@thegatheringdenver I was about to make this comment but you beat me too it. His speech is so fragmented that it's hard to even know what he is saying.
It’s odd I think that someone has poster mainly the sections of Bill Maher’s video where he’s talking about the virgin birth when that is one thing that has been discovered. In 1982 the Ark of the Covenant was found in Jerusalem 20 feet below where Christ was crucified. At his death an earth quake cracked the ground and his blood dripped onto the mercy seat. It was found to have only 24 chromosomes, only one Y chromosome from the Father!
God exists beyond space and time and because of this time and space exists.... Christians are not muslims and we we know that He created us and all things because HE is a personal, creator God who continues to engage with His creation in an intimate and immediate manner. He speaks still to all men today everywhere in His only Begotten Son Jesus., This same Jesus who He raised from the dead will also one day judge the lives of all men in truth and righteousness
guys who are attacking maher. Its a comedy, chill out. Of course there will be editing, its maher's movie. Now just because collins is a great scientist doesnt mean he cant have wacky beliefs. Newton had wacky beliefs, as did francis crick i believe. The point is they are not known for their beliefs but for their science.
Maher's an idiot. If he hasn't heard anyone propose that there was no evidence for Christ, he doesn't know what 'evidence' means. Also, he's not reading anyone but Dawkins.
@Sage80 Perhaps you and others believing that ancient 2nd hand sectarian stories can ever be trusted as "evidence" should read up on what real *historians* (not 'theologians", whose bias disqualifies them from start) think about the historical evidence for Jesus' stories, especially the miracles and the resurrection (which are much harder to support). I recommend looking up the research of Richard Carrier (yes, a historian) on the subject.
@LacrimaLucis why are you assuming I'm a believer? I'm a logician. Some atheists are logical. Maher is not one. And most historians are theists. So you'r e logic seems to be on the same level as Maher's. It' sno wonder you seem to have such love for him. The myth of neutrality is never so evident than in those who claim that not being theists or deists somehow makes them objective. It doesn't. A true atheist logician would be embarrassed by what you wrote. I recommend Dr. Norman Geisler.
@Sage80 "Logician"? And one of your moves is calling Maher an idiot. And then assuming I have "such love for him" :). What about the subject at hand? Blabbering apologetics aside (Norman Geisler's or W.L.Craig's), the reality is that there's no "overwhelming" historical evidence for Jesus and his alleged "miracles" (especially the resurrection, which is the core tenet of the Christian cult). So it's a shame to see a scientist claiming otherwise, like Collins does in this video.
ummmm. but look at how these documents come together. isn't that what collins said? why did he say that. do you agree that willie nellie was what he was in support of? if not...what was his defense?
Wow both these guys are stupid. Maher is a big moron. Jesus wasn't evan white he was black. The virgin in the bible means young woman, the bible makes it clear that Jesus's father was Joseph. If you are going to talk about the bible at least read it.
Bill Maher is not in any position to be the spokesperson for either the existance of god or the contrary. He has no idea what he's talking about and uses editing tactics similar to Michael Moore to make intelligent people appear incredibly dim. Dr. Collins is a brilliant man who mapped out the human genome consisting of 3.1 billion letters in DNA code creating an instruction manual for the make up of the human being. I'd listen to what he has to say.
@dannytibi That's an interesting point. The question is...Why would bill Maher direct history questions to a DNA Genetisist? Because he knows asking questions better suited for Dr. Collins would leave ole Bill looking pretty dumb.
@TexasSailor01 You'll get no argument from me there. I would not look to Bill Maher for thought provoking intellectual discussion either. Billy boy should stick to comedy. Religulous was good for laughs, but did not add anything to the discussion of religion and faith on any academically valid level. I'll be the first to agree to that.
@TexasSailor01 Were you even able to follow the dialog in this clip? Actually it was Collins who brought up the silly claim that "the historical evidence of Christ existence is overwhelming", so Maher was right to pick that apart -- a claim which coming from a scientist is rather shameful. When you hear scientists making such claims about "evidence", you can only *hope* they use the *right* standard of evidence in their own field of study..
@LacrimaLucis Pick it apart? That's not what he did. He asked questions and used cut-aways to hide answers. Nothing was "Picked apart". I'd rather read than sit through this mind numbing dribble. If you are athiest, and wish to obtain more ammunition for your belief Try The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Great book. If you are Christian and persuing different reassurance, Try Dr. Collins' book The Language of God. Either one provides intelligent insight. This is garbage.
@TexasSailor01 It doesn't matter if he cut it every few seconds, it's the point that someone who is so knowledgeable of science, could believe in religion. Especially immaculate conception. Also, it's freedom of speech so technically he can be in the position to be a spokesperson if he so chooses. No matter how established someone is, you can't accept what they say and praise them just because of that reason.
@xXShadowEyesXx My point is that Dr. Collins is a brilliant physicist, not a historian. Bill knows this. If he was truly seeking intelligent feedback to those types of questions, he would have directed them to a more interested man. If he was seeking scientific logic behind faith or the possibility of a god, those would be good questions for the good doctor. He did not intend on finding any answers, and carefully deleted any scenes that made the man show his credibility. Read his book.
@TexasSailor01 Valid point. But the movie isn't about anything but religion so it was most likely done to cut down film time. I imagine the parts he cut were probably too lengthy in discussion or something of that nature. Maher usually let's people say what they want because he doesn't have a problem coming up with a good rebuttal.
@TexasSailor01 Right. We should let people who we believe are more intelligent than us THINK for us. That's a great philosophy. I mean, how DARE we even ask these bastions of infallible knowledge to defend ANYTHING they say, right? Just open our mouths and swallow it down like good boys and girls. How pathetic. Just because you're intelligent doesn't mean you are incapable of error. That kind of thinking is what creates legions of mindless sheep who don't question what they're told.
@turtlesarecool99 That's not exactly my point. We are free to think about whatever we want. Intelligent people seek out the most accurate resources for information. If I have questions about plumbing, I'm not going to ask a carpenter. But, the problem with a lot of people, is they are self asserted experts in things they know nothing about. Speculating is one thing, but to speak on something without evidence and claim it to be a fact, is nothing more than ignorance. Part. 1
@turtlesarecool99 Part 2 Secondly, If you've read Dr. Collins book, he strenuously points out the lack of indefinite evidence for God, he merely has faith. A lot of athiests laugh at faith, however, the funny part is, they too must have faith to continue their beliefs, because alternitively, there is no evidence dis-proving god either. So, debate all you want, you will get no-where. In the end, it's all what you want to believe, I only have a problem with guys like Mahr having any persuasion.
@TexasSailor01 It doesn't take any faith whatsoever to not believe in an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Admission of the notion that, 'I do not know, and therefor have no definitive belief system on the matter,' is not faith based. This consistently cited false equivocation needs to stop. I could say that it takes faith on your part to not have a belief in the Easter bunny, and that would make equally as much sense. Study some epistemology, it would do you wonders. Peace.
@turtlesarecool99 an admission to not know anything is not a hypothesis. Secondly, to say that there can't be a god, or that there must be certainly are not examples of any kind of "unfalsifiable" truths due to the total lack of evidence. You are right about the easter bunny too, that's what makes religious arguments so exhausting and fruitless. You can plug any ridiculous figure into the argument and hit the same wall. That's where faith comes in. For those who choose a side anyway.
@TexasSailor01 The belief in god is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, I don't think you quite read that right. Obviously an admission of unknowing is not a hypothesis, please read more carefully. The Easter Bunny is also an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Again, you need to read and learn epistemology to understand my point. I was merely refuting your false equivocacy fallacy and explaining why a lack of belief in an unfalsifiable hypothesis does not require faith.
@turtlesarecool99 I see what youre saying, it could be interpreted both ways. No god (unfalsifiable) Is a God (equally so) that's what i'm saying. We are in agreement, and having an argument over syntax. If you are simply stating that you have no idea, then okay, but to state one or the other as a fact would be inaccurate. To believe in nothing is quite different, you are simply choosing not to think about it. But, when you assert one side as true, without evidence, that's faith.
@TexasSailor01 Disbelief in a 'God' does not constitute the assertion that one cannot exist. It simply means, at this point in time, there's not enough evidence to support such a claim. Very few self-described 'atheists,' Bill Maher included, say that they know a 'God' does not exist. They just don't pretend to know what many ignorant men are sure of. No faith required.
@turtlesarecool99 Okay, Athiests believe there is no god. You may be confused with agnostics who just consider all options, but there's not enough there for them to say one way or another. The fact is, If you (not you specifically) say "There is no god." You must be making a decision with out evidence. Believing that there is nothing with zero proof to back it up. That is faith. Mahr says there is no god, he can not prove it, so what is that?
@TexasSailor01 I'm not confused. Atheism is not a rigid set of beliefs like religion. Most 'purebreed' atheists I've met and talked to are simply rejecting the religious beliefs available to them. Atheism is born from a feeling of skepticism and a desire to learn more. Believe what you will, as I haven't anymore drive to argue this anymore. Maher, by the way, is the same. He does not claim to know that there is no God, he just doesn't believe in what has been presented to him.
Actually Maher doesn't state that there is no God. In fact he has said that he thinks there may well be - but it's not the Judaic / Christian / Islam God.
The whole point of the film is not to state that God doesn't exist - it's to show the foolishness, dishonesty and hypocrisy of organised religions that claim to know what God is, what he wants etc.
@turtlesarecool99 By the way, there was a time when i was a total athiest, now, i'm just not sure. I don't care how it's defined, but I read this guys book. He's got a pretty interesting take on things. He started out athiest or agnostic or whatever, and over the years, began to find things in science, that re-enforced the possiblity of god, to him, it was overwhelming. The book was really good. If you are open to other possibilities, you'd definitely enjoy it.
