She is talking nonsense really. Atheistic faith is blind belief on unsubstantiated conjecture. Nothing blew up and became everything ...
But no transitional fossils ... and try researching polonium halos. They shouldn't exist in a billions of years creation!
The Bible, however, gives prophecy SO accurate that it has been used to deny the Bible! (Book of Daniel). So it had to have been written about 5th C AD. Oh. But we have Dead Sea scrolls now! (Lets ignore all that)
I cant beleive christans actualy think that athiests try to trick them. Thats pretty funny. Why? Youve already been tricked. You think that we secretly know theres a god and that we dont want to share or something. Its called logic for a reason. Christians are the ones in denial. Not athiests. Even if your religion wasnt an abomonation id still need some proof before goose-stepping after some pompus, corrupt nut job.
The existence of god is a hypothesis and that's it no more, there isn't one iota of evidence in favor of gods existence, like she said you cannot be asked to prove a negative
Make no mistake about it, atheists are control freaks. They are trying to COMPEL you with logic. But the problem is that they have smuggled in atheistic premises, and they use sneaky tactics to do so. Thus, the logic necessarily flows formally.
Now I am not against logic. Rather, I argue that logic alone is useless. It must start with premises. And those premises must be taken on faith.
Why do Christians tell you up front that we start with faith? But atheists use trickery and compulsion.
Ayn Rand was right about a lot of things, and this is one of them. I applaud her in this regard. Although her idea that "we are each responsible for our own happiness" is blatantly untrue.
She's a hypocrite. Although she railed against accepting any government aid as, "Delivering oneself into gradual enslavement" she herself accepted aid from social security in her later years. She believed that marriage should not compromise any aspect of yourself and yet completely financially supported her dead-beat artist husband. This is not a woman you want to idolize, a doctrine of selfishness and a narrowing of one's mind to only what you can prove is the enemy of human achievement.
@garlock007 If you are forced to pay taxes all your life, it is obvious that you have the right to use whatever services are offered. It is not immoral. Your claim is as stupid as telling an innocent prisoner in jail, that to eat the prison food is hypocritic because it's free.
And do go with rand Atheism is defined as the theory or belief that God does not exist that is a possitive claim, Atheism has a burdon. No wonder her philosophy is not widely spread.
@lxAgnosticxl Lol, if you say it like that EVERYTHING is a positive claim. It's like saying, "I'm not collecting stamps, therefore this is a hobby". "Atheism is defined as the theory or belief that God does not exist". The NOT makes it a negative claim. It is absolutely not a positive claim. We don't need to prove a negative. On a side note, did you know that there's a magical, invisible, omniscient unicorn living in my room? Prove he doesn't exist.
A positive claim is any claim about the existence or properties of anything
If you think that's a negative claim you need to go back to pre-school.
A negative is the rejection of a claim, but the definiton which you seem to think is a negative is an 'absolute claim'. Meaning you're claiming noledge of something. That requires evidence. It's the Agnostic who doesn't
@lxAgnosticxl No, a positive claim is not "any claim about the existence or properties of anything". A positive claim means that you're asserting something is true. Atheism CANNOT be a positive claim, since the definition of atheism is a disbelief in god (not "god cannot be real, we are 100% sure of this"). BTW, agnostic isn't a stance on the issue at all. Either you are an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist, but there is no such thing as just an agnostic.
A possitive claim is when you make a truth claim about something like I don't no um........... God doesn't exist. The definition if Atheism in philosophy indexes and dictionaries is "the theory or BELIEF that God does not exist". < that's a possitive claim.
Yes there is such a thing as an agnostic Huxley coined that as a seperate term not to be synonomus with atheism you can find that to in philosophy indexes and dictionaries it's only YT atheists that claim this.
@lxAgnosticxl You are again wrong. While it'd be true to say that "God doesn't exist" is a positive claim, that is not what atheists are saying. Atheists say they don't believe in god, that's completely different then saying "God doesn't exist". Your whole argument is flawed because you're misrepresenting atheism. Also, agnostic means you don't know, but it doesn't interfere with belief. You either don't know but don't believe, or don't know but believe. Not knowing doesn't change your belief.
@CommunityCam Also, nowhere does atheism say anything about a "theory" that god doesn't exist. A theory implies science, but there is no science in either believing or not believing in god. I'd love to know where you got that definition. DictionaryXcom's definition is :
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Indeed in one definition it is a positive claim, but most rational atheists have no "doctrine". #2 is more accurate.
I'm wrong you just said "God doesn't exist" is a positive claim," < my point your previous statement ""Atheism is defined as the theory or belief that God does not exist". The NOT makes it a negative claim" You've just contradicted your self.
"TYour whole argument is flawed because you're misrepresenting atheism." his is not an argument another word (you don't know the meaning of) and just above that "Indeed in one definition it is a positive claim" Make up your mind!
@lxAgnosticxl Lol with your stupid "points and laughs". You understand what a theory is? We are not talking about a theory that somebody just comes up with (i.e. I have a theory, that if I drive my car really fast it makes cool noises). We are talking about scientific theories (especially in the context you used it in), in which a theory is as close to scientific fact as possible. Therefore, you're stupid antics have actually made yourself look dumb.
@CommunityCam Also, why are you citing all of those sources? I went to dictionarycom, their definition was nothing like yours. Wikipedia is often biased in one side or another (if the author is an atheist they will use less attack-able words such as "lack". If they're a theist they will use words like "theory" or "reject"). Answers is absolutely not a reputable site, and that's not the Merriam-Webster definition. So where did you actually dig up that definition from? Busted...
@lxAgnosticxl If you don't even understand that atheism (god doesn't exist), is the negative stance to the answer of god, whereas theism is the positive stance (god exists), then there is no use even arguing with you. This is not a secret, and it's not really an issue to be debating. Also, let me again bring up the unicorn. There is a magical, invisible, omniscient, flying unicorn living in my garage. Is it a positive stance to say the unicorn doesn't exist? PROVE the unicorn doesn't exist.
@CommunityCam Remember, positive stances must be proven. Negative stances do not. If according to you, saying god doesn't exist is a positive claim, then you must prove that the unicorn doesn't exist in order to dismiss its existence. However, if we take my stance (the correct one), and say that saying the unicorn doesn't exist is a negative claim, then it is ME who has to prove the unicorn exists. This is how all logical debate works. I can't just assert a unicorn existing.
God doesn't exist is a truism, RETARD that makes it a possitve claim. You even admitted this. "While it'd be true to say that "God doesn't exist" is a positive claim"
By your own admission you're not worth talking to. It is a possitve stance to say a unicorn doesn't exist because that staement has value (it's a possitve claim) If you want to test a natural phenomena (i.e. existance of unicorns) then you go by the scientific method at which point the answer becomes apparent.
I agree these are stupid points but if you hadn't realised I was quoting YOU!
You go on to again admitt my point there are theories that don't imply science which is contrary to what you previously said.
This are the source linked off the definition I got which you admitted and you can get it by typing in define Atheism. If you're incapable of typing in those to words then it's not my problem.
@lxAgnosticxl dictionarycom: Atheism: disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. Merriam-webstercom: Atheism: a disbelief in the existence of deity. Yes there is more then one definition of atheism, but I've tried to make it as clear to you as possible that I'm referring to the definitions I've just listed. You specifically chose definitions which suit your position, but not ones which I've been attempting to describe this whole time. My definitions are NOT positive claims.
@lxAgnosticxl Indeed I did say that, but I believe I'm allowed to change my mind and correct MY definition as well. Just because a statement has value, doesn't mean it is the positive claim. The positive claim is the one which is asserting something as true, and therefore has the burden of proof. Claiming that the unicorn doesn't exist is NOT a positive claim. If it was, it would not be simple at all for YOU to prove that there isn't a unicorn living in MY garage. That's not how reason works.
