysis.
BrenttheSkeptic 4 days ago
@BrenttheSkeptic I agree with you that humans have an enormous capacity for self-delusion, and possibly an even larger propensity towards confirmation bias. However, how can you decide without looking at the study that it was poorly run? It should interest you - perhaps a negation bias is at work in you.
The Church finely dissects miraculous claims, throwing out many and affirming some. If the miracles that the Church affirms are so clearly false, wouldn't it be great to prove that to the world?
cburton103 4 days ago
@cburton103 I've had an extensive clinical background & have read of numerous "miraculous" cures. It means only that medical science hasn't sufficient evidence for a definitive explanation It does NOT mean that a "god did it." The church has a huge motivation to create saints---they're great for business! That makes me even more skeptical of such "phenomena." I'm similarly skeptical of secular "paranormal phenomena."
Far more likely that the person in your example stealthily obtained food.
BrenttheSkeptic 3 days ago
@BrenttheSkeptic I'm talking about this specific one - I'm not sure which cases you're talking about. Here's the bottom line: I've presented you with a relatively recent case that was monitored by doctors, and you blew it off because it doesn't fit into your worldview. That's not scientific.
You really haven't presented any information that contradicts my faith as a Catholic - you've only said my evidence (philosophical, medical, etc) isn't actually evidence. Seek the Truth, Brent. God bless.
cburton103 3 days ago
@cburton103 Frankly, you've presented me with nothing but hearsay. Where are the published papers in peer-reviewed first line journals? I sincerely hope that you become far more skeptical as you proceed with your studies in dentistry. I understand your desperate need to "believe" in magic and superstition. Your need is shared by billions of people. That still doesn't make it an attractive quality. You need your magic now. Perhaps someday you'll wake from your delusion.
BrenttheSkeptic 2 days ago
well, what about the separation of the goats and sheep? romans 2 describes us being judged on our works, too.
kubrox91 1 week ago
Comment removed
MrThundermouth 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
MrThundermouth 2 weeks ago
how do you know these things? do you have ESP?
mikkwik 2 weeks ago
your 2nd post:
(2) Re: supernaturalism, magic, superstition. As long as supernaturalists make no claim of an interaction between the "supernatural sphere"---whatever the hell that could be---and the natural Cosmos, I'd have no quarrel. But--unassisted human parthenogenesis because of the impregnation of a Jewish virgin by the god Yahweh, the reanimation of Yahweh's 3-day corpse, and the unaided propulsion of said corpse skyward are all SCIENTIFIC, physical claims---bizarre and w/o evidence.
cburton103 2 weeks ago
To your second post:
Your desire for scientific evidence from a period before the advent of modern science is completely absurd. The only evidence you can have from a period 2,000 years ago is evidence from witnesses. Nearly all modern historians agree that it is historically reliable that Jesus walked the earth. There were many (over 500) first hand witnesses to Christ walking the earth after his death on the cross. What other type of evidence could you possibly request form that age?
cburton103 2 weeks ago
@cburton103 I'd expect evidence of the kind that we have for many other events of that age, viz. 3rd party, contemporaneous, unbiased, uninvolved, multiple reports of all of that magic. Nothing like that exists---but it could have. You don't honestly mean to tell me that you would accept a reanimated corpse based only on the evidence that you cite? Come on! You're an educated person.Why is it that supernaturalists like you would immediately recognize the absurdity of say, Islam, but not this?
BrenttheSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@BrenttheSkeptic Josephus, Pliny the Younger, and other contemporaneous and slightly later sources would fulfill this desire of yours. Many historical figures weren't documented for hundreds of years, yet you don't deny their existence. Also, it doesn't make sense to not include the reports of those closest to Jesus. Why would those closest to him make up extravagant lies just to die as martyrs? 11/12 apostles died as martyrs - St. Peter was even crucified upside down, yet he did not deny Jesus.
cburton103 2 weeks ago
@cburton103 Wrong again! There is abundant evidence that Pliny and other reports were doctored by early supernaturalists anxious to prove their point. Martyrdom is common. Check out the history of Mormonism. Check out Jonestown---hundreds drank the Kool Aid. Martyrdom is a useless and unconvincing metric. Sorry.
BrenttheSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@BrenttheSkeptic You're confusing martyrdom with these other events that fall short of the level of being a martyr. Joseph Smith died with a gun in his hand (that he shot at men with) in a jailhouse where he was being tried for various crimes. This isn't martyrdom. The Jonestown people committed suicide - that's not martyrdom.
