@bigbuilder1986 What the heck are you babbling about. Did irony suddenly disappear from communication,, or is this an effect of english being a second language to me. I'll be clearer next time.
@DumbNJKids that's what you believe, and what is more righteous to believe, and I respect that. However, the video makes fun of catholicism and some other versions of christianism that says exactly as in the music "being oblivious is not an excuse for not worshipping God".
Atheist and happy as that Hjernespreng said vids like this turn people away from religion and I'm not supprised, all you primitive Theists know is death and murder. You don't see us burning people for thinking differently, respect our decisions and we will respect yours.
They are crying about burning for eternity and that they mean no harm. Yet they want everybody to believe what they believe and burn with them. They ARE harming the rest of us. Burn alone.
@falconjblack2008 They don't believe in anything, they're oblivious, you missed the point by FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR. They are just saying that they were great people, and yet they will be punished. Because... Religion is bullshit.
And this "burn alone" is very hateful. Don't be hateful. Hateful people will burn.
@TheRose130 with all respection to agnostic and athiest,,,i found that all u life is questions|?? seems u r lost ,,,,in islam answers of u questions about the god,,,,the god (allah) has 99 names.
There's a difference between refusing a free gift after cognitively knowing about it with just never hearing the good news and never receiving it. The people watching these videos have been fully exposed to the gospel and will be held accountable for either receiving the free gift of eternal life by believing in Jesus or they will burn in hell forever by rejecting eternal life with lifelong unbelief! I just preach the gospel because the Bible commands it. Mark 16:15.
@jacksmack77 A preacher came to a Saame tribe, up up north. He told the people about christianity, heaven and hell. A man asked the preacher "do the people of the other tribes go to hell, if they don't know about christianity?" The preacher answered that no, they would not. The man asked the preacher "then why did you tell us, and condem us to such place?"
Since the sole condition of eternal condemnation is to refuse to believe in Christ alone for eternal life, (Jn 3:36, 3:18, 1 Jn 5:1); then those that have neither the capacity to believe nor the capacity to reject Christ as Savior cannot be condemned and must be saved.Otherwise God could not be declared a just God.
@jacksmack77 What about those who would've refused Jesus but didn't only because they never heard about Him? They get to "Heaven"?? What makes them different from those who rejected Jesus because they were told about Him??? Why do you preach the Gospel when not doing so will make sure everyone is incapable of refusing Jesus and so enter Heaven???? Is refusing Jesus a just reason to deny otherwise nice people to enter Heaven????? Do you even think about things before accepting them??????
For all the religious people here. Bible verses aren't going to do anything but make you look pretentious. They mean absolutely nothing to anyone who does not already believe in them. They are not convincing in any way, just like you would find Koran verses unconvincing. Stop spouting them every chance you get, it is annoying and only serves to alienate us from each other while actual discourse should be taking place.
How can you love when you portray God as a fairytale and call His word shit? I wouldn't let you into my home if you thought I was shit. I would keep you outside with the rest of the garbage. (Hell)
bencamp18. No. I don't deserve to go to heaven. I'm saved by grace. Nobody deserves to go to heaven. Without Christ and the free gift of eternal life accepted by faith alone nobody will go to heaven. Ephesians 2:5-9.
I sometimes wish it were a fairytale. But to your shock, you will one day, perhaps too late find out that the Bible is the cold hard truth! Jesus is the only way to heaven. John 14:6. Sin must be punished. unbelievers go to hell because they have rejected the gospel! 2 Thessalonians 2:10.
@jacksmack77 The Bible is not the cold hard truth. It's full of factual errors and contradictions.
I would accept the gospel if it was presented to me in such a way that I found it logically convincing and factually correct. This has not been done. Since ,according to the believers, God a) created me and therefore knows what it would take for me to accept the gospel and b) wants me to accept the gospel, I can only conclude that the god thus described does not exist.
This is a travesty of the Biblical understanding of hell. The people who go to hell have deliberately heard the gospel and have rejected it. No one goes to hell due to ignorance. God is drawing people to the knowledge of the truth. John 12:32. This song is a joke considering that everyone has received revelation of the gospel. John 1:9. This video attacks a straw man of the doctrine of hell, not the biblical doctrine of hell! Jesus saves. Believe in him for eternal life. John 3:15.
@jacksmack77 yes, yes whatever blahblah and he walked on water and a Cosmic Jewish Zombie loves us all because we are fucked due to a rib-woman ate a fruit she wasn't suposed to after listening to a talking reptile yadda yadda yadda...it's been thousands of years now... News Flash: we are in the XXI century, get fucking real will ya? we've put through enough bullshit fairytales... enough is enough...
@jacksmack77 "The people who go to hell have deliberately heard the gospel and have rejected it."
I see. According to your non-logic, if I hadn't heard about your particular god, I'd get a pass into heaven. Interesting. So wouldn't you be doing the world a favor by not spreading the knowledge of his existence & everybody who hasn't been burdened with the knowledge of your ridiculous god would go to heaven? Am I understanding this correctly?
Brilliant, not a big fan of the music but the lyrics were very clever and spot on.. The animation was funny and I loved the bit at the end where they dance....lol awesome..... would have 5 starred it but youtube is broken. so you get a like instead.
I'm an atheist, and I liked this song. Even though this is satirical, this is EXACTLY how most religious people think (without the catchy tune and plus some aggressive hatred).
i am not totally sure, but this song is suporting atheism right? cuase there singin about people being burned even those they were good people, but they are singin about it as a bad thing. arent they
Sarcasm dude. I guess I take to many things for granted since I'm swedish. Being atheist here is what it should be.. the obvoius basic position. Sorry if my message is unclear.. but then again, that might do something to the comunity as well.
@malthe122 They are NOT athiest. You can be the nicest, most charitable person, but without believing in god and accepting jesus as your savior, You will go to hell.
and just for the sake of clarification, i do believe in micro-evolution. most evidence that is used by proponents of it is commonly the same evidence that supports micro evolution more so than macro evolution (or commonly referred to as plain ol' evolution.) micro evolution is the reason why we see so much variety and new creatures and plants throughout time; it doesn't mean that certain species deviated from it's genetic makeup and made an entirely new species. they just made a new genus.
"Your logic, throughout all your wall of text has basicaly boiled down to "You can't disprove god, therefore, he exist."
no, i don't believe that at all. you can't prove or disprove anything without a substantiated amount of evidence to prove otherwise. i believe there is more evidence for a God instead of anything disproving him. that is why i believe in a god because evidence has convinced me, otherwise i wouldn't believe.
and the only "substance" prevalent in the evolution theory boils down to micro-evolution which i do believe in. macro-evolution has been constantly inconsistent and contradictory to secular science. it contradicts the laws of biogenesis, law of thermodynamics, fossil record discrepancies, time and space expansion and fails to answer fossil accounts of the cambrian explosion among other things. the only evidence i ever found evolution to be right about was microevolution.
You clearly do not understand the theory of evolution at all. It does not contradict the law of biogenesis as it has NOTHING to do with abiogenesis. It also has Nothing to do with thermodynamics or time and space expansion. If you wish to argue against something at least have the common decency to get off your ass and read up on it. As for "secular science" all science is secular as the practising of religion is incompatible with the scientific method of acquiring knowledge.
"You clearly do not understand the theory of evolution at all. It does not contradict the law of biogenesis as it has NOTHING to do with abiogenesis"
sorry, but you're the one who hasn't done much research. you can mold both theories as much as you want to say there is a consistency in the theories, but you're going to come across apparent contradictions. the laws of biogenesis has EVERYTHING to do with evolution; abiogenesis is more consistent with it however, but not biogenesis.
The LAW of biogenesis states that life only comes from life. The theory of evolution does not contradict this as it does not attempt to explain the origin of life itself, (That would be a theory of abiogenesis) merely how organisms change over many generations, resulting in different species. Pray tell, what has thermodynamics and the origin of the universe got to do with evolution?
"The LAW of biogenesis states that life only comes from life"
exactly; the evolutionary theory is supposedly the answer to why "life" exists. are you so daft to even realize the misnomers you created. how can you possibly go around saying things like that when evolution is supposedly part of the grand scheme of reasoning to why anything exist? and i'm not confusing abiogenesis with biogenesis; i know the differences and your point is still moot.
"pray tell, what has thermodynamics and the origin of the universe got to do with evolution."
oh, maybe the fact that supposedly the unison of the laws of both thermodynamics and the evolution theory are suppose to be consistent in order to be viable.if one or the other contradicts each other, then on one of them has to be wrong; they both can't be right if some stipulations upheld by the laws of thermodynamics are somehow sentiently objecting them.
everything in life has a natural tendency to deteriorate, break down, decay, etc and entropy is increased as this process continues. ordered states eventually go to disordered ones if the states are left on their own (i.e.: no intervention of some outside environmental source or being.)
hot chocolate will no longer be hot chocolate if left in a room temperature room. some force outside of the hot chocolate has to control the state of the cocoa in order for it to carry on its duty. p1
p2. now evolution's answer to this example would be that somehow the hot chocolate would know how to go against this law and somehow make itself hot again despite being in a room temperature room. evolution proposes that over long periods of time all processes progress into a structured, more refined, and ordered system whilst ridding of anything hold back the evolution of a product. entropy proves the fallacy behind macroevolution.
