Dawkins has claimed, “As for religion … nobody wields a sharper bayonet than Sam Harris.” Harris debated Craig on 7th April. In his opening statement in that debate, Harris declared that Dr Craig is “the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists.” After that debate, the atheist website Debunking Christianity reported: “Bill (Craig) has once again showed himself as the best debater of this generation.” ROFL
@jamesrideout123 Eugenics was invented by a man named Galton he was a statistical genius a Christian and had the best of intentions but unfortunately he misunderstood Darwin which is why you should perhaps try and understand it yourself
i kinda doubt just how accurate neo-pagans are from actual paganism since most to all records were destroyed by christianity and then rewrote them in THEIR image
Santa clause bitch slapped one of the guys at the counsel. and I believe out of 300 only 6 said Jesus was not god. LOL he makes it seem like if Jesus divinity was in doubt. what a fool.
"he makes it seem like if Jesus divinity was in doubt. what a fool."
It WAS in doubt. Did you know that practically nobody knew who Jesus was until Paul started writing? Did you know that it's utterly impossible for the Gospels to be eyewitness accounts? Did you know that eyewitness accounts are by far the least reliable source of information?
@TheZooCrew yeah people outside of Israel didn't know who Jesus was obviously at the time. I was referring to the council the vote was 300 to 3.
"Did you know that eyewitness accounts are by far the least reliable source of information?" I can't believe you just said that. So what's the most reliable source of information? LOL so you don't believe in ANY history what so ever. NONE You don't believe in Washington you don't believe in Lincoln.... extremely flawed logic.
@Lacocacolaman Least reliable does not mean completely unreliable. It has been shown over and over that eye witness accounts are among the least reliable forms of evidence, yet this does not mean it ought to be done away with as a means of pursuing the truth. It simply means that without any sort of supporting evidence eye witness accounts ought to be treated as questionable.
and why do you think that is no one knew about him until paul?
many theories was that christianity was INVENTED by paul in order to destroy the roman empire via fear and guilt and take it over for the burning of the jewish temple in the year 70 - the same year the oldest records of mark, the earliest gospel - were made
There's little question that Paul had ulterior motives when he started writing. I would say it's mildly inaccurate to say Paul "invented" Christianity since everything he wrote was based on real events...but he certainly enhanced some aspects and was well-received by a certain disgruntled population.
The Gospels are largely a mystery even today...several of the supposed authors were illiterate and likely didn't live long enough to write them anyway.
Acts 17:18, Acts, 9:20, and Timothy II 2:8 show a bit of the involvement of paul as a figurehead
and therein is a good point: why would a guy who never met jesus and whose vision happened when no one else was around, be the author of the majority of the new testament.
the actual gospels are widely considered to have been written by unknown people because of the third-person narratives and the complete lack of association to their biblical counterparts
and I doubt these were based on real events because of the belief factor. there is no record of jesus' existence outside the bible
either he existed or he didn't. if you have to believe he existed, then that, in and of itself, means there is no evidence. matthew and luke were the only ones to write about jesus' actual birth. matthew wrote about the roman soldiers and heroid in -4 (based on when heorid died), and luke wrote about augustus' census in the year 6
The Romans were very good at keeping records. Jesus did exist and yes there IS mention of him outside the Bible; he was reputed to be a teacher later in life, and he was crucified under Pontius Pilate. However, the Biblical account is extremely dramatized. Pilate was sort of a captain who was sent to the region to locate the source of unrest and restore order. He found that the easiest way was to crucify Jesus and release a prisoner, so he did just that. He didn't really care.
Jesus was also likely born in Nazareth rather than Bethlehem, and most certainly not in a manger. There is absolutely no record of Jesus himself proclaiming to be the Son of God outside of the Bible. So while the stories Paul wrote about have their grounds in reality, he clearly fabricated much of his writing for a different reason.
@JamesRideout123 The promoters of religious "truth" have lied to you. Darwin publicly denounced and consistently criticized eugenics, racism, and slavery in every one of his books. Oh, and Hitler and Stalin both banned and burned Darwin's books.
@Abbadon380 No, they aren't. A fact is something that is based on evidence. The "fact" is, life exists. A truth could be anything that someone believes is true. 1500 years ago, the "truth" was the earth was the center of the universe.
@Abbadon380 A fact is that you are alive. We can scientifically prove that you are alive. A truth, let's say a Christian truth, the Bible is the word of God. We can't scientifically prove that, but to Christians, it's true.
Dude... You are such a badass!! Your videos sum up everything I wish I could have said to a few people in the past. I've been sending these videos around to a few people I know. Keep up the good work!
If you really notice what goes on-every religion and faith actually follows a "different" path,yet they all kinda gain the same result-their fight is on the different path,and their ignorance is from the fact that no matter what path they follow,they all reach the same location,and aim toward the same location.
The wars of ideas is simply wars of pride and ego..that's that.
Kinda think about it,the origin religions are actually a combo of faith,history and tips and wisdom on how to live life.
@sonykroket Maybe for ancient people it made sense...like I said...THE ORIGINAL RELIGION.They had a different culture and different views on stuff,and I never said I agree with them,only that this was the ancient reasons for religion,and people lived on those things-and for them...those stuff WERE indeed wisdom and tips for life...go figure why.
Humanity by itself is flawed anyway-the result is obvious in our times-If you notice that it's actually a balloon that keeps growing...HINT
@TheZooCrew Tried that,did not work...Something tend to mess it up. I guess I'm a privet joke of something,I'll most likely die the moment my existence will no longer be a funny paradoxical tragedy to that something which I call "Very random events caused by the amazing power of Luck and Murphy's law"
Anyway,still got a mission to do-I'll most likely leave peacefully once it's done by some strange accident that will cause me to just disappear.
@sonykroket And you keep saying the same thing over and over again when it's all just fishit of someone who gains sexual pleasure by thinking that "yeah...I got you now,I got you!"
You live onto your own fairytale,I bet you are yet another capitalistic jerk who only gives a fart if something happens to his own ass,and you don't care about the future of everything,you care for Poo alone
Grow up-You are blind to see how humans rape their own worlds and wage conflicts over useless ideas and faiths!
At the moment you are the only one who makes jokes upon itself,by the fact that you do not know how to answer beyond a small band of useless words.
Yeah,I'm a sick joke of the universe,Since I'm a thing that gives a fart about everything while everything torments itself.If I was not a joke,then I would have not existed most likely.
Also,you are a commercial for being shallow.
Right now you live in a fairytale called "fuck shit ass"Wake up
@sonykroket Correct,you do spread silly nonsense-I just seek to get through the horde of crap to reach to the core that my share some idea that actually holds something to it.
@sonykroket My opinion is just presenting a point,I never said people HAVE to listen to this,if anyone listens,then yay to them-this world is going down the crapper by the hands of the humans,don't believe it? well,you live in your own fairytale then,most likely the Consumerism one,where you simply believe that you need more and more and more...and everything is fine-you are so busy with yourself that you don't know what you even say.
@AronRa hey, just want to say, love your vids. You are like an American Christopher Hitchens I think, just because you have a way of saying what we believe in a much clearer, concise way, elevating our own opinions. Gratzi for your work. Only wish I could meet you and shake your hand (I am halfway across the world atm)
When AronRa talks about "absolute truth," he is referring to a posteriori judgements such as those of empirical science. A priori judgements such as those based on pure logic CAN be known perfectly, or else we wouldn't have any basis to reason at all, such as the assertion "cogito ergo sum." A=A, or else we are madmen, but to realise we are madmen we still accept that A=A.
@KarlHeinzofWpg Nothing save mathematics is absolute. 1 and 1 will always equal 2. Mathematics is airtight to possibilities but nothing else is saved from that. AronRa's claim is obviously not an absolute claim to anyone who knows what absolute means. However, this is difficult and uncomfortable for many people to wrap their head around. Hence the insults like 'time to get the straight jacket' to anyone who takes them out of their fabricated boundaries for possibilities.
@AronRa I recently found a video which was by someone called Stevebee somethingorother about bird evolution, after quick research I found his arguments to be completely false but that's not what troubled me. Because the guy making those videos isn't religious. What do you think is the reason why he rejects all of the evidence for Evolution when he seems to be an intelligent person who got a better than most education?
At 2:14 : There is no absolute truth? Really? How about the "truth" that "there is no absolute truth?" Isn't that supposed to be absolutely true? Oops. Got a self-referential problem here, guy. Back to the drawing board.
@jimtrueblue99 If you think you've found a 'self-referential problem', then you must have stopped listening before you heard the next sentence, because I immediately explained why no one can honestly claim knowledge of 'absolute truth'.
@AronRa "No one can honestly claim knowledge of 'absolute truth'." Well, fella, that's an absolute truth too, and it suffers from the self-referential problem: AronRa can't honestly claim knowledge that no one can honestly claim knowledge of 'absolute truth'. See the problem? You're included in "no one." Your denial applies to you as well as everybody else. Back to the drawing board.
@jimtrueblue99 - Philosopher Steven Law has recently written a book entitled "Believing Bullshit: How Not to Get Sucked into an Intellectual Black Hole". Your condition is described in chapter 3 "Going Nuclear".
"AronRa can't honestly claim knowledge..."