Check out Ignatius of Antioch. He was a bishop around the turn of the first century who was martyred at the Coliseum.
cburton103 2 weeks ago
@cburton103 As a former priest of the Mormon Church, I assure you that hundred died at the hands of fervent supernaturalists who opposed the new religion. They were martyrs, dying for their beliefs as shown to them by the great prophet Joseph Smith. Martyrs are martyrs, bud. The Jonestown people died for their beliefs, just as Christians did. How dare you denigrate their religious and righteous deaths!
BrenttheSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@BrenttheSkeptic Merriam-Webster definition for martyr: a person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religion
I think it would be quite a stretch to apply that definition to people who commit suicide or die with a gun in their hands. I'm speaking about Jonestown people and Joseph Smith, respectively. I don't know about other Mormon claims to martyrs. I do not doubt that there have been some, especially in the 1800's, who died for their faith.
cburton103 2 weeks ago
@cburton103 So the followers of Smith were unwilling? So the Jonestown folks didn't willingly drink the Kool Aid? And none of them believed the magical teachings of their leaders? Come on! Be f'n' real here
Re: fear of death. The big selling point of most supernaturalisms is that death is NOT death---it's a transition to something bigger, better---maybe with 70 virgins--which is pretty damned good! Supernaturalist myth replaces death with....well...myth. Anxiolytic. Better than Xanax!
BrenttheSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@BrenttheSkeptic If you read both of my posts you shouldn't have written your first paragraph.
So what convinced you that there's no God?
cburton103 2 weeks ago
@cburton103 What makes you think that skeptics are "convinced" that there's "no god?" That's a common misconception among supernaturalists, who are taught by their preachers about the evils of atheism.
Every skeptic and atheist whom I know says simply that they find insufficient evidence to accept the existence of ANY of the countless gods ever invented by humans throughout history.
You, yourself, find insufficient evidence for Thor and Zeus. I carry your thought one god further is all.
BrenttheSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@BrenttheSkeptic You just evaded my question with semantics.
In what ways do you find the evidence for the Christian God (historic Christianity - Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants - not the Mormon God/s) to be insufficient? Since you at one point presumably believed in at least some god, what changed your mind if you don't mind me asking?
cburton103 2 weeks ago
@cburton103 Buddy, it isn't semantics at all. Recall that countless gods have been invented. Yours is just one of them. For you to ask me why no evidence, you have to define your god with great precision. Every Christian that I've ever met, even from the same denomination, defines his god differently. Some use the old saw "ground of all being"---whatever the hell that means---others respond with "what a friend we have in Jesus."Tell me what your god is, precisely, and what evidence You have.
BrenttheSkeptic 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
cburton103 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BrenttheSkeptic God is the first Cause. He is the great "I am" - the very essence of existence.
Evidence: The argument from contingency, for one. Essentially, it is that you, I, and everything else that exists (except God) depend on other things for their existence. You and I depend on our parents, food, and air, to name a few. These things also are contingent. Logically, contingency cannot extend infinitely into the past. There must be something that began the series. That is God.
cburton103 1 week ago
@cburton103 Sorry, bud. The ARGUMENT from contingency is just that: a speculative argument. It is NOT verifiable evidence in any sense of the word. I've never understood why philosophers and especially theologians consider speculation, opinion, and argument to be evidence. Scientists speculate but would NEVER consider speculation to be evidentiary or definitive. But you guys do. Amazing.
You should check out YouTubes by brilliant physicists and cosmologists such as Stephen Hawking.
BrenttheSkeptic 1 week ago
@BrenttheSkeptic So are you requesting evidence limited to that which is scientifically verifiable? Please define the parameters for what you're asking here.
cburton103 1 week ago
@cburton103 How can evidence be anything that isn't verifiable? One can speculate, of course, and opine, and argue. But no conclusion from such activities could possibly be called evidentiary. Speculation can be very valuable as a step toward verifiable evidence.
Historical evidence can be verified by multiple, unbiased, 3rd party, contemporaneous reports.
You should also understand that even the best evidence is provisional. New evidence may always appear to counter the original.
BrenttheSkeptic 1 week ago
@BrenttheSkeptic As a dental student, I certainly understand that the best evidence is provisional. My education in biology and biomechanics proves that fact time and time again.