Actually everything fluctuates. As death and decay breeds new life so to does the death of one star and it's planetary system eventually lead to the formation of others. Energy does not deteriorate or cease to be, it merely changes from one state to the next.
Energetically, the second law of thermodynamics favors the formation of the majority of all known complex and ordered chemical compounds directly from their simpler elements. Thus, contrary to popular opinion, the second law does not dictate the decrease of ordered structure by its predictions. It only demands a "spreading out" of energy when such ordered compounds are formed spontaneously. Pt2
" As for "secular science" all science is secular as the practising of religion is incompatible with the scientific method of acquiring knowledge."
yes, and i bet you overlook the many inconsistencies science has been through in our history. science has been more wrong than right and the only reason we don't think that is because we optimize experimentation to prove theories to be true and omitted all results where we were wrong.
wilbur glenn voliva and john cleves symmes both stipulated that the eath was hollow and flat; Immanuel Velikovsky thought all the planets int he solar system became stabilized and stopped rotating; optic light not being able to bend from gravity; etc and for years there was supposed scientific evidence that affirmed these clauses.
"Newton's theory of mechanics and Maxwell's theory of nelectromagnetism are well established theories within the context of their applicability, but they are not "universal", in the sense that one can find some set of conditions where they do not apply. Neither theory applies to
atoms and molecules. Newton's, Maxwell's, nor quantum theory applies to conditions where the speed of particles
Now you are demonstrating your staggering ignorance of the scientific method. Our civilisations technology is a product of scientific thinking. If we omitted data that undermined a theory then technology that is a product of the understanding that theory gives us WOULD NOT WORK. Science has been wrong because it refines and perfects itself as we acquire new facts. (that's called learning, you should try it) By contrast religion has and always will be wrong because it purposely denies new facts.
that's my whole shtick; you speak of refinement which means at some point in time certain scientific methods and postulates were proven fallible and later corrected when in light of better technology and experimentation. i bet you never once considered the same thing with evolution even though the theory was composed more than a century ago with less knowledgeable and archaic technology. the only evidence i ever found in correlation with evolution was micro-evolution which i do believe in.
"Science has been wrong because it refines and perfects itself as we acquire new facts. (that's called learning, you should try it)"
again, jumping to conclusions that i don't adhere to these things doesn't prove your point. modern technology disproves evolution more than ever which is part of the learning you speak of. charles darwin didn't have technology nearly as robust or advanced as it is today therefore future science is still susceptible (even to this day) of proving it wrong.
Oh sure, future science may prove the theory of evolution wrong, in part or in it's entirety, but until it does we accept it as right because that is the rational thing to do.
"By contrast religion has and always will be wrong because it purposely denies new facts"
your subjectively imposed higher level of understanding with the application of the scientific method and religion doesn't answer the probability of logic.
lets say you were a video game programmer. you write all of the code, you choose the design of the world and it's attributes, created lifeforms and their attributes, and many other things. now you create "laws" within the game...pt1
pt.2 that everything you created in the game are subjugated to. your characters cannot fly because YOU designed them not to. you created limitations to what your universe can do because YOU enforced them. you created simulated natural laws and they're always suppose to maintain their status.
in that game of yours, it wouldn't be logical that your creation would go outside your laws because you designed the game not to. however, would it be impossible for a creator to go outside of them?
pt 3. now since you're the creator, don't you think you have the power and ability to intervene within your game and do things as you please? are you not capable of allowing your AI avatars to fly if you individually choose them to? can you not your creation to any aspect you want? if this is true, which it is; then that means our man made science could NEVER logically state things like "its impossible for a man to walk on water" or "a female virgin can't give birth" because the creator can
pt 4 ultimately you cant put a creator in a test tube because it/he/she can go outside the fabrications enforced on our universe IF that deity exists. this is logically sound and doesn't contradict anything. einstein was a deist because of this; he realized the complexity and probability of such things happening, obviously, religion =/= creator, but my whole argument is that a god could exist and go outside these scientific methods you adore so much.
No ones saying that a god could not exist. The arguement is that as there is no evidence to support the god hypothosis then the default possition should be one of unbelief. You can call the laws of reality god if you like but that does not mean they are sentient or care about any of the life forms that inhabit this reality. As for evolution, you are still criticising it for failing to explain things that are unrelated to it.
also, whats your reasoning that theres no God? maybe you've been deceptively molded into thinking that its wrong or whatever. no one knows everything so you should always be willing to accept the possibility that you may be wrong, same goes for me. i may change my beliefs down the line in my life like i've done many times before, i just doubt that i would be an atheist again.
What's my reasoning to why I believe that there is no god? I stated in my last comment that I don't know if there's a god I just don't believe it. I hope you got that. I didn't even state that I knew there wasn't a god in my drunken comment. Somehow you would rather believe I'm sure of it. Should I always be willing to accept the possibility that there might be a teapot orbiting Jupiter? Of course! It's just not very likely.
ok, this clears things up a bit. so basically you're an agnostic? that's understandable and i can see where you're coming from.
as for that ill-favored teapot orbiting Jupiter theory; well you're right that there's a generally favorable chance against the possibility of it existing, but i think it's the opposite for a God. i think there's more of a chance of a God creating everything like a child who builds a lego set or a computer engineer who writes a code of line for some software.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. That is what I do. Concerning the bible there is an extra flavour. Not only is there a total lack of reason that any of it should be treated as believable but also does natural, real evidence contradict it's content. Now if you would be so kind and explain to me what fabrications of evolution you were talking about. (note my arrogance to an arrogant)
ok, what is this real evidence that disproves the bible? are you talking about stuff like a man walking on water or a virgin woman giving birth? maybe a whole sea being separated or a whole city turned into fire and brimstone instantaneously?
if it's stuff like that, then of course it would be considered impossible by humanistic standards and logic, but don't you think it's possible for a creator to tinker with his own creation? molding nature to his desire?
just propose for a second that a God does exist. now this god is all powerful and all knowing; his knowledge and potency is humanly inconceivable. if this being who created everything we see today and manifested logic and postulates that sustain the universe, is it not possible that God himself could go outside the natural laws that humans and everything else in the world is subjugated too? god created these laws so why would he be dictated by it?
therefore, these unscientific mishaps that people like the cite all the time in the bible can be possible if someone isn't subject to these scientific laws. science could never disprove the existence of God, therefore its possible that since there's no undeniable evidence for his disbelief that he could manipulate things against these same scientific laws that are opponents against it.
and these evolution inconsistencies i speak of are already posted in a few comments i posted before. it's not in depth and there are other things that i think disprove evolution, but don't you think it sounds like a man climbing out of a hole to get a ladder to get himself out of the same hole kind of deal? how can you have protein gases to help electrify the infamous primordial soup without carbon not existing? not only that, where did those things come from?
there's also the argument for irreducible complexity. evolution asserts that any given genetic material is basically striving to survive and optimizes it's chemical makeup and by optimizing, it means by getting rid of genetic material that are an hindrance to its evolution. so if we had a mouse trap that only had a spring, how could it evolve into the mouse trap we know today if the spring by itself would be something natural selection would rid of because of it's uselessness?
how can non-living chemicals become alive on their own? the law of biogenesis states that life comes from prior life and the evolution theory completely contradicts that.
and have you ever considered the complexity and intricacies of the universe? i doubt you would believe mount rushmore was made from natural disasters such as earth quakes or water erosion since the complexity and design of the presidents' faces speak for them self. the universe, however, is a million times more complex.
i already mentioned the law of thermodynamics, but evolution contradicts it as well. the law states that the universe has a tendency to "mix" into it's enviornment and causing people/places/things to maintain a steady state. for example, a mug of hot cocoa will be brought down to room temperature if it's in a room-temperature environment over time. evolution says that over time the hot cocoa would somehow structure itself to know its suppose to remain hot despite it's room temperature area
another thing that goes a long the lines of "something creating something" instead of "nothing creating something" is there has to be something (or rather someone) to be eternal in order for the universe to exist. it was either the universe that was eternal or something outside and above the universe that was eternal. the laws of expansion prove that the world was created so something else had to be eternal and if god was before the creation of all things (before space and time), then its...
scientifically possible that a god exists and is consistent with, again, the laws of thermodynamics since eintsein showed that if there is no space, there is no time. if there is no space and or time, then that leaves room for someone or something (i.e.: God) to exist before the creation of the universe. the evolution process inadvertently asserts the opposite where the earth was eternal thus allowing somehow the existence of life from a non-living chemical.
how can you look at god-belief OBJECTIVELY and say it's purely superstitious given the fabrications of evolution? not only that, we never observed the beginning of the universe to say without a shadow of a doubt how the universe became to what we see today.
ultimately, the whole notion of atheism isn't logical as you would have to know with 100% irrefutable evidence that there is no God. you could NEVER know for a fact there is no God.