Sure he can, but he can't claim "absolute" knowledge - that's why he doesn't. Knowledge is obtained in degrees but never completely, however, saying we don't know everything does not mean we don't know anything.
@KarlHeinzofWpg Claiming "no one can know absolute truth" is to assert an absolute truth that you claim to know, which self-referentially refutes the assertion. BTW, humans know a wealth of absolute truths--the truths of formal mathematics and logic. Is the Pythagorean theorem is a contingent truth? A probability? A mere possibility? AronRa needs some serious schooling in epistemology.
@jimtrueblue99 - "Claiming "no one can know absolute truth" is to assert an absolute truth that you claim to know"
AronRa is claiming something to be true. Where in the video does he claim it to be "absolutely" true? Give me the minute and second please.
I can say apples are made of atoms, and it would be true, but it's not absolutely true because atoms themselves are made of something else. So my statement, while true, is only true to a degree. That's what AronRa is getting at.
@KarlHeinzofWpg Do you see "no one" in the assertion? That means nobody--absolutely nobody--can know absolute truth. No exceptions. In short, an absolute claim. That's why AronRa assertion is a claim to absolute knowledge. He could say, "As far as I know one one can know absolute truth." That's a contingent assertion. But it's hardly interesting and certainly not the grand, sweeping claim that AronRa wants to make.
No, it's not an absolute claim, anymore then saying apples are made of atoms is an absolute claim. In both cases it's a claim which shows an enormous degree of truth but, as I said, it would not be the 'absolute' truth. The point is that someone can say something that is 100% true, but not absolute in every degree. AronRa claims something and then qualifies it clearly in the very next sentences. He's being perfectly reasonable and clear.
@KarlHeinzofWpg You're not getting this. AronRa's proposition is an absolute claim because of the structure of the proposition, not because of the properties of its referents. He is not making an empirical observation or an inductive claim; he asserts a claim that he thinks can never be false in any possible context (which is what an absolute truth is). Apart from being totally false (we know many absolute truths), the proposition incoherently denies itself--the self-referential problem. OK?
@TheZooCrew AronRa's claim is pointless if some (but not all) people know absolute truth. "No one" either means "no possible human person" or it means nothing important. It is equally pointless if it is a mere empirical observation--the folks I know don't know any absolute truth but other folks might. It tries to assert that absolute truths are unknowable to any possible human mind by asserting an absolute truth that all human minds should know and understand and agree with!
Absolute statements in semantics and "absolute truth" are two extremely different concepts, as easily discerned by anyone literate. Language contains absolute statements because we put them there. AronRa is talking about matters of nature, not abstract concepts like language.
@jimtrueblue99 - "You're not getting this." ~ Sure I am. I understand you completely. I know what you're trying to say and I know why you're wrong.
"AronRa's proposition is an absolute claim"
Then you don't know what an absolute claim is. Philosophically speaking, in the traditions of Descartes and Hume, you can't know absolutely that AronRa even exists. Even if he was standing right in front of you speaking. In fact, you can't even know that you exist in the bizarro scenarios of philosophy.
@TheZooCrew "Computers use a special code of their own to express the digital information they process. It's called the binary code because it consists of only two symbols—0s and 1s. (The "bi" in "binary" means two.)
Why 0s and 1s? Because those are the only two numbers you need to express the flow of electricity through a transistor. It's either on or it's off. On is 1, off is 0. Everything you say to a computer has to be put in terms of these two numbers."
Hey, dickhead...that blurb from Intel's site is dumbed down so even bottom feeders like you can understand it. Why would they discuss calculus-based signal filtering on a website geared towards the public?
For the second time you have utterly failed to read my only exception to my belief of no absolutes...constructs of human origin (like binary code, which is part of my specific example of math) have absolutes because WE put them there. GO TO SCHOOL.
@TheZooCrew "For the second time you have utterly failed to read my only exception to my belief of no absolutes...constructs of human origin (like binary code, which is part of my specific example of math) have absolutes because WE put them there. GO TO SCHOOL."
You never said "constructs of human origin" so I got you fair and square. Second .when you said that there is no absolutes, you just used an absolute. Duh Like the bible says and the dumb ass spoke. I won.
@TheZooCrew I caught your lie. I quoted you " constructs of human origin". Up until that you never said that. Then you have the nerve that you did say that when what you did say was ". outside of our own constructs like math." so I just declared an absolute that you lied buddy. You can have all the intelligence in the world but I have proven you wrong.. BTW As of Oct 1 2011 who was the president of the US? If you say Obama then it that not an absolute ?
@TheZooCrew So 9/11/2001 never happened right? I say it did and recent history can prove an absolute but you are in lala land and say that there is no absolute truth. If you want to deny that an airplane hit the buildings fine. Look I remember when my wife was pregnant. Tell me can one be pregnant and non pregnant at the same time? This is tooooooooooo good. I think you are the one that needs help not me.
@TheZooCrew I see you keep giving exceptions. You keep changing your story. I am not impressed. You can say what you want but I am not going away. You are framing the debate. You are now saying there is no absolute except it is of human origin. I got you. However even in framing the debate I win. Here is an absolute. The earth was here before humans were. Yes or no? Gravity was here before humans. Yes or no? How is that for starters?
"You are now saying there is no absolute except it is of human origin."
This is what I said right from the start, asshat: "there are no absolutes outside of OUR OWN constructs, like math."
Both of your statements are commonly held as true, but to say we were 100% absolutely certain of these would be to assume knowledge we don't have. However, there are no alternative explanations that even come close to competing as far as accuracy.
@TheZooCrew Terms may be relative but an absolute is still an absolute. You are living right now. You are taking in oxygen right now. If you stop at some point you will die. That is an absolute period. We only can discover that absolute but it is still an absolute So in conclusion if you did not get oxygen for 2 hours then you would have already died. I do not suggest that you try it because then you will be absolutely dead. Case closed. You lost.
"You are taking in oxygen right now. If you stop at some point you will die. That is an absolute period."
Well, no it's not, mostly because you haven't specified the duration of stoppage nor have you accounted for whatever deoxidizing reactions are taking place in my body. Also, this depends entirely on your definition of "dead."
"Terms may be relative but an absolute is still an absolute."
Meaningless statement. The definitions of "life" and "death" are part of man-made language, which I posited was an exception to my rule. You are either illiterate or a compulsive liar.
@TheZooCrew Still lost. I gave an absolute and no matter if you believe that little green men talk to you in bedroom fine. The absolute is if a human does not continue to get oxygen then the absolute is simple they die. Prove that wrong. Again I do not suggest this but could you go without oxygen for 2 hours and still be alive? If not it is an absolute no matter how you define it. So go play in your sandbox. You lost.
"The absolute is if a human does not continue to get oxygen then the absolute is simple they die. "
This depends entirely on your definitions of "get" and "die," and these are human constructs as I've said before. Also, it is not 100% certain that oxygen is required for human life. It's well over 99%, but to say it is 100% certain is to assume knowledge we cannot possibly have because we have never seen an atom.
@TheZooCrew Ok time for the straight jacket. You might want to educate yourself with ATP the fuel for the cells of the body. Without it that the cells die and then you will die.To insult my intelligence is one thing but now I am embarrassed at how stupid that reply was. So please learn about ATP and then get a life. Please you need help.
If you understand anything about physics, you'd know that there's of course a small chance that if I ran at a brick wall, I would come out the other side. Atoms are evidently mostly empty space, and thus all of my atoms could merely "avoid" the brick atoms. However, this chance is so small that it's asinine to attempt such a feat.
HOWEVER, I cannot say that it's 100% certain (you apparently don't know what this means) that I will not pass through a brick wall.
The law of excluded middle state that a statement is either true or false. When someone states that a god exists the statement is either true or false but it cannot be both. The law of excluded middle ties in with the law of identity in this logic. Is that down to your level?
I put a few more up here. BTW If you are saying that there is no absolutes then are you absolutely sure about that? If you say yes then you have made an absolute statement. OK I think it is time for you to go along and play in your little sandbox. Good night.
BTW " There can be only one truth and one version of it" according to your video and yet there is no absolute truth. You make me laugh. The video at around 1:40 and thus proves that you contradict yourself. Thanks for the laugh
If you're incapable both of distinguishing different levels of "truth" (i.e. accuracy of claims) as well as detecting discussion of hypotheticals, then you should probably refrain from spouting off unless you enjoy making an ass of yourself.
Also, you're a shining example of those AronRa criticizes...people who claim to have the "truth," yet clearly don't care what the "truth" really is.
@TheZooCrew "If you're incapable both of distinguishing different levels of "truth" (i.e. accuracy of claims) as well as detecting discussion of hypotheticals, then you should probably refrain from spouting off unless you enjoy making an ass of yourself."
Wow that is great. So 2+2 =4 Please explain the different levels of truth. I am all ears. So do you believe in absolute truth? This is toooooooooooooooo good to pass up.
@TheZooCrew BTW don't fret just for you I will not take your serious since you don't believe in absolute truth. So I believe we should not kill gays just because they choose to do so. However ,in your view it must be ok since there is really no absolutes. Thanks for the chat and hopefully someday you will grow up.
