2) The idea behind Christ dying is that before he actually died he took on the sins of the world. It was the taking on the sins part that was important, not the death. He didn't 'take back' the ability to repent. He just 'rose again' which I would do if I were Him. Wouldn't you? ;)
3) Yin & Yang. If Christ made everything perfect, we couldn't appreciate anything (what doesn't kill me makes me stronger, if I clean my room I get icecream etc)
2) The idea behind Christ dying is that before he actually died he took on the sins of the world. It was the taking on the sins part that was important, not the death. He didn't 'take back' the ability to repent. He just 'rose again' which I would do if I were Him. Wouldn't you? ;)
3) Yin & Yang. If Christ made everything perfect, we couldn't appreciate anything (what doesn't kill me makes me stronger, if I clean my room I get icecream etc)
@KFoxKreations Regarding the christ dying thing: What does it mean to "take on the sins of the world" though? I mean, why can't God simply forgive us our trespasses, as we're supposed to forgive those who trespass against us? Why is a blood sacrifice necessary?
If one of your friends or family harmed or offended you in some way, would you want them to kill something before you forgave them?
@OccamKant To take on the sins of the world means to actually experience every single bad thing that people have done or will do. We are supposed to forgive everybody because we are all imperfect, and we don't have omnipotent knowledge. If someone ran over my cat I could judge them and hate them, but I didn't know they were having a heart attack at the time or something. Blood sacrifice was necessary because Christ needed to suffer all pains, death is part of that.
@KFoxKreations "Blood sacrifice was necessary because Christ needed to suffer all pains, death is part of that."
Didn't God set up all the rules? Why make it so that someone needs to suffer all pains? Why not just... you know... forgive? How is a scapegoat at all moral or workable?
@OccamKant God has to follow rules too. They aren't the same as ours (I think you have to be a God to qualify for his) but they are rules. Also, you have to repent first, then be forgiven. But if you killed someone on purpose, and then later you were truly sorry, do you think that would be enough? That's why Christ had to suffer for our sins, because there is no way we could fully atone for it. I mean, what is just in the case of murder? Only God knows. And Christ CHOSE to be the saviour.
@KFoxKreations Why would God have to follow rules? He created the universe didn't he? Who's rules is he following?
And why do you HAVE to 'repent' before being forgiven? Can't God just say "I forgive you"?
And as for killing someone - I would expect that if there was an afterlife, and I killed someone, I would have to make restitution to them somehow afterwards - like wash their angel-car for 1000 years or something.
The big question: Why do we need a savior from God?
@KFoxKreations where are the rules that god has 2 follow written? cause i would love 2 see them. and what happens if god breaks 1 or more of these rules?
@OccamKant that will probably be in the far, faaar future.
Re: Heaven- we have suffered on earth, therefore we have experienced the downside. Also, God feels sorrow/anger when his children sin, and he resides in heaven. It isn't just sitting around playing a harp. (Or if it is, I refuse to go)
Re: Adam and Eve- wouldn't what be perfect? Eden?
But where would it stop? If Christ fixed disease then people would be yelling for him to fix heartache, grief, death, etc. These are a part of life.
@KFoxKreations "If Christ fixed disease then people would be yelling for him to fix heartache, grief, death, etc. These are a part of life."
So, if these are part of life, shouldn't we stop trying to cure disease ourselves? And besides, he could have eliminated disease without us knowing - the disease could simply stop.
And if they were part of life, why did Christ cure any disease at all while he was here? It makes no sense that he'd cure some but not all, assuming he could.
@KFoxKreations "If Christ fixed disease then people would be yelling for him to fix heartache, grief, death, etc. These are a part of life."
To take an objective look at this, imagine how you would feel if you saw a fellow human doing something like this. Imagine a doctor going to a place that was full of disease and injury, and he had all the medical tools and knowledge to help everyone, but instead he helped 5 people and then just locked himself away in his castle.
The closest thing to a fundamentalist Atheist on youtube would have to be TJ, and he's more silly than anything else. Also it was Kirk Cameron you were thinking of.
The reason why fundamentalism in christianity, islam and so forth is a bad thing, is because what they are taking as literal and fundamentally arent true, and when you believe in things that arent true, then it's normally seen as a bad thing. So It's kind of a admission about the truth of religion taken to be literal. I disagree on the pregnant or not thing, because deism exists.
