This video supports creation and a God. Was that his intent?
The idea that man apparently needs to believe in something like a God, tells you that we were created to need a higher power. That has nothing to do with 'evolution'. Because man misuses and distorts who God is, does not mean there is no God.
The scientific evidence we have on earth, supports only a God.
@MrDunsapy My dear lord Jesus! You have totally convinced me! I have now seen the light and will disregard sanity, reason, critical thinking and mountains of evidence and worship the one true God!
@mirex951 Thank you very much, but it seem you already have disregarded sanity, reason, critical thinking. ( I just meant that in fun)
But seriously, those 3 facts include the life we see. No one has seen or recorded or has evidence that these are not true.
Can you break anything I said? The scientists have given us lots of little bits of info, but where are the facts that life could start on its own or that 'evolution' actually is real?
@MrDunsapy Wrong, wrong and Wrong. Having a father figure projection, collectively, by a species that is in totality raised by parent figures for the whole first part of their lives, is pretty expectable. And our pattern seeking abilities, as well as our social order were formed incrementally by evolution. Humans come not from non humans, but from their parents, who are one more step in a huge evolutionary ladder. Evolution happens in generations and populations Sucka! And there is no Design : )
@ONESPECIES What I said here is that life comes from life, this is a fact. a human only comes from other humans, nothing else. And it is obvious that there is design in the life we see. Now scientists do not know what a species is. There are a least 24 interpretations, and here is one more. But as to design, if I ask you to build a cat (robot ) that does all the things a cat does? Do you think you would have to design it?
@ONESPECIES Well I don't advocate teaching creation in the schools. But 'evolution' is only an idea. So what ideas should the school system handle? Just anything that comes along? Would it not be better to only teach things that are proven? That are real. If nothing else the scientists should say they don't know how life started and we don't know why all the variety. That would at least be the honest approach. There’s nothing wrong with science.
@MrDunsapy Sorry, but for the millionth time, exactly what has been proven is being taught. For one thing, gravity theory and astronomy are less informed than Evolution in their respective fields, so why don't you question them? Abiogenesis is so far a valid hypothesis, and as such it is taught and not as fact. As for the heritable traits of all DNA based Creatures, and how that leads to biological diversity its all a theory that sums up the FACTS. And more facts are being gathered every day.
@ONESPECIES 'Evolution' is an interpretation of fossils found, for example. That is all it is. That is why I can say God created all life and variety, and the scientists do not have any evidence that I am incorrect.
But the 3 facts that I said show that creation is the only answer. That tells us the scientists are not following the evidence. They are following their own ideas, without evidence.
It is a con. That is why I call it The Greatest Snow Job on Earth.
@ONESPECIES Abiogenesis, really has no evidence at all. The scientists say they don't even have any good stories about that. The reason is , that because, a cell has to be complete before it can function. But to be complete, the problem is that proteins are needed in the production of RNA, but the RNA is needed in the production of the proteins. It is a catch 22 situation. So it is an impossibility. Besides this is just one thing, there many thing that prevent a cell as just being complete.
@MrDunsapy Ooo please, get educated on the issue, from the real books and sources. Reading Creation ministries and similar sources won't get you anywhere. You would learn more facts about Science by reading the back of a cloth detergent. For your car problems you don't ask the Church, you ask a mechanic. For Science don;t ask a preacher, ask a Scientists. So please rest your cause until you have something appreciable to talk about.
@MrDunsapy Sorry, but you don't seem to understand the evidence for evolution, probably because you don't really understand what evolution is.
The evidence for evolution exists in the form of fossils, that's true. it also exists in ecology, morphology, phylogeny, genetics, geography, and more.
That's why there isn't a single scientific paper today which is published contrary to evolution. It is an accepted scientific fact. That is, of course, what "theory" means.
@TaslemGuy " Sorry, but you don't seem to understand the evidence for evolution,"
I understand what the scientists say it is.But there is no evidence that over time one kind of animal becomes another. There is adaption,breeding,natural selection, and mutations. But none of these makes a new animal. That's there are no, almost humans or ex-humans. (the small changes) Any similarity in some animals can be explained by my, Patterns of Creation.
