Waow i got badly sidetracked here!! but hey isn't the atheism concept getting really boring to listen too? I watched a debate between this guy (harris) and some guy Craig at university of Notre dam, it was amusing to say the least.. its on you tube
nearly all the religions have caused an unsurmountable amount of pain and suffering,
while loosing the argument they do what they do best make up ridicules lies and repeat it until all the stupid people think its true because they heard it multiple times.
Atheism stands for peace, freedom,progress and reason,
Religion stands for what ever you want to interpret in it, including the most abominable evil you can imagine.
that's why Atheism is the path to peace and Religion our doom.
@unamaxify Atheism is the rejection of a god. You could be an unlogical, freedom hating, hateful and destructive atheist. Atheism IT NOT A PATHWAY TO ANYTHING JUST A CLAIM THAT THERE IS NO GOD. Jesus Christ I can't believe this is so hard to believe.
@bukifuriku atheism is no rejection of god, because that would be intellectually dishonest. it is the premise, that there is no reason to believe in a god or gods.
@valgez1 Grateful of what? You haven't done anything but insult my worldview for the entire discussion, and simply bare assedly asserted that the 'spiritual' exists, swimply because you say "I've had experiences". Any philosopher will tell you that personjal revelation is NECESSARILY first hand, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In short, nobody who understands logic or philosophy AT ALL would accept first hand revelation as sufficient evidence of 'spirits'.
@BigLundi While I am away, you can think again how you can explain RATIONALY the experience i had - you've been too crafty in avoiding an answer. So, please, this time come with smth worth
@valgez1 While you're away, you can reflect on how you simply completely ignore how I rationally explained everything you said, instead of simply arrogantly touting that you have the superior worldview because of some pseudo-opeen mindedness that makes your brains fall out of your head, because the end result is that you appear exceedingly stupid. :)
@BigLundi :-))) You are facing a very simple dilemma: 1) Either You explain it rationally (vague, conjecture explanations are not accepted, I want concrete) 2) Or Admit that you don't have such an explanation 3) Or Fuck Off. So, stop acting like a little virgin girl and face the dilemma now or .... Fuck Off :-)
@valgez1 It's not a dilemma because you haven't produced a problem I've any obligation whatsoever to account for anything.
Essentially, the argument is at this point. You have made something up, and have ordered that I must account for it using rationalization, or admit that it's impossible to do so.
That's not how arguments work. You must show me why I have ANY obligation to accept that your personal experiences are evidence of anything like a '6th sense'.
@BigLundi Despite the fact that you won't openly admit it that you don't have an answer, at least you fully realize that you DON"T have an answer - quite an advancement, if only all atheists were as smart as you. Bye.
@valgez Wow seems like this isn't the first time you've done this. So your asking BigLundi to rationalize something that happened to you... when you have no proof that it happened, and could have easily made something up..... Okay then, Rationally explain when I talked to Loki last night and he told me that your god doesn't exist and just played a trick on the humans to believe in god. You have no proof that it didn't happen, So it must be true since I said it.
@FunAssFunProductions Take BigLundi's cock out of your mouth, your, atheistic whore, it's not the first time you're appealing to other people - think for yourself, speak for yourself, or fuck off, you little cretin child :-))
@valgez1 Wow harsh language for someone of god to say. Funny how you say "Think for youself, speak for yourself, or fuck off" When that's one thing that Atheists pride of, While you are living your life to get into heaven and not hell. Hypocritical No?
@valgez1 I doubt anything you have to say would make me smarter. Instead, how about you reflect on the shortcomings of hwo you view the world and actually addopt some rationality. It might help you in the long run.
its funny how these atheist can disconnect Atheism from the atrocities of Moa and Paypon and others, yet wont afford the same leeway to those who supposedly were religious and did the same evils. Its complete hypocriticy. But at least this guy admits not all evil is blamed on religion.
@KinaNafasi because those atrocities were never done in the name of atheism. many other atrocities WERE done on the name of religion. but no, not all evil can be blamed on religion.
@isaachaze1 I agree with that. But my point may have not been stated well, and this is my fault. What I meant was, these evil men werent bound by any moral objectivity and thus had no reason to respect the lives of other humans. The religious person understood objective morality yet chose to ignore it. Both are evil in my opinion.
Atheism isn't a religion or a cult. We don't go to meetings and we wouldn't know each other on the street. The fact is, Atheists are individuals that share 1 thing in common. We don't believe in gods or religion. Otherwise our beliefs are different. even from person to person. Lumping all non-believers under 1 lable is just an arrogant and ignorant way of religious people trying to understand us as a single entity. We are each a nation. Together we are Legion. (Sovereign : M.E.2 LOL!)
@wtfisit25 First of all, you should proof-read before you submit anything. It's atheists when you're speaking of the plural form, you used poor capitalization, and you're missing the conjunction 'that' after "...tell you now". If you're going state something, it should be typed properly if you want people to take you seriously. And no matter how much you believe in something, it doesn't make it true. Like when people thought the Earth was flat (which the Bible repeatedly stated it was a circle).
@StrifeBlood wtf? the bible said the earth was flat and it stood on 4 pillars and good made the sun rise and set. were in the bible does it say it is a sphere
@StrifeBlood thank you i took 2nd grade geometry. a flat circle still means a flat earth, it is actually a sphere and we have scientific proof of that, the bible says flat and it is wrong.
@360Athiest Did you not understand anything what I said? I'm an atheist, genius. I said the Bible says the Earth is flat and in the shape of a circle. I know it's a sphere. Really, think logically. When I responded to wtfisit25, did you think I was his fellow theist? Why would a theist criticize another theist? I know the Earth is a sphere. Wow, just wow.
@StrifeBlood You are an atheist, right - that's the reason why nobody understands you. Rare sane person will ever engage in debating with you :-) The absolute majority of normal sane people prefers not to deal with the atheistic sorts like you - cause it inevitably leads to having to cope with your nonsense and demagogy. First, educate yourself before discussing complex matters. Until then, you're better off discussing "Spaghetti Monster" with your foolish fellow atheists. :-)))
@valgez1 Okay, cool. And you realize countries with a high percentage of atheists have better peace and happiness rating. Reports have been found that atheists have higher IQs in general as well, not because they are atheist but because they try this thing called "critical thinking". I know it's scary, your priest probably told you critical thinking is "Satan's work". Face it, your god is either evil or non-existent. Doesn't want to intervene? Well what about the ENTIRE OLD TESTAMENT?
@StrifeBlood Face it, you are an atheistic demagogue. Your reports are total BS, consider communist countries - they are atheistic (or used to be) and don't feed me with that IQ BS - keep it for impressing your atheistic fellows - in short, CUT THE CRAP
@valgez1 Yeah Sweden and Norway are communistic monsters. And your such a typical ignorant thiest. Don't answer the questions and accuse me. How are my reports BS? How about you research motherfucker? Or are you afraid that a test of faith? Fuck you, live your shitty life sucking Jesus's dick.
@StrifeBlood Soviet Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia - atheism was an official doctrine of every communist regime. How about you research motherfucker? Fuck you, live your shitty life sucking "Flying Spagheti's Monster" dick.
I'm an atheist, who's against communism. Explain that one.
The thing is, no communist society is a result of atheism, you literally cannot draw the logical line, and I'd laugh if you even tried. We're the ones out there trying to get people to stop worshipping the State, trying to get people to embrace rational beliefsabout he world, trying o educate people as to what the facts of the world are...theists fight progress every step of the way.
@BigLundi We're the ones out there trying to get people to stop worshipping the State - how is it related to religion? trying to get people to embrace rational beliefsabout he world, - ???? And you expect people to follow your stupid advice based on the primitive rationality ? You are insane, uneducated moron with cosmic ambitions. Anyway, you are free to try doing anything you want. But if any atheist will "try" to get ME to think his way, he'll get all the shit i can give .
@valgez1 How is worshipping the state related to religion? Well because it's a religious belief. You are aware no god is required for something to be religion, right?
What's 'primitive' about rationality?
I won't force you to think my way, so long as you don't fuck society up with whatever your beliefs are. Gays will be able to marry, abortion is allowed, and secular laws will reign supreme, because they're objectively measureably better than any theistic beliefs of law.
@BigLundi Worshiping a state IS religious belief ? Are you sure you use English ? :-)
Gaining knowledge based solely on empirical observations, hard evidence and rational conclusions is the most basic and primitive way of learning the world, there are much more more complex and sophisticated ways of which we know very little if any : spiritual experience, intuition, "Gut feeling", 6th sense, etc - you name it - these ways allow to gain knowledge that cannot be obtained in a rational way.
@valgez1 Would you mind showing me how worshipping one's government isn't a language? If you can't I'd of course like to have you retract your ad hominem. Thanks.
"Gaining knowledge based...primitve way of learning the world" It's the only way that's ever been shown to actually work. Gut feelings are notoriously incorrect, there's no such reason to believe in anything spiritual, intuition is wrong almost all the time...you're offering nothing useful at all, nor anything rational.
@BigLundi I don't get the meaning of the phrase "Worshiping State" - how can i worship a state ? "Gut feelings are notoriously incorrect" ? - "Gut feeling" is too complex a concept to be considered using Correct / Incorrect framework - by far not everyone is able to decipher his intuition - and "Rational approach" is what blocks it, instead of developing it and learning to use.