You change your mind in every comment WTH am I supposed to th!nk? If this is the case Atheism ceases to be a world view and we're still left questioning whether there is a God or not. I would have to go to your garage to prove that and I could and that statement is a truism making it a positive claim.
@lxAgnosticxl EXACTLY, we ARE still questioning the existence of god. I was trying to stress that atheism is not a truism. We say that most likely, there is no god. There is no evidence, nothing, therefore we can safely assume this. BUT, I also said that everyone is agnostic, whether an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. I will not say with 100% certainty that there is no god.
Saying a unicorn does not exist is an absolutist *claim*, a truism That make it a positive claim, why do I have sit here and explain this to you again and again like a child? Science doesn't make absolutist claims like something is or isn't true it deals only with probability, "I'm retarded"? You keep contradicting your self, you don't know what positive or truism means, and you clearly can't tell the difference between philosophy and the scientific method.
I agree, there is evidence FOR God, but this only holds true if you presuppose (believe in) God. Do you need evidence for God, if you presuppose him? Looks like circular reasoning!
The scientific view,
looks for evidence OF God. So far, there is no scientific evidence OF God! And there won't be any as long God's attributes are as such that he is a non-testable and non-falsifiable entity.
P1~- What is fine tunned? around about 50 or so constants but heres 2 e.g. 1st Penrose calculates that the odds of our universe's low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:10^10(123), an inconceivable number. The odds of our solar system's being formed instantly by random collisions of particles is, on the other hand, about 1:10^10(60), a vast number, but inconceivably smaller than 10^10(123). Penrose calls it "chicken feed" by comparison!
Steven Weinberg says the cosmological constant is fine tunned to 1:1^56-1^120 Without which the universe would either expand to fast for stars to form or to little the universe collapses John Jefferson Davis
points out, an accuracy of one part in 10^60 can be compared to firing a bullet at one inch target on the other side of the observable universe, 20 billion light years away, and hitting the target
P2~1st option- It turns out that string theory allows a "cosmic landscape" of around 10^500 different universes governed by the present laws of nature but with different values of the physical constants.There independent of the laws of nature
2nd option -chance mathematicians ususally have a limit as to what is possible by chance F.Tipler sets it at 10^80 the fine tuning is much greater
3rd therefore it is due to design, Unless you can show design is lessplausable than either 1or2
You missed the point. Even in your citation you are using 'evidence FOR' and not 'evidence OF'.
P1 carries an implicit assumption. And that is the fine tuning! You only can speak of fine tuning, when you observe the fine-tuner doing the fine tuning. Thus your argument fails because you can not demonstrate the fine tuning.
You're commiting the equivaction fallacy, fine tuning does not mean designed, and the argument is a valid one it is a trasitional argument and it follows modus ponens, there if you want to deny the conclusion you have to deny a premise.
Well, granted your claim that designed is not the same as fine-tuned.
You still have not demonstrated what design-of-a-universe is!
Unless you give your designer the same properties as humans have (observable ...) your design has an empty meaning. Analogies only are true when both sides belong to the exact same category.
Give an example observing a designer designing a universe. I agree, there is a universe. But where is the designer?
@lxAgnosticxl No, you can't go into my garage. I simply wont let you, and in fact, that's exactly the same dilemma with god. You have no way of seeing him. Why are you being so stubborn? Saying that the unicorn in my garage doesn't exist, is NOT a positive claim. Where is the argument here?
@lxAgnosticxl There is nothing hard to understand here, the burden of proof is on me if I claim a unicorn is in my garage. I must show some verifiable evidence that this unicorn is really there. You do not have to go all the way to my garage, just to prove that the unicorn isn't real. That's not how science works, and that's not how basic logic works. If you truly feel that you need to go to my garage to prove the unicorn isn't there, then be my guest, but I'll think you're retarded.
A person who REALLY thinks logically would have to believe that there is a higher being of some sort. Look at the ear or the eye. Random? Look at it! It's no way random. It's to well designed.
@mccartherable Nobody claimed it's random. It is explained in great detail by the theory of natural selection, which is not at all random. Please learn something about science before making silly claims.
The people of the lower valley one day received an surprising abundance much need water. More than enough for all the men, women and children. Plenty to irrigate their crops. So much so that they began raising animals to expand their farms. They thanked God.
At the same time, the people living by the lake in the upper mountains began dying off after their lake dried up. They cursed the Devil.
I find that most who dismiss Ayn Rand’s morality don’t really understand it. Her “selfishness” is long-term, principled self-interest. People are a combination of the physical and mental, and your self-interest includes psychological values. Self-interest is not to be reduced to only the physical, such as money. Other people can be of tremendous psychological value (i.e. friends, lovers, children.) Rand recognized that benevolence toward strangers is in one’s own interest, in a free country.
keep in mind that despite sounding reasonable and intelligent during these appearances, this woman was a complete sociopath and idolizing her only hurts the already poor reputation atheists have.
@nutleyoleo Doesn't matter if she was a sociopath or not. That doesn't change her logic. I don't think we as atheists should pander to theists and make ourselves look good. What should matter is the truth; not how our opposition views us.
@dtsmucker Yeah she is...imagine a world where everyone relied on their own logic...people believed in them selves and not God...land mines probably wouldn't exist...
jewish bitch misleading people.of course you are called upon to prove a negative.
judge to defendant: so you say that you were NOT in your house when your wife was killed last sunday?
Defendant: I can prove that I was NOT in the house , I was with my midget gay lover!
There you go.Alibi is mostly about PROVING that you DID NOT do something that you are accused of. She is full of Jewish shit and she looks like godless shit.
@amazingGrace108 You're looking at it the wrong way, clearly. Just because you say that there is 'Not' something doesn't mean that you're not asserting a position. In your example the 'Defendant' is ASSERTING a position that they were doing something else other than being in the, metaphorical, house. Atheists aren't saying that there isn't a God, only that they cannot believe in the ones put forward due to lack off evidence from the ASSERTING subject, or theist in this case.
@ThatBritishGenius her point was that "you are never called upon to prove a negative" and according to this witch that is supposed to be the "law of logic" .I just proved it to the world that you are indeed called to prove the negative when you are asked by the court to prove that you didn't kill someone etc.
@amazingGrace108 Innocent until proven guilty dude. The court has to prove that he was in the house when she was killed. He could say he was out alone on a walk, no sane jury would convict him unless there was evidence he was in the house.
@amazingGrace108 You're an idiot. You are NOT called upon to prove that you did not kill someone, Innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. Fool.
@amazingGrace108 How do you not understand this? you are ASSERTING that you were somewhere else. It is not a question of there being a negative.
An equivalent problem would be prove unicorns do not exist, yours is not an equivalent.
what your example is would be if someone put forward a VIABLE, TESTABLE, proof for god that needed a response. then your analogy works, right now, no.
Ayn Rand may not always be right, but it is so inspiring to see someone who has done something powerfully good with the mind that are so lucky to have.
I believe in God and I am a Christian, but I do understand the point that Miss Rand is trying to explain, it is totally valid and you must respect that, otherwise you would be a hypocrite admiting that you believe in something that you don't, and I have also seen those in church. This lady was absolutely brilliant! though I disagree with her on this point of the existance of God.
@scientistrules actually a republic such as ours, is perfect for a large society. a large populative country has a very difficult time with with a large democratic gov't because of the majority rules mentality, with so many people, so many different interests, and so many different cultures. I mean look at history at these large gov't empires, with a large population, they inevitably collapse in on itself.
@scalp340 scietifically, she is wrong and she would agree with that herself if she were around today. Trust in human individual is the most laughable claim anyone could give these days after all we know about the human animal which is ALL to his or her core about survival of the fittest and surviving long enough to pass on gene pool. Such a society is going to be a mess especially when populations are high, look at INDIA. At least there they BELIEVE in reincarnation, we don't. Think.