@MrDunsapy Define "new animal," please. We have observed multiple new species of organisms, although only a few are animals. Most are plants, fungi, or microbes.
Your site explains why there are systematic similarities within the DNA. It does not explain why there are systematic differences within the DNA exhibiting an evolutionary phylogeny. Why is that?
The real problem with this is that what exactly is a 'kind', and the scientist do not know what a species is. They have at least 2 dozen ideas on that. I think of a Liger. a Lion and Tiger. But the Liger can not reproduce. They are all cats. There is a barrier there, with there Liger. So cats are a 'kind' . They do not become dogs,over time. There also is a creation , of domestic life and wild life.
The real problem with this is that what exactly is a 'kind', and the scientist do not know what a species is. They have at least 2 dozen ideas on that. I think of a Liger. a Lion and Tiger. But the Liger can not reproduce. They are all cats. There is a barrier there, with there Liger. So cats are a 'kind' . They do not become dogs,over time. There also is a creation , of domestic life and wild life.
This interesting because there are similarities within the DNA. But they can be explained in my 'Patterns of Creation'. Where one life is created from another. That also includes, different 'kinds' of life. And the population histories as well. This would be efficiency of creation. How far could you go before it was more efficient to start an other line of creation.
This is not just my idea, the creator said he did this.
@TaslemGuy "Why can we generate genetic phylogenies"
But I will try this again. There does seem to be line of descent of family tree. This can also be explained in Patterns of Creation. This is the idea of a creator, using one life, and creating other life from that. So in time you would have a family tree. This along with intelligent breeding, produces genetic phylogenies. The record also shows that there is not one common descent , but many lines of descent
@kleenex3000 the scientific hypothesis of 'evolution' is based on assumptions. Not on actually science. If you are going to create millions of animals, you would do this in an orderly way. So you would build from previous life. in my Patterns of Creation found here patternsofcreation.weebly.com
The idea that God created Eve from Adam not just DNA but also from actually materials. This would retain any histories of previous populations.
@MrDunsapy@ONESPECIES As far as Abiogenesis goes, this might be what you guys are looking for. I don't know what 3 facts you have stated, and I honestly don't care. I have spent way too much time debating people over factual things like science to actually enter into debate. This is a video explaining abiogenesis, and may explain evolution before our working definition of life.
3:30 "the salesman for religion depict faith as static so that all people work for them, while they offer the same poor answers, and challenged by any new prophet that may have a better idea than them." So religion serves as a helper for mental changes for a society over time? eh ok I'd be interested in seeing that on a graph of some kind (showing adaptive/positive changes over time).
5:28 "Your religion is protected by secularism" Like a yin-yang balance? Provide examples please.
@LampPlaceThing Religion was not always monolithic oppressive and backward. In prehistoric times, Religion was the collection of knowledge and myths of a tribe. It was an evolving body of "knowledge". It would normally lead to Science and social freedom. But monotheism and other state endorsed organized religions in the later empires, froze the progress of the "dogma" at one point in time that was convenient for sociopaths. Then they enforce the dead, fixed unchangeable Dogma.
2:06 "While no god in the mind of a respectable person, require any evidence at all." Is it good to have evidence in a serious discussion about ancient history? Many non-scholorly people doubt the historicity of Jesus, and you want Christians to ignore their calling to educate with EVIDENCE of Jesus?!
Perhaps he is referring to a new-age type of religion which sees "evidence" as unimportant for convincing others. It would be a more self-fullfiling "spirituality" (keep it to yourself).
@LampPlaceThing You misunderstand the whole concept. The concept is that there is freedom of Religion, under secularism, thus, I care not what one believes, I care how one integrates in society, how ones treats one's fellow humans and what one offers to the society. If one believes in a God I consider inexistent, yet behaves like an admirable or respectable human, I have no reason to occupy my mind with the nature and nonexistence of ones "God". That all changes for a dysfunctional person.