"you're offering nothing useful at all, nor anything rational" - yeah, nothing useful for YOU, but evrth for ME
@valgez1 "How can I worship a state?" Capitlized state applies a personal noun, in other words, the part of the State that directly affects you. In other words...the government. that's what the insitutionalized communism was, and something I, as an atheist, am against. It's religious.
"Gut feeling is too complex" no it's not. It's quite simple, it's called 'your first guess'. That's irrational.
Ok, can you explain why it is MY rationality showed how YOUR rationality is wrong all the time?
@BigLundi The mere fact that you're having an idea of forcing your ways on others makes you sort of Holly Inquisition member, not mentioning that your ideas contradict human nature. God forbid the atheists ever having any power to promote their ideas
@valgez1 Edit, not language, I mran religious belief. Sorry, I've been watching nephilimfree debates where he tries to say DNA is a language and my head's frazzled.
I'm not forcing my idea on you at all, so : /.
Yes, god forbid atheists be able to make the world rational, and abandon irrational beliefs that lead to martyrdom and wars, what a terror that would be.
@BigLundi The world cannot be rational, because people (incl yourself), by their very nature, are irrational. You could make everyone rational only by total terror.
No, you're not forcing your idea on me - i didn't mean that, i meant having a desire to explain to other people the right ways of living is just WRONG, let people decide for themselves. The one who thinks that he knows what is right for everyone is the ultimate Charlatan
@valgez1 "You could make everyone rational only by terror" please logically demonstrate that, or take it back, thanks.
"You're forcing your idea on me" At no time have I informed you that you must believe as I do for...any sort of forceful reason whatsoever. "Havinng a desire to explainn to other people the right ways of living is just WRONG" Ok, then we shouldn't tell people not to kill, because we're forcing our views on peopel who want to kill people, and by your reasoning, that's wrong.
@valgez1 So you're demonstrating that terror is necessary by asking me to provide another way it can be done. Logical fallacy aside, it's really simple, demonstrate the usefulness of rationality. That's what helped me embrace it.
Wherther or not to kill is a moralistic thing, and morals are a way to VIEW the world. So when you tell people not to kill people, you're forcing your moralistic views on another, which you say is a bad thing.
@BigLundi It's not logical fallacy, neither has it anything to do with "rationality" - humans are irrational by their nature - this is the FACT, now, please, explain to me HOW you are going to turn them to rational ? :-)
No problem, I never tell anyone whether to kill or not and i don't care what anyone does - i just played that for you a little
@valgez1 "It's not a logical fallacy" Yes actually it is, it's called 'shifting of the burden of proof'.
I decided to ignore that fallacy, and simply stated that the way I personally was turned rationa, is an empiricla demonstration that rationality works better than other views of the world. Do this to more people, more people are rational.
So in essence, YES, you're saying nobody shoudl tell other people not to kill. Interesting. You're proposing anarchy.
@BigLundi The shifting the burden of proof of WHAT ? I have no desire to change the world - YOU have, so, please, stop looking for "fallacy" excuses and explain to me HOW you are going to make inherently irrational people rational.
You cannot say whether rational approach works better or not - the both work in different ways and serve different purposes. I'm not proposing anything, and if you asked me whether to kill or not - i would say : DEPENDS
@valgez1 I asked you to demonstrate something and in response you said that your demonstration was to have me produce another option. That's shifting of the burden of proof. It's not a 'fallacy' excuse, I even overlooked it and explained another way rationality could be spread without terror. No excuses given at all. I've explained TWICE now how one spreads rationality without terror.
You can demonstrate empirically how rationalism works better easily. Heliocentric model, or Geocentric model?
@BigLundi Stop your "Word Craft", would you? Are you going to explain to people that they SHOULD be rational - how are you different from the religious psychos ? HA? Not mentioning that the idea of "Rationality" is the top of stupidity
@valgez1 What word craft? I'm just using simply philsophical logic.
Oh, so now Rationalism is stupid? Interesting.
the fact is, there is a truth out there, and we should be working towards it if we want it. If you don't want truth, then don't participate in the conversations, if you do want the truth, then your claims deserve scrutiny, and you should be happy when people try and tel you you're wrong, because it's the only way to learn.
@BigLundi It's not the argument about the truth, it's the argument about the ways of finding the truth, and I say that humans are very complex creatures with extra sensor abilities - you say it's all BS and only rationality matters - that's the point of the argument. I advocate using EVRTH to perceive to percive the world, you rely only on rational conclusions
@valgez1 "I say that humans are very complex creatures with extra sensory abilities - you say it's all BS and only rationality matters" Please show where I ever said that. You can't, so take it back, apologize, and I thank you.
If you can give me a useful way of looking at the world, I will embrace it fully. However, 'gut feelings' aren't useful, and this is completely demonstrable. 'gut feelings' lead to guesses, rationalism leads to inductive conclusions based on evidence. One works better.
@BigLundi You see, you just confirmed my words :-))) No need to show anything. Evidence is reserved for the cases when evidence is available and CAN be used and Gut Feeling is reserved for the cases when no evidence is available in principle OR Gut Feeling precedes the evidence, see what I mean? Gut Feeling can lead you to the things no rationalism is able to explain - it's not fully reliable, yes, but you have to learn to use it - it's VERY complex, delicate, high vibe concept :-)
@valgez1 "You've just confirmed my words" It'd be great if you could demonstrate that. Yet you consistently refuse to for some odd reason.
Ok, you're the one making the claim that gut feeling is in some way...a good thing. so please demonstrate to me an instance where Gut Feeling is useful. Do so, or admit it's a useless idea.
Name me ONE thing at all, that Gut Feeling can provide, that rationalism and science can't. One useful thing that affects me in ANY way.
@BigLundi If you would like to ask me how learn to use it, I would say - first, don't question your intuition, don't try to put it in "rational" framework, second, try to make conclusions, then verify them, - eventually it'll start working - it's like working out in a gym, you don't believe you can lift 300 pounds until you start working towards it
@valgez1 Well, how about this. If I can demonstrate to you that science and rationalization have consistently shown to be more reliable than intuition and gut feeling, will you abandon them as 'useful' concepts? Because I CAN do that.
@valgez1 I beg to differ, I most certainly can. It was 'gut feeling' and 'intuition' that told us the world was flat, because we stand on top of it. It is 'gut feeling' and 'intuition' that led us to look at the sun and surmise that it revovled around the earth. It was 'gut feeling' and 'intuition' that informs us that evolution is unreasonable...and...well...time after tie, gut feeling and intuition fail, where rationality succeeds. :)
@valgez1 Well, see here you confuse me. First you say that MY version of rationality is primitive, and that yours is better because it includes things like gut feeling and intuition, and NOW you're saying that rationality isn't valid...at ALL...and I'm wondering, under WHAT reasons...do you have..to come to that conclusion?
@BigLundi Again, you use "Rationality" as some sort of "Ultimate" concept by saying that "I think that my version of "Rationality" is better" There's no such thing as "My version of rationality" - don't make things up, please
@valgez1 Actually, you were the one saying there was a primitive rationality, and that you had some sort of new version that included al the things I have, and you also add gut feelings and intuition. It was YOUR caim that you had a neweer, updated version of rationality, not mine. I was accurately representing your view, not making things up. I also never implied rationality was an 'ultimate'. So...how about YOU stop making things up?
@BigLundi You are one word - crafty asshole, aren't you ? :-)) I was saying that "rationality is primitive" , NOT "Primitive rationality" - so, stop being "Crafty".
Single matter ? It's so simple - use rationality to explain 6th sense, intuition and that "Infamous" Gut Feeling (which is the same) and moreover, address the matters of belief in supernatural and God using "Rational Approach", will you ? :-)))
@valgez1 You can cal ratlity primiive all day, but the fact remains scientific evidence, and rationality are actually YOUNGER than your ideas of 'gut feeling' and 'intuition'. We USED to, thousands of years ago, rely on such unreliable methods, but as a whole they've been abandoned because they're not useful at all.
"Use rationality to explain 6th sense" Easy, it doesn't exist. "Intuition" which is the same thing as a gut feeling, quite simple, your brain jumps to an answer.
@BigLundi Nope, you are wrong - 6th sense exists and working. So, instead of trying to refute the obvious, you'd rather use your "Rational" method to explain it - you cannot, can you? - That's the very point of the Rationalism - reject the events that are evident, but don't fit rationalism framework. That's the reason why Rationalism is the most primitive model of behaviour and way of gaining knowledge.
@valgez1 "6th sene eist and is sitl lbecause nobody' ever been able to do so in the history of man.
"Reject the events that are evident" No no no, rationalism EMBRACES the evident, and all evidence that points to it. However, the idea that there's a 'supernatural' reason for anything is not evident at all.
Im sorry if you don't like rationalism, and consider it primitive, but I'd like to inform you that 6th sense, intuition, and gut feeligns are al FAR more primitive than rationalism.
@valgez1 Sorry, computer fartd, the 6th sense doesn't exist, and nobody has ever been able to demonstrate it exists in the history of man. That's what the first sentence was supposed to say.