@scientistrules I'm not sure science has anything to do with her philosophy of meritocracy, individualism, and objectivism, centering around a pure free market capitalist system. but hey what do I know? you must be the expert, talking science when the subject is economically based.
@scalp340 I look at her philosophical ideas as its closest to science and that is why I tend to find its faults or holes in it. Philosophical ideas are meaningless to us scientists as science explains and provides answers for everything, including morality and ethics, so philosophy is dead, as far as we are concerned. Ayn is one step away from being closest to a scientific explanation and guidance, she would have been spot on if she had scinetific education& was around today.
@quote3000 study of nature and science can only do you good in every way.It opens your mind in to the fact that no one is that special in the eye of anyone & that's not the point. That world goes on without you, so enjoy it while u can and chill. Religions served the purpose of giving hopes to millions of desperate people living in HORRIBLE conditions, but NO ONE, even in Africa lives like that anymore and they CAN change their lives and live smart using science.
@quote3000 if you teach impoverished people how nature works and why animals and humans do things& what's SMART naturally speaking,then they may use their brains more efficiently, have less promiscuous less or little & use condom,eat better,have less better quality children,save wisely,live sustainably,stop using drugs and stop believing in horse sh**T superstitions, &make sure education is provided for their kids you bet half of Africa is improved shortly.Science heals,Religion kills
@scientistrules But what gives westerners the right to go in there and "spoon feed" the information to a nomadic culture, for instance? Also isn't aid overrated and trade more efficient?
@scientistrules Half agree. I believe that science also kills, they are (despite the proponents protestations) entwined together like the hangman's noose of humanity. I think that if you look carefully most indigenous peoples got on fine without whiteys influence. ONLY AFTER "we" "gave" "them" religion, culture, science & civilisation did things go wrong. We rest on our laurels for great gifts to the savages, ignoring the thefts of land, gold and liberty. Religion Kills, Science is its enabler.
@scalp340 plus most people believe in charity and donate because they are religious. FEW people are smart enough,and educated in science, to know that it's in their benefit if poverty, etcis taken cared off for the sake of all in a given society.Most people aren't that smartT.hey R about 'give me and give me more' as it concerns their survival.We will never have a rational atheistic society in which everyone GETS why they should voluntarily help outThe bulk of ANY society is ave-ow IQ.
True love I believe to be more of an action. You do not truly love someone unless you are willing to sacrifice your own wants and needs for the benefit of someone else. With that definition, then love is not selfish. Most of us out of our ego want to be loved by someone else but don't want to work that hard to sacrifice out own desires in order to return the favor.
How could you say that? Every person is selfish and acts out of selfishness. Love itself is a selfish act. For example, you love someone and are happy with them. To make your happiness eternal, you marry or stay with this person out of your own love and selfishness. You sire are selfish just is everyone else. She's not a b****, but she accepts the truth of all human beings unlike yourself.
Religion is a comfort that people lean on when they feel unstable or somehow vulnerable. No real satisfaction can logically be reached through the belief in a god of any kind, only mental relaxation on the thought that your life is being dealt with by a 'higher power'. Practice religion or not, we're all going to die, and when we die, we're dead. That's it. So the entire point of discussion of a god is irrelevant.
this woman has some repress trauma from childhood, don't you people see how arrogant she becomes when talking abou religion? propably she is what she is becouse her family lost their business to the communist, so now she wants to blame it on God
This is a witches trick... you can't prove there is God nearly always elicits the response... You can't prove there isn't a God. The proper response is... Just because we have not proven God exists yet, doesn't mean we never will, and it also does not mean there isn't a creator which is more than likely considering the level of design elements present in the universe which we HAVE observed. Which makes that theory more likely than not.
I don't mind her being an atheist. Why would I? Just because I believe in God and WISH that others did as well, doesn't mean I gotta force my beliefs on them. Love God, love people, that's it :)
Somebody help me here. There's something about Rand's ideas that I don't quite understand.
According to Rand and Objectivism, compromise of large ideals is a bad thing, because you are rejecting your true personality. However, in order to accept the Objectivist movement, you have to do it all the way, which requires a personal compromise of some sort. Now, how can you become a "true" Objectivist without compromising?
I've always thought that aligning yourself with any specific ideal or philosophy forces you to contradict yourself because being an imperfect human would make it impossible for you to live up to this carefully crafted ideal.
Statistics would have us believe that about 80 to 90% of us believe in the existence of god. The amazing fact is that when I view videos like this throughout YouTube I notice that the number of likes far outweigh the number of dislikes. I think that subconsciously we all know the truth…we just don’t want to admit it.
Not sure how relevant of a point that is. I mean if you go to a pro religious video, the likes will far outweigh the dislikes. People just don't look for videos that conflict with their own beliefs.
@Jkru352 Well. you could say that... depends on the videos you watch I guess but from the sites I have visited and videos I view both pro and antil religion I think it's clear.
I'm currently a socialist. However I greatly respect Ayn Rand and I have to admit her arguments are very well thought out and I can even acknowledge that many offer superior solutions to their socialist counterparts. She's one of the few advocates of conservatism that I can say I respectfully disagree with.
@xXvolhvXx I think he's a stand-up bloke and I would like to buy him a drink. To be honest, I've never heard of him. Thanks for pointing out someone else I should be paying attention to.
Millions of people have the profound inner experience that something bigger than themselves is at work in their life and in the world. Thinking this will simply be explained away by some cheap little tricks of logic is indeed arrogant and misguided. Where do moral values, like compassion, truth, justice comes from, if not from that initial intuition there is something divine at work? The ultimate moral virtue preached by Ayn Rand was selfishness. Do the math!
It's a shame that a woman who was smart enough to be an atheist, could at the same time, be an unbelievably crazy bitch, with almost zero social conscience & absolutely no love or heart for her fellow man..
@1woodsorrel She seems a very cold woman in my opinion. Personally I think religion and spirituality can be soothing to the soul and give hope to individuals if it is used in a positive way. Obviously the only God that exists to her is money, a simple and physical entity created by man. Nevertheless I must admit that I do wonder what went through this lady's mind when she was on her death bed. How did she find peace in her final hours?
just bc u dont believe in God does not mean that you can not live or die in peace...if she felt accomplished; or that she made a positive mark in the world before she passed, then that could have put her at peace?
You can't really argue with her logic; it is pretty sound. Too bad she didn't influence many more people with her views on the existence of God. Her views are clear and concise and form the basis for a good discussion, which unfortunately too many religious people can't have a "calm and rational" discussion about this topic. I think she's more known for her political views. I'm not sure I agreed with her views on society and politics, although I do agree with her view on personal liberties.
She is much more to-the-point and honest and you can clearly see that she isn't offensive; just speaking the truth. A far cry from many famous atheists of today, who go about insulting people who don't believe what they do, often baselessly
I really admire this woman.however I do believe there is "proof" for a God but not in religious matters,but in philosofical,physical,mathematical,biological etc.
In my belief God=universe.Futhermore what is created has its creater inside of itself,therefore we ourselves are God.I think that the studies and observation on the hemispheres(brain) and its "higher connection" is very much a divine science.
The problem I have with Ayn Rand is she was a hypocrite. I suppose most people are in one sense or another, but she really goes shouting her hypocracy with a bullhorn.
Ayn Rand believed she was right by way of reason, but what a limited attempt she exhibited. Her excuse of 'never having to prove a negative' is rationally unethical by classifying a possibility as a 'negative' without cause. Anyone who touts rationality should be ready to give a rational answer, not an arrogant opinion.
