You guys are the illusionist. Dinosaurs are real man!!!!! We "believe" the bible is true and scientifically accurate?? they gotta be Trolls!!! - Saint Blasphemous Maximous
Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)
@jamesvolunteer Correct me if I misunderstood you, but you quoted Isaiah 13, and then implied that if those in the video interpret it literally, they will carry out what is described in the passage. However, if they interpret it literally, they won't carry it out, because it is a prophecy of what the Medes and Persians will do to the Babylonians. No one reading it in context would consider it to be instructions for what they should do.
@bsp256 I don't mean that they will literally carry out these actions. The passage is an example, among many, of the violent and vengeful acts which, I presume (i'm not an expert), 'God' would have (at least at the time) approved of? Maybe I Misunderstand, however, a lot of Christians seem to claim that the Bible is literal and true, but then when challenged on some passages, they then claim that they are open to interpretation. Which makes it seem extremely contradictory.
@jamesvolunteer Isaiah 13 doesn't support your point. However, a little Bible study would give you plenty of other examples of violence.
But, when you accuse God of wrongdoing, you're saying He's violating a moral standard, which you expect everyone to live up to. You're assuming the existence of an absolute moral standard. Only God is capable of establishing moral absolutes. You presume His existence to argue against Him.
@bsp256 Not really. I'm using what I see as a hypothetical God, to argue that it were the case that he was real, and the Bible was literal, then it wouldn't make very much sense in a lot of places. And the only places/institutions that actually expect an absolute moral standard, are religions, not any God. For example, Christians and Roman Catholics worship the same God, but have different moral standards. As do Jehovah's witnesses, and Muslims for that matter..............
@bsp256 ..........so, in fact, I'd argue that in the case of the Earth, God, if he were real, would have been INcapable of establishing a moral absolute, as all the people he made, would be living by different morals, depending on their faith. That is unless he designed people to be Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Buddhists, Free thinkers, Sikhs, etc etc etc on purpose. But this, would make even less sense.
@jamesvolunteer I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that because there are many contradictory religions, none of them can be right?
Do you believe that there is such a thing as moral absolutes? For example, was it wrong for the Nazis to kill the Jews and why?
@bsp256 Maybe some are partly right, maybe all are false. I like to live in a world of possibility. But part of that is looking at things objectively, and dismissing what I think is bogus. Which goes back to my original point really. Yes, you can have moral absolutes. You claimed that only God can define these though.So, using your example, Seeing as God created both Nazis and Jews, (according to the Bible), he presumably set that particular moral boundry?
@bsp256 Morals are a survival instinct. If for millions of years, we went round doing whatever we chose, our life expectancy would be far shorter. We can also empathise with others when we judge what the effect would be on ourselves if a certain thing were to happen to us. It's like when people give to charity. In a lot of cases, the psychological point of giving is to make peace with ones self. Making the recipient feel better is really a by-product.
@jamesvolunteer So moral absolutes come from the survival instinct? Is it survival of society or survival of self? If it's the survival of society, what's the definition of society? Could it be possible that the right thing isn't conducive to survival? Your reasoning is arbitrary, and doesn't provide for moral absolutes.
Specifically, why was it wrong for Hitler to kill Jews? It had to be because they violated a moral absolute, right? Where did that moral absolute come from?
@bsp256 My reasoning is far less arbitrary than the Christian way, I'd argue. It's a view that's supported my millions of scientists, and can be shown to be happening among billions of species. Anyway, I'd say it's the survival of all of those things combined. The human races survival, the society, the family, and finally the individual. They're all linked. I personally don't agree with killing in any scenario, but that's a personal thing. Killers have to justify their actions somehow...
@jamesvolunteer So you've found the solution to the is-ought problem? I'd like to see that; you haven't provided it yet. If you are a naturalistic materialist, there is no basis for absolutes. A consistent atheist rejects moral absolutes, though it would be impossible to live that out in this universe that God created.
Your reasoning is arbitrary, because you've arbitrarily chosen survival as the ultimate aim. Everyone else is just as free as you to choose their own aim.
@bsp256 You've made 3 assumptions about me there that are wrong. a) I don't claim to have found any solution to anything. b) I'm neither a materialist, or atheist, and c) I never said that survival is my ultimate aim at all. You asked me where I thought morals come from. Nothing about aims. No offense intended, but I've always found that Christians like to ask questions, but are not so keen on answers.
@jamesvolunteer I'm sorry for assuming you are an atheist. What are you?
You never said "survival is my ultimate aim" but you said that morality is determined by survival instinct. I mentioned survival in context of the conversation we are having.
You've found that Christians like to ask questions, but aren't keen on answers. This conversation started because you accuse God of wrongdoing, and I asked you for your basis in that.
@jamesvolunteer I've yet to receive an answer that makes a lick of sense, and we've been going at this for several days. I'm finding you're not to keen on answers.
But I will explain how there can be moral absolutes. God created the universe, and everything belongs to Him, including you. God is good. Things that are contrary to His character are immoral. He has the power to establish moral absolutes and He will enforce them whether you believe or not.
@bsp256 That's a big difference I think. I would never claim to have absolute knowledge about anything, and neither should anyone else. Of course everyone is free to choose their own aims. Unfortunately, often Christians try to force, or heavily influence their beliefs onto others. Which again, seems quite contradictory.(to on one hand say that people are free to choose their own aim, and then preach to them about what they 'should' believe).
@jamesvolunteer I understand you have no absolute knowledge, because apart from God, you can be certain of nothing. However, I would ask whether you know for certain whether you have no absolute knowledge. You can see the statement is self-refuting.
However, if someone with infinite and absolute knowledge communicated some facts to me, I would know then know some things absolutely.
If you'd like to continue this, feel free to message me through Youtube.
@bsp256 ..Also, I'd say because the Bible decrees some moral absolutes, that does not, in any way prove that 'God' created these. In the days before Christianity, I don't think the ancient Egyptians and Mayans were running around in Anarchy. They'd never seen a Bible. (although they were religious I admit). In general its be nice to people and they will be nice to you. Rather than it being a God given moral, I'd say that's more like just plain common sense.
@bsp256 wolves have a similar system. They organise in 'families' and have a pecking order. They know what to do, and what not to do because they know what the consequences would be. They haven't learned this, or read it in a canine holy book. It's survival instinct. They also feel love, and attachment for that matter. This comes from a loyalty to a protector. Whether that be the owner of pack leader. Self preservation of a species. That's where I believe morals come from.
@bsp256 And besides, human behavior over recent history has shown that human morals are far from absolute. Every world leader over the last few hundred years, that has taken any part of the western 'civilised' world to war has been Christian, if not religious. Yes, people can be bad, regardless of religion, but it can't be denied that the 'Thou shalt not kill' line, has been ignored by it's preachers somewhat. George Bush leaps to mind.
@bsp256 In other words, it was Gods will for Nazis to kill Jews? If everything is Gods will, and he knows all that was, and all that will be, then you, I assume believe that God created the situation where Nazis killed Jews. Which again, contradicts itself. Personally, I don't think in a million years it was ok to kill Jews of course, which seems to put me a rung above God in the moral stakes. (were he to exist).
@bsp256 For example, the story of Noah's Arc. The lifetime of the Earth, the talking Snake. These are some of the things in which the bible claims something specific, and then some Biblical followers have claimed are not literal, but open to interpretation. If I wrote in maths that 2+2=5 and told my Teacher that my answer was open to interpretation, then it wouldn't make me correct, and I would fail. So, yes, I'm saying that it's literal, but only when convenient, it seems.
Well Penn, I'm just your average idiot. And I'm not educated nor do I know the evidences. Again, just an idiot and with bs website. Fly me to Vegas and let's debate. And don't be afraid of me.
@truthseeker9261 They think that by playing "hot potato" with arguments they win any argument, as if the arguments were about winning. It is actually the smartest thing they have ever done. Imagine never having to truly answer a question and still have a claim to knowledge about the complexity of life, must be quite high or "brain barf" as they call it...
When you actually answer a question and give up on your straw man arguments---I'll give you the light of day. Until then, you're just a mocker not truly in search of truth---and you're on your way to hell. Repent!
@Jehu30 what did the animals that lived during the paleozoic, mesozoic era do to evoke the wrath of God to the point of subjecting those animals to entropy? Keeping in mind that you restricted entropy to the animals that live during the Cenozoic era, specifically humans or as you said "Corporate man"
Is a professing fiction book is proof of what's real?. But since it's fiction, logic tends to say no. But the book itself would be proof of an author(s)... agreed?
What other books are you aware of in history that have recorded genealogies, actual kings(leaders), historical sites, wars, oppression and figures that profess to be fiction?
Then I could step on your toes and talk about the prophecies, for there are so many in Scripture--do you think it's in man's power to know the future?
@siaic You obviously know nothing about the bible. Do you actually think the particle physicists at CERN or Fermilab are studying from technical books that are not conviniently located in motels across the world? HOW DELUSIONAL ARE YOU? Every physicist knows that in order to check relativistic functions and equations they must triple check with blblical text. Man i almost pissed myself as i wrote this...
@esonecuere (Ignoring your sarcasm) Entropy: the increasing degree of disorder, randomness, decline decay etc. In layman's: It's slowly falling apart & so are we-(getting old, feeble, sick etc.). I believe the bio-sphere & everything in it is not that old, so in that sense I am a young earth creationist. The monuments have decayed somewhat - they all bear some degree of wind/water erosion etc. -however small - as I said they have not been here that long & they were made to last.
It's really sad when you think your an intellectual and you have to debate a professional magician. Don't get me wrong Penn is one cool dude, but he certainly isn't a great academic. But hey, at least he doesn't pretend to be like these jack-asses.