See, most people are perfectly okay with feeling strongly about things without the need to cling to them as "absolute truth." Most people (well, most rationalists, anyway) are okay both with admitting fault and reconsidering all of their own views. The problem with believing in "absolute truth" is that it's dishonest because it refuses to admit fault even when those faults are clearly objectively proven.
@TheZooCrew " The problem with believing in "absolute truth" is that it's dishonest because it refuses to admit fault even when those faults are clearly objectively proven."
You must be young. Let me try to help you. In my house a light could be either on or off. So what other "levels of truth" can you give? A woman is either pregnant or not. But what sayest thou? When you post a comment it either post or it doesn't. However thou most educated one what sayest thou? I can go on.
@TheZooCrew I hope you get some time out of your zoo and learn about real life. There is either a God or there is not. Fun chatting with a young head full of mush that needs a little help.
@TheZooCrew One more thing. A computer reads 0 or 1 or on and off. Since you claim that I am stupid and you are soooooooooooooo smart here is my question. Prove that the binary code is not absolute.
Feel free to post a response. If you don't then I claim victory. Fair enough?
No, this isn't even remotely fair, but I can answer this question pretty well.
0 and 1 are digital signals. However, this is impossible to replicate over a physical medium due to attenuation and noise. Analog signals are what's actually used and computers merely set voltage bounds to distinguish between 0 and 1. In addition, this is one of our own constructs which I mention provide (some) exceptions because we build them in.
When one declares that there is no absolute truth, one is declaring an absolute truth for the first statement to be true. If not ,then everything one says after that is not true if there is no absolute truth. Conclusion if no absolute truth then Mr Aronka is not worth listening to since nothing he says is truth. Have fun with that one.
there should not be any hell under earth .if any punishment is given it should be given on the earth only .any souls ,even any molecules should not be taken under earth , sevarages or any hell under earth , for punishment ,any sufferings ,or any kind of torturings .request you to come forward . so far what ever souls has been taken under earth and hells make to bring back on the earth even single molecule also.
addenda to previous post - I think it must be the sections of the video that have text in them combined with the audio that mixes me up, and maybe we're rushing it a little because this is an extensive series
and his video UNREPENTANT along with his website and join along exposing this shit and putting an end to it all! WAKE THE FUCK UP PEOPLE! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKE UP CALIS!
ROAMUN KAYTHAWLOCISM (or 'CAT-HO-LICKERS'...don't worry you FUCKING SHITFACED MUDEROUS FANATICAL SHIT FOR BRAINS MEDJUGORJIANS (who'd perhaps love to surgically flay any 'would-be' heretick at the NEW OPENING OF THE 21ST INQUISTION. Here my sear sweets...why don't you rest you ass here on Judas' seat?!? SICK BUNCH OF SORRY DUCK SHIT FACED FUCKS FOR DOING ABSOLUTELY FUCK ALL ABOUT ALL THE CHILD SEX ABUSE, TORTURE, EXPLOITATION, TRAFFICKING, PROSTITUTING, AND YES MURDER! (CHECK OUT KEVIN ANNETT..
UNRAVELLING THE BOOK OF BOOKS, and other books on Biblical Criticism or the Graff/Whelhausen hypothosis. Heard enough about the HOLY BIBLE being shot down. Now, why don't you do our Mohammedan (Mohametan) friends a great big favour as well. Liberate them from their 'hand me down' supersitious traditions as would you with Utah/Brigham Young Mormons, Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, Seventh Day Adventism, House Of Yahweh, Oneness Pentecostalism, New Apostolic Church, World Wide Church Of God..
Great video...wonderfully and articuatelty executed. However, I've noticed that your spending the majority of your time 'focused on discrediting the common Bible/Holy Bible/The Sacred Scriptures alledgedly-so-called'. Uh, I'm kind of sick of it really! Perhaps give far more time to dealing with Al-Quranic discrepancies, condradictions, falsehood so be it!
I've been through the same merry go round as perhaps you were, delving into books such as: IS IT GOD'S WORD? by Joseph Wheless...
You will find that articulate speech is of little use in effecting your spiritual condition,The god of the bible is not impressed by excellent speechWhy don't you follow your own assertions .The use of obscure terms to bolster your credibility is a cheap trick it does not indicate anything.Any talents you possess are temporarily given and will be taken from you.The sooner the better for your sake.
As with the last video, there was no vote on the divinity of Christ. Please do not think I am trying to argue :) Not much happened at Nicea, so it takes only mere hours to read through the historical records of Nicea. There is no talk at all of voting on anything. Nicea CONFIRMED what the Bible and Tradition stated, and that is, Christ is God. I am happy to answer questions you might have.
This is just willful ignorance. Whether or not the NT was actually compiled, the divinity of Christ was absolutely an important vote. They wanted to create a unified orthodoxy, and that means every church teaches the same thing; divinity of Christ included. Then they voted such that the used Bible reflected this unified orthodoxy.
@TheZooCrew Have you read the historical documents from Nicea? If you have, you will see that not much happened. A few heresies were condemned, a creed was formulated (100% of the creed comes from the Bible and not Tradition) and the Church made a declartion or 2. There was NO VOTE of any kind. No historical document talks about a vote. That is a myth that started a few years ago with the Divinci Code and it caught on.
@TheZooCrew The divinity of Christ was established by the Apostles and Christ Himself. We have writtings that date 280 year before Nicea that state Christ is God. There are secular and even pagan writtings that date 200 years before Nicea that state Christ was worshiped as God. The fact is, there was no vote on the matter. The issue was concerning that nature of Christ's divinity. Was He God with a human nature? Was He God any only "appeared" to be Human? That was the question.
@truthforchrist nope. there was really an argument was bible what it was, or what they wanted to be. denial is does not save your from those who know better. especialy if bible is right, you will burn in hell for ever for makeing christ a god that he was not. acording the bible jesus will him self punish you for your herecy. so take a guess. i dont even belive the bible and it still supports me.
@TheZooCrew I purposely misspelled his name out of disrespect. No, his point does NOT stand. He says that there was death before the fall because people had to eat living cells to survive and that's not true. All the protein, carbohydrates, lipids, nucleic acids, vitamins, and other nutrients can be obtained from fruits, nuts, legumes, and vegetables without the death of any animal or plant. Aron Ru is STILL an idiot.
"All the protein, carbohydrates, lipids, nucleic acids, vitamins, and other nutrients can be obtained from fruits, nuts, legumes, and vegetables without the death of any animal or plant."
Just the death of their seeds. It's akin to devouring an embryo.
@DarthHater100 "thank you for conceding that an embryo is life, and therefore conceding that Abortion is murder. I got you coming AND going."
Thank you for demonstrating that creationists can't argue without using logical fallacies like this red herring. Oh yeah, and before you had to break out that smelly ol' fish, you had to move the goal post from "Animals don't have to eat LIVING cells" to "without the death of any animals or plant." I can just see the troll face in contriving this crap.
@ApemanD You were the one who "moved the goal posts". I was correct in saying that animals don't have to eat LIVING cells", and you said his point still stands, there by moving the goal posts from what I was correct about, to what his point was. Then I STILL showed his wrongness, in regard to his point about death before the fall. Why would I move the goal posts from "Animals don't have to eat LIVING cells", when I was right about that? You changed the scope, not me.
Actually, you're wrong that animals don't have to eat living cells. Any creature that grazes consumes living cells. Any animal that eats fruit or leaves directly off the tree is consuming living cells. Also, where do you think the nutrients to sustain plants come from? Nitrates in fertile soil come from decomposing plant matter as part of the nitrogen cycle, necessitating plant death for plant life.
Your argument therefore becomes a faulty anthropocentric one.
@TheZooCrew No I am not wrong about animals not having to eat living cells. Just because they do, doesn't mean they have to. The organic nutrients necessary for life do not have to be living. Carbohydrates, lipids, amino acids, nucleic acids vitamins etc are what are necessary, and those aren't alive. Also, the nitrates in the soil are not living either, so I don't know how that helps your case. Just because these chemicals are FROM living things doesn't prove they ARE living.
@DarthHater100 I'm not TheZooCrew. "you said his point still stands, there by moving the goal posts from what I was correct about". <- Is in no way a shifting goalpost fallacy even if your daft claim was correct, so you literally have no idea what you're talking about. Fruits and vegetables have living cells, and you've cited fruits and vegetables to back up your assertion that animals don't have to eat living cells. I mean, retarded is an understatement given your assessment. -_-
And no, I don't concede that abortion is murder. We take life every day. But what makes human life different? Most call it "sentience," or self-awareness. Thus, it is not the taking of life that is murder, but the taking of sentient life.
Did you know that if we hold the beginning of sentient human life to the same standard as clinical death, an embryo is not alive until the end of the second trimester? Yet legal abortions are restricted to the first trimester...
I don't give a crap about your personal definition or your OPINION that sentience and self-awareness are necessary for the killing of a human to be murder. You say that an embryo is not alive until the end of the second trimester, but there have been babes that have been born BEFORE the second trimester and SURVIVED.
Let me get this straight, you say that I am KILLING a plant's embryos, when I eat their fruit, (though its not necessary to) but killing a human is A-OK. FUCK YOU.