@TexasSailor01 not sure what is your point, people can be brilliant in a field [of science] and yet subscribe to silly [emotional] beliefs (see Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things?"). No matter his qualifications, Bill Maher exposes the silliness of Collin's faith perfectly in this interview, no matter how he edited it, because indeed, what "historical evidence" is really there for Jesus, besides wishful [biblical] stories spread by desperate acolytes ?
@LacrimaLucis That's silly to say "no matter how he edited it" I could make it look like i scored the game winning touchdown in last years Super Bowl with some fancy editing, it doesn't make it anymore true. When you really think about it, There is absolutely no evidence proving one way or another, so all we can do is speculate. An argument is a waste of time with out facts.
He is a very smart man. Please know that he did not personally map the human genome. He was an administrator overseeing a project. I'm sure his contributions were tremendous, but he is not a superman and his opinion is not to be revered over others. He is still asserting something for which there is no evidence, something that is still highly improbable. Though slightly more probable then Yahweh or Allah, I suppose.
@Callirgos1 Yes, I am aware. He was a bit more than just an administrator, but yes there was a team of genetisists in that project. He isn't asserting anything as fact, only faith. It's different. Atheists have faith too, they just don't consider it to be. They do not have evidence dis-proving god either, so it's really a wash. By the way, Yahweh is the Hebrew way of saying Jesus, and google Muslim faith, you may be surprised how similar they actually are.
@TexasSailor01 yeah, about DNA. he is not a religious scholar. his actual religious beliefs are in contradiction many other forms of christianity. the standard of evidence he uses to learn about the world is different from the standard he uses is deciding why the universe exists? so he can map the human genome with science but turns to superstition for answers on the reasons for it all? he should just humbly say he doesn't know the answers and goes by faith. there is no proof.
@TexasSailor01 BUT, also Francis Collins believes in a talking snake.. That's somewhat of a dealbreaker for me. Also it was not Dr. Collins who did all the work on the human genome project as it was a team effort and not a one-man operation. He was merely the head of the project, he was but an administrator who organized the group.. not even close to being the person who found it.
Bill Maher is not in any position to be the spokesperson for either the existance of god or the contrary. He has no idea what he's talking about and uses editing tactics similar to Michael Moore to make intelligent people appear incredibly dim. Dr. Collins is a brilliant man who mapped out the human genome consisting of 3.1 billion letters in DNA code creating an instruction manual for the make up of the human being. I'd listen to what he has to say.
@drg860 So if no one can provide evidence for your questions, that means you get to answer it yourself, and whatever answer you give is the right answer?
brilliant scientist, lets talk history... whats wrong with this picture? I guess he didn't what to be stumped with science so he asked the right people wrong questions.
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weeb¬ly.com
Topics: Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, The Secrets Of Human Essence And Happiness, The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Debated issues, and many others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc2.yolasite.com
etc.
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
This is just a bit cringe-worth from Maher. Basically his response to Collins' point regarding the historicity of the Christian Bible is to say: 'I've never heard of this!' or 'that wouldn't stand up in a laboratory!' I mean really, conflating historical criticism with empirical science is just nonsensical. Not written by eye-witnesses? Prove it, the gospel material was certainly written within the lifetimes of eye-witnesses, so who is Maher to assert the authors were not? Poor stuff.
@MrWildbill20056 Eye-witness testimony is the worst kind of "evidence" when it comes to supernatural claims like miracles...Jesus might have existed, but that does not mean he was devine...BTW when Bill says "i've never heard of this" what he means is that there is no other type of "evidence" outside the gospels that declares Jesus divinity...also the gospels do contradict themselves in certain parts...personally I think they are not reliable
@cuevasdecamuy I think any take on what is the 'best' or 'worst' type of evidence when it comes to any matter is highly subjective. Eye witness testimony is, up till the dawn of video technology, the premier source of information in any historical enquiry, and remains the 'gold' standard in many cases still. When he says he never heard of anyone call the Christian Bible 'evidence' that's just nonsensical. It would be more suspicious is the texts were identical, far more.
Im not saying they have to be identical,but they should not contradic themselves Ex.In the resurection of jesus there are different accounts about the people who were present and where they were at the moment they heard the news.Maybe one is correct and the other three are wrong, but the point is that they are not reliable to claim them as fact, bcause of the discrepancy.Also the earliest gospel is thought to be written aroun 20 years after Jesus death,a lot of room for error in dat time frame
@cuevasdecamuy There is no difficulty whatsoever reconciling the accounts of the resurrection. There are several factors to consider. 1) Drawn from different witnesses, from different angles/positions and at different times 2) Written down by different authors with different turns of phrase 3) varying translations. See any of the eminent legal brains who have given very good reasons to believe the variation in accounts give more reason to believe than disbelieve.
@MrWild One text says the tomb was open when the woman arrive, another says the tomb opened AFTER they arrived, one text says there are two angels AND jesus when the woman arrive , another says that ONE angel was there but NOT jesus when the woman arrived. Those are just a few.In court have your testimony be so inconsistant and expect to be taken seriously.Leaving out jesus seems significant for such an epic event..The variation gives more reason not to believe or to not know which to believe.
@cuevasdecamuy False objections I'm afraid. Simon Greenleaf addresses your issues, look him up. In short, your points in order 1) Matthew is potentially telescoping historical facts, and does not claim the women were there when it happened, he says nothing 2) Saying there was ONE, does not mean there were not TWO, only that one was recorded/relevant to the author AND no account records Angels and Jesus together 3) Jesus is not at the tomb in any account. There is no formal contradiction.
Bill, He's NOT the ONE famous scientist that's religious. That's preposterous. What aout Newton, Maxwell, Heisenberg, Freeman Dyson, John Lennox, etc...
@rhinnawi95 Einstein was not religious in the sense you impli....He did not believe in a personal god. He was more of a pantheist..which is they see the universe as being god, but it is not a conscious entity..Einstein would throw the word god to reffer to the universe in a more poetic way
What the hell r u talkin about? how should someone talk when it comes to religion? religion is a stupid fairy tale n yet u expect him to talk science to someone who believes in such stupid fairy tale..yeah ok lets kill the neighbor n then talk about black holes
@thetraceur123 hehehe...(peter griffin laugh style)...hehehe....meg what the hell r u doing here?! you're the one who's embarrassing herself! i wanna have a debate with god not it advocates! unless u wanna have a debate about whether unicorns exist or not...so bring it on you redneck
@ASCampaign Roflmao, you're killing me seriously!! How old are you if I can ask? xD Sure, I am just 17, but you can not be older than 12-13 years old? And about the redneck thing.... I live in Sweden, not in the redneck-filled States of America. I actually make fun of "rednecks" and ignorants, you seem to fit in the latter one. So, let's start with some Philosophical Arguments pro-God, then I want to hear your own case and arguments.
@ASCampaign Let's warm up with a simple deductive Argument based on the metaphysical truth that "Out of Nothing, Nothing comes.". The Kalám Cosmological Argument, who's biggest proponent is Professor of Philosophy, Dr. William Lane Craig. This is the simple form, and I go in to detail of each premise afterwards. To deny the aruments conclusion you have to deny a premise in the Argument, due to the arguments nature of being deductive.
@thetraceur123 If everything has a cause, why do we assume god has no cause. If god has no cause then we can not assume that everything has a cause, it is possible to imagine the world beginning to exist and it is also possible to imagine that the world did not exist. we simply choose to think that the world had to have a beginning. our lack of imagination, however, blinds us to the fact that perhaps there was no beginning. if god does not have a maker then why should we believe he is our maker?
@ASCampaign Assuming that God would need a cause is like assuming bachelors are married. It is contradictory. First off, an infinite regress of past events is impossible, an actual infinite can't exist in reality. Therefore there must have been a first cause which by definition is necessary in its own existance. Asking why an necessary being won't need a cause is like asking why numbers don't need a cause for their existance. Numbers are necessary, if they exist. Same with the concept of God.
@thetraceur123 The first cause is NOT necessary n if its necessary let it be a quantum fluctuation. do not use inappropriate examples. read that comment again, that was bertrand russell's the first cause argument n then answer my second comment.
@thetraceur123 In fact, everything HAS a cause. That's just a fact. Nobody assumez God has no cause. Understanding the concept of God is actually saying that God is HIS OWN cause of existence.
I agree with the rest you're saying: infinite regression is impossible. Reality NEEDS a First Cause.
@iliveon A fallacy?? Sorry, but that's science and reason. Unless you can show me something that "comes out of nothing" or an effect "X" that has no cause "Y", I consider you as a lunatic.
Repeating some old lie doesn't make it true!
And God has a caise God is HIS OWN CAUSE!! Don't call it "God" if you're too scared or immature to even consider the sentence, just say "The First Cause" is ITS OWN CAUSE of existence.
The First Cause proof doesn't "prove" God, it's just part of the demonstation.
@Gazdo01 first cause argument has a fallacy called "Special pleading" God cannot be exempt from the argument.
Also the universe doesn't come from nothing. That isn't the case in science nor the big bang. The universe could always exist. Because of the physical laws make a conservation of mass and energy. And yes, there is no demonstration for God or the smartest people in the world would tend to be religious. It turns out, the opposite
@iliveon Well, he isn't. Have you been reading?? Everything HAS a cause. There MUST BE a first cause to explain your existence, it's the only intelligent explanation there is. I say God is the First Cause, you don't have to agree with me.
And no, the universe could NOT have always existed. It's logically impossible, and it goes against cosmological discoveries. I wonder who's being delusionnal...
Knowledge is not always synonym of intelligence. I do belive the smartest people believe in God.