I am a Christian, and I don't believe this was a trick on his part. He has always been straight forward about his beliefs and has said things like this before. I think it's a bit paranoid to assume he was up to no good. I remember him saying before that he thought most Christians that live according to the way they are supposed to are usually good people that honestly want to save people from hell, but he has always said that he still thinks we are wrong. Nothing new here on his part.
@DarkAffliction6 Considering that the Bible said that the World was round and suspended when scientists claimed it was flat and on the back of a turtle (just one example), you make a statement about something you don't know anything about, like many Atheists do. If you have such a strong opinion about the Bible and it's scientific aspects, you might want to take some time to learn what it actually does and does not say before you just take what you've heard other's say as the truth.
@DarkAffliction6 So when Galileo used the Bible to try to prove to the Catholic Church that the earth was not flat, he really used it to prove that it was flat and round, even though the scientists of the time already thought it was that shape because it was supposed to be on the back of a turtle. You'll take any information or proof and twist it into something else. You might want to add your own name to that list you mentioned in your first comment.
@DarkAffliction6 Galileo Galilei did many things during his career and life, and one is that he tried to convince the Catholic Church that the World was round and suspended instead of flat and on the back of a turtle. He used the Bible as one of his reasons for this belief. He was accused of blasphemy and stopped. There is nothing Christian or Biblical about the Catholic Church. He didn't condemn Christianity, he was at odds with the Catholic Church, which any good Christian should be.
@ctwtxusa Galileo may have used the bible to support that the earth is a sphere, but that doesn't mean that's what the bible actually says. The bible says it is round. We know the earth isn't round... like I said, it is an oblate spheroid. So no, the bible isn't totally scientifically accurate. Plus, if you want more of the so called scientific accuracy in the bible. How about all the plants on Earth growing without the Sun.
@DarkAffliction6 By these errors, the bible isn't literally true or completely scientifically accurate. The Earth didn't just pop into existence, humans didn't just pop into existence from dirt. I'll give you that the bible contains vague descriptions that can be construed as scientific facts, but that's all. A lot of things are inaccurate, such as... Genesis.
@ctwtxusa Oh yes, damn atheists. We know all plants grew without the sun's existence. And that humans came out fully formed from dirt in a matter of seconds. You can't say that the bible is completely true and literal with stuff like this.
@DarkAffliction6 That doesn't make any sense. I could take each of your twists & explain to you with proof that you are wrong, and you will still twist it and deny what is in front of you. I have nothing against Atheists except for the aggressive way that they attack Christians and Christianity. You guys have become religious fanatics. If you want to live your life without God, that is fine, but you want to destroy everyone's faith in God. Today's Atheists act is like Phelp's group; pure hate.
@ctwtxusa Way to generalize dude. As long as we're generalizing, you Christians just wanna shove your religion down everyone's throats and you're all a bunch of scientifically illiterate retards. See, I can be a dick too. Plus, what doesn't make sense? How does it not make sense that because there are errors in the bible that means it isn't totally scientifically accurate. Yes I agree, there are atheists that are total assholes. Just don't lump us all in the same bag.
@DarkAffliction6 Wow. You made a lot of assumptions in that last comment. I didn't act like that towards you, and I mean to say "a lot of" and not imply all Atheists, but I kept having to rewords it due to character limits. I have friends that are Atheists and are very respectful. The comment about about the grass growing didn't make sense. Many things in the Bible are misunderstood by people that take it out of context and don't try to learn more about it. I can give you an example...
@DarkAffliction6 part 3 I don't mind conversing with Atheists, but I don't like fighting about it. It's not productive. It's like the video that explained why people got confused thinking the Bible mentioned Unicorns, and they were given proof that it doesn't say that, but there were still many people there arguing about that we were just lying and saying that it doesn't because we don't want to face the facts. The fact is that it doesn't mention Unicorn, the mystical creature, at all.
@ctwtxusa Nobody is fighting. I'm telling you that if a book contains scientific errors... then it isn't literally true or completely scientifically accurate. As I said before, the way things were created according to Genesis is NOT scientifically accurate, i.e. plants growing without the sun, humans just poofing into existence, and the many things wrong with the Noah's Ark story.
@DarkAffliction6 But those aren't in error. I can't continue this all via comments. If you want to message me, that is fine. I can tell you that there is more to creation than just "poof". And the Noah's ark is not impossible. There are factors you aren't taking into consideration. Seriously. If you want to continue this conversation respectfully, I'm all for it, but it needs to be via messages. I find the comment structure on this site hard to deal with.
@DarkAffliction6 part 4 - I hope you are getting this in order..hehe It's confusing. I hate communicating via comments. Anyway, I didn't mean to imply that all Atheists are hateful. I just know that it's become very common to be attacked. It's like that same sort of hate that Phelp's group has. It's disturbing and sad. It frustrating to try to have conversations when people name call and try to act like you are retarded, no matter what you say. There should be respect between people.
@DarkAffliction6 Of course they didn't show up in order, so look at the time stamp to follow. youtube's comment feature is horrible. There are four parts before this one.
@ctwtxusa I was chatting with this very nice Atheist that really thought the Bible said if a baby dies, it goes to hell. I told him that wasn't true, so he asked me to show him, so I took a day to find the passages and I sent it to him, and he understood what I was saying. He had seen some crazy man who calls himself a Christian make a video claiming babies that die go to hell. The point is that you can't take stuff out context and expect to make sense of it. I don't mind conversing with...
@DarkAffliction6 So when Galileo used the Bible to try to prove to the Catholic Church that the earth was not flat, he really used it to prove that it was flat and round, even though the scientists of the time already thought it was that shape because it was supposed to be on the back of a turtle. You'll take any information or proof and twist it into something else. You might want to add your own name to that list you mentioned in your first comment.
Surely there must be at least one god or goddess, out of the thousands of omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent gods out there to use those powers to communicate immediately to everyone on this planet at the same moment clearly and unequivocally. Perhaps it is because reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. Hmmm.
you have burden of proof on your hands, not penn. You are claiming to know something that is impossible to know at this time. Penn is simply saying "I don't know" and by saying you believe in god YOU are saying you know! Therefore there is no need for a debate...just a need for you to explain how you can know the unknowable.
you have burden of proof on your hands, not penn. You are claiming to know something that is impossible to know at this time. Penn is simply saying "I don't know" and by saying you believe in god YOU are saying you know! Therefore there is no need for a debate...just a need for you to explain how you can know the unknowable.
@offenseofthefaith "by saying you believe in god YOU are saying you know! " right there in his comment. You are claiming to know so the burden of proof is in your hands.
@offenseofthefaith That's not a positive claim. A positive claim is a claim to knowledge. Pointing out that someone must meet that claim to knowledge, is not a positive claim in and of itself. The evidence for the claim is self explanatory, if you have the brain capacity of a mildly retarded 6 year old. Clearly you are somewhat lacking in that department.
@offenseofthefaith The default is the non-existence of God. By asserting that there IS a supernatural mysterious deity who created the universe, you're have the burden of proof. You've made a statement that defies the default position.
@offenseofthefaith if you are claiming to know something that is impossible to know then you must explain why and how you know this. atheists are simply saying we don't know, which answers the epistemological question of can you know, the answer is no. but the question of do you believe is the same thing, do i believe there is a god, no, because there is no evidence because we can not know, at least not yet...did I lose you?
@offenseofthefaith I would agree that the burden of proof is on you, you are the one that is claiming there is an supernatural being that created "heaven" and earth gives you rules to live by. (amongst other things)
@beswick1306 From Romans, chapter 1, verses 18 - 23: The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
"You are claiming to know something that is impossible to know"
Did you actually listen to the video? I can show you the original link if you'd like----Penn said quote "Now I know there is no god..."
So who has the burden of proof now for making the negative claim?
If symmetry requires proof, then asymmetry requires proof. If you're just going to claim "I don't know"--then you need to sit back in the agnostic corner and not try to bait/switch the positions.
@droptozro "You are never called upon to prove a negative."- ayn rand
whether you believe in god or not is a BELIEF
whether you know or not is a FACT
Does Penn believe in God, NO, because their is no evidence. You must prove that their is a God for Penn to believe in God; therefore, there is no God...until you can prove it (which wont be anytime soon)
No it's a fact, I can claim to know something--and because I have knowledge of it and submit to it, does not mean because you refuse the evidence or the knowledge of it means it does not exist---this is a non-sequitur.
Penn claimed the negative, so he is required to prove it. Sadly mistaken, look up the past definitions of atheism--it has been redefined to give way to spit out ridicule then turn tail back to "lack of belief."
what knowledge do you have of it? A Book? sorry a book is not proof, it is a book.
penn says he does not believe in God. you are claiming to know that God exists. If religious did not create God than their would be no atheists. If you think the person making the accusations does not need to have proof than you are "sadly mistaken".
"sorry a book is not proof"---so in your view, men write books(usually based on experience)--and you read them, correct? So if books are not proof of anything, especially of history, past, records, genealogies, actual historical sites, kings etc... then what is? What do you get your knowledge from then and how do you know to trust it?
Penn said "I know there is no God"--watch the video, are you unable to hear it?
"if religious... no atheists"--- funny illogical statement
@droptozro I feel like am talking to someone who will never understand, you are completely ignorant to the world around you and you have been truly brainwashed... had you not been raised a christian you would not be a christian we could go on and on all day, but you will ever understand until you think with reason and forget what you have been told your entire life.
...your comment is so ridiculous. One, you didn't answer any questions nor have you posed any arguments, and two you're constantly making logical fallacies.
If you want the definition of it, I can get it--but go look up the "genetic fallacy"--you're committing it.
But either way, my parents might think they're Christian---but hey guess what, I'm at complete odds with them now on how to live, and the truth is I was an atheist and a nihilist when I left their home.