Allright. First: I'm so sorry. I facepalm myself for this drunken outburst.
Secon: What fabrications of evolution? I don't know how it all came to be and I don't claim to in a sober state. Maby there was something that created the universe. I don't think you are stupid for believing. I just think you have been decieved by life.
it's ok man, everyone cusses and i don't take it personally. i wish i had never done it, but i had my share of drinking, smoking, weed problems myself when i was younger but thats a whole other story.
and as you say that you think that i've been deceived at life, well i can say the same goes for you. i'm not asking you to believe what i believe in, but can you not consider the possibility that a god does exist? i hold firmly that a god exist, but there's always a sliver of doubt myself.
well hey, it takes all kinds of people to make the world go around. my beliefs may feel like a far cry to what you think is true, but something i've taught myself over the years is to always consider the possibility of being wrong and be subject to learning more in the future. i was no different then you when i first came across these different kinds of theologies when reading upon them, but people change.
also, people not being able to redeem themselves has nothing to do with self esteem.
Then explain something to me cyberwaffles... How the fuck can you be superstitious? How can you in your process of thinking stop and at the same time keep on thinking in a fucked up way? Yes this is actually my most intellectual question. Give me one speck of a reason to be stupid... and I will. I promise. Sorry.. I'm drunk because of god.
ah, the typical antagonism of an atheist. no different than what i used to be. not sure why you have to cuss, just ask a question and i'll answer it.
if you think about it, the whole universe's existence is supernatural. the law of thermodynamics declare that everything had a starting point and would it be logical that the world started by nothing whereas the belief in deism promotes in all existing deity to create something? does it make sense for nothing to make something?
if you come to think about it, you believe in a lot of "superstition" and supernatural elements in the world yourself. i'm guessing you believe in evolution, right? if you do, how can you look at God-belief to be stupid and silly because of the paranormal nature of it when evolution presumes something in the same magnitude of it? where did the lightning come from when it struck the puddle of genetic material? don't you think that sounds far fetched and almost fairy-tale like?
what elements could've possibly sustained lightning and the puddle if nothing existed? proteins require about 20 different amino acids and require a peptide bond to carboxyl in order to be considered a protein, and again the question is asked: where are these amino acids and carboxyl being sustained by? amino acids are part of the amine and carboxyl groups and again, those are being sustained by some other sub-microscopic material but how does it exist without other elements not existing?
elements require the assistance of other elements to exist so how would it be possible for just one element to exist without the aid of others? elements work interdependently between each other and can only exist if all elements that we know today were active during the same time. the evolution process suggests, however, that a limited amount of elements and microscopic material created all the different ones today but that's logically impossible if there are necessary elements needed.
i could go on and on, but there's too much to answer. not even scratching the surface on this subject wouldn't be clearly indicative of my whole position on creation and a god. the cambrian explosion, irreducible complexity, coincidental genetic mishaps, the complexity of the universe and the improbability of everything being fine tuned and susceptible to living is just a few things that makes me at least believe in deism.
You now have this song in my head. It's so catchy. I absolutely adore it. The drawings are cool too. How did you make their lips move. Anyway, five stars!
I just made 4 ex of every scene where they show 3 different syllables and one without for silence. I then put the right syllable in the right place to the sound clip. Quite simple but takes time.
i know i'm going overboard with all these posts, but i would like to say that i for one use to be an atheist and used bible contradictions as a prime indicator of the bible's false pretenses. things change obviously and this discussion would require too much depth too understand both our positions, especially for you to understand calvinism as it's probably something you never adhered to. anyways, i'm willing to discuss what you're thoughts are on all of this as i'm sure you have more to say.
No I'm not familiar with calvinism except the name. Theres alot that I would like to say about this. Calvinism may have a unique view but there seemes to be things for us to disagree with already. I'm curious what could be so special with calvinism. You were an arguing(active?) atheist and found calvinism. Why calvinism?
kind of hard to explain, but basically i was raised into christianity and throughout later in my life i converted into an atheist for quite a while. i came across calvinism when i went to a gas station one day and i overheard a male and his son (i think it was his son) discuss religion which was new for me. i didn't argue with them, but i asked some sincere questions and ended up being interested in what calvinism was about so i started researching it for a while.
anyways, the first thing i learned about calvinism is their acronym called "TULIP" (google it) and then i REALLY started getting interested in researching their ideology. for me it was interesting because i was always taught that you had to believe and accept Jesus to be saved and that there was good and bad people in the world, whereas calvinism suggests that no one is capable of saving themselves and that we are all evil. long story short; i ended up believing it after a long phase of denial
No one is capable of saving themselves? Sounds defeatist to me. Just one more religion lowering the self esteem of the world... Bad human bad, now go believe in god because you are born and bred evil. Lame. I googled TULIP and I couldn't disagree with the premise more.
"The bible for example is to flawed to be concidered a candidate of truth. Did judas die by hanging himself or by a scull fracture on a rock?"
i'm aware of these alleged bible inconsistencies but before i try to defend the passage, let me ask something. is it possible that there could be more than one interpretation upon scripture that can still maintain its validity even when there are other interpretations? like a puzzle piece that can be put together in different fashions and still work
so if a certain interpretation has a possibility of being true, then you have to consider that person's interpretation being possibly true.
now to answer your question on whether judas died by hanging himself or by falling on a rock, how about both happened? judas might've hanged himself over a cliff and then fell where he fractured his skull (although he was already dead.) or another possible interpretation was that he failed at hanging himself (as many do) so went to plan B...
...by falling off a cliff. both explanations are plausible, thus a contradiction has not been established. and no matter how much you think these are just molded interpretations, you have to still consider that the interpretations still make the context of the passages true and not contradictory. also, neither passages of Matt 27:5 or Acts 1:18 state specifically that he died, they simply state that "he went away and hanged himself," and "falling headlong, he burst open in middle..."
the message i'm getting from you is that we have our own perceived ideas of good and evil, and thats true. it's exactly like an opinion. however, just like opinion, they can be wrong when refuted in light of facts. i can say that 2 + 2 = 5 and state it as my opinion, but facts and postulates state it being wrong. same thing with morals although my comparison is not as simple as that, but there is definitely a standard that even exist in our law and judicial system.
"When you combine your genetic traits with the environment you grew up in or all that you have experienced you have this built up sense of right and wrong." i agree a lot with this. a person who has been raised into a crime syndicate, for example, may be more indicative to think stealing or murdering people is just simply business. but i ask, what would you think of this? just because of his sense of good and evil is misguided, do you think that should give him a free pass from his actions?
and the reason i say all mankind is evil is because i believe adam and eve has carried a trait down to man where everything in our genetic make up would consist of malicious intent. you can that we have natural desires and instincts all you want, but the difference is that man also know when to determine what to do whether it be right or wrong. the ones who do act out things such as raping, eradicating species, theft and stealing are the ones who exemplify the notion of evil doing.
not only that, what defines a good person? is a good person someone who gives charity? is it someone who never lies? is it someone who is kind? the answer is all mankind is evil, no one is good. both believer and nonbelievers are evil. that is mankind's natural condition. everyone who ever lived has lied, stole, thought maliciously, were deceptive, and sometimes worse by killing others. it doesn't matter what you believe in if everyone is evil and deserves hell.
To make that assumption you have to base it on that there is a moral law that concerns everybody. I don't believe in this moral law. I do however believe that humans share needs. We have instincts and natural desires. These are benefits that have been developed since the dawn of mankind. In this idea of a moral law, there lies an incredible ignorance towards the factors that suggests it to be false. First of all: From a basic understanding of human-->
"We have instincts and natural desires." completely true, but who's to say that these instincts or natural desires are permitted to be deemed morally fine? we live in a manipulated society where the common ideology amongst people is if it's natural, then there is nothing wrong with it. if that's the case, we shouldn't imprison those who have a natural desire to kill someone out of angst, or we shouldn't convict a rapist because he/she raped someone. i mean these are natural impulses for some
...people. this is proof that everyone draws a line for what is good and evil. even an atheist knows there is no conceivable way to justify rape. some things that come naturally are suppose to be restrained, not practiced upon impulse. what is the point of a law system if people can't discern the difference between right and wrong if you think the notion doesn't exist? thats why i say all mankind is evil. a lot of our natural impulses and desires can still be wrong.
-->biology and psychology you can find that there is no reason to assume that there is a divine moral law that effects our judgement. When you combine your genetic traits with the environment you grew up in or all that you have experienced you have this built up sense of right and wrong. This is of course a unique sense for every individual but similar though we share the same needs. I'm not sure if you include this in your belief and refere to the moral law as something that must be-->
"there is no reason to assume that there is a divine moral law that effects our judgement." i disagree. people are imprinted and acknowledge wrong doing without ever being told. when someone lies to you, you naturally know it's deception is morally incorrect. when someone murders another person, you don't need to be raised by certain people to understand another life has just wrongfully ended (some things are justifiable.) i don't see how upbringing determines what we consider is good.
