Christians claim their god is omnipotent, literally meaning that he created our universe and can do anything and everything within the boundaries of our universe. Yet, when it comes to defending him, they present him as if he was a nice guy with special powers, doing the best he can within the limitations of his extended but still limited powers.
I don't think the underlined argument here is the issue of prayer, but rather the confidence gained due to it. Law of attraction - though some may or may not believe in it, can actually be used as an example for prayer. When you're raised in a certain religion (practicing, that is), you feel an attachment to prayer. Hence, prayer gives one motivation to accomplish whatever it may be, by means of science, evidence, research, etc. But this is only from a theological point of view, not atheism.
Apologists = Disingenious lying weasels who try to dress up faulty arguments elaborately and go with the premise 'if I even briefly stump a non-believer, my religion must be true!'
Every fucking one of them for every fucking religion is like that.
This is the worst Atheist Experience ever. This host is terrible, just babbling and stammering--why doesn't he simply let Tracey take over? He doesn't belong in front of a camera, at least not performing as he does here. Sure, the professor's arguments are horrible. Tear them apart, then--don't just stammer and whine! Horrible!
Professorships in religion are like degrees in theology, not to be taken seriously. Dr William Lane Craig is about as much a doctor as a chiropractor is a medical doctor. The study of god and religion belongs in a church not a university.
@TheDano1947 Everyone has different interests. If everyone accepted the reality of it, this world would be much more peaceful. There is no need to bash on atheism or theology. Both can coexist under certain circumstances. It's just sad people can't respect other's interests. There is no need for atheists opposing theology, or God-believers opposing atheism. It's better if we all decide to agree to disagree.
"There is no need for atheists opposing theology, or God-believers opposing atheism. It's better if we all decide to agree to disagree."
We can't just "all get along," because some people are demonstrably wrong. Some of those religious cult members have painfully ignorant, harmful and dangerous ideas that need to be questioned, debunked, ridiculed and stamped out. It is not better to ignore that, because unfortunately atheists can't pray all that religious fundamentalism away.
@TheAtheistExperience I agree with you on the aspect of religious fundamentalism and religious cult rituals. However, that is not to say things can't work out. Rather than calling others ignorant, it is better to work things out and educate - not in a demeaning or condescending way - others. I understand religion is a sensitive issue, it is better to simply imply a message rather than state it too explicitly. Consequently, it may lead to provoking or hatred between the two groups.
- "... it may lead to provoking or hatred between the two groups."
That hatred is already there. Atheists seem to be one of the least trusted groups in the American society, ranking even below the Jews and the Muslims. That's rather funny, considering the fact that atheism (or secularism) is practically the norm in Western Europe.
Easy solution: swap the European Muslims with the American atheists!
Next problem: a conservative religious theocracy with a huge nuclear arsenal...
@TheAtheistExperience Nuclear arsenal? so you're assuming because someone is Muslim, and in this hypothetical situation European Muslims live in America, might be another terrorism threat? That's rather generalization, not justice. There's already conservative religious groups and cults, but I don't see their issues. They have their own problems within their community and they tend to be isolated from most people. Plus, who said the American government would give them any sort of credentials?
- "Nuclear arsenal? so you're assuming because someone is Muslim..."
No, I just think that it's dangerous that the nation with the largest nuclear arsenal is inhabited by large numbers of superstitious simpletons who are dying to meet the Lord in the air.
- "Plus, who said the American government would give them any sort of credentials?"
I don't know. I didn't calculate the number of necessary planes and boats either. Maybe it wasn't such a serious plan. Maybe I was joking.
The professor seems to have watered down the term "prayer" to simply mean "I really, really want to solve this problem, so I will give money to research, or go to school to study the problem, etc"...
which sort of makes "prayer" a metaphor for the simple human urge to solve problems.
Ha! It's stunning how far away science is from a cure for many cancers. Only a few types of cancer have been conquered provided early diagnosis has occurred. It's interesting that this professor is so sure all cancers will be cured so quickly. He would have been wiser to have researched the scientific proof of prayer ineffectiveness that has already been done before spewing such garbage.
@DeathKnight725 Because it's still somewhat incongruous to hear intelligent things come from people with that accent? But most likely they were not raised in an area that talks that way, or they have lost the accent while dealing with the world. I live in an area that has some southern accents but grew up in Michigan. I find the areas that still have very pervasive accents are east coast cities (Philly, NY, NJ, Boston) and the deep south GA, MS, LA, etc, lesser so the great white north and NE.
@Sanquinity You know how intelligent you sound? As intelligent as people who would say, "atheism had its chance to shine....but Stalin darkened that chance". Don't be retarded, please.
@TheFunkyTheist Right, because stalin ruled the country from his atheistic beliefs and views. Oh wait, the only belief atheists have is 'god doesn't exist'. That's the only thing it means to be 'atheist'. So saying atheism had it's chance is stupid. Because atheism can't rule a country.
@Sanquinity And if you think it was Christianity that caused the detriments of the dark age, your little brain can't realize exactly what someone who thinks Stalin's atheism caused his genocide can't.
@Sanquinity@Sanquinity Well do you know a damn thing about history? You should know that just because religion or some establishment is USED to create problems *doesn't* mean the problem is with the religion used to create those problems. Maybe that's too complicated for your simple mind.
they persecuted heretics not because they were scientist or because they had different ideas about the natural world but because they had theologically different ideas about God, mary, jesus, original sin etc...
they persecuted "heretics" the same way we persecute creationists and this way protecting what we think is important.
They did not care for natural statements ( to much) , because it was not important for them at the time. Their focus was on god , not nature.
@niinja2 Are you seriously comparing burning heretics alive, or torturing them to convert. With us ridiculing creationists because their beliefs are literally based on a fiction novel?
@niinja2 that's not entirely true. They both got great similarities, but we don't think creationists are demon worshipers or evil people nor we cast em out of society and try to ban their free speech, it's just that we can't take anymore of their crap. They spew crap, so they are called on it.
well we dont say they are demon possessed but we could say they are irrationality "possessed", we dont say they are evil, but some people treat them this way. We dont cast the out of the whole society but in circles which value science they will be ostracized. Some people actually do try to ban their free speech because they think they are simply wrong ( that they speak heresy).
It is heretic hunting by the standards of 21 century.
The focus of knowledge on the universities were medicine, law, and primarily theology. Theology was quantum physics of the times, it was the hardest intellectual challenge.
The more secular universities investigated , mathematics, physics,natural sciences in general and some other disciplines that we value today more.
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS FOR CREATIONISM-EVOLUTIONISM DEBATE (See Subchapter 10.2.2, Chapter 10, of Part Two.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balancedway.yolasite.com
balancedway1.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
I prayed for god to build me a treehouse when I was a kid. Then I got out there with a bunch of nails and wood and god answered my prayer. He built a treehouse for me using my hands.
So, then it takes a thousand years to answer a prayer? Does that mean those who supposedly have their prayer answered have inherited a prayer that was made a millennium earlier? How does God decide who inherits which prayers? And why does that not take a thousand years?
It's almost like this stuff is just made up. Funny how that always seems to be the case. But I guess I "just like to argue."
This professor is obviously an idiot. In fairness, however, in Italian, the word "professore" can mean a university professor, but also a high school teacher.
So.... this guy may simply be nothing more than a grade 8 teacher.
1) Professor Sir David Lane has made similar statements re advances in cancer therapy/understanding.
2) It's a fallacy to say 'prayer doesn't work if other factors are involved.' A rusty hinge on a door may still work, but add in grease and it works better.
3) The answer to prayer can be no.
4) Prayer is thought to be sufficient in the case of miracles.
5) A continuously 'miraculous' universe would be irrational however.
6) 'No true scotsman' only holds if you can invalidate the 'true' position
I love how when you counter the claims of a religious or spiritual person, and they keep changing their claims in order to make you understand, they think that what they have is a higher understanding that is hard to explain.
They lack the ability to distinguish between higher understanding, and deluding themselves.