@Gazdo01 "And no, the universe could NOT have always existed. It's logically impossible, and it goes against cosmological discoveries. "
Tell that to physicists and be shunned for your basic lack of knowledge concerning conservation of mass and energy
The universe existed in a compressed area. Ever seen a chemical reaction where a small bit turns into a large amount? Same with the universe. The first cause argument is not sound because it has no evidence.
@iliveon Lol physicist are only trying to find an explanation, they have to fucking clue on "how" or "why" it "all started". Physicists are often very poor philosophers, that don't even understand the implication of what they are working on.
First Cause argument doesn't need "evidence". You just need logic combined with the fact that we exist.
@Gazdo01 Ok, I'll put it this way, the people with the highest IQ scores, the elite scientists, the top doctors, etc. They tend to be not religious. And this is demonstrated with statistics. The facts are 95% of the national academy of sciences are atheists, another high number for royal society, and its higher in general with college graduates than highschool graduates, etc.
Even down to the modern world being more secular than the less educated world being more religious
@iliveon Well, your talking about actual numbers. These numbers were different 200 years ago, and they will be in 200 years.
Belief in God in the population shifts from time to time. Even the most brillant minds get caught up with false and fallacious propaganda about God. Nowadays, it's hip to be atheist. The New Atheist are pushing people to believe that science and faith cannot go together. Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Descartes, ETC would have laught at the idea.
@Gazdo01 In fact, studies show that atheist know more about RELIGION than RELIGIOUS people!
I'm not making a fallacy in saying that all atheists are smarter, because that is false. I'm saying in general, the higher in intelligence you are, the more likely you will be atheist. Sorry, but it's true
I am also saying the first cause argument has a fallacy, you can't have a God who has no cause if the premise is "EVERYTHING HAS A CAUSE." You simply CANNOT get away with an illogical argument
@iliveon What they know is the superfluous things. They don't know anything about BEING religious. They have never felt it. They just blabbing about this and that, focusing on destroying faith with rationalism.
"the higher in intelligence you are, the more likely you will be atheist" Again, what is intelligence?
" you can't have a God who has no cause" WHO SAID GOD HAS NO CAUSE???
@iliveon Einstein said "God doesn't throw dices". Einstein didn't believe in A personnal God, but he believed in GOD. Einstein was a spiritual person.
@Gazdo01 Einstein didn't believe in GOD nor does being spiritual mean you believe in God.
God is not Yahweh of the Bible. Those two are separate things. Same with Muslims, they'd call "God" allah. You'd call God, Jesus/Yahweh. No Einstein was not a Christian, nor did he believe in God. First of all einstein used that as an analogy. Second, I'll prove this point blank.
@Gazdo01 "From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. "
"Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression"
@Gazdo01 I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being. Agnostic to higher power meaning it can't be known
@Gazdo01 Agnostics accept that claims about gods are unprovable. Einstein was an atheist because he didn't believe in a god. that is the only qualification
I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world,
Notice the"satisfied with mystery, existing world"
@iliveon Well I just guess Einstein had a view about God that is not the view most rational theists have about God. I too wouldn't conceive of that kind of god.
@Gazdo01 God doesn't play dice was a metaphor for the deterministic world. “the universe is not random, but deterministic”. That nothing is random.
He believed in spinoza's God.
Briefly put, belief in “Spinoza’s God” is the belief that “God”, “nature”, “the universe”, and “everything there is” are all words or phrases describing the same thing.
@iliveon I would agree on almost everything that has been said here. But I still believe in God.
Plus, Catholics don't believe the Old Testaments stories to be actually true all the time. There are a lot of theological points made in the Bible, without them being part of an inerrant narrative tale of events. One has to be able to read between the lines.
Finally, why do you always repeat the same mistake about the cause for God? I said everything needs a cause, EVEN GOD. But GOD is ITS OWN CAUSE.
@Gazdo01 "Finally, why do you always repeat the same mistake about the cause for God? I said everything needs a cause, EVEN GOD. But GOD is ITS OWN CAUSE."
So God causes himself. Why can't the universe? Matter and energy are conserved. The universe seems to fit that
@iliveon Comparing GOD with fairies, invisible untestable unicorns, ETC is ridiculous. You're missing out the WHOLE POINT being made. God is Principle of all things. That has nothing to do with the things you mentioned. Maybe you don't believe in God because you don't know the proper DEFINITION of GOD.
You're probably mixing up "a god", "a God", "the God", "god of the gap" and GOD.
I stick with the "First Cause" argument, because it's the only one that DOESN'T fail logic and reason.
@Gazdo01 "Comparing GOD with fairies, invisible untestable unicorns, ETC is ridiculous. "
Monotheism came after polytheism
ROASSTED! :)
But no, I'll be like this god concept and make it an "eternal roast"
All monotheistic religions claim this "GOD" character. Including Islam, and others.
Thus unicorns, fairies, etc. Anything "out of this realm" that could "create the universe" and "cure cancer via prayer or any other illness" can be put into the first cause argument
@iliveon Of course monotheism came after polytheism, I would expect it like like! I don't really see what's your point?
Unicorns and fairies don't fit the proposition, because they are created beings. GOD is not material.
And you're right about different religions claiming this GOD, but what does that change?
About the "First Cause argument", you're right, it's doesn't point directly to the Christian God, nor to a personnal God. That I believe because of Jesus.
@Gazdo01 I'll put it this way. No one knows if God is really there, only the strongly indoctrinated psychos, and those who hear voices. Other people take good occurences in their lives and attribute it to whatever God they worship, that being Hindu god, Allah, Baal, etc. Yahweh is the God of the Bible.
I'll do it like so: Everything has a cause. The universe needs a cause, therefore the untestable leprechauns whom had the power to cause themselves caused the universe. Or "Multiple gods who.."
@iliveon Your argument looks reasonnable at first, but then one needs to realize that "untestable leprechauns" never revealed themselves, unlike God, who spoke through the prophets, and then REVEALED Himself in the person of Jesus-Christ.
I believe in the many testamonies we have written about Jesus. You can't categorize him like any other sort of legendary mythological figure.
One has to accept the neccesity of a FIRST CAUSE and reject infinite regression. The rest is up to you to believe.
@Gazdo01 "Your argument looks reasonnable at first, but then one needs to realize that "untestable leprechauns" never revealed themselves, unlike God, who spoke through the prophets, and then REVEALED Himself in the person of Jesus-Christ."
There are many religions that seek "a legendary figure to come back," and or God in human form and the Jews were one of them. Not only do we have small religions TODAY that claim their leader is divine and can perform miracles.. but we
King James Version (KJV) 17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
@iliveon Those signs were given to the first disciples, directly, so that faith could be spread. We don't need this anymore. We have other miraculous signs.
@Gazdo01 but we also have DOZENS of people claiming to be divine through history that have made their own cults of people who believe and claim to see first hand that these people are divine, God's son, God in human form, one of the many gods in human form, etc. Jesus is similar to these people. Just like mohammed is for Islam. He may have infact lived, people may indeed say their lives were changed (after heavy delusion by religious sermons), but the claims of divinity are on the same level
@iliveon Mohammed is a self proclaimed prophet. Nobody expected him, neither did he perform any kind of "sign" to prove his authenticity. That is the definition of imposture :)
Jesus' divinity on the other hand was something the first Christians had to proclaim, given the miracles they'd witnessed.
@Gazdo01 "Jesus' divinity on the other hand was something the first Christians had to proclaim, given the miracles they'd witnessed"
You are aware that you just used the bible to confirm Christ right?
Just like the Muslims use the Quran to confirm Allah and mohammed..
People have "changed lives," "holy experiences," "dreams," and prophecies all coming from the Islamic Faith. A lot are history written down and claimed to have been written before or lies, similar to Christianity
@iliveon "You are aware that you just used the bible to confirm Christ right?"
1. "The Bible" is not A BOOK, but a collection of books that were grouped together. Each biblical book must be analysed separetely in order to judge its "historical" authenticity.
2. Bible is only part of our faith. Many testimonies are outside the Bible (e.g. Apostollic Fathers like Polycarpus, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Papias, ETC)
@Gazdo01 "The christian faith BOOMED so quickly that by the year 64, Nero accused the Christians of ROME (ROME!!!) to have set the fire that burn down the city."
I understand that the Christian faith was primarily by word of mouth during this time
Doesn't make it.. true. Other religions did the same thing. Many were illiterate
@iliveon "Doesn't make it.. true." Indeed. That's just one piece of the "evidence". But one has to be startled on how the Church expanded so fast (and quickly) in the Roman Empire.
@iliveon "He freaking flew into the heavens(space, confirmed later) with a horse with wings" Never heard that one. I'll need some reference.
Plus, everything we know about Mohammed was written about 2 centuries after he died. The hadiths do not have the "authenticity and historicity" found in the christian texts, plus, they interpretation depend on the Qu'ran. It's a circular argument coming from muslims.
The Qu'ran says that Mohammed will not show any miraculous sign, except for Qu'ran itself
@iliveon The story in "al buraq" was interpretated as Mohammed flying through heavens with a horse only because there is a hadith that mentions it. If you look closely, "al buraq" doens't give the details. The details come from a story (hadith) written 2 centuries later.
Like I said, Mohamed depends on the Qu'ran, and Qu'ran depends on Mohamed. It's circular approch, and thus, I don't believe it.
Nothing in the records indicating the crucifiction of jesus
and the people who say they saw him didn't live in the time of Jesus. There is a lot against it. And a lot of Christians want it to be true
There is a history of fraud in the church for artifacts including the Turin, the gospels weren't written by the supposed writers and there were many books that don't match the writing style
If you look up bible contradictions u will find dozens, btw
1. False. I mentionned the Apostollic Father, whose writhings are not included in the Bible.
2. Do you have serious reasons to doubt the various indepent authors that made the "canonical" cut?
I never saw my great grand father. There is nothing "written" about him. I still believe he existed. The fact that Mark or Luke didn't see Jesus doesn't mean their testimony is of no value.