Yep, when you cannot argue logically---you resort to ad hominem attacks. It's okay to be humble and admit you made a mistake, don't be so arrogant. Just study logic and learn how to debate properly so your argumentation doesn't make a fool out of you if you ever come in contact with someone who knows what they're talking about in the future again. God bless
@droptozro you believe in an imaginary friend, how in the hell can you argue logically?
and thank you for saying god bless. I believe, like penn, that when a christian proselytizes, or complements you by saying god bless, it means that they care about you, and I take it like a complement. so if you were trying to be sarcastic you came off as an asshole.
Read and research the Bible. Start by reading Lee Stroebel's "A Case for Christ". You seem like an "open-minded" kind of person, so instead of making claims about something you know little or nothing about, go out and do the legwork urself, check out and prove your claims without a shadow of a doubt, just like in court, and if you still have a ''shadow of a doubt'' about your claim that there is NO God, then you MUST acquit Him, acknowledge your guilt, and turn your life over to your Creator.
@tlyakich I almost thought you sounded normal until "acknowledge you guilt, and turn your life over to the creator", and doesn't this quote sound like religion.."so instead of making claims about something you know little or nothing about, go out and do the legwork urself"
@PuffProductions08 Penn is not saying 'I don't know', he said: "I know there is NO God" & married to that is a desire to influence other people with this (HIS) presupposition. So Penn has also made a sweeping statement that he CANNOT prove: that there is NO God. If you can say that the Christians need to explain the unknowable, the same question certainly applies to Penn - predicated on what he ACTUALLY said. Psalm 14:1 applies perfectly to Penn & he is going to find it out.
@Jehu30 If you watched any of penn's shows or read his book, or even watched the unedited version of this video, you would know he very often says "I don't know. Whether you 'know' or not is an epistemological question. No one knows, but christians are claiming to know that their is a god, jesus was his son, he hears our prayers, he is all powerful (yet cant stop disease or natural disasters). Atheists are saying we do not know and if we don't know than we cannot believe.
@PuffProductions08 The existence of God cannot be utterly satisfied with the modern model of science. Christians or the scientific atheist both gather a bodies of evidence to support the presuppositions they make -that is then used to support the individual's conviction & belief. Atheism does not begin from a position of innocent neutrality in most cases of my experience & there is a lot of evidence that makes the Christian's belief intellectually defensible & reasonable.
@PuffProductions08 As for God's omnipotence, the Biblical answer to why He does not intervene in every case of lung cancer or cystic fibrosis etc. is simple: The Fall of Man. Sin has separated us from God & the only way that can be recovered is through a saving faith in Christ, yeah, - the part where it becomes subjective. Even then, God says in Exodus: "I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy..." - His time, His way. But as for healings, they are real, I had 1 & it was medically doc'd.
would you say God is testing the parents of a child suffering from cancer?
and i dont understand why christians love quoting the bible, this is the book that says, "And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him." Leviticus 24:16
@PuffProductions08 I never said God tests with disease. Corporate man's separation from God accounts for all the misery you see -that which we inflict on each other & even God's judgment over man where he says: "In the day you eat thereof you shall surely die"... In the Hebrew it translates better: 'dying you shall finally die'. Meaning one of the consequences of Man's disobedience was an increase in entropy -everything is falling apart & declining.
@esonecuere (Ignoring your sarcasm) Entropy: the increasing degree of disorder, randomness, decline decay etc. In layman's: It's slowly falling apart & so are we-(getting old, feeble, sick etc.). I believe the bio-sphere & everything in it is not that old, so in that sense I am a young earth creationist. The monuments have decayed somewhat - they all bear some degree of wind/water erosion etc. -however small - as I said they have not been here that long & they were made to last.
@esonecuere I would suggest u show the common sense to know that is what I was referring to in the 1st place - but in case not read the my other comment to u. As for the dinosaurs -my take on their fate, suffice it to say changes in the bio-sphere, being hunted for food & the fact that we are not altogether without all of them today anyway - the Komodo is a good example of that. Dinosaur is a relatively new word that simply means: Great/terrible lizard -I would say a Komodo qualifies.
@Jehu30 what did the animals that lived during the paleozoic, mesozoic era do to evoke the wrath of God to the point of subjecting those animals to entropy? Keeping in mind that you restricted entropy to the animals that live during the Cenozoic era, specifically humans or as you said "Corporate man"
@Jehu30 what did the animals that lived during the paleozoic, mesozoic era do to evoke the wrath of God to the point of subjecting those animals to entropy? Keeping in mind that you restricted entropy to the animals that live during the Cenozoic era, specifically humans or as you said "Corporate man"
@esonecuere (Ignoring your sarcasm) Entropy: the increasing degree of disorder, randomness, decline decay etc. In layman's: It's slowly falling apart & so are we-(getting old, feeble, sick etc.). I believe the bio-sphere & everything in it is not that old, so in that sense I am a young earth creationist. The monuments have decayed somewhat - they all bear some degree of wind/water erosion etc. -however small - as I said they have not been here that long & they were made to last.
@esonecuere (Ignoring your sarcasm) Entropy: the increasing degree of disorder, randomness, decline decay etc. In layman's: It's slowly falling apart & so are we-(getting old, feeble, sick etc.). I believe the bio-sphere & everything in it is not that old, so in that sense I am a young earth creationist. The monuments have decayed somewhat - they all bear some degree of wind/water erosion etc. -however small - as I said they have not been here that long & they were made to last.
@esonecuere(Ignoring your sarcasm) Entropy: the increasing degree of disorder, randomness, decline decay etc. In layman's: It's slowly falling apart & so are we-(getting old, feeble, sick etc.). I believe the bio-sphere & everything in it is not that old, so in that sense I am a young earth creationist. The monuments have decayed somewhat - they all bear some degree of wind/water erosion etc. -however small - as I said they have not been here that long & they were made to last.
@PuffProductions08 That child -if it is before the age of accountability, from what I can see from Scripture is going to a much better place than this one. God know's when to visit & convict eveyone - & Christ is the only way anyone is going to receive eternal life, the alternative is a grave & then hell. God makes the rules. If the world & everyone in it are His, He can do with it as He wishes - thankfully He wants better for us than we even want 4 ourselves.
@Jehu30 so a book told you that a child who is very clearly suffering and in terrible pain, will go to a better place? So if he dies it is ok? Hold up.... How Crazy are you? you think and all loving-all powerful god would sit their idly while a child is raped, while a child in africa starves to death. and what about the atheist children and people... are they suffering because they don't believe...surely they wont go "to a better place".
@PuffProductions08 The children is Africa are starving to death AMONG OTHER THINGS, because the governments like that of the US would not have it any other way. I remember a news report from the late 70's where the US was dumping huge tonnages of wheat at sea to artificially keep the wheat price inflated instead of giving it to their starving, 'unfortunate' African 'brothers'. That's how the world really works - have's & have not's - How ignorant are you ? U really don't want answers do you ?
@PuffProductions08 No answer would be good enough for you. The issue I mentioned above is a perfect example of 1Tim6:10 - 'For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil...' Which is why it happened. I wont waste time addressing the other issues you brought up(even though they all have answers), just to have you keep shifting the goal posts to suit yourself. Oh, & my God is going to act-(Luke21:26) & I suggest you ask him to forgive ur personal sins in Christ's name before He does.
@Jehu30 they do not all have answers, you are arrogant and ignorant for thinking they do... go ahead and quote the bible, that means you have nothing logical to say.
@PuffProductions08 Whatever you say bud. You & Penn obviously are happy to sit where you are. If you think Christians should stand idly by while egocentric morons like Penn try their best to harm the faith of (often quite young) innocent believers you are out of your mind. Incidentally, Scripture promises Christ will have no mercy on any who do so. But don't worry, nothing in the Bible has any basis in reality... you should be fine.
@Jehu30 so you think telling a child that they have to love something that they cant hear or see and if they don't they will suffer eternal torture. is that moral? that sounds like an awful thing to tell a child who cant think for themselves yet, almost like brainwashing.
@PuffProductions08 excuse me for interrupting, @jehu what did the animals that lived during the paleozoic, mesozoic era do to evoke the wrath of God to the point of subjecting those animals to entropy? Keeping in mind that you restricted entropy to the animals that live during the Cenozoic era, specifically humans or as you said "Corporate man"
@PuffProductions08 Jesus picks up on that idea you highlighted from Leviticus in Matthew 12:24-32 & Mark 3:22-30 in the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. It is the triune God that saves fallen man - to blaspheme Him is to take Him so lightly or to treat Him with such contempt that one has placed oneself beyond the point God can save them - they are hardened & refuse conviction of the Spirit, therefore they have no hope. Use the Dawkins approach all you want, I got past that a long time ago.
you have burden of proof on your hands, not penn. You are claiming to know something that is impossible to know at this time. Penn is simply saying "I don't know" and by saying you believe in god YOU are saying you know! Therefore there is no need for a debate...just a need for you to explain how you can know the unknowable.
This, btw, is not a recognition of failure on the "nature of god" argument, I just don't think it's very relevant to what we initially debated. If you like, we can argue about that in private discussion. Rest assured I have an opinion on that which doesn't fit into 500 characters.
Ok, now, to bring this argument back on track: Is it right to say that I assume there's a explanation that follows natural laws which can be testable, you on the other side involve a god creature to explain why we can use logic. My POV results in a whole lot of other testable knowledge (as I said, entire sciences are based on it), please tell me what your insight has delivered so far? Is there anything in the bible that explains anything about the brain? I'm really curious...