I believe in the Triune God, saved by the blood of Christ, by the knowledge that He spoke and acted into His creation throughout the history of the world. If Christianity were merely a blind leap of faith, I too would deny. My faith is built on the knowledge and understanding given by God to man, both through His Word and through mathematical impossibilities that prove our existence is not by pure chance. Ayn Rand believed she was right by way of reason, but what a limited attempt she exhibit
@redshark618 that's nonsense, and a complete cop-out.
thousands of years ago, some philosophers argued that the universe was made up of atoms. they had no direct proof whatsoever for this claim, only deductive reasoning and their observations of how the universe worked led them to believe it.
if you had said, thousands of years ago, to these philosophers what Ayn Rand says "I know there isn't atoms because I've been given no evidence", how foolish would you look today?
@eleutheromaniac The burden of proof doesn't lie with me, so I can reject a claim without evidence. Your example of atoms is irrelevant here. If I were to reject atomic theory thousands of years ago, I would have done so based on the scientific knowledge at the time - and it would not matter to me what today's scientists thought of me. I can reject God today, without evidence, without remorse as to what future science may think of me - It doesn't matter if it proves me wrong, I'll be dead
@redshark618 "burden of proof" does not apply to only positive statements, atheist rhetoric not withstanding. also, you're using the deductive fallacy that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, which as shown with the case of atoms is simply not true.
if you think of the Prime Mover question as a closed door, whether you are claiming there is *something* behind that door, or *nothing* behind that door, you are equally obligated to provide rationale for your conclusion.
@eleutheromaniac You know what, I don't care. I'm not here to be arguing philosophy over the internet and I don't care what you believe. Whatever we say will not change the other person's POV, so I'll leave it at that.
*FACEPALM*
"any claim about the existence or properties of anything" = A positive claim means that you're asserting something is true
lxAgnosticxl 2 days ago
She is talking nonsense really. Atheistic faith is blind belief on unsubstantiated conjecture. Nothing blew up and became everything ...
But no transitional fossils ... and try researching polonium halos. They shouldn't exist in a billions of years creation!
The Bible, however, gives prophecy SO accurate that it has been used to deny the Bible! (Book of Daniel). So it had to have been written about 5th C AD. Oh. But we have Dead Sea scrolls now! (Lets ignore all that)
Inconvenient truth. Lol
Info101 2 days ago
I cant beleive christans actualy think that athiests try to trick them. Thats pretty funny. Why? Youve already been tricked. You think that we secretly know theres a god and that we dont want to share or something. Its called logic for a reason. Christians are the ones in denial. Not athiests. Even if your religion wasnt an abomonation id still need some proof before goose-stepping after some pompus, corrupt nut job.
TheDive99 3 days ago
@TheDive99
blah blah
we've heard it all before
ugoodHomeBoy 3 days ago
@ugoodHomeBoy no shit.
TheDive99 3 days ago
The existence of god is a hypothesis and that's it no more, there isn't one iota of evidence in favor of gods existence, like she said you cannot be asked to prove a negative
rkfool 4 days ago
Make no mistake about it, atheists are control freaks. They are trying to COMPEL you with logic. But the problem is that they have smuggled in atheistic premises, and they use sneaky tactics to do so. Thus, the logic necessarily flows formally.
Now I am not against logic. Rather, I argue that logic alone is useless. It must start with premises. And those premises must be taken on faith.
Why do Christians tell you up front that we start with faith? But atheists use trickery and compulsion.
RomansGalatians 4 days ago in playlist Rationalism
I can totally see her in a Nazi uniform making jokes to Hans and Gunter...having a drink and shooting the shit, like let's control them...LOOOL
cineasta71 4 days ago
Ayn Rand was right about a lot of things, and this is one of them. I applaud her in this regard. Although her idea that "we are each responsible for our own happiness" is blatantly untrue.
nkelly1432 5 days ago
She's a hypocrite. Although she railed against accepting any government aid as, "Delivering oneself into gradual enslavement" she herself accepted aid from social security in her later years. She believed that marriage should not compromise any aspect of yourself and yet completely financially supported her dead-beat artist husband. This is not a woman you want to idolize, a doctrine of selfishness and a narrowing of one's mind to only what you can prove is the enemy of human achievement.
garlock007 5 days ago
@garlock007 If you are forced to pay taxes all your life, it is obvious that you have the right to use whatever services are offered. It is not immoral. Your claim is as stupid as telling an innocent prisoner in jail, that to eat the prison food is hypocritic because it's free.
allowambeBOWWAMB 5 days ago
@allowambeBOWWAMB
Yes you have a right to, yet she tried to convince others not to accept the aid.
garlock007 5 days ago
i love her. and her theories are incredible. she was the only woman to stand against the FAKE theory of "god"
diamond12401 6 days ago
@diamond12401
"FAKE theory of "god" "
Prove it!
And do go with rand Atheism is defined as the theory or belief that God does not exist that is a possitive claim, Atheism has a burdon. No wonder her philosophy is not widely spread.
lxAgnosticxl 5 days ago
@lxAgnosticxl Lol, if you say it like that EVERYTHING is a positive claim. It's like saying, "I'm not collecting stamps, therefore this is a hobby". "Atheism is defined as the theory or belief that God does not exist". The NOT makes it a negative claim. It is absolutely not a positive claim. We don't need to prove a negative. On a side note, did you know that there's a magical, invisible, omniscient unicorn living in my room? Prove he doesn't exist.
CommunityCam 3 days ago
@CommunityCam
A positive claim is any claim about the existence or properties of anything
If you think that's a negative claim you need to go back to pre-school.
A negative is the rejection of a claim, but the definiton which you seem to think is a negative is an 'absolute claim'. Meaning you're claiming noledge of something. That requires evidence. It's the Agnostic who doesn't
lxAgnosticxl 2 days ago
@lxAgnosticxl No, a positive claim is not "any claim about the existence or properties of anything". A positive claim means that you're asserting something is true. Atheism CANNOT be a positive claim, since the definition of atheism is a disbelief in god (not "god cannot be real, we are 100% sure of this"). BTW, agnostic isn't a stance on the issue at all. Either you are an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist, but there is no such thing as just an agnostic.
CommunityCam 2 days ago
@CommunityCam
A possitive claim is when you make a truth claim about something like I don't no um........... God doesn't exist. The definition if Atheism in philosophy indexes and dictionaries is "the theory or BELIEF that God does not exist". < that's a possitive claim.
Yes there is such a thing as an agnostic Huxley coined that as a seperate term not to be synonomus with atheism you can find that to in philosophy indexes and dictionaries it's only YT atheists that claim this.
lxAgnosticxl 2 days ago
@lxAgnosticxl You are again wrong. While it'd be true to say that "God doesn't exist" is a positive claim, that is not what atheists are saying. Atheists say they don't believe in god, that's completely different then saying "God doesn't exist". Your whole argument is flawed because you're misrepresenting atheism. Also, agnostic means you don't know, but it doesn't interfere with belief. You either don't know but don't believe, or don't know but believe. Not knowing doesn't change your belief.
CommunityCam 2 days ago
@CommunityCam Also, nowhere does atheism say anything about a "theory" that god doesn't exist. A theory implies science, but there is no science in either believing or not believing in god. I'd love to know where you got that definition. DictionaryXcom's definition is :
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Indeed in one definition it is a positive claim, but most rational atheists have no "doctrine". #2 is more accurate.
CommunityCam 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
~CC
I'm wrong you just said "God doesn't exist" is a positive claim," < my point your previous statement ""Atheism is defined as the theory or belief that God does not exist". The NOT makes it a negative claim" You've just contradicted your self.
"TYour whole argument is flawed because you're misrepresenting atheism." his is not an argument another word (you don't know the meaning of) and just above that "Indeed in one definition it is a positive claim" Make up your mind!
lxAgnosticxl 2 days ago
ag·nos·tic/agˈnästik/
Noun:
A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena.
Huxley coined it as a seperate view on its own.