I think the bottom line, if we're being honest here, is that there is no hard, verifiable evidence for or against the existence of the Christian God. I think it's a bit obscure to expect verifiable evidence for anything metaphysical. However, I think there are numerous speculative arguments that form a (cont)
cburton103 1 week ago
@BrenttheSkeptic very thorough, logical basis for the existence of God that meshes perfectly with everything that we understand about our lives and the world we live in. I would highly recommend the book "Handbook of Catholic Apologetics" by Peter Kreeft, in addition to "What's So Great About Christianity" by Dinesh D'Souza. They both have great sections that build the argument for God from all different sides. Dr. Kreeft's book is more philosophical, and D'Souza's takes many different angles.
cburton103 1 week ago
@cburton103 I do not find there is a "thorough, logical basis for the existence" of ANY of the countless gods ever invented by humans. None of the speculative arguments are convincing in the least. Indeed, there is excellent evidence that the Christian God cannot exist viz. the problem of evil, as just one example. Modern cosmology is utterly undermining the argument from contingency. May I suggest YouTube videos by brilliant cosmologists such as Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, (contd)
BrenttheSkeptic 1 week ago
@BrenttheSkeptic Recommend a specific video or group of videos and I will gladly watch them. Anything I have heard that "undermines" the argument from contingency has fallen well short.
Your data does not really prove any point. Jesus doesn't promise us how our prayers will be answered, so there's no way to know what data to collect even.
cburton103 1 week ago
@cburton103 (2) So, I well understand all of the apologetics and the arguments for the existence of various gods, and of course, the Christian God, Yahweh-Yeshua.
One interesting bit of data: Yeshua is reported to have promised that prayers to the Christian God would be heard and answered. In numerous well-designed, double-blind trials sponsored by the Templeton Foundation, NO EVIDENCE whatever was found for the efficacy of prayers said by Christian believers to that God. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
BrenttheSkeptic 1 week ago
@BrenttheSkeptic There's no short way to address why I recognize Islam as not being of divine origin. Here are a couple points though:
1) The Quran claims that Christians believe Mary is part of the Trinity. This stems from a heretical para-Christian sect around Muhammad's time. It displays that the origin of this book is human, not divine.
2) The tenants of Islam do not accurately portray the deepest longing of humans; to love.
3) They deny historical events, such as the Crucifixion of Christ.
cburton103 2 weeks ago
@cburton103 You can so easily see that Islam is absurd. Yet, its claims are based upon exactly the same level of evidence as early Christianity---perhaps better. You supernaturalists suspend reason to give yourselves anxiolysis. It's stupid and sad.
BrenttheSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@BrenttheSkeptic That's not what I addressed. I addressed the claims themselves - you might do well to do the same.
cburton103 2 weeks ago
What a moron.
kevinjjfr 3 weeks ago
Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works. (James 2:20-22) For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father's glory, and then he will repay everyone according to his conduct. (Mt 16:27) What you are doing, Carm, is actuallly going against the Holy Bible.
mleonetti1991 3 weeks ago
In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. (James 2:17.) Maintain good conduct among the Gentiles, so that if they speak of you as evildoers, they may observe your good works and glorify God on the day of visitation. (1 Pet 2:12).
Therefore, my beloved brothers, be firm, steadfast, always fully devoted to the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain. (1 Cor 15:58). Should I add more?
mleonetti1991 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
He replied, "Go your way, Daniel, because the words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end. Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand. Dan. 12:9-10.
KingdomSeeker2012 3 weeks ago
It's always a delight to see these supernaturalists bicker with each other. "I'm saved." "No, you're not. I'm the only one who is saved." "No you're not saved." ad infinitum. This is all so incredibly ridiculous. These people have fought wars, tortured each other, burned each other over such silliness. Amazing!
BrentGrainger2000 1 month ago
@BrentGrainger2000 Sure, there are plenty of people who have done terrible things in the name of religion over the years, and there's absolutely no excuse for this. However, this does not address whether or not said religion is true, false, or some mix of the two. This is the question that any true seeker should ask. God bless.
cburton103 3 weeks ago
@cburton103 It's one thing to fight to defend democracy, or the rights of minorities, etc. and even give up one's life for a good cause. It's incredibly stupid either to kill or be killed over something as ridiculous and evidence-free as supernaturalism. That's the reason that as a skeptic I find it so wonderfully amusing to see supernaturalists fight with each other over nothing of any value whatever. Amazing. But definitely amusing.
sciencelives2000 3 weeks ago
@sciencelives2000 Firstly, "supernaturalism" isn't evidence free. I can proved scientific and philosophical evidence for God if you'd like.