First of all: Just saying that someone's argument "is falling apart badly" without giving any counterargument whatsoever is considered very bad form where I'm coming from. Please refrain from that. It makes discussion rather heated, don't you think?
why would Penn bother with a debate with someone who openly doesnt know (or even seem to care) what evidence is being debated, it would be like showing card tricks to a dog
Penn is a tired bitter old man who thinks he is superior to everyone because he has an audience. guarantee...on his deathbed he will think twice of what he has done on earth and call out to god for mercy.
@npotts89 As you may know, every logical conclusion that is based on correct premises is correct. Well, guess what, you'd be hard pressed to name a single premise about people that is 100% correct, because like you said, they are rather contradictive and changeable. But also relating to the natural world our logic has it's limits - look at what's going on in quantum mechanics, several basic logical laws don't apply due to the uncertainty principle. Our logic only works in our world.
@npotts89 Like I said, it's all based on the most basic of brain functions, which don't differ between different people. These brain functions itself don't need to be taught, they are what everybody is using pretty much from birth on to actually be able to make sense of the world. What needs to be taught though is the method of abstracting the physical world enough to reduce a problem to those most basic logical operations - and that's where most of the problems arise...
@12dollarsand78cents His trick is that he sounds like he's made a pro-christianity video and then he claims there is no God. It's a bait-and-switch. They explained that in the video.
@Neraph Just because they say it's a bait-and-switch, doesn't make it true. It's not.
Penn just wants all the theist to share their belief. That way everybody can see what they really believe. I'm just like Penn, I love it when Mormons and Jehovah Witness come knocking on my door. I get to hear what they believe and discuss it with them. I wish all religions would do the same thing. If theist really love others, they should spread their knowledge to people that want to hear it. That is love.
GOD DOESN'T EXIST. There is no need for debate, those who believe in GOD have seared their intellect and relegated the little voice which constantly tells them "your wrong" to the back of their mind, many of them have gone so far with their self-delusion as to damn themselves beyond the possibility of knowledge. Such have unfruitful minds, the intellect of which is only capable of inveigling themselves and the gullible all the more. If a believer rejects the truth, stow your pearls and move on.
GOD IS. There is no need for debate, those who deny GOD have seared their consciences and relegated the little voice which constantly tells them "your wrong" to the back of their mind, many of them have gone so far with their profanity and slander as to damn themselves beyond the possibility of redemption. Such have unfruitful minds, the intellect of which is only capable of inveigling themselves and the gullible all the more. If a hater of GOD rejects the truth, stow your pearls and move on.
So an international celebrity is challenged to a debate by some proximate non-entity who has a web-site to promote and can look smug on cable TV ....
And if I challenged Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann to debate me over their creationist beliefs and they told me just where to get off, what would *that* prove?
The face that these three idiots wasted valuable memory space to record their diatribe shows how defensive charlatan's are to make more money for a book written to keep peasants in line and donating all of their money to snake oil salesmen. The bible, Jesus, God and all of that vomit is a crutch for the illiterate and weak-minded.
One word of caution though: Please don't get hung up on the man-made nature of computers. It's merely an explanation of what I think about human logic and not a supporting argument. Biological neural net systems are vastly different to computers anyway in that they are using analogue data, are constantly self-adjusting through feedback loops and are massively parallelized, therefore making for a much more efficient way to process our surrounding world than any digital CPU could.
It's because the underlieing electrical architecture of the machines is very similar, that is why. All CPUs have ways to add up, XOR and bit-shift data and so on, and all human beings have ways to abstractly represent, memorize and associate their sensual input. Those are hardcoded into our brains on a cellular level, in the ways our synapses react to electrical impulses, and are beyond our conscious influence. Therefore they are interpersonal and closely approaching objectivity.
@npotts89 Please rephrase "give me a scenario that you cannot be logical", I don't get it. Also, to give an analogy that may help you understand my concept, let's think about it in terms of computers., where you have all sorts of different OSes and software configurations, similar to the multitude of human minds. How is it possible for people to run programs on these things, do calculations that come up with identical results, even though the software is so different on those machines?
Penn would be a fool to debate a creationist. They use high school "debate" technique, which has nothing to do with truth, only with swaying the audience.
@jursamaj How do you get "truth" from evolution? If our thoughts are the mere by-products of the electro-chemical processes in our evolved brains, you don't get truth, you just get brain barf.
Well, we already know that thoughts are physical brain processes, and since that's true of the authors of your bible, I guess that makes *it* "brain barf". :)
Ofcourse, it's our soul that makes all our decisions. So how does our soul or spirit work? and how come it is so easily fooled by things like magic tricks and marketing?
Wait wtf you are saying the brain doesn't create thought at all? Ok let's see how you live without your brain. Maybe our thoughts come from our asses.
@offenseofthefaith The scientific POV on this is, truth exists but we are never quite able to comprehend it with our brains. That's also why it's a good idea to listen to other people's opinion, since noone can monopolize on the truth. However, when trying to increase our knowledge of the world, pulling out a god as an "explanation" is for good reasons considered cheating. There is just no meaningful way to infer testable hypotheses from the believe that god did it. So science doesn't do that.
You guys are the illusionist. Dinosaurs are real man!!!!! We "believe" the bible is true and scientifically accurate?? they gotta be Trolls!!! - Saint Blasphemous Maximous
13dminus 1 week ago
WTF the bible is true so the world is flat the sun goes round the earth and the universe is 6000 yrs old?
kiwiguy77 2 weeks ago
Is this supposed to be satire? Its hard to tell
Potandthekettle 1 month ago
Why would Penn or any other intelligent human being want to waste their time debating with morons who believe the Bible is literally true?
mikelheron20 2 months ago
Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)
jamesvolunteer 2 months ago
@jamesvolunteer If the makers of this video believe this passage to be 'literal and true', I can expect to see them arrested shortly, I presume.
jamesvolunteer 2 months ago
@jamesvolunteer Only if they're Medes, and this is the year 539 BC.
bsp256 1 month ago
@bsp256 Oh really? So Nazi war criminals should only be punished if its 1945?
jamesvolunteer 1 month ago
@jamesvolunteer Correct me if I misunderstood you, but you quoted Isaiah 13, and then implied that if those in the video interpret it literally, they will carry out what is described in the passage. However, if they interpret it literally, they won't carry it out, because it is a prophecy of what the Medes and Persians will do to the Babylonians. No one reading it in context would consider it to be instructions for what they should do.
bsp256 1 month ago
@bsp256 I don't mean that they will literally carry out these actions. The passage is an example, among many, of the violent and vengeful acts which, I presume (i'm not an expert), 'God' would have (at least at the time) approved of? Maybe I Misunderstand, however, a lot of Christians seem to claim that the Bible is literal and true, but then when challenged on some passages, they then claim that they are open to interpretation. Which makes it seem extremely contradictory.
jamesvolunteer 1 month ago
@jamesvolunteer Isaiah 13 doesn't support your point. However, a little Bible study would give you plenty of other examples of violence.
But, when you accuse God of wrongdoing, you're saying He's violating a moral standard, which you expect everyone to live up to. You're assuming the existence of an absolute moral standard. Only God is capable of establishing moral absolutes. You presume His existence to argue against Him.
bsp256 1 month ago
@bsp256 Not really. I'm using what I see as a hypothetical God, to argue that it were the case that he was real, and the Bible was literal, then it wouldn't make very much sense in a lot of places. And the only places/institutions that actually expect an absolute moral standard, are religions, not any God. For example, Christians and Roman Catholics worship the same God, but have different moral standards. As do Jehovah's witnesses, and Muslims for that matter..............
jamesvolunteer 1 month ago
@bsp256 ..........so, in fact, I'd argue that in the case of the Earth, God, if he were real, would have been INcapable of establishing a moral absolute, as all the people he made, would be living by different morals, depending on their faith. That is unless he designed people to be Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Buddhists, Free thinkers, Sikhs, etc etc etc on purpose. But this, would make even less sense.
jamesvolunteer 1 month ago
@jamesvolunteer I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that because there are many contradictory religions, none of them can be right?
Do you believe that there is such a thing as moral absolutes? For example, was it wrong for the Nazis to kill the Jews and why?
bsp256 1 month ago
@bsp256 Maybe some are partly right, maybe all are false. I like to live in a world of possibility. But part of that is looking at things objectively, and dismissing what I think is bogus. Which goes back to my original point really. Yes, you can have moral absolutes. You claimed that only God can define these though.So, using your example, Seeing as God created both Nazis and Jews, (according to the Bible), he presumably set that particular moral boundry?
jamesvolunteer 1 month ago
@jamesvolunteer So how can there be moral absolutes? Where do they come from?
bsp256 1 month ago
@bsp256 Morals are a survival instinct. If for millions of years, we went round doing whatever we chose, our life expectancy would be far shorter. We can also empathise with others when we judge what the effect would be on ourselves if a certain thing were to happen to us. It's like when people give to charity. In a lot of cases, the psychological point of giving is to make peace with ones self. Making the recipient feel better is really a by-product.
jamesvolunteer 1 month ago
@jamesvolunteer So moral absolutes come from the survival instinct? Is it survival of society or survival of self? If it's the survival of society, what's the definition of society? Could it be possible that the right thing isn't conducive to survival? Your reasoning is arbitrary, and doesn't provide for moral absolutes.
Specifically, why was it wrong for Hitler to kill Jews? It had to be because they violated a moral absolute, right? Where did that moral absolute come from?
bsp256 1 month ago
@bsp256 My reasoning is far less arbitrary than the Christian way, I'd argue. It's a view that's supported my millions of scientists, and can be shown to be happening among billions of species. Anyway, I'd say it's the survival of all of those things combined. The human races survival, the society, the family, and finally the individual. They're all linked. I personally don't agree with killing in any scenario, but that's a personal thing. Killers have to justify their actions somehow...
jamesvolunteer 1 month ago
@jamesvolunteer So you've found the solution to the is-ought problem? I'd like to see that; you haven't provided it yet. If you are a naturalistic materialist, there is no basis for absolutes. A consistent atheist rejects moral absolutes, though it would be impossible to live that out in this universe that God created.
