@absolutefacts I have. All they have are empty arguments lacking evidence and not standing up to reason. WLC's Kalam argument is circular, and at best still doesn't define god as the Abrahamic god. Much of the time he ad hominems like a mofo.
I love that science is what Luke relies on to repair his hand. Shouldn't he just have The Force put a new hand on him?
Like all the other religious fundamentalists who rely on science up until it conflicts with his brainwashing/training. Pathetic hypocrisy remains the bread and butter of religious leadership.
@pimpdalyrical an Atheist doesnt "have" to beleive in the force for it to exist. It either does or doesnt regardless of what you beleive. Beleif is a person or persons own creation, it does not make it anymore real than whatever you beleive it to be because it doesnt NEED your faith for it to exist.......understand? Only God or gods need your faith in them for them to exist thats why they are IMAGINARY
God doesn't require your belief to exist. He either does or doesn't. You know "The Force" is imaginary, right?
However being able to wield it like Vader would be proof that a supernatural unifying consciousness directing the universe did exist, thus nullifying the Athiest viewpoint. It was even referred to as a "religion" in the films. My point being a templar-like religious warrior wielding supernatural power wouldn't be an atheist, by definition, so the video is dumb.
@pimpdalyrical Electricity is a "force", breathing is a "force", walking, jumping, singing, are all active kenetic "forces". It doesnt prove of anything supernatural, nor does it prove of a unifying consciousness directing the universe you would call "God". The force in the movie is also a kenetic force, but was turned into some kind of a "jedi" religion of medicloreans that resides in everything. It doesnt prove God in the movie either with the "force". No God was mentioned in the movie
@pimpdalyrical yes, I beleive super pixie fairyies run the cogs of the Multiverse and zaps every Christian, Muslim, and Jew into the eternity of sand when they die, I just care for your salvation ........LOL You dont have to beleive me, its real, trust me ROFL
Where are all Luke's strawman arguments, insults, empty threats, non sequitors, circular reasoning, and the thousands of trite old long since refuted arguments that this kind of debate always end up centering about?
faith and science really are not that far apart. thats the silly part of this whole arguement. Buddha had it right. its the middle path that must be followed. you people see science and religion as anathema to each other. the reason being is that youre not philosophically sound enough to see them as two sides of the same coin. science is quickly finding that only philosophy can solve the keystone questions of science. actually its been evident for some time now. extremists die hard
@Gravija1980 if you want to be accurate it exploded after implosion. that rapid expansion is the same thing as an explosion. thats all an explosion is really. however what caused it to explode was the initial implosion.
GOD, HEAVEN, AND SEX: Popular Internet article examines the Biblical possibility of sex in heaven. Sexuality is not just for reproduction. There are reasons why the Bible requires marriage for sex on earth, but those reasons won't exist in heaven. Scripture teaches we'll be like the angels only in one sense - no marriage, but we won't be like angels in every other way (i.e. Scripture teaches we'll enjoy food and drink). Psalm 16:11 says there will be spiritual joy as well as pleasures in heaven.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE, because of entropy, could not have sustained itself eternally. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
//but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin & order of the universe//
uh, no it doesn't. & this is a HUGE leap of faith to believe it does. please explain how you get from science NOT being able to prove supposed 'supernatural' events to science confirming a 'supernatural intelligence'? that is completely contradictory & illogical. there is no such thing as the 'super' natural, only the natural we do not yet understand & myth. your 'god' came from nothing too?
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature can only work with the "cards" it has. Nature is not a genetic engineer! It can't invent new genes. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
@Mogley52 funny how people like you.....and only people like you (religious)
say stupid shit like that.......
NO Biologist will confirm what you just said......if DNA is made of atoms........like everything.....
tell me the mechanism by which DNA is guided!
if you cannot answer that you have failed your own argument....
"evolutionary faith" there is no faith in science!....everything in science has research and evidence behind it.....unlike "faith" the opposite of science.....
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
NOT EVEN ALL EVOLUTIONISTS agree on the fossils used to support and reconstruct human evolution. The bones are incomplete. There's no certainty of the bones belonging to the same creature. They can reconstruct whatever they want from these bones, and they have. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creatures. Read my article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even inheriting a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creature. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select" from variations that have survival value. It doesn't produce variations. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
“VESTIGIAL” A USELESS ARGUMENT: At one time dozens of structures in the human body were considered vestigial until our knowledge about them increased and we realized they weren’t vestigial, after all. It’s now been published that so-called “Junk DNA” isn’t junk, after all. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). Read my article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
awww2:37 is a perfect depicting of real life. They complain science doesn't work while the seat at a computer that has more power the NASA did as a whole back when man was first sent to the moon. They take shoots for diseases, they drive vehicles, use electric....etc. The are all the work of the devil and shouldn't not be touched and used. They should i get together and live like the Amish.
Nah. There are two ways arguing with creationists goes:
A1) Creationist proposes faith belief devoid of evidence. A2) Creationist says he don' need no steenking evidence. A3) Creationist declares himself the winner.
OR
B1) Creationist demands evidence B2) You provide some B3) Creationist says it ain't good enough for him. B4) Repeat steps B2 and B3 until B5) You run out of evidence. This process may take years. B6) Creationist declares himself the winner.
@AHughman08 Goose bumps? I suppose that means our ancestors were cats lol How much bull can atheist people come up with, with a straight face. All one can do is laugh. But to educate you, it just so happens that during the ice age humans were in all likelihood completely covered in hair. So yes we inherited it from our ancestors, which were other human beings.
@jouc12 1) You're confusing atheists, who don't believe in a god, with evolutionists, who simply believe in the theory/fact of evolution.
2) At what point does homo erectus become homo sapiens? Can you pin down exactly when? No, of course you can't. Instead, you choose to arbitrarily call your ancestors all human when the truth is far more subtle.
3) The loss of hair in humans is attributed to sexual selection, a tenet of evolutionary theory. Juss sayin'.
@PhobicOne 1) Most evolutionist are atheist. Those that aren't are confused people.
2) My grand parents were human. Logic follows, so were their ancestors. And they were not Homos they were straight. Only faith in evolution makes a person think otherwise.
3) The loss of hair in humans can be claimed as sexual selection. However, the use of fur and raising temperatures are also likely causes.
@jouc12 1) Tell that to the droves of Christians that agree with evolution whilst not rejecting God. I'm sure they're just pleased as punch to hear you paint over them.
2) Ring species. That is all.
3) So you're saying a population adapts traits in order to survive better in changing environments?! GODLESS ATHEIST SCUM.
@PhobicOne 1) Its a fact evolution and Christianity don't mix. Contrary to claims they're not compatible. So I can use any paint or brush I want with them.
2) Who was the lord of the ring? Don't forge the hobbits. Homo floresiensis
3) Adaptation is not evolution.That's just one of the many atheist deceptions to fool the feeble minded.
@jouc12 1) No, Christian FUNDAMENTALISM and evolution don't mix. Not everyone who's Christian is gullible enough to actually think everyone came from a ribwoman.