Secondly, I don't support most loss of life in the name of religion, and neither would most devout Catholics. I too can understand your bewilderment in the midst of religious violence, so this can in no way count against my viewpoint. To me as a Catholic, this is a total straw man.
cburton103 3 weeks ago
@cburton103 Philosophy does NOT and NEVER CAN provide verifiable evidence. Ask any of your philosophy professors. 2nd--there is not a whit, not a scintilla, not an iota of verifiable evidence for the existence of any of the countless gods invented by humans, including whichever one you happen to worship.
Frankly, I am totally amused---not at all bewildered---at quarreling, bickering supernaturalists. It goes with supernaturalism---intrinsic to evidence-free living.
sciencelives2000 3 weeks ago
@sciencelives2000 Philosophy does provide an avenue by which we can logically deduce things. The simplest form of the argument for God is that there was once nothing, and now there is something. Modern science verifies that there was once nothing. The laws of conservation of energy and mass show us that it must be something from outside of the system of the universe that acted outside of these laws in order to bring the universe into being. To what part of this basic thesis do you object?
cburton103 3 weeks ago
@cburton103 I object to all of it! 1) Philosophy is speculation, opinion, and argument. It can "prove" nothing at all. Perfect philosophical "logic" has been wrong innumerable times in the light of verifiable evidence, which is the gold standard of "knowing." 2) Modern cosmology has produced verifiable evidence that "nothing" is intrinsically unstable. Please view YouTubes by cosmologists Hawking, Krauss, Carroll, and Susskind for further information. 3) The net energy of the Universe(contd)
sciencelives2000 3 weeks ago
@sciencelives2000 How can nothing be stable or unstable, as it is nothing? Now, either there was actually nothing at one point or there was actually something. You seem to be confusing the two.
Also, you seem to be confusing the bounds of what science can and cannot determine. You claim that verifiable evidence (I'm guessing you mean science) is the gold standard of knowing. However, physical science cannot make the metaphysical claims that you espouse. Where (continued)
cburton103 3 weeks ago
@cburton103 I really don't have time to teach you supernaturalists a course in elementary physics. Please employ YouTube for your edification. There are excellent lectures and videos. Search: Stephen Hawking, Sean M. Carroll, Leonard Susskind, Lawrence Krauss, Steven Weinberg, Brian Greene. All of these physicists are superb communicators. Their videos will answer your questions and help you to understand modern cosmology.
sciencelives2000 3 weeks ago
@sciencelives2000 (cont) does that leave you? It leaves you in the position of making claims that you can't support; namely, that the world is composed only of material things. There have been many verified miracles that have happened throughout the ages that support the idea that there is something beyond the physical. The Incorruptibles are an example of this. If you'd like, I'll provide you with a good link for this.
cburton103 3 weeks ago
@cburton103 If you think that the so-called "incorruptibles" are somehow "miraculous," I have a bridge over the Mississippi to sell you. Come on! Have you ever had even an elementary course in science? You can't be that ignorant.
sciencelives2000 3 weeks ago
@sciencelives2000 My friend, it's quite likely that I am much more educated (at least formally) than you in science. I received a bachelor's degree in Biology from Texas A&M, and I am currently studying for my DDS. While biological and health sciences are my forte, I always enjoyed learning a bit about physics (mainly mechanical physics - electricity and magnetism never appealed to me much). So let's leave behind the petty insults calling me ignorant and such. (Cont)
cburton103 3 weeks ago
@sciencelives2000 (cont) Now, to the point. The fact of the matter is that you're using the wrong tools to determine whether or not anything supernatural exists. You simply cannot use physical tools to test the metaphysical - that's completely illogical, and science, by definition, can only test the material world.
Also, how are bodies that do not corrupt (partial in some cases and whole bodies in others) not count as miraculous? The normal process would be necrosis.
cburton103 3 weeks ago
@cburton103 Without immodesty, let me say that I am far better educated in science than you are.
Re: "incorruptibles." First off, my dad was an embalmer and through him I know a few things about the decay of corpses. You know, it's an add thing. So much chemistry is involved, along with desiccation rate and a host of other things. For you, with a science background, and no research on the topic, to stake your reputation on such a claim is amazing! Go study putrefaction! (contd)
sciencelives2000 3 weeks ago
@sciencelives2000 What's your field of science? And suggesting that I study physics on youtube? Come on.
I studied putrefaction in my Pathology course. You didn't post the second part of your comment, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. I'm not sure why you've assumed that I haven't researched the topic of the Incorruptibles. No, I haven't personally studied the bodies of these saints, but it's been scientifically verified multiple times.
cburton103 2 weeks ago
@cburton103 Actually, bud, Leonard Susskind, the great Stanford physicist, has his entire course in quantum mechanics available on YouTube. Haven't you heard? YouTube and other media like it are becoming a most welcome method to receive instruction on many topics. Check out the lectures of Lawrence Krauss, Sean M Carroll, Steven Weinberg, Stephen Hawking, Brian Greene, et al.
BrenttheSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@BrenttheSkeptic Is there any video in particular that you recommend? I'd be more than happy to watch them. Almost all parts of science fascinate me.
Christians recognize creation itself to be part of what's called general revelation. It helps us see the beauty of God and what he wants for us. The mere fact that the world around us is intelligible is quite improbable, don't you think?
cburton103 2 weeks ago
@cburton103 Go to YouTube and insert the following in the search box:
Stephen Hawking
Lawrence Krauss
Brian Greene
Sean M. Carroll
Leonard Susskind
Steven Weinberg
Victor Stenger
All are famous physicists, highly articulate. They are a very good start.
BrenttheSkeptic 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
sciencelives2000 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cburton103 (2) Re: supernaturalism, magic, superstition. As long as supernaturalists make no claim of an interaction between the "supernatural sphere"---whatever the hell that could be---and the natural Cosmos, I'd have no quarrel. But--unassisted human parthenogenesis because of the impregnation of a Jewish virgin by the god Yahweh, the reanimation of Yeshua's 3-day corpse, and the unaided propulsion of said corpse skyward are all SCIENTIFIC, physical claims---bizarre and w/o evidence.
sciencelives2000 3 weeks ago
@cburton103 is precisely ZERO. There was no need whatever for anything "outside" the Universe to give rise to it. No energy input was required whatever. Again, please study quantum physics, modern cosmology, and small particle physics to gain an understanding of the what cosmologists are proposing today about the origin of our Universe.
sciencelives2000 3 weeks ago
I don't understand why you would call a church apostate because they believe in justification in works and faith, and not by faith alone. If you have true faith, then wouldn't you then also perform good works?
MrMihmster 1 month ago
Look up the parable of the sheep and the goats. The sheep had faith and they acted on it, but the goats had faith and DID NOT act on it.
kubrox91 1 month ago
@cburton103 the reason why he said your arguments are illogical is because he couldn't refute them and now he is being a chicken and won't continue discussing with you. (Most atheist say stuff like that when they cant refute anything you say or point out. So instead they say you are stupid or something like that and they burst off with nothing but anger.)
bobcatallstar7 1 month ago
Has this guy ever read the book of James? Obviously we aren't justified by our works (that's biblical enough), but we certainly aren't saved if faith is all we have.
James 2:14 - "What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them?"
James 2:17 - "... faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead."
TheOshag 1 month ago
@TheOshag How can you say "obviously we aren't justified by our works" if James 2:24 contradicts that statement directly?
cburton103 1 month ago
@cburton103
James 2.24 says "You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do *and not by faith alone*" (emphasis added). As I understand it, James is saying that if somebody already has faith then, to be considered righteous, the works must follow. That's because we aren't justified by our faith if our faith is all we have, nor are we justified if our works are all we have.
TheOshag 1 month ago
@TheOshag So through the combination of our faith and works we receive grace, which justifies us. Is this your understanding?
cburton103 1 month ago
@cburton103
That's closer, but not exactly. As I understand it, we are initially justified by faith but if this does not express itself in love then our faith is dead. Does that help?
TheOshag 4 weeks ago
@TheOshag So would it be accurate to say that works in some way maintain our faith (or complete it, as James says), and therefore they also maintain our justification? Or does this place a greater emphasis on works than you would personally?
cburton103 4 weeks ago
@cburton103
I'd say that's accurate.
TheOshag 4 weeks ago
@TheOshag Very interesting. It seems that you agree with the authentic Catholic position. Have you considered Catholicism?
cburton103 4 weeks ago
@cburton103
I joined the Church about 10 months ago!
TheOshag 3 weeks ago
@TheOshag Thrilled to have another one return home! May God bless you and your journey with Him.
cburton103 3 weeks ago
You should be ashamed of yourself for posting a video of this magnitude of ignorance. Pick up a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and watch each and every one of your "teachings" about the Catholic Church refuted. You speak as if you are an expert in Catholicism, yet you have no clue.
avengedangel2002 1 month ago
religeion is a sickness constucted from fear... fear of the unknown and that the end is just that..as an athiest i challenge you to make me less moral than you. i need nothing more than what i feel as a human.. i had no father or god to tell me what is right and that i shall beat my slaves(lol) i am a better person than you hands down... and i know not one other athiest that is less that me... all better than you.. you and you.. and any one page of your myth book.
tainted705 1 month ago
@tainted705 My friend, you're not proving any points here. You're just continually making baseless insults. I'm quite happy for you that you attempt to live your life in a moral way. I agree that we can understand much of what is moral and immoral based on reason. I too try to live my life in such a manner.