Martin shouldnt try to generalize the occurrence of a dumb proffessor into the entire italian academia. Just as the US has wonderfull cutting edge proffessors in universities like Caltech, MIT, etc. And also have guys like Behe and co. so this can be in italy. Besides, there are regional differences, southern italy is tremendously religious bordering in the fanatical superstitious.
If the laws of physics are fine-tuned to permit life, as contemporary physicists are discovering, then perhaps there's a designer who fine-tuned them. If there's information in the cell, as molecular biology shows, then this suggests intelligent design. To get life going in the first place would have required biological information;
the implications point beyond the material realm to a prior intelligent cause.
@SuperMusicnut The laws of Physics are NOT fine tuned as you say. Quantum physics have discovered some really mind numbing events. For example things like entanglement of particles across distance really shocked contemporary physicists. There are some videos here on youtube that briefly go over these.
@SuperMusicnut You're using an argument known as "Ignotum Per Ignotius" (the unknown explained by the unknown). You're just filling in your gaps in knowledge with something you know nothing about (God).
Modern science supports a theistic belief. In fact, across a wide range of the sciences, evidence has come to light in the last fifty years which, taken together, provides a robust case for theism. Only theism can provide an intellectually satisfying causal explanation for all of this evidence. For instance. If it's true there's a beginning to the universe, as modern cosmologists now agree, then this implies a cause that transcends the universe.
@SuperMusicnut they have a problem answering what came before. they start on "faith" from there. it just happened they say. do you believe that? their answer: no i know that i dont believe. my answer: you are an idiot, do you listen to yourself speak, thats why God give you one mouth and not two, because he would obliterate you for the stupidity you would gush 24/7.
In this age of scientific enlightenment, main stream science is letting go of theories that have long been thought of as proponents of natural selection and random provocation. As we move forward we're discovering new ways of how the world works around us, and when these outdated theories are held to new scientific enlightenment, they are crumbling one by one.
Have you even read the previous posts sinhaserpente?! We have not been discussing evolution, that's a seperate debate. And your correct that science does not take any account for God, that's where physics, micro biology, and even quantum mechanics helps explain the complexity that God has created the world with. Your proving my point, yet again. The earths complexities CAN NOT be formed by rapidly expanding matter, and produce life. And please tell me more about quantum mechanics won't you.
IF all the worlds infinite complexities were randomly formed, and were formed correctly the first time, and yet manages to make a mistake on some nerves in the throat?! That's absurd logic on your end, all of man and known matter stands no chance. It's like saying I can build a car but I can't drive it, makes no sense. It's not that God is stupid, but rather a lack of understanding why he does what he does. That's why science can help explain. The way he created the world is quite logical.
@SuperMusicnut Even if you could prove intelligent design, that would not automatically mean that Christianity or any other religion is true. It would not automatically mean that the Koran or any other holy book is true. It would not automatically mean that Shiva is the one true goddess.
@SuperMusicnut Evolution does not state that complexity is randomly formed so it is pointless to discuss such a statement. It's not that god is stupid, it's that god does not seem to exist. You lack the understanding because you are looking for something that is not there, evolution and every single scientific theory in history takes no account of god. As for the "world" being logical, you have obviously never studied quantum mechanics.
Are you conveniently forgetting that the route of that nerve ACTUALLY serves a purpose??!? It takes a detour to supply the heart, mucus membrane, larynx muscles, and a few other things with nerves! It's not that it takes a detour for no reason. And how can it rule out design but not Intelligent design, when your own argument helps the case of design!! let me expand on that because you'll probably need a second to catch it.
what kinda christians are these people getting there answers from in fact you should stop asking the average christians for answers only 10% have actually finished the whole bible and watch joel osteen lol
The thing Matt says in the end of the video really shouldn't be to coerce people into donating, which is implied by the tone, instead it should simply be: Thank to all our fans for their support, both financially via donations and by watching the program. Or something like that. The other thing really seems like "donate a penny against God" or something like that and is kind of mimicking the religious version.
Are you sure you want to use Hawkings book for this? His theory is has no basis in the real world. It's purely metaphysics!! It's based on imaginary numbers and equations that are not even able to be tested! It's amazing what skeptics will hypothesis to avoid the very clear conclusion of Intelligent design. I'm willing to keep at this conversation as long as it takes, but next time just realize that your answers are the ones in the realm of ignorance and hypothesis, I'll be here with science.
@SuperMusicnut Intelligent design? Have you heard about the recurrent laryngeal nerve? That's one of the many examples of engineering fails, if we were indeed engineered by an ID of course which we weren't. It's an equivalent of building a bridge that's goes around a river not across it. This certainly does not rule out design but it does rule out intelligent design. What i'm saying is: if god exists he's stupid...
@Pentagon1311 That's too sophisticated. Just look at planet earth. We have to constantly seek shelter from the planet that god supposedly designed for us. It's either too cold, hot, dry, or high. Add to that, earthquake, tsunami, hurricane, tornado, flood, drought, famine etc. Nature then turn around and send us bacteria, virus, cancer, hemophilia, Parkinson, Alzheimer, and so many other things. Why would god designed such a hostile planet to put us on, and give us a shitty body?
@Pentagon1311 So you can observe the complexity of design and upon observing one 'mistake' (which we may not yet understand the purpose of) you conclude that if God exists he's stupid?
I hope you're aware that absolutely no science observation is considered fact, you need to reconsider your judgment, sir.
@SandyWaffIes It's not ONE mistake, there are thousands of them. They are easily explained by evolution as evolutionary leftovers but if a perfect and all-knowing creator designed us, then yes, he sucks big time...
@SandyWaffIes If god designed everything he´s a moron. For example, the laryngeal nerve, the human eye, the oesophageal tract, the human spine, 99% extinction rate of all species, and the best, the universe is expanding until one day no other galaxy will be visible to any other just before they all rip themselves apart and die. Some design huh?
@yatter1 sorry but you forgot that the FALL was caused by mans original sin (Eve and that apple) and that God had no choice at all except to curse everything with eventual death. Yes Gods design was perfect but man screwed it up, yes its YOUR fault , so there ;)
@SqueakerAlpha So because of a fucking fruit, everyone is a miserable sinner that deserves to suffer torment for al eternity? Are you fucking immoral or amoral? You choose. BTW, the bible makes no mention of an apple. Read the fucking book mate.
@SqueakerAlpha Oh of course, rib woman who was made out of a bloke who was made out of dirt, took a bite of an apple hanging from a magic tree after being talked into by a talking snake, yeah, THAT makes sense,lol!
@Rockster969 One of my favorites: 'Before the Fall of Man, there was no entropy.' So, because some hot chick uses her tits to convince a dude to eat a fruit, that dude's responsible for heat death of the universe. I guess there is one useful fact hidden in there: it could explain the origins of Christian misogyny. 'The woman made me do it!'
@SqueakerAlpha "sorry but you forgot that the FALL was caused by mans original sin (Eve and that apple) and that God had no choice at all except to curse everything with eventual death."
No choice, huh? So the god myth is NOT all powerful nor is it all good...
"Yes Gods design was perfect but man screwed it up, yes its YOUR fault , so there ;) "
So man is more powerful than god?
And a perfect design does NOT screw up.
With that said, have you provided evidence of your deity version today?
@SandyWaffIes Well that is where you are wrong. Scientific observation ARE considered fact. It is what you can say from that observation which is open to interpretation. It's like it is a fact that evolution occurs but it is not a fact that the theory of evolution is true. However i could say the same about gravity. It is a fact that you don't fall away from the earth but towards it. It is not a fact that it is gravity - it is a scientific theory.
@SuperMusicnut "to avoid the very clear conclusion of Intelligent design." I'm sorry, but there is absolutely no conclusion that intelligent design is the correct model of the explanation of existence and its properties. There has never been any compelling evidence put forth by the ID propagandists and the reason it is rejected by science is because it fails when subjected to the scientific method.
Cont. All ID is is a subjective opinion: everything SEEMS designed. This statement is subjective and just because you believe something seems do be designed has no baring on its actual reality. ID is a conceptual ID that only exists in the minds of men, for it to become non-conceptual it has to be demonstrated and proven, something that has never been achieve.