2) You're missing the point. When do your ancestors stop being h. sapiens and start being h. neanderthalensis?
3) If a mutation develops in a population that gives some animals the ability to adapt to their environment over others, that mutation is adapted into the population. It's not my problem if you refuse to accept this.
@PhobicOne 1) Is not about FUNDAMENTALISM. The problem is not due to physicals properties, but theistic inconsistencies.
2) You're missing the joke.
3) Mutations that develop in a population are detrimental to that population. There are intelligent mechanisms that explain adaptations without causing harm to any creature.
@jouc12 1) Belief systems vary; Christianity is a beautiful example of this. How many different splinter sects of it are there now?
2) You're still missing or ignoring the point.
3) No. Not all mutations are detrimental; The ones that are and pose a direct consequence on the survival of a population are either weeded out or cause the population to die.
@jouc12 Hi! I'm an atheist, and I don't accept your "mutations that develop in a population are detrimental to that population". It's absolute rubbish, and I bet that you can't back up what you say.
@jouc12 I'd say most people know that mutations can be detrimental. That's different to saying they are always detrimental. If you think they are always detrimental, then I'd like you to back up what you're saying or I'll just disregard it, as will most reasonable people.
@MythicalManMoth Mutations aren't detrimental ALL the time. If you speed up an example and multiply it by a factor of 10 you have yourself the gram positive bacteria's resistance to fluoroquinolones (antibiotics). As has been demonstrated, tested, and proven, if the right mutation happens on the DNA gyrase gene that the antibiotics attack, then it will make DNA gyrase less susceptible to it and make the bacteria resistant. If enough mutations occur in a big enough population, good traits arise.
@MythicalManMoth Whoops, I replied to the wrong person! lol I guess I'll fix that. jeff8605 was the one who thought that mutations are determinatal to populations all the time???
Well i guess theres no point for doing good things for no reason, because in the end there is no reward for being good. Scientific evidence concludes that being evil pays off much better in this life, than it does the next....because there is no after life, right? There is no god to judge nor punish you in the end, right?...whats the difference between a satanist and an atheist - both are lacking in faith
@rekindling1 Atheists don't believe in the devil, also statistically speaking there are significantly less Atheists in prisons worldwide then any other religions, we also tend to have a higher morale code that we live by. In THIS LIFE (the one that matters) and in SOCIETY the social and self-perceived rewards and feelings one gets from being "good" are better then the benefits of being "bad"
And I put the quotes because if you think right and wrong are so cut-and-dry, you're an idiot
@rekindling1 Could you cite the scientific evidence that concludes evil pays off much better that not being evil? A satanist has faith that satan exists, since there is no evidence that satan exists--if there were, everyone would believe it. The atheist lacks faith in any god or gods.
@rekindling1 ...but you CAN'T be good per your own myth-set writings. Romans 3:10 says "no man is righteous" and Isaiah famously pointed out that "all our righteousness is like filthy rags." Perhaps you adhere to a different myth-set than the one based on the bible.
Boy,you are mest up!? Your soul immerse in this temporal dimension through your feelings,and the way you intend to make a living.It's rationality or conscience.When you're death there's no conscience no brain activity to measure.You are quite fine for 40 day.Man tell you time flies like a fraction,the the real fun begins :D
@MightyMessenger777 The mechanism of evolution is not reproduction, it's natural selection. I don't know if your elephant comment is true, but it's irrelevant.
"Would you agree that, had it not been observed, science would deny that a caterpillar can morph into a beautiful butterfly?"
Science is the application of reason to observations: data. We need data to create theories. Science does not say that things do not exist, except by process of elimination. Many insects metamorphose.
@MightyMessenger777 So no, science would not say that metamorphosis was impossible, even without the observation of butterflies. Science would have us go observe.
"Both spiritualists and science only know that which they can experience."
But science can be shown to everyone.
I will happily agree there are things we do not know. If there weren't, we'd have no need for the natural sciences, which are dedicated to discovery. Science is the means by which we discover those unknowns.
@Antifides Your only problem is the assumption that -when science cannot perceive a THING then that thing does not exist.. I submit that IT is really a matter of TIME. And science does, most certainly, agree that TIME does exist.. right?
@MightyMessenger777 Oh, thanks for telling me what I assume. I was going along, making as few assumptions as a could and then bam, I find out that I've been assuming that when science cannot perceive a thing that the thing doesn't exist, despite my own statements contradicting that claim. I hate when that happens.
"I hope your intelligence would be increased with time -would it not?"
It does not. Intelligence, measured by IQ, is steady over one's lifetime.
I don't know what it is I would need to know everything for. If we're talking about a god, then I don't need to know everything to dismiss that any more than you need to know everything to dismiss the idea that I have a leprechaun. Man-made stories, both.
@Antifides Intelligence: the ability to think and learn; the ability to learn facts and skills and apply them, especially when this ability is highly developed. -only those who stay in their comfortable box would never increase in intelligence.
@MightyMessenger777 As I already stated intelligence, as measured by IQ, stays at a constant throughout one's life. If you can't understand that, then you don't understand what intelligence is.
@Antifides i gave you the definition of intelligence. You gave an erronious definition of IQ. IQ is an intelligence test score that is obtained by dividing mental age, which reflects the age-graded level of performance as derived from population norms, by chronological age and multiplying by 100:
@MightyMessenger777 Wrong. IQ used to be determined as a function of mental age divided by physical age. That is not how it is determined any more.
IQ stands for intelligence quotient, which as you might imagine, is a quotient for your intelligence.
Or to put it in Wiki's words: "An intelligence quotient, or IQ, is a score derived from one of several different standardized tests designed to assess intelligence."
@Antifides I hope your intelligence would be increased with time -would it not? or do you already proffer to know everything? If you proffer to know everything, then heck i may be wrong, i may have to place you right up front with the religious fanatics;
The religious fanatics know all they need to know, from the dead men of long ago.
The atheists, having seen the fanatics, put on one hell-of-a show!
I only ponder, before i guess, 'How can our live's be meaningful, if it's meaningless..'
@Antifides So, you see. By these exchanges of basic text I proved that what you believe and what you want me to think you believe are not true. I on the other hand am true, i'm not ashamed of my beliefs not do I try and deceive anyone into thinking otherwise.
@MightyMessenger777 So, are you actually going to respond to anything I said or just ramble inanely about your assumptions that you've formed out of nothingness?
@MightyMessenger777 Not everything was a question. I asked what is "a matter of time," which you stated quite loudly "IT" is.
I denied your assumption of what I assume.
I implied that I wanted evidence for your spurious claim that I have a soul, though I really don't expect any, because that would require that you had some.
I told you that I believe only things for which there is reason and evidence, and encouraged you to do the same.
No, no you aren't. This is not how evidence works. You are evidence of you.
I... what? Okay, I ran up a hill, there was someone else that I knew was there without ever seeing them, and then I jumped at a castle wall towards a scroll and then the dream shifted to a new scenario which involved inheriting a house with a very dangerous barn that led to another dimension.