Whether you realize it or not, you are making more absurd "statements of faith" than I am. By saying there is no God, you put yourself into quite a predicament of understand why we are here.
cburton103 1 month ago
@cburton103 you are sick and your time has to pass for man to become moral.i feel sick just talking to you.. lowering myself to a level of stupid that is ill in itself.man is evil and good by its own standards god is evil by mans standards and jesus was made up to redeem that failure. man made god to fail and failed at it.why do you idiots need to cling to such crap to feel fulfilled in life.just be good and live life.enjoy and let others enjoy.when it ends there is nothin not just darkness
tainted705 1 month ago
@tainted705 Honestly, you're not making any sense.
The best philosophical arguments and the best scientific data all point towards there being a beginning. A beginning would not be possible without something to make it begin. This is what I call God. Unless you have a comment on the philosophical or scientific arguments for a beginning or where my logic is flawed here, then there's not really anything left for us to say.
cburton103 1 month ago
@cburton103 yes there is you are a fool and only want to hear what you want to hear and consider only what conforms to what you want to be true. you cant be beaten or convinced in any way shape or form that you are wrong. another point for me. you are unwilling to consider that that "i dont know" is a good answer so you take what you gave to to fill in the blanks. the sickness spreads as more and more of you are brainwashing the youth.
tainted705 1 month ago
@tainted705 I'm willing to admit I don't know if I truly don't. I'm not sure why you think I'm trying to fill in the blanks with God with respect to the beginning of the universe. Jews, Christians and Muslims have always believed in a Creator, and thus a beginning. Speaking strictly scientifically, it's not possible for there to be a true beginning, because something can never come from nothing. It's inescapable that the best evidence points to a Creator - you calling me crazy doesn't deny that.
cburton103 1 month ago
@cburton103 dur... smart people will see my point proven.. you and many others that are as blind or have your same blinders on will not see it.. faith blinds you from truth.. you maybe will never see it and thats fine but what a waste. why not spend some time reading and learning from something other than the bible... i bet you can cast off you blindness and you "will be healed!!!" lol.
tainted705 1 month ago
@tainted705 I spend plenty of time reading things besides the Bible. I have a degree in Biology from a well-respected university and I'm continuing my education currently in Dental School. So it's probably quite a safe assumption that I've had more formal education than you, so I think you should drop your "smarter than thou" attitude. Besides, you haven't even addressed any points I've made, you've just continually implied that I'm dumb.
cburton103 1 month ago
@cburton103 i cant address the lies that you have faith in because i cant help people like you. i will continue to tell you are lost and you will continue to bla out lies and crap you cant prove. so you think school makes you smart? haw haw. i have forgotten more than you could ever know and i don't have to make up any crap like.i am a rocket scientist and am on my way to the moon as we speak.lol. dont make me resort to animal instincts and throw poo at you.. like the primates we evolved from.
tainted705 1 month ago
@tainted705 Telling someone that they're lost has nothing to do with the arguments of why they're lost. Your comments have had absolutely no substance.
By the way, I believe evolution is how we've arrived at such a diversity of life forms.
cburton103 1 month ago
@cburton103 so you say that if there where a creator that his creations where not good enough on there own? all had to change to adapt or what? did he make an error or just change his mind? is this conversation with a factory worker making you hot?? lol just kidding. you really are a blast my man. for being a holy roller you sure are a wild man. now then i think i shall not waste anymore time on this..been there done that and when it is all said and done i feel fine "knowing" there is no god
tainted705 1 month ago
@tainted705 Evolution selects for characteristics of organisms that help them to survive better in a changing environment. "Better" in this case is dependent upon the environment, not an absolute advantage, so your comment doesn't stand.