Your reasoning is arbitrary, because you've arbitrarily chosen survival as the ultimate aim. Everyone else is just as free as you to choose their own aim.
bsp256 1 month ago
@bsp256 You've made 3 assumptions about me there that are wrong. a) I don't claim to have found any solution to anything. b) I'm neither a materialist, or atheist, and c) I never said that survival is my ultimate aim at all. You asked me where I thought morals come from. Nothing about aims. No offense intended, but I've always found that Christians like to ask questions, but are not so keen on answers.
jamesvolunteer 1 month ago
@jamesvolunteer I'm sorry for assuming you are an atheist. What are you?
You never said "survival is my ultimate aim" but you said that morality is determined by survival instinct. I mentioned survival in context of the conversation we are having.
You've found that Christians like to ask questions, but aren't keen on answers. This conversation started because you accuse God of wrongdoing, and I asked you for your basis in that.
bsp256 1 month ago
@jamesvolunteer I've yet to receive an answer that makes a lick of sense, and we've been going at this for several days. I'm finding you're not to keen on answers.
But I will explain how there can be moral absolutes. God created the universe, and everything belongs to Him, including you. God is good. Things that are contrary to His character are immoral. He has the power to establish moral absolutes and He will enforce them whether you believe or not.
bsp256 1 month ago
@bsp256 That's a big difference I think. I would never claim to have absolute knowledge about anything, and neither should anyone else. Of course everyone is free to choose their own aims. Unfortunately, often Christians try to force, or heavily influence their beliefs onto others. Which again, seems quite contradictory.(to on one hand say that people are free to choose their own aim, and then preach to them about what they 'should' believe).
jamesvolunteer 1 month ago
@jamesvolunteer I understand you have no absolute knowledge, because apart from God, you can be certain of nothing. However, I would ask whether you know for certain whether you have no absolute knowledge. You can see the statement is self-refuting.
However, if someone with infinite and absolute knowledge communicated some facts to me, I would know then know some things absolutely.
If you'd like to continue this, feel free to message me through Youtube.
bsp256 1 month ago
@bsp256 ..Also, I'd say because the Bible decrees some moral absolutes, that does not, in any way prove that 'God' created these. In the days before Christianity, I don't think the ancient Egyptians and Mayans were running around in Anarchy. They'd never seen a Bible. (although they were religious I admit). In general its be nice to people and they will be nice to you. Rather than it being a God given moral, I'd say that's more like just plain common sense.
jamesvolunteer 1 month ago
@bsp256 wolves have a similar system. They organise in 'families' and have a pecking order. They know what to do, and what not to do because they know what the consequences would be. They haven't learned this, or read it in a canine holy book. It's survival instinct. They also feel love, and attachment for that matter. This comes from a loyalty to a protector. Whether that be the owner of pack leader. Self preservation of a species. That's where I believe morals come from.
jamesvolunteer 1 month ago
@bsp256 And besides, human behavior over recent history has shown that human morals are far from absolute. Every world leader over the last few hundred years, that has taken any part of the western 'civilised' world to war has been Christian, if not religious. Yes, people can be bad, regardless of religion, but it can't be denied that the 'Thou shalt not kill' line, has been ignored by it's preachers somewhat. George Bush leaps to mind.
jamesvolunteer 1 month ago
@bsp256 In other words, it was Gods will for Nazis to kill Jews? If everything is Gods will, and he knows all that was, and all that will be, then you, I assume believe that God created the situation where Nazis killed Jews. Which again, contradicts itself. Personally, I don't think in a million years it was ok to kill Jews of course, which seems to put me a rung above God in the moral stakes. (were he to exist).
jamesvolunteer 1 month ago
@bsp256 For example, the story of Noah's Arc. The lifetime of the Earth, the talking Snake. These are some of the things in which the bible claims something specific, and then some Biblical followers have claimed are not literal, but open to interpretation. If I wrote in maths that 2+2=5 and told my Teacher that my answer was open to interpretation, then it wouldn't make me correct, and I would fail. So, yes, I'm saying that it's literal, but only when convenient, it seems.
jamesvolunteer 1 month ago
Comment removed
InlandGreen 3 months ago
Well Penn, I'm just your average idiot. And I'm not educated nor do I know the evidences. Again, just an idiot and with bs website. Fly me to Vegas and let's debate. And don't be afraid of me.
JACKSCHEESYSMILE 3 months ago 2
PENN is a liar lol stick to your fake tricks guy
TheBigPicture1 3 months ago
I wonder how long it will take before Eric Hovind joins his father in prison?
blaisingm 4 months ago
penn is not a new atheist, he's been an atheist since he was a teenager. clearly these silly geese did not read the man's book.
sadmachine 4 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
youtube.com/watch?v=oaVeZpbbPAA <---Spread this video so that people can see that muslims are getting far in the west!
superawsomeguy52 4 months ago
Oops, the I meant to say the Bible was NOT crystal clear on the rapture,
truthseeker9261 4 months ago
@truthseeker9261 They think that by playing "hot potato" with arguments they win any argument, as if the arguments were about winning. It is actually the smartest thing they have ever done. Imagine never having to truly answer a question and still have a claim to knowledge about the complexity of life, must be quite high or "brain barf" as they call it...
esonecuere 4 months ago
Interesting, however why are Christians divided on the supposed Major
End Time Event like 'The Rapture'.
Many Christians/Theologans believe it WILL happen, but many Christians/Theologians say it won't happen, which so far tells me the Bible
is crystal clear on it...Otherwise EVERY Christian would be in AGREEMENT either way.....why the great division of belief on the Rapture Subject??
truthseeker9261 4 months ago
@siaic
When you actually answer a question and give up on your straw man arguments---I'll give you the light of day. Until then, you're just a mocker not truly in search of truth---and you're on your way to hell. Repent!
droptozro 5 months ago
@Jehu30 what did the animals that lived during the paleozoic, mesozoic era do to evoke the wrath of God to the point of subjecting those animals to entropy? Keeping in mind that you restricted entropy to the animals that live during the Cenozoic era, specifically humans or as you said "Corporate man"
esonecuere 5 months ago
@siaic
Is a professing fiction book is proof of what's real?. But since it's fiction, logic tends to say no. But the book itself would be proof of an author(s)... agreed?
What other books are you aware of in history that have recorded genealogies, actual kings(leaders), historical sites, wars, oppression and figures that profess to be fiction?
Then I could step on your toes and talk about the prophecies, for there are so many in Scripture--do you think it's in man's power to know the future?
droptozro 5 months ago
@siaic You obviously know nothing about the bible. Do you actually think the particle physicists at CERN or Fermilab are studying from technical books that are not conviniently located in motels across the world? HOW DELUSIONAL ARE YOU? Every physicist knows that in order to check relativistic functions and equations they must triple check with blblical text. Man i almost pissed myself as i wrote this...
esonecuere 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@esonecuere (Ignoring your sarcasm) Entropy: the increasing degree of disorder, randomness, decline decay etc. In layman's: It's slowly falling apart & so are we-(getting old, feeble, sick etc.). I believe the bio-sphere & everything in it is not that old, so in that sense I am a young earth creationist. The monuments have decayed somewhat - they all bear some degree of wind/water erosion etc. -however small - as I said they have not been here that long & they were made to last.
Jehu30 5 months ago
Well thanks for pointing me out to another awesome atheist.
fighterace2688 5 months ago
Penn Jillette's trick? the truth! He found out it burns the christians
chasingimagination1 5 months ago
It's really sad when you think your an intellectual and you have to debate a professional magician. Don't get me wrong Penn is one cool dude, but he certainly isn't a great academic. But hey, at least he doesn't pretend to be like these jack-asses.
ILovePhysics10689 5 months ago
I am a Christian, and I don't believe this was a trick on his part. He has always been straight forward about his beliefs and has said things like this before. I think it's a bit paranoid to assume he was up to no good. I remember him saying before that he thought most Christians that live according to the way they are supposed to are usually good people that honestly want to save people from hell, but he has always said that he still thinks we are wrong. Nothing new here on his part.
ctwtxusa 5 months ago
"We believe that the Bible is literally true and scientifically accurate." Mhmm... I'll just add these guys on my list of retards.
DarkAffliction6 5 months ago
@DarkAffliction6 Considering that the Bible said that the World was round and suspended when scientists claimed it was flat and on the back of a turtle (just one example), you make a statement about something you don't know anything about, like many Atheists do. If you have such a strong opinion about the Bible and it's scientific aspects, you might want to take some time to learn what it actually does and does not say before you just take what you've heard other's say as the truth.
ctwtxusa 5 months ago
@ctwtxusa Okay... round is STILL flat... if I draw a circle on a piece of paper, is it flat or an oblate spheroid?
DarkAffliction6 5 months ago
@DarkAffliction6 So when Galileo used the Bible to try to prove to the Catholic Church that the earth was not flat, he really used it to prove that it was flat and round, even though the scientists of the time already thought it was that shape because it was supposed to be on the back of a turtle. You'll take any information or proof and twist it into something else. You might want to add your own name to that list you mentioned in your first comment.
ctwtxusa 5 months ago
@ctwtxusa ...Um, Galileo had nothing to do with the flat earth idea. He worked on Heliocentrism.