@MightyMessenger777 I see, you mean prove I had the dream. You should choose your words more accurately.
Why? Dreaming is a demonstrable phenomenon. Brain scans can show a brain in dream state. As far as we know, everyone dreams, so it's quite silly to assert I'm lying or crazy for claiming to have one. I mean, I could be lying, but why assume that?
@MightyMessenger777 I was really rooting for you to turn this into, "well if I'm supposed to take your word that you dream, then you should take my word that I experience God."
The problem with that conclusion is that my dream is a purely mental phenomenon. If I fly unaided in a dream, it is not evidence that I can fly unaided. If you experience God, it's not evidence that God exists. It is evidence that your mind is capable of feeling sensations that you believe to be God.
@MightyMessenger777 Of course I would accept evidence of my soul and of God should I discover it after my death. What part of "I accept evidence and reason" don't you understand?
If it's the God of the Bible, though, we would have words, strong, vitriolic words, because he's not someone I would have any interest in associating with, much less worshipping. He's irrational, jealous, genocidal, and all around quite unpleasant. Dawkins can give you a longer list of adjectives.
@Antifides Fair enough and i agree, he also can't count, has a thirst for blood and sacrifices etc... The bible is just a compilation of books written long ago by those who tried to put into words their experiences and beliefs. Like anything else, we have to recognize those things that have value and throw away the b.s.
@Antifides lol knowing anything that you don't currently know. Just because science doesn't make a discovery today, doesn't mean that they may not make the discovery later... in time.
@MightyMessenger777 That's what science does. What the hell? I said that already (I think that was with you). The natural sciences discover things. That's what they're for.
@Antifides So, let's get to the meat of things. Does your soul exist?
And i won't keep arguing about intelligence since it encompasses alot. And then to mix a test called IQ into it well.. Consider, and let me quote "James Watson, the discoverer of DNA, has an IQ = 115. He claims that his successs is due to his persistence and curiosity." -things not measured in an IQ test.
@MightyMessenger777 I don't see the relevance. You were talking about intelligence. Now you're talking about discovering things. If you don't think intelligence has relevance, fine, but then don't talk about intelligence.
IQ isn't a test, by the way. It's the results.
"Does your soul exist?" I have no reason to believe that it does and plenty of reason to think that it's made up.
@Antifides I wasn't talking about intelligence, i made a statement in summary that ones intelligence increases with experience (which is normally time related) and you disagreed claiming that, appearently, a person when born and later at 35 will have the same intelligence.. i can't even begin to form thoughts on that one.. but like i said, no more about that.
@MightyMessenger777 Well, if you just believe it, you can do that. I will ask why, but you're free not to answer. If you want me or anyone else to believe it based on solid reasoning, you'll need to demonstrate it to be true.
Regarding intelligence, I was oversimplifying slightly. Intelligence probably does increase during brain development which occurs during childhood. Note that I said brain development, not experience. I wasn't including that period.
@Antifides Besides a little boredom, my point in all this run-around is simply; spiritual experiences are, and always will be, personal. They will remian untestable to science, as i believe it is by design to be that way, but that will never make it untrue to the experiencer. We will all indeed make the discovery upon death. -Godspeed and LOVE!
@MightyMessenger777 You do realize that if death is the end of experience, we won't be making any discoveries?
The problem with the experiences is that they are testable. Your brain can be analyzed while having a religious experience. In fact, a religious experience CAN BE STIMULATED in a lab by applying electricity to a part of the brain.
You can believe that they can ALSO come from some supernatural entity, but as you say, that can't be tested. The same is true of any phenomenon, though.
@Antifides Okay, my friend says I have some of the details of that experiment wrong. The point is, the experiences can be stimulated in a lab, although I'm looking for the details now.
@Antifides i'm sure at some point, if not already, all emotions and sensories will be capable of being simulated by artificial stimulation. But like most imitations, nothings like the real thing ;) The initial problems with detecting GOD would be; (1) which type of instrument to test with (2) if we consist within GOD, then how would you calibrate the chosen instrument.
@Antifides Also, your time would prove most profitable to your soul if you would spend more time examining the box your in.. as it would effect your escape! -Godspeed.
@MightyMessenger777 I have a soul? News, everyone, this guy says I have a soul! I'm sure he has plenty of reason to think I have a soul, and will be sharing it forthwith.
I like my box. The walls of the box only allow things which have been established by reason and evidence inside. You should try out my box. There's plenty of room in it for you.
@t4qesd1 well I suppose it's your opinion, but why on earth did you feel the need to share it? I don't see the connection with this video, and no explanation as to why you think homosexuality is wrong. What a queer statement.
It is important to understand that there is a BIG, BIG difference between religious belief systems and science. Science is a tool used to solve problems. Religious belief systems are stories you believe in. You don't believe in your hammer, you use it to solve problems. Likewise, you don't believe in evolutionary theory, rather; you use it to solve problems. What you DON'T do is "believe" or confuse science for "truth".
This draws some interesting similarities to the original concept of the Jedi and Sith. I think it was George Lucas who said he got his ideas for making the Jedi from christians. Nice work! :D
That was awesome, but the "god particle" was NOT aptly named! It was just another attempt of Christians to hijack science to try and ride its legitimacy!
@qbrt theory of evolution easily puts creationism out of the debate, creationists refuse to accept evidence.
9/11 truth movement relied on evidence, pushes for a real investigation of the event, falsifiable but has not yet been falsified. its a conspiracy theory, the same way that the official story that the towers were brought down by muslim terrorists is a conspiracy theory.
@UnluckyGambler Right...so you want me to believe that a cabal of government officials organized, and executed an attack on American soil against their own citizenry, and then proceeded to either hide the evidence from the independent commission, or convince that same commission to risk their careers and reputation and falsify the results so that they agree with the "story," you want me to believe that...
@UnluckyGambler ...instead of that a group of religious fanatics took advantage of gaps in our security to hijack some planes and fly them into the tallest buildings on the skyline, and two easily recognizable national buildings, like I saw on Television, and the 9/11 commission report states?
And you don't see how I could dare correlate that to creationists saying things like the Grand Canyon was caused by the receding of the flood waters in a matter of minutes...
@UnluckyGambler ......instead of the millions of years that geology shows us it took for the Grand Canyon to be formed? Yeah, I'll stick by my original assessment of conspiracy theorists.
@qbrt ignorance is bliss aint it. ive actually learned about the creationist arguments before i started mocking them. have u done the same about conspiracy theories? answer is obviously no, based on what u just said.
if u dismiss an idea before even taking the time to understand what it is, ur no better than creationists.
do u really think a hijacked plane could go off course and go unnoticed for over an hour in US airspace? especially near the pentagon, the most secure airspace in the world?
@UnluckyGambler the fact that we both agree that it DID happen, shows that it COULD happen. Occam's razor says all things being equal the simplest answer is usually correct, so instead of just 9 men conspiring to hijack a plane, as most of us saw, you would have me believe that not only were gov't officials involved, but so were numerous air traffic controllers, and their managers? Your conspiracy is getting larger and more complex, and therefore a harder secret to keep...