"A theory implies science"
*Points and laughs*
No it doesn't!
Type in define atheism and it comes up you don't even have to click on a website
"The theory or belief that God does not exist. More info »Wikipedia - Dictionarycom - Answers.com - Merriam-Webster"
lxAgnosticxl 2 days ago
@lxAgnosticxl Lol with your stupid "points and laughs". You understand what a theory is? We are not talking about a theory that somebody just comes up with (i.e. I have a theory, that if I drive my car really fast it makes cool noises). We are talking about scientific theories (especially in the context you used it in), in which a theory is as close to scientific fact as possible. Therefore, you're stupid antics have actually made yourself look dumb.
CommunityCam 2 days ago
@CommunityCam Also, why are you citing all of those sources? I went to dictionarycom, their definition was nothing like yours. Wikipedia is often biased in one side or another (if the author is an atheist they will use less attack-able words such as "lack". If they're a theist they will use words like "theory" or "reject"). Answers is absolutely not a reputable site, and that's not the Merriam-Webster definition. So where did you actually dig up that definition from? Busted...
CommunityCam 2 days ago
@lxAgnosticxl If you don't even understand that atheism (god doesn't exist), is the negative stance to the answer of god, whereas theism is the positive stance (god exists), then there is no use even arguing with you. This is not a secret, and it's not really an issue to be debating. Also, let me again bring up the unicorn. There is a magical, invisible, omniscient, flying unicorn living in my garage. Is it a positive stance to say the unicorn doesn't exist? PROVE the unicorn doesn't exist.
CommunityCam 2 days ago
@CommunityCam Remember, positive stances must be proven. Negative stances do not. If according to you, saying god doesn't exist is a positive claim, then you must prove that the unicorn doesn't exist in order to dismiss its existence. However, if we take my stance (the correct one), and say that saying the unicorn doesn't exist is a negative claim, then it is ME who has to prove the unicorn exists. This is how all logical debate works. I can't just assert a unicorn existing.
CommunityCam 2 days ago
-CC
God doesn't exist is a truism, RETARD that makes it a possitve claim. You even admitted this. "While it'd be true to say that "God doesn't exist" is a positive claim"
By your own admission you're not worth talking to. It is a possitve stance to say a unicorn doesn't exist because that staement has value (it's a possitve claim) If you want to test a natural phenomena (i.e. existance of unicorns) then you go by the scientific method at which point the answer becomes apparent.
lxAgnosticxl 1 day ago
I agree these are stupid points but if you hadn't realised I was quoting YOU!
You go on to again admitt my point there are theories that don't imply science which is contrary to what you previously said.
This are the source linked off the definition I got which you admitted and you can get it by typing in define Atheism. If you're incapable of typing in those to words then it's not my problem.
lxAgnosticxl 1 day ago
"atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities" ~Wiki
"the doctrine or belief that there is no God" ~Dictionary com
"The doctrine that there is no God or gods."~Answers
"the doctrine that there is no deity"~Merriam-Webster
Seems there all in agreement, Busted....
lxAgnosticxl 1 day ago
@lxAgnosticxl dictionarycom: Atheism: disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. Merriam-webstercom: Atheism: a disbelief in the existence of deity. Yes there is more then one definition of atheism, but I've tried to make it as clear to you as possible that I'm referring to the definitions I've just listed. You specifically chose definitions which suit your position, but not ones which I've been attempting to describe this whole time. My definitions are NOT positive claims.
CommunityCam 1 day ago
@CommunityCam Btw, you've been spelling "positive" wrong this whole time.
CommunityCam 1 day ago
@CommunityCam
You keep changing your mind "If you don't even understand that atheism (god doesn't exist)" WTF make your mind!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
lxAgnosticxl 1 day ago
@lxAgnosticxl Indeed I did say that, but I believe I'm allowed to change my mind and correct MY definition as well. Just because a statement has value, doesn't mean it is the positive claim. The positive claim is the one which is asserting something as true, and therefore has the burden of proof. Claiming that the unicorn doesn't exist is NOT a positive claim. If it was, it would not be simple at all for YOU to prove that there isn't a unicorn living in MY garage. That's not how reason works.
CommunityCam 1 day ago
@CommunityCam
You change your mind in every comment WTH am I supposed to th!nk? If this is the case Atheism ceases to be a world view and we're still left questioning whether there is a God or not. I would have to go to your garage to prove that and I could and that statement is a truism making it a positive claim.
lxAgnosticxl 1 day ago
@lxAgnosticxl EXACTLY, we ARE still questioning the existence of god. I was trying to stress that atheism is not a truism. We say that most likely, there is no god. There is no evidence, nothing, therefore we can safely assume this. BUT, I also said that everyone is agnostic, whether an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. I will not say with 100% certainty that there is no god.
CommunityCam 1 day ago
@CommunityCam
"most likely, there is no god."
*SIGH* That is a truism & a positive claim. And again I've said several times agnosticism is a seperate claim it's not mutually exclusive.
2ndly there is evidence for God
a~The creation of the universe ex nihilo
b~The fine tuning
c~The existance of objective moral values
d~God is the best explanation as to why anything exists
e~the very possibility of God entails he exists
lxAgnosticxl 1 day ago
Saying a unicorn does not exist is an absolutist *claim*, a truism That make it a positive claim, why do I have sit here and explain this to you again and again like a child? Science doesn't make absolutist claims like something is or isn't true it deals only with probability, "I'm retarded"? You keep contradicting your self, you don't know what positive or truism means, and you clearly can't tell the difference between philosophy and the scientific method.
lxAgnosticxl 1 day ago
@lxAgnosticxl 'there is evidence for God'
Rational view:
I agree, there is evidence FOR God, but this only holds true if you presuppose (believe in) God. Do you need evidence for God, if you presuppose him? Looks like circular reasoning!
The scientific view,
looks for evidence OF God. So far, there is no scientific evidence OF God! And there won't be any as long God's attributes are as such that he is a non-testable and non-falsifiable entity.
curiosityversusfaith 21 hours ago
@curiosityversusfaith
Re; Rational view
I'm not presupposing his existance for any of these arguments.
Re; Scientific view
I disagree take for example the fine tuning Nasa called it "the most powerful evidence to come out of science for the existance of God"
The argument goes as follows
P1~The fine tuning of the universe is either due to chance, physical necessity or design
P2~It is not due to chance or physical necessity
C~Therefore is due to design
lxAgnosticxl 18 hours ago
P1~- What is fine tunned? around about 50 or so constants but heres 2 e.g. 1st Penrose calculates that the odds of our universe's low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:10^10(123), an inconceivable number. The odds of our solar system's being formed instantly by random collisions of particles is, on the other hand, about 1:10^10(60), a vast number, but inconceivably smaller than 10^10(123). Penrose calls it "chicken feed" by comparison!
lxAgnosticxl 18 hours ago
Steven Weinberg says the cosmological constant is fine tunned to 1:1^56-1^120 Without which the universe would either expand to fast for stars to form or to little the universe collapses John Jefferson Davis
points out, an accuracy of one part in 10^60 can be compared to firing a bullet at one inch target on the other side of the observable universe, 20 billion light years away, and hitting the target
lxAgnosticxl 18 hours ago
P2~1st option- It turns out that string theory allows a "cosmic landscape" of around 10^500 different universes governed by the present laws of nature but with different values of the physical constants.There independent of the laws of nature
2nd option -chance mathematicians ususally have a limit as to what is possible by chance F.Tipler sets it at 10^80 the fine tuning is much greater
3rd therefore it is due to design, Unless you can show design is lessplausable than either 1or2
lxAgnosticxl 18 hours ago
@lxAgnosticxl
You missed the point. Even in your citation you are using 'evidence FOR' and not 'evidence OF'.