Actually, I agree with "you either believe in a god, or dont" but the way you phrased it, that it's either theism or atheism. I disagree with, because deism, is not atheism or theism. In fact deism is atheism, because it rejects the idea of theism, which is a god exist and he cares about you, can do miracles, created the world, etc. Deism is simply belief in a deity, its basically like atheism, neither can cause you to do good or evil. But theism can such as reject medicine for prayer
@jay666KJ "because it rejects the idea of theism, which is a god exist and he cares about you, can do miracles, created the world, etc. "
No - Theism is just the belief that a God exists. There are no specific attributes attached to that (caring, miracles, etc). Just existence. So Deism is still Theism. It's just not Christianity, Islam or any other recognized religion.
That's what you're probably thinking - it's not a religion. But it's still a belief.
I meant its atheism in the sense that you substitute deism for theism. And deism although it's a belief in the super natural, is a belief. While atheism is lack of belief. As for "There are no specific attributes attached to that" To my understanding that is deism. Which is why I am more inclined to let deist off the hook, as opposed to deist who believe in a personal deity, and adhere to a book that makes more claims other then it's personal.
I meant "as opposed to theist" they do believe in a god that cares about you, that is the main difference between theism and deism. Is that theism is subject to religion/dogma. Deism isnt, and it isn't because deism is simply "I believe in a diety, that's it." The reason why theism is subject to religion and dogma, is because it's the belief that not only does a god exist, but he cares about you, and is active within reality. At least that's what I think.
GREAT reply back....because that is something I kind of get pissed off about. Is that we don't spend more on time skeptism, and free thought. Although I can see why we focus more on atheism and theism. Free thought and skeptism does creep in though. Which is great. I don't know....but ya. Your totally right, I personally wish atheism meant non dogmatic, materialist....but it aint true and I hate it when some atheist or theist assert it.
@jay666KJ . "I disagree on the pregnant or not thing, because deism exists. "
Deism still works with my analogy -- if you are a deist, you believe in an actual God, just one that started things off and doesn't interfere. So you're still "pregnant". ;)
I think there is such a thing. Threating theism like a disease would be an example. Rejection of freedom of religion would another example. It's taking rejection of religion to its extreme, as if it was the only remotely rational and ethical position to hold.
Of course, that pretty much requires complete gnostic atheism which few are.
@Borror0 "I think there is such a thing. Threating theism like a disease would be an example."
Hmm. Well, Dawkins has argued that Theism is very much like a mind virus, or a mental illness, and there is a lot to be said for that. After all, the only thing differentiating "mainstream religion" from some "crackpot looney" is the number of followers. All religious beliefs are crazy when you look at them.
If you believe, regardless of evidence to the contrary, are you not sick?
Most religious people believe in a god which, by itself, isn't preposterous. I think most of us admit the possibility of some form of god to exist. The rest of beliefs just come attached, as most people won't question those beliefs once acquired because the foundation - belief in god - is solid.
@Borror0 "Most religious people believe in a god which, by itself, isn't preposterous."
I find it preposterous. There is no evidence at all for such an idea, no workable explanation of how it could be, and any time people try to talk about it, they end up contradicting themselves or falling into logical fallacies.
So I must disagree -- belief in the supernatural without evidence, in fact CONTRA evidence, is preposterous.
You are assuming people put a lot of thoughts into their belief in god, which is the direct opposite of what is happening. Most of them don't see the need to question it or defend it, because they feel there is a god. Period. I'm sure you've met tons of them: start questioning their faith and they retort that they don't want to talk about it.
If they did, each religions would lose a good number of followers as a result of long lists of self-contradictions.
@Borror0 "I'm sure you've met tons of them: start questioning their faith and they retort that they don't want to talk about it."
Yes, I have. And I would refer to those people as "autonomic theists" or "accidental theists". They haven't put any thought into it, and if you challenged them on it, they wouldn't really defend their belief and probably wouldn't even really try. They "believe" out of habit, or peer pressure, or social convention.
No, they ARE who you're targeting: if you are to declare that belief in the supernatural is like a mental illness, you have no choice but to include them.