-->learned in life. However the source of this moral law can mostly be found in the majority of the worlds religions. A society built by religion or old thinking is bound to effect our view of life even if we are not hard core indoctrinated from birth in a certain religion. So what is so bad with religion? The bible for example is to flawed to be concidered a candidate of truth. Did judas die by hanging himself or by a scull fracture on a rock? It's inconsistant. PLUS: The story of jesus is -->
--> repeated thrue history in many mythologies and religions. The story of Osiris was found carved in a temple dated long before jesus supposedly lived. There are hundreds of these examples. To accept this as truth for me is just crazy. I'm not saying you are crazy if that is what you believe. If you do believe that wich I presume. It's because of how life have lived you(and not me). Im not afraid that I will burn. But the realization of that more than a third of the worlds population -->
--> that I do deserve and will burn in hell forever does concern me a great deal. I reject god, jesus and the holy spirit. If you are saying(If you are a christian) that I can go to heaven anyway despite these rejections, then you'll be the first so far. This is what my video is about. And the notion that I should feel bad about myself for some stupid reason.
"If you are saying(If you are a christian) first off, yes, i'm a christian but the difference between the majority of christians you probably met compared to me is that i'm a calvinist. most christians are indoctrinated to think that if you accept jesus, you will be saved; but the calvinist's dogma is the exact opposite. we believe that since all man is evil, we can not redeem ourselves so it's all up to him to decide whether he wants to save us or not.
Why do you think you know the Mind of God? are you All knowing..do you always act in love? Are you the perfect judge? How do you know who will go to Hell.....why do you think you are able to predict God?...when people make videos about God like this..it goes right past the christian mind..cause..you or people who make video like this are describing i imaginative god that You created..not the christian God. I believe in the Perfect Judge as described in the bible.
Joh 3:18 The one believing into Him is not condemned; but the one not believing has already been condemned, for he has not believed into the name of the only begotten Son of God.
What's ther to argue? Good people will burn forever. FOREVER!!! Think of all misscaridges. Poor roasted kids. Your god is an asshole! I'm not making things up. This is your scripture. Thats all I'm singin about dude! I will burn because I'm not living your life or anything like it.
You are telling me that good people will burn forever..define good.. what does i mean to be good.. by what standard can you say anyone is good? the bible says that nobody but God is good Romans 3:23 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
A1 Deuteronomy 1:39 And the little ones that you said would be taken captive, your children who do not yet know good from bad--they will enter the land. I will give it to them and they will take possession of it.
Ezxekiel 16:21 You slaughtered my children and sacrificed them to the idols. (note God called the kids that got killed "my children")
Jesus said in Mark 10:14 Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them for such is the kingdom of God.
A2 Honestly i don't worry about children..i know the bible shows that they are well taken care of after death..I'm worried about you. And others..that are walking into hell not get flung into hell. 2peter 3:9 ... He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. BTW Understanding one verse is far from understanding the whole bible..or even understanding God. You have to use the verse in context..to the chapter..and to the whole bible.
"Thats all I'm singin about dude! I will burn because I'm not living your life or anything like it." What is the difference between you and me?..i guarantee not much..we are both evil. You might want to believe that you are Good..or O.K.(most of the time maybe)..i acknowledge that I'm and far from good..and i look to Jesus for eternal Life.
There is so much about this I should make a new video about it. First off.. Your'e talking about context. True. There are so many different interpritations of the bible. For the will of my sister I became the godfather for her daughter. Here in sweden thats more of a promise from me to always be there for her rather than teach her the word of god. The churche however where she got baptised interprate "Mark 10:14"(as you mentioned) but the whole 10:13 - 10:16 as baptition related.
They view baptition as obligatory to reach heaven. And from how you interprate the bible I feel I stand corrected about non-christian children reaching heaven or not. However. It doesn't end there. I gather you feel I have a choise or not to believe in god in difference to a naive child. What is the difference? Common sence? logic? The ability to look around and interprate our natural existance? The ability to see good and evil? -->
This is how I draw the conclution that the bible is rubbish and an atheistic view of life is the most probable. I am not afraid to go to hell but I am concerned about people thinking that I will or even deserve it. I care about the natural world and what religion does to it. Why would I draw the conclution that just your religion is the true one??? Because you are many??? I will automaticly be punished no mather what I believe. And I want to know how you(no mather what religion) can be sure.
Comment removed
bigbuilder1986 2 months ago
@bigbuilder1986 What the heck are you babbling about. Did irony suddenly disappear from communication,, or is this an effect of english being a second language to me. I'll be clearer next time.
BitRobot 2 months ago
@BitRobot Just an internet kook, not even worth replying to.
psburningman 2 months ago
@psburningman And yet you replied... It is a GIFT, of a kind, right? hehehehe
KaiTendo174 1 month ago
if someone never heard of god that person will be held accountable with what they do know and what they do with it.
DumbNJKids 5 months ago
@DumbNJKids that's what you believe, and what is more righteous to believe, and I respect that. However, the video makes fun of catholicism and some other versions of christianism that says exactly as in the music "being oblivious is not an excuse for not worshipping God".
EndlessZoro 5 months ago
Stupid creatards. Brains are for athiests.
MrJohnnyrace 8 months ago
neat :)
Z3r0XoL 9 months ago
I dont care if this song says i will burn in hell, its awesome! :D
siim686 9 months ago
BiTROBOTS NEW MUSICAL RELEASE!
18th May 2011
Search on Bandcamp (another site) for your very own BiTROBOT!
NEWS FROM THE STOCKHOLM!
The bitpop-master BitRobot has worked dirty nightshifts with his Asian friends at the UFO-callcenter to master his second album - Nebula.
On the box: Use these 13 tracks to spacetravel. Haters stay on the ground but You, it's time for departure!
Search on Bandcamp (another site) for your very own BiTROBOT!
jonathanperson 9 months ago
Atheist and happy as that Hjernespreng said vids like this turn people away from religion and I'm not supprised, all you primitive Theists know is death and murder. You don't see us burning people for thinking differently, respect our decisions and we will respect yours.
NANOFORGE 9 months ago
They are crying about burning for eternity and that they mean no harm. Yet they want everybody to believe what they believe and burn with them. They ARE harming the rest of us. Burn alone.
falconjblack2008 9 months ago
@falconjblack2008 They don't believe in anything, they're oblivious, you missed the point by FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR. They are just saying that they were great people, and yet they will be punished. Because... Religion is bullshit.
And this "burn alone" is very hateful. Don't be hateful. Hateful people will burn.
rogervduarte 3 months ago
by the way im athiest
TheRose130 11 months ago
I HOPE YOU ARE NOT MOCKING PEOPLE WITH DOWN SYNDROME OR AUTISM
TheRose130 11 months ago
@TheRose130 I knew this would come up. Let's hope i'm not. But isn't the relevant thing if anyone feels offended or not?
BitRobot 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheRose130 with all respection to agnostic and athiest,,,i found that all u life is questions|?? seems u r lost ,,,,in islam answers of u questions about the god,,,,the god (allah) has 99 names.
MyIslamlove 4 months ago
There's a difference between refusing a free gift after cognitively knowing about it with just never hearing the good news and never receiving it. The people watching these videos have been fully exposed to the gospel and will be held accountable for either receiving the free gift of eternal life by believing in Jesus or they will burn in hell forever by rejecting eternal life with lifelong unbelief! I just preach the gospel because the Bible commands it. Mark 16:15.
jacksmack77 1 year ago
@jacksmack77 A preacher came to a Saame tribe, up up north. He told the people about christianity, heaven and hell. A man asked the preacher "do the people of the other tribes go to hell, if they don't know about christianity?" The preacher answered that no, they would not. The man asked the preacher "then why did you tell us, and condem us to such place?"
Noppatoppa 1 year ago 2
Tychoxi or whatever your name is. Your statement doesn't work considering that we are all hell-deserving sinners! Romans 3:9-12.
jacksmack77 1 year ago
Damn religions. If you don't like that I'm atheist you can go burn in your famous "hell"
CReepyVERY 1 year ago
Also, and I know she's not real, but could I get an introduction to "love girl"?
dabigq 1 year ago
As a songwriter and an atheist, I proclaim this song FREAKIN' BRILLIANT!
dabigq 1 year ago
why is god necessary
GogoGGK 1 year ago 2
Since the sole condition of eternal condemnation is to refuse to believe in Christ alone for eternal life, (Jn 3:36, 3:18, 1 Jn 5:1); then those that have neither the capacity to believe nor the capacity to reject Christ as Savior cannot be condemned and must be saved.Otherwise God could not be declared a just God.
jacksmack77 1 year ago
@jacksmack77 What about those who would've refused Jesus but didn't only because they never heard about Him? They get to "Heaven"?? What makes them different from those who rejected Jesus because they were told about Him??? Why do you preach the Gospel when not doing so will make sure everyone is incapable of refusing Jesus and so enter Heaven???? Is refusing Jesus a just reason to deny otherwise nice people to enter Heaven????? Do you even think about things before accepting them??????