DarkAffliction6 5 months ago
@DarkAffliction6 Galileo Galilei did many things during his career and life, and one is that he tried to convince the Catholic Church that the World was round and suspended instead of flat and on the back of a turtle. He used the Bible as one of his reasons for this belief. He was accused of blasphemy and stopped. There is nothing Christian or Biblical about the Catholic Church. He didn't condemn Christianity, he was at odds with the Catholic Church, which any good Christian should be.
ctwtxusa 5 months ago
@ctwtxusa Galileo may have used the bible to support that the earth is a sphere, but that doesn't mean that's what the bible actually says. The bible says it is round. We know the earth isn't round... like I said, it is an oblate spheroid. So no, the bible isn't totally scientifically accurate. Plus, if you want more of the so called scientific accuracy in the bible. How about all the plants on Earth growing without the Sun.
DarkAffliction6 5 months ago
@DarkAffliction6 By these errors, the bible isn't literally true or completely scientifically accurate. The Earth didn't just pop into existence, humans didn't just pop into existence from dirt. I'll give you that the bible contains vague descriptions that can be construed as scientific facts, but that's all. A lot of things are inaccurate, such as... Genesis.
DarkAffliction6 5 months ago
@DarkAffliction6 You can twist things as much as you want. Most Atheists do, but you are still wrong.
ctwtxusa 5 months ago
@ctwtxusa Oh yes, damn atheists. We know all plants grew without the sun's existence. And that humans came out fully formed from dirt in a matter of seconds. You can't say that the bible is completely true and literal with stuff like this.
DarkAffliction6 5 months ago
@DarkAffliction6 That doesn't make any sense. I could take each of your twists & explain to you with proof that you are wrong, and you will still twist it and deny what is in front of you. I have nothing against Atheists except for the aggressive way that they attack Christians and Christianity. You guys have become religious fanatics. If you want to live your life without God, that is fine, but you want to destroy everyone's faith in God. Today's Atheists act is like Phelp's group; pure hate.
ctwtxusa 5 months ago
@ctwtxusa Way to generalize dude. As long as we're generalizing, you Christians just wanna shove your religion down everyone's throats and you're all a bunch of scientifically illiterate retards. See, I can be a dick too. Plus, what doesn't make sense? How does it not make sense that because there are errors in the bible that means it isn't totally scientifically accurate. Yes I agree, there are atheists that are total assholes. Just don't lump us all in the same bag.
DarkAffliction6 5 months ago
@DarkAffliction6 Plus, I'm not choosing to live my life without god. That implies this god exists and that I'm just ignoring him.
DarkAffliction6 5 months ago
@DarkAffliction6 Wow. You made a lot of assumptions in that last comment. I didn't act like that towards you, and I mean to say "a lot of" and not imply all Atheists, but I kept having to rewords it due to character limits. I have friends that are Atheists and are very respectful. The comment about about the grass growing didn't make sense. Many things in the Bible are misunderstood by people that take it out of context and don't try to learn more about it. I can give you an example...
ctwtxusa 5 months ago
@ctwtxusa grass growing.... what???
DarkAffliction6 5 months ago
@DarkAffliction6 part 3 I don't mind conversing with Atheists, but I don't like fighting about it. It's not productive. It's like the video that explained why people got confused thinking the Bible mentioned Unicorns, and they were given proof that it doesn't say that, but there were still many people there arguing about that we were just lying and saying that it doesn't because we don't want to face the facts. The fact is that it doesn't mention Unicorn, the mystical creature, at all.
ctwtxusa 5 months ago
@ctwtxusa Nobody is fighting. I'm telling you that if a book contains scientific errors... then it isn't literally true or completely scientifically accurate. As I said before, the way things were created according to Genesis is NOT scientifically accurate, i.e. plants growing without the sun, humans just poofing into existence, and the many things wrong with the Noah's Ark story.
DarkAffliction6 5 months ago
@DarkAffliction6 But those aren't in error. I can't continue this all via comments. If you want to message me, that is fine. I can tell you that there is more to creation than just "poof". And the Noah's ark is not impossible. There are factors you aren't taking into consideration. Seriously. If you want to continue this conversation respectfully, I'm all for it, but it needs to be via messages. I find the comment structure on this site hard to deal with.
ctwtxusa 5 months ago
@DarkAffliction6 part 4 - I hope you are getting this in order..hehe It's confusing. I hate communicating via comments. Anyway, I didn't mean to imply that all Atheists are hateful. I just know that it's become very common to be attacked. It's like that same sort of hate that Phelp's group has. It's disturbing and sad. It frustrating to try to have conversations when people name call and try to act like you are retarded, no matter what you say. There should be respect between people.
ctwtxusa 5 months ago
@DarkAffliction6 Of course they didn't show up in order, so look at the time stamp to follow. youtube's comment feature is horrible. There are four parts before this one.
ctwtxusa 5 months ago
@ctwtxusa I was chatting with this very nice Atheist that really thought the Bible said if a baby dies, it goes to hell. I told him that wasn't true, so he asked me to show him, so I took a day to find the passages and I sent it to him, and he understood what I was saying. He had seen some crazy man who calls himself a Christian make a video claiming babies that die go to hell. The point is that you can't take stuff out context and expect to make sense of it. I don't mind conversing with...
ctwtxusa 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DarkAffliction6 So when Galileo used the Bible to try to prove to the Catholic Church that the earth was not flat, he really used it to prove that it was flat and round, even though the scientists of the time already thought it was that shape because it was supposed to be on the back of a turtle. You'll take any information or proof and twist it into something else. You might want to add your own name to that list you mentioned in your first comment.
ctwtxusa 5 months ago
Surely there must be at least one god or goddess, out of the thousands of omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent gods out there to use those powers to communicate immediately to everyone on this planet at the same moment clearly and unequivocally. Perhaps it is because reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. Hmmm.
canforddorset 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you have burden of proof on your hands, not penn. You are claiming to know something that is impossible to know at this time. Penn is simply saying "I don't know" and by saying you believe in god YOU are saying you know! Therefore there is no need for a debate...just a need for you to explain how you can know the unknowable.
PuffProductions08 5 months ago
you have burden of proof on your hands, not penn. You are claiming to know something that is impossible to know at this time. Penn is simply saying "I don't know" and by saying you believe in god YOU are saying you know! Therefore there is no need for a debate...just a need for you to explain how you can know the unknowable.
PuffProductions08 5 months ago 8
@PuffProductions08 //"you have burden of proof on your hands"//
Prove this positive claim please.
offenseofthefaith 5 months ago
@offenseofthefaith "by saying you believe in god YOU are saying you know! " right there in his comment. You are claiming to know so the burden of proof is in your hands.
RoHbotic 5 months ago
@offenseofthefaith what? what positive claim?
PuffProductions08 5 months ago
@PuffProductions08 Erm, the claim that I have the burden of proof.
offenseofthefaith 5 months ago
@offenseofthefaith You have the burden of proof if you are making a positive claim such as "There is a God, and it is the God of the bible."
DarkAffliction6 5 months ago
@offenseofthefaith That's not a positive claim. A positive claim is a claim to knowledge. Pointing out that someone must meet that claim to knowledge, is not a positive claim in and of itself. The evidence for the claim is self explanatory, if you have the brain capacity of a mildly retarded 6 year old. Clearly you are somewhat lacking in that department.
Pomaori 5 months ago
@offenseofthefaith The default is the non-existence of God. By asserting that there IS a supernatural mysterious deity who created the universe, you're have the burden of proof. You've made a statement that defies the default position.
magichristo 5 months ago
@offenseofthefaith if you are claiming to know something that is impossible to know then you must explain why and how you know this. atheists are simply saying we don't know, which answers the epistemological question of can you know, the answer is no. but the question of do you believe is the same thing, do i believe there is a god, no, because there is no evidence because we can not know, at least not yet...did I lose you?
PuffProductions08 5 months ago 2
@offenseofthefaith I would agree that the burden of proof is on you, you are the one that is claiming there is an supernatural being that created "heaven" and earth gives you rules to live by. (amongst other things)
bobafett5926 5 months ago
@offenseofthefaith
it's simple conductive logic. You make a claim you got the burdon of proof. What part of that do you not understand?!
twentyinchsoul 5 months ago
@offenseofthefaith prove that i have to prove my claim ? ahhh the circle hurts :(
beswick1306 5 months ago
@beswick1306 From Romans, chapter 1, verses 18 - 23: The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
tlyakich 5 months ago
@beswick1306
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
tlyakich 5 months ago
@PuffProductions08
"You are claiming to know something that is impossible to know"
Did you actually listen to the video? I can show you the original link if you'd like----Penn said quote "Now I know there is no god..."
So who has the burden of proof now for making the negative claim?
If symmetry requires proof, then asymmetry requires proof. If you're just going to claim "I don't know"--then you need to sit back in the agnostic corner and not try to bait/switch the positions.
droptozro 5 months ago
@droptozro "You are never called upon to prove a negative."- ayn rand
whether you believe in god or not is a BELIEF
whether you know or not is a FACT
Does Penn believe in God, NO, because their is no evidence. You must prove that their is a God for Penn to believe in God; therefore, there is no God...until you can prove it (which wont be anytime soon)
PuffProductions08 5 months ago
@PuffProductions08
So ary rand's comment is "truth?" says who?
No it's a fact, I can claim to know something--and because I have knowledge of it and submit to it, does not mean because you refuse the evidence or the knowledge of it means it does not exist---this is a non-sequitur.
Penn claimed the negative, so he is required to prove it. Sadly mistaken, look up the past definitions of atheism--it has been redefined to give way to spit out ridicule then turn tail back to "lack of belief."
droptozro 5 months ago
@droptozro
what knowledge do you have of it? A Book? sorry a book is not proof, it is a book.
penn says he does not believe in God. you are claiming to know that God exists. If religious did not create God than their would be no atheists. If you think the person making the accusations does not need to have proof than you are "sadly mistaken".