If you don't, then you have to narrow your definition a little bit so only to include people like VFX, if that was your point. however, that would be a completely different position than the one you claimed to defend earlier when you said "belief in the supernatural without evidence [...] is preposterous."
@Borror0 "No, they ARE who you're targeting: if you are to declare that belief in the supernatural is like a mental illness, you have no choice but to include them."
Well, technically I said "belief without evidence, and in fact CONTRA evidence" - in other words, belief in the supernatural even when there is evidence to the contrary, is irrational.
Most believers are probably just lazy, just going with the flow. I don't think they REALLY believe it, so I wouldn't call them deluded.
Theists' belief in the existence of a god often is rational for as long as you define rational as "based on evidence." It's just based on facts that both you and i would consider evidences of the contrary. For many theists, this world makes more sense if there is a god based on their observation.
If you want to label, you could say that it's wishful thinking but that's about as far as you can really go.
@Borror0 as long as you define rational as "based on evidence."
Well, I know what you mean, but I disagree with your definition. Put "ignorance" there instead of "evidence" and I'll agree with you.
The universe is often used by creationists as "evidence" of God's creation, but in fact it's evidence of the opposite, and only stubborn ignorance would make one think otherwise.
If they were never introduced to the real facts, acting on their wrong facts could be considered rational, I guess.
@OccamKant, we both agree that creationists are irrational for dismissing facts for no logical reason so let's leave them out of the discussion. There's a lot more to theism than crazy extremists, and some of those theists' belief can labeled rational.
It can be ingrained in ignorance, as you put it in another comment, but it can be a mere a disagreement about the applicability of Occam's Razor.
@Borror0 "and some of those theists' belief can labeled rational."
These beliefs could only be labeled rational if the person holding the belief didn't have enough knowledge or education to see the problems with it.
In other words, it could only be considered a rational position if held by a fairly ignorant person, since rationality is coming to logical conclusions based on available info.
If you understood how things worked and *still* thought a God was involved, then you are irrational.
When I have to explain someone what theory is, I take a little bit different route. First of all I establish that scientific theories explain facts. Just like the theory of gravity explains the natural phenomenon of gravitation, the theory of evolution explains the natural phenomenon of evolution. In other words: the theory isn't there to prove whether or not evolution is true - that much we know for a fact, the theory is there to explain how evolution works.
Theism and gnosticism are belief versus knowledge. beliefs use almost anything as evidence the believer likes. Knowledge should require greater evidence.
I'm really diggin' your videos. Hope you keep it up.
SSJHEW 11 months ago
nice shirt man
tler 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1) I am extremely jealous of your camera quality
2) The idea behind Christ dying is that before he actually died he took on the sins of the world. It was the taking on the sins part that was important, not the death. He didn't 'take back' the ability to repent. He just 'rose again' which I would do if I were Him. Wouldn't you? ;)
3) Yin & Yang. If Christ made everything perfect, we couldn't appreciate anything (what doesn't kill me makes me stronger, if I clean my room I get icecream etc)
KFoxKreations 1 year ago
1) I am extremely jealous of your camera quality
2) The idea behind Christ dying is that before he actually died he took on the sins of the world. It was the taking on the sins part that was important, not the death. He didn't 'take back' the ability to repent. He just 'rose again' which I would do if I were Him. Wouldn't you? ;)
3) Yin & Yang. If Christ made everything perfect, we couldn't appreciate anything (what doesn't kill me makes me stronger, if I clean my room I get icecream etc)
KFoxKreations 1 year ago
@KFoxKreations Regarding the christ dying thing: What does it mean to "take on the sins of the world" though? I mean, why can't God simply forgive us our trespasses, as we're supposed to forgive those who trespass against us? Why is a blood sacrifice necessary?
If one of your friends or family harmed or offended you in some way, would you want them to kill something before you forgave them?
OccamKant 1 year ago
@OccamKant To take on the sins of the world means to actually experience every single bad thing that people have done or will do. We are supposed to forgive everybody because we are all imperfect, and we don't have omnipotent knowledge. If someone ran over my cat I could judge them and hate them, but I didn't know they were having a heart attack at the time or something. Blood sacrifice was necessary because Christ needed to suffer all pains, death is part of that.