Cont. Most asinine people come to the conclusion of ID by rejecting current scientific thought. They say: "I do not agree with current science, I think it is incorrect therefore the only logical conclusion is ID." Wrong. Even IF every single scientific theory is incorrect, that does not prove ID. As absence of proof is not proof, and all that ID people tend to do is say that there is not enough evidence for evolution and therefore it follows necessarily that ID is correct. That is non sequitur.
You seem to be confusing my comment to the previous gentleman with your own thrown in. An "Infinitely" small universe theory is in range with the steady state theory NOT the big bang. SO in regards to my previous comment, IF the universe was infinitely small singularity and expanded from there, where did the matter that made the singularity come from? Thermo dynamics tells us that you cannot create nor destroy matter. Knowing that where or WHO rather, created the matter which was put into motion
@SuperMusicnut The 3rd law does say that matter cannot be created or destroyed. But that doesn't mean it must have been created. It could have always existed. Stephen Hawking has also put forth a theory "The Great Design" that shows that "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Your argument is basically "I don't know so god must have done it". That's an argument from ignorance..... not an answer.
@SuperMusicnut Matter and energy are interchangeable; matter is simply a stable form of energy. The current model of the universe states that the universe is flat and therefore has a total energy equivalent of 0. The positive energy of matter is balanced out by the negative energy of gravity. A universe with a total of 0 energy does not need a creator as energy is not created and thus conservation of energy is observed.
Cont. Furthermore, it has been observed in our universe that matter does not require a creator. The vast majority of "empty" space is bubbling with quantum fluctuation, virtual partial pairs that spontaneously pop in and out of existence with no known creator. These, too, observe conservation of energy. So what we see is that matter can spontaneously appear as long as conservation of energy is observed, the same could be said for a universe that resulted from such quantum fluctuations.
@deltaalphacharlie What energy? I just explained that to total energy of the universe is 0. I am not necessarily saying that the universe came from nothing, in fact, you would have to define nothing first. Do you even have a single example of nothingness? Nothingness is a concept and cannot be proven to be valid. Heisenberg's uncertainty principal predicates that everything is always fluctuating and therefore you can never have "nothing."
Cont. Nothingness in physics means a state of quantum fluctuations. I wager that you cannot conceive of "nothingness" either. If you want to say that god created the universe, then once again you have something; if there ever was nothing and you believe in god, what created god? So our choice of "nothingness" is either god or quantum fluctuations. Seeing as god is the most complex and powerful force imaginable, the only logical answer for a starting point is quantum fluctuations.
@sinhaserpente you then deal with the theological factors here. if God inded resides outside time and space, what more do we have to go on here. frankly i cant tell you or make something up.
@sinhaserpente another problem. What negative energy of gravity? Thats theory also since gravity is an unknown factor(what the heck is it) the best we have is the effect of gravity on an object not the make up of the thing itself. further more nothingness, is a concept as you say, then how reliable is a concept if it can not be scientifically proven with solid yes and no's? notice heisenberg has a theory, but it doesn't necessarily correlate with, things like dark matter does iT?
@deltaalphacharlie Theology is useless in this area as it is nothing more than human conjecture. There is no evidence that god resides outside of time and space, we do not even know if there is such a thing as outside of time and space. Furthermore, we can simply substitute in the noun "god" for any natural phenomena; therefore, we can call quantum fluctuations god and they too would be outside of time and space. I am glad to hear that you are honest and that you will not fabricate "facts."
Cont. Well M-Theory will tell you that gravity is a 2 dimensional string vibrating at a specific frequency; however, since M-Theory still has a lot of proving to do we will suspend that explanation. We do not have to know what gravity is to observe its negative energy. When you apply energy to an object, it gets pushed one way; why you apply gravity, it gets pushed the other. One is positive, the other is negative.
Cont. For example: Imagine that I have a heavy ball that I trow to you. You catch the ball and the energy of the ball pushes you backwards. Now imagine that the ball is a hypothesized graviton, I throw you the ball and instead of it pushing you back, it pulls you forward. Every time we pass the ball to each other, the exchange pulls us closer to together. This is how gravity works: the exchange of gravity is a negative energy that brings objects together rather than pushes them away.
Cont. Concepts are not reliable, only testable theories. Heisenberg's theory has been tested ans established, nothingness has not; therefore, we cannot say beyond supposition that there exists, or can exist, nothingness. Dark matter has not been proven as a fact, it is simply a hypothesis/theory to compensate for the larger than expected amounts of gravity. Even so, dark matter is matter that is not visible to our methods of observation, there is no indication that it violates uncertainty.
@deltaalphacharlie I would agree. Evidence shows that there may be something that we now called dark matter, but beyond that we have no idea what it is. As such, we cannot give it properties like you have and cannot say that it violates the laws of physics because we know nothing about it. Uncertainty is a fundamental law of physics and it is highly unlikely that dark matter contradicts uncertainty.
@sinhaserpente but we have yet to see this in action, i wouldn't be so quick to label quantum fluctuation, as "God" since you already stated we are unsure if there is even an outside. However i do hold that there is an outside time and space as you can induce. But i do argue that according to the laws of physics, some of these laws are violated in ways that veer away from our understanding of how things work. for example the dark particle. it is and elusive thing that some in the sciences
@sinhaserpente have gone as far as to say that they appear almost like scifi movie events. i.e little black holes that rip time and space. of course i don't really know if this is true because obviously its just someone spitting ideas, but yet, apart from that theses particles act contrary to how they should act. that quickens me to question our understanding of how these things work rather than observing there effects.
@deltaalphacharlie See what in action? Our solar system is balanced by the negative energy of gravity, you are planted on the ground by the negative energy of gravity. Your acceleration due to gravity is approximately -9.8ms^-2, gravity is accelerating you TOWARDS the source. Why do you think it requires so much energy for a rocket to get to outer space? Because gravity essentially subtracts from its energy. The negative energy of gravity is a fact, it has been observed and proven.
Cont. I wouldn't label anything god, I was merely illustrating that the term "god" is just a word. If god can exist outside of time and space, then by the same token so can other things. You have no evidence that an "outside of time and space" exists, it is merely your own personal supposition and is therefore irrelevant in the discussion. Assertions don't make reality. Once again, dark matter does not violate the laws of physics, it is simply matter that cannot be seen by us; dark.
Cont. Would you say that night time violates the laws of physics because we cannot see at night? Dark matter -if it exists at all- is most likely matter that is too small to see with current technology, it is not some mystical thing that you make it out to be. There are many particles that are likely to exist but have not been seen due to size. The graviton is one of them. We know of gravity due to the effects even though we have not see the graviton.
Cont. You could essentially call the graviton a form of dark matter. The only difference is that dark matter has no currently observable effects, it does not mean that it is any different to other particles and it does not mean that it violates the laws of physics. No particles are acting contrary to how they should, I don't know where you get this stuff from.
Cont. Finally, whether physics can explain everything, or whether physics is wrong has not bearing on the existence of god. Let us pretend that there are thousands of unexplained conundrums in physics that violate known laws, so? How does that have anything to do with god? Are you about to say that because we don't know, or because this law is violated that equals god? You have discussed science here, but none of it relates to gods.
This is one point out of several that show the same physics we both experience CAN NOT back the infinitely small universe, let alone the laws of thermo dynamics being broken along the way. IF and I say IF, physics allowed the universe to contract, entropy would be conserved from one cycle to the next. The effect is each expansion is bigger and bigger, go back a ways and you have a beginning, God. Your argument was a theoretical abstraction, Physics never supported it.
Well, there are several problems with this that have been known for decades. First off it contradicts the known laws of physics. There are theorems by Hawking and Penrose that show as long as the universe is governed by general relativity, the existence of an initial singularity or beginning, is inevitable and that its IMPOSSIBLE to pass through a singularity to a subsequent state. There are no known physics that reverse a contracting universe to make it bounce before it hits the singularity.