P1 carries an implicit assumption. And that is the fine tuning! You only can speak of fine tuning, when you observe the fine-tuner doing the fine tuning. Thus your argument fails because you can not demonstrate the fine tuning.
curiosityversusfaith 16 hours ago
@curiosityversusfaith
You're commiting the equivaction fallacy, fine tuning does not mean designed, and the argument is a valid one it is a trasitional argument and it follows modus ponens, there if you want to deny the conclusion you have to deny a premise.
lxAgnosticxl 16 hours ago
@lxAgnosticxl
Well, granted your claim that designed is not the same as fine-tuned.
You still have not demonstrated what design-of-a-universe is!
Unless you give your designer the same properties as humans have (observable ...) your design has an empty meaning. Analogies only are true when both sides belong to the exact same category.
Give an example observing a designer designing a universe. I agree, there is a universe. But where is the designer?
curiosityversusfaith 4 hours ago
@lxAgnosticxl No, you can't go into my garage. I simply wont let you, and in fact, that's exactly the same dilemma with god. You have no way of seeing him. Why are you being so stubborn? Saying that the unicorn in my garage doesn't exist, is NOT a positive claim. Where is the argument here?
CommunityCam 1 day ago
@lxAgnosticxl There is nothing hard to understand here, the burden of proof is on me if I claim a unicorn is in my garage. I must show some verifiable evidence that this unicorn is really there. You do not have to go all the way to my garage, just to prove that the unicorn isn't real. That's not how science works, and that's not how basic logic works. If you truly feel that you need to go to my garage to prove the unicorn isn't there, then be my guest, but I'll think you're retarded.
CommunityCam 1 day ago
She's a fool. She makes way to many assumptions.
mccartherable 1 week ago
A person who REALLY thinks logically would have to believe that there is a higher being of some sort. Look at the ear or the eye. Random? Look at it! It's no way random. It's to well designed.
mccartherable 1 week ago
@mccartherable Nobody claimed it's random. It is explained in great detail by the theory of natural selection, which is not at all random. Please learn something about science before making silly claims.
CommunityCam 3 days ago
This is a person to look up to
SACRAMENTOKINGSROCK 1 week ago
@SACRAMENTOKINGSROCK
*Points and laughs*
lxAgnosticxl 5 days ago
Comment removed
kooperman 1 week ago
@kooperman unless you can't use the right form of "you're"
gocrusaderz 1 week ago
@gocrusaderz Even with the incorrect use of the word your. She was right
kooperman 1 week ago
@kooperman She certainly was. She's a beast in a good way
gocrusaderz 1 week ago
The people of the lower valley one day received an surprising abundance much need water. More than enough for all the men, women and children. Plenty to irrigate their crops. So much so that they began raising animals to expand their farms. They thanked God.
At the same time, the people living by the lake in the upper mountains began dying off after their lake dried up. They cursed the Devil.
mustang607 1 week ago
That cheeky bastard, not smart enough to know whether there is a God. Cunt.
SkinnerCanThink 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
watch?v=krvCQbzPKiI
"Islam: What the West needs to know" (full documentary)
Watch it.
RonaldPaulstein 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's time the churches stop feeding at the public trough.
multitalentino 1 week ago
Some of her ideas such as religion were brilliant while others...eh..
scenecore12 1 week ago
I totally respect her
kennaynayTV 2 weeks ago
Wow...there is another human being that see's things the same way that I do...
anthonyjperri 2 weeks ago
God is not about emotion or feeling. We have faith in science which is faith in God.
prreyreyland 2 weeks ago
lol she reminds me very much of my aunt..same Russian accent and talks the same things.
TaiMaiShews 2 weeks ago in playlist Liked videos
Comment removed
TaiMaiShews 2 weeks ago
I find that most who dismiss Ayn Rand’s morality don’t really understand it. Her “selfishness” is long-term, principled self-interest. People are a combination of the physical and mental, and your self-interest includes psychological values. Self-interest is not to be reduced to only the physical, such as money. Other people can be of tremendous psychological value (i.e. friends, lovers, children.) Rand recognized that benevolence toward strangers is in one’s own interest, in a free country.
SwordOfApollo 2 weeks ago
keep in mind that despite sounding reasonable and intelligent during these appearances, this woman was a complete sociopath and idolizing her only hurts the already poor reputation atheists have.
nutleyoleo 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nutleyoleo Doesn't matter if she was a sociopath or not. That doesn't change her logic. I don't think we as atheists should pander to theists and make ourselves look good. What should matter is the truth; not how our opposition views us.
195ashes 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
philosophicalsceptic 2 weeks ago
yeah she is right herte but overall was an evil lady
JagjeetMann 3 weeks ago
" i will not die, its the world that will end." brilliant
edajdranreb 3 weeks ago
This lady is legend incarnate. She speaks the truth. If it offends you, hard shit. Fuck off and do us a favour and stand on a land mine.
dtsmucker 3 weeks ago 14
@dtsmucker Yeah she is...imagine a world where everyone relied on their own logic...people believed in them selves and not God...land mines probably wouldn't exist...
anthonyjperri 2 weeks ago
@dtsmucker Your language is so classy! :^)
thekingofmoney2000 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thekingofmoney2000 My mouth speaks English, my accent is Northern. My voice is Mancunion. My language is the same as yours.
My attitude, on the other hand, may be different to yours.
See the difference?
dtsmucker 9 hours ago
She is her own category and no one owns her. What a brilliant woman.
reddracoqueen 3 weeks ago
jewish bitch misleading people.of course you are called upon to prove a negative.
judge to defendant: so you say that you were NOT in your house when your wife was killed last sunday?
Defendant: I can prove that I was NOT in the house , I was with my midget gay lover!
There you go.Alibi is mostly about PROVING that you DID NOT do something that you are accused of. She is full of Jewish shit and she looks like godless shit.
amazingGrace108 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
setmedic 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@amazingGrace108 you should be thanking her. if it wasn't for jews nailing your stupid christ to a cross, you wouldn't have anyone to grovel to...
setmedic 3 weeks ago
@amazingGrace108 You're looking at it the wrong way, clearly. Just because you say that there is 'Not' something doesn't mean that you're not asserting a position. In your example the 'Defendant' is ASSERTING a position that they were doing something else other than being in the, metaphorical, house. Atheists aren't saying that there isn't a God, only that they cannot believe in the ones put forward due to lack off evidence from the ASSERTING subject, or theist in this case.
ThatBritishGenius 3 weeks ago 2
@ThatBritishGenius her point was that "you are never called upon to prove a negative" and according to this witch that is supposed to be the "law of logic" .I just proved it to the world that you are indeed called to prove the negative when you are asked by the court to prove that you didn't kill someone etc.
a·the·ism/ˈāTHēˌizəm/
Noun:
The theory or belief that God does not exist
Wtf are you talking about mr. "genius".
amazingGrace108 3 weeks ago
@amazingGrace108 Innocent until proven guilty dude. The court has to prove that he was in the house when she was killed. He could say he was out alone on a walk, no sane jury would convict him unless there was evidence he was in the house.
Novac3721 3 weeks ago
@amazingGrace108 You're an idiot. You are NOT called upon to prove that you did not kill someone, Innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. Fool.
JustinRector19 3 weeks ago
@amazingGrace108 oh man you really are a buffoon.
MrHattor 3 weeks ago
@amazingGrace108 How do you not understand this? you are ASSERTING that you were somewhere else. It is not a question of there being a negative.
An equivalent problem would be prove unicorns do not exist, yours is not an equivalent.
what your example is would be if someone put forward a VIABLE, TESTABLE, proof for god that needed a response. then your analogy works, right now, no.
Menla1 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ayn Rand may not always be right, but it is so inspiring to see someone who has done something powerfully good with the mind that are so lucky to have.