@ONESPECIESWith You clarify that "...I care how one integrates in society" Should this "person" have the ability to consider YHWH(God) will, at a political Governmental lvl, and considering this "person" is considering the Christian demographic in the country?
I know you don't care if politicians or what not, are theists, but you do care if they use those beliefs in governing choices right?
P.S. I shudder at the notion "SHARIA LAW" but it's too many Christians for that
@LampPlaceThing Secular is the key word here. Whoever can believe whatever, as long as their contribution is positive and their activity can stand within secularism. The blame game starts when there is something serious someone has to be blamed for.
@onespecies Religion occurs to me as a phase that humanity had to go through, like a child goes through a phase of telling tall tales and having naive theories. But we're stuck in this phase because people made up religion in a way that reflects dualistic thinking and absolutism-right/wrong, us/them, etc. They made it wrong to question and think. They painted us all into a ridiculous corner and it's self perpetuating.
@beautyinbreakdowns2 Exactly, and with all the competing self perpetuating narratives, people loose a great deal of their life, their livelihood and experiences. And then the whole species is set back. But we need to be patient. Its only been a couple of centuries of proper Science. It gets better.
@onespecies@baileybeads Religion is just us, thinking part of ourselves -consciousness- is actually something external and calling it god. Then we try to complement it with themes and fables. Now it's in the way of real understanding that comes from science, because science came later. Overcoming this default delusion of humanity is a kind of mental evolution that's no less important the the biological kind.
@onespecies @baileybeads. Great video, great discussion. I agree esp. about the profit motives etc. As far as why we have religions, I think it's people experiencing their own consciousness -which really cant be explained or defined- and then thinking it's something external, like we default into duality. Then we thematize it and call it god. Then we make up fables to show superiority of our made up god to others-more duality.
I do NOT believe that most apologists are doing it solely for the purpose of money. Yes, it is their a livelihood but it is theology and belief which are the primary drivers. I'm sure you know that if evolution is true, creationists and many apologists (with their literal interpretations of scripture) won't be able to explain how "sin" arrived in the first place. Therefore, undermining Jesus' death and resurrection. That in turn renders their brand of Christianity or Islam totally irrelevant.
@LameCrippled I have met Theologians, believers, Priests and others that do what they do out of "real" faith, and they all present some uniform characteristics: They do not collect money for their own functions, they do not raise controversial but empty issues like Anti-Science, and they do not align themselves with a conservative pro-rich anti-poor policy. The fuckers in this video, defend the lies as well as their Theology because its their money machine.Honesty like cough, can not be hidden.
@BaileysBeads Technically, evolution doesn't refute god, only the god of the bible and the creation myth. If someone wants to believe in a god of all things, a god that created the universe and the laws of physics, they can believe in both god and evolution. I don't think there's a contradiction there.
@cutes22 There is, evolution shows us what it takes for an organism to have certain properties. Throughout the history of the universe it's always simplicity going towards complexity. Something sentient that creates the universe and governs it has complex properties that beg an explanation which can only be attributed to evolution.
Or are you saying this 'god' isn't sentient and didn't create the universe on purpose? You can just call that the big bang, no need to play semantics with that.
@BaileysBeads can you elaborate on this?...I'm an athiest, but I've never found evolution (science) a philosophical (religion) question...my athiesm has nothing to do my acceptance of evolution...if you don't want to elaborate, no worries, just found your statement worthy of discussion...
@drfitnessnow Even before evolution was discovered the idea of a god starting everything was deemed problematic, if everything required a creator at the start, then so would the creator need it, which would cause an infinite regression of creators. So the origin and diversity of life was pretty mysterious, but not a free-pass for god just yet. The Greeks already came pretty close to understanding evolution, but never made that leap.
@BaileysBeads You got a good point in this comment. But your previous one, despite its merit is rendered unrealistic by reality itself. The biggest group of people accepting Evolution is the Christians that accept Evolution. Even just before I became an Atheist, at about 9, I knew about Evolution and about Christianity. I understand what you mean. A literal Bible's God is proven inexistent. However you yourself said that started before Evolution. I let them sort out their own theology.