The fact is, all of your 'methods' of gaining knowledge have been around FAR before rationalism, and they're regularly wrong. Your methods are primitive, irrational, and useless, and this is a demonstrable fact. Come up with a more useful way of understanding the universe, and I'll embrace it.
@BigLundi 6th sense DOES exist and humans have been aware of it for all their history (sense of danger, etc...) - all but some atheistic "Hard liners" So, please explain to me from the rational point of view how 6th sense works. Wanna example ? When your relative dies being a distance away and you just KNOW it - wanna explain this ?
@valgez1 If the 6th sense is 'sense of danger' that's extremely easy to explain. We look at a situation, and we see some things that are dangerous, hence, we 'sense' that there might be something dangerous about to happen.
"When your relative dies being a distance away from you, and you KNOW it." Yeah, I don't believe anyone's ever had that. Nobody KNOWS their relatives have died without having seen them, or told by someone. Doesn't happen.
@BigLundi Nope, you don't look at the situation, and you don't see anything - you just go your routine way and just sense that smth is wrong - you dont SEE what it is - until it reveals itself - your "General" explanations are not welcome at all - i want concrete answers. Well, here it comes :-)))))) HAHAHAHA!!! That happened to me, my friend, now explain to me HOW ???
@valgez1 Well it's great that you can claim to have a personal experience of your '6th sense' working, unfortunately you can't in any way show me that it's actually real outside of anecdotal evidence, when no person should ever accept as actual evidence in favor of anything supernatural. There are SO many things that could have happened to tip you off, or you could remember the event wrong, yet you don't even allow it to enter your thoughts that you could be wrong, kind of arrogant aren't you
@valgez1 The thing is, we want answers, and our brains provide one for us when we want one. So they will jump on whatever answer comes to mind and that will be your 'intuition' talking to you. Not only that, but that explains why intuition is REGULARLY wrong about so many things.
Belief in God is irrational, in my opinion, quite simple really, any honest personn will admit they have no reason beyond 'faith' of believing in god, and faith, is simply wishful thinking.
@BigLundi The Thing is we want answers and our brain is the ultimate computer, it uses all available methods to perceive the world around: empirical evidence, try - error trial, 6th sense and subconscious conclusions - all methods are working together, the one who uses solely "Rationalism" limits himself to the most basic form - empirical evidence, those who use 6th sense are able to receive the vibes that cannot be presented as "Hard evidence"
@valgez1 Those who claim to use 6th senses and gut feelings and intuition are regularly wrong, where the ratioanlist approaches the situation and really SEARCHES for the answer. Your method is essentially taking the easy way out of guessing at whatever sounds good, and just going with it, whereas rationalists care more if what they believe is true.
IF you don't care if what you believe is true, go ahead and keep abandoning rationalism, I ersonally DO give a shit.
@BigLundi As i said many times, every method is reserved for specific things. But intuitive approach is where you gain knowledge when rationality fails miserably.
@BigLundi The one whith relative dying and "sense of danger" - that makes it two. Yeah, and on the top of this i'll add - :-) Astrology - that makes it 3 !
@valgez1 "That makes it two" Neither one of those are in any way verifiable, so they don't count. I have no reason to believe you about your relative dieing and you just 'knowing' it, and sense of danger I've already explained and you've simply said you don't accept it.
Astrology also doesn't work, every time it's tested, it fails epically.
@BigLundi But who gives a damn about whether it is "verifiable" or not - i'm telling you the 10th time already that it doesn't fit you "Rational approach framework" - because it's primitive - and you framework fails miserably to explain those things - that's why it rejects it, got it now ?
@valgez1 "I'm telling you for the 10th timme it doesn't fit your rational approach" I see, sso in essence you're admitting I have NO reason to believe you whatsoever, in yet you're trying to use your personal experience as some sort of reason why ANYONE should believe you.
It's not that I reject it because I can't explain those things...it's that you can't even demonstrate that they're even true. That's a MAJOR weakness of your worldview that Rationality succeeds in every time.
@BigLundi I gave you 3 examples that are real and working - that cannot be explained from the rational point of view - so, as the one claiming that evrh can be explained - explain those 3 to me. I'm still waiting
@valgez1 You haven't given me a single verifiable or accurate example, so I'm under absolutely no obligation to explain any of them. I'm still waiting for you to provide a single one.
@BigLundi I've given you 3 example that are working in my personal experience (and not only mine) - now YOU explain to me how those things happen. But I warn you - if you continue using your flat 2-dimensional Prove/Disprove approach you'll reach nothing. The essence of the argument is the validity of the "rational" approach - means that rationality cannot be used until proven valid - so, stop using it, don't become wordcraft asshole again :-)))
@valgez1 You haven't given me a SINGLe acceptable example. I have no obligation to explain your personal experiences at all, give me an example that's verifiably accurate.
If I were to accept those examples as valid, I wold be in the position to accept ALL extraordinary events by personal experience alone, like aliens
You keep accusing me of becoming a wordcraft asshole, it's not MY fault that I know more about logical semantics than you. IF you can't coherently argue, then just stop.
@BigLundi The problem is NOT with the examples - the problem is with YOU not accepting them - which proves my point that you absolutely CANNOT use rationality to address those examples. The conclusion: Rationality should be kept where it belongs: describing perfectly "verifiable" events, when it has to deal with so called "Extrasensoric" events, rationality fails miserably.
@valgez1 Let me ask you something. If I come up to you and say, "I was abducted by aliens." woudl you feel compelled to believe me? Would you feel compelled to then accept that aliens abducted me?
Revelation is necessarily first hand. PErsonal experience is, by definition, unverifiable.
@BigLundi I wouldn't know for sure, but i wouldn't reject that either - everything may happen. I'm not asking you to use "verification" - I'm asking to explain from the rational point of view those 3 points - you cannot
@valgez1 I can explain those three points, by simply saying rationalism dictates that I'm under NO obligation to believe your first hand account stories without verification or evidence.
@BigLundi You are smart guy :-) That's the reason why Rationalism sucks in addressing some matters - it has too many "Obligations" - means you CANNOT explain those things rationally :-)
@valgez1 I explained it all rationally. Again, your ignorance of the facts only serves to make you look stupid.
You can take it as a compliment that you look stupid, but that kind of puts you in a strange position of being proud of being irrational, lillogical, and appearing completely uneducated. IF you LIKE looking like that, fine, but don't ever expect to be taken seriously by anyone.
@BigLundi For a good reason the ones like you are in minority - so, as a matter of fact, you are not taken seriously by many people by default, including me :-)
@valgez1 What minority? You think people who appreciate science are in the minorityink people who appreciate education and logic and reasoning are in the minority? Well if that's true then we live in wuite the sad little world now don't we? :)
People like me ARE taken seriously by anyone who even KIND of knows what they're talking about. Which, I suppose, WOULD not include you.
@valgez1 I'm sorry that you have an inability to use words. Maybe you should get an education before you go around criticizing percieved limitations on other worldviews.
Otherwise you just look like an idiot when you ignore any point I make by brushing it off as "Word play".
@valgez1 Again, I'm saying this for YOUR benefit. You look lke an idiot whenever I use an argumentum ad absurdum or point out any logical fallacies, and you shrug, ignore, and brush them off and simply say, "Word play."
@BigLundi I've been saying ALL THE TIME for YOUR benefit - don't be so square, The World is not a YES/NO framework - by putting yourself into "Rationality" framework, you miss many things, and become "Spiritually" dumb :-) The only thing left you can do is talk about fallacies - cause you can't really provide anything yourself that are to me without your "Verification"
@valgez1 The world IS a yes/no framework. There is an objective reality, and what isue is true.Not all things are true equally, that kind of postmodernistic view of the world delineates any sort of progress.
I can verify and provide verification for all things I believe...you can't, because or some strange reason, you feel personal experience is enough to justifiably believe something, which is a philosophically inept position to hold.
@BigLundi No, There's NO Objective reality :-))) Of course, personal experience is enough to justify belief in smth - for some strange reason you don't think this way.
@valgez1 "There is NO objective reality" I suppose you absolutely know this somehow?
I didn't bullshit you at all, I explained how rationalism perfectly accounts for personal experience silliness. By granting that not all claims are inherently truthful and accurate, therefore showing that nobody has any sort of obligation to believe everything that people tell them.
@BigLundi I honestly admit :-))) That I have all the reasons to believe in God, and you, as the one, who limits himself to the "Rationality" primitiveness, are not able to understand in principle how it can be.
@valgez1 "That i have all the reasons to believe in god" Give me a single one that doesn't rely on personal experience, that I can actually verify in any way, otherwise admit that your 'reasons' are in no way applicable to other people, and nobody else is justified in believing in god via your reasons.
@valgez1 "That i have all the reasons to believe in god" Give me a single one that doesn't rely on personal experience, that I can actually verify in any way, otherwise admit that your 'reasons' are in no way applicable to other people, and nobody else is justified in believing in god via your reasons.
@BigLundi You claim to have an ultimate knowledge on what works and what not - well you are CHARLATAN and you are dangerous, and you are totally ignorant, cause "The more I know the more I realize that I don't know" clearly doesn't apply to you - the ones like you should be kept away from the means of power
@valgez1 "You claim to hav an ultimate knowledge" No I don't, take that back and apologize, thanks.