@DarthHater100 darthhater is shockofgod this is just one of his troll names he uses cause hes a coward.I have asked him to provide proof and evidence that is accurate and correct that he is not shockofgod but he can't
The statement, "if any god exists and it happens that there is only one of them, then surely all enlightened/holy ... men should be able to sense it..." The reason why there's so many religions & even has multiple gods is that there is a Satan with his demons that are FOOLING THE MAJORITY of mankind. Their mission is to mislead/confuse as many people as they can. The appearances of "gods" to people are actually demons in disguise because its in the Bible that "No one can see God and live".
@eduardtube1980 And how would we know then, that YOUR version is the true one, and not just another work of some deamons or oni or rakshasa?
How do we know Hinduism is not the real religion, and your god is merely the work of Ravana who is fooling men? Other religions have their holy books and similar claims too.
Seriously, if your god exists and indeed demons fool the majority, then your god is not doing his job too well. And he is supposed to be all powerful.
Ah, the old "Satandidit." It's so ironic how fundamentalists are forced to grant Satan more and more power in their stories in order to cover their asses.
@eduardtube1980 how was the bible writen if "No one can see God and live". Surely the authors of the various books must have got their "knowledge" from somewhere? How do you know your version wasnt influenced by demons?
I am, but I don't think the original comment you responded to was. Interesting that he defends the god that no one has ever seen with a devil that no one has ever seen. Is he going to then explain that the pitchfork that no one has ever seen proves the devil, which proves the god? Do the souls in hell being tortured by a pitchfork prove the pitchfork which proves the.....
It's amazing that a strawman justifies a strawman.
FUCK....at one minute in...as the list of religions was completed...I realized...that you have to explain/refute the entire bullshit religion thing....one by one to every fucker in every religion before it will eventually be rejected by all of humanity.....FUCK...that will take at best hundreds of years...and at worst..........thousands....FUCK FUCK FUCK.....
@gregrutz Oh for the love of ..... he was obviously referring to the overwhelmingly popular image of jesus that every god fearing christian et al in the world has, either in a frame or hanging on a cross, dead, with blood dripping from his hands and feet! i know, how harsh of me, meh....
@MrDBarch And my point is that is just more made up crap. They don't know what jesus looked like just like they don't know what he said, it's all made up.
In fact, the popular images are most definitely what Jesus did NOT look like. I have yet to see Jesus depicted as Middle Eastern, which he obviously was.
What was the animation clip from @4:40-4:50?
jrpow09 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dawkins has claimed, “As for religion … nobody wields a sharper bayonet than Sam Harris.” Harris debated Craig on 7th April. In his opening statement in that debate, Harris declared that Dr Craig is “the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists.” After that debate, the atheist website Debunking Christianity reported: “Bill (Craig) has once again showed himself as the best debater of this generation.” ROFL
RosesOfTimes 3 days ago
@jamesrideout123 Eugenics was invented by a man named Galton he was a statistical genius a Christian and had the best of intentions but unfortunately he misunderstood Darwin which is why you should perhaps try and understand it yourself
lsynno 4 days ago
i kinda doubt just how accurate neo-pagans are from actual paganism since most to all records were destroyed by christianity and then rewrote them in THEIR image
infernalone666 5 days ago
Aronra should debate against Bill O'Reilly.
MadHatter34784 6 days ago
@MadHatter34784
That wouldn't be a debate. That would be an adult forcibly educating a petulant child. O'Reilly is one of the dumbest shits in the media.
TheZooCrew 5 days ago
well done. the amount of contradictions and falsehoods is just overwhelming when laid out like this.
Cheapshot420420 6 days ago
Do the worm :3
Redeemedsinner17 1 week ago
Wow, how wrong can one be...
Santa clause bitch slapped one of the guys at the counsel. and I believe out of 300 only 6 said Jesus was not god. LOL he makes it seem like if Jesus divinity was in doubt. what a fool.
/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ryJpy8wXiq4
Lacocacolaman 2 weeks ago
@Lacocacolaman
"he makes it seem like if Jesus divinity was in doubt. what a fool."
It WAS in doubt. Did you know that practically nobody knew who Jesus was until Paul started writing? Did you know that it's utterly impossible for the Gospels to be eyewitness accounts? Did you know that eyewitness accounts are by far the least reliable source of information?
TheZooCrew 2 weeks ago
@TheZooCrew yeah people outside of Israel didn't know who Jesus was obviously at the time. I was referring to the council the vote was 300 to 3.
"Did you know that eyewitness accounts are by far the least reliable source of information?" I can't believe you just said that. So what's the most reliable source of information? LOL so you don't believe in ANY history what so ever. NONE You don't believe in Washington you don't believe in Lincoln.... extremely flawed logic.
Lacocacolaman 2 weeks ago
@Lacocacolaman Least reliable does not mean completely unreliable. It has been shown over and over that eye witness accounts are among the least reliable forms of evidence, yet this does not mean it ought to be done away with as a means of pursuing the truth. It simply means that without any sort of supporting evidence eye witness accounts ought to be treated as questionable.
JoeNietzsche 2 weeks ago
@TheZooCrew
and why do you think that is no one knew about him until paul?
many theories was that christianity was INVENTED by paul in order to destroy the roman empire via fear and guilt and take it over for the burning of the jewish temple in the year 70 - the same year the oldest records of mark, the earliest gospel - were made
infernalone666 5 days ago
@infernalone666
There's little question that Paul had ulterior motives when he started writing. I would say it's mildly inaccurate to say Paul "invented" Christianity since everything he wrote was based on real events...but he certainly enhanced some aspects and was well-received by a certain disgruntled population.
The Gospels are largely a mystery even today...several of the supposed authors were illiterate and likely didn't live long enough to write them anyway.
TheZooCrew 5 days ago
@TheZooCrew
Acts 17:18, Acts, 9:20, and Timothy II 2:8 show a bit of the involvement of paul as a figurehead
and therein is a good point: why would a guy who never met jesus and whose vision happened when no one else was around, be the author of the majority of the new testament.
the actual gospels are widely considered to have been written by unknown people because of the third-person narratives and the complete lack of association to their biblical counterparts
infernalone666 5 days ago
@TheZooCrew
and I doubt these were based on real events because of the belief factor. there is no record of jesus' existence outside the bible
either he existed or he didn't. if you have to believe he existed, then that, in and of itself, means there is no evidence. matthew and luke were the only ones to write about jesus' actual birth. matthew wrote about the roman soldiers and heroid in -4 (based on when heorid died), and luke wrote about augustus' census in the year 6
infernalone666 5 days ago
@infernalone666
The Romans were very good at keeping records. Jesus did exist and yes there IS mention of him outside the Bible; he was reputed to be a teacher later in life, and he was crucified under Pontius Pilate. However, the Biblical account is extremely dramatized. Pilate was sort of a captain who was sent to the region to locate the source of unrest and restore order. He found that the easiest way was to crucify Jesus and release a prisoner, so he did just that. He didn't really care.
TheZooCrew 5 days ago
@infernalone666
Jesus was also likely born in Nazareth rather than Bethlehem, and most certainly not in a manger. There is absolutely no record of Jesus himself proclaiming to be the Son of God outside of the Bible. So while the stories Paul wrote about have their grounds in reality, he clearly fabricated much of his writing for a different reason.
TheZooCrew 5 days ago
O_O this man is beastly *swoons*
TheDreadedlife 3 weeks ago
Good week for me. Fixed my computer. Finished 4 Thu'ums in Skyrim. Bought another figma. And I finally subscribed to AronRa.
NoxKreiker23 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from AronRa
Darwin was a proud Eugenicist.
JamesRideout123 4 weeks ago
@JamesRideout123 The promoters of religious "truth" have lied to you. Darwin publicly denounced and consistently criticized eugenics, racism, and slavery in every one of his books. Oh, and Hitler and Stalin both banned and burned Darwin's books.
/watch?v=VV3duw4lJE0
AronRa 3 weeks ago 16
@JamesRideout123 LOL, you sounded so certain... and that's the funny part.
jussts 2 weeks ago
Dr Paul L. Maier was my history professor at WMU, and he is a very intelligent man, great to talk to even as I am an atheist and he is a christian.
Shaman464 1 month ago
Forget "truth". The facts are more important.
HimesInu 1 month ago
@HimesInu FACTS ARE TRUTH
Abbadon380 1 month ago
@Abbadon380 No, they aren't. A fact is something that is based on evidence. The "fact" is, life exists. A truth could be anything that someone believes is true. 1500 years ago, the "truth" was the earth was the center of the universe.
HimesInu 4 weeks ago
@Himeslnu can you elaborate the difffrence
Abbadon380 4 weeks ago
@Abbadon380 A fact is that you are alive. We can scientifically prove that you are alive. A truth, let's say a Christian truth, the Bible is the word of God. We can't scientifically prove that, but to Christians, it's true.
HimesInu 4 weeks ago
@HimesInu so truth is in the mind and fact is reality oh ok
Abbadon380 4 weeks ago
Dude... You are such a badass!! Your videos sum up everything I wish I could have said to a few people in the past. I've been sending these videos around to a few people I know. Keep up the good work!
AWillsMusic 1 month ago 5
If you really notice what goes on-every religion and faith actually follows a "different" path,yet they all kinda gain the same result-their fight is on the different path,and their ignorance is from the fact that no matter what path they follow,they all reach the same location,and aim toward the same location.