NOOOOOOO NOOOOOOO!!!!! Its not TRUE!!!!!!!
hoovalicious1 2 weeks ago
Lolzed so hard :)
leighalison1983 2 weeks ago
@drfox
The force hates amputees
pooooccurs 2 weeks ago
Thankyou, made my day...
... only criticism is that this video may be a little too sophisticated for our creationist friends to be able to join in , and that's just not fair.
stvabb 1 month ago
Complete misrepresentation of Theists . No wonder people believe theism is false.
Watch "William lane Craig" and "Hugh Ross"
absolutefacts 1 month ago
@absolutefacts I have. All they have are empty arguments lacking evidence and not standing up to reason. WLC's Kalam argument is circular, and at best still doesn't define god as the Abrahamic god. Much of the time he ad hominems like a mofo.
gvman3670 3 weeks ago
We are so full of ourselves that we just can't take not understanding what happens to us when we die.
johnw5734 1 month ago
Awful video..can't understand a thing they're saying
Lennon4ever1 1 month ago
I love that science is what Luke relies on to repair his hand. Shouldn't he just have The Force put a new hand on him?
Like all the other religious fundamentalists who rely on science up until it conflicts with his brainwashing/training. Pathetic hypocrisy remains the bread and butter of religious leadership.
drfoxcourt 2 months ago
lol hilarious!
Samura1gamer 2 months ago
"You alright?" - Vader LOL
auditorization 2 months ago
"You alright?"
auditorization 2 months ago
But, Atheists wouldn't believe in The Force. There is only random occurence in a chaotic universe.
pimpdalyrical 2 months ago
@pimpdalyrical an Atheist doesnt "have" to beleive in the force for it to exist. It either does or doesnt regardless of what you beleive. Beleif is a person or persons own creation, it does not make it anymore real than whatever you beleive it to be because it doesnt NEED your faith for it to exist.......understand? Only God or gods need your faith in them for them to exist thats why they are IMAGINARY
sean32laf 2 months ago
@sean32laf
God doesn't require your belief to exist. He either does or doesn't. You know "The Force" is imaginary, right?
However being able to wield it like Vader would be proof that a supernatural unifying consciousness directing the universe did exist, thus nullifying the Athiest viewpoint. It was even referred to as a "religion" in the films. My point being a templar-like religious warrior wielding supernatural power wouldn't be an atheist, by definition, so the video is dumb.
pimpdalyrical 2 months ago
@pimpdalyrical Electricity is a "force", breathing is a "force", walking, jumping, singing, are all active kenetic "forces". It doesnt prove of anything supernatural, nor does it prove of a unifying consciousness directing the universe you would call "God". The force in the movie is also a kenetic force, but was turned into some kind of a "jedi" religion of medicloreans that resides in everything. It doesnt prove God in the movie either with the "force". No God was mentioned in the movie
sean32laf 2 months ago
@sean32laf
This is the dumbest argument ever. Whatever..believe what you want. Nobody cares.
pimpdalyrical 2 months ago
@pimpdalyrical yes, I beleive super pixie fairyies run the cogs of the Multiverse and zaps every Christian, Muslim, and Jew into the eternity of sand when they die, I just care for your salvation ........LOL You dont have to beleive me, its real, trust me ROFL
sean32laf 2 months ago
Well done man. Thanks.
derman077 2 months ago
One thing is missing though.
Where are all Luke's strawman arguments, insults, empty threats, non sequitors, circular reasoning, and the thousands of trite old long since refuted arguments that this kind of debate always end up centering about?
itsjustameme 2 months ago 13
faith and science really are not that far apart. thats the silly part of this whole arguement. Buddha had it right. its the middle path that must be followed. you people see science and religion as anathema to each other. the reason being is that youre not philosophically sound enough to see them as two sides of the same coin. science is quickly finding that only philosophy can solve the keystone questions of science. actually its been evident for some time now. extremists die hard
runelord37 2 months ago
The universe didn't explode into existence. It was a super rapid expansion from a singularity.
Gravija1980 3 months ago
@Gravija1980 if you want to be accurate it exploded after implosion. that rapid expansion is the same thing as an explosion. thats all an explosion is really. however what caused it to explode was the initial implosion.
runelord37 2 months ago
We have more evidence for aliens than a god. The government of this world are covering the evidence up.
halolIlmao0 4 months ago
Timing was so good!!!
BlindChaosification 4 months ago
Search your feelings, fool, you know it to be true.
LegionIscariot 4 months ago
I love that you put in that little piece of hypocrisy at the end where he's using a synthetic hand.
turbowombat 4 months ago
This was EPIC.
DanielBlueFist 4 months ago
The part of Luke was played by Venom Fang X
MrJohnnyrace 5 months ago
Not a fan of Star wars but I'll admit this was awesome.
dookiecheez 5 months ago
I think a good punchline would be if after Luke got his (scientifically developed) new hand, he said, "thank god for giving me this new hand."
mdiem 5 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
GOD, HEAVEN, AND SEX: Popular Internet article examines the Biblical possibility of sex in heaven. Sexuality is not just for reproduction. There are reasons why the Bible requires marriage for sex on earth, but those reasons won't exist in heaven. Scripture teaches we'll be like the angels only in one sense - no marriage, but we won't be like angels in every other way (i.e. Scripture teaches we'll enjoy food and drink). Psalm 16:11 says there will be spiritual joy as well as pleasures in heaven.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mogley52 you have been brainwashed into an utter clusterfuck......
azmanabdula 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 5 months ago
@Mogley52 FUCK YOU. WHY THE FUCK DO YOU POST YOUR FUCKING BULLSHIT ON EVERY EVOLUTION RELATED VIDEO. YA FUCKING RETARD.
Drgamedood 5 months ago
@Mogley52 Buy Bull = Bullshit
MrJohnnyrace 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE, because of entropy, could not have sustained itself eternally. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 5 months ago
@Mogley52
//but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin & order of the universe//
uh, no it doesn't. & this is a HUGE leap of faith to believe it does. please explain how you get from science NOT being able to prove supposed 'supernatural' events to science confirming a 'supernatural intelligence'? that is completely contradictory & illogical. there is no such thing as the 'super' natural, only the natural we do not yet understand & myth. your 'god' came from nothing too?
flashoftruth 5 months ago
@Mogley52 you have lost your marbles if you think any of that is correct.....
azmanabdula 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 5 months ago
@Mogley52 You need to read some books that are less then 30 years old, and not written by creationist morons.
alianchild 4 months ago
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature can only work with the "cards" it has. Nature is not a genetic engineer! It can't invent new genes. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
@Mogley52 funny how people like you.....and only people like you (religious)
say stupid shit like that.......
NO Biologist will confirm what you just said......if DNA is made of atoms........like everything.....
tell me the mechanism by which DNA is guided!
if you cannot answer that you have failed your own argument....