@ONESPECIES That was my initial point, if they believe they can have their god alongside evolution, then they don't fully grasp what evolution means, they way it explains nature, the way it is used to reveal the true source of whatever feature an organism may have, the way life shaped throughout time.
Evolution is a blind process, it's a fundamental principle and the moment you say it's a guided process, like the Christians do, evolution will turn into a meaningless word.
@BaileysBeads I agree, but still I see it in a different way too. The correct definition of Evolution is only one. People can either accept it or deny it. But there is no correct definition of Jesus or Allah. Organized Religions likes to portray their "Gods" as certain fixed personalities that their followers perceive uniformly.That is quite untrue. There are as many Jesus and Allah's as there are followers. To most, these are inspirational stories that vary but Evolution is a stable fact.
@ONESPECIES Okay I can see that, but for many people there's an overlap in what is explained by evolution and what is explained by religion. And where it overlaps it's often religion that takes presedence.
The problem many believers refuse to recognise is that evolution leaves little (or simply nothing) to explain for religion. They think it's a story of how reptiles evolved into mammals and that it was all a plan to make us. The theory itself is so much more than that.
@BaileysBeads Yes, I agree. If one does not really immerse oneself deep in the understanding of Evolution, one misses all the philosophical connotations, the deeper understanding of the nature of the world, and all the inspiration and ideas that come from it. Like the outstanding PhilHellenes points out, if you don't leave the God of Abraham behind, you miss all the beauty of the Universe. But that is outside the "fact" zone, so lets say for now I am happy when people do not become anti-science.
@ONESPECIES That's one of Richard Dawkins biggest dilemmas. Go with a watered down theory of evolution or don't compromise on the science and alienate believers. That's what I appreciate about creationists, they understand that evolution excludes their belief so they try to fight the science on it. That's more honest than saying it's compatible.
Still, if it gets parents to expose their kids to it, I hope the kids will figure it out and it will eventually erode the beliefs they grew up in.
@BaileysBeads Do not be so sure about erosion. Child abuse in its meaning as held by my country's society includes what Creationists do. Parents here are so sure they absolutely love their children, and so uncertain of their belief in God, that they never put belief above children. But the Creationists are masters of the art of destroying a young mind, irreversibly forever in most cases. Evolution is fact, can not be watered down. It should be just separate from the belief realm. Like all facts.
@BaileysBeads but what if someone believes in a god that they believe is the one that is responsible for evolution ever having occurred?...Even Pope John Paul II, a very astute science man himself, believed in evolution and big bang cosmology, and felt that god 'ensouled' modern man...obviously he didn't take Genesis literally...so I guess I'm still wondering why you feel the two are completely incompatible...
@drfitnessnow Then they've taken away one of the fundamental principles of evolution, that it is a blind process.
This theory can explain why all our bodily functions, including our conciousness, are the way they are. Yet they place a concious agent in front of all that. How did this god came to be? Conventional Christian doctrine says he's eternal. If you believe something with such an evolutionary trait is eternal, then you've clearly missed the clue.
@BaileysBeads ok...but if I throw some dice, I'm the causal agent, but how the dice land is not my decision and I can't make it be what I want...so maybe god did something similar with the universe?...I don't believe that, but it is possibility, while not probable...yes, I'm am, and pardon the pun, playing the devil's advocate..
@drfitnessnow That would leave more of the theory intact, but still not quite.
Before Darwin there was a tremendous problem with requiring a higher intelligence to create life. Intelligence had to 'just exist' for an eternity, or it had to be made by a higher intelligence. All religions conveniently ommit this problem or skip over it. But it's still there.
Simplicity needs less explanation than complexity. Evolution SOLVES this by demonstrating how complexity can arise from simplicity.
religious belief can coexist with science because religion is faith and science is evidence. they belong to two different group of thinking. one is logical rationalization and the other the imagination of the unseen.