TheRebelOfTyrus 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
TheRebelOfTyrus 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I believe in God and I am a Christian, but I do understand the point that Miss Rand is trying to explain, it is totally valid and you must respect that, otherwise you would be a hypocrite admiting that you believe in something that you don't, and I have also seen those in church. This lady was absolutely brilliant! though I disagree with her on this point of the existance of God.
PureSoapCleans 1 month ago
Comment removed
PureSoapCleans 1 month ago
It's L.Ron Hubbard in drag!
quote3000 1 month ago
I will not die. It's the world that will end.
TehVista 1 month ago
I love this woman, can't agree with her ideas on small gov, scientifically can't work in a large country like USA, but she is BRILLIANT.
scientistrules 1 month ago
@scientistrules actually a republic such as ours, is perfect for a large society. a large populative country has a very difficult time with with a large democratic gov't because of the majority rules mentality, with so many people, so many different interests, and so many different cultures. I mean look at history at these large gov't empires, with a large population, they inevitably collapse in on itself.
scalp340 1 month ago
@scalp340 scietifically, she is wrong and she would agree with that herself if she were around today. Trust in human individual is the most laughable claim anyone could give these days after all we know about the human animal which is ALL to his or her core about survival of the fittest and surviving long enough to pass on gene pool. Such a society is going to be a mess especially when populations are high, look at INDIA. At least there they BELIEVE in reincarnation, we don't. Think.
scientistrules 1 month ago
@scientistrules I'm not sure science has anything to do with her philosophy of meritocracy, individualism, and objectivism, centering around a pure free market capitalist system. but hey what do I know? you must be the expert, talking science when the subject is economically based.
scalp340 1 month ago
@scalp340 I look at her philosophical ideas as its closest to science and that is why I tend to find its faults or holes in it. Philosophical ideas are meaningless to us scientists as science explains and provides answers for everything, including morality and ethics, so philosophy is dead, as far as we are concerned. Ayn is one step away from being closest to a scientific explanation and guidance, she would have been spot on if she had scinetific education& was around today.
scientistrules 1 month ago
@scientistrules Out of curiosity, is the study of nature to bring about the banishment of the fear of death or to further it?
quote3000 1 month ago
@quote3000 study of nature and science can only do you good in every way.It opens your mind in to the fact that no one is that special in the eye of anyone & that's not the point. That world goes on without you, so enjoy it while u can and chill. Religions served the purpose of giving hopes to millions of desperate people living in HORRIBLE conditions, but NO ONE, even in Africa lives like that anymore and they CAN change their lives and live smart using science.
scientistrules 1 month ago
@quote3000 if you teach impoverished people how nature works and why animals and humans do things& what's SMART naturally speaking,then they may use their brains more efficiently, have less promiscuous less or little & use condom,eat better,have less better quality children,save wisely,live sustainably,stop using drugs and stop believing in horse sh**T superstitions, &make sure education is provided for their kids you bet half of Africa is improved shortly.Science heals,Religion kills
scientistrules 1 month ago
@scientistrules But what gives westerners the right to go in there and "spoon feed" the information to a nomadic culture, for instance? Also isn't aid overrated and trade more efficient?
quote3000 4 weeks ago
@scientistrules Half agree. I believe that science also kills, they are (despite the proponents protestations) entwined together like the hangman's noose of humanity. I think that if you look carefully most indigenous peoples got on fine without whiteys influence. ONLY AFTER "we" "gave" "them" religion, culture, science & civilisation did things go wrong. We rest on our laurels for great gifts to the savages, ignoring the thefts of land, gold and liberty. Religion Kills, Science is its enabler.
DoctorBastardo 4 weeks ago
@DoctorBastardo BUT Ayn is pretty cool.
DoctorBastardo 4 weeks ago
@scalp340 plus most people believe in charity and donate because they are religious. FEW people are smart enough,and educated in science, to know that it's in their benefit if poverty, etcis taken cared off for the sake of all in a given society.Most people aren't that smartT.hey R about 'give me and give me more' as it concerns their survival.We will never have a rational atheistic society in which everyone GETS why they should voluntarily help outThe bulk of ANY society is ave-ow IQ.
scientistrules 1 month ago
True love I believe to be more of an action. You do not truly love someone unless you are willing to sacrifice your own wants and needs for the benefit of someone else. With that definition, then love is not selfish. Most of us out of our ego want to be loved by someone else but don't want to work that hard to sacrifice out own desires in order to return the favor.
NosajElttil76 1 month ago
I know where Bill O'Reilly gets his hosting skills from.
yackon4game 1 month ago
Wow, what an impressive old woman! Excellent, Love Her!
irudesan 1 month ago
I will not die. It's the world that will end.
Porgee 1 month ago
So she didn't believe in God, good for her. She decided to throw out all care for any other human and praise selfishness. She's a bitch.
TheTerrorUforgot 1 month ago
@TheTerrorUforgot
How could you say that? Every person is selfish and acts out of selfishness. Love itself is a selfish act. For example, you love someone and are happy with them. To make your happiness eternal, you marry or stay with this person out of your own love and selfishness. You sire are selfish just is everyone else. She's not a b****, but she accepts the truth of all human beings unlike yourself.
blincbr 1 month ago
damn. she was an atheist before it was cool.
orangeluva56 1 month ago 27
This has been flagged as spam show
@orangeluva56 Epicurus was waaaaaaay before her. Now he was a trend starter!
195ashes 2 weeks ago
Religion is a comfort that people lean on when they feel unstable or somehow vulnerable. No real satisfaction can logically be reached through the belief in a god of any kind, only mental relaxation on the thought that your life is being dealt with by a 'higher power'. Practice religion or not, we're all going to die, and when we die, we're dead. That's it. So the entire point of discussion of a god is irrelevant.
sarahmorri777 1 month ago
she was one of the rothchild mistress
ThePedmart277 1 month ago
this woman has some repress trauma from childhood, don't you people see how arrogant she becomes when talking abou religion? propably she is what she is becouse her family lost their business to the communist, so now she wants to blame it on God
/
ThePedmart277 1 month ago
she was an atheist jews, so this explained everything. God forgive her
ThePedmart277 1 month ago
This is a witches trick... you can't prove there is God nearly always elicits the response... You can't prove there isn't a God. The proper response is... Just because we have not proven God exists yet, doesn't mean we never will, and it also does not mean there isn't a creator which is more than likely considering the level of design elements present in the universe which we HAVE observed. Which makes that theory more likely than not.
These people are practicing satanists.
haansgruber 1 month ago
@haansgruber That is a pretty crazy reply, sir. How can they be Satanists if they don't believe in Satan?
TheTerrorUforgot 1 month ago
I don't mind her being an atheist. Why would I? Just because I believe in God and WISH that others did as well, doesn't mean I gotta force my beliefs on them. Love God, love people, that's it :)
cecemck713 1 month ago
its arrogant wen atheists say it BUT wen christians say it, WELL THATS JUST FINE THEN!
DiabloDave363 1 month ago
She is right, there is no God. How does she know? BECAUSE SHE IS A GODDESS!
DiabloDave363 1 month ago
lol at how emotional religitards get when someone questions their fantasies.
UltraProle21 1 month ago 3
Romans ONE the proof is all around us
3ofusalone 1 month ago
Somebody help me here. There's something about Rand's ideas that I don't quite understand.
According to Rand and Objectivism, compromise of large ideals is a bad thing, because you are rejecting your true personality. However, in order to accept the Objectivist movement, you have to do it all the way, which requires a personal compromise of some sort. Now, how can you become a "true" Objectivist without compromising?
Catch-22 anyone?
I'm not trying to be a troll, it's just strange.
Savemefromhelen 1 month ago
@Savemefromhelen
It's a strange but not uncommon hypocrisy, yes.