In fact this entire post doesn't apply to me at all, it is the atheists and the rationalists that acknowleege all the things they don't know, whereas christians claim to have "the ultimate truth in Jesus christ" and yes, they do say this, just watch Ray Comfort.
@BigLundi You assume that rational approach is the only one that is correct, well , i don't agree with you at all, and, unlike you, i admit that every person may have his own ways, but you say that rationality is the only way, do you see the difference ? You appear to be claiming the right for Truth - i don't
@valgez1 I never said the rational approach is the only one that is correct. Take it back, apologize, and I thank you for doing this ahead of time.
Every person DOES have their own way, I agree, and some people's ways are better than other's, unless you're saying killers ways are just as good as charity worker's ways.
@BigLundi By "The ways" i don't mean the behavior, but the ways to use to draw conclusions about the reality, the world - you name it. In other words, i don't need "Solid scientific" evidence in the matters where no such evidence is possible or available. I base my own conclusions on my own experience, observations and analysis, and they are pretty valid to me and conclusions are very strong
@valgez1 "I don't need 'solid scientific' evidence in the matters where no such evidence is possible or availiable' Right, you need to rpovide logically why it's in any way rational, or at least USEFUL to believe the things you do. And when your beliefs DO at some point go against the 'solid scientific' evidence, then at least admit that you are believing what you are believing irrationally.
Why do you think your own observations are all you need? Have you never been fooled in your life?
@BigLundi Listen :-))), what exactly you don't understand in the phrase "I don't need 'solid scientific' evidence in the matters where no such evidence is possible or available" ??? I oppose it to the rationality and you want me to show logical proof that it's rational ??? What's wrong with you? OF COURSE, i don't believe that everth should be rational. And i don't consider rationality as a "Holly cow", and i think that rationality is the most primitive concept
@valgez1 I want you to demonstrate that gut feelings are in SOME WAY useful. You consistently refuse to do this. I mean if there's any truth at all to your ideas of 'gut feelings' and intuition, then you could easily demonstrate their usefulness. WHY do you refuse to attempt to do this? It's my surmization that...well...you CAN'T do this.
You think rationality is primitive, yet it consistently, CONSISTENTLY works better than gut feeling and intuition, so...primitive works better.
@BigLundi How can I possibly demonstrate you that gut feelings are useful ? It's a matter of personal experience, see what I mean ? Rationality is primitive, yes, and it works the best in addressing the most primitive cases based on empirical evidence. However, there are matters when rationality is not applicable at all, but intuition gives right answers, see what i mean. You are using wrong framework to compare between them
@valgez1 I like how you consider that big bang cosmology, and moder nmedicine, which are purely scientific, rational concepts...are primitive. I really think you're hilarious in this implication.
'
Give me a single matter where rationality is not applicable, that is in ANY WAY useful to society. Give a single one.
@valgez1 Nope, whether to kill or not to kill is a moralistic view of the world, it's not off topic, because you said anyone who tells other people how to view the world in a percieved 'better' way is intrinsically wrong. Taken to its logical conclusion you are saying, quite simply, that telling people not to kill, or that killing is wrong, or making laws against killing is wrong. That's YOUR logical conclusion.
Topics: Terrorism, War, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Secrets about yourself that you may still don’t know, Debated issues, About the END OF THE WORLD, and many others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com , etc.
(See Figure 4, Figure 521, Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8, Figure 9, Figure 10, Figure 1021, and Figure 1022 at figure4etc3.yolasite.com , etc .)
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com , etc.
I wish the like/dislike ratio were reflective of reasoning/delusional aspect of societies views as a whole. It is sadly probably almost the opposite. I think religious people are so afraid to listen to the arguments of reason, they don't even watch these videos - perhaps because their faith might crumble if they stop to think about things instead of blindly following their religion. One can only dream and hope. sigh.
@dameon692002 Thanks, And I may not be a religious person, but I have an enormous respect for religion as it's function is nothing less than the most important thing on earth. And although I may not believe in the divinity of Christ, he is still a hero to me. Keep up your good work.
@FieldingYost Apparently you've never read much about Christ? Are these the words of someone you'd consider a "hero"?
Luke 14:25-26 "Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.""
I'd certainly hope not. This verse alone reveals the obvious cult leader mentality of Jesus himself. Why would that be heroic?
@YourBrainOnReligion Christianity is a religion for sinners. Never thought I would be the one defending the most genocidal book ever written but the word "hate" in the bible is not used as it is today. It just means "not loved" and is used as a ranking of affection, not necessarily a negative one. and it is insinuating the fact that God comes before everything.
@YourBrainOnReligion Christianity is a religion for sinners. Never thought I would be defending the most genocidal book ever written, but the word "hate" in the bible is not used as it is today. It just means "not loved" and is used as a ranking of affection, not necessarily a negative one. and it is insinuating the fact that God comes before everything. Jesus is a hero because hes the greatest ethical teacher ever,what about "love your enemies", "the truth shall set you free" and "Judge not" ?
@FieldingYost Go to blueletterbible and look up the word hate in the bible and find all of the other usages of the very same word. It unarguably means HATE in the literal sense we think of it today. Why on earth would something like "hate" be DIFFERENT because of TIME? Jesus is not a hero - Jesus was the first gigantic cult leader. See Matt 10:37-38, John 17:33, Luke 17:33. Same type of "Love jesus more than your own life" stuff. Obvious cult leader is obvious.
@YourBrainOnReligion many, many words are different because of time. (Gen. 29:30). "Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah" -the next verse (Gen. 29:31) "The Lord saw that Leah was hated," Jesus was just a man, who was quoted and misquoted by several people long after his death so when you say "Obvious cult leader is obvious" it is arbitrary because all religions have bizarre beliefs. Jesus Christ was not a cult leader in the traditional sense: authoritarian, dangerous or exploitative.
God I wish you were on the other video where I was saying that all Faiths are Cults---after they became popular/accepted over time, they left the box of Cults and became recognized faiths.
@YourBrainOnReligion your book are the work & words of humans 100's of years after christ. to believe this is the literal words of christ is silly. wake up
@FieldingYost its abvious your life is centered on god. isnt your life the most important thing? and not some mystical god or gods. give yourself credit
@flpete also, what are you talking about? before you attack someones religiousness from some misguided sense of benevolence (or more commonly annoyance) make sure their religious, in this case just look at the most thumbed up comment on the page. Or if you have already, allow me to translate; the existence of a god is dubious at best.
Waow i got badly sidetracked here!! but hey isn't the atheism concept getting really boring to listen too? I watched a debate between this guy (harris) and some guy Craig at university of Notre dam, it was amusing to say the least.. its on you tube
ulsterscothosy 2 months ago
nearly all the religions have caused an unsurmountable amount of pain and suffering,
while loosing the argument they do what they do best make up ridicules lies and repeat it until all the stupid people think its true because they heard it multiple times.
Atheism stands for peace, freedom,progress and reason,
Religion stands for what ever you want to interpret in it, including the most abominable evil you can imagine.
that's why Atheism is the path to peace and Religion our doom.
unamaxify 2 months ago
@unamaxify Atheism is the rejection of a god. You could be an unlogical, freedom hating, hateful and destructive atheist. Atheism IT NOT A PATHWAY TO ANYTHING JUST A CLAIM THAT THERE IS NO GOD. Jesus Christ I can't believe this is so hard to believe.
bukifuriku 2 months ago
@bukifuriku
Your argument is a straw-man
i never said atheism to be anything different than disbelieve in god.
i pointed out that atheism is a both a necessity and a result of/for peace freedom, reason and progress because religion suppress all that.
Religion needs people to be suffering for religion to flourish.
Religion is a computer virus for the mind, pain and suffering lowers the defences against delusional ideas such as god(s).
unamaxify 2 months ago
@bukifuriku atheism is no rejection of god, because that would be intellectually dishonest. it is the premise, that there is no reason to believe in a god or gods.
robertgaudlitz 1 month ago
It's a rare case that somebody with a sane mind engages in a spirituality related debate - so you should be grateful
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 Grateful of what? You haven't done anything but insult my worldview for the entire discussion, and simply bare assedly asserted that the 'spiritual' exists, swimply because you say "I've had experiences". Any philosopher will tell you that personjal revelation is NECESSARILY first hand, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In short, nobody who understands logic or philosophy AT ALL would accept first hand revelation as sufficient evidence of 'spirits'.
BigLundi 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BigLundi Don't suppose anything, I'm convinced that there's NO objective reality. You are stubbornly continue your BS - you explained NO SHIT :-)
valgez1 3 months ago
@BigLundi ANy philosopher ??? Hm... What do you, in FACT, know about the philosophers ? Stop, your BS, asshole :-)
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 I knoltaire, Hume, Neitzche, and Aristotle would all call you out on your postmodernistic bullshit. That's something I know. ;)
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi While I am away, you can think again how you can explain RATIONALY the experience i had - you've been too crafty in avoiding an answer. So, please, this time come with smth worth
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 While you're away, you can reflect on how you simply completely ignore how I rationally explained everything you said, instead of simply arrogantly touting that you have the superior worldview because of some pseudo-opeen mindedness that makes your brains fall out of your head, because the end result is that you appear exceedingly stupid. :)
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi :-))) You are facing a very simple dilemma: 1) Either You explain it rationally (vague, conjecture explanations are not accepted, I want concrete) 2) Or Admit that you don't have such an explanation 3) Or Fuck Off. So, stop acting like a little virgin girl and face the dilemma now or .... Fuck Off :-)
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 It's not a dilemma because you haven't produced a problem I've any obligation whatsoever to account for anything.