Tychoxi 1 year ago
Comment removed
jacksmack77 1 year ago
For all the religious people here. Bible verses aren't going to do anything but make you look pretentious. They mean absolutely nothing to anyone who does not already believe in them. They are not convincing in any way, just like you would find Koran verses unconvincing. Stop spouting them every chance you get, it is annoying and only serves to alienate us from each other while actual discourse should be taking place.
megafire7 1 year ago
@megafire7 Yes!
janathelamb3 1 year ago
Like the video. Catchy tune.
How can you love when you portray God as a fairytale and call His word shit? I wouldn't let you into my home if you thought I was shit. I would keep you outside with the rest of the garbage. (Hell)
falconjblack2008 1 year ago
bencamp18. No. I don't deserve to go to heaven. I'm saved by grace. Nobody deserves to go to heaven. Without Christ and the free gift of eternal life accepted by faith alone nobody will go to heaven. Ephesians 2:5-9.
jacksmack77 1 year ago
Your comment says send an e-mail and you would send it in better quality. I love this and would very much like to have it in better quality.
wesfx1@yahoo.com
scumpic 1 year ago
Excellent. Can't find the words to describe it... Just excellent. Keep up the good work!
Anarchy17SB 1 year ago
I sometimes wish it were a fairytale. But to your shock, you will one day, perhaps too late find out that the Bible is the cold hard truth! Jesus is the only way to heaven. John 14:6. Sin must be punished. unbelievers go to hell because they have rejected the gospel! 2 Thessalonians 2:10.
jacksmack77 1 year ago
@jacksmack77 The Bible is not the cold hard truth. It's full of factual errors and contradictions.
I would accept the gospel if it was presented to me in such a way that I found it logically convincing and factually correct. This has not been done. Since ,according to the believers, God a) created me and therefore knows what it would take for me to accept the gospel and b) wants me to accept the gospel, I can only conclude that the god thus described does not exist.
Griexxt 1 year ago
@jacksmack77 What about those who have never heard or can't hear the gospel?
janathelamb3 1 year ago
Atheists do harm by denying God thus pointing people away from the only hope ... Jesus Christ. so, yes ... they deserve to burn!
jacksmack77 1 year ago
@jacksmack77 Wow, what an unbelievably cruel thing to say! Are you certain that you deserve heaven?
bencamp18 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jacksmack77 you think i deserve to be in pain for my belives, i bet you are a american
GogoGGK 1 year ago
This is a travesty of the Biblical understanding of hell. The people who go to hell have deliberately heard the gospel and have rejected it. No one goes to hell due to ignorance. God is drawing people to the knowledge of the truth. John 12:32. This song is a joke considering that everyone has received revelation of the gospel. John 1:9. This video attacks a straw man of the doctrine of hell, not the biblical doctrine of hell! Jesus saves. Believe in him for eternal life. John 3:15.
jacksmack77 1 year ago
@jacksmack77 yes, yes whatever blahblah and he walked on water and a Cosmic Jewish Zombie loves us all because we are fucked due to a rib-woman ate a fruit she wasn't suposed to after listening to a talking reptile yadda yadda yadda...it's been thousands of years now... News Flash: we are in the XXI century, get fucking real will ya? we've put through enough bullshit fairytales... enough is enough...
DocStrange0123 1 year ago
@jacksmack77 "The people who go to hell have deliberately heard the gospel and have rejected it."
I see. According to your non-logic, if I hadn't heard about your particular god, I'd get a pass into heaven. Interesting. So wouldn't you be doing the world a favor by not spreading the knowledge of his existence & everybody who hasn't been burdened with the knowledge of your ridiculous god would go to heaven? Am I understanding this correctly?
bencamp18 1 year ago
You draw the pictures yourself
iAMsoBEAST1 1 year ago 2
@iAMsoBEAST1 Yes sir.
BitRobot 1 year ago 4
@BitRobot Good music! :D Congratulations, friend!
KaiTendo174 1 month ago
You won my subscription. :0)) From France
maotzetof 1 year ago
This was awesome, and since I live in peaceful scandinavia it made it so much better!
ProfessorMacintosh 1 year ago 4
@ProfessorMacintosh word
BitRobot 1 year ago
Given the choice, I would prefer to burn. Then I will not get cold.
onijester56 1 year ago
weirdest video I have ever watched on youtube..... I LOVE IT!!
BenTheMagnifice 1 year ago
I would like to say that this video was actually what made me renounce religion about a year ago.
Not that it "convinced me". It simply was the last hand to push me over the fence. Permanently.
Hjernespreng 1 year ago 22
@Hjernespreng
Nice!! Glad to hear it. I hope I'm not wrong. ;)
BitRobot 1 year ago 9
@Hjernespreng Do you mean it stopped you from believing or made you believe?
FireyFiringFire 1 year ago
@FireyFiringFire
Look up the definition of the word "renounce".
Hjernespreng 1 year ago
I will burn..
Matismatt 1 year ago
Brilliant, not a big fan of the music but the lyrics were very clever and spot on.. The animation was funny and I loved the bit at the end where they dance....lol awesome..... would have 5 starred it but youtube is broken. so you get a like instead.
RickyPayneTV 1 year ago
I'm an atheist, and I liked this song. Even though this is satirical, this is EXACTLY how most religious people think (without the catchy tune and plus some aggressive hatred).
bookwormsrcool 1 year ago
Great video!
rozeboosje 1 year ago
You should re-title "we will burn"
WestonUchiha 1 year ago
@WestonUchiha
Thought about it.. I figure the word atheist in the title would generate more views ;)
BitRobot 1 year ago
i am not totally sure, but this song is suporting atheism right? cuase there singin about people being burned even those they were good people, but they are singin about it as a bad thing. arent they
malthe122 1 year ago
@malthe122
Sarcasm dude. I guess I take to many things for granted since I'm swedish. Being atheist here is what it should be.. the obvoius basic position. Sorry if my message is unclear.. but then again, that might do something to the comunity as well.
cheers.
BitRobot 1 year ago
It's me singing btw...
BitRobot 1 year ago
REALLY?!
WOW
Please make more songs with that great voice of yours!
finnsia 1 year ago
@finnsia
Thanx finnsia. I'm working on it. Not everything is worth put up on youtube though.
BitRobot 1 year ago
@malthe122 They are NOT athiest. You can be the nicest, most charitable person, but without believing in god and accepting jesus as your savior, You will go to hell.
thats what they are trying to get to.
holyhandgrenade105 1 year ago
and just for the sake of clarification, i do believe in micro-evolution. most evidence that is used by proponents of it is commonly the same evidence that supports micro evolution more so than macro evolution (or commonly referred to as plain ol' evolution.) micro evolution is the reason why we see so much variety and new creatures and plants throughout time; it doesn't mean that certain species deviated from it's genetic makeup and made an entirely new species. they just made a new genus.
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
Your logic, throughout all your wall of text has basicaly boiled down to "You can't disprove god, therefore, he exsists."
Even if Evolution is a flawed theory, it has some SOME substance to it. Your god has a book written by PEOPLE.
PlatinumIvory 2 years ago
"Your logic, throughout all your wall of text has basicaly boiled down to "You can't disprove god, therefore, he exist."
no, i don't believe that at all. you can't prove or disprove anything without a substantiated amount of evidence to prove otherwise. i believe there is more evidence for a God instead of anything disproving him. that is why i believe in a god because evidence has convinced me, otherwise i wouldn't believe.
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
and the only "substance" prevalent in the evolution theory boils down to micro-evolution which i do believe in. macro-evolution has been constantly inconsistent and contradictory to secular science. it contradicts the laws of biogenesis, law of thermodynamics, fossil record discrepancies, time and space expansion and fails to answer fossil accounts of the cambrian explosion among other things. the only evidence i ever found evolution to be right about was microevolution.
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
You clearly do not understand the theory of evolution at all. It does not contradict the law of biogenesis as it has NOTHING to do with abiogenesis. It also has Nothing to do with thermodynamics or time and space expansion. If you wish to argue against something at least have the common decency to get off your ass and read up on it. As for "secular science" all science is secular as the practising of religion is incompatible with the scientific method of acquiring knowledge.
Thanatosmanus 2 years ago
"You clearly do not understand the theory of evolution at all. It does not contradict the law of biogenesis as it has NOTHING to do with abiogenesis"
sorry, but you're the one who hasn't done much research. you can mold both theories as much as you want to say there is a consistency in the theories, but you're going to come across apparent contradictions. the laws of biogenesis has EVERYTHING to do with evolution; abiogenesis is more consistent with it however, but not biogenesis.