@ONESPECIES I think I might have been misunderstood. I thought that the phrasing was hilarious, I 'liked' the video as soon as I heard it. It just sounded so hippy and awesome!
@Dqowreorn No I did not want to sound like that. Just offered my reason behind the phrase in a condensed form. I am glad you liked the phrasing! I think Danaroth may have gotten you wrong though. :P
@Dqowreorn What else can I say with all of this mythology, religion, comics, epics, Hollywood blockbusters? People obviously need to absorb or release some purely unreal stuff. The problem is some of the ways to do that are poisonous.
Kenneth miller is an evolutionist and a cell biologist, yeah he is a roman catholic, but he dose not go along with the traditinal creationist theology. T.Dobsansky, the one who said "nothing in biology makes sence without evolution" he was a methodist, he also did not go along with the traditinal creationist theology and he did not go along with orgonized religion
@pbrskater26 True true. And Organized Religion in many occasions has accepted mainstream Science. They themselves have quit the Creationist story in many cases. My country for one was never Creationist after Science doubted the Creation story for the first time, because our older and more sensible creation myths that predated the Bible, made the believers take the Bible metaphorically on most of its "Scientific" claims by default.
This is certainly a new way to think about things. This is a reasonable and well thought out theory, and I might adopt this and think on it a bit more myself. It actually makes sense, and I feel foolish for not thinking about this already. lol
Ty for bringing this up, this is actually very insightful imo.
@squareatheist Ah.. Ethics. Well, thats the Problem Religion took up on its shoulders and then failed at it repetitively ... It is a social problem as well one related to Science. However I think that Science as a form of reasonable thinking, should be able to extrapolate the amount of responsibility it's role comes with, and thus have an indeed scientific ethic standard on where to draw the line.
@squareatheist Well why are we so subjective? Science can be bad even when people do not want to. For instance there would be no mass exterminations of people without modern weapons, which are modern Science. Why do we have to impale only the values of others, and never scrutinize our own? Yes Religion is faulty, but it can not Blow up the Earth. Only Science can do that. I hope you know what I mean and not slay me.
Sorry but I have to once again chime .. with all due respect to you (I can see that u r a reasonable person)
What me (and probably squareatheist) meant to say about religion is that there are definitely 3 very pwerfully disruptive religions among many relatively peaceful ones, and those are the 3 religions we have to minimise its influence if we are really serious about striving to achieve human peace and cohesiveness..
And u r right, there are departments of science which have developed in a non-desirable direction for example nuclear weapons.. To be fair, just like we should not eradicate all religions becos of 3 undesirable ones, similarly, we cannot stop all scientific departments but should instead focus on destroying nuclear heads.
The US (except dissident nations) have progressively destroyed nuclear heads for many yrs.. So not all religions shld be dealt with, just the problematic ones..
@kkdkk7 True. Of course I did not mention negative Science feats to discredit Science. That is impossible. What I mean is, Science gets the facts right but it can still cause pain, Religion gets the facts Wrong and it still can cause pain. It seems that the common factor among them is human weaknesses, and not Science or Religion it self. OF course Science has demonstrably useful fruits. But that does not change the fact that both in Religion and Science the nasty bits are human weakness.
Science is not a dogmatic ideology, science has a willingness to examine and re-examine itself ..
Not so for most religions , especially the 3 that I mentioned. I am totally ok with most religions, but not the 3 currently dominating politics and the new headlines ..
Pls try to avoid overgeneralising in your comparisons ..
Furthermore, to say that religions cannot blow up the earth is taking the current situations too lightly ..
This is my take on the recent developments on Al Qaeda.
Pakistan is a nation with a lot of supporters and sympathisers for the Islamic terrorist networks. The recent expose of Bin Laden's secret hiding place in the heart of Pakistan has raised alarms in the US , Pakistan IS A NUCLEAR ARMED NATION .
Do u see the danger of the influence of Islam, its writings ?