Essentially, the argument is at this point. You have made something up, and have ordered that I must account for it using rationalization, or admit that it's impossible to do so.
That's not how arguments work. You must show me why I have ANY obligation to accept that your personal experiences are evidence of anything like a '6th sense'.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi Despite the fact that you won't openly admit it that you don't have an answer, at least you fully realize that you DON"T have an answer - quite an advancement, if only all atheists were as smart as you. Bye.
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez Wow seems like this isn't the first time you've done this. So your asking BigLundi to rationalize something that happened to you... when you have no proof that it happened, and could have easily made something up..... Okay then, Rationally explain when I talked to Loki last night and he told me that your god doesn't exist and just played a trick on the humans to believe in god. You have no proof that it didn't happen, So it must be true since I said it.
FunAssFunProductions 3 months ago
@FunAssFunProductions Take BigLundi's cock out of your mouth, your, atheistic whore, it's not the first time you're appealing to other people - think for yourself, speak for yourself, or fuck off, you little cretin child :-))
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 Wow harsh language for someone of god to say. Funny how you say "Think for youself, speak for yourself, or fuck off" When that's one thing that Atheists pride of, While you are living your life to get into heaven and not hell. Hypocritical No?
FunAssFunProductions 3 months ago
@FunAssFunProductions You still haven't fucked off? Stick to one video, would ya ? :-)
valgez1 3 months ago
Comment removed
FunAssFunProductions 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BigLundi Lol some people are so ignorant and stupid.... I argued with Valgex recently on this video:/watch?v=EDgtHZ-WE7U Comedy if you ask me.
FunAssFunProductions 3 months ago
@BigLundi Well, i gotta go - think about what i said - it might actually make you smarter :-)
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 I doubt anything you have to say would make me smarter. Instead, how about you reflect on the shortcomings of hwo you view the world and actually addopt some rationality. It might help you in the long run.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi In the long run it makes you stupid :-)
valgez1 3 months ago
its funny how these atheist can disconnect Atheism from the atrocities of Moa and Paypon and others, yet wont afford the same leeway to those who supposedly were religious and did the same evils. Its complete hypocriticy. But at least this guy admits not all evil is blamed on religion.
KinaNafasi 6 months ago
@KinaNafasi because those atrocities were never done in the name of atheism. many other atrocities WERE done on the name of religion. but no, not all evil can be blamed on religion.
isaachaze1 6 months ago
@isaachaze1 I agree with that. But my point may have not been stated well, and this is my fault. What I meant was, these evil men werent bound by any moral objectivity and thus had no reason to respect the lives of other humans. The religious person understood objective morality yet chose to ignore it. Both are evil in my opinion.
KinaNafasi 6 months ago
Atheism isn't a religion or a cult. We don't go to meetings and we wouldn't know each other on the street. The fact is, Atheists are individuals that share 1 thing in common. We don't believe in gods or religion. Otherwise our beliefs are different. even from person to person. Lumping all non-believers under 1 lable is just an arrogant and ignorant way of religious people trying to understand us as a single entity. We are each a nation. Together we are Legion. (Sovereign : M.E.2 LOL!)
TheCrimsonification 6 months ago
Comment removed
daiellis 7 months ago
None of these Atheist will ever convince me otherwise. I can tell you now i have MUCH more faith in me alone than all atheist in the world.
wtfisit25 7 months ago
@wtfisit25 First of all, you should proof-read before you submit anything. It's atheists when you're speaking of the plural form, you used poor capitalization, and you're missing the conjunction 'that' after "...tell you now". If you're going state something, it should be typed properly if you want people to take you seriously. And no matter how much you believe in something, it doesn't make it true. Like when people thought the Earth was flat (which the Bible repeatedly stated it was a circle).
StrifeBlood 7 months ago
@StrifeBlood wtf? the bible said the earth was flat and it stood on 4 pillars and good made the sun rise and set. were in the bible does it say it is a sphere
360Athiest 6 months ago
@360Athiest I didn't say sphere. It was a flat circle, kind of like a pancake. Not a sphere, which is like a ball.
StrifeBlood 6 months ago
@StrifeBlood thank you i took 2nd grade geometry. a flat circle still means a flat earth, it is actually a sphere and we have scientific proof of that, the bible says flat and it is wrong.
360Athiest 6 months ago
@360Athiest Did you not understand anything what I said? I'm an atheist, genius. I said the Bible says the Earth is flat and in the shape of a circle. I know it's a sphere. Really, think logically. When I responded to wtfisit25, did you think I was his fellow theist? Why would a theist criticize another theist? I know the Earth is a sphere. Wow, just wow.
StrifeBlood 6 months ago
@StrifeBlood You are an atheist, right - that's the reason why nobody understands you. Rare sane person will ever engage in debating with you :-) The absolute majority of normal sane people prefers not to deal with the atheistic sorts like you - cause it inevitably leads to having to cope with your nonsense and demagogy. First, educate yourself before discussing complex matters. Until then, you're better off discussing "Spaghetti Monster" with your foolish fellow atheists. :-)))
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 Okay, cool. And you realize countries with a high percentage of atheists have better peace and happiness rating. Reports have been found that atheists have higher IQs in general as well, not because they are atheist but because they try this thing called "critical thinking". I know it's scary, your priest probably told you critical thinking is "Satan's work". Face it, your god is either evil or non-existent. Doesn't want to intervene? Well what about the ENTIRE OLD TESTAMENT?
StrifeBlood 3 months ago
@StrifeBlood Face it, you are an atheistic demagogue. Your reports are total BS, consider communist countries - they are atheistic (or used to be) and don't feed me with that IQ BS - keep it for impressing your atheistic fellows - in short, CUT THE CRAP
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 Yeah Sweden and Norway are communistic monsters. And your such a typical ignorant thiest. Don't answer the questions and accuse me. How are my reports BS? How about you research motherfucker? Or are you afraid that a test of faith? Fuck you, live your shitty life sucking Jesus's dick.
StrifeBlood 3 months ago
@StrifeBlood Soviet Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia - atheism was an official doctrine of every communist regime. How about you research motherfucker? Fuck you, live your shitty life sucking "Flying Spagheti's Monster" dick.
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 Ahhh theistic hatred of atheism.
I'm an atheist, who's against communism. Explain that one.
The thing is, no communist society is a result of atheism, you literally cannot draw the logical line, and I'd laugh if you even tried. We're the ones out there trying to get people to stop worshipping the State, trying to get people to embrace rational beliefsabout he world, trying o educate people as to what the facts of the world are...theists fight progress every step of the way.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi We're the ones out there trying to get people to stop worshipping the State - how is it related to religion? trying to get people to embrace rational beliefsabout he world, - ???? And you expect people to follow your stupid advice based on the primitive rationality ? You are insane, uneducated moron with cosmic ambitions. Anyway, you are free to try doing anything you want. But if any atheist will "try" to get ME to think his way, he'll get all the shit i can give .
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 How is worshipping the state related to religion? Well because it's a religious belief. You are aware no god is required for something to be religion, right?
What's 'primitive' about rationality?
I won't force you to think my way, so long as you don't fuck society up with whatever your beliefs are. Gays will be able to marry, abortion is allowed, and secular laws will reign supreme, because they're objectively measureably better than any theistic beliefs of law.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi Worshiping a state IS religious belief ? Are you sure you use English ? :-)
Gaining knowledge based solely on empirical observations, hard evidence and rational conclusions is the most basic and primitive way of learning the world, there are much more more complex and sophisticated ways of which we know very little if any : spiritual experience, intuition, "Gut feeling", 6th sense, etc - you name it - these ways allow to gain knowledge that cannot be obtained in a rational way.
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 Would you mind showing me how worshipping one's government isn't a language? If you can't I'd of course like to have you retract your ad hominem. Thanks.
"Gaining knowledge based...primitve way of learning the world" It's the only way that's ever been shown to actually work. Gut feelings are notoriously incorrect, there's no such reason to believe in anything spiritual, intuition is wrong almost all the time...you're offering nothing useful at all, nor anything rational.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi I don't get the meaning of the phrase "Worshiping State" - how can i worship a state ? "Gut feelings are notoriously incorrect" ? - "Gut feeling" is too complex a concept to be considered using Correct / Incorrect framework - by far not everyone is able to decipher his intuition - and "Rational approach" is what blocks it, instead of developing it and learning to use.
"you're offering nothing useful at all, nor anything rational" - yeah, nothing useful for YOU, but evrth for ME
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 "How can I worship a state?" Capitlized state applies a personal noun, in other words, the part of the State that directly affects you. In other words...the government. that's what the insitutionalized communism was, and something I, as an atheist, am against. It's religious.
"Gut feeling is too complex" no it's not. It's quite simple, it's called 'your first guess'. That's irrational.
Ok, can you explain why it is MY rationality showed how YOUR rationality is wrong all the time?