By definition, you cannot know there is no God. I can testify to you that God exists, and that there are multiple good arguments for his existence. Also, living a life for God brings great satisfaction to my life. If you're ever interested, feel free to PM me.
cburton103 1 month ago
@cburton103 i will use your words and testify that there is no god. there are no good arguments that there is or there would be no doubt (or less doubt) and less religions(or just one) you are an epic fail as most of your kind are.. as the masses come to the knowlege that there is no god man shall move forward knowing we are the masters and slaves on this on place where we populate. we have to make a grasp at being humane to each other without the soiled false morals of a dictator god.
tainted705 1 month ago
@tainted705 Then how do you explain the beginning of the universe? Both science and philosophy point to a beginning. This is extremely strong evidence for a creator. If you need me to elaborate more, let me know.
cburton103 1 month ago
@cburton103 nudge nudge.. whats up with this guy? ah dont worry about him.. he is just narrow minded... his kind will pass as man evolves.
tainted705 1 month ago
@tainted705 I'm the narrow minded one? I've presented you with substantial information multiple times and you've been the one to ignore it. Ignoring information is what makes one narrow minded. I've followed the truth where it has led me. You've ignored important questions, displaying the inability of the average atheist to support his position logically. Instead you, like many others, resort to sarcasm and insults to "prove" your point. I'm not impressed.
cburton103 1 month ago
@cburton103 your information is based on faith and not real. i base everything in my life on fact and only that. the fact is you have no proof.. and the sarcasm thing is only because common sence eludes you folk so being nice is a waste of time with crazies. if you have one shread of proof that there is a god.. not a beggining! not the bible! you prove there is a god and i will stand down.. until then you are a nut. for i see with my eyes and feel with my body and i know the truth.
tainted705 1 month ago
@tainted705 My information is based on faith and science. The two fit together perfectly for me. You see, before the Big Bang Theory came out most scientists thought that the universe was eternal. Now, most scientists agree that the universe had a beginning. We know from science and from common sense that everything in our universe (and now, even our universe itself) has a cause. What is the cause of the universe?
You say you base everything in your life on fact. Let's see how you fare here.
cburton103 1 month ago
@cburton103 very good.. the fact is there is no cause and no purpose and no common sense does not say that.. you do.. and "old science said this" does not hold any weight mister.. so i think for a scientist you are not very knowledgeable about science you said most scientists said bla... but most say there is no god.. pick and choose your argument if you must. no fact leads to god.
tainted705 1 month ago
@tainted705 All facts lead to God, for he is Truth itself.
You say there is no cause. This is impossible, because there was a beginning. How can something come from nothing? You see, this is one of the problems with denying a Creator - you have to say that something can come from nothing, which is just preposterous.
A scientist is trained to observe the physical world - not the metaphysical world. Also, there are tons of misconceptions about what God is, so it can be difficult to wade through.
cburton103 1 month ago
@cburton103 i dont think you are very smart and am now done with you. you are to circular in your thinking and are are waste of good logic. i know more than you can conceive and it is a shame that i cant put into words the truth that would make you not stupid... maybe someday they can make a pill to help you, if you reply(unless you have something smart to say that i have not heard over and over)it will fall on deaf ears because i close them to your static and spend my time learning.
tainted705 1 month ago
@tainted705 My arguments were in no way circular. If you choose to ignore the information I've presented you with, then that is your choice. Calling it circular without just basis to do so only shows that you are unable or unwilling to dialogue on the subject. Once again, that's your choice. Best of luck in all your future endeavors.
cburton103 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tainted705 I'm willing to admit I don't know if I truly don't. I'm not sure why you think I'm trying to fill in the blanks with God with respect to the beginning of the universe. Jews, Christians and Muslims have always believed in a Creator, and thus a beginning. Speaking strictly scientifically, it's not possible for there to be a true beginning, because something can never come from nothing. It's inescapable that the best evidence points to a Creator - you calling me crazy doesn't deny that.
cburton103 1 month ago
@tainted705 I could not have said it better. Religion is a delusion, an hallucination, a brain fart---a disease---constructed because ordinary people are so f'n' scared of dying that they would rather construct fantasy than face the truth squarely and with courage.
BrenttheSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@BrenttheSkeptic Making the claim that religion is a delusion doesn't make it true. Many religion are delusional to varying degrees. However, this doesn't discount all religions.
Saying that religious people are cowards simply doesn't cover the first Christians. How could you possibly claim that they were so scared of dying that they believed things and acted on them, thus expediting their deaths? Doesn't this seem counterintuitive? Maybe they were the ones who faced the truth squarely.
cburton103 2 weeks ago
i have been around for a long long time.more years i can count and have met and learned from people.i have met and taught even more.i have read the bible and did everything the church has to offer in search for more. i have judged human nature and reflected it on myself.i feel that my actions are more moral than the masses and that the masses are lost in doubt,unable to just exept that we are here.we are what we are and our actions have an effect on others that reflect back to our own happiness
tainted705 1 month ago
Is the guy who is in this video saved or a Christian? Who knows? He spouts the right script as far as one branch of Protestant Christianity is concerned, but big deal. This doesn't mean he is saved. It doesn't mean he is a Christian. IMO if you follow the two major moral and theological precepts taught by Jesus you are saved. If not you are likely bound for a less than fun after life.