KFoxKreations 1 year ago
@KFoxKreations "Blood sacrifice was necessary because Christ needed to suffer all pains, death is part of that."
Didn't God set up all the rules? Why make it so that someone needs to suffer all pains? Why not just... you know... forgive? How is a scapegoat at all moral or workable?
OccamKant 1 year ago
@OccamKant God has to follow rules too. They aren't the same as ours (I think you have to be a God to qualify for his) but they are rules. Also, you have to repent first, then be forgiven. But if you killed someone on purpose, and then later you were truly sorry, do you think that would be enough? That's why Christ had to suffer for our sins, because there is no way we could fully atone for it. I mean, what is just in the case of murder? Only God knows. And Christ CHOSE to be the saviour.
KFoxKreations 1 year ago
@KFoxKreations Why would God have to follow rules? He created the universe didn't he? Who's rules is he following?
And why do you HAVE to 'repent' before being forgiven? Can't God just say "I forgive you"?
And as for killing someone - I would expect that if there was an afterlife, and I killed someone, I would have to make restitution to them somehow afterwards - like wash their angel-car for 1000 years or something.
The big question: Why do we need a savior from God?
OccamKant 1 year ago
@OccamKant awh man! god has rules he has 2 follow! LMAO this person is obviously new at this whole god thing.
MrHead1972 1 year ago
@KFoxKreations where are the rules that god has 2 follow written? cause i would love 2 see them. and what happens if god breaks 1 or more of these rules?
MrHead1972 1 year ago
@KFoxKreations Regarding the camera: Thanks - one day I'm sure you'll have something far better. Probably in 3D too. :)
Regarding yin & yang: Isn't heaven, or the afterlife, supposed to be perfect? Does that mean we won't appreciate it?
Also - if Adam and Eve hadn't gotten themselves kicked out of Eden, would it be perfect now? Does that mean we wouldn't appreciate it?
Also also - removing disease wouldn't make things perfect, just a lot better.
OccamKant 1 year ago
@OccamKant that will probably be in the far, faaar future.
Re: Heaven- we have suffered on earth, therefore we have experienced the downside. Also, God feels sorrow/anger when his children sin, and he resides in heaven. It isn't just sitting around playing a harp. (Or if it is, I refuse to go)
Re: Adam and Eve- wouldn't what be perfect? Eden?
But where would it stop? If Christ fixed disease then people would be yelling for him to fix heartache, grief, death, etc. These are a part of life.
KFoxKreations 1 year ago
@KFoxKreations "If Christ fixed disease then people would be yelling for him to fix heartache, grief, death, etc. These are a part of life."
So, if these are part of life, shouldn't we stop trying to cure disease ourselves? And besides, he could have eliminated disease without us knowing - the disease could simply stop.
And if they were part of life, why did Christ cure any disease at all while he was here? It makes no sense that he'd cure some but not all, assuming he could.
OccamKant 1 year ago
@KFoxKreations "If Christ fixed disease then people would be yelling for him to fix heartache, grief, death, etc. These are a part of life."
To take an objective look at this, imagine how you would feel if you saw a fellow human doing something like this. Imagine a doctor going to a place that was full of disease and injury, and he had all the medical tools and knowledge to help everyone, but instead he helped 5 people and then just locked himself away in his castle.
What would you think?
OccamKant 1 year ago
Sweet, a new video? Tyvm Occam. =)
Vilemk0 1 year ago
The closest thing to a fundamentalist Atheist on youtube would have to be TJ, and he's more silly than anything else. Also it was Kirk Cameron you were thinking of.
arrogantgodjealous 1 year ago
The reason why fundamentalism in christianity, islam and so forth is a bad thing, is because what they are taking as literal and fundamentally arent true, and when you believe in things that arent true, then it's normally seen as a bad thing. So It's kind of a admission about the truth of religion taken to be literal. I disagree on the pregnant or not thing, because deism exists.
jay666KJ 1 year ago
@jay666KJ
Actually, I agree with "you either believe in a god, or dont" but the way you phrased it, that it's either theism or atheism. I disagree with, because deism, is not atheism or theism. In fact deism is atheism, because it rejects the idea of theism, which is a god exist and he cares about you, can do miracles, created the world, etc. Deism is simply belief in a deity, its basically like atheism, neither can cause you to do good or evil. But theism can such as reject medicine for prayer
jay666KJ 1 year ago
@jay666KJ "because it rejects the idea of theism, which is a god exist and he cares about you, can do miracles, created the world, etc. "
No - Theism is just the belief that a God exists. There are no specific attributes attached to that (caring, miracles, etc). Just existence. So Deism is still Theism. It's just not Christianity, Islam or any other recognized religion.