Repeating something back and then re-asking the question with que the silence is hardly a rebuttal. And the Science I'm talking about is the very same stuff you read about as do I. Astronomy, micro biology, physics etc... Before we continue let me make just get your position correctly. You believe we appeared from nothing, by nothing, and our purpose in life is nothing...would this be correct? I'm asking this to then move on to the science response. Just so you know, I'm not evading the question
@SuperMusicnut No, no, no. The entire Universe was condensed into an infinitely small unit and then expanded. Hardly a "nothing". And the purpose in life is debatable, not nonexistent.
@SuperMusicnut I can't say if you are serious or a troll.
Ok, you are not correct.
We did not come from nothing, I came from my parents as probably you came from yours. Just like everyone else.
Life has no purpose because LIFE IS A PURPOSE. Everything we do or try to do is to live and mantain life. Still, there are a few behaviors that are harmful to life. Ignorance, religion and dogmatic thinking are the bigger threats to us.
Worshipping dead gods and longing for death = bad thing
@moegreen2 Nihilism is simply the belief that nothing has any inherent or intrinstic value, and that any value something has is therefore completely subjective and actually meaningless. They have plenty to think with, they can figure out what is right and wrong on their own (better than others who simply listen to what they are told is wrong and right), and nihilism doesn't stem from any fallacies, it's simply a philosophical ideology. You should be less biased.
I would agree with you (maker of the video) that this "professor" sounds as though he doesn't understand the concept of prayer at all. With that being said I am a Christian, and just because you have pointed out the idiocy of one man, does that give way for the belief that there is no God? Believing in Christ isn't a 'burning in the bosom." We don't just believe for the sake of believing., but rather have factual, comprehensible evidence from the same Science you know, that points us to Christ.
@moegreen2 Are you talking about Social Darwinism and how atheist would embrace that some how? I pray you aren't using that argument. The reason some atheist lose faith is precisely to end human suffering, and NOTHING is as ready willing and ABLE to cause human suffering and personal pain than religion/God. When I read the things you say I can already tell you have a closed mind, and feel you have intellectually come to terms with all "truth" in your religion.Their is no point in talking to you.
Sorry I don't mean to make assumptions I take that back
ThePonce1221 6 days ago
A label for what? Bad things I'm assuming...
ThePonce1221 6 days ago
@ThePonce1221 "Bad" is still a label. "Bad" or "evil" are just subjective to what people decide they are.
ehandkz 2 days ago
Do atheist believe in evil?
ThePonce1221 6 days ago
@ThePonce1221
- "Do atheist believe in evil?"
Not in personified evil. "Evil" is just a label.
TheAtheistExperience 6 days ago
so it takes him time to cure someone, but did whole universe in 6 days? Religion... fuck logic!
linkuei83 2 weeks ago
Christians claim their god is omnipotent, literally meaning that he created our universe and can do anything and everything within the boundaries of our universe. Yet, when it comes to defending him, they present him as if he was a nice guy with special powers, doing the best he can within the limitations of his extended but still limited powers.
darkmater4tm 1 month ago
01:44 You obviously know little about the true Italy where it is possible to buy a degree in medicine amongst other things...
jagara1 1 month ago
I don't think the underlined argument here is the issue of prayer, but rather the confidence gained due to it. Law of attraction - though some may or may not believe in it, can actually be used as an example for prayer. When you're raised in a certain religion (practicing, that is), you feel an attachment to prayer. Hence, prayer gives one motivation to accomplish whatever it may be, by means of science, evidence, research, etc. But this is only from a theological point of view, not atheism.
X3sAiiDaDaB0MBx3 2 months ago
take 2 aspirins and thank god your headache went away.
priceless.
Tr1pTr0p 2 months ago
Apologists = Disingenious lying weasels who try to dress up faulty arguments elaborately and go with the premise 'if I even briefly stump a non-believer, my religion must be true!'
Every fucking one of them for every fucking religion is like that.
TheSkunkCat 2 months ago
This is the worst Atheist Experience ever. This host is terrible, just babbling and stammering--why doesn't he simply let Tracey take over? He doesn't belong in front of a camera, at least not performing as he does here. Sure, the professor's arguments are horrible. Tear them apart, then--don't just stammer and whine! Horrible!
MoreToleranceNow 2 months ago
Cancer cured, but at what price/ What will it cost?
TheDano1947 3 months ago
Professorships in religion are like degrees in theology, not to be taken seriously. Dr William Lane Craig is about as much a doctor as a chiropractor is a medical doctor. The study of god and religion belongs in a church not a university.
TheDano1947 3 months ago
@TheDano1947 Everyone has different interests. If everyone accepted the reality of it, this world would be much more peaceful. There is no need to bash on atheism or theology. Both can coexist under certain circumstances. It's just sad people can't respect other's interests. There is no need for atheists opposing theology, or God-believers opposing atheism. It's better if we all decide to agree to disagree.
X3sAiiDaDaB0MBx3 2 months ago
@X3sAiiDaDaB0MBx3
"There is no need for atheists opposing theology, or God-believers opposing atheism. It's better if we all decide to agree to disagree."
We can't just "all get along," because some people are demonstrably wrong. Some of those religious cult members have painfully ignorant, harmful and dangerous ideas that need to be questioned, debunked, ridiculed and stamped out. It is not better to ignore that, because unfortunately atheists can't pray all that religious fundamentalism away.
TheAtheistExperience 2 months ago
@TheAtheistExperience I agree with you on the aspect of religious fundamentalism and religious cult rituals. However, that is not to say things can't work out. Rather than calling others ignorant, it is better to work things out and educate - not in a demeaning or condescending way - others. I understand religion is a sensitive issue, it is better to simply imply a message rather than state it too explicitly. Consequently, it may lead to provoking or hatred between the two groups.
X3sAiiDaDaB0MBx3 2 months ago
@X3sAiiDaDaB0MBx3
- "... it may lead to provoking or hatred between the two groups."
That hatred is already there. Atheists seem to be one of the least trusted groups in the American society, ranking even below the Jews and the Muslims. That's rather funny, considering the fact that atheism (or secularism) is practically the norm in Western Europe.
Easy solution: swap the European Muslims with the American atheists!
Next problem: a conservative religious theocracy with a huge nuclear arsenal...
TheAtheistExperience 2 months ago
@TheAtheistExperience Nuclear arsenal? so you're assuming because someone is Muslim, and in this hypothetical situation European Muslims live in America, might be another terrorism threat? That's rather generalization, not justice. There's already conservative religious groups and cults, but I don't see their issues. They have their own problems within their community and they tend to be isolated from most people. Plus, who said the American government would give them any sort of credentials?
X3sAiiDaDaB0MBx3 2 months ago
@X3sAiiDaDaB0MBx3
- "Nuclear arsenal? so you're assuming because someone is Muslim..."
No, I just think that it's dangerous that the nation with the largest nuclear arsenal is inhabited by large numbers of superstitious simpletons who are dying to meet the Lord in the air.
- "Plus, who said the American government would give them any sort of credentials?"
I don't know. I didn't calculate the number of necessary planes and boats either. Maybe it wasn't such a serious plan. Maybe I was joking.
TheAtheistExperience 2 months ago
@TheAtheistExperience I recommend this video "TOP TEN atheist car wrecks " from thecartesiantheist"
Matchstick41 1 month ago
The professor seems to have watered down the term "prayer" to simply mean "I really, really want to solve this problem, so I will give money to research, or go to school to study the problem, etc"...
which sort of makes "prayer" a metaphor for the simple human urge to solve problems.
greyeyed123 3 months ago
That was a brilliant response "If you have a headache take two aspirins and say a pray, and your headache will go away" lol it puts is so simple.
Ramiromasters 3 months ago
I prayed that I could watch The Atheist Experience and then went to YouTube and there it was! Prayer answered!
MsLilithJS 4 months ago 5
A little lite reading for you boys. Google "The energy of empty space that isn't zero." First search that comes up, click on it.
SuperMusicnut 5 months ago
When all you have is bull shit, the only thing you can defend it with is more bull shit.
Kailoa36 5 months ago
@Kailoa36 Resulting in a bullshit singularity, i.e. Ted Haggard.