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi The mere fact that you're having an idea of forcing your ways on others makes you sort of Holly Inquisition member, not mentioning that your ideas contradict human nature. God forbid the atheists ever having any power to promote their ideas
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 Edit, not language, I mran religious belief. Sorry, I've been watching nephilimfree debates where he tries to say DNA is a language and my head's frazzled.
I'm not forcing my idea on you at all, so : /.
Yes, god forbid atheists be able to make the world rational, and abandon irrational beliefs that lead to martyrdom and wars, what a terror that would be.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi The world cannot be rational, because people (incl yourself), by their very nature, are irrational. You could make everyone rational only by total terror.
No, you're not forcing your idea on me - i didn't mean that, i meant having a desire to explain to other people the right ways of living is just WRONG, let people decide for themselves. The one who thinks that he knows what is right for everyone is the ultimate Charlatan
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 "You could make everyone rational only by terror" please logically demonstrate that, or take it back, thanks.
"You're forcing your idea on me" At no time have I informed you that you must believe as I do for...any sort of forceful reason whatsoever. "Havinng a desire to explainn to other people the right ways of living is just WRONG" Ok, then we shouldn't tell people not to kill, because we're forcing our views on peopel who want to kill people, and by your reasoning, that's wrong.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi Demonstrate? Very easily :-) How can you make people rational that are, by their nature, are irrational ? Tell me...
"You're forcing your idea on me" - i didn't tell you that you're forcing ideas on me.
You compare incomparable things - YES teach people not to kill, DON'T teach people the ways to perceive the world.
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 So you're demonstrating that terror is necessary by asking me to provide another way it can be done. Logical fallacy aside, it's really simple, demonstrate the usefulness of rationality. That's what helped me embrace it.
Wherther or not to kill is a moralistic thing, and morals are a way to VIEW the world. So when you tell people not to kill people, you're forcing your moralistic views on another, which you say is a bad thing.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi It's not logical fallacy, neither has it anything to do with "rationality" - humans are irrational by their nature - this is the FACT, now, please, explain to me HOW you are going to turn them to rational ? :-)
No problem, I never tell anyone whether to kill or not and i don't care what anyone does - i just played that for you a little
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 "It's not a logical fallacy" Yes actually it is, it's called 'shifting of the burden of proof'.
I decided to ignore that fallacy, and simply stated that the way I personally was turned rationa, is an empiricla demonstration that rationality works better than other views of the world. Do this to more people, more people are rational.
So in essence, YES, you're saying nobody shoudl tell other people not to kill. Interesting. You're proposing anarchy.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi The shifting the burden of proof of WHAT ? I have no desire to change the world - YOU have, so, please, stop looking for "fallacy" excuses and explain to me HOW you are going to make inherently irrational people rational.
You cannot say whether rational approach works better or not - the both work in different ways and serve different purposes. I'm not proposing anything, and if you asked me whether to kill or not - i would say : DEPENDS
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 I asked you to demonstrate something and in response you said that your demonstration was to have me produce another option. That's shifting of the burden of proof. It's not a 'fallacy' excuse, I even overlooked it and explained another way rationality could be spread without terror. No excuses given at all. I've explained TWICE now how one spreads rationality without terror.
You can demonstrate empirically how rationalism works better easily. Heliocentric model, or Geocentric model?
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi Stop your "Word Craft", would you? Are you going to explain to people that they SHOULD be rational - how are you different from the religious psychos ? HA? Not mentioning that the idea of "Rationality" is the top of stupidity
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 What word craft? I'm just using simply philsophical logic.
Oh, so now Rationalism is stupid? Interesting.
the fact is, there is a truth out there, and we should be working towards it if we want it. If you don't want truth, then don't participate in the conversations, if you do want the truth, then your claims deserve scrutiny, and you should be happy when people try and tel you you're wrong, because it's the only way to learn.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi It's not the argument about the truth, it's the argument about the ways of finding the truth, and I say that humans are very complex creatures with extra sensor abilities - you say it's all BS and only rationality matters - that's the point of the argument. I advocate using EVRTH to perceive to percive the world, you rely only on rational conclusions
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 "I say that humans are very complex creatures with extra sensory abilities - you say it's all BS and only rationality matters" Please show where I ever said that. You can't, so take it back, apologize, and I thank you.
If you can give me a useful way of looking at the world, I will embrace it fully. However, 'gut feelings' aren't useful, and this is completely demonstrable. 'gut feelings' lead to guesses, rationalism leads to inductive conclusions based on evidence. One works better.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi You see, you just confirmed my words :-))) No need to show anything. Evidence is reserved for the cases when evidence is available and CAN be used and Gut Feeling is reserved for the cases when no evidence is available in principle OR Gut Feeling precedes the evidence, see what I mean? Gut Feeling can lead you to the things no rationalism is able to explain - it's not fully reliable, yes, but you have to learn to use it - it's VERY complex, delicate, high vibe concept :-)
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 "You've just confirmed my words" It'd be great if you could demonstrate that. Yet you consistently refuse to for some odd reason.
Ok, you're the one making the claim that gut feeling is in some way...a good thing. so please demonstrate to me an instance where Gut Feeling is useful. Do so, or admit it's a useless idea.
Name me ONE thing at all, that Gut Feeling can provide, that rationalism and science can't. One useful thing that affects me in ANY way.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi So, please, stop use Rationality as some sort of "Benchmark", cause i don't accept it as such
valgez1 3 months ago
@BigLundi If you would like to ask me how learn to use it, I would say - first, don't question your intuition, don't try to put it in "rational" framework, second, try to make conclusions, then verify them, - eventually it'll start working - it's like working out in a gym, you don't believe you can lift 300 pounds until you start working towards it
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 Well, how about this. If I can demonstrate to you that science and rationalization have consistently shown to be more reliable than intuition and gut feeling, will you abandon them as 'useful' concepts? Because I CAN do that.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi no, you can't do that :-) but you can try
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 I beg to differ, I most certainly can. It was 'gut feeling' and 'intuition' that told us the world was flat, because we stand on top of it. It is 'gut feeling' and 'intuition' that led us to look at the sun and surmise that it revovled around the earth. It was 'gut feeling' and 'intuition' that informs us that evolution is unreasonable...and...well...time after tie, gut feeling and intuition fail, where rationality succeeds. :)
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi But again, you assume that rationalization has any validity to me - it doesn;t
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 Well, see here you confuse me. First you say that MY version of rationality is primitive, and that yours is better because it includes things like gut feeling and intuition, and NOW you're saying that rationality isn't valid...at ALL...and I'm wondering, under WHAT reasons...do you have..to come to that conclusion?
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi Again, you use "Rationality" as some sort of "Ultimate" concept by saying that "I think that my version of "Rationality" is better" There's no such thing as "My version of rationality" - don't make things up, please
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 Actually, you were the one saying there was a primitive rationality, and that you had some sort of new version that included al the things I have, and you also add gut feelings and intuition. It was YOUR caim that you had a neweer, updated version of rationality, not mine. I was accurately representing your view, not making things up. I also never implied rationality was an 'ultimate'. So...how about YOU stop making things up?
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi You are one word - crafty asshole, aren't you ? :-)) I was saying that "rationality is primitive" , NOT "Primitive rationality" - so, stop being "Crafty".
Single matter ? It's so simple - use rationality to explain 6th sense, intuition and that "Infamous" Gut Feeling (which is the same) and moreover, address the matters of belief in supernatural and God using "Rational Approach", will you ? :-)))
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 You can cal ratlity primiive all day, but the fact remains scientific evidence, and rationality are actually YOUNGER than your ideas of 'gut feeling' and 'intuition'. We USED to, thousands of years ago, rely on such unreliable methods, but as a whole they've been abandoned because they're not useful at all.
"Use rationality to explain 6th sense" Easy, it doesn't exist. "Intuition" which is the same thing as a gut feeling, quite simple, your brain jumps to an answer.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi Nope, you are wrong - 6th sense exists and working. So, instead of trying to refute the obvious, you'd rather use your "Rational" method to explain it - you cannot, can you? - That's the very point of the Rationalism - reject the events that are evident, but don't fit rationalism framework. That's the reason why Rationalism is the most primitive model of behaviour and way of gaining knowledge.
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 "6th sene eist and is sitl lbecause nobody' ever been able to do so in the history of man.
"Reject the events that are evident" No no no, rationalism EMBRACES the evident, and all evidence that points to it. However, the idea that there's a 'supernatural' reason for anything is not evident at all.
Im sorry if you don't like rationalism, and consider it primitive, but I'd like to inform you that 6th sense, intuition, and gut feeligns are al FAR more primitive than rationalism.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@valgez1 Sorry, computer fartd, the 6th sense doesn't exist, and nobody has ever been able to demonstrate it exists in the history of man. That's what the first sentence was supposed to say.
The fact is, all of your 'methods' of gaining knowledge have been around FAR before rationalism, and they're regularly wrong. Your methods are primitive, irrational, and useless, and this is a demonstrable fact. Come up with a more useful way of understanding the universe, and I'll embrace it.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi 6th sense DOES exist and humans have been aware of it for all their history (sense of danger, etc...) - all but some atheistic "Hard liners" So, please explain to me from the rational point of view how 6th sense works. Wanna example ? When your relative dies being a distance away and you just KNOW it - wanna explain this ?