The wars of ideas is simply wars of pride and ego..that's that.
Kinda think about it,the origin religions are actually a combo of faith,history and tips and wisdom on how to live life.
Wharwulif 2 months ago in playlist Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
@Wharwulif
So for instance, Stoning disobedient children is a tip on how to live life or a sign of wisdom?
You must be a reli-muppet if you apologise all that crap
sonykroket 2 months ago
@sonykroket Maybe for ancient people it made sense...like I said...THE ORIGINAL RELIGION.They had a different culture and different views on stuff,and I never said I agree with them,only that this was the ancient reasons for religion,and people lived on those things-and for them...those stuff WERE indeed wisdom and tips for life...go figure why.
Humanity by itself is flawed anyway-the result is obvious in our times-If you notice that it's actually a balloon that keeps growing...HINT
Human=beast.
Wharwulif 2 months ago
@Wharwulif
Might as well kill yourself, right?
TheZooCrew 2 months ago
@TheZooCrew Tried that,did not work...Something tend to mess it up. I guess I'm a privet joke of something,I'll most likely die the moment my existence will no longer be a funny paradoxical tragedy to that something which I call "Very random events caused by the amazing power of Luck and Murphy's law"
Anyway,still got a mission to do-I'll most likely leave peacefully once it's done by some strange accident that will cause me to just disappear.
Until that happens-I'll keep beholding the truth.
Wharwulif 2 months ago
Funny...that did not sound like the way I was thinking about it...
Accident=some BOOM that vaporize,or a certain ground that simply sinks badly...Or simply never seen again after being lost in some strange location.
Anyway...Humanity leads itself to self-destruct...you were not aware of that?
What a shame to Thee...
Wharwulif 2 months ago
@Wharwulif
You keep yapping the same nonsense over and over but its all bullshit
You need fairytales to be happy and we dont.
Grow up
sonykroket 2 months ago
@sonykroket And you keep saying the same thing over and over again when it's all just fishit of someone who gains sexual pleasure by thinking that "yeah...I got you now,I got you!"
You live onto your own fairytale,I bet you are yet another capitalistic jerk who only gives a fart if something happens to his own ass,and you don't care about the future of everything,you care for Poo alone
Grow up-You are blind to see how humans rape their own worlds and wage conflicts over useless ideas and faiths!
Wharwulif 2 months ago
@Wharwulif
Haha, get real, new age dumbass
sonykroket 2 months ago
@sonykroket So..new age means you actually do gain sexual pleasure out of this? what a shame...
Wharwulif 2 months ago
@Wharwulif
And another douchebag goinfg offtopic with sexist remarks.
Its just too obvious with dipshits like you, acting like a sceptic but secretly weaseling in its own silly fairytale
You're a joke, dumbass
sonykroket 2 months ago
@sonykroket "sexist"?
Shish...you can't even read right!
At the moment you are the only one who makes jokes upon itself,by the fact that you do not know how to answer beyond a small band of useless words.
Yeah,I'm a sick joke of the universe,Since I'm a thing that gives a fart about everything while everything torments itself.If I was not a joke,then I would have not existed most likely.
Also,you are a commercial for being shallow.
Right now you live in a fairytale called "fuck shit ass"Wake up
Wharwulif 2 months ago
@Wharwulif
Why do you yap so much, its all silly nonsense
sonykroket 2 months ago
@sonykroket Correct,you do spread silly nonsense-I just seek to get through the horde of crap to reach to the core that my share some idea that actually holds something to it.
Wharwulif 2 months ago
@Wharwulif
You really think your opinion is very important, dont you?
Youre so busy with yourself and how we all must hear your stupid crap, even though its a bunch of nonsense
Why dont you just fuck off, spamming dipshit
sonykroket 2 months ago
@sonykroket My opinion is just presenting a point,I never said people HAVE to listen to this,if anyone listens,then yay to them-this world is going down the crapper by the hands of the humans,don't believe it? well,you live in your own fairytale then,most likely the Consumerism one,where you simply believe that you need more and more and more...and everything is fine-you are so busy with yourself that you don't know what you even say.
How can I fuck off if I did not even fuck on?
You are a Trol
Wharwulif 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Wharwulif
Blabla etc bla
If you come with stupid shit like: "I believe in everything and The Nothing."" as you stated on my profile when spamming it
That means youve disqualified yourself from any attempt to comment or respond, it is intellectual dishonesty
But fuckspanks like you are often the loudest ones who come with the most incoherent irrational nonsense.
Youre an idiot
sonykroket 2 months ago
@AronRa hey, just want to say, love your vids. You are like an American Christopher Hitchens I think, just because you have a way of saying what we believe in a much clearer, concise way, elevating our own opinions. Gratzi for your work. Only wish I could meet you and shake your hand (I am halfway across the world atm)
grodzilla2 2 months ago
When AronRa talks about "absolute truth," he is referring to a posteriori judgements such as those of empirical science. A priori judgements such as those based on pure logic CAN be known perfectly, or else we wouldn't have any basis to reason at all, such as the assertion "cogito ergo sum." A=A, or else we are madmen, but to realise we are madmen we still accept that A=A.
CplFerro 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KarlHeinzofWpg Nothing save mathematics is absolute. 1 and 1 will always equal 2. Mathematics is airtight to possibilities but nothing else is saved from that. AronRa's claim is obviously not an absolute claim to anyone who knows what absolute means. However, this is difficult and uncomfortable for many people to wrap their head around. Hence the insults like 'time to get the straight jacket' to anyone who takes them out of their fabricated boundaries for possibilities.
pat5168 3 months ago
HI AronRa! Could I take the video to make a version with spanish subtitles?
eskorbutin500 3 months ago in playlist Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism 4
@eskorbutin500 You're welcome to make a Spanish version if you like. Thank you.
AronRa 3 months ago 8
@AronRa I recently found a video which was by someone called Stevebee somethingorother about bird evolution, after quick research I found his arguments to be completely false but that's not what troubled me. Because the guy making those videos isn't religious. What do you think is the reason why he rejects all of the evidence for Evolution when he seems to be an intelligent person who got a better than most education?
pat5168 3 months ago
Reason triumphs over all
Abbadon380 3 months ago
1:00 for boner alert!
H03dur 3 months ago
At 2:14 : There is no absolute truth? Really? How about the "truth" that "there is no absolute truth?" Isn't that supposed to be absolutely true? Oops. Got a self-referential problem here, guy. Back to the drawing board.
jimtrueblue99 3 months ago
@jimtrueblue99 Feel free take on thezoocrew. We have been going at it a lot on this page.
RepresentingTruth 3 months ago
@jimtrueblue99 If you think you've found a 'self-referential problem', then you must have stopped listening before you heard the next sentence, because I immediately explained why no one can honestly claim knowledge of 'absolute truth'.
AronRa 3 months ago 11
@AronRa "No one can honestly claim knowledge of 'absolute truth'." Well, fella, that's an absolute truth too, and it suffers from the self-referential problem: AronRa can't honestly claim knowledge that no one can honestly claim knowledge of 'absolute truth'. See the problem? You're included in "no one." Your denial applies to you as well as everybody else. Back to the drawing board.
jimtrueblue99 3 months ago
@jimtrueblue99 - Philosopher Steven Law has recently written a book entitled "Believing Bullshit: How Not to Get Sucked into an Intellectual Black Hole". Your condition is described in chapter 3 "Going Nuclear".
"AronRa can't honestly claim knowledge..."
Sure he can, but he can't claim "absolute" knowledge - that's why he doesn't. Knowledge is obtained in degrees but never completely, however, saying we don't know everything does not mean we don't know anything.
KarlHeinzofWpg 3 months ago
@KarlHeinzofWpg Claiming "no one can know absolute truth" is to assert an absolute truth that you claim to know, which self-referentially refutes the assertion. BTW, humans know a wealth of absolute truths--the truths of formal mathematics and logic. Is the Pythagorean theorem is a contingent truth? A probability? A mere possibility? AronRa needs some serious schooling in epistemology.
jimtrueblue99 3 months ago
@jimtrueblue99 - "Claiming "no one can know absolute truth" is to assert an absolute truth that you claim to know"
AronRa is claiming something to be true. Where in the video does he claim it to be "absolutely" true? Give me the minute and second please.
I can say apples are made of atoms, and it would be true, but it's not absolutely true because atoms themselves are made of something else. So my statement, while true, is only true to a degree. That's what AronRa is getting at.
KarlHeinzofWpg 3 months ago
@KarlHeinzofWpg Do you see "no one" in the assertion? That means nobody--absolutely nobody--can know absolute truth. No exceptions. In short, an absolute claim. That's why AronRa assertion is a claim to absolute knowledge. He could say, "As far as I know one one can know absolute truth." That's a contingent assertion. But it's hardly interesting and certainly not the grand, sweeping claim that AronRa wants to make.
jimtrueblue99 3 months ago
@jimtrueblue99 - "In short, an absolute claim."
No, it's not an absolute claim, anymore then saying apples are made of atoms is an absolute claim. In both cases it's a claim which shows an enormous degree of truth but, as I said, it would not be the 'absolute' truth. The point is that someone can say something that is 100% true, but not absolute in every degree. AronRa claims something and then qualifies it clearly in the very next sentences. He's being perfectly reasonable and clear.