TheGeneralCritic 5 months ago
Ha! It's stunning how far away science is from a cure for many cancers. Only a few types of cancer have been conquered provided early diagnosis has occurred. It's interesting that this professor is so sure all cancers will be cured so quickly. He would have been wiser to have researched the scientific proof of prayer ineffectiveness that has already been done before spewing such garbage.
ChipArgyle 5 months ago
lol @ the church of Scientology video being the 'promoted video' in suggestions to the right
ViperRob42 5 months ago
Religion cannot explain vestigial organs... creationists do not know what the word 'vestigial' means.
aegisgfx 5 months ago
@aegisgfx - That's because "vestigial" should properly describe their bronze-age beliefs.
mnkittel 5 months ago
These guys are from Texas but why do none of the hosts have Southern Accents?
DeathKnight725 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DeathKnight725 They are smart.
mtjpb001 6 months ago
@DeathKnight725 Because it's still somewhat incongruous to hear intelligent things come from people with that accent? But most likely they were not raised in an area that talks that way, or they have lost the accent while dealing with the world. I live in an area that has some southern accents but grew up in Michigan. I find the areas that still have very pervasive accents are east coast cities (Philly, NY, NJ, Boston) and the deep south GA, MS, LA, etc, lesser so the great white north and NE.
rrpostalagain 6 months ago
@DeathKnight725 - Because they live in Austin, and Austin (like many other big Texas cities) is full of migrants from other states.
mnkittel 5 months ago
@DeathKnight725 the accent disappears the moment you become an atheist
topperheartramada 5 months ago
Christianity had their chance to shine. Know what that time period was called? The DARK AGES. And it was called that for a reason!
Sanquinity 6 months ago 30
@Sanquinity Agreed.
mtjpb001 6 months ago
@Sanquinity You know how intelligent you sound? As intelligent as people who would say, "atheism had its chance to shine....but Stalin darkened that chance". Don't be retarded, please.
TheFunkyTheist 1 month ago
@TheFunkyTheist Right, because stalin ruled the country from his atheistic beliefs and views. Oh wait, the only belief atheists have is 'god doesn't exist'. That's the only thing it means to be 'atheist'. So saying atheism had it's chance is stupid. Because atheism can't rule a country.
Sanquinity 1 month ago
@Sanquinity And if you think it was Christianity that caused the detriments of the dark age, your little brain can't realize exactly what someone who thinks Stalin's atheism caused his genocide can't.
TheFunkyTheist 1 month ago
@TheFunkyTheist Sure, keep thinkng that.
Sanquinity 1 month ago
Comment removed
TheFunkyTheist 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Sanquinity @Sanquinity Well do you know a damn thing about history? You should know that just because religion or some establishment is USED to create problems *doesn't* mean the problem is with the religion used to create those problems. Maybe that's too complicated for your simple mind.
TheFunkyTheist 1 month ago
@Sanquinity
actually the dark ages are caused by barbaric invasion after the fall of roman empire.
church helped alot in preserving knowledge and funding and founding of universities in 11 century and later
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 yeah sure, when they weren't burning and stoning "heretics" for their scientific discoveries its all sleight of hand
xxrigo22xx 1 month ago
@xxrigo22xx
they persecuted heretics not because they were scientist or because they had different ideas about the natural world but because they had theologically different ideas about God, mary, jesus, original sin etc...
they persecuted "heretics" the same way we persecute creationists and this way protecting what we think is important.
They did not care for natural statements ( to much) , because it was not important for them at the time. Their focus was on god , not nature.
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 Are you seriously comparing burning heretics alive, or torturing them to convert. With us ridiculing creationists because their beliefs are literally based on a fiction novel?
Sanquinity 2 weeks ago
well yes and no
no because its not the same to kill someone and ridicule him
yes because its the same spirit of intolerance that drives mocking the creationists and heretics.
they perceived heretics back then as we perceive creationists now.
niinja2 2 weeks ago
@niinja2 that's not entirely true. They both got great similarities, but we don't think creationists are demon worshipers or evil people nor we cast em out of society and try to ban their free speech, it's just that we can't take anymore of their crap. They spew crap, so they are called on it.
linkuei83 2 weeks ago
@linkuei83
well we dont say they are demon possessed but we could say they are irrationality "possessed", we dont say they are evil, but some people treat them this way. We dont cast the out of the whole society but in circles which value science they will be ostracized. Some people actually do try to ban their free speech because they think they are simply wrong ( that they speak heresy).
It is heretic hunting by the standards of 21 century.
niinja2 2 weeks ago
@xxrigo22xx
If you still think this is true, name one or 2 scientists that were persecuted by the church exclusively because of their scientific discoveries.
niinja2 1 month ago
@xxrigo22xx
The focus of knowledge on the universities were medicine, law, and primarily theology. Theology was quantum physics of the times, it was the hardest intellectual challenge.
The more secular universities investigated , mathematics, physics,natural sciences in general and some other disciplines that we value today more.
niinja2 1 month ago
@Sanquinity our secular chance to shine was the enlightenment (aka age of reason).
there will be a reason rally at d.c. on march 24, 2012. mark the day our voices will get louder.
punishalltrolls 2 weeks ago
@punishalltrolls Too bad I live in the Netherlands then. No way I can go there.
Sanquinity 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (Donated) For Debates And Governance
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS FOR CREATIONISM-EVOLUTIONISM DEBATE (See Subchapter 10.2.2, Chapter 10, of Part Two.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balancedway.yolasite.com
balancedway1.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
I prayed for god to build me a treehouse when I was a kid. Then I got out there with a bunch of nails and wood and god answered my prayer. He built a treehouse for me using my hands.
Yea...that makes sense.
pyrobryan 6 months ago
@pyrobryan same thing the jews did with jesus: they got themselves a bunch of nails and wood... :)
topperheartramada 5 months ago
So, then it takes a thousand years to answer a prayer? Does that mean those who supposedly have their prayer answered have inherited a prayer that was made a millennium earlier? How does God decide who inherits which prayers? And why does that not take a thousand years?
It's almost like this stuff is just made up. Funny how that always seems to be the case. But I guess I "just like to argue."
xJoeEDangerouslyx 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This professor is obviously an idiot. In fairness, however, in Italian, the word "professore" can mean a university professor, but also a high school teacher.
So.... this guy may simply be nothing more than a grade 8 teacher.
Narwal88 7 months ago
Comment removed
Narwal88 7 months ago
@YodaLN 2) Irrelevant to this particular objection of theirs I'm afraid. It's illogical either way.
3) Not worth a reply.
4) Look it up for yourself,
5) Yes, but we can only appreciate irrationality in a rational universe.
6) Still only holds if you invalidate what is being claimed as the 'true' article :)
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
I find that rubbing a rabbits foot is far more reliable than prayer. But this is expected since rabbits are real.
scotttebben 7 months ago
@scotttebben
but not all rabbits fancy you rubbing their feet.
maybe swedish rabbits ,they are kinda into that.
ImmortalUniverse 6 months ago
1) Professor Sir David Lane has made similar statements re advances in cancer therapy/understanding.
2) It's a fallacy to say 'prayer doesn't work if other factors are involved.' A rusty hinge on a door may still work, but add in grease and it works better.
3) The answer to prayer can be no.
4) Prayer is thought to be sufficient in the case of miracles.
5) A continuously 'miraculous' universe would be irrational however.
6) 'No true scotsman' only holds if you can invalidate the 'true' position
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
I love how when you counter the claims of a religious or spiritual person, and they keep changing their claims in order to make you understand, they think that what they have is a higher understanding that is hard to explain.
They lack the ability to distinguish between higher understanding, and deluding themselves.
Silentsam7532 7 months ago
@Silentsam7532 Luv it!!
cliffo1950 7 months ago
"No. This one's a really great one to take down. Live. With blood... and PIE!"