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
The LAW of biogenesis states that life only comes from life. The theory of evolution does not contradict this as it does not attempt to explain the origin of life itself, (That would be a theory of abiogenesis) merely how organisms change over many generations, resulting in different species. Pray tell, what has thermodynamics and the origin of the universe got to do with evolution?
Thanatosmanus 2 years ago
"The LAW of biogenesis states that life only comes from life"
exactly; the evolutionary theory is supposedly the answer to why "life" exists. are you so daft to even realize the misnomers you created. how can you possibly go around saying things like that when evolution is supposedly part of the grand scheme of reasoning to why anything exist? and i'm not confusing abiogenesis with biogenesis; i know the differences and your point is still moot.
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
"pray tell, what has thermodynamics and the origin of the universe got to do with evolution."
oh, maybe the fact that supposedly the unison of the laws of both thermodynamics and the evolution theory are suppose to be consistent in order to be viable.if one or the other contradicts each other, then on one of them has to be wrong; they both can't be right if some stipulations upheld by the laws of thermodynamics are somehow sentiently objecting them.
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
everything in life has a natural tendency to deteriorate, break down, decay, etc and entropy is increased as this process continues. ordered states eventually go to disordered ones if the states are left on their own (i.e.: no intervention of some outside environmental source or being.)
hot chocolate will no longer be hot chocolate if left in a room temperature room. some force outside of the hot chocolate has to control the state of the cocoa in order for it to carry on its duty. p1
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
p2. now evolution's answer to this example would be that somehow the hot chocolate would know how to go against this law and somehow make itself hot again despite being in a room temperature room. evolution proposes that over long periods of time all processes progress into a structured, more refined, and ordered system whilst ridding of anything hold back the evolution of a product. entropy proves the fallacy behind macroevolution.
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
Actually everything fluctuates. As death and decay breeds new life so to does the death of one star and it's planetary system eventually lead to the formation of others. Energy does not deteriorate or cease to be, it merely changes from one state to the next.
Thanatosmanus 2 years ago
Thermodynamics does not contradict Evolution. (I'm sure my biologist and physicist colleagues would be arguing over it constantly if it did, lol. Pt1
Thanatosmanus 2 years ago 2
Energetically, the second law of thermodynamics favors the formation of the majority of all known complex and ordered chemical compounds directly from their simpler elements. Thus, contrary to popular opinion, the second law does not dictate the decrease of ordered structure by its predictions. It only demands a "spreading out" of energy when such ordered compounds are formed spontaneously. Pt2
Thanatosmanus 2 years ago 3
" As for "secular science" all science is secular as the practising of religion is incompatible with the scientific method of acquiring knowledge."
yes, and i bet you overlook the many inconsistencies science has been through in our history. science has been more wrong than right and the only reason we don't think that is because we optimize experimentation to prove theories to be true and omitted all results where we were wrong.
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
wilbur glenn voliva and john cleves symmes both stipulated that the eath was hollow and flat; Immanuel Velikovsky thought all the planets int he solar system became stabilized and stopped rotating; optic light not being able to bend from gravity; etc and for years there was supposed scientific evidence that affirmed these clauses.
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
"Newton's theory of mechanics and Maxwell's theory of nelectromagnetism are well established theories within the context of their applicability, but they are not "universal", in the sense that one can find some set of conditions where they do not apply. Neither theory applies to
atoms and molecules. Newton's, Maxwell's, nor quantum theory applies to conditions where the speed of particles
approaches the speed of light. "
- Vince Calder
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
Now you are demonstrating your staggering ignorance of the scientific method. Our civilisations technology is a product of scientific thinking. If we omitted data that undermined a theory then technology that is a product of the understanding that theory gives us WOULD NOT WORK. Science has been wrong because it refines and perfects itself as we acquire new facts. (that's called learning, you should try it) By contrast religion has and always will be wrong because it purposely denies new facts.
Thanatosmanus 2 years ago
that's my whole shtick; you speak of refinement which means at some point in time certain scientific methods and postulates were proven fallible and later corrected when in light of better technology and experimentation. i bet you never once considered the same thing with evolution even though the theory was composed more than a century ago with less knowledgeable and archaic technology. the only evidence i ever found in correlation with evolution was micro-evolution which i do believe in.
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
"Science has been wrong because it refines and perfects itself as we acquire new facts. (that's called learning, you should try it)"
again, jumping to conclusions that i don't adhere to these things doesn't prove your point. modern technology disproves evolution more than ever which is part of the learning you speak of. charles darwin didn't have technology nearly as robust or advanced as it is today therefore future science is still susceptible (even to this day) of proving it wrong.
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
Oh sure, future science may prove the theory of evolution wrong, in part or in it's entirety, but until it does we accept it as right because that is the rational thing to do.
Thanatosmanus 2 years ago
"By contrast religion has and always will be wrong because it purposely denies new facts"
your subjectively imposed higher level of understanding with the application of the scientific method and religion doesn't answer the probability of logic.
lets say you were a video game programmer. you write all of the code, you choose the design of the world and it's attributes, created lifeforms and their attributes, and many other things. now you create "laws" within the game...pt1
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
pt.2 that everything you created in the game are subjugated to. your characters cannot fly because YOU designed them not to. you created limitations to what your universe can do because YOU enforced them. you created simulated natural laws and they're always suppose to maintain their status.
in that game of yours, it wouldn't be logical that your creation would go outside your laws because you designed the game not to. however, would it be impossible for a creator to go outside of them?
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
pt 3. now since you're the creator, don't you think you have the power and ability to intervene within your game and do things as you please? are you not capable of allowing your AI avatars to fly if you individually choose them to? can you not your creation to any aspect you want? if this is true, which it is; then that means our man made science could NEVER logically state things like "its impossible for a man to walk on water" or "a female virgin can't give birth" because the creator can
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
pt 4 ultimately you cant put a creator in a test tube because it/he/she can go outside the fabrications enforced on our universe IF that deity exists. this is logically sound and doesn't contradict anything. einstein was a deist because of this; he realized the complexity and probability of such things happening, obviously, religion =/= creator, but my whole argument is that a god could exist and go outside these scientific methods you adore so much.
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
The word count is frustrating isn't it? lol.
No ones saying that a god could not exist. The arguement is that as there is no evidence to support the god hypothosis then the default possition should be one of unbelief. You can call the laws of reality god if you like but that does not mean they are sentient or care about any of the life forms that inhabit this reality. As for evolution, you are still criticising it for failing to explain things that are unrelated to it.
Thanatosmanus 2 years ago
also, whats your reasoning that theres no God? maybe you've been deceptively molded into thinking that its wrong or whatever. no one knows everything so you should always be willing to accept the possibility that you may be wrong, same goes for me. i may change my beliefs down the line in my life like i've done many times before, i just doubt that i would be an atheist again.
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
What's my reasoning to why I believe that there is no god? I stated in my last comment that I don't know if there's a god I just don't believe it. I hope you got that. I didn't even state that I knew there wasn't a god in my drunken comment. Somehow you would rather believe I'm sure of it. Should I always be willing to accept the possibility that there might be a teapot orbiting Jupiter? Of course! It's just not very likely.
BitRobot 2 years ago
ok, this clears things up a bit. so basically you're an agnostic? that's understandable and i can see where you're coming from.
as for that ill-favored teapot orbiting Jupiter theory; well you're right that there's a generally favorable chance against the possibility of it existing, but i think it's the opposite for a God. i think there's more of a chance of a God creating everything like a child who builds a lego set or a computer engineer who writes a code of line for some software.
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. That is what I do. Concerning the bible there is an extra flavour. Not only is there a total lack of reason that any of it should be treated as believable but also does natural, real evidence contradict it's content. Now if you would be so kind and explain to me what fabrications of evolution you were talking about. (note my arrogance to an arrogant)
BitRobot 2 years ago
ok, what is this real evidence that disproves the bible? are you talking about stuff like a man walking on water or a virgin woman giving birth? maybe a whole sea being separated or a whole city turned into fire and brimstone instantaneously?
if it's stuff like that, then of course it would be considered impossible by humanistic standards and logic, but don't you think it's possible for a creator to tinker with his own creation? molding nature to his desire?
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
just propose for a second that a God does exist. now this god is all powerful and all knowing; his knowledge and potency is humanly inconceivable. if this being who created everything we see today and manifested logic and postulates that sustain the universe, is it not possible that God himself could go outside the natural laws that humans and everything else in the world is subjugated too? god created these laws so why would he be dictated by it?
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
therefore, these unscientific mishaps that people like the cite all the time in the bible can be possible if someone isn't subject to these scientific laws. science could never disprove the existence of God, therefore its possible that since there's no undeniable evidence for his disbelief that he could manipulate things against these same scientific laws that are opponents against it.
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
and these evolution inconsistencies i speak of are already posted in a few comments i posted before. it's not in depth and there are other things that i think disprove evolution, but don't you think it sounds like a man climbing out of a hole to get a ladder to get himself out of the same hole kind of deal? how can you have protein gases to help electrify the infamous primordial soup without carbon not existing? not only that, where did those things come from?