KarlHeinzofWpg 3 months ago
@KarlHeinzofWpg You're not getting this. AronRa's proposition is an absolute claim because of the structure of the proposition, not because of the properties of its referents. He is not making an empirical observation or an inductive claim; he asserts a claim that he thinks can never be false in any possible context (which is what an absolute truth is). Apart from being totally false (we know many absolute truths), the proposition incoherently denies itself--the self-referential problem. OK?
jimtrueblue99 3 months ago
@jimtrueblue99
Your argument would have a hint of merit if "no one" were not a colloquialism that refers to "very few people."
TheZooCrew 3 months ago
@TheZooCrew AronRa's claim is pointless if some (but not all) people know absolute truth. "No one" either means "no possible human person" or it means nothing important. It is equally pointless if it is a mere empirical observation--the folks I know don't know any absolute truth but other folks might. It tries to assert that absolute truths are unknowable to any possible human mind by asserting an absolute truth that all human minds should know and understand and agree with!
jimtrueblue99 3 months ago
@jimtrueblue99
Absolute statements in semantics and "absolute truth" are two extremely different concepts, as easily discerned by anyone literate. Language contains absolute statements because we put them there. AronRa is talking about matters of nature, not abstract concepts like language.
TheZooCrew 3 months ago
@jimtrueblue99 - "You're not getting this." ~ Sure I am. I understand you completely. I know what you're trying to say and I know why you're wrong.
"AronRa's proposition is an absolute claim"
Then you don't know what an absolute claim is. Philosophically speaking, in the traditions of Descartes and Hume, you can't know absolutely that AronRa even exists. Even if he was standing right in front of you speaking. In fact, you can't even know that you exist in the bizarro scenarios of philosophy.
KarlHeinzofWpg 3 months ago
@AronRa their is "no such thing a absolute truth" surly there is, we just aren't capable of arriving at it by any means?
255ad 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from AronRa
@AronRa are you absolutely right about that?
Lacocacolaman 2 weeks ago
@TheZooCrew
Still waiting. Prove that the binary code is not absolute. That is the question and you have avoided it. I guess I will be celebrating early.
RepresentingTruth 3 months ago
@TheZooCrew "Computers use a special code of their own to express the digital information they process. It's called the binary code because it consists of only two symbols—0s and 1s. (The "bi" in "binary" means two.)
Why 0s and 1s? Because those are the only two numbers you need to express the flow of electricity through a transistor. It's either on or it's off. On is 1, off is 0. Everything you say to a computer has to be put in terms of these two numbers."
That is from the Intel site itself.
RepresentingTruth 3 months ago
@RepresentingTruth
Hey, dickhead...that blurb from Intel's site is dumbed down so even bottom feeders like you can understand it. Why would they discuss calculus-based signal filtering on a website geared towards the public?
For the second time you have utterly failed to read my only exception to my belief of no absolutes...constructs of human origin (like binary code, which is part of my specific example of math) have absolutes because WE put them there. GO TO SCHOOL.
TheZooCrew 3 months ago
@TheZooCrew "For the second time you have utterly failed to read my only exception to my belief of no absolutes...constructs of human origin (like binary code, which is part of my specific example of math) have absolutes because WE put them there. GO TO SCHOOL."
You never said "constructs of human origin" so I got you fair and square. Second .when you said that there is no absolutes, you just used an absolute. Duh Like the bible says and the dumb ass spoke. I won.
RepresentingTruth 3 months ago
@RepresentingTruth
This is why I don't argue with people whose IQ doesn't exceed their shoe size.
"You never said "constructs of human origin""
Correct. I said "human constructs." All this means is that you can't read.
"If you are saying that there is no absolutes then are you absolutely sure about that? If you say yes then you have made an absolute statement."
Logic and language are both human constructs. Seriously, where do you people come from?
TheZooCrew 3 months ago
@TheZooCrew I caught your lie. I quoted you " constructs of human origin". Up until that you never said that. Then you have the nerve that you did say that when what you did say was ". outside of our own constructs like math." so I just declared an absolute that you lied buddy. You can have all the intelligence in the world but I have proven you wrong.. BTW As of Oct 1 2011 who was the president of the US? If you say Obama then it that not an absolute ?
RepresentingTruth 3 months ago
@TheZooCrew So 9/11/2001 never happened right? I say it did and recent history can prove an absolute but you are in lala land and say that there is no absolute truth. If you want to deny that an airplane hit the buildings fine. Look I remember when my wife was pregnant. Tell me can one be pregnant and non pregnant at the same time? This is tooooooooooo good. I think you are the one that needs help not me.
RepresentingTruth 3 months ago
@RepresentingTruth
Language is a human construct.
Logic is a human construct.
The calendar is a human construct.
Executive offices are human constructs.
Do you not understand this?
"I caught your lie."
I didn't lie. You still can't read and are attempting to use a laughable semantic argument.
TheZooCrew 3 months ago
@TheZooCrew I see you keep giving exceptions. You keep changing your story. I am not impressed. You can say what you want but I am not going away. You are framing the debate. You are now saying there is no absolute except it is of human origin. I got you. However even in framing the debate I win. Here is an absolute. The earth was here before humans were. Yes or no? Gravity was here before humans. Yes or no? How is that for starters?
RepresentingTruth 3 months ago
@RepresentingTruth
"You are now saying there is no absolute except it is of human origin."
This is what I said right from the start, asshat: "there are no absolutes outside of OUR OWN constructs, like math."
Both of your statements are commonly held as true, but to say we were 100% absolutely certain of these would be to assume knowledge we don't have. However, there are no alternative explanations that even come close to competing as far as accuracy.
TheZooCrew 3 months ago
@TheZooCrew Terms may be relative but an absolute is still an absolute. You are living right now. You are taking in oxygen right now. If you stop at some point you will die. That is an absolute period. We only can discover that absolute but it is still an absolute So in conclusion if you did not get oxygen for 2 hours then you would have already died. I do not suggest that you try it because then you will be absolutely dead. Case closed. You lost.
RepresentingTruth 3 months ago
@RepresentingTruth
"You are living right now. "
Depends on your definition of "life," but yes.
"You are taking in oxygen right now. If you stop at some point you will die. That is an absolute period."
Well, no it's not, mostly because you haven't specified the duration of stoppage nor have you accounted for whatever deoxidizing reactions are taking place in my body. Also, this depends entirely on your definition of "dead."
"Case closed. You lost."
You're an idiot.
TheZooCrew 3 months ago
@RepresentingTruth
"Terms may be relative but an absolute is still an absolute."
Meaningless statement. The definitions of "life" and "death" are part of man-made language, which I posited was an exception to my rule. You are either illiterate or a compulsive liar.
TheZooCrew 3 months ago
@TheZooCrew Still lost. I gave an absolute and no matter if you believe that little green men talk to you in bedroom fine. The absolute is if a human does not continue to get oxygen then the absolute is simple they die. Prove that wrong. Again I do not suggest this but could you go without oxygen for 2 hours and still be alive? If not it is an absolute no matter how you define it. So go play in your sandbox. You lost.
RepresentingTruth 3 months ago
@RepresentingTruth
"The absolute is if a human does not continue to get oxygen then the absolute is simple they die. "
This depends entirely on your definitions of "get" and "die," and these are human constructs as I've said before. Also, it is not 100% certain that oxygen is required for human life. It's well over 99%, but to say it is 100% certain is to assume knowledge we cannot possibly have because we have never seen an atom.
TheZooCrew 3 months ago
@TheZooCrew Ok time for the straight jacket. You might want to educate yourself with ATP the fuel for the cells of the body. Without it that the cells die and then you will die.To insult my intelligence is one thing but now I am embarrassed at how stupid that reply was. So please learn about ATP and then get a life. Please you need help.
RepresentingTruth 3 months ago 2
@RepresentingTruth
If you understand anything about physics, you'd know that there's of course a small chance that if I ran at a brick wall, I would come out the other side. Atoms are evidently mostly empty space, and thus all of my atoms could merely "avoid" the brick atoms. However, this chance is so small that it's asinine to attempt such a feat.
HOWEVER, I cannot say that it's 100% certain (you apparently don't know what this means) that I will not pass through a brick wall.
TheZooCrew 3 months ago
@TheZooCrew I am done with you. You lost period. Move on dude.
RepresentingTruth 3 months ago
The law of excluded middle state that a statement is either true or false. When someone states that a god exists the statement is either true or false but it cannot be both. The law of excluded middle ties in with the law of identity in this logic. Is that down to your level?
RepresentingTruth 3 months ago
Here is one for you. The law of non-contradiction states (keeping it simple)that two opposing statements (that means you and I) cannot both be true:
A = A and A=/=A cannot both be true
RepresentingTruth 3 months ago
I put a few more up here. BTW If you are saying that there is no absolutes then are you absolutely sure about that? If you say yes then you have made an absolute statement. OK I think it is time for you to go along and play in your little sandbox. Good night.
RepresentingTruth 3 months ago
@AronRa man, i wish every theist could use their brain cells half as well as you!