PuffProductions08 5 months ago
@PuffProductions08
"sorry a book is not proof"---so in your view, men write books(usually based on experience)--and you read them, correct? So if books are not proof of anything, especially of history, past, records, genealogies, actual historical sites, kings etc... then what is? What do you get your knowledge from then and how do you know to trust it?
Penn said "I know there is no God"--watch the video, are you unable to hear it?
"if religious... no atheists"--- funny illogical statement
droptozro 5 months ago
@droptozro I feel like am talking to someone who will never understand, you are completely ignorant to the world around you and you have been truly brainwashed... had you not been raised a christian you would not be a christian we could go on and on all day, but you will ever understand until you think with reason and forget what you have been told your entire life.
PuffProductions08 5 months ago
@PuffProductions08
...your comment is so ridiculous. One, you didn't answer any questions nor have you posed any arguments, and two you're constantly making logical fallacies.
If you want the definition of it, I can get it--but go look up the "genetic fallacy"--you're committing it.
But either way, my parents might think they're Christian---but hey guess what, I'm at complete odds with them now on how to live, and the truth is I was an atheist and a nihilist when I left their home.
droptozro 5 months ago
@droptozro
logical fallacies, really? isn't that religion.
im not going to argue with complete stupidity or maybe it is ignorance.
PuffProductions08 5 months ago
@PuffProductions08
Yep, when you cannot argue logically---you resort to ad hominem attacks. It's okay to be humble and admit you made a mistake, don't be so arrogant. Just study logic and learn how to debate properly so your argumentation doesn't make a fool out of you if you ever come in contact with someone who knows what they're talking about in the future again. God bless
droptozro 5 months ago
@droptozro you believe in an imaginary friend, how in the hell can you argue logically?
and thank you for saying god bless. I believe, like penn, that when a christian proselytizes, or complements you by saying god bless, it means that they care about you, and I take it like a complement. so if you were trying to be sarcastic you came off as an asshole.
PuffProductions08 5 months ago
Read and research the Bible. Start by reading Lee Stroebel's "A Case for Christ". You seem like an "open-minded" kind of person, so instead of making claims about something you know little or nothing about, go out and do the legwork urself, check out and prove your claims without a shadow of a doubt, just like in court, and if you still have a ''shadow of a doubt'' about your claim that there is NO God, then you MUST acquit Him, acknowledge your guilt, and turn your life over to your Creator.
tlyakich 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tlyakich I almost thought you sounded normal until "acknowledge you guilt, and turn your life over to the creator", and doesn't this quote sound like religion.."so instead of making claims about something you know little or nothing about, go out and do the legwork urself"
PuffProductions08 5 months ago
@PuffProductions08 Penn is not saying 'I don't know', he said: "I know there is NO God" & married to that is a desire to influence other people with this (HIS) presupposition. So Penn has also made a sweeping statement that he CANNOT prove: that there is NO God. If you can say that the Christians need to explain the unknowable, the same question certainly applies to Penn - predicated on what he ACTUALLY said. Psalm 14:1 applies perfectly to Penn & he is going to find it out.
Jehu30 5 months ago
@Jehu30 If you watched any of penn's shows or read his book, or even watched the unedited version of this video, you would know he very often says "I don't know. Whether you 'know' or not is an epistemological question. No one knows, but christians are claiming to know that their is a god, jesus was his son, he hears our prayers, he is all powerful (yet cant stop disease or natural disasters). Atheists are saying we do not know and if we don't know than we cannot believe.
PuffProductions08 5 months ago
@PuffProductions08 The existence of God cannot be utterly satisfied with the modern model of science. Christians or the scientific atheist both gather a bodies of evidence to support the presuppositions they make -that is then used to support the individual's conviction & belief. Atheism does not begin from a position of innocent neutrality in most cases of my experience & there is a lot of evidence that makes the Christian's belief intellectually defensible & reasonable.
Jehu30 5 months ago
@Jehu30
"Christian's belief intellectually defensible & reasonable" what drugs are you on?
what part of virgin birth, resurrecting body, and floating paradise sounds reasonable to you?
PuffProductions08 5 months ago
@PuffProductions08 As for God's omnipotence, the Biblical answer to why He does not intervene in every case of lung cancer or cystic fibrosis etc. is simple: The Fall of Man. Sin has separated us from God & the only way that can be recovered is through a saving faith in Christ, yeah, - the part where it becomes subjective. Even then, God says in Exodus: "I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy..." - His time, His way. But as for healings, they are real, I had 1 & it was medically doc'd.
Jehu30 5 months ago
@Jehu30
would you say God is testing the parents of a child suffering from cancer?
and i dont understand why christians love quoting the bible, this is the book that says, "And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him." Leviticus 24:16
PuffProductions08 5 months ago
@PuffProductions08 I never said God tests with disease. Corporate man's separation from God accounts for all the misery you see -that which we inflict on each other & even God's judgment over man where he says: "In the day you eat thereof you shall surely die"... In the Hebrew it translates better: 'dying you shall finally die'. Meaning one of the consequences of Man's disobedience was an increase in entropy -everything is falling apart & declining.
Jehu30 5 months ago
@Jehu30 Why havent the ancient momuments fallen subject to entropy then? because they denied God's ever enduring love and kindness?
In case I have misunderstood your use of the word entropy, please define entropy.
esonecuere 5 months ago
@esonecuere (Ignoring your sarcasm) Entropy: the increasing degree of disorder, randomness, decline decay etc. In layman's: It's slowly falling apart & so are we-(getting old, feeble, sick etc.). I believe the bio-sphere & everything in it is not that old, so in that sense I am a young earth creationist. The monuments have decayed somewhat - they all bear some degree of wind/water erosion etc. -however small - as I said they have not been here that long & they were made to last.
Jehu30 5 months ago
@Jehu30 "Meaning one of the consequences of Man's disobedience was an increase in entropy -everything is falling apart & declining"
I suggest you add slowing falling apart somewhere towards the end of this sentence then.
if indeed entropy is only a consequence of Corporate man, What did the dinosaurs do that made God subject the dinosaurs to entropy?
esonecuere 5 months ago
@esonecuere I would suggest u show the common sense to know that is what I was referring to in the 1st place - but in case not read the my other comment to u. As for the dinosaurs -my take on their fate, suffice it to say changes in the bio-sphere, being hunted for food & the fact that we are not altogether without all of them today anyway - the Komodo is a good example of that. Dinosaur is a relatively new word that simply means: Great/terrible lizard -I would say a Komodo qualifies.
Jehu30 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jehu30 what did the animals that lived during the paleozoic, mesozoic era do to evoke the wrath of God to the point of subjecting those animals to entropy? Keeping in mind that you restricted entropy to the animals that live during the Cenozoic era, specifically humans or as you said "Corporate man"
esonecuere 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jehu30 what did the animals that lived during the paleozoic, mesozoic era do to evoke the wrath of God to the point of subjecting those animals to entropy? Keeping in mind that you restricted entropy to the animals that live during the Cenozoic era, specifically humans or as you said "Corporate man"
esonecuere 5 months ago
@esonecuere (Ignoring your sarcasm) Entropy: the increasing degree of disorder, randomness, decline decay etc. In layman's: It's slowly falling apart & so are we-(getting old, feeble, sick etc.). I believe the bio-sphere & everything in it is not that old, so in that sense I am a young earth creationist. The monuments have decayed somewhat - they all bear some degree of wind/water erosion etc. -however small - as I said they have not been here that long & they were made to last.
Jehu30 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@esonecuere (Ignoring your sarcasm) Entropy: the increasing degree of disorder, randomness, decline decay etc. In layman's: It's slowly falling apart & so are we-(getting old, feeble, sick etc.). I believe the bio-sphere & everything in it is not that old, so in that sense I am a young earth creationist. The monuments have decayed somewhat - they all bear some degree of wind/water erosion etc. -however small - as I said they have not been here that long & they were made to last.
Jehu30 5 months ago
@esonecuere(Ignoring your sarcasm) Entropy: the increasing degree of disorder, randomness, decline decay etc. In layman's: It's slowly falling apart & so are we-(getting old, feeble, sick etc.). I believe the bio-sphere & everything in it is not that old, so in that sense I am a young earth creationist. The monuments have decayed somewhat - they all bear some degree of wind/water erosion etc. -however small - as I said they have not been here that long & they were made to last.
Jehu30 5 months ago
@PuffProductions08 That child -if it is before the age of accountability, from what I can see from Scripture is going to a much better place than this one. God know's when to visit & convict eveyone - & Christ is the only way anyone is going to receive eternal life, the alternative is a grave & then hell. God makes the rules. If the world & everyone in it are His, He can do with it as He wishes - thankfully He wants better for us than we even want 4 ourselves.
Jehu30 5 months ago
@Jehu30 so a book told you that a child who is very clearly suffering and in terrible pain, will go to a better place? So if he dies it is ok? Hold up.... How Crazy are you? you think and all loving-all powerful god would sit their idly while a child is raped, while a child in africa starves to death. and what about the atheist children and people... are they suffering because they don't believe...surely they wont go "to a better place".
PuffProductions08 5 months ago
@PuffProductions08 The children is Africa are starving to death AMONG OTHER THINGS, because the governments like that of the US would not have it any other way. I remember a news report from the late 70's where the US was dumping huge tonnages of wheat at sea to artificially keep the wheat price inflated instead of giving it to their starving, 'unfortunate' African 'brothers'. That's how the world really works - have's & have not's - How ignorant are you ? U really don't want answers do you ?
Jehu30 5 months ago
@Jehu30 oh okay, blame the government because your god refuses to act...typical
PuffProductions08 5 months ago
@PuffProductions08 No answer would be good enough for you. The issue I mentioned above is a perfect example of 1Tim6:10 - 'For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil...' Which is why it happened. I wont waste time addressing the other issues you brought up(even though they all have answers), just to have you keep shifting the goal posts to suit yourself. Oh, & my God is going to act-(Luke21:26) & I suggest you ask him to forgive ur personal sins in Christ's name before He does.