That's what you're probably thinking - it's not a religion. But it's still a belief.
OccamKant 1 year ago
@OccamKant
I meant its atheism in the sense that you substitute deism for theism. And deism although it's a belief in the super natural, is a belief. While atheism is lack of belief. As for "There are no specific attributes attached to that" To my understanding that is deism. Which is why I am more inclined to let deist off the hook, as opposed to deist who believe in a personal deity, and adhere to a book that makes more claims other then it's personal.
jay666KJ 1 year ago
@jay666KJ
I meant "as opposed to theist" they do believe in a god that cares about you, that is the main difference between theism and deism. Is that theism is subject to religion/dogma. Deism isnt, and it isn't because deism is simply "I believe in a diety, that's it." The reason why theism is subject to religion and dogma, is because it's the belief that not only does a god exist, but he cares about you, and is active within reality. At least that's what I think.
jay666KJ 1 year ago
@jay666KJ Well, I can probably summarize it like this:
Deism is theism, because it's a belief in a God, but there is no religion, no church, no dogma.
Christianity is thesim + dogma, and so is Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc.
So you can be a theist with or without dogma, but if you believe in God, you are a theist.
I will also say that it's the dogmatic beliefs that are dangerous, but it's the theistic backing that gives them punch.
OccamKant 1 year ago
@jay666KJ You can be a non-theistic dogmatic person -- if you adhere to some rules of living for example, or some crazy fad diet.
Basically, if you unthinkingly follow rules and procedures, and let certain statements guide your actions and even your thoughts, you are dogmatic.
If you think that your dogma is divinely inspired, then you are potentially dangerously dogmatic.
OccamKant 1 year ago
@OccamKant
GREAT reply back....because that is something I kind of get pissed off about. Is that we don't spend more on time skeptism, and free thought. Although I can see why we focus more on atheism and theism. Free thought and skeptism does creep in though. Which is great. I don't know....but ya. Your totally right, I personally wish atheism meant non dogmatic, materialist....but it aint true and I hate it when some atheist or theist assert it.
jay666KJ 1 year ago
@jay666KJ . "I disagree on the pregnant or not thing, because deism exists. "
Deism still works with my analogy -- if you are a deist, you believe in an actual God, just one that started things off and doesn't interfere. So you're still "pregnant". ;)
OccamKant 1 year ago
If Jesus did what you did, i might not be an atheist ... write stuff down!
Excellent video, .. i wondered where you'd got to. .. make more video's.
bonnie43uk 1 year ago
Atheist "fundamentalism":
I think there is such a thing. Threating theism like a disease would be an example. Rejection of freedom of religion would another example. It's taking rejection of religion to its extreme, as if it was the only remotely rational and ethical position to hold.
Of course, that pretty much requires complete gnostic atheism which few are.
Borror0 1 year ago
@Borror0 "I think there is such a thing. Threating theism like a disease would be an example."
Hmm. Well, Dawkins has argued that Theism is very much like a mind virus, or a mental illness, and there is a lot to be said for that. After all, the only thing differentiating "mainstream religion" from some "crackpot looney" is the number of followers. All religious beliefs are crazy when you look at them.
If you believe, regardless of evidence to the contrary, are you not sick?
OccamKant 1 year ago
@OccamKant
Most religious people believe in a god which, by itself, isn't preposterous. I think most of us admit the possibility of some form of god to exist. The rest of beliefs just come attached, as most people won't question those beliefs once acquired because the foundation - belief in god - is solid.
Borror0 1 year ago
@Borror0 "Most religious people believe in a god which, by itself, isn't preposterous."
I find it preposterous. There is no evidence at all for such an idea, no workable explanation of how it could be, and any time people try to talk about it, they end up contradicting themselves or falling into logical fallacies.