MoralRapist 3 months ago
BTW " There can be only one truth and one version of it" according to your video and yet there is no absolute truth. You make me laugh. The video at around 1:40 and thus proves that you contradict yourself. Thanks for the laugh
RepresentingTruth 3 months ago
@RepresentingTruth
If you're incapable both of distinguishing different levels of "truth" (i.e. accuracy of claims) as well as detecting discussion of hypotheticals, then you should probably refrain from spouting off unless you enjoy making an ass of yourself.
Also, you're a shining example of those AronRa criticizes...people who claim to have the "truth," yet clearly don't care what the "truth" really is.
TheZooCrew 3 months ago
@TheZooCrew "If you're incapable both of distinguishing different levels of "truth" (i.e. accuracy of claims) as well as detecting discussion of hypotheticals, then you should probably refrain from spouting off unless you enjoy making an ass of yourself."
Wow that is great. So 2+2 =4 Please explain the different levels of truth. I am all ears. So do you believe in absolute truth? This is toooooooooooooooo good to pass up.
RepresentingTruth 3 months ago
@RepresentingTruth
"Please explain the different levels of truth."
I don't like the word "truth" because most of the time it assumes knowledge we don't have.
I don't think we're capable of understanding "absolute truth" outside of our own constructs like math.
I have a background in physics, and concepts like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle prevent me from honestly accepting "absolute truth."
TheZooCrew 3 months ago
@TheZooCrew BTW don't fret just for you I will not take your serious since you don't believe in absolute truth. So I believe we should not kill gays just because they choose to do so. However ,in your view it must be ok since there is really no absolutes. Thanks for the chat and hopefully someday you will grow up.
RepresentingTruth 3 months ago
@RepresentingTruth
"So I believe we should not kill gays just because they choose to do so. However ,in your view it must be ok since there is really no absolutes."
1) The vast majority of gays do not choose homosexuality. This has been scientifically proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
2) Why do all of you "truth" retards have this false dichotomy where either your version of "absolute morality" is right or NOTHING is right? Asshat.
TheZooCrew 3 months ago
@RepresentingTruth
See, most people are perfectly okay with feeling strongly about things without the need to cling to them as "absolute truth." Most people (well, most rationalists, anyway) are okay both with admitting fault and reconsidering all of their own views. The problem with believing in "absolute truth" is that it's dishonest because it refuses to admit fault even when those faults are clearly objectively proven.
TheZooCrew 3 months ago
@TheZooCrew " The problem with believing in "absolute truth" is that it's dishonest because it refuses to admit fault even when those faults are clearly objectively proven."
You must be young. Let me try to help you. In my house a light could be either on or off. So what other "levels of truth" can you give? A woman is either pregnant or not. But what sayest thou? When you post a comment it either post or it doesn't. However thou most educated one what sayest thou? I can go on.
RepresentingTruth 3 months ago
@TheZooCrew I hope you get some time out of your zoo and learn about real life. There is either a God or there is not. Fun chatting with a young head full of mush that needs a little help.
RepresentingTruth 3 months ago
@TheZooCrew One more thing. A computer reads 0 or 1 or on and off. Since you claim that I am stupid and you are soooooooooooooo smart here is my question. Prove that the binary code is not absolute.
Feel free to post a response. If you don't then I claim victory. Fair enough?
RepresentingTruth 3 months ago
@RepresentingTruth
"If you don't then I claim victory. Fair enough?"
No, this isn't even remotely fair, but I can answer this question pretty well.
0 and 1 are digital signals. However, this is impossible to replicate over a physical medium due to attenuation and noise. Analog signals are what's actually used and computers merely set voltage bounds to distinguish between 0 and 1. In addition, this is one of our own constructs which I mention provide (some) exceptions because we build them in.
TheZooCrew 3 months ago
When one declares that there is no absolute truth, one is declaring an absolute truth for the first statement to be true. If not ,then everything one says after that is not true if there is no absolute truth. Conclusion if no absolute truth then Mr Aronka is not worth listening to since nothing he says is truth. Have fun with that one.
RepresentingTruth 3 months ago
requests you to request to ---
there should not be any hell under earth .if any punishment is given it should be given on the earth only .any souls ,even any molecules should not be taken under earth , sevarages or any hell under earth , for punishment ,any sufferings ,or any kind of torturings .request you to come forward . so far what ever souls has been taken under earth and hells make to bring back on the earth even single molecule also.
bgupta2001 3 months ago
What about mathematical truths? No matter what they're called or what universe, 2+2 will ALWAYS equal 4. We know that as fact.
THEAFR0NINJA 3 months ago in playlist Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
addenda to previous post - I think it must be the sections of the video that have text in them combined with the audio that mixes me up, and maybe we're rushing it a little because this is an extensive series
mezchr 3 months ago
I get most of the narrative but sometimes this guy speaks so fast I just fall behind
mezchr 3 months ago
You da man.
USERNAMEfieldempty 4 months ago
and his video UNREPENTANT along with his website and join along exposing this shit and putting an end to it all! WAKE THE FUCK UP PEOPLE! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKE UP CALIS!
daonfpe 4 months ago in playlist Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
ROAMUN KAYTHAWLOCISM (or 'CAT-HO-LICKERS'...don't worry you FUCKING SHITFACED MUDEROUS FANATICAL SHIT FOR BRAINS MEDJUGORJIANS (who'd perhaps love to surgically flay any 'would-be' heretick at the NEW OPENING OF THE 21ST INQUISTION. Here my sear sweets...why don't you rest you ass here on Judas' seat?!? SICK BUNCH OF SORRY DUCK SHIT FACED FUCKS FOR DOING ABSOLUTELY FUCK ALL ABOUT ALL THE CHILD SEX ABUSE, TORTURE, EXPLOITATION, TRAFFICKING, PROSTITUTING, AND YES MURDER! (CHECK OUT KEVIN ANNETT..
daonfpe 4 months ago in playlist Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
UNRAVELLING THE BOOK OF BOOKS, and other books on Biblical Criticism or the Graff/Whelhausen hypothosis. Heard enough about the HOLY BIBLE being shot down. Now, why don't you do our Mohammedan (Mohametan) friends a great big favour as well. Liberate them from their 'hand me down' supersitious traditions as would you with Utah/Brigham Young Mormons, Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, Seventh Day Adventism, House Of Yahweh, Oneness Pentecostalism, New Apostolic Church, World Wide Church Of God..
daonfpe 4 months ago in playlist Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
Great video...wonderfully and articuatelty executed. However, I've noticed that your spending the majority of your time 'focused on discrediting the common Bible/Holy Bible/The Sacred Scriptures alledgedly-so-called'. Uh, I'm kind of sick of it really! Perhaps give far more time to dealing with Al-Quranic discrepancies, condradictions, falsehood so be it!
I've been through the same merry go round as perhaps you were, delving into books such as: IS IT GOD'S WORD? by Joseph Wheless...
daonfpe 4 months ago in playlist Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
You will find that articulate speech is of little use in effecting your spiritual condition,The god of the bible is not impressed by excellent speechWhy don't you follow your own assertions .The use of obscure terms to bolster your credibility is a cheap trick it does not indicate anything.Any talents you possess are temporarily given and will be taken from you.The sooner the better for your sake.
MrNewkingjames 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrNewkingjames
Poor thing. Got to you, did he?
bmeissner 4 months ago in playlist Foundational Falsehoods
The only thing wrong about this is the part on us not knowing everything about anything. We actually do know everything about alot of things.
oBLACKIECHANoo 4 months ago in playlist Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
Great series, you should publish it as a book
1354113 4 months ago
As with the last video, there was no vote on the divinity of Christ. Please do not think I am trying to argue :) Not much happened at Nicea, so it takes only mere hours to read through the historical records of Nicea. There is no talk at all of voting on anything. Nicea CONFIRMED what the Bible and Tradition stated, and that is, Christ is God. I am happy to answer questions you might have.
truthforchrist 4 months ago
@truthforchrist
"Not much happened at Nicea"
This is just willful ignorance. Whether or not the NT was actually compiled, the divinity of Christ was absolutely an important vote. They wanted to create a unified orthodoxy, and that means every church teaches the same thing; divinity of Christ included. Then they voted such that the used Bible reflected this unified orthodoxy.
TheZooCrew 4 months ago
@TheZooCrew Have you read the historical documents from Nicea? If you have, you will see that not much happened. A few heresies were condemned, a creed was formulated (100% of the creed comes from the Bible and not Tradition) and the Church made a declartion or 2. There was NO VOTE of any kind. No historical document talks about a vote. That is a myth that started a few years ago with the Divinci Code and it caught on.
truthforchrist 4 months ago
@TheZooCrew The divinity of Christ was established by the Apostles and Christ Himself. We have writtings that date 280 year before Nicea that state Christ is God. There are secular and even pagan writtings that date 200 years before Nicea that state Christ was worshiped as God. The fact is, there was no vote on the matter. The issue was concerning that nature of Christ's divinity. Was He God with a human nature? Was He God any only "appeared" to be Human? That was the question.
truthforchrist 4 months ago
@truthforchrist nope. there was really an argument was bible what it was, or what they wanted to be. denial is does not save your from those who know better. especialy if bible is right, you will burn in hell for ever for makeing christ a god that he was not. acording the bible jesus will him self punish you for your herecy. so take a guess. i dont even belive the bible and it still supports me.
gethsoftware 4 months ago
0:55 A great example of the fundamental attribution error we've been looking at in Social Psychology.