@Gazdo01 That is showing you just how much you know about Islam. I don't know much either, but there is a lot to it, just like there is a lot to Christianity
@iliveon "They used parts of the Bible to start their religion" Of course. That's the only way they have to legitimise themselves. It's not because you use someones name that he automatically becomes part of your group.
The Abraham in the Bible has nothing to do with the Abraham found in the Qu'ran.
@Gazdo01 I would instead prefer if God didn't use faith, believe without evidence, the same faith that rules the 4,200+ religions today. God has to run by the rules of the logical argument too. That's why you can't use that argument because it is not LOGICAL. The claims have to have empirical evidence to be a premise. History, the Bible, first hand experiences are not proof. That's why we don't believe people who say they've been aboard alien ships, and other similar stories from honest people..
@iliveon "That's why we don't believe people who say they've been aboard alien ships, and other similar stories from honest people.." You're making very reasonable points, and I agree 100% with you.
But the Christian faith is based on dozens of independant testamonies.
It's not "history" or "Bible stories" that I present as a proof, but the CUMULATION of numerous things that make me believe in the historical figure of Jesus.
@Gazdo01 "It's not "history" or "Bible stories" that I present as a proof, but the CUMULATION of numerous things that make me believe in the historical figure of Jesus."
I am just pointing out that a lot of things, claimed by other sane people are proof of other gods or religious figures all around the world..
@Gazdo01 I thought it would help my point in that you can't really trust a mammal that says they are divinely inspired or religious texts because there are a lot. Just like pascal's wager fails, there are multiple heavens and hells :) and other concepts to be afraid of/want to go
@iliveon "have left our religions because it lacked logic, reason, and empirical evidence." I guess you were part of an Evangelical or Protestant Church...
As of the Catholic Church, REASON has always been promoted. St Augustin even said that Scriptures cannot contradict Truths that we acquired throught reasoning. Science and religion are not incompatible. Mendel, LeMaitre, Copernicus, Newton, Galileo..
"Go to any philosophy/logic class" Most of the philosophy student I know believe in God...
1. I don't see how that has anything to do with the point I was making... Anyways...
2. The Catholic Church is still growing, has never had as much members as of today. Maybe you just don't want to see it, but the CC is on the rises everywhere around the world, except for Europe and Australia.
P.S.: Christianity is the only way that will prevent Western Civilisation to be conquered by Islam.
@Gazdo01 "and the majority of philosophers in the history of the world) would have to disagree."
That one is demonstably false being that mind body dualism is less common being that we have more neuro-cognitive philosophers and computational theory of mind philosophers, the majority of philosophers do not. I can back this one up.. via msg. Just like increase in education=more atheism, same with philosophy, sciences and others
@iliveon "Just like increase in education=more atheism"
Most of what you call "education" is in fact "propagation" of the teacher's belief. Nowadays, atheism is "cool", and the New Atheists have found a way to convince people that science and religion are incompatible. That's false propaganda. Education is seldom "neutral". This is why "educated" people from Southern USA are more creationists than "educated" people from Sweden.
@Gazdo01 well creationism is demonstrably wrong, that is why haha
And I am not talking about sweden, I am talking about in general.
More religion=worse on global peace index
more atheism=more education
more religion=less education
Remember this is on average, not to include everyone
and even there are surveys about how atheist know more about religion than religious people in America, which is funny as heck I'd say. I certainly know more than the avg and you do too, but in general, remember
@Gazdo01 You realize most tyrannies are theocracies.
Secondly, "More religion=worse on global peace index" is confirmed.
Thirdly, atheist score better on religious tests, is confirmed through several surveys.
Fourthly atheist tend to have higher IQ's
Fifthly, as you go up in education you get more and more atheists
Sixth..Hitler believed in a God. I'm not calling him catholic, although heavily influenced, they never did excommunicate him, but I'm calling his ideology similar to a cult's
Why does this video edit the doctors comments so much? ..... you think.
thegatheringdenver 1 month ago
@thegatheringdenver I was about to make this comment but you beat me too it. His speech is so fragmented that it's hard to even know what he is saying.
bjenkinsw16 2 weeks ago
Highly edited. Hmmm..... suss....
thesop21 1 month ago
It’s odd I think that someone has poster mainly the sections of Bill Maher’s video where he’s talking about the virgin birth when that is one thing that has been discovered. In 1982 the Ark of the Covenant was found in Jerusalem 20 feet below where Christ was crucified. At his death an earth quake cracked the ground and his blood dripped onto the mercy seat. It was found to have only 24 chromosomes, only one Y chromosome from the Father!
davnxs 1 month ago
They are within a couple of decades of eye witnesses. HAHAHAHHAHA. I forgot you could be a dumb ass scientists
GRehillMusic 1 month ago
isn't it great to believe in something? :)
996vtwin2 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God exists beyond space and time and because of this time and space exists.... Christians are not muslims and we we know that He created us and all things because HE is a personal, creator God who continues to engage with His creation in an intimate and immediate manner. He speaks still to all men today everywhere in His only Begotten Son Jesus., This same Jesus who He raised from the dead will also one day judge the lives of all men in truth and righteousness
shieldsff 2 months ago
guys who are attacking maher. Its a comedy, chill out. Of course there will be editing, its maher's movie. Now just because collins is a great scientist doesnt mean he cant have wacky beliefs. Newton had wacky beliefs, as did francis crick i believe. The point is they are not known for their beliefs but for their science.
Dpesh7 2 months ago
Maher's an idiot. If he hasn't heard anyone propose that there was no evidence for Christ, he doesn't know what 'evidence' means. Also, he's not reading anyone but Dawkins.
Sage80 2 months ago
@Sage80 Perhaps you and others believing that ancient 2nd hand sectarian stories can ever be trusted as "evidence" should read up on what real *historians* (not 'theologians", whose bias disqualifies them from start) think about the historical evidence for Jesus' stories, especially the miracles and the resurrection (which are much harder to support). I recommend looking up the research of Richard Carrier (yes, a historian) on the subject.
LacrimaLucis 2 months ago
@LacrimaLucis why are you assuming I'm a believer? I'm a logician. Some atheists are logical. Maher is not one. And most historians are theists. So you'r e logic seems to be on the same level as Maher's. It' sno wonder you seem to have such love for him. The myth of neutrality is never so evident than in those who claim that not being theists or deists somehow makes them objective. It doesn't. A true atheist logician would be embarrassed by what you wrote. I recommend Dr. Norman Geisler.
Sage80 2 months ago
@Sage80 "Logician"? And one of your moves is calling Maher an idiot. And then assuming I have "such love for him" :). What about the subject at hand? Blabbering apologetics aside (Norman Geisler's or W.L.Craig's), the reality is that there's no "overwhelming" historical evidence for Jesus and his alleged "miracles" (especially the resurrection, which is the core tenet of the Christian cult). So it's a shame to see a scientist claiming otherwise, like Collins does in this video.
LacrimaLucis 2 months ago
He concedes that "the texts don't match" strange that as they are Gospels and gospel is the word of God. God must me a bit confused him/her/itslef...
LeeboProductions 3 months ago
@LeeboProductions
To be fair, god IS 3 different people at once ( and each one of them rationalizes evil in a different way ). I'd be befuddled too!
Callirgos1 2 months ago
ummmm. but look at how these documents come together. isn't that what collins said? why did he say that. do you agree that willie nellie was what he was in support of? if not...what was his defense?
cartergj 3 months ago
I'm really tired of Bill Maher & his un-researched arrogant bs. He's a legend in his own mind.
GoodyBob 3 months ago
Jesus is Lord. God bless you.
amd7787 3 months ago
Wow both these guys are stupid. Maher is a big moron. Jesus wasn't evan white he was black. The virgin in the bible means young woman, the bible makes it clear that Jesus's father was Joseph. If you are going to talk about the bible at least read it.
Yaterde 3 months ago
@Yaterde Ummm he wasn't black; he was a Jew. His looks most likely mirrored those of an arabic person.
LipanConjuring8519 3 months ago
Jesus existed historically he just was not the son of God because God does not exist.
churchjamespeter 3 months ago
@churchjamespeter well thr may have been a deluded messiah claimant but its impossible to know whether the was a jesus or not
thescorpionking2020 3 months ago
Bill Maher is not in any position to be the spokesperson for either the existance of god or the contrary. He has no idea what he's talking about and uses editing tactics similar to Michael Moore to make intelligent people appear incredibly dim. Dr. Collins is a brilliant man who mapped out the human genome consisting of 3.1 billion letters in DNA code creating an instruction manual for the make up of the human being. I'd listen to what he has to say.
TexasSailor01 4 months ago 10
@TexasSailor01 I'll listen to what he has to say on genetics. Not necessarily history.
dannytibi 3 months ago
@dannytibi That's an interesting point. The question is...Why would bill Maher direct history questions to a DNA Genetisist? Because he knows asking questions better suited for Dr. Collins would leave ole Bill looking pretty dumb.
TexasSailor01 3 months ago
@TexasSailor01 You'll get no argument from me there. I would not look to Bill Maher for thought provoking intellectual discussion either. Billy boy should stick to comedy. Religulous was good for laughs, but did not add anything to the discussion of religion and faith on any academically valid level. I'll be the first to agree to that.
dannytibi 3 months ago
@TexasSailor01 Were you even able to follow the dialog in this clip? Actually it was Collins who brought up the silly claim that "the historical evidence of Christ existence is overwhelming", so Maher was right to pick that apart -- a claim which coming from a scientist is rather shameful. When you hear scientists making such claims about "evidence", you can only *hope* they use the *right* standard of evidence in their own field of study..