"evolutionary faith" there is no faith in science!....everything in science has research and evidence behind it.....unlike "faith" the opposite of science.....
azmanabdula 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
@Mogley52 so why did you designer make Horrible Bacteria.........Mosquitoes.....Viruses.........
"GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE"
in a sea of molecules bigger than you can comprehend "even a bathtubs too much for you"
genetic information can mould and shape itself.........
think of the random mutations of viruses....they dont think....yet they change....
same goes with pre-biotic earth
you spout bullshit without backing it up.....
no wonder everyone spammed your messages.
azmanabdula 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mogley52 "GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE"
explain to me why it cant............dopey.......
azmanabdula 4 months ago
NOT EVEN ALL EVOLUTIONISTS agree on the fossils used to support and reconstruct human evolution. The bones are incomplete. There's no certainty of the bones belonging to the same creature. They can reconstruct whatever they want from these bones, and they have. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creatures. Read my article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE
Mogley52 5 months ago
@Mogley52 IDIOT........DNA reveals what type of animal it was.........JEEZ "They can reconstruct whatever they want from these bones, and they have"
these people were not creditable and thats why they have never worked in the fields of science AGAIN.....
you lie more frequently than those who fooled the world......
let me guess...you think evolution runs like this......ladder from bacteria to humans the end...
Wrong....
we are still evolving....
and so is everything else.....
azmanabdula 4 months ago
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even inheriting a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creature. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 5 months ago
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select" from variations that have survival value. It doesn't produce variations. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
“VESTIGIAL” A USELESS ARGUMENT: At one time dozens of structures in the human body were considered vestigial until our knowledge about them increased and we realized they weren’t vestigial, after all. It’s now been published that so-called “Junk DNA” isn’t junk, after all. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). Read my article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
Don't forget the best attack they always use when losing....Hitler was an atheist... what....*confused* that has nothing to do with evolution.
Theimmortalwhitewolf 5 months ago
awww2:37 is a perfect depicting of real life. They complain science doesn't work while the seat at a computer that has more power the NASA did as a whole back when man was first sent to the moon. They take shoots for diseases, they drive vehicles, use electric....etc. The are all the work of the devil and shouldn't not be touched and used. They should i get together and live like the Amish.
Theimmortalwhitewolf 5 months ago
Back to the real world, mutatons do not accumulate.
watch?v=lEledPONpkQ
JungleJargon 5 months ago
Clever.Very clever indeed.Not to mention absolutely hilarious,thanks for posting!
bassalchemist 5 months ago
This video is awesome :)
SmokingNtheGraveyard 6 months ago
so true lol
iluvemmanuel 6 months ago
I laughed ;-D
Forserean 6 months ago
Thank you so much for this much needed BELLY LAUGH !!! So goddamn funny....
2eelShmeal 6 months ago in playlist Comedy: Atheist
Puffin51 what about B4
kysmelmonge 6 months ago
Nah. There are two ways arguing with creationists goes:
A1) Creationist proposes faith belief devoid of evidence. A2) Creationist says he don' need no steenking evidence. A3) Creationist declares himself the winner.
OR
B1) Creationist demands evidence B2) You provide some B3) Creationist says it ain't good enough for him. B4) Repeat steps B2 and B3 until B5) You run out of evidence. This process may take years. B6) Creationist declares himself the winner.
Both may occur together, of course.
puffin51 7 months ago
@AHughman08 Goose bumps? I suppose that means our ancestors were cats lol How much bull can atheist people come up with, with a straight face. All one can do is laugh. But to educate you, it just so happens that during the ice age humans were in all likelihood completely covered in hair. So yes we inherited it from our ancestors, which were other human beings.
jouc12 7 months ago
@jouc12 1) You're confusing atheists, who don't believe in a god, with evolutionists, who simply believe in the theory/fact of evolution.
2) At what point does homo erectus become homo sapiens? Can you pin down exactly when? No, of course you can't. Instead, you choose to arbitrarily call your ancestors all human when the truth is far more subtle.
3) The loss of hair in humans is attributed to sexual selection, a tenet of evolutionary theory. Juss sayin'.
PhobicOne 6 months ago
@PhobicOne 1) Most evolutionist are atheist. Those that aren't are confused people.
2) My grand parents were human. Logic follows, so were their ancestors. And they were not Homos they were straight. Only faith in evolution makes a person think otherwise.
3) The loss of hair in humans can be claimed as sexual selection. However, the use of fur and raising temperatures are also likely causes.
jouc12 6 months ago
@jouc12 1) Tell that to the droves of Christians that agree with evolution whilst not rejecting God. I'm sure they're just pleased as punch to hear you paint over them.
2) Ring species. That is all.
3) So you're saying a population adapts traits in order to survive better in changing environments?! GODLESS ATHEIST SCUM.
PhobicOne 6 months ago
@PhobicOne 1) Its a fact evolution and Christianity don't mix. Contrary to claims they're not compatible. So I can use any paint or brush I want with them.
2) Who was the lord of the ring? Don't forge the hobbits. Homo floresiensis
3) Adaptation is not evolution.That's just one of the many atheist deceptions to fool the feeble minded.
jouc12 6 months ago
@jouc12 1) No, Christian FUNDAMENTALISM and evolution don't mix. Not everyone who's Christian is gullible enough to actually think everyone came from a ribwoman.
2) You're missing the point. When do your ancestors stop being h. sapiens and start being h. neanderthalensis?
3) If a mutation develops in a population that gives some animals the ability to adapt to their environment over others, that mutation is adapted into the population. It's not my problem if you refuse to accept this.
PhobicOne 6 months ago
@PhobicOne 1) Is not about FUNDAMENTALISM. The problem is not due to physicals properties, but theistic inconsistencies.
2) You're missing the joke.
3) Mutations that develop in a population are detrimental to that population. There are intelligent mechanisms that explain adaptations without causing harm to any creature.
jouc12 6 months ago
@jouc12 1) Belief systems vary; Christianity is a beautiful example of this. How many different splinter sects of it are there now?
2) You're still missing or ignoring the point.
3) No. Not all mutations are detrimental; The ones that are and pose a direct consequence on the survival of a population are either weeded out or cause the population to die.
PhobicOne 6 months ago
@PhobicOne 1) Splinter Cell is a video game not a denomination. Different denominational beliefs don't reflect what the Bible actually says.
2) Different races today different races yesterday. There's no point.
3) There are lots of detrimental mutations that remain in the population. Is not as easy as 1 2 3.
jouc12 6 months ago
@jouc12 1) Missing the point.
2) Missing the point.
3) Missing the point.
Well, I guess this video is pretty damn accurate. Have fun being creationist! <3
PhobicOne 6 months ago 2
@PhobicOne 1) Missing the point.
2) Missing the point.
3) Missing the point.
I guess atheists never accept any answer other than their own.
jouc12 6 months ago
@jouc12 Hi! I'm an atheist, and I don't accept your "mutations that develop in a population are detrimental to that population". It's absolute rubbish, and I bet that you can't back up what you say.