XD
mushroomartist 7 months ago
in my toilet
c0mpiled 7 months ago
god exists
c0mpiled 7 months ago
@c0mpiled Which one? There r like thousands of Gods, brah, choose CAREFULLY, OR ELSE!
drki11joy123 7 months ago
@drki11joy123 the god named "NO GOD"
c0mpiled 7 months ago
Martin shouldnt try to generalize the occurrence of a dumb proffessor into the entire italian academia. Just as the US has wonderfull cutting edge proffessors in universities like Caltech, MIT, etc. And also have guys like Behe and co. so this can be in italy. Besides, there are regional differences, southern italy is tremendously religious bordering in the fanatical superstitious.
sirdelrio 8 months ago
Why I'm an atheist.
"Because there's no evidence for a higher power, thus I don't believe in one."
Why I'm an agnostic.
"Because, not being omniscient, I can't know everything, therefore the possibility of a god, despite however unlikely, can't be ruled out entirely."
(Of course, the same can be said for the celestial teapot and fairies.)
bersaba 8 months ago 2
One thing Martin, Galen was Roman.....
atheism616 8 months ago
@nas4good What won't God heal amputees?
BlameRepublicans 8 months ago
Wow, be more careful next time you mention the quality of some country´s educational system. I mean yours isn´t the greatest either.
54321Adela 9 months ago
@54321Adela Especially Texas school!
BlameRepublicans 8 months ago
@54321Adela He's talking about higher education, not K-12.
Aviii 8 months ago
@Aviii I am well aware of that.
54321Adela 8 months ago
Something that can be independently varified, measured and subjected to peer-review. See "scientific method" for a start.
nycgroove1 9 months ago
you can google scientific evidence for answered prayer -godandscience if this helps
matrixlone 9 months ago
Prayer: How to do nothing and still think you're helping...
bottlecapbill19 9 months ago
So this argument of ID is just a conceptual, none proven, man made mind game doesn't hold water.
SuperMusicnut 9 months ago
If the laws of physics are fine-tuned to permit life, as contemporary physicists are discovering, then perhaps there's a designer who fine-tuned them. If there's information in the cell, as molecular biology shows, then this suggests intelligent design. To get life going in the first place would have required biological information;
the implications point beyond the material realm to a prior intelligent cause.
SuperMusicnut 9 months ago
@SuperMusicnut The laws of Physics are NOT fine tuned as you say. Quantum physics have discovered some really mind numbing events. For example things like entanglement of particles across distance really shocked contemporary physicists. There are some videos here on youtube that briefly go over these.
chairde 9 months ago
@chairde I should have said electrons to be accurate. In any case go to "Entanglement Dr. Quantum" here on youtube and it gives a short explanation.
chairde 9 months ago
@SuperMusicnut You're using an argument known as "Ignotum Per Ignotius" (the unknown explained by the unknown). You're just filling in your gaps in knowledge with something you know nothing about (God).
JohnnyKubark 9 months ago
Modern science supports a theistic belief. In fact, across a wide range of the sciences, evidence has come to light in the last fifty years which, taken together, provides a robust case for theism. Only theism can provide an intellectually satisfying causal explanation for all of this evidence. For instance. If it's true there's a beginning to the universe, as modern cosmologists now agree, then this implies a cause that transcends the universe.
SuperMusicnut 9 months ago
@SuperMusicnut Asserting that something is true is not proof of that claim. You need to provide EVIDENCE. Nice try, though.
nycgroove1 9 months ago
@nycgroove1 what kinda evidence are you looking for or proof?
matrixlone 9 months ago
@SuperMusicnut they have a problem answering what came before. they start on "faith" from there. it just happened they say. do you believe that? their answer: no i know that i dont believe. my answer: you are an idiot, do you listen to yourself speak, thats why God give you one mouth and not two, because he would obliterate you for the stupidity you would gush 24/7.
deltaalphacharlie 8 months ago
In this age of scientific enlightenment, main stream science is letting go of theories that have long been thought of as proponents of natural selection and random provocation. As we move forward we're discovering new ways of how the world works around us, and when these outdated theories are held to new scientific enlightenment, they are crumbling one by one.
SuperMusicnut 9 months ago
Have you even read the previous posts sinhaserpente?! We have not been discussing evolution, that's a seperate debate. And your correct that science does not take any account for God, that's where physics, micro biology, and even quantum mechanics helps explain the complexity that God has created the world with. Your proving my point, yet again. The earths complexities CAN NOT be formed by rapidly expanding matter, and produce life. And please tell me more about quantum mechanics won't you.
SuperMusicnut 9 months ago
@SuperMusicnut So your advocating for people to ignore god?
shandcunt 9 months ago
IF all the worlds infinite complexities were randomly formed, and were formed correctly the first time, and yet manages to make a mistake on some nerves in the throat?! That's absurd logic on your end, all of man and known matter stands no chance. It's like saying I can build a car but I can't drive it, makes no sense. It's not that God is stupid, but rather a lack of understanding why he does what he does. That's why science can help explain. The way he created the world is quite logical.
SuperMusicnut 9 months ago
@SuperMusicnut Even if you could prove intelligent design, that would not automatically mean that Christianity or any other religion is true. It would not automatically mean that the Koran or any other holy book is true. It would not automatically mean that Shiva is the one true goddess.
dymchurch1 9 months ago
@SuperMusicnut Evolution does not state that complexity is randomly formed so it is pointless to discuss such a statement. It's not that god is stupid, it's that god does not seem to exist. You lack the understanding because you are looking for something that is not there, evolution and every single scientific theory in history takes no account of god. As for the "world" being logical, you have obviously never studied quantum mechanics.
sinhaserpente 9 months ago
Are you conveniently forgetting that the route of that nerve ACTUALLY serves a purpose??!? It takes a detour to supply the heart, mucus membrane, larynx muscles, and a few other things with nerves! It's not that it takes a detour for no reason. And how can it rule out design but not Intelligent design, when your own argument helps the case of design!! let me expand on that because you'll probably need a second to catch it.
SuperMusicnut 9 months ago
what kinda christians are these people getting there answers from in fact you should stop asking the average christians for answers only 10% have actually finished the whole bible and watch joel osteen lol
matrixlone 9 months ago
The thing Matt says in the end of the video really shouldn't be to coerce people into donating, which is implied by the tone, instead it should simply be: Thank to all our fans for their support, both financially via donations and by watching the program. Or something like that. The other thing really seems like "donate a penny against God" or something like that and is kind of mimicking the religious version.
M3t4lManiac 9 months ago
Are you sure you want to use Hawkings book for this? His theory is has no basis in the real world. It's purely metaphysics!! It's based on imaginary numbers and equations that are not even able to be tested! It's amazing what skeptics will hypothesis to avoid the very clear conclusion of Intelligent design. I'm willing to keep at this conversation as long as it takes, but next time just realize that your answers are the ones in the realm of ignorance and hypothesis, I'll be here with science.
SuperMusicnut 9 months ago
@SuperMusicnut Intelligent design is bullshit, come at me dick.
M3t4lManiac 9 months ago
@SuperMusicnut Intelligent design? Have you heard about the recurrent laryngeal nerve? That's one of the many examples of engineering fails, if we were indeed engineered by an ID of course which we weren't. It's an equivalent of building a bridge that's goes around a river not across it. This certainly does not rule out design but it does rule out intelligent design. What i'm saying is: if god exists he's stupid...
Pentagon1311 9 months ago 25
@Pentagon1311 That's too sophisticated. Just look at planet earth. We have to constantly seek shelter from the planet that god supposedly designed for us. It's either too cold, hot, dry, or high. Add to that, earthquake, tsunami, hurricane, tornado, flood, drought, famine etc. Nature then turn around and send us bacteria, virus, cancer, hemophilia, Parkinson, Alzheimer, and so many other things. Why would god designed such a hostile planet to put us on, and give us a shitty body?
petion2010 8 months ago 3
@petion2010 Nice one. Adding more evidence that if God would exist, he would be fucking stupid.
Pentagon1337 5 months ago
@Pentagon1311 Perfect creation is a boring idea.
HonorValorIntegrity 7 months ago
@Pentagon1311 Hah. I'm enjoying a run-in with a particularly intelligently designed thoracic outlet. Thanks a lot little baby Jesus.