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
there's also the argument for irreducible complexity. evolution asserts that any given genetic material is basically striving to survive and optimizes it's chemical makeup and by optimizing, it means by getting rid of genetic material that are an hindrance to its evolution. so if we had a mouse trap that only had a spring, how could it evolve into the mouse trap we know today if the spring by itself would be something natural selection would rid of because of it's uselessness?
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
how can non-living chemicals become alive on their own? the law of biogenesis states that life comes from prior life and the evolution theory completely contradicts that.
and have you ever considered the complexity and intricacies of the universe? i doubt you would believe mount rushmore was made from natural disasters such as earth quakes or water erosion since the complexity and design of the presidents' faces speak for them self. the universe, however, is a million times more complex.
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
i already mentioned the law of thermodynamics, but evolution contradicts it as well. the law states that the universe has a tendency to "mix" into it's enviornment and causing people/places/things to maintain a steady state. for example, a mug of hot cocoa will be brought down to room temperature if it's in a room-temperature environment over time. evolution says that over time the hot cocoa would somehow structure itself to know its suppose to remain hot despite it's room temperature area
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
another thing that goes a long the lines of "something creating something" instead of "nothing creating something" is there has to be something (or rather someone) to be eternal in order for the universe to exist. it was either the universe that was eternal or something outside and above the universe that was eternal. the laws of expansion prove that the world was created so something else had to be eternal and if god was before the creation of all things (before space and time), then its...
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
scientifically possible that a god exists and is consistent with, again, the laws of thermodynamics since eintsein showed that if there is no space, there is no time. if there is no space and or time, then that leaves room for someone or something (i.e.: God) to exist before the creation of the universe. the evolution process inadvertently asserts the opposite where the earth was eternal thus allowing somehow the existence of life from a non-living chemical.
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
ok, now i got a question for you.
how can you look at god-belief OBJECTIVELY and say it's purely superstitious given the fabrications of evolution? not only that, we never observed the beginning of the universe to say without a shadow of a doubt how the universe became to what we see today.
ultimately, the whole notion of atheism isn't logical as you would have to know with 100% irrefutable evidence that there is no God. you could NEVER know for a fact there is no God.
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
Allright. First: I'm so sorry. I facepalm myself for this drunken outburst.
Secon: What fabrications of evolution? I don't know how it all came to be and I don't claim to in a sober state. Maby there was something that created the universe. I don't think you are stupid for believing. I just think you have been decieved by life.
BitRobot 2 years ago
it's ok man, everyone cusses and i don't take it personally. i wish i had never done it, but i had my share of drinking, smoking, weed problems myself when i was younger but thats a whole other story.
and as you say that you think that i've been deceived at life, well i can say the same goes for you. i'm not asking you to believe what i believe in, but can you not consider the possibility that a god does exist? i hold firmly that a god exist, but there's always a sliver of doubt myself.
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
well hey, it takes all kinds of people to make the world go around. my beliefs may feel like a far cry to what you think is true, but something i've taught myself over the years is to always consider the possibility of being wrong and be subject to learning more in the future. i was no different then you when i first came across these different kinds of theologies when reading upon them, but people change.
also, people not being able to redeem themselves has nothing to do with self esteem.
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
Then explain something to me cyberwaffles... How the fuck can you be superstitious? How can you in your process of thinking stop and at the same time keep on thinking in a fucked up way? Yes this is actually my most intellectual question. Give me one speck of a reason to be stupid... and I will. I promise. Sorry.. I'm drunk because of god.
BitRobot 2 years ago
ah, the typical antagonism of an atheist. no different than what i used to be. not sure why you have to cuss, just ask a question and i'll answer it.
if you think about it, the whole universe's existence is supernatural. the law of thermodynamics declare that everything had a starting point and would it be logical that the world started by nothing whereas the belief in deism promotes in all existing deity to create something? does it make sense for nothing to make something?
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
Fuck YOU Cyberpebles!!! lawl
todzumpanzerfaust 2 years ago
cyberpebles? pfft, yeah whatever. don't jerk yourself too hard over your incredibly funny retort.
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
if you come to think about it, you believe in a lot of "superstition" and supernatural elements in the world yourself. i'm guessing you believe in evolution, right? if you do, how can you look at God-belief to be stupid and silly because of the paranormal nature of it when evolution presumes something in the same magnitude of it? where did the lightning come from when it struck the puddle of genetic material? don't you think that sounds far fetched and almost fairy-tale like?
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
what elements could've possibly sustained lightning and the puddle if nothing existed? proteins require about 20 different amino acids and require a peptide bond to carboxyl in order to be considered a protein, and again the question is asked: where are these amino acids and carboxyl being sustained by? amino acids are part of the amine and carboxyl groups and again, those are being sustained by some other sub-microscopic material but how does it exist without other elements not existing?
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
elements require the assistance of other elements to exist so how would it be possible for just one element to exist without the aid of others? elements work interdependently between each other and can only exist if all elements that we know today were active during the same time. the evolution process suggests, however, that a limited amount of elements and microscopic material created all the different ones today but that's logically impossible if there are necessary elements needed.
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
i could go on and on, but there's too much to answer. not even scratching the surface on this subject wouldn't be clearly indicative of my whole position on creation and a god. the cambrian explosion, irreducible complexity, coincidental genetic mishaps, the complexity of the universe and the improbability of everything being fine tuned and susceptible to living is just a few things that makes me at least believe in deism.
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
You now have this song in my head. It's so catchy. I absolutely adore it. The drawings are cool too. How did you make their lips move. Anyway, five stars!
tickycup 2 years ago
Windows movie maker :P
I just made 4 ex of every scene where they show 3 different syllables and one without for silence. I then put the right syllable in the right place to the sound clip. Quite simple but takes time.
And thanx.
BitRobot 2 years ago
i know i'm going overboard with all these posts, but i would like to say that i for one use to be an atheist and used bible contradictions as a prime indicator of the bible's false pretenses. things change obviously and this discussion would require too much depth too understand both our positions, especially for you to understand calvinism as it's probably something you never adhered to. anyways, i'm willing to discuss what you're thoughts are on all of this as i'm sure you have more to say.
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
No I'm not familiar with calvinism except the name. Theres alot that I would like to say about this. Calvinism may have a unique view but there seemes to be things for us to disagree with already. I'm curious what could be so special with calvinism. You were an arguing(active?) atheist and found calvinism. Why calvinism?
BitRobot 2 years ago
kind of hard to explain, but basically i was raised into christianity and throughout later in my life i converted into an atheist for quite a while. i came across calvinism when i went to a gas station one day and i overheard a male and his son (i think it was his son) discuss religion which was new for me. i didn't argue with them, but i asked some sincere questions and ended up being interested in what calvinism was about so i started researching it for a while.
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
anyways, the first thing i learned about calvinism is their acronym called "TULIP" (google it) and then i REALLY started getting interested in researching their ideology. for me it was interesting because i was always taught that you had to believe and accept Jesus to be saved and that there was good and bad people in the world, whereas calvinism suggests that no one is capable of saving themselves and that we are all evil. long story short; i ended up believing it after a long phase of denial
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
No one is capable of saving themselves? Sounds defeatist to me. Just one more religion lowering the self esteem of the world... Bad human bad, now go believe in god because you are born and bred evil. Lame. I googled TULIP and I couldn't disagree with the premise more.
lftlitm 2 years ago
"The bible for example is to flawed to be concidered a candidate of truth. Did judas die by hanging himself or by a scull fracture on a rock?"
i'm aware of these alleged bible inconsistencies but before i try to defend the passage, let me ask something. is it possible that there could be more than one interpretation upon scripture that can still maintain its validity even when there are other interpretations? like a puzzle piece that can be put together in different fashions and still work
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
so if a certain interpretation has a possibility of being true, then you have to consider that person's interpretation being possibly true.
now to answer your question on whether judas died by hanging himself or by falling on a rock, how about both happened? judas might've hanged himself over a cliff and then fell where he fractured his skull (although he was already dead.) or another possible interpretation was that he failed at hanging himself (as many do) so went to plan B...
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
...by falling off a cliff. both explanations are plausible, thus a contradiction has not been established. and no matter how much you think these are just molded interpretations, you have to still consider that the interpretations still make the context of the passages true and not contradictory. also, neither passages of Matt 27:5 or Acts 1:18 state specifically that he died, they simply state that "he went away and hanged himself," and "falling headlong, he burst open in middle..."
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
the message i'm getting from you is that we have our own perceived ideas of good and evil, and thats true. it's exactly like an opinion. however, just like opinion, they can be wrong when refuted in light of facts. i can say that 2 + 2 = 5 and state it as my opinion, but facts and postulates state it being wrong. same thing with morals although my comparison is not as simple as that, but there is definitely a standard that even exist in our law and judicial system.