MythicalManMoth 6 months ago
@MythicalManMoth I have to back up something everyone knows? That's common knowledge, if you don't know that, its sad.
jouc12 6 months ago
@jouc12 I'd say most people know that mutations can be detrimental. That's different to saying they are always detrimental. If you think they are always detrimental, then I'd like you to back up what you're saying or I'll just disregard it, as will most reasonable people.
MythicalManMoth 6 months ago 2
@MythicalManMoth Mutations aren't detrimental ALL the time. If you speed up an example and multiply it by a factor of 10 you have yourself the gram positive bacteria's resistance to fluoroquinolones (antibiotics). As has been demonstrated, tested, and proven, if the right mutation happens on the DNA gyrase gene that the antibiotics attack, then it will make DNA gyrase less susceptible to it and make the bacteria resistant. If enough mutations occur in a big enough population, good traits arise.
DamienZshadow 6 months ago
@DamienZshadow I agree Damien :)
MythicalManMoth 6 months ago
@MythicalManMoth Whoops, I replied to the wrong person! lol I guess I'll fix that. jeff8605 was the one who thought that mutations are determinatal to populations all the time???
DamienZshadow 6 months ago
@rekindling1 correction, satanist believe that the guy they worship, satan, exists
and I do good deeds cuz I feel good about myself an it makes others more friendly to me
TheAtheistTaco 7 months ago
Atheist Vader: I find your lack of evidence disturbing.
Lathox 7 months ago 46
@Lathox LOL
Atheist Vader: Does NOT find your lack of faith disturbing
jeff8605 6 months ago 34
@Lathox
"Luke, you are technically a monkey."
"NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, that is not true!!*jumps*"
realbojay 5 months ago
Perfect...just perfect. It really does feel like they would rather die than a god not exist.
Jeffersonwazright 7 months ago
Well i guess theres no point for doing good things for no reason, because in the end there is no reward for being good. Scientific evidence concludes that being evil pays off much better in this life, than it does the next....because there is no after life, right? There is no god to judge nor punish you in the end, right?...whats the difference between a satanist and an atheist - both are lacking in faith
rekindling1 7 months ago
@rekindling1 Atheists don't believe in the devil, also statistically speaking there are significantly less Atheists in prisons worldwide then any other religions, we also tend to have a higher morale code that we live by. In THIS LIFE (the one that matters) and in SOCIETY the social and self-perceived rewards and feelings one gets from being "good" are better then the benefits of being "bad"
And I put the quotes because if you think right and wrong are so cut-and-dry, you're an idiot
Headsetphobias 7 months ago
@rekindling1 also don't think that by me saying "then any other religion" that I meant to imply that Atheism is a religion.
by definition, it's not a religion, just a belief.
Headsetphobias 7 months ago
@rekindling1 Could you cite the scientific evidence that concludes evil pays off much better that not being evil? A satanist has faith that satan exists, since there is no evidence that satan exists--if there were, everyone would believe it. The atheist lacks faith in any god or gods.
BiffWhitebread13 7 months ago
@rekindling1 ...but you CAN'T be good per your own myth-set writings. Romans 3:10 says "no man is righteous" and Isaiah famously pointed out that "all our righteousness is like filthy rags." Perhaps you adhere to a different myth-set than the one based on the bible.
donfishmaster 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rekindling1 being good for "afterlife rewards" doesn't pay dividends according to the bible. so that argument goes out the window.
"Scientific evidence concludes that being evil pays off much better in this life, than it does the next....because there is no after life, right?"
nope.
WinterXL 7 months ago
lol
HenriFaust 7 months ago
There's no way you could miss this kind of enduring experience.
RESTLESSFLYCATCHER 7 months ago
Boy,you are mest up!? Your soul immerse in this temporal dimension through your feelings,and the way you intend to make a living.It's rationality or conscience.When you're death there's no conscience no brain activity to measure.You are quite fine for 40 day.Man tell you time flies like a fraction,the the real fun begins :D
RESTLESSFLYCATCHER 7 months ago
Flawless man. Just a perfect (-ly funny) picture of the inability to look at evidence I used to have. Top notch.
tbarghest 8 months ago
Would you agree that mice reproduce more fervently than say.. elephants but yet elephants evolve more rapidly than mice?
Would you agree that, had it not been observed, science would deny that a caterpillar can morph into a beautiful butterfly?
Both spiritualists and science only know that which they can experience. So let's all agree that unknowns can, do, and will exist. :)
MightyMessenger777 8 months ago
@MightyMessenger777 The mechanism of evolution is not reproduction, it's natural selection. I don't know if your elephant comment is true, but it's irrelevant.
"Would you agree that, had it not been observed, science would deny that a caterpillar can morph into a beautiful butterfly?"
Science is the application of reason to observations: data. We need data to create theories. Science does not say that things do not exist, except by process of elimination. Many insects metamorphose.
Antifides 8 months ago
@MightyMessenger777 So no, science would not say that metamorphosis was impossible, even without the observation of butterflies. Science would have us go observe.
"Both spiritualists and science only know that which they can experience."
But science can be shown to everyone.
I will happily agree there are things we do not know. If there weren't, we'd have no need for the natural sciences, which are dedicated to discovery. Science is the means by which we discover those unknowns.
Antifides 8 months ago
@Antifides Your only problem is the assumption that -when science cannot perceive a THING then that thing does not exist.. I submit that IT is really a matter of TIME. And science does, most certainly, agree that TIME does exist.. right?
MightyMessenger777 8 months ago
@MightyMessenger777 Oh, thanks for telling me what I assume. I was going along, making as few assumptions as a could and then bam, I find out that I've been assuming that when science cannot perceive a thing that the thing doesn't exist, despite my own statements contradicting that claim. I hate when that happens.
What's a matter of time?
Whether time exists is irrelevant.
Antifides 8 months ago
@Antifides But your favorites says all of what you are so i assumed the soul comment would light you up.
MightyMessenger777 8 months ago
@MightyMessenger777 "But your favorites says all of what you are"
There's not much to me, then.
"I hope your intelligence would be increased with time -would it not?"
It does not. Intelligence, measured by IQ, is steady over one's lifetime.
I don't know what it is I would need to know everything for. If we're talking about a god, then I don't need to know everything to dismiss that any more than you need to know everything to dismiss the idea that I have a leprechaun. Man-made stories, both.
Antifides 8 months ago
@Antifides Give me a quick synopsis of a dream you had.
MightyMessenger777 8 months ago
@Antifides Intelligence: the ability to think and learn; the ability to learn facts and skills and apply them, especially when this ability is highly developed. -only those who stay in their comfortable box would never increase in intelligence.
MightyMessenger777 8 months ago
@MightyMessenger777 As I already stated intelligence, as measured by IQ, stays at a constant throughout one's life. If you can't understand that, then you don't understand what intelligence is.
Antifides 8 months ago
@Antifides i gave you the definition of intelligence. You gave an erronious definition of IQ. IQ is an intelligence test score that is obtained by dividing mental age, which reflects the age-graded level of performance as derived from population norms, by chronological age and multiplying by 100:
MightyMessenger777 8 months ago
@MightyMessenger777 Wrong. IQ used to be determined as a function of mental age divided by physical age. That is not how it is determined any more.