@kkdkk7 The way I see it, Science can destroy the world but does want to, and fanatics want to destroy the world but can't. So although I see the problems with radical Islam (and how could I not see them) I also see a less obvious truth.... That a fanatic without the help of Science can not be really dangerous to anyone. So at some point we should be really discussing why the fuck so much Science goes into death machines and so few on educating the ones left behind.
Lets be clear, like what sqareatheist said , ethics and science are related but separate topics. You do not seem to articulate in a clear and precise manner which topic u r addressing ..
U see, saying "Science can destroy the world" is overgeneralising. Science covers such a broad spectrum such as astronomy, physics, chemistry etc .. can the study on astronomy actually destroy the world ?
Thats why I said pls do not over generalise, be precise .. which departments of science?
I am also not condemning all religions like I said I find Buddhism mostly quite peaceful and harmless.
I'm here to suggest that with regards to PRECISELY 3 disruptive and harmful religions (Islam/Judaism/Christianity), the very intrinsic writings which defines these 3 religions are dangerous to a multi-cultural diverse human society.
I am saying that we can't cover up the destructive dangers they pose by saying some parts of the writings and some followers r nice ..
@kkdkk7 True. But a) we have to understand what we deal with here instead of just opposing. All things have a key to them, if you know it, you can make them work for you. Thats what Science achieves everyday. b) The Abrahamic believers are just a dinosaur with a huge splinter stuck in its paw. The followers as a majority are the victims of a doctrine not the ones benefiting. Of course their leadership is the one that profits. So we need to act according to this observation.
I am saying that parts of your video seem to send across the message that the Judeo religions themselves are good religions, its the followers who are wayward ..
I am not in support of this message of yours ..
The religions are defined by each their own religious writings, if the writings contains incitations which are inhumane and destructive, from the point of view of wanting to have a harmonious and cohesive society , these 3 religions itself r bad .
@kkdkk7 In my country the writings mostly catch dust on the shelf. The belief of the people is just a social and psychological function, and the participants shape it's most crucial aspects. So what the Abrahamic dogmas say can be very far from what people experience. Its like Gospel Music. Who could ever expect such sound come from a death cult? Greeks are blaspheming Jesus every time the get angry at something. People can not jump straight to atheism. first they need to take control of dogma.
I can only say that you are oblivious to the mighty power of words written down.
Whether quoting ambiguous verses in or out of context, there is just no hiding the fact that the negative influences are prevalent throughout the history of human conflicts .. a piece of writing takes on a life of its own, its ambiguity takes on a life of its own in many shapes and forms, its doctrinal nature takes on a life of its own - is it still a good thing to be held up as a moral code?
@kkdkk7 No scripture is not positive,I agree with you,but then I do not say that do I?What I am saying is that people will be drawn to inspirational stories and characters naturally.Religious indoctrinators will be there to profit. The key is for people to understand that the function of figures used by religion is that they were progressive in their time and not to be worshiped and untouchable.The point is that as time progresses so should the inspirational stories. Just like before monotheism.
@kkdkk7 Well,i did not think that was the issue.I think that is a very defensible statement.Jesus was a socialist in a time of Empires, and Muhammad preached dogma that held all races equal at a peak time of slavery. Those lads did not care for the previous scripture.They were progressive for the time and place, NOT NOW. The priest-class that followed, uses these captivating characters to indoctrinate people but does not allow them to become captivating characters themselves which is the point.
So many things Jesus and Mohammed "did" or are written to have done are so questionable from the standpoint of our modern society, I would hardly describe them as being progressive ..
Perhaps you can look up The Atheist Experience episode of how Matt Dilahunty tore down Jesus's perceived good image .. u may not agree with what he said, but at least u can watch it to think further about your previous impression of these religions ..
@kkdkk7 I answered to the previous one check it.However on this you miss the point.You can not expect apes to send rockets to space.Its all evolving right?Jesus added a few useful changes in the local society of his time.Muhammad did too.And of course there is no reason they would still be progressive.For them to be progressive still we would have to be bronze age people.But the moral of the story is that "prophets" should be celebrated for their renegade actions not for their timelessnesss
Pls go ahead and think that Jesus is such a great guy , I certainly don't .. I would sooner listen to what Einstein says, or watch a few videos on the Atheist Experience than read on the sayings of Jesus .. sorry thats just me , I get my inspirations from others sources ..