MusingsFromTheJohn 1 month ago
"It greatly errs by adding works to salvation..."
Most Protestants make right believing in a set of "fundamental" teachings about Jesus and the Bible a work. If we are saved by anything other than the grace of God--free gift--no works of acceptance we are just arguing about different kinds of works.
MusingsFromTheJohn 1 month ago
so jesus is his own daddy?
tainted705 2 months ago
@tainted705 no dummy.
The is God the Father, God the Son & God the Holy Spirit!
Jesus is God the Son! God the Father is His Father!
chieduagain 1 month ago
@chieduagain so he knocked up his own mom to give birth to himself? your an idiot.
tainted705 1 month ago
@tainted705 The root of your question is a misunderstanding of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Basically, we believe that there is one God, and this one God is three persons; God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. So Mary is not the mother of God the Father, but she is the mother of God the Son, although God the Son (Jesus) existed since the beginning of time as the Word (see John 1). Please don't be so quick to insult others' beliefs. God bless.
cburton103 1 month ago
@cburton103 ya sure bud. whatever you say *coo coo*. i read john 1 and it is the same old lies as the rest.. you are all out of your minds.. nuff said. logic.
tainted705 1 month ago
@tainted705 I find my belief system quite logical, actually. There's nothing that you've shown in your comments here (nor in any other comments I've seen from leading atheists) that can stand up to the logic of solid Catholic scholars.
So before you go on insulting me and my fellow religious people's beliefs, make sure you have a solid case. If you'd like to discuss this matter more fully, feel free to PM me. If not, it's your choice. May God bless you.
cburton103 1 month ago
@cburton103 my point proven you are a coo coo.. take your meds and come back to reality we could use you here ..helping real things in real time.. real people asking for real help.. like i do with my real morals.. morals in me.. from my logical mind.. i help and lead and care..not because a myth scares me with forever torture... wow you people are so messed up..ever see that person so in love with the wrong person they dont see it.. there friends tell them and they are blind to it..that is you.
tainted705 1 month ago
@chieduagain ok if he is all on three than explain. matthew 5 17 and explain how when he died it changes the rules from the old testement to the new? how many murders has he asked in his name and torture? if i rape a young girl and make her pregnant do i have right to marry her? now clear this up for me without changing the subjuct.. share with friends if you must.... convince me. did jesus (as god and the holy ghost) contradict himself and his laws? let me guess man laws change god laws. lol
tainted705 4 weeks ago
@tainted705
The Law came by Moses but forgiveness as grace and truth came by Jesus!
John 1:17
For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
In that Jesus is the Lamb of God that took away the sin of the whole world
John 1:29
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith,
Behold the ***Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.***
Jesus paid the price for our sin, setting us free from the law that says who ever sins shall die
chieduagain 3 weeks ago
@chieduagain now explain the proof without using the lying bible. pls (talking down as to a naive student) copy and paste some real historical data that is peer reveiwed and accepted as truth.. with the names of the person that wrote it and there credentals( forgive my spelling i am drunk but still not stupid)
tainted705 3 weeks ago
I want to know something, why do Protestants out of the 3 major sub-groups in Christianity that being the Roman Catholics, Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox, why do Protestants mostly attack the Roman Catholics and hardly ever talk about the Eastern Orthodox because they also disagree with the Protestants in many areas, but instead Protestants mostly zero in on the Catholics.
xhemexx 2 months ago
@xhemexx
The Eastern Orthodox has to recently been a very small player in the American religious landscape so they have not been targeted the way Roman Catholics have been. Truth is Jesus taught a work based salvation and Paul taught a grace based salvation.
MusingsFromTheJohn 1 month ago
Catholics don't believe we are saved by works. Catholics and Protestants both agree that we are saved by grace alone. What we disagree on is whether we are justified based on our faith and works or our faith alone. Please stop misrepresenting the Catholic position.
cburton103 2 months ago 2
@cburton103
Really then what is penance then?
chieduagain 2 months ago
@chieduagain Penance is many things. It is a sacrament in the Catholic Church, and it is also disciplining oneself as a part of repenting (aka turning away from) one's sins. Do you disagree that penance should play a role in a believer's faith journey?
cburton103 2 months ago