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
"When you combine your genetic traits with the environment you grew up in or all that you have experienced you have this built up sense of right and wrong." i agree a lot with this. a person who has been raised into a crime syndicate, for example, may be more indicative to think stealing or murdering people is just simply business. but i ask, what would you think of this? just because of his sense of good and evil is misguided, do you think that should give him a free pass from his actions?
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
and the reason i say all mankind is evil is because i believe adam and eve has carried a trait down to man where everything in our genetic make up would consist of malicious intent. you can that we have natural desires and instincts all you want, but the difference is that man also know when to determine what to do whether it be right or wrong. the ones who do act out things such as raping, eradicating species, theft and stealing are the ones who exemplify the notion of evil doing.
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
not only that, what defines a good person? is a good person someone who gives charity? is it someone who never lies? is it someone who is kind? the answer is all mankind is evil, no one is good. both believer and nonbelievers are evil. that is mankind's natural condition. everyone who ever lived has lied, stole, thought maliciously, were deceptive, and sometimes worse by killing others. it doesn't matter what you believe in if everyone is evil and deserves hell.
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
"the answer is all mankind is evil"
To make that assumption you have to base it on that there is a moral law that concerns everybody. I don't believe in this moral law. I do however believe that humans share needs. We have instincts and natural desires. These are benefits that have been developed since the dawn of mankind. In this idea of a moral law, there lies an incredible ignorance towards the factors that suggests it to be false. First of all: From a basic understanding of human-->
BitRobot 2 years ago
"We have instincts and natural desires." completely true, but who's to say that these instincts or natural desires are permitted to be deemed morally fine? we live in a manipulated society where the common ideology amongst people is if it's natural, then there is nothing wrong with it. if that's the case, we shouldn't imprison those who have a natural desire to kill someone out of angst, or we shouldn't convict a rapist because he/she raped someone. i mean these are natural impulses for some
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
...people. this is proof that everyone draws a line for what is good and evil. even an atheist knows there is no conceivable way to justify rape. some things that come naturally are suppose to be restrained, not practiced upon impulse. what is the point of a law system if people can't discern the difference between right and wrong if you think the notion doesn't exist? thats why i say all mankind is evil. a lot of our natural impulses and desires can still be wrong.
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
-->biology and psychology you can find that there is no reason to assume that there is a divine moral law that effects our judgement. When you combine your genetic traits with the environment you grew up in or all that you have experienced you have this built up sense of right and wrong. This is of course a unique sense for every individual but similar though we share the same needs. I'm not sure if you include this in your belief and refere to the moral law as something that must be-->
BitRobot 2 years ago
"there is no reason to assume that there is a divine moral law that effects our judgement." i disagree. people are imprinted and acknowledge wrong doing without ever being told. when someone lies to you, you naturally know it's deception is morally incorrect. when someone murders another person, you don't need to be raised by certain people to understand another life has just wrongfully ended (some things are justifiable.) i don't see how upbringing determines what we consider is good.
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
-->learned in life. However the source of this moral law can mostly be found in the majority of the worlds religions. A society built by religion or old thinking is bound to effect our view of life even if we are not hard core indoctrinated from birth in a certain religion. So what is so bad with religion? The bible for example is to flawed to be concidered a candidate of truth. Did judas die by hanging himself or by a scull fracture on a rock? It's inconsistant. PLUS: The story of jesus is -->
BitRobot 2 years ago
--> repeated thrue history in many mythologies and religions. The story of Osiris was found carved in a temple dated long before jesus supposedly lived. There are hundreds of these examples. To accept this as truth for me is just crazy. I'm not saying you are crazy if that is what you believe. If you do believe that wich I presume. It's because of how life have lived you(and not me). Im not afraid that I will burn. But the realization of that more than a third of the worlds population -->
BitRobot 2 years ago
--> that I do deserve and will burn in hell forever does concern me a great deal. I reject god, jesus and the holy spirit. If you are saying(If you are a christian) that I can go to heaven anyway despite these rejections, then you'll be the first so far. This is what my video is about. And the notion that I should feel bad about myself for some stupid reason.
BitRobot 2 years ago
"If you are saying(If you are a christian) first off, yes, i'm a christian but the difference between the majority of christians you probably met compared to me is that i'm a calvinist. most christians are indoctrinated to think that if you accept jesus, you will be saved; but the calvinist's dogma is the exact opposite. we believe that since all man is evil, we can not redeem ourselves so it's all up to him to decide whether he wants to save us or not.
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
love the arpeggios but wasn't too sure what the message of the song was all about. i'm guessing its pro-atheism or something, right?
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I wish I could double favorite this video.
Keippernicus 2 years ago
Yeah... What?
BitRobot 2 years ago
I watch this at least once a day. It might be the best thing on the internet,
haggbard 2 years ago 2
thanx mate!
BitRobot 2 years ago
That was awesome. I loved it. Thanks so much for posting it. Five stars
tickycup 2 years ago
ha intresting.
afrogirlandfamily 2 years ago
can you possibly send the song to my youtube message inbox or not? Just so it can act as a reminder.
silvermage87 2 years ago
dude awsome video. the lyrics leave a bit to be desired but the background music is very addictive alog with the tones used in the voices.
I still feel sad when i watch it though.
silvermage87 2 years ago
Great! 5 star!
ijaju 2 years ago
Nice! :D
Wrim 2 years ago
Bra gjort, väldigt bra ^^
Jag gillar inte riktigt nån religion alls, allt är bara strunt prat... att vissa ens orkar..
Du borde göra nå fler, du va bra på det.
HeliGubben 2 years ago
This shit is AWESOME!!!! Damn I am glad you PM'd me dude. 5 stars and favorited!
Keippernicus 2 years ago
nice video..great talent...but very misinformed about christian theology
TrueTaike 2 years ago
Thank you! What did I miss?
BitRobot 2 years ago
Why do you think you know the Mind of God? are you All knowing..do you always act in love? Are you the perfect judge? How do you know who will go to Hell.....why do you think you are able to predict God?...when people make videos about God like this..it goes right past the christian mind..cause..you or people who make video like this are describing i imaginative god that You created..not the christian God. I believe in the Perfect Judge as described in the bible.
TrueTaike 2 years ago
Joh 3:18 The one believing into Him is not condemned; but the one not believing has already been condemned, for he has not believed into the name of the only begotten Son of God.
What's ther to argue? Good people will burn forever. FOREVER!!! Think of all misscaridges. Poor roasted kids. Your god is an asshole! I'm not making things up. This is your scripture. Thats all I'm singin about dude! I will burn because I'm not living your life or anything like it.
BitRobot 2 years ago
You are telling me that good people will burn forever..define good.. what does i mean to be good.. by what standard can you say anyone is good? the bible says that nobody but God is good Romans 3:23 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
TrueTaike 2 years ago
A1 Deuteronomy 1:39 And the little ones that you said would be taken captive, your children who do not yet know good from bad--they will enter the land. I will give it to them and they will take possession of it.
Ezxekiel 16:21 You slaughtered my children and sacrificed them to the idols. (note God called the kids that got killed "my children")
Jesus said in Mark 10:14 Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them for such is the kingdom of God.
TrueTaike 2 years ago
A2 Honestly i don't worry about children..i know the bible shows that they are well taken care of after death..I'm worried about you. And others..that are walking into hell not get flung into hell. 2peter 3:9 ... He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. BTW Understanding one verse is far from understanding the whole bible..or even understanding God. You have to use the verse in context..to the chapter..and to the whole bible.
TrueTaike 2 years ago
"Thats all I'm singin about dude! I will burn because I'm not living your life or anything like it." What is the difference between you and me?..i guarantee not much..we are both evil. You might want to believe that you are Good..or O.K.(most of the time maybe)..i acknowledge that I'm and far from good..and i look to Jesus for eternal Life.
TrueTaike 2 years ago
There is so much about this I should make a new video about it. First off.. Your'e talking about context. True. There are so many different interpritations of the bible. For the will of my sister I became the godfather for her daughter. Here in sweden thats more of a promise from me to always be there for her rather than teach her the word of god. The churche however where she got baptised interprate "Mark 10:14"(as you mentioned) but the whole 10:13 - 10:16 as baptition related.
BitRobot 2 years ago
They view baptition as obligatory to reach heaven. And from how you interprate the bible I feel I stand corrected about non-christian children reaching heaven or not. However. It doesn't end there. I gather you feel I have a choise or not to believe in god in difference to a naive child. What is the difference? Common sence? logic? The ability to look around and interprate our natural existance? The ability to see good and evil? -->
BitRobot 2 years ago
This is how I draw the conclution that the bible is rubbish and an atheistic view of life is the most probable. I am not afraid to go to hell but I am concerned about people thinking that I will or even deserve it. I care about the natural world and what religion does to it. Why would I draw the conclution that just your religion is the true one??? Because you are many??? I will automaticly be punished no mather what I believe. And I want to know how you(no mather what religion) can be sure.
BitRobot 2 years ago