Jehu30 5 months ago
@Jehu30 they do not all have answers, you are arrogant and ignorant for thinking they do... go ahead and quote the bible, that means you have nothing logical to say.
PuffProductions08 5 months ago
@PuffProductions08 Whatever you say bud. You & Penn obviously are happy to sit where you are. If you think Christians should stand idly by while egocentric morons like Penn try their best to harm the faith of (often quite young) innocent believers you are out of your mind. Incidentally, Scripture promises Christ will have no mercy on any who do so. But don't worry, nothing in the Bible has any basis in reality... you should be fine.
Jehu30 5 months ago
@Jehu30 so you think telling a child that they have to love something that they cant hear or see and if they don't they will suffer eternal torture. is that moral? that sounds like an awful thing to tell a child who cant think for themselves yet, almost like brainwashing.
PuffProductions08 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PuffProductions08 excuse me for interrupting, @jehu what did the animals that lived during the paleozoic, mesozoic era do to evoke the wrath of God to the point of subjecting those animals to entropy? Keeping in mind that you restricted entropy to the animals that live during the Cenozoic era, specifically humans or as you said "Corporate man"
esonecuere 5 months ago
@PuffProductions08 Jesus picks up on that idea you highlighted from Leviticus in Matthew 12:24-32 & Mark 3:22-30 in the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. It is the triune God that saves fallen man - to blaspheme Him is to take Him so lightly or to treat Him with such contempt that one has placed oneself beyond the point God can save them - they are hardened & refuse conviction of the Spirit, therefore they have no hope. Use the Dawkins approach all you want, I got past that a long time ago.
Jehu30 5 months ago
you have burden of proof on your hands, not penn. You are claiming to know something that is impossible to know at this time. Penn is simply saying "I don't know" and by saying you believe in god YOU are saying you know! Therefore there is no need for a debate...just a need for you to explain how you can know the unknowable.
PuffProductions08 5 months ago
This, btw, is not a recognition of failure on the "nature of god" argument, I just don't think it's very relevant to what we initially debated. If you like, we can argue about that in private discussion. Rest assured I have an opinion on that which doesn't fit into 500 characters.
decnet100 5 months ago
Ok, now, to bring this argument back on track: Is it right to say that I assume there's a explanation that follows natural laws which can be testable, you on the other side involve a god creature to explain why we can use logic. My POV results in a whole lot of other testable knowledge (as I said, entire sciences are based on it), please tell me what your insight has delivered so far? Is there anything in the bible that explains anything about the brain? I'm really curious...
decnet100 5 months ago
Comment removed
decnet100 5 months ago
First of all: Just saying that someone's argument "is falling apart badly" without giving any counterargument whatsoever is considered very bad form where I'm coming from. Please refrain from that. It makes discussion rather heated, don't you think?
decnet100 5 months ago
Gota love Penn. Penn rocks. And yes - there is no god.....
csadler 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
why would Penn bother with a debate with someone who openly doesnt know (or even seem to care) what evidence is being debated, it would be like showing card tricks to a dog
wheresthebody 5 months ago
Comment removed
wheresthebody 5 months ago
That would be so nice. Having those 2 gentlemen debate. I would certainly watch that. Peace!!!
EquivalentExchange1 5 months ago
Penn is a tired bitter old man who thinks he is superior to everyone because he has an audience. guarantee...on his deathbed he will think twice of what he has done on earth and call out to god for mercy.
Hip48Xn3 5 months ago
@npotts89 As you may know, every logical conclusion that is based on correct premises is correct. Well, guess what, you'd be hard pressed to name a single premise about people that is 100% correct, because like you said, they are rather contradictive and changeable. But also relating to the natural world our logic has it's limits - look at what's going on in quantum mechanics, several basic logical laws don't apply due to the uncertainty principle. Our logic only works in our world.
decnet100 5 months ago
@npotts89 Like I said, it's all based on the most basic of brain functions, which don't differ between different people. These brain functions itself don't need to be taught, they are what everybody is using pretty much from birth on to actually be able to make sense of the world. What needs to be taught though is the method of abstracting the physical world enough to reduce a problem to those most basic logical operations - and that's where most of the problems arise...
decnet100 5 months ago
2:45 He sounds scared. So his website is proof of god? LoL ok I believe you cause you made a website.
Sanimangas 5 months ago
"PENN JILLETTE'S GREATEST TRICK EXPOSED ON CHRISTIAN SHOW"?
I didn't see any trick exposed.
12dollarsand78cents 5 months ago 9
@12dollarsand78cents His trick is that he sounds like he's made a pro-christianity video and then he claims there is no God. It's a bait-and-switch. They explained that in the video.
Neraph 5 months ago
@Neraph Just because they say it's a bait-and-switch, doesn't make it true. It's not.
Penn just wants all the theist to share their belief. That way everybody can see what they really believe. I'm just like Penn, I love it when Mormons and Jehovah Witness come knocking on my door. I get to hear what they believe and discuss it with them. I wish all religions would do the same thing. If theist really love others, they should spread their knowledge to people that want to hear it. That is love.
12dollarsand78cents 5 months ago
He's just a "dude with a website"? No reason to back down? Uhh, maybe because it's a waste of time?
voidofambition 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Not my actual opinion, just having some fun with the arbitraryness of those statements. :)
decnet100 5 months ago
Comment removed
decnet100 5 months ago
GOD DOESN'T EXIST. There is no need for debate, those who believe in GOD have seared their intellect and relegated the little voice which constantly tells them "your wrong" to the back of their mind, many of them have gone so far with their self-delusion as to damn themselves beyond the possibility of knowledge. Such have unfruitful minds, the intellect of which is only capable of inveigling themselves and the gullible all the more. If a believer rejects the truth, stow your pearls and move on.
decnet100 5 months ago
GOD IS. There is no need for debate, those who deny GOD have seared their consciences and relegated the little voice which constantly tells them "your wrong" to the back of their mind, many of them have gone so far with their profanity and slander as to damn themselves beyond the possibility of redemption. Such have unfruitful minds, the intellect of which is only capable of inveigling themselves and the gullible all the more. If a hater of GOD rejects the truth, stow your pearls and move on.
WOLFMANKAYLDOTNET 5 months ago
@WOLFMANKAYLDOTNET That's a neat little defense mechanism you got there.
TheLordOfTheSporks 5 months ago
So an international celebrity is challenged to a debate by some proximate non-entity who has a web-site to promote and can look smug on cable TV ....
And if I challenged Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann to debate me over their creationist beliefs and they told me just where to get off, what would *that* prove?
Per-lease!
SysyphusJones 5 months ago
The face that these three idiots wasted valuable memory space to record their diatribe shows how defensive charlatan's are to make more money for a book written to keep peasants in line and donating all of their money to snake oil salesmen. The bible, Jesus, God and all of that vomit is a crutch for the illiterate and weak-minded.
CaribbeanLounger 5 months ago
he should try and debate Richard dawkins that would be beyond funny
creationists are idiots !
lewissaysdie 6 months ago
@lewissaysdie Or Christopher Hitchens. So he can be Hitchslap.
MrAtheist1984 6 months ago
One word of caution though: Please don't get hung up on the man-made nature of computers. It's merely an explanation of what I think about human logic and not a supporting argument. Biological neural net systems are vastly different to computers anyway in that they are using analogue data, are constantly self-adjusting through feedback loops and are massively parallelized, therefore making for a much more efficient way to process our surrounding world than any digital CPU could.
decnet100 6 months ago
It's because the underlieing electrical architecture of the machines is very similar, that is why. All CPUs have ways to add up, XOR and bit-shift data and so on, and all human beings have ways to abstractly represent, memorize and associate their sensual input. Those are hardcoded into our brains on a cellular level, in the ways our synapses react to electrical impulses, and are beyond our conscious influence. Therefore they are interpersonal and closely approaching objectivity.
decnet100 6 months ago
@npotts89 Please rephrase "give me a scenario that you cannot be logical", I don't get it. Also, to give an analogy that may help you understand my concept, let's think about it in terms of computers., where you have all sorts of different OSes and software configurations, similar to the multitude of human minds. How is it possible for people to run programs on these things, do calculations that come up with identical results, even though the software is so different on those machines?
decnet100 6 months ago
Penn would be a fool to debate a creationist. They use high school "debate" technique, which has nothing to do with truth, only with swaying the audience.
jursamaj 6 months ago 10
@jursamaj How do you get "truth" from evolution? If our thoughts are the mere by-products of the electro-chemical processes in our evolved brains, you don't get truth, you just get brain barf.
offenseofthefaith 6 months ago
@offenseofthefaith
Well, we already know that thoughts are physical brain processes, and since that's true of the authors of your bible, I guess that makes *it* "brain barf". :)
jursamaj 5 months ago
@offenseofthefaith
Ofcourse, it's our soul that makes all our decisions. So how does our soul or spirit work? and how come it is so easily fooled by things like magic tricks and marketing?
mxdirector 5 months ago
@offenseofthefaith
Wait wtf you are saying the brain doesn't create thought at all? Ok let's see how you live without your brain. Maybe our thoughts come from our asses.
Sanimangas 5 months ago
@offenseofthefaith The scientific POV on this is, truth exists but we are never quite able to comprehend it with our brains. That's also why it's a good idea to listen to other people's opinion, since noone can monopolize on the truth. However, when trying to increase our knowledge of the world, pulling out a god as an "explanation" is for good reasons considered cheating. There is just no meaningful way to infer testable hypotheses from the believe that god did it. So science doesn't do that.
decnet100 5 months ago
@offenseofthefaith Ignorance...