LacrimaLucis 2 months ago
@LacrimaLucis Pick it apart? That's not what he did. He asked questions and used cut-aways to hide answers. Nothing was "Picked apart". I'd rather read than sit through this mind numbing dribble. If you are athiest, and wish to obtain more ammunition for your belief Try The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Great book. If you are Christian and persuing different reassurance, Try Dr. Collins' book The Language of God. Either one provides intelligent insight. This is garbage.
TexasSailor01 2 months ago
@TexasSailor01 It doesn't matter if he cut it every few seconds, it's the point that someone who is so knowledgeable of science, could believe in religion. Especially immaculate conception. Also, it's freedom of speech so technically he can be in the position to be a spokesperson if he so chooses. No matter how established someone is, you can't accept what they say and praise them just because of that reason.
xXShadowEyesXx 3 months ago
@xXShadowEyesXx My point is that Dr. Collins is a brilliant physicist, not a historian. Bill knows this. If he was truly seeking intelligent feedback to those types of questions, he would have directed them to a more interested man. If he was seeking scientific logic behind faith or the possibility of a god, those would be good questions for the good doctor. He did not intend on finding any answers, and carefully deleted any scenes that made the man show his credibility. Read his book.
TexasSailor01 3 months ago
@TexasSailor01 Valid point. But the movie isn't about anything but religion so it was most likely done to cut down film time. I imagine the parts he cut were probably too lengthy in discussion or something of that nature. Maher usually let's people say what they want because he doesn't have a problem coming up with a good rebuttal.
xXShadowEyesXx 3 months ago
@TexasSailor01 Right. We should let people who we believe are more intelligent than us THINK for us. That's a great philosophy. I mean, how DARE we even ask these bastions of infallible knowledge to defend ANYTHING they say, right? Just open our mouths and swallow it down like good boys and girls. How pathetic. Just because you're intelligent doesn't mean you are incapable of error. That kind of thinking is what creates legions of mindless sheep who don't question what they're told.
turtlesarecool99 2 months ago
@turtlesarecool99 That's not exactly my point. We are free to think about whatever we want. Intelligent people seek out the most accurate resources for information. If I have questions about plumbing, I'm not going to ask a carpenter. But, the problem with a lot of people, is they are self asserted experts in things they know nothing about. Speculating is one thing, but to speak on something without evidence and claim it to be a fact, is nothing more than ignorance. Part. 1
TexasSailor01 2 months ago
@turtlesarecool99 Part 2 Secondly, If you've read Dr. Collins book, he strenuously points out the lack of indefinite evidence for God, he merely has faith. A lot of athiests laugh at faith, however, the funny part is, they too must have faith to continue their beliefs, because alternitively, there is no evidence dis-proving god either. So, debate all you want, you will get no-where. In the end, it's all what you want to believe, I only have a problem with guys like Mahr having any persuasion.
TexasSailor01 2 months ago
@TexasSailor01 It doesn't take any faith whatsoever to not believe in an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Admission of the notion that, 'I do not know, and therefor have no definitive belief system on the matter,' is not faith based. This consistently cited false equivocation needs to stop. I could say that it takes faith on your part to not have a belief in the Easter bunny, and that would make equally as much sense. Study some epistemology, it would do you wonders. Peace.
turtlesarecool99 2 months ago
@turtlesarecool99 an admission to not know anything is not a hypothesis. Secondly, to say that there can't be a god, or that there must be certainly are not examples of any kind of "unfalsifiable" truths due to the total lack of evidence. You are right about the easter bunny too, that's what makes religious arguments so exhausting and fruitless. You can plug any ridiculous figure into the argument and hit the same wall. That's where faith comes in. For those who choose a side anyway.
TexasSailor01 2 months ago
@TexasSailor01 The belief in god is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, I don't think you quite read that right. Obviously an admission of unknowing is not a hypothesis, please read more carefully. The Easter Bunny is also an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Again, you need to read and learn epistemology to understand my point. I was merely refuting your false equivocacy fallacy and explaining why a lack of belief in an unfalsifiable hypothesis does not require faith.
turtlesarecool99 2 months ago
@turtlesarecool99 I see what youre saying, it could be interpreted both ways. No god (unfalsifiable) Is a God (equally so) that's what i'm saying. We are in agreement, and having an argument over syntax. If you are simply stating that you have no idea, then okay, but to state one or the other as a fact would be inaccurate. To believe in nothing is quite different, you are simply choosing not to think about it. But, when you assert one side as true, without evidence, that's faith.
TexasSailor01 2 months ago
@TexasSailor01 Disbelief in a 'God' does not constitute the assertion that one cannot exist. It simply means, at this point in time, there's not enough evidence to support such a claim. Very few self-described 'atheists,' Bill Maher included, say that they know a 'God' does not exist. They just don't pretend to know what many ignorant men are sure of. No faith required.
turtlesarecool99 2 months ago
@turtlesarecool99 Okay, Athiests believe there is no god. You may be confused with agnostics who just consider all options, but there's not enough there for them to say one way or another. The fact is, If you (not you specifically) say "There is no god." You must be making a decision with out evidence. Believing that there is nothing with zero proof to back it up. That is faith. Mahr says there is no god, he can not prove it, so what is that?
TexasSailor01 2 months ago
@TexasSailor01 I'm not confused. Atheism is not a rigid set of beliefs like religion. Most 'purebreed' atheists I've met and talked to are simply rejecting the religious beliefs available to them. Atheism is born from a feeling of skepticism and a desire to learn more. Believe what you will, as I haven't anymore drive to argue this anymore. Maher, by the way, is the same. He does not claim to know that there is no God, he just doesn't believe in what has been presented to him.
turtlesarecool99 2 months ago 7
@TexasSailor01
Actually Maher doesn't state that there is no God. In fact he has said that he thinks there may well be - but it's not the Judaic / Christian / Islam God.
The whole point of the film is not to state that God doesn't exist - it's to show the foolishness, dishonesty and hypocrisy of organised religions that claim to know what God is, what he wants etc.
TheSmithDorian 2 months ago
@turtlesarecool99 By the way, there was a time when i was a total athiest, now, i'm just not sure. I don't care how it's defined, but I read this guys book. He's got a pretty interesting take on things. He started out athiest or agnostic or whatever, and over the years, began to find things in science, that re-enforced the possiblity of god, to him, it was overwhelming. The book was really good. If you are open to other possibilities, you'd definitely enjoy it.
TexasSailor01 2 months ago
@TexasSailor01 not sure what is your point, people can be brilliant in a field [of science] and yet subscribe to silly [emotional] beliefs (see Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things?"). No matter his qualifications, Bill Maher exposes the silliness of Collin's faith perfectly in this interview, no matter how he edited it, because indeed, what "historical evidence" is really there for Jesus, besides wishful [biblical] stories spread by desperate acolytes ?
LacrimaLucis 2 months ago
@LacrimaLucis That's silly to say "no matter how he edited it" I could make it look like i scored the game winning touchdown in last years Super Bowl with some fancy editing, it doesn't make it anymore true. When you really think about it, There is absolutely no evidence proving one way or another, so all we can do is speculate. An argument is a waste of time with out facts.
TexasSailor01 2 months ago
@TexasSailor01
He is a very smart man. Please know that he did not personally map the human genome. He was an administrator overseeing a project. I'm sure his contributions were tremendous, but he is not a superman and his opinion is not to be revered over others. He is still asserting something for which there is no evidence, something that is still highly improbable. Though slightly more probable then Yahweh or Allah, I suppose.
Callirgos1 2 months ago
@Callirgos1 Yes, I am aware. He was a bit more than just an administrator, but yes there was a team of genetisists in that project. He isn't asserting anything as fact, only faith. It's different. Atheists have faith too, they just don't consider it to be. They do not have evidence dis-proving god either, so it's really a wash. By the way, Yahweh is the Hebrew way of saying Jesus, and google Muslim faith, you may be surprised how similar they actually are.
TexasSailor01 2 months ago
@TexasSailor01 Dr. Collins did that? Nope. He was just the head of the project.
zombieman222 1 month ago
@TexasSailor01 yeah, about DNA. he is not a religious scholar. his actual religious beliefs are in contradiction many other forms of christianity. the standard of evidence he uses to learn about the world is different from the standard he uses is deciding why the universe exists? so he can map the human genome with science but turns to superstition for answers on the reasons for it all? he should just humbly say he doesn't know the answers and goes by faith. there is no proof.
vicmackey2008 1 month ago
@TexasSailor01 BUT, also Francis Collins believes in a talking snake.. That's somewhat of a dealbreaker for me. Also it was not Dr. Collins who did all the work on the human genome project as it was a team effort and not a one-man operation. He was merely the head of the project, he was but an administrator who organized the group.. not even close to being the person who found it.
Maximumdistance 6 days ago
Bill Maher is not in any position to be the spokesperson for either the existance of god or the contrary. He has no idea what he's talking about and uses editing tactics similar to Michael Moore to make intelligent people appear incredibly dim. Dr. Collins is a brilliant man who mapped out the human genome consisting of 3.1 billion letters in DNA code creating an instruction manual for the make up of the human being. I'd listen to what he has to say.
TexasSailor01 4 months ago
@drg860 So if no one can provide evidence for your questions, that means you get to answer it yourself, and whatever answer you give is the right answer?
ninjajesus81 4 months ago
Everyone says Francis Collins is a brilliant scientist. That's not the case at all. He's just a brilliant administrator of a scientific project.
gupsphoo 5 months ago
brilliant scientist, lets talk history... whats wrong with this picture? I guess he didn't what to be stumped with science so he asked the right people wrong questions.
theotherwtemeat 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weeb¬ly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, The Secrets Of Human Essence And Happiness, The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Debated issues, and many others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc2.yolasite.com
etc.
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
Comment removed
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
Comment removed
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
nice cut and paste
infinityprodinc 6 months ago
When asked his opinion about religion, Albert D. Xavier replied, " Just get me some Peyote and a Hang-glider."