IQ stands for intelligence quotient, which as you might imagine, is a quotient for your intelligence.
Or to put it in Wiki's words: "An intelligence quotient, or IQ, is a score derived from one of several different standardized tests designed to assess intelligence."
Intelligence. See it? Right there. ^
Antifides 8 months ago
@Antifides I hope your intelligence would be increased with time -would it not? or do you already proffer to know everything? If you proffer to know everything, then heck i may be wrong, i may have to place you right up front with the religious fanatics;
The religious fanatics know all they need to know, from the dead men of long ago.
The atheists, having seen the fanatics, put on one hell-of-a show!
I only ponder, before i guess, 'How can our live's be meaningful, if it's meaningless..'
MightyMessenger777 8 months ago
@Antifides So, you see. By these exchanges of basic text I proved that what you believe and what you want me to think you believe are not true. I on the other hand am true, i'm not ashamed of my beliefs not do I try and deceive anyone into thinking otherwise.
MightyMessenger777 8 months ago
@MightyMessenger777 So, are you actually going to respond to anything I said or just ramble inanely about your assumptions that you've formed out of nothingness?
Antifides 8 months ago
@Antifides ok, what are you asking me?
MightyMessenger777 8 months ago
@MightyMessenger777 Not everything was a question. I asked what is "a matter of time," which you stated quite loudly "IT" is.
I denied your assumption of what I assume.
I implied that I wanted evidence for your spurious claim that I have a soul, though I really don't expect any, because that would require that you had some.
I told you that I believe only things for which there is reason and evidence, and encouraged you to do the same.
Antifides 8 months ago
@Antifides you asked: "i want evidence for your spurious claim that i have a soul"
my answer: "I am my proof of a soul"
you said: "i believe only things for which there is reason and evidence"
I asked: "Give me a quick synopsis of a dream you had"
I have answered your question. Please answer mine. Thank you.
MightyMessenger777 8 months ago
@MightyMessenger777 my answer: "I am my proof of a soul"
No, no you aren't. This is not how evidence works. You are evidence of you.
I... what? Okay, I ran up a hill, there was someone else that I knew was there without ever seeing them, and then I jumped at a castle wall towards a scroll and then the dream shifted to a new scenario which involved inheriting a house with a very dangerous barn that led to another dimension.
What was the point of that?
Antifides 8 months ago
@Antifides ok. now prove your dream. it should be easy.
MightyMessenger777 8 months ago
@MightyMessenger777 What are you talking about? My dream is just the firing of synapses while I sleep. What am I to prove?
Antifides 8 months ago
@Antifides just that if you can't prove your dream then i must conclude that you are crazy and or lying as to ever dreaming at all.
MightyMessenger777 8 months ago
@MightyMessenger777 I see, you mean prove I had the dream. You should choose your words more accurately.
Why? Dreaming is a demonstrable phenomenon. Brain scans can show a brain in dream state. As far as we know, everyone dreams, so it's quite silly to assert I'm lying or crazy for claiming to have one. I mean, I could be lying, but why assume that?
Antifides 8 months ago
@MightyMessenger777 I was really rooting for you to turn this into, "well if I'm supposed to take your word that you dream, then you should take my word that I experience God."
The problem with that conclusion is that my dream is a purely mental phenomenon. If I fly unaided in a dream, it is not evidence that I can fly unaided. If you experience God, it's not evidence that God exists. It is evidence that your mind is capable of feeling sensations that you believe to be God.
Antifides 8 months ago
@Antifides I knew what you would think that's why i ask the question. Well now -you have the spirit.
If, when you die, you realize that indeed you have a soul and indeed GOD exists.. do you except it or do you wish it away?
MightyMessenger777 8 months ago
@MightyMessenger777 Of course I would accept evidence of my soul and of God should I discover it after my death. What part of "I accept evidence and reason" don't you understand?
If it's the God of the Bible, though, we would have words, strong, vitriolic words, because he's not someone I would have any interest in associating with, much less worshipping. He's irrational, jealous, genocidal, and all around quite unpleasant. Dawkins can give you a longer list of adjectives.
Antifides 8 months ago
@Antifides Fair enough and i agree, he also can't count, has a thirst for blood and sacrifices etc... The bible is just a compilation of books written long ago by those who tried to put into words their experiences and beliefs. Like anything else, we have to recognize those things that have value and throw away the b.s.
MightyMessenger777 8 months ago
@Antifides Oh sorry, you also asked "what is a matter of time"
my answer: "knowing."
MightyMessenger777 8 months ago
@MightyMessenger777 KNOWING WHAT?
Antifides 8 months ago
@Antifides lol knowing anything that you don't currently know. Just because science doesn't make a discovery today, doesn't mean that they may not make the discovery later... in time.
MightyMessenger777 8 months ago
@MightyMessenger777 That's what science does. What the hell? I said that already (I think that was with you). The natural sciences discover things. That's what they're for.
Antifides 8 months ago
@Antifides So, let's get to the meat of things. Does your soul exist?
And i won't keep arguing about intelligence since it encompasses alot. And then to mix a test called IQ into it well.. Consider, and let me quote "James Watson, the discoverer of DNA, has an IQ = 115. He claims that his successs is due to his persistence and curiosity." -things not measured in an IQ test.
MightyMessenger777 8 months ago
@MightyMessenger777 I don't see the relevance. You were talking about intelligence. Now you're talking about discovering things. If you don't think intelligence has relevance, fine, but then don't talk about intelligence.
IQ isn't a test, by the way. It's the results.
"Does your soul exist?" I have no reason to believe that it does and plenty of reason to think that it's made up.
Antifides 8 months ago
@Antifides I wasn't talking about intelligence, i made a statement in summary that ones intelligence increases with experience (which is normally time related) and you disagreed claiming that, appearently, a person when born and later at 35 will have the same intelligence.. i can't even begin to form thoughts on that one.. but like i said, no more about that.
I believe we have souls. So now what?
MightyMessenger777 8 months ago
@MightyMessenger777 Well, if you just believe it, you can do that. I will ask why, but you're free not to answer. If you want me or anyone else to believe it based on solid reasoning, you'll need to demonstrate it to be true.
Regarding intelligence, I was oversimplifying slightly. Intelligence probably does increase during brain development which occurs during childhood. Note that I said brain development, not experience. I wasn't including that period.
Experience gives you knowledge.
Antifides 8 months ago
@Antifides Besides a little boredom, my point in all this run-around is simply; spiritual experiences are, and always will be, personal. They will remian untestable to science, as i believe it is by design to be that way, but that will never make it untrue to the experiencer. We will all indeed make the discovery upon death. -Godspeed and LOVE!
MightyMessenger777 8 months ago
@MightyMessenger777 You do realize that if death is the end of experience, we won't be making any discoveries?