Overseer82 7 months ago 10
@Overseer82 Hey, don't complain, that's how god wanted it! :)
Pentagon1311 7 months ago
@Pentagon1311 So you can observe the complexity of design and upon observing one 'mistake' (which we may not yet understand the purpose of) you conclude that if God exists he's stupid?
I hope you're aware that absolutely no science observation is considered fact, you need to reconsider your judgment, sir.
SandyWaffIes 5 months ago
@SandyWaffIes
here you go spewing more of your uneducated garbage
sykeo123 5 months ago
@SandyWaffIes It's not ONE mistake, there are thousands of them. They are easily explained by evolution as evolutionary leftovers but if a perfect and all-knowing creator designed us, then yes, he sucks big time...
Pentagon1311 5 months ago
@SandyWaffIes If god designed everything he´s a moron. For example, the laryngeal nerve, the human eye, the oesophageal tract, the human spine, 99% extinction rate of all species, and the best, the universe is expanding until one day no other galaxy will be visible to any other just before they all rip themselves apart and die. Some design huh?
yatter1 5 months ago
@yatter1 sorry but you forgot that the FALL was caused by mans original sin (Eve and that apple) and that God had no choice at all except to curse everything with eventual death. Yes Gods design was perfect but man screwed it up, yes its YOUR fault , so there ;)
SqueakerAlpha 5 months ago
@SqueakerAlpha So because of a fucking fruit, everyone is a miserable sinner that deserves to suffer torment for al eternity? Are you fucking immoral or amoral? You choose. BTW, the bible makes no mention of an apple. Read the fucking book mate.
yatter1 5 months ago
@SqueakerAlpha Oh of course, rib woman who was made out of a bloke who was made out of dirt, took a bite of an apple hanging from a magic tree after being talked into by a talking snake, yeah, THAT makes sense,lol!
Rockster969 4 months ago
@Rockster969 One of my favorites: 'Before the Fall of Man, there was no entropy.' So, because some hot chick uses her tits to convince a dude to eat a fruit, that dude's responsible for heat death of the universe. I guess there is one useful fact hidden in there: it could explain the origins of Christian misogyny. 'The woman made me do it!'
MultiPaulinator 4 months ago
@SqueakerAlpha "sorry but you forgot that the FALL was caused by mans original sin (Eve and that apple) and that God had no choice at all except to curse everything with eventual death."
No choice, huh? So the god myth is NOT all powerful nor is it all good...
"Yes Gods design was perfect but man screwed it up, yes its YOUR fault , so there ;) "
So man is more powerful than god?
And a perfect design does NOT screw up.
With that said, have you provided evidence of your deity version today?
BastEternal 4 months ago
@SqueakerAlpha Well if god made man, didnt he actually fuck up? HA!
64notorious 4 months ago
@SandyWaffIes Well that is where you are wrong. Scientific observation ARE considered fact. It is what you can say from that observation which is open to interpretation. It's like it is a fact that evolution occurs but it is not a fact that the theory of evolution is true. However i could say the same about gravity. It is a fact that you don't fall away from the earth but towards it. It is not a fact that it is gravity - it is a scientific theory.
BjornSeverinLarsen 5 months ago
@SuperMusicnut "to avoid the very clear conclusion of Intelligent design." I'm sorry, but there is absolutely no conclusion that intelligent design is the correct model of the explanation of existence and its properties. There has never been any compelling evidence put forth by the ID propagandists and the reason it is rejected by science is because it fails when subjected to the scientific method.
sinhaserpente 9 months ago
Cont. All ID is is a subjective opinion: everything SEEMS designed. This statement is subjective and just because you believe something seems do be designed has no baring on its actual reality. ID is a conceptual ID that only exists in the minds of men, for it to become non-conceptual it has to be demonstrated and proven, something that has never been achieve.
sinhaserpente 9 months ago
Cont. Most asinine people come to the conclusion of ID by rejecting current scientific thought. They say: "I do not agree with current science, I think it is incorrect therefore the only logical conclusion is ID." Wrong. Even IF every single scientific theory is incorrect, that does not prove ID. As absence of proof is not proof, and all that ID people tend to do is say that there is not enough evidence for evolution and therefore it follows necessarily that ID is correct. That is non sequitur.
sinhaserpente 9 months ago
@SuperMusicnut You are a moron, get over it.
yatter1 5 months ago
You seem to be confusing my comment to the previous gentleman with your own thrown in. An "Infinitely" small universe theory is in range with the steady state theory NOT the big bang. SO in regards to my previous comment, IF the universe was infinitely small singularity and expanded from there, where did the matter that made the singularity come from? Thermo dynamics tells us that you cannot create nor destroy matter. Knowing that where or WHO rather, created the matter which was put into motion
SuperMusicnut 10 months ago
@SuperMusicnut yeah that's why physicists around the world are all theists
superok4luv2u 9 months ago
@SuperMusicnut The 3rd law does say that matter cannot be created or destroyed. But that doesn't mean it must have been created. It could have always existed. Stephen Hawking has also put forth a theory "The Great Design" that shows that "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Your argument is basically "I don't know so god must have done it". That's an argument from ignorance..... not an answer.
Ondrix 9 months ago
@SuperMusicnut Matter and energy are interchangeable; matter is simply a stable form of energy. The current model of the universe states that the universe is flat and therefore has a total energy equivalent of 0. The positive energy of matter is balanced out by the negative energy of gravity. A universe with a total of 0 energy does not need a creator as energy is not created and thus conservation of energy is observed.
sinhaserpente 9 months ago
Cont. Furthermore, it has been observed in our universe that matter does not require a creator. The vast majority of "empty" space is bubbling with quantum fluctuation, virtual partial pairs that spontaneously pop in and out of existence with no known creator. These, too, observe conservation of energy. So what we see is that matter can spontaneously appear as long as conservation of energy is observed, the same could be said for a universe that resulted from such quantum fluctuations.
sinhaserpente 9 months ago
@sinhaserpente then where the heck do you get the big bang from nothing. if the law must be followed explain to me where this energy originates.
deltaalphacharlie 8 months ago
@deltaalphacharlie What energy? I just explained that to total energy of the universe is 0. I am not necessarily saying that the universe came from nothing, in fact, you would have to define nothing first. Do you even have a single example of nothingness? Nothingness is a concept and cannot be proven to be valid. Heisenberg's uncertainty principal predicates that everything is always fluctuating and therefore you can never have "nothing."
sinhaserpente 8 months ago
Cont. Nothingness in physics means a state of quantum fluctuations. I wager that you cannot conceive of "nothingness" either. If you want to say that god created the universe, then once again you have something; if there ever was nothing and you believe in god, what created god? So our choice of "nothingness" is either god or quantum fluctuations. Seeing as god is the most complex and powerful force imaginable, the only logical answer for a starting point is quantum fluctuations.
sinhaserpente 8 months ago
@sinhaserpente you then deal with the theological factors here. if God inded resides outside time and space, what more do we have to go on here. frankly i cant tell you or make something up.
deltaalphacharlie 8 months ago
@sinhaserpente another problem. What negative energy of gravity? Thats theory also since gravity is an unknown factor(what the heck is it) the best we have is the effect of gravity on an object not the make up of the thing itself. further more nothingness, is a concept as you say, then how reliable is a concept if it can not be scientifically proven with solid yes and no's? notice heisenberg has a theory, but it doesn't necessarily correlate with, things like dark matter does iT?
deltaalphacharlie 8 months ago
@deltaalphacharlie Theology is useless in this area as it is nothing more than human conjecture. There is no evidence that god resides outside of time and space, we do not even know if there is such a thing as outside of time and space. Furthermore, we can simply substitute in the noun "god" for any natural phenomena; therefore, we can call quantum fluctuations god and they too would be outside of time and space. I am glad to hear that you are honest and that you will not fabricate "facts."
sinhaserpente 8 months ago
Cont. Well M-Theory will tell you that gravity is a 2 dimensional string vibrating at a specific frequency; however, since M-Theory still has a lot of proving to do we will suspend that explanation. We do not have to know what gravity is to observe its negative energy. When you apply energy to an object, it gets pushed one way; why you apply gravity, it gets pushed the other. One is positive, the other is negative.