I've always thought that aligning yourself with any specific ideal or philosophy forces you to contradict yourself because being an imperfect human would make it impossible for you to live up to this carefully crafted ideal.
lesterclaypool1 1 month ago
She is full of shit
williemetoyer1 1 month ago
Statistics would have us believe that about 80 to 90% of us believe in the existence of god. The amazing fact is that when I view videos like this throughout YouTube I notice that the number of likes far outweigh the number of dislikes. I think that subconsciously we all know the truth…we just don’t want to admit it.
scottmds 1 month ago 2
@scottmds
Not sure how relevant of a point that is. I mean if you go to a pro religious video, the likes will far outweigh the dislikes. People just don't look for videos that conflict with their own beliefs.
Jkru352 1 month ago
@Jkru352 Well. you could say that... depends on the videos you watch I guess but from the sites I have visited and videos I view both pro and antil religion I think it's clear.
scottmds 1 month ago
I'm currently a socialist. However I greatly respect Ayn Rand and I have to admit her arguments are very well thought out and I can even acknowledge that many offer superior solutions to their socialist counterparts. She's one of the few advocates of conservatism that I can say I respectfully disagree with.
195ashes 1 month ago
@195ashes What do you think about Milton Friedman?
xXvolhvXx 1 month ago
@xXvolhvXx I think he's a stand-up bloke and I would like to buy him a drink. To be honest, I've never heard of him. Thanks for pointing out someone else I should be paying attention to.
195ashes 1 month ago
Wow very powerful at that time. Love it.
ShahTelevised 1 month ago
Phil Donahue sure looked ignorant when he argued with her and the "what do you care?" part.
Disbelief =/= anti-freedom of religion
raspberrymuffin 1 month ago
Millions of people have the profound inner experience that something bigger than themselves is at work in their life and in the world. Thinking this will simply be explained away by some cheap little tricks of logic is indeed arrogant and misguided. Where do moral values, like compassion, truth, justice comes from, if not from that initial intuition there is something divine at work? The ultimate moral virtue preached by Ayn Rand was selfishness. Do the math!
LuathHans 1 month ago
You know you're insane when Ayn Rand is the more rational person in a debate.
MinotawrTV 1 month ago
It's a shame that a woman who was smart enough to be an atheist, could at the same time, be an unbelievably crazy bitch, with almost zero social conscience & absolutely no love or heart for her fellow man..
trekadam30 1 month ago
WOW...UNBELIEVEABLE...IDK, WHAT TO THINK HERE...HMM...F/S...
tloblo 1 month ago
the first interviewer seems really mature and open but the second 1 seems kind of rude.............
LJLambertAravena 1 month ago in playlist Liked videos
I love her. Can't believe she was so outspoken in that time.
SebastienCade 1 month ago 29
"i will not die, its the world that will end."
franckjaredd 1 month ago
Brilliant woman! Reason wins.
1woodsorrel 1 month ago 23
@1woodsorrel she was a idiot and a sociopath. She changed her name and went on public assistance in her later days.
lisabob22 3 weeks ago
@1woodsorrel She seems a very cold woman in my opinion. Personally I think religion and spirituality can be soothing to the soul and give hope to individuals if it is used in a positive way. Obviously the only God that exists to her is money, a simple and physical entity created by man. Nevertheless I must admit that I do wonder what went through this lady's mind when she was on her death bed. How did she find peace in her final hours?
philosophicalsceptic 2 weeks ago
@philosophicalsceptic
just bc u dont believe in God does not mean that you can not live or die in peace...if she felt accomplished; or that she made a positive mark in the world before she passed, then that could have put her at peace?
DivinelyMochaDipped 2 weeks ago
@DivinelyMochaDipped I agree. She did indeed make a mark upon the world.
philosophicalsceptic 2 weeks ago
You can't really argue with her logic; it is pretty sound. Too bad she didn't influence many more people with her views on the existence of God. Her views are clear and concise and form the basis for a good discussion, which unfortunately too many religious people can't have a "calm and rational" discussion about this topic. I think she's more known for her political views. I'm not sure I agreed with her views on society and politics, although I do agree with her view on personal liberties.
MrGTR1967 1 month ago
Well she knows now either way.
If there isn't a God (as she believes) then she is a bunch of atoms flowing randomly on earth without intellect.
If she is wrong then she is talking to God right now and feeling pretty foolish.
darthspeaks 1 month ago
Comment removed
Mr4pp 1 month ago
If she lived today, republicans would denounce her as a liberal.
fdh2006 1 month ago
Take that United States Christians...you dumb fucks.
Jeffersonwazright 1 month ago 2
@Jeffersonwazright Perhaps they are "Dumb fucks" No reason to call them that, never get on with anything by insulting people.
Mr4pp 1 month ago
@Mr4pp emmm, maybe.
Jeffersonwazright 1 month ago
She is much more to-the-point and honest and you can clearly see that she isn't offensive; just speaking the truth. A far cry from many famous atheists of today, who go about insulting people who don't believe what they do, often baselessly
solangesand 1 month ago
I really admire this woman.however I do believe there is "proof" for a God but not in religious matters,but in philosofical,physical,mathematical,biological etc.
In my belief God=universe.Futhermore what is created has its creater inside of itself,therefore we ourselves are God.I think that the studies and observation on the hemispheres(brain) and its "higher connection" is very much a divine science.
91Tribual 1 month ago
The problem I have with Ayn Rand is she was a hypocrite. I suppose most people are in one sense or another, but she really goes shouting her hypocracy with a bullhorn.
SepherStar 1 month ago
Wow what a woman, she was ahead of her time.
mikelh 1 month ago
Ayn Rand believed she was right by way of reason, but what a limited attempt she exhibited. Her excuse of 'never having to prove a negative' is rationally unethical by classifying a possibility as a 'negative' without cause. Anyone who touts rationality should be ready to give a rational answer, not an arrogant opinion.
Excaliber02 1 month ago
I believe in the Triune God, saved by the blood of Christ, by the knowledge that He spoke and acted into His creation throughout the history of the world. If Christianity were merely a blind leap of faith, I too would deny. My faith is built on the knowledge and understanding given by God to man, both through His Word and through mathematical impossibilities that prove our existence is not by pure chance. Ayn Rand believed she was right by way of reason, but what a limited attempt she exhibit
Excaliber02 1 month ago
"You are never called upon to prove a negative"
Now, although I disagree with Rand, that right there should put all those idiotic Christians in their place.
redshark618 1 month ago
@redshark618 that's nonsense, and a complete cop-out.
thousands of years ago, some philosophers argued that the universe was made up of atoms. they had no direct proof whatsoever for this claim, only deductive reasoning and their observations of how the universe worked led them to believe it.
if you had said, thousands of years ago, to these philosophers what Ayn Rand says "I know there isn't atoms because I've been given no evidence", how foolish would you look today?
eleutheromaniac 1 month ago
@eleutheromaniac The burden of proof doesn't lie with me, so I can reject a claim without evidence. Your example of atoms is irrelevant here. If I were to reject atomic theory thousands of years ago, I would have done so based on the scientific knowledge at the time - and it would not matter to me what today's scientists thought of me. I can reject God today, without evidence, without remorse as to what future science may think of me - It doesn't matter if it proves me wrong, I'll be dead
redshark618 1 month ago
@redshark618 "burden of proof" does not apply to only positive statements, atheist rhetoric not withstanding. also, you're using the deductive fallacy that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, which as shown with the case of atoms is simply not true.
if you think of the Prime Mover question as a closed door, whether you are claiming there is *something* behind that door, or *nothing* behind that door, you are equally obligated to provide rationale for your conclusion.
eleutheromaniac 1 month ago
@eleutheromaniac You know what, I don't care. I'm not here to be arguing philosophy over the internet and I don't care what you believe. Whatever we say will not change the other person's POV, so I'll leave it at that.
redshark618 1 month ago