The problem with the experiences is that they are testable. Your brain can be analyzed while having a religious experience. In fact, a religious experience CAN BE STIMULATED in a lab by applying electricity to a part of the brain.
You can believe that they can ALSO come from some supernatural entity, but as you say, that can't be tested. The same is true of any phenomenon, though.
Antifides 8 months ago
@Antifides If at death there is nothing, then we won't be able to care. I'm ok with either outcome.
MightyMessenger777 8 months ago
@Antifides Okay, my friend says I have some of the details of that experiment wrong. The point is, the experiences can be stimulated in a lab, although I'm looking for the details now.
Antifides 8 months ago
@Antifides i'm sure at some point, if not already, all emotions and sensories will be capable of being simulated by artificial stimulation. But like most imitations, nothings like the real thing ;) The initial problems with detecting GOD would be; (1) which type of instrument to test with (2) if we consist within GOD, then how would you calibrate the chosen instrument.
MightyMessenger777 8 months ago
@Antifides Also, your time would prove most profitable to your soul if you would spend more time examining the box your in.. as it would effect your escape! -Godspeed.
MightyMessenger777 8 months ago
@MightyMessenger777 I have a soul? News, everyone, this guy says I have a soul! I'm sure he has plenty of reason to think I have a soul, and will be sharing it forthwith.
I like my box. The walls of the box only allow things which have been established by reason and evidence inside. You should try out my box. There's plenty of room in it for you.
Antifides 8 months ago
Every frigging time man! I also end cutting the bastard's hand :D
dcontard 8 months ago
This is really good stuff, but you should re-record the audio so you don't need subtitles to understand Vader half the time....
hyphonym 8 months ago
lol
HCMos 8 months ago
hey im a star wars fan and a creationist... this is funny stuff!!
good job!
MrDerby2u 9 months ago
@t4qesd1 well I suppose it's your opinion, but why on earth did you feel the need to share it? I don't see the connection with this video, and no explanation as to why you think homosexuality is wrong. What a queer statement.
MrDylaneric 9 months ago
Fucking hilarious. Goes right to the favorite list!
NorthForkFisherman 9 months ago
This is so f**** cool^^
gastarbeiter1 9 months ago
"Didn't your science teacher tell you about the scientific method?"
"He told me ENOUGH!" rofl.
Mswordx23 10 months ago 25
This has been flagged as spam show
It is important to understand that there is a BIG, BIG difference between religious belief systems and science. Science is a tool used to solve problems. Religious belief systems are stories you believe in. You don't believe in your hammer, you use it to solve problems. Likewise, you don't believe in evolutionary theory, rather; you use it to solve problems. What you DON'T do is "believe" or confuse science for "truth".
blaisingm 10 months ago
So good....
27 people got raped by a priest but liked it.
Caineheist 10 months ago 5
HAHA
DroolingThroughLife 10 months ago
hahahah godddddddddddddd damnit
xcircaxriderx 10 months ago
hahaha this video was damn funny.
TiCkToCkMaRiO1473 11 months ago
great video, although I don't aprove of the fact that science is represented by the freaking dark side.
LtBoot 11 months ago
@LtBoot From the creationist perspective it IS the dark side.
Daiblix 11 months ago
Woohoo Cleveland Jr. kicking some knowledge!
notfarfromhome 11 months ago
So excellent. Definitely favorited.
AnarchalPatriarch 11 months ago
that was great
RockCritic09 1 year ago
I've just watched this three times in a row; it gets funnier every time.
Every so often, I get Creationists spamming my channel and my inbox; think I'll just send them this in future, rather than bother to argue.
JCLeSinge 1 year ago
This is just frikkin hilarious; funniest thing I've seen in ages. I'm posting this on my Facebook page. Nice one.
JCLeSinge 1 year ago
Good job Luke.
vidfann 1 year ago
lol
iamchevyman5 1 year ago
Such pwnage. Hahaha!
This draws some interesting similarities to the original concept of the Jedi and Sith. I think it was George Lucas who said he got his ideas for making the Jedi from christians. Nice work! :D
DecepticonLeader 1 year ago 3
HE TOLD ME ENOUGH klassic
viking977 1 year ago
That was awesome, but the "god particle" was NOT aptly named! It was just another attempt of Christians to hijack science to try and ride its legitimacy!
TheLonelyImmortal 1 year ago
After a recent debate on Facebook, I am convinced that "creationist" could easily be replace by conspiracy theorist/ denialist.
qbrt 1 year ago
@qbrt uh, conspiracy theorists actually do rely on evidence, the smart ones at least.
UnluckyGambler 1 year ago
@UnluckyGambler right, and so do creationists...
qbrt 1 year ago
@qbrt no, creationists dont.
i dont think u know the definition of a conspiracy theory. do not make the mistake of equating conspiracy theorist with kook.
UnluckyGambler 1 year ago
@UnluckyGambler Please do enlighten me, so that we are on the same page, and then, if you will, provide me with a genuine conspiracy theory.
qbrt 1 year ago
@qbrt theory of evolution easily puts creationism out of the debate, creationists refuse to accept evidence.
9/11 truth movement relied on evidence, pushes for a real investigation of the event, falsifiable but has not yet been falsified. its a conspiracy theory, the same way that the official story that the towers were brought down by muslim terrorists is a conspiracy theory.
pretty obvious.
UnluckyGambler 1 year ago
@UnluckyGambler Right...so you want me to believe that a cabal of government officials organized, and executed an attack on American soil against their own citizenry, and then proceeded to either hide the evidence from the independent commission, or convince that same commission to risk their careers and reputation and falsify the results so that they agree with the "story," you want me to believe that...
qbrt 1 year ago
@UnluckyGambler ...instead of that a group of religious fanatics took advantage of gaps in our security to hijack some planes and fly them into the tallest buildings on the skyline, and two easily recognizable national buildings, like I saw on Television, and the 9/11 commission report states?
And you don't see how I could dare correlate that to creationists saying things like the Grand Canyon was caused by the receding of the flood waters in a matter of minutes...
qbrt 1 year ago
@UnluckyGambler ......instead of the millions of years that geology shows us it took for the Grand Canyon to be formed? Yeah, I'll stick by my original assessment of conspiracy theorists.
qbrt 1 year ago
@qbrt ignorance is bliss aint it. ive actually learned about the creationist arguments before i started mocking them. have u done the same about conspiracy theories? answer is obviously no, based on what u just said.
if u dismiss an idea before even taking the time to understand what it is, ur no better than creationists.
do u really think a hijacked plane could go off course and go unnoticed for over an hour in US airspace? especially near the pentagon, the most secure airspace in the world?
UnluckyGambler 1 year ago
@UnluckyGambler the fact that we both agree that it DID happen, shows that it COULD happen. Occam's razor says all things being equal the simplest answer is usually correct, so instead of just 9 men conspiring to hijack a plane, as most of us saw, you would have me believe that not only were gov't officials involved, but so were numerous air traffic controllers, and their managers? Your conspiracy is getting larger and more complex, and therefore a harder secret to keep...
qbrt 1 year ago