MrBeautifulba1 6 months ago
how is bill maher anti religon but pro israel?
MrSuper2007 6 months ago
This is just a bit cringe-worth from Maher. Basically his response to Collins' point regarding the historicity of the Christian Bible is to say: 'I've never heard of this!' or 'that wouldn't stand up in a laboratory!' I mean really, conflating historical criticism with empirical science is just nonsensical. Not written by eye-witnesses? Prove it, the gospel material was certainly written within the lifetimes of eye-witnesses, so who is Maher to assert the authors were not? Poor stuff.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 Eye-witness testimony is the worst kind of "evidence" when it comes to supernatural claims like miracles...Jesus might have existed, but that does not mean he was devine...BTW when Bill says "i've never heard of this" what he means is that there is no other type of "evidence" outside the gospels that declares Jesus divinity...also the gospels do contradict themselves in certain parts...personally I think they are not reliable
cuevasdecamuy 6 months ago
@cuevasdecamuy I think any take on what is the 'best' or 'worst' type of evidence when it comes to any matter is highly subjective. Eye witness testimony is, up till the dawn of video technology, the premier source of information in any historical enquiry, and remains the 'gold' standard in many cases still. When he says he never heard of anyone call the Christian Bible 'evidence' that's just nonsensical. It would be more suspicious is the texts were identical, far more.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
Im not saying they have to be identical,but they should not contradic themselves Ex.In the resurection of jesus there are different accounts about the people who were present and where they were at the moment they heard the news.Maybe one is correct and the other three are wrong, but the point is that they are not reliable to claim them as fact, bcause of the discrepancy.Also the earliest gospel is thought to be written aroun 20 years after Jesus death,a lot of room for error in dat time frame
cuevasdecamuy 6 months ago
@cuevasdecamuy There is no difficulty whatsoever reconciling the accounts of the resurrection. There are several factors to consider. 1) Drawn from different witnesses, from different angles/positions and at different times 2) Written down by different authors with different turns of phrase 3) varying translations. See any of the eminent legal brains who have given very good reasons to believe the variation in accounts give more reason to believe than disbelieve.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWild One text says the tomb was open when the woman arrive, another says the tomb opened AFTER they arrived, one text says there are two angels AND jesus when the woman arrive , another says that ONE angel was there but NOT jesus when the woman arrived. Those are just a few.In court have your testimony be so inconsistant and expect to be taken seriously.Leaving out jesus seems significant for such an epic event..The variation gives more reason not to believe or to not know which to believe.
cuevasdecamuy 6 months ago
@cuevasdecamuy False objections I'm afraid. Simon Greenleaf addresses your issues, look him up. In short, your points in order 1) Matthew is potentially telescoping historical facts, and does not claim the women were there when it happened, he says nothing 2) Saying there was ONE, does not mean there were not TWO, only that one was recorded/relevant to the author AND no account records Angels and Jesus together 3) Jesus is not at the tomb in any account. There is no formal contradiction.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
this is so pathetic, r we supposed to think that this comedian is smarter than the director of the human genome project? give me a break
metrogoldenmanu 7 months ago
Maher is a MORON!!!
5tonyvvvv 7 months ago
Bill, He's NOT the ONE famous scientist that's religious. That's preposterous. What aout Newton, Maxwell, Heisenberg, Freeman Dyson, John Lennox, etc...
Ikjyot 7 months ago
@Ikjyot Don't forget about Einstein.
rhinnawi95 7 months ago
@rhinnawi95 Einstein was not religious in the sense you impli....He did not believe in a personal god. He was more of a pantheist..which is they see the universe as being god, but it is not a conscious entity..Einstein would throw the word god to reffer to the universe in a more poetic way
cuevasdecamuy 6 months ago
@Ikjyot He's certainly the most famous atm
Ch1naManChan 7 months ago
u mad?
SID480 7 months ago
this makes me sick
theBearJewX 7 months ago
As seneca said "religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful"
ASCampaign 7 months ago
Yeah..every child is born atheist n every religious person is brainwashed
ASCampaign 7 months ago
What the hell r u talkin about? how should someone talk when it comes to religion? religion is a stupid fairy tale n yet u expect him to talk science to someone who believes in such stupid fairy tale..yeah ok lets kill the neighbor n then talk about black holes
ASCampaign 7 months ago
@ASCampaign HAHAHAHAH!!!! Stop embarassing yourself, want to have a debate about wheter God exist or not?
thetraceur123 7 months ago
@thetraceur123 hehehe...(peter griffin laugh style)...hehehe....meg what the hell r u doing here?! you're the one who's embarrassing herself! i wanna have a debate with god not it advocates! unless u wanna have a debate about whether unicorns exist or not...so bring it on you redneck
ASCampaign 7 months ago
@ASCampaign Roflmao, you're killing me seriously!! How old are you if I can ask? xD Sure, I am just 17, but you can not be older than 12-13 years old? And about the redneck thing.... I live in Sweden, not in the redneck-filled States of America. I actually make fun of "rednecks" and ignorants, you seem to fit in the latter one. So, let's start with some Philosophical Arguments pro-God, then I want to hear your own case and arguments.
thetraceur123 7 months ago
@ASCampaign Let's warm up with a simple deductive Argument based on the metaphysical truth that "Out of Nothing, Nothing comes.". The Kalám Cosmological Argument, who's biggest proponent is Professor of Philosophy, Dr. William Lane Craig. This is the simple form, and I go in to detail of each premise afterwards. To deny the aruments conclusion you have to deny a premise in the Argument, due to the arguments nature of being deductive.
thetraceur123 7 months ago
@ASCampaign
P1. Everything that Begins to Exist has a Cause.
P2. The Universe began to Exist.
C1. Therefore, the Universe has a Cause.
thetraceur123 7 months ago
@thetraceur123 If everything has a cause, why do we assume god has no cause. If god has no cause then we can not assume that everything has a cause, it is possible to imagine the world beginning to exist and it is also possible to imagine that the world did not exist. we simply choose to think that the world had to have a beginning. our lack of imagination, however, blinds us to the fact that perhaps there was no beginning. if god does not have a maker then why should we believe he is our maker?
ASCampaign 7 months ago
@ASCampaign Assuming that God would need a cause is like assuming bachelors are married. It is contradictory. First off, an infinite regress of past events is impossible, an actual infinite can't exist in reality. Therefore there must have been a first cause which by definition is necessary in its own existance. Asking why an necessary being won't need a cause is like asking why numbers don't need a cause for their existance. Numbers are necessary, if they exist. Same with the concept of God.
thetraceur123 7 months ago
@thetraceur123 The first cause is NOT necessary n if its necessary let it be a quantum fluctuation. do not use inappropriate examples. read that comment again, that was bertrand russell's the first cause argument n then answer my second comment.
ASCampaign 7 months ago
@thetraceur123 In fact, everything HAS a cause. That's just a fact. Nobody assumez God has no cause. Understanding the concept of God is actually saying that God is HIS OWN cause of existence.
I agree with the rest you're saying: infinite regression is impossible. Reality NEEDS a First Cause.
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 Reality doesn't need a first cause, that's a fallacy
Second of all if you want causes for everything, god needs one. Sorry
iliveon 7 months ago
@iliveon A fallacy?? Sorry, but that's science and reason. Unless you can show me something that "comes out of nothing" or an effect "X" that has no cause "Y", I consider you as a lunatic.
Repeating some old lie doesn't make it true!
And God has a caise God is HIS OWN CAUSE!! Don't call it "God" if you're too scared or immature to even consider the sentence, just say "The First Cause" is ITS OWN CAUSE of existence.
The First Cause proof doesn't "prove" God, it's just part of the demonstation.
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 first cause argument has a fallacy called "Special pleading" God cannot be exempt from the argument.
Also the universe doesn't come from nothing. That isn't the case in science nor the big bang. The universe could always exist. Because of the physical laws make a conservation of mass and energy. And yes, there is no demonstration for God or the smartest people in the world would tend to be religious. It turns out, the opposite
iliveon 7 months ago
@iliveon Well, he isn't. Have you been reading?? Everything HAS a cause. There MUST BE a first cause to explain your existence, it's the only intelligent explanation there is. I say God is the First Cause, you don't have to agree with me.
And no, the universe could NOT have always existed. It's logically impossible, and it goes against cosmological discoveries. I wonder who's being delusionnal...
Knowledge is not always synonym of intelligence. I do belive the smartest people believe in God.
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 "And no, the universe could NOT have always existed. It's logically impossible, and it goes against cosmological discoveries. "
Tell that to physicists and be shunned for your basic lack of knowledge concerning conservation of mass and energy
The universe existed in a compressed area. Ever seen a chemical reaction where a small bit turns into a large amount? Same with the universe. The first cause argument is not sound because it has no evidence.
iliveon 7 months ago
@iliveon Lol physicist are only trying to find an explanation, they have to fucking clue on "how" or "why" it "all started". Physicists are often very poor philosophers, that don't even understand the implication of what they are working on.
First Cause argument doesn't need "evidence". You just need logic combined with the fact that we exist.
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 Ok, I'll put it this way, the people with the highest IQ scores, the elite scientists, the top doctors, etc. They tend to be not religious. And this is demonstrated with statistics. The facts are 95% of the national academy of sciences are atheists, another high number for royal society, and its higher in general with college graduates than highschool graduates, etc.
Even down to the modern world being more secular than the less educated world being more religious
iliveon 7 months ago
@iliveon Well, your talking about actual numbers. These numbers were different 200 years ago, and they will be in 200 years.
Belief in God in the population shifts from time to time. Even the most brillant minds get caught up with false and fallacious propaganda about God. Nowadays, it's hip to be atheist. The New Atheist are pushing people to believe that science and faith cannot go together. Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Descartes, ETC would have laught at the idea.