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 If the 6th sense is 'sense of danger' that's extremely easy to explain. We look at a situation, and we see some things that are dangerous, hence, we 'sense' that there might be something dangerous about to happen.
"When your relative dies being a distance away from you, and you KNOW it." Yeah, I don't believe anyone's ever had that. Nobody KNOWS their relatives have died without having seen them, or told by someone. Doesn't happen.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi Nope, you don't look at the situation, and you don't see anything - you just go your routine way and just sense that smth is wrong - you dont SEE what it is - until it reveals itself - your "General" explanations are not welcome at all - i want concrete answers. Well, here it comes :-)))))) HAHAHAHA!!! That happened to me, my friend, now explain to me HOW ???
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 Well it's great that you can claim to have a personal experience of your '6th sense' working, unfortunately you can't in any way show me that it's actually real outside of anecdotal evidence, when no person should ever accept as actual evidence in favor of anything supernatural. There are SO many things that could have happened to tip you off, or you could remember the event wrong, yet you don't even allow it to enter your thoughts that you could be wrong, kind of arrogant aren't you
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi Of course, i can't show you, because it doesn't fit your "Primitive Rational" approach - you are not meant to get it, in principle.
valgez1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BigLundi Of course, i can't show you, because it doesn't fit your "Primitive Rational" approach - you are not meant to get it, in principle.
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 The thing is, we want answers, and our brains provide one for us when we want one. So they will jump on whatever answer comes to mind and that will be your 'intuition' talking to you. Not only that, but that explains why intuition is REGULARLY wrong about so many things.
Belief in God is irrational, in my opinion, quite simple really, any honest personn will admit they have no reason beyond 'faith' of believing in god, and faith, is simply wishful thinking.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi The Thing is we want answers and our brain is the ultimate computer, it uses all available methods to perceive the world around: empirical evidence, try - error trial, 6th sense and subconscious conclusions - all methods are working together, the one who uses solely "Rationalism" limits himself to the most basic form - empirical evidence, those who use 6th sense are able to receive the vibes that cannot be presented as "Hard evidence"
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 Those who claim to use 6th senses and gut feelings and intuition are regularly wrong, where the ratioanlist approaches the situation and really SEARCHES for the answer. Your method is essentially taking the easy way out of guessing at whatever sounds good, and just going with it, whereas rationalists care more if what they believe is true.
IF you don't care if what you believe is true, go ahead and keep abandoning rationalism, I ersonally DO give a shit.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi As i said many times, every method is reserved for specific things. But intuitive approach is where you gain knowledge when rationality fails miserably.
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 Please provide me a SINGLE instance where rationality and science have faield, and intuition won out. A single instance.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi The one whith relative dying and "sense of danger" - that makes it two. Yeah, and on the top of this i'll add - :-) Astrology - that makes it 3 !
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 "That makes it two" Neither one of those are in any way verifiable, so they don't count. I have no reason to believe you about your relative dieing and you just 'knowing' it, and sense of danger I've already explained and you've simply said you don't accept it.
Astrology also doesn't work, every time it's tested, it fails epically.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi But who gives a damn about whether it is "verifiable" or not - i'm telling you the 10th time already that it doesn't fit you "Rational approach framework" - because it's primitive - and you framework fails miserably to explain those things - that's why it rejects it, got it now ?
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 "I'm telling you for the 10th timme it doesn't fit your rational approach" I see, sso in essence you're admitting I have NO reason to believe you whatsoever, in yet you're trying to use your personal experience as some sort of reason why ANYONE should believe you.
It's not that I reject it because I can't explain those things...it's that you can't even demonstrate that they're even true. That's a MAJOR weakness of your worldview that Rationality succeeds in every time.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi Also, did you ever buy lottery ticket ?
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 No, I never bougth a lottery ticket in my life.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@valgez1 You still have yet to provide me with a single valid verifiable instance where rationality fails and intuition succeeds, I'm still waiting.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi I gave you 3 examples that are real and working - that cannot be explained from the rational point of view - so, as the one claiming that evrh can be explained - explain those 3 to me. I'm still waiting
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 You gave me...no verifiable, or acurate examples that are real or working.
I'm stil lwaiting for you to provide a single one. You've failed repeatedly.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@valgez1 You haven't given me a single verifiable or accurate example, so I'm under absolutely no obligation to explain any of them. I'm still waiting for you to provide a single one.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi I've given you 3 example that are working in my personal experience (and not only mine) - now YOU explain to me how those things happen. But I warn you - if you continue using your flat 2-dimensional Prove/Disprove approach you'll reach nothing. The essence of the argument is the validity of the "rational" approach - means that rationality cannot be used until proven valid - so, stop using it, don't become wordcraft asshole again :-)))
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 You haven't given me a SINGLe acceptable example. I have no obligation to explain your personal experiences at all, give me an example that's verifiably accurate.
If I were to accept those examples as valid, I wold be in the position to accept ALL extraordinary events by personal experience alone, like aliens
You keep accusing me of becoming a wordcraft asshole, it's not MY fault that I know more about logical semantics than you. IF you can't coherently argue, then just stop.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi The problem is NOT with the examples - the problem is with YOU not accepting them - which proves my point that you absolutely CANNOT use rationality to address those examples. The conclusion: Rationality should be kept where it belongs: describing perfectly "verifiable" events, when it has to deal with so called "Extrasensoric" events, rationality fails miserably.
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 Let me ask you something. If I come up to you and say, "I was abducted by aliens." woudl you feel compelled to believe me? Would you feel compelled to then accept that aliens abducted me?
Revelation is necessarily first hand. PErsonal experience is, by definition, unverifiable.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi I wouldn't know for sure, but i wouldn't reject that either - everything may happen. I'm not asking you to use "verification" - I'm asking to explain from the rational point of view those 3 points - you cannot
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 I can explain those three points, by simply saying rationalism dictates that I'm under NO obligation to believe your first hand account stories without verification or evidence.
It's...very simple.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi You are smart guy :-) That's the reason why Rationalism sucks in addressing some matters - it has too many "Obligations" - means you CANNOT explain those things rationally :-)
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 I already did explain them rationally. The fact that you ignore them is a point against you, not rationalism.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi :-)) You explained nothing rationally, - just general phrases, but you can try again - you can even find some genius scientist for a help
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 I explained it all rationally. Again, your ignorance of the facts only serves to make you look stupid.
You can take it as a compliment that you look stupid, but that kind of puts you in a strange position of being proud of being irrational, lillogical, and appearing completely uneducated. IF you LIKE looking like that, fine, but don't ever expect to be taken seriously by anyone.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi NO, you didn't explain anything rationality, :-) you just played your "Wordcraft" again, or Bullshit, in other words
valgez1 3 months ago
@BigLundi For a good reason the ones like you are in minority - so, as a matter of fact, you are not taken seriously by many people by default, including me :-)
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 What minority? You think people who appreciate science are in the minorityink people who appreciate education and logic and reasoning are in the minority? Well if that's true then we live in wuite the sad little world now don't we? :)
People like me ARE taken seriously by anyone who even KIND of knows what they're talking about. Which, I suppose, WOULD not include you.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi You know more about logical semantics - right, that's what I call "WordCraft" - that's all you are good in - Words Play :-)
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 I'm sorry that you have an inability to use words. Maybe you should get an education before you go around criticizing percieved limitations on other worldviews.
Otherwise you just look like an idiot when you ignore any point I make by brushing it off as "Word play".
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi :-))) I can only be sorry for you being so square, that meaningless words play is as far as you can get
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 Again, I'm saying this for YOUR benefit. You look lke an idiot whenever I use an argumentum ad absurdum or point out any logical fallacies, and you shrug, ignore, and brush them off and simply say, "Word play."
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi I've been saying ALL THE TIME for YOUR benefit - don't be so square, The World is not a YES/NO framework - by putting yourself into "Rationality" framework, you miss many things, and become "Spiritually" dumb :-) The only thing left you can do is talk about fallacies - cause you can't really provide anything yourself that are to me without your "Verification"
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 The world IS a yes/no framework. There is an objective reality, and what isue is true.Not all things are true equally, that kind of postmodernistic view of the world delineates any sort of progress.
I can verify and provide verification for all things I believe...you can't, because or some strange reason, you feel personal experience is enough to justifiably believe something, which is a philosophically inept position to hold.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi No, There's NO Objective reality :-))) Of course, personal experience is enough to justify belief in smth - for some strange reason you don't think this way.
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 "There is NO objective reality" I suppose you absolutely know this somehow?
I didn't bullshit you at all, I explained how rationalism perfectly accounts for personal experience silliness. By granting that not all claims are inherently truthful and accurate, therefore showing that nobody has any sort of obligation to believe everything that people tell them.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi Don't suppose anything, I'm convinced that there's NO objective reality. You are stubbornly continue your BS - you explained NO SHIT :-)
valgez1 3 months ago
@BigLundi And, frankly, when someone like you tells me that I look like an idiot i take it as a complement :-)
valgez1 3 months ago
@BigLundi Correction: ... until proven valid in explaining so called "irrational" events
valgez1 3 months ago
@BigLundi I honestly admit :-))) That I have all the reasons to believe in God, and you, as the one, who limits himself to the "Rationality" primitiveness, are not able to understand in principle how it can be.