sinhaserpente 8 months ago
Cont. For example: Imagine that I have a heavy ball that I trow to you. You catch the ball and the energy of the ball pushes you backwards. Now imagine that the ball is a hypothesized graviton, I throw you the ball and instead of it pushing you back, it pulls you forward. Every time we pass the ball to each other, the exchange pulls us closer to together. This is how gravity works: the exchange of gravity is a negative energy that brings objects together rather than pushes them away.
sinhaserpente 8 months ago
Cont. Concepts are not reliable, only testable theories. Heisenberg's theory has been tested ans established, nothingness has not; therefore, we cannot say beyond supposition that there exists, or can exist, nothingness. Dark matter has not been proven as a fact, it is simply a hypothesis/theory to compensate for the larger than expected amounts of gravity. Even so, dark matter is matter that is not visible to our methods of observation, there is no indication that it violates uncertainty.
sinhaserpente 8 months ago
@sinhaserpente then i wouldn't rule it out. i would honestly say, we do not know how dark matter works simple as that.
deltaalphacharlie 8 months ago
@deltaalphacharlie I would agree. Evidence shows that there may be something that we now called dark matter, but beyond that we have no idea what it is. As such, we cannot give it properties like you have and cannot say that it violates the laws of physics because we know nothing about it. Uncertainty is a fundamental law of physics and it is highly unlikely that dark matter contradicts uncertainty.
sinhaserpente 8 months ago
@sinhaserpente but we have yet to see this in action, i wouldn't be so quick to label quantum fluctuation, as "God" since you already stated we are unsure if there is even an outside. However i do hold that there is an outside time and space as you can induce. But i do argue that according to the laws of physics, some of these laws are violated in ways that veer away from our understanding of how things work. for example the dark particle. it is and elusive thing that some in the sciences
deltaalphacharlie 8 months ago
@sinhaserpente have gone as far as to say that they appear almost like scifi movie events. i.e little black holes that rip time and space. of course i don't really know if this is true because obviously its just someone spitting ideas, but yet, apart from that theses particles act contrary to how they should act. that quickens me to question our understanding of how these things work rather than observing there effects.
deltaalphacharlie 8 months ago
@deltaalphacharlie See what in action? Our solar system is balanced by the negative energy of gravity, you are planted on the ground by the negative energy of gravity. Your acceleration due to gravity is approximately -9.8ms^-2, gravity is accelerating you TOWARDS the source. Why do you think it requires so much energy for a rocket to get to outer space? Because gravity essentially subtracts from its energy. The negative energy of gravity is a fact, it has been observed and proven.
sinhaserpente 8 months ago
Cont. I wouldn't label anything god, I was merely illustrating that the term "god" is just a word. If god can exist outside of time and space, then by the same token so can other things. You have no evidence that an "outside of time and space" exists, it is merely your own personal supposition and is therefore irrelevant in the discussion. Assertions don't make reality. Once again, dark matter does not violate the laws of physics, it is simply matter that cannot be seen by us; dark.
sinhaserpente 8 months ago
Cont. Would you say that night time violates the laws of physics because we cannot see at night? Dark matter -if it exists at all- is most likely matter that is too small to see with current technology, it is not some mystical thing that you make it out to be. There are many particles that are likely to exist but have not been seen due to size. The graviton is one of them. We know of gravity due to the effects even though we have not see the graviton.
sinhaserpente 8 months ago
Cont. You could essentially call the graviton a form of dark matter. The only difference is that dark matter has no currently observable effects, it does not mean that it is any different to other particles and it does not mean that it violates the laws of physics. No particles are acting contrary to how they should, I don't know where you get this stuff from.
sinhaserpente 8 months ago
Cont. Finally, whether physics can explain everything, or whether physics is wrong has not bearing on the existence of god. Let us pretend that there are thousands of unexplained conundrums in physics that violate known laws, so? How does that have anything to do with god? Are you about to say that because we don't know, or because this law is violated that equals god? You have discussed science here, but none of it relates to gods.
sinhaserpente 8 months ago
This is one point out of several that show the same physics we both experience CAN NOT back the infinitely small universe, let alone the laws of thermo dynamics being broken along the way. IF and I say IF, physics allowed the universe to contract, entropy would be conserved from one cycle to the next. The effect is each expansion is bigger and bigger, go back a ways and you have a beginning, God. Your argument was a theoretical abstraction, Physics never supported it.
SuperMusicnut 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Well, there are several problems with this that have been known for decades. First off it contradicts the known laws of physics. There are theorems by Hawking and Penrose that show as long as the universe is governed by general relativity, the existence of an initial singularity or beginning, is inevitable and that its IMPOSSIBLE to pass through a singularity to a subsequent state. There are no known physics that reverse a contracting universe to make it bounce before it hits the singularity.
SuperMusicnut 10 months ago
Comment removed
SuperMusicnut 10 months ago
Apologetics fail? This video didn't show anything.... Nor does it prove anything....
samuellis 10 months ago
Repeating something back and then re-asking the question with que the silence is hardly a rebuttal. And the Science I'm talking about is the very same stuff you read about as do I. Astronomy, micro biology, physics etc... Before we continue let me make just get your position correctly. You believe we appeared from nothing, by nothing, and our purpose in life is nothing...would this be correct? I'm asking this to then move on to the science response. Just so you know, I'm not evading the question
SuperMusicnut 10 months ago
@SuperMusicnut No, no, no. The entire Universe was condensed into an infinitely small unit and then expanded. Hardly a "nothing". And the purpose in life is debatable, not nonexistent.
LicoriceLain 10 months ago
@SuperMusicnut I can't say if you are serious or a troll.
Ok, you are not correct.
We did not come from nothing, I came from my parents as probably you came from yours. Just like everyone else.
Life has no purpose because LIFE IS A PURPOSE. Everything we do or try to do is to live and mantain life. Still, there are a few behaviors that are harmful to life. Ignorance, religion and dogmatic thinking are the bigger threats to us.
Worshipping dead gods and longing for death = bad thing
DarkZholt 9 months ago
@moegreen2 Nihilism is simply the belief that nothing has any inherent or intrinstic value, and that any value something has is therefore completely subjective and actually meaningless. They have plenty to think with, they can figure out what is right and wrong on their own (better than others who simply listen to what they are told is wrong and right), and nihilism doesn't stem from any fallacies, it's simply a philosophical ideology. You should be less biased.
DantehMan 10 months ago
I would agree with you (maker of the video) that this "professor" sounds as though he doesn't understand the concept of prayer at all. With that being said I am a Christian, and just because you have pointed out the idiocy of one man, does that give way for the belief that there is no God? Believing in Christ isn't a 'burning in the bosom." We don't just believe for the sake of believing., but rather have factual, comprehensible evidence from the same Science you know, that points us to Christ.
SuperMusicnut 10 months ago
@SuperMusicnut
"evidence from the same Science you know, that points us to Christ."
And that evidence is?
Que the silence.
Numinous123 10 months ago
666 likes. How appropriate.
PeGe90 10 months ago
@moegreen2 Your right, religion is the most moral force there is. Genocide is fun!
You haven't read the old testament have you? Or turned on the news.
Stairc 10 months ago
@Stairc Look up this video by VenomFangX about the old testament: "Old Testament Slavery, Stoning and Seafood"
blackoutninja 10 months ago
What the heck happened @ 5:20!?
mrshaunce 11 months ago
I laid out in the sun and prayed to get a tan and I got a tan.
God is amazing!!!
vinegarthomas 11 months ago 31
@vinegarthomas I got burnt. Maybe I didn't believe hard enough!
Linkacious1 7 months ago
@moegreen2 Are you talking about Social Darwinism and how atheist would embrace that some how? I pray you aren't using that argument. The reason some atheist lose faith is precisely to end human suffering, and NOTHING is as ready willing and ABLE to cause human suffering and personal pain than religion/God. When I read the things you say I can already tell you have a closed mind, and feel you have intellectually come to terms with all "truth" in your religion.Their is no point in talking to you.
Legaltimes 11 months ago