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 In fact, studies show that atheist know more about RELIGION than RELIGIOUS people!
I'm not making a fallacy in saying that all atheists are smarter, because that is false. I'm saying in general, the higher in intelligence you are, the more likely you will be atheist. Sorry, but it's true
I am also saying the first cause argument has a fallacy, you can't have a God who has no cause if the premise is "EVERYTHING HAS A CAUSE." You simply CANNOT get away with an illogical argument
iliveon 7 months ago
Comment removed
Gazdo01 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@iliveon What they know is the superfluous things. They don't know anything about BEING religious. They have never felt it. They just blabbing about this and that, focusing on destroying faith with rationalism.
"the higher in intelligence you are, the more likely you will be atheist" Again, what is intelligence?
" you can't have a God who has no cause" WHO SAID GOD HAS NO CAUSE???
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 Einstein didn't believe in a God, nor does Stephen Hawking. Look up "basic religion test stumps many americans"
In fact (history) only until about 600 BC did monotheism even begin
iliveon 7 months ago
@iliveon Einstein said "God doesn't throw dices". Einstein didn't believe in A personnal God, but he believed in GOD. Einstein was a spiritual person.
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 Einstein didn't believe in GOD nor does being spiritual mean you believe in God.
God is not Yahweh of the Bible. Those two are separate things. Same with Muslims, they'd call "God" allah. You'd call God, Jesus/Yahweh. No Einstein was not a Christian, nor did he believe in God. First of all einstein used that as an analogy. Second, I'll prove this point blank.
iliveon 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 "From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. "
"Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression"
iliveon 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being. Agnostic to higher power meaning it can't be known
iliveon 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 Agnostics accept that claims about gods are unprovable. Einstein was an atheist because he didn't believe in a god. that is the only qualification
iliveon 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 Einstein
I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world,
Notice the"satisfied with mystery, existing world"
iliveon 7 months ago
@iliveon Well I just guess Einstein had a view about God that is not the view most rational theists have about God. I too wouldn't conceive of that kind of god.
But then again, I'm a Catholic Apologetic...
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 God doesn't play dice was a metaphor for the deterministic world. “the universe is not random, but deterministic”. That nothing is random.
He believed in spinoza's God.
Briefly put, belief in “Spinoza’s God” is the belief that “God”, “nature”, “the universe”, and “everything there is” are all words or phrases describing the same thing.
iliveon 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 So, not trying to make a fallacy, but it just helps the point being made.
Smarter people tend to be less religious, this is proved by multiple studies
Doesn't mean it isn't true, no.
First cause argument fails because it has a fallacy "everything but god needs a cause, therefore god did it"
Anything could be placed in the "god" position, such as fairies, invisible untestable unicorns, etc. That's why it fails
iliveon 7 months ago
@iliveon I would agree on almost everything that has been said here. But I still believe in God.
Plus, Catholics don't believe the Old Testaments stories to be actually true all the time. There are a lot of theological points made in the Bible, without them being part of an inerrant narrative tale of events. One has to be able to read between the lines.
Finally, why do you always repeat the same mistake about the cause for God? I said everything needs a cause, EVEN GOD. But GOD is ITS OWN CAUSE.
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 "Finally, why do you always repeat the same mistake about the cause for God? I said everything needs a cause, EVEN GOD. But GOD is ITS OWN CAUSE."
So God causes himself. Why can't the universe? Matter and energy are conserved. The universe seems to fit that
iliveon 7 months ago
@iliveon "Why can't the universe?" Because it goes agaisnt science which teaches the univers is NOT eternal.
"Matter and energy are conserved" Where does matter and energy come from, that's the question. WHY is it here?
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@iliveon Comparing GOD with fairies, invisible untestable unicorns, ETC is ridiculous. You're missing out the WHOLE POINT being made. God is Principle of all things. That has nothing to do with the things you mentioned. Maybe you don't believe in God because you don't know the proper DEFINITION of GOD.
You're probably mixing up "a god", "a God", "the God", "god of the gap" and GOD.
I stick with the "First Cause" argument, because it's the only one that DOESN'T fail logic and reason.
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 "Comparing GOD with fairies, invisible untestable unicorns, ETC is ridiculous. "
Monotheism came after polytheism
ROASSTED! :)
But no, I'll be like this god concept and make it an "eternal roast"
All monotheistic religions claim this "GOD" character. Including Islam, and others.
Thus unicorns, fairies, etc. Anything "out of this realm" that could "create the universe" and "cure cancer via prayer or any other illness" can be put into the first cause argument
iliveon 7 months ago
@iliveon Of course monotheism came after polytheism, I would expect it like like! I don't really see what's your point?
Unicorns and fairies don't fit the proposition, because they are created beings. GOD is not material.
And you're right about different religions claiming this GOD, but what does that change?
About the "First Cause argument", you're right, it's doesn't point directly to the Christian God, nor to a personnal God. That I believe because of Jesus.
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 I'll put it this way. No one knows if God is really there, only the strongly indoctrinated psychos, and those who hear voices. Other people take good occurences in their lives and attribute it to whatever God they worship, that being Hindu god, Allah, Baal, etc. Yahweh is the God of the Bible.
I'll do it like so: Everything has a cause. The universe needs a cause, therefore the untestable leprechauns whom had the power to cause themselves caused the universe. Or "Multiple gods who.."
iliveon 7 months ago
@iliveon Your argument looks reasonnable at first, but then one needs to realize that "untestable leprechauns" never revealed themselves, unlike God, who spoke through the prophets, and then REVEALED Himself in the person of Jesus-Christ.
I believe in the many testamonies we have written about Jesus. You can't categorize him like any other sort of legendary mythological figure.
One has to accept the neccesity of a FIRST CAUSE and reject infinite regression. The rest is up to you to believe.
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 "Your argument looks reasonnable at first, but then one needs to realize that "untestable leprechauns" never revealed themselves, unlike God, who spoke through the prophets, and then REVEALED Himself in the person of Jesus-Christ."
There are many religions that seek "a legendary figure to come back," and or God in human form and the Jews were one of them. Not only do we have small religions TODAY that claim their leader is divine and can perform miracles.. but we
iliveon 7 months ago
@iliveon Well I don't care about what these sects claim... I stick with Jesus for simple reasons (Jn 14.11)
Plus, Jesus has nothing to do with a legendary figure.
Gazdo01 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gazdo01 "Plus, Jesus has nothing to do with a legendary figure."
Lol you are in denial
iliveon 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 Jn 14.11
You believe because you were raised Christian, not because it is true
I don't think you really believe in divine protection or healing either.
iliveon 7 months ago
@iliveon I left the Christian belief, only to return to the faith a couple of years ago. I was influenced by some atheists friends.
But after searching, I discover that the christian (Catholic) position is the only logical one.
(P.S.: I have a very strong scientific background)
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 Mark 16:17-18
King James Version (KJV) 17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
Can you do these?
iliveon 7 months ago
@iliveon Those signs were given to the first disciples, directly, so that faith could be spread. We don't need this anymore. We have other miraculous signs.
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 I don't want to take it out of context, so I will grant you this, if I am.
Other miraculous signs include what?
iliveon 7 months ago
@iliveon Mostly healing the sick. Marian apparitions. Propheties.
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 but we also have DOZENS of people claiming to be divine through history that have made their own cults of people who believe and claim to see first hand that these people are divine, God's son, God in human form, one of the many gods in human form, etc. Jesus is similar to these people. Just like mohammed is for Islam. He may have infact lived, people may indeed say their lives were changed (after heavy delusion by religious sermons), but the claims of divinity are on the same level
iliveon 7 months ago
@iliveon Mohammed is a self proclaimed prophet. Nobody expected him, neither did he perform any kind of "sign" to prove his authenticity. That is the definition of imposture :)
Jesus' divinity on the other hand was something the first Christians had to proclaim, given the miracles they'd witnessed.
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 "Jesus' divinity on the other hand was something the first Christians had to proclaim, given the miracles they'd witnessed"
You are aware that you just used the bible to confirm Christ right?
Just like the Muslims use the Quran to confirm Allah and mohammed..
People have "changed lives," "holy experiences," "dreams," and prophecies all coming from the Islamic Faith. A lot are history written down and claimed to have been written before or lies, similar to Christianity
iliveon 7 months ago
@iliveon "You are aware that you just used the bible to confirm Christ right?"
1. "The Bible" is not A BOOK, but a collection of books that were grouped together. Each biblical book must be analysed separetely in order to judge its "historical" authenticity.
2. Bible is only part of our faith. Many testimonies are outside the Bible (e.g. Apostollic Fathers like Polycarpus, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Papias, ETC)
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@iliveon "Just like the Muslims use the Quran to confirm Allah and mohammed.."
Difference is that the muslim faith depends on the testimony of ONE SINGLE MAN, as the Christian faith depends of douzen of independant testimonies.
Qu'ran confirms Mohammed, which in turn confirms Qu'ran... That's stupid logic. There's no such fallacious argument in the Catholic Faith.
"People have "changed lives," [...] coming from the Islamic Faith"
Idem for christians. But that's not why I have the faith.
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 You are aware that nothing was written down about Jesus until many years later we are talking 60 to 140 years later
That is more reason to believe it was made up by the same people who compiled it in the year 316
iliveon 7 months ago
@iliveon Absolutely false. First Thessalonians was written about 15 years after Jesus' death.
First Gospel written is the Gospel of Mark, about 30 years after Jesus' death.
The whole New Testament was written by the end of the first century.
The christian faith BOOMED so quickly that by the year 64, Nero accused the Christians of ROME (ROME!!!) to have set the fire that burn down the city.
"the same people who compiled it in the year 316" You need to study how the Bible was assembled...