Anyway, why am I even arguing over a character whose attributes are possibly manmade embellishments ? I'm not even sure if he existed .. but I am not interested in that, the experts have done their jobs..
@kkdkk7 You let your passion get the best of you. No one said Jesus is a Great Guy. At least not now. Why do you have this problem reading what you already want to read? Besides, how the hell did humans come all the way here? We had a better version of everything every time. Jesus and Muhammad were the version of social revolutionary that existed when camels and horse where the only known means of transport. They were not evil. Their "priests" are and the false scripture they sell.
You may find me insulting and even ironic especially considering we are both in the same boat in agreeing that evolution is very much more acceptable than creationism .. at least for the time being ..
I guess there is a critical and important difference between you and my way of thinking and that difference can lies in the fact that I disagree with 3:12 of your video ..
I am just appalled at pple's blindness towards the written words of incitations which are held up as divine ..
As an analogy, when a surgeon is faced with a patient whose bloodstream in the leg has already been poisoned and is spreading .. the surgeon would be wise to suggest amputation of the working limb, altho its a working limb .. for it is impossible to separate the poisoned blood stream from the flesh of the leg ..
for when the poison weaves through the limb into the heart, it will be deadly ..
@kkdkk7 Valuable an analogy though it may be, this leg is gonna fight back its amputation. Cause basically its not a leg, its a part of every organ. You say we chop it, I say cool, but a) it never happened successfully at once b) There is gonna be messy reaction all over. So I see more potential in simply modernizing religion, "cleaning the blood of the leg" which has happened before with success and causes far less adverse reactions. Because this "leg" has been preached not to allow to be cut.
Of course in my analogy I am talking about a critical juncture whereby the poison is coursing through the blood stream rapidly - would you risk the patient's life for the sake of preserving a poisoned leg ?
Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, Pakistan is a nuclear ready country, everytime the religion is remotely satired , its followers starts chanting violent jihad .. The 3 most politically powerful religions in the world r often at loggerheads with each other..
@kkdkk7 As I told you, I am Greek. My very recent ancestors had to butcher whole armies of Muslim soldiers to live. And I told you we can do it again. If anyone comes here to rule my country and snatch my free speech, he goes 6 feet under. However you misrepresent the situation.The poison is not yet compromising the leg. There is still time for peaceful negotiation with all sides.Pakistan owns nuke's, so they feel safe. No one is blowing no one. Preemtive is not my style,until force is initiated
My take is simply that the rest of the world cannot simply sit by and let the conflicts take their course .. Someone has to engineer a way to lessen the influence of these 3 dogmatic ideologies .. am I going to listen to you when u say that these religions are ok ?
Should I turn a blind eye to the fact that certain disruptive verses r repeated more frequently than the "nicer" verses ?
Maybe someday when 90% of the world is Muslim-controlled would pple wake up .. too late.
How do we lessen the influence of these 3 religions ?
Discrediting creationism , discrediting the validity and histrocity of the stories , injecting into the current and next generation with an empahsis on non-religion based sense of kindness, love and mutual acceptance , emphasize the importance of scientific education and methodology ..
@kkdkk7 Yes exactly. But I would say, even further. Science is the answer. Religion has almost died out in many countries, and in others people are clearly not willing to cause even a nose bleed for Religion. Understanding what has gone well in those cases, documenting it and analyzing it, and then trying to adapt it for the remainder of the countries or regions is crucial. The first thing religion does is build its own defense mechanism in the mind of the believer. Its good to dodge it.
We are in agreements in how to lessen the influence of religion, by exposing the myths as unfounded on reality .. but I would not reverse the train of this effort by saying that these religions are intrinsically good religions if going by their dogmatic writings - to me its self-defeating the aforementioned efforts we put in ..