PyrenZero 4 months ago
Religion is formalized insanity. It is nothing more than ritualized mental illness.
mikefromwa 5 months ago 12
There's an ad for Christian dating above the Suggestions bar...
*shudders*
Tarynus 5 months ago
Animals don't have to eat LIVING cells. Aran Ra is an idiot.
DarthHater100 6 months ago
@DarthHater100
You can't even spell his name right, nimrod.
His point still stands that life cannot exist without death, especially in the animal kingdom.
TheZooCrew 6 months ago
@TheZooCrew I purposely misspelled his name out of disrespect. No, his point does NOT stand. He says that there was death before the fall because people had to eat living cells to survive and that's not true. All the protein, carbohydrates, lipids, nucleic acids, vitamins, and other nutrients can be obtained from fruits, nuts, legumes, and vegetables without the death of any animal or plant. Aron Ru is STILL an idiot.
DarthHater100 6 months ago
@DarthHater100
"All the protein, carbohydrates, lipids, nucleic acids, vitamins, and other nutrients can be obtained from fruits, nuts, legumes, and vegetables without the death of any animal or plant."
Just the death of their seeds. It's akin to devouring an embryo.
TheZooCrew 6 months ago
@TheZooCrew thank you for conceding that an embryo is life, and therefore conceding that Abortion is murder. I got you coming AND going.
DarthHater100 6 months ago
@DarthHater100 "thank you for conceding that an embryo is life, and therefore conceding that Abortion is murder. I got you coming AND going."
Thank you for demonstrating that creationists can't argue without using logical fallacies like this red herring. Oh yeah, and before you had to break out that smelly ol' fish, you had to move the goal post from "Animals don't have to eat LIVING cells" to "without the death of any animals or plant." I can just see the troll face in contriving this crap.
ApemanD 6 months ago
@ApemanD You were the one who "moved the goal posts". I was correct in saying that animals don't have to eat LIVING cells", and you said his point still stands, there by moving the goal posts from what I was correct about, to what his point was. Then I STILL showed his wrongness, in regard to his point about death before the fall. Why would I move the goal posts from "Animals don't have to eat LIVING cells", when I was right about that? You changed the scope, not me.
DarthHater100 6 months ago
@DarthHater100
Actually, you're wrong that animals don't have to eat living cells. Any creature that grazes consumes living cells. Any animal that eats fruit or leaves directly off the tree is consuming living cells. Also, where do you think the nutrients to sustain plants come from? Nitrates in fertile soil come from decomposing plant matter as part of the nitrogen cycle, necessitating plant death for plant life.
Your argument therefore becomes a faulty anthropocentric one.
TheZooCrew 6 months ago
@TheZooCrew No I am not wrong about animals not having to eat living cells. Just because they do, doesn't mean they have to. The organic nutrients necessary for life do not have to be living. Carbohydrates, lipids, amino acids, nucleic acids vitamins etc are what are necessary, and those aren't alive. Also, the nitrates in the soil are not living either, so I don't know how that helps your case. Just because these chemicals are FROM living things doesn't prove they ARE living.
DarthHater100 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DarthHater100
"Just because these chemicals are FROM living things doesn't prove they ARE living. "
I never said that. My point was solely that death is required for life, even if it's at the cell level.
It must be fun to just ignore every inconvenient piece of information.
TheZooCrew 6 months ago
@DarthHater100 I'm not TheZooCrew. "you said his point still stands, there by moving the goal posts from what I was correct about". <- Is in no way a shifting goalpost fallacy even if your daft claim was correct, so you literally have no idea what you're talking about. Fruits and vegetables have living cells, and you've cited fruits and vegetables to back up your assertion that animals don't have to eat living cells. I mean, retarded is an understatement given your assessment. -_-
ApemanD 6 months ago
@DarthHater100
And no, I don't concede that abortion is murder. We take life every day. But what makes human life different? Most call it "sentience," or self-awareness. Thus, it is not the taking of life that is murder, but the taking of sentient life.
Did you know that if we hold the beginning of sentient human life to the same standard as clinical death, an embryo is not alive until the end of the second trimester? Yet legal abortions are restricted to the first trimester...
TheZooCrew 6 months ago
@TheZooCrew That abortion crap was a red herring. You know that right? :/
ApemanD 6 months ago
@ApemanD
Yeah, but I kind of wanted to see what he would do. Predictably, he went the avoid-and-insult route.
TheZooCrew 6 months ago
I don't give a crap about your personal definition or your OPINION that sentience and self-awareness are necessary for the killing of a human to be murder. You say that an embryo is not alive until the end of the second trimester, but there have been babes that have been born BEFORE the second trimester and SURVIVED.
Let me get this straight, you say that I am KILLING a plant's embryos, when I eat their fruit, (though its not necessary to) but killing a human is A-OK. FUCK YOU.
DarthHater100 6 months ago
@DarthHater100 darthhater is shockofgod this is just one of his troll names he uses cause hes a coward.I have asked him to provide proof and evidence that is accurate and correct that he is not shockofgod but he can't
alltiedup217 6 months ago 3
Big Trouble in Little China doesn't seem to be too popular...
Misterb0z 6 months ago
What is the movie clip with the kid in school?
ItsKnucklez 6 months ago
Pretty much like Aronra sais. Anyone claiming to know absolute truth shows to everyone that he doesn't know shit.
Londron 6 months ago
Doesn't God in that Monty Python movie look like James Randi. (Cue spooky music)
dmorono 6 months ago in playlist AronRa Fundamentals
The statement, "if any god exists and it happens that there is only one of them, then surely all enlightened/holy ... men should be able to sense it..." The reason why there's so many religions & even has multiple gods is that there is a Satan with his demons that are FOOLING THE MAJORITY of mankind. Their mission is to mislead/confuse as many people as they can. The appearances of "gods" to people are actually demons in disguise because its in the Bible that "No one can see God and live".
eduardtube1980 6 months ago
@eduardtube1980 And how would we know then, that YOUR version is the true one, and not just another work of some deamons or oni or rakshasa?
How do we know Hinduism is not the real religion, and your god is merely the work of Ravana who is fooling men? Other religions have their holy books and similar claims too.
Seriously, if your god exists and indeed demons fool the majority, then your god is not doing his job too well. And he is supposed to be all powerful.
Hyeesa 6 months ago
@eduardtube1980
Ah, the old "Satandidit." It's so ironic how fundamentalists are forced to grant Satan more and more power in their stories in order to cover their asses.
TheZooCrew 6 months ago
@eduardtube1980 how was the bible writen if "No one can see God and live". Surely the authors of the various books must have got their "knowledge" from somewhere? How do you know your version wasnt influenced by demons?
mrcool9191 5 months ago
@mrcool9191
Maybe they got a call on the telephone, so they didn't actually have to see god.
AtheistExplains 5 months ago
@AtheistExplains lols, i realy hope ur joking
mrcool9191 5 months ago
@mrcool9191
I am, but I don't think the original comment you responded to was. Interesting that he defends the god that no one has ever seen with a devil that no one has ever seen. Is he going to then explain that the pitchfork that no one has ever seen proves the devil, which proves the god? Do the souls in hell being tortured by a pitchfork prove the pitchfork which proves the.....
It's amazing that a strawman justifies a strawman.
AtheistExplains 5 months ago
According to EVE Online, Space is full of mineral oil. j/k
Helge129 6 months ago
FUCK....at one minute in...as the list of religions was completed...I realized...that you have to explain/refute the entire bullshit religion thing....one by one to every fucker in every religion before it will eventually be rejected by all of humanity.....FUCK...that will take at best hundreds of years...and at worst..........thousands....FUCK FUCK FUCK.....
sixtiksix 7 months ago
George Harrison looks like Jesus.
LuxuryBarrage 7 months ago
@LuxuryBarrage No one knows what Jesus looks like, dummy.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz OMG give me a break, you know what I mean.
LuxuryBarrage 7 months ago
@LuxuryBarrage No, I don't. How can he look like jesus if no one knows what jesus looks like?
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz Holy shit it was a joke!
LuxuryBarrage 7 months ago
@gregrutz Oh for the love of ..... he was obviously referring to the overwhelmingly popular image of jesus that every god fearing christian et al in the world has, either in a frame or hanging on a cross, dead, with blood dripping from his hands and feet! i know, how harsh of me, meh....
MrDBarch 7 months ago in playlist Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
@MrDBarch And my point is that is just more made up crap. They don't know what jesus looked like just like they don't know what he said, it's all made up.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz
In fact, the popular images are most definitely what Jesus did NOT look like. I have yet to see Jesus depicted as Middle Eastern, which he obviously was.
TheZooCrew 7 months ago
wow, impressive series :)
mindwis3 7 months ago
1:18: Thumbs up if you loved Big Trouble in Little China!
CharlesjChan 7 months ago 18
@CharlesjChan
A classic
sonykroket 4 months ago
So ole Luther is one of the douchebags proclaiming it's ok to lie for your religion.
Why doen't that suprise me.
Religion and lies do seem to go hand in hand.
sonykroket 7 months ago