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 "That i have all the reasons to believe in god" Give me a single one that doesn't rely on personal experience, that I can actually verify in any way, otherwise admit that your 'reasons' are in no way applicable to other people, and nobody else is justified in believing in god via your reasons.
BigLundi 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@valgez1 "That i have all the reasons to believe in god" Give me a single one that doesn't rely on personal experience, that I can actually verify in any way, otherwise admit that your 'reasons' are in no way applicable to other people, and nobody else is justified in believing in god via your reasons.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi You claim to have an ultimate knowledge on what works and what not - well you are CHARLATAN and you are dangerous, and you are totally ignorant, cause "The more I know the more I realize that I don't know" clearly doesn't apply to you - the ones like you should be kept away from the means of power
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 "You claim to hav an ultimate knowledge" No I don't, take that back and apologize, thanks.
In fact this entire post doesn't apply to me at all, it is the atheists and the rationalists that acknowleege all the things they don't know, whereas christians claim to have "the ultimate truth in Jesus christ" and yes, they do say this, just watch Ray Comfort.
Projection is an ugly thing sir.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi You assume that rational approach is the only one that is correct, well , i don't agree with you at all, and, unlike you, i admit that every person may have his own ways, but you say that rationality is the only way, do you see the difference ? You appear to be claiming the right for Truth - i don't
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 I never said the rational approach is the only one that is correct. Take it back, apologize, and I thank you for doing this ahead of time.
Every person DOES have their own way, I agree, and some people's ways are better than other's, unless you're saying killers ways are just as good as charity worker's ways.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi By "The ways" i don't mean the behavior, but the ways to use to draw conclusions about the reality, the world - you name it. In other words, i don't need "Solid scientific" evidence in the matters where no such evidence is possible or available. I base my own conclusions on my own experience, observations and analysis, and they are pretty valid to me and conclusions are very strong
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 "I don't need 'solid scientific' evidence in the matters where no such evidence is possible or availiable' Right, you need to rpovide logically why it's in any way rational, or at least USEFUL to believe the things you do. And when your beliefs DO at some point go against the 'solid scientific' evidence, then at least admit that you are believing what you are believing irrationally.
Why do you think your own observations are all you need? Have you never been fooled in your life?
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi Listen :-))), what exactly you don't understand in the phrase "I don't need 'solid scientific' evidence in the matters where no such evidence is possible or available" ??? I oppose it to the rationality and you want me to show logical proof that it's rational ??? What's wrong with you? OF COURSE, i don't believe that everth should be rational. And i don't consider rationality as a "Holly cow", and i think that rationality is the most primitive concept
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 I want you to demonstrate that gut feelings are in SOME WAY useful. You consistently refuse to do this. I mean if there's any truth at all to your ideas of 'gut feelings' and intuition, then you could easily demonstrate their usefulness. WHY do you refuse to attempt to do this? It's my surmization that...well...you CAN'T do this.
You think rationality is primitive, yet it consistently, CONSISTENTLY works better than gut feeling and intuition, so...primitive works better.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi How can I possibly demonstrate you that gut feelings are useful ? It's a matter of personal experience, see what I mean ? Rationality is primitive, yes, and it works the best in addressing the most primitive cases based on empirical evidence. However, there are matters when rationality is not applicable at all, but intuition gives right answers, see what i mean. You are using wrong framework to compare between them
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 I like how you consider that big bang cosmology, and moder nmedicine, which are purely scientific, rational concepts...are primitive. I really think you're hilarious in this implication.
'
Give me a single matter where rationality is not applicable, that is in ANY WAY useful to society. Give a single one.
You repeatedly refuse, outright, to do this.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi And, BTW, what killing or not killing has to do with the ways to perceive the world around - you are off the topic
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 Nope, whether to kill or not to kill is a moralistic view of the world, it's not off topic, because you said anyone who tells other people how to view the world in a percieved 'better' way is intrinsically wrong. Taken to its logical conclusion you are saying, quite simply, that telling people not to kill, or that killing is wrong, or making laws against killing is wrong. That's YOUR logical conclusion.
BigLundi 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK TO READ FOR YOUR ENJOYMENT
Topics: Terrorism, War, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Secrets about yourself that you may still don’t know, Debated issues, About the END OF THE WORLD, and many others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com , etc.
(See Figure 4, Figure 521, Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8, Figure 9, Figure 10, Figure 1021, and Figure 1022 at figure4etc3.yolasite.com , etc .)
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com , etc.
TheServiceWeb 7 months ago
I wish the like/dislike ratio were reflective of reasoning/delusional aspect of societies views as a whole. It is sadly probably almost the opposite. I think religious people are so afraid to listen to the arguments of reason, they don't even watch these videos - perhaps because their faith might crumble if they stop to think about things instead of blindly following their religion. One can only dream and hope. sigh.
worktosser 8 months ago 2
Great rational and a balanced exposition.
khelbenrage 9 months ago
Victory!
kurdt40894 9 months ago
THANK YOU DOCTOR PHIL....
Gelnprato 10 months ago
"Dear leader"??? hmmmm....What you say makes some sense...question everything
search: The Dawn of Intelligence by Kerry Craig Walker
superwhuffo1 11 months ago
is that derek zoolander? can you turn left yet?
andlyndav 11 months ago
North Korea's Juche philosophy is heavily influenced by Confucian ideals. It's Confucianism on steroids.
christomacin 11 months ago
@FieldingYost I may not agree with the whole answer, but it's a pretty good one.
dameon692002 1 year ago
@dameon692002 Thanks, And I may not be a religious person, but I have an enormous respect for religion as it's function is nothing less than the most important thing on earth. And although I may not believe in the divinity of Christ, he is still a hero to me. Keep up your good work.
FieldingYost 1 year ago
@FieldingYost Thanks for the sentiments. I wish you the best...
dameon692002 1 year ago
@FieldingYost Apparently you've never read much about Christ? Are these the words of someone you'd consider a "hero"?
Luke 14:25-26 "Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.""
I'd certainly hope not. This verse alone reveals the obvious cult leader mentality of Jesus himself. Why would that be heroic?
YourBrainOnReligion 11 months ago
@YourBrainOnReligion Christianity is a religion for sinners. Never thought I would be the one defending the most genocidal book ever written but the word "hate" in the bible is not used as it is today. It just means "not loved" and is used as a ranking of affection, not necessarily a negative one. and it is insinuating the fact that God comes before everything.
FieldingYost 11 months ago
@YourBrainOnReligion Christianity is a religion for sinners. Never thought I would be defending the most genocidal book ever written, but the word "hate" in the bible is not used as it is today. It just means "not loved" and is used as a ranking of affection, not necessarily a negative one. and it is insinuating the fact that God comes before everything. Jesus is a hero because hes the greatest ethical teacher ever,what about "love your enemies", "the truth shall set you free" and "Judge not" ?
FieldingYost 11 months ago
@FieldingYost Go to blueletterbible and look up the word hate in the bible and find all of the other usages of the very same word. It unarguably means HATE in the literal sense we think of it today. Why on earth would something like "hate" be DIFFERENT because of TIME? Jesus is not a hero - Jesus was the first gigantic cult leader. See Matt 10:37-38, John 17:33, Luke 17:33. Same type of "Love jesus more than your own life" stuff. Obvious cult leader is obvious.
YourBrainOnReligion 11 months ago
@YourBrainOnReligion many, many words are different because of time. (Gen. 29:30). "Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah" -the next verse (Gen. 29:31) "The Lord saw that Leah was hated," Jesus was just a man, who was quoted and misquoted by several people long after his death so when you say "Obvious cult leader is obvious" it is arbitrary because all religions have bizarre beliefs. Jesus Christ was not a cult leader in the traditional sense: authoritarian, dangerous or exploitative.
FieldingYost 11 months ago
@FieldingYost You're comparing hebrew to greek. Show me where μισέω (miseō) is used to mean only "not loving as much" to have a valid argument.
The point is ALL religions are cults - you're CLEARLY not putting that together.
not authoritarian? "No one comes to the Father except through me." ring a bell?
not dangerous? "those who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me" Really?
not exploitative? - luke 14:25 isn't exploiting someones entire LIFE?!?!
YourBrainOnReligion 11 months ago
@YourBrainOnReligion
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!
God I wish you were on the other video where I was saying that all Faiths are Cults---after they became popular/accepted over time, they left the box of Cults and became recognized faiths.
willdrake1 11 months ago
@YourBrainOnReligion your book are the work & words of humans 100's of years after christ. to believe this is the literal words of christ is silly. wake up
flpete 11 months ago
@flpete What are you talking about?
YourBrainOnReligion 11 months ago
@FieldingYost its abvious your life is centered on god. isnt your life the most important thing? and not some mystical god or gods. give yourself credit
flpete 11 months ago
@flpete also, what are you talking about? before you attack someones religiousness from some misguided sense of benevolence (or more commonly annoyance) make sure their religious, in this case just look at the most thumbed up comment on the page. Or if you have already, allow me to translate; the existence of a god is dubious at best.
FieldingYost 11 months ago
@FieldingYost hi lets clear it up if iam incorrect. are you religious ? .
flpete 11 months ago
@flpete I am verily A fervent Pastafarian
FieldingYost 11 months ago