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 "The whole New Testament was written by the end of the first century."
All of the sites I am looking this up, and have seen, don't say this
First century is 0-100. Second century is 100-200
They each indicate new testament books were made by various authors about from 50 AD to ~150AD or so.. multiple sources say this
iliveon 7 months ago
@iliveon Apart from the Revelation book, all the New Testament books were written by the end of the first century.
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 "The christian faith BOOMED so quickly that by the year 64, Nero accused the Christians of ROME (ROME!!!) to have set the fire that burn down the city."
I understand that the Christian faith was primarily by word of mouth during this time
Doesn't make it.. true. Other religions did the same thing. Many were illiterate
iliveon 7 months ago
@iliveon "Doesn't make it.. true." Indeed. That's just one piece of the "evidence". But one has to be startled on how the Church expanded so fast (and quickly) in the Roman Empire.
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 and since when did Mohammed not show a sign?
He freaking flew into the heavens(space, confirmed later) with a horse with wings
Just like Jesus flew up into the sky (into space we now know)with some rags on coming out of a tomb
iliveon 7 months ago
@iliveon "He freaking flew into the heavens(space, confirmed later) with a horse with wings" Never heard that one. I'll need some reference.
Plus, everything we know about Mohammed was written about 2 centuries after he died. The hadiths do not have the "authenticity and historicity" found in the christian texts, plus, they interpretation depend on the Qu'ran. It's a circular argument coming from muslims.
The Qu'ran says that Mohammed will not show any miraculous sign, except for Qu'ran itself
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 Search "al buraq" for the horse thing
iliveon 7 months ago
@iliveon The story in "al buraq" was interpretated as Mohammed flying through heavens with a horse only because there is a hadith that mentions it. If you look closely, "al buraq" doens't give the details. The details come from a story (hadith) written 2 centuries later.
Like I said, Mohamed depends on the Qu'ran, and Qu'ran depends on Mohamed. It's circular approch, and thus, I don't believe it.
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 Jesus depends on bible
Nothing in the records indicating the crucifiction of jesus
and the people who say they saw him didn't live in the time of Jesus. There is a lot against it. And a lot of Christians want it to be true
There is a history of fraud in the church for artifacts including the Turin, the gospels weren't written by the supposed writers and there were many books that don't match the writing style
If you look up bible contradictions u will find dozens, btw
iliveon 7 months ago
@iliveon "Jesus depends on bible"
1. False. I mentionned the Apostollic Father, whose writhings are not included in the Bible.
2. Do you have serious reasons to doubt the various indepent authors that made the "canonical" cut?
I never saw my great grand father. There is nothing "written" about him. I still believe he existed. The fact that Mark or Luke didn't see Jesus doesn't mean their testimony is of no value.
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 That is showing you just how much you know about Islam. I don't know much either, but there is a lot to it, just like there is a lot to Christianity
iliveon 7 months ago
@iliveon Sorry friend, but I know A LOT about Islam. I debate muslims on a weekly basis, I better know what I'm talking about.
I'm even better with the Christian stuff :)
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 I'm just saying just because a religion is widespread doesn't make it true
iliveon 7 months ago
@iliveon That is correct. It is one of my favorite arguments against the muslims.
You should apply this argument on yourself. I hate it went atheist say things like "93% of academicians don't believe in God", etc etc.
That doesn't prove anything.
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 "Nobody expected him, neither did he perform any kind of "sign" to prove his authenticity. That is the definition of imposture :)"
No one expected him... They used parts of the Bible to start their religion, such as Abraham, etc.
If we think Abraham was divinely inspired, we can go both ways, muslim, jew, or christian
The Jews were converted over, told to leave their families for Jesus and the jews now say he doesn't fit the criteria and wasn't divine..
iliveon 7 months ago
@iliveon "They used parts of the Bible to start their religion" Of course. That's the only way they have to legitimise themselves. It's not because you use someones name that he automatically becomes part of your group.
The Abraham in the Bible has nothing to do with the Abraham found in the Qu'ran.
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 I would instead prefer if God didn't use faith, believe without evidence, the same faith that rules the 4,200+ religions today. God has to run by the rules of the logical argument too. That's why you can't use that argument because it is not LOGICAL. The claims have to have empirical evidence to be a premise. History, the Bible, first hand experiences are not proof. That's why we don't believe people who say they've been aboard alien ships, and other similar stories from honest people..
iliveon 7 months ago
@iliveon "That's why we don't believe people who say they've been aboard alien ships, and other similar stories from honest people.." You're making very reasonable points, and I agree 100% with you.
But the Christian faith is based on dozens of independant testamonies.
It's not "history" or "Bible stories" that I present as a proof, but the CUMULATION of numerous things that make me believe in the historical figure of Jesus.
Gazdo01 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gazdo01 "It's not "history" or "Bible stories" that I present as a proof, but the CUMULATION of numerous things that make me believe in the historical figure of Jesus."
I am just pointing out that a lot of things, claimed by other sane people are proof of other gods or religious figures all around the world..
iliveon 7 months ago
@iliveon Pointing that out is meaningless and has nothing to do with the discussion we're having.
I agree that there are lunatics who believe all sorts of gurus... But that's doesn't invalidate what I'm saying.
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 I thought it would help my point in that you can't really trust a mammal that says they are divinely inspired or religious texts because there are a lot. Just like pascal's wager fails, there are multiple heavens and hells :) and other concepts to be afraid of/want to go
iliveon 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 Ever wonder why atheist tend to hold and dominate REASON, LOGIC, and SCIENCE?
Because many of us have left our religions because it lacked logic, reason, and empirical evidence.
Go to any philosophy/logic class and they will tell you the same thing about the fallacy of the first cause argument
God has not been proven more than the Hindu gods have been proven. Hence: Hebrews 11:6
If you are saying it isn't a faith thing, then heck, win a nobel prize
iliveon 7 months ago
@iliveon "have left our religions because it lacked logic, reason, and empirical evidence." I guess you were part of an Evangelical or Protestant Church...
As of the Catholic Church, REASON has always been promoted. St Augustin even said that Scriptures cannot contradict Truths that we acquired throught reasoning. Science and religion are not incompatible. Mendel, LeMaitre, Copernicus, Newton, Galileo..
"Go to any philosophy/logic class" Most of the philosophy student I know believe in God...
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 "I guess you were part of an Evangelical or Protestant Church"
Catholicism is on the decrease as well, look it up
iliveon 7 months ago
@iliveon
1. I don't see how that has anything to do with the point I was making... Anyways...
2. The Catholic Church is still growing, has never had as much members as of today. Maybe you just don't want to see it, but the CC is on the rises everywhere around the world, except for Europe and Australia.
P.S.: Christianity is the only way that will prevent Western Civilisation to be conquered by Islam.
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 "As of the Catholic Church, REASON has always been promoted."
I agree, that's what I like about the catholic church
But the God logic proofs use fallacies and or make assumptions in their favor without demonstrable evidence
""Go to any philosophy/logic class" Most of the philosophy student I know believe in God..."
Yeah, I already said, logically, the first cause argument fails and you can find this in a philosophy course.
Look up "first cause refutation philosophy".
iliveon 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 Literally the first thing that came up was philosophy forum website and they all said why its flawed
iliveon 7 months ago
@iliveon Well that's merely their opinion. I (and the majority of philosophers in the history of the world) would have to dissagree.
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 "and the majority of philosophers in the history of the world) would have to disagree."
That one is demonstably false being that mind body dualism is less common being that we have more neuro-cognitive philosophers and computational theory of mind philosophers, the majority of philosophers do not. I can back this one up.. via msg. Just like increase in education=more atheism, same with philosophy, sciences and others
iliveon 7 months ago
@iliveon "Just like increase in education=more atheism"
Most of what you call "education" is in fact "propagation" of the teacher's belief. Nowadays, atheism is "cool", and the New Atheists have found a way to convince people that science and religion are incompatible. That's false propaganda. Education is seldom "neutral". This is why "educated" people from Southern USA are more creationists than "educated" people from Sweden.
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 well creationism is demonstrably wrong, that is why haha
And I am not talking about sweden, I am talking about in general.
More religion=worse on global peace index
more atheism=more education
more religion=less education
Remember this is on average, not to include everyone
and even there are surveys about how atheist know more about religion than religious people in America, which is funny as heck I'd say. I certainly know more than the avg and you do too, but in general, remember
iliveon 7 months ago
@iliveon I agree that creationism is stupid. But still, some very "educated" people believe in it.
"More religion=worse on global peace index"
What about Stalin, Hitler, Mao...? When God dissapears, it's an open door for tyranny !
/watch?v=AhWAlZywQDU
And PLEASE don't tell me Hitler was a "Catholic".
"more atheism=more education ; more religion=less education" Depends on what's your definition of "education" or "intelligence".
"which is funny as heck I'd say" Sad indeed.
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 You realize most tyrannies are theocracies.
Secondly, "More religion=worse on global peace index" is confirmed.
Thirdly, atheist score better on religious tests, is confirmed through several surveys.
Fourthly atheist tend to have higher IQ's
Fifthly, as you go up in education you get more and more atheists
Sixth..Hitler believed in a God. I'm not calling him catholic, although heavily influenced, they never did excommunicate him, but I'm calling his ideology similar to a cult's
iliveon 7 months ago
@iliveon 1. Tyrannies are theocracies in the sence that the tyran is a "god"... ok. But almost every tyranny is anti-catholic.
2. First and Second WW are not religious wars. 20th century was the bloodiest century in the history of the world.
3. The atheists focus on trivialities about religious DOGMA and usually make fun of them to prove their point. They don't have FAITH
4. Reference please. Even if true, wasn't always like that and will change.
5. Idem
6. Cause of war wasn't belief in God
Gazdo01 7 months ago