So I must disagree -- belief in the supernatural without evidence, in fact CONTRA evidence, is preposterous.
OccamKant 1 year ago
@OccamKant
You are assuming people put a lot of thoughts into their belief in god, which is the direct opposite of what is happening. Most of them don't see the need to question it or defend it, because they feel there is a god. Period. I'm sure you've met tons of them: start questioning their faith and they retort that they don't want to talk about it.
If they did, each religions would lose a good number of followers as a result of long lists of self-contradictions.
Borror0 1 year ago
@Borror0 "I'm sure you've met tons of them: start questioning their faith and they retort that they don't want to talk about it."
Yes, I have. And I would refer to those people as "autonomic theists" or "accidental theists". They haven't put any thought into it, and if you challenged them on it, they wouldn't really defend their belief and probably wouldn't even really try. They "believe" out of habit, or peer pressure, or social convention.
Not really who I'm targetting.
OccamKant 1 year ago
@OccamKant
No, they ARE who you're targeting: if you are to declare that belief in the supernatural is like a mental illness, you have no choice but to include them.
If you don't, then you have to narrow your definition a little bit so only to include people like VFX, if that was your point. however, that would be a completely different position than the one you claimed to defend earlier when you said "belief in the supernatural without evidence [...] is preposterous."
Borror0 1 year ago
@Borror0 "No, they ARE who you're targeting: if you are to declare that belief in the supernatural is like a mental illness, you have no choice but to include them."
Well, technically I said "belief without evidence, and in fact CONTRA evidence" - in other words, belief in the supernatural even when there is evidence to the contrary, is irrational.
Most believers are probably just lazy, just going with the flow. I don't think they REALLY believe it, so I wouldn't call them deluded.
OccamKant 1 year ago
@OccamKant
Theists' belief in the existence of a god often is rational for as long as you define rational as "based on evidence." It's just based on facts that both you and i would consider evidences of the contrary. For many theists, this world makes more sense if there is a god based on their observation.
If you want to label, you could say that it's wishful thinking but that's about as far as you can really go.
Borror0 1 year ago
@Borror0 as long as you define rational as "based on evidence."
Well, I know what you mean, but I disagree with your definition. Put "ignorance" there instead of "evidence" and I'll agree with you.
The universe is often used by creationists as "evidence" of God's creation, but in fact it's evidence of the opposite, and only stubborn ignorance would make one think otherwise.
If they were never introduced to the real facts, acting on their wrong facts could be considered rational, I guess.
OccamKant 1 year ago
@OccamKant, we both agree that creationists are irrational for dismissing facts for no logical reason so let's leave them out of the discussion. There's a lot more to theism than crazy extremists, and some of those theists' belief can labeled rational.
It can be ingrained in ignorance, as you put it in another comment, but it can be a mere a disagreement about the applicability of Occam's Razor.
Borror0 1 year ago
@Borror0 "and some of those theists' belief can labeled rational."
These beliefs could only be labeled rational if the person holding the belief didn't have enough knowledge or education to see the problems with it.
In other words, it could only be considered a rational position if held by a fairly ignorant person, since rationality is coming to logical conclusions based on available info.
If you understood how things worked and *still* thought a God was involved, then you are irrational.
OccamKant 1 year ago
When I have to explain someone what theory is, I take a little bit different route. First of all I establish that scientific theories explain facts. Just like the theory of gravity explains the natural phenomenon of gravitation, the theory of evolution explains the natural phenomenon of evolution. In other words: the theory isn't there to prove whether or not evolution is true - that much we know for a fact, the theory is there to explain how evolution works.
Kuba022 1 year ago
incredible video quality and background man.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan "incredible video quality and background man."
Thanks - it's with my 5D. I love how this camera looks. :)
I was also using my shotgun mic - this is my first outdoor test with it. I thought it sounded pretty good.
OccamKant 1 year ago
Theism and gnosticism are belief versus knowledge. beliefs use almost anything as evidence the believer likes. Knowledge should require greater evidence.
pakratmak 1 year ago
Where the hell have you been ! missed ya .Your well thought out non-ranting vids, always a pleasure.
pamor25 1 year ago