@kkdkk7 \well actually I am not making that statement though. What I am saying is that liking Elvis does not mean one should like the Elvis impersonator or the elvis t-shirt salesman. What i am saying is, one can find Jesus or Muhammad attractive personalities, but that should in no way mean that one should also obey the same rules and teachings as then. Rather try to be progressive now, as those men might have been progressive then, and went against the teachings of their time.
If u r going to go down the road of admiring some of Jesus's sayings, and if u r going to implore other pple to join u in doing so .. perhaps u should think twice, becos the pple who joins u in your Jesus admiration will be obsessed with certain ambiguous writings such as when Jesus said "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" ..
You might not take that writing too seriously but u cannot stop others from having their own violent interpretations of it ..
Thats why I say that it is the ambiguity of the so-called divine writings that are dangerous, becos it can take up many forms and shapes, and no one has any authority to stop others from acting violently on the ambiguous incitations ..
Thats why i say, stop joining the chorus of political correctness of pronouncing the 3 religions as intrinsically good - blare out the wake up call that these 3 are intrinsically ambiguous and dangerous ..
I don't know if Jesus or Mohammed are correct or divine or good , but I am sure that everything associated with them are dangerous to our harmonious relationships ..
Why do I have to repeat my points over and over again just becos you r not reading my comments ?
I said that once u open the flood gate of Jesus admiration and Mohammed admiration, u cannot stop their ambiguous writings from being violently interpreted .. becos those ambiguity can take any form and shape ..
I also said that once u accept the nice writings, the religions' dogmatic mechanism will draw pple into accepting those ambiguous questionable writings as well.
Thats what I meant by the poisonous blood coursing through the veins among the flesh .. u can't separate them simply because the system ensures they are inseparable ..
Should I also repeat my point that since the same kind of "good" teachings can be found in other literatures , why should we feel there is any necessity to tie ourselves down to these particular problematic characters (Jesus/Mohammed) ?
@kkdkk7 No you do not need to repeat that. But as I said there are examples of Religion being modernized and claimed back by its people. We know at least one way is that way, with proof. Even Buddhism was not that okay just 150 years ago. I wish there was a magic button, making all dogma vanish. However it is a rather complicated process. And in that process I believe untangling believers form the claws of the Priesthood comes earlier than having no believers at all.
@kkdkk7 Oh, now this is ridiculous. Have we reached the point where I have to go through blasphemy challenge initiation to prove I am an Atheist? Jeez... Look I will end this discussion by saying this.... I find fast cars and popular sports completely idiotic and irrational. People get killed, there are hooligans and there is no serious gain to civilization. But that does not mean I have the right to eliminate it! Thats fascist. All I have the right to do, is demand my rights.Same with Religion!
I did not suggest we eradicale the 3 religions in one fell swoop, its impossible to do so.. What I said was to minimise their influence by educating pple turning them away from unscientific thinking ..
I am merely suggesting that a part of yr video seems to send the self-defeating message that these 3 religions r intrinsically good .. which if u r to take into account all the dangerous ambiguity in their "unchanging" writings is quite obviously the contrary , not good at all ..
When communism did not work in the eastern bloc, pple stood up to end it, is the act of overturning communism a fascist act in yr eyes ?
We r simply pointing out the dangers in certain belief systems and we seek to minimise its influence for the sake of a harmonious, kinder society .. the problem with these 3 religions is that u cannot separate the "nice" writings from the "dangerous ambiguous" writings becos the bibles is a whole ..
.. think, for many centuries Islam/Christianity have always been split into the fundamentalist side and the moderate side ..
The moderate side have always tried to influence the fundamentalists to "modernise" and not focus on the violent verses, its not like what u suggested is anything entirely new, its been tried unsuccessfully over many hundreds of years ..
Me and a group of others represent a new voice, to blare a wake up call to pple like u who r oblivious to the situations.
@kkdkk7 It is exactly for that reason that we do not become ourselves behaving like Christians and Muslims then, and persecute people for their beliefs. Thats why we have law. You and others and the new voice represent those who like to forget that threats to our freedom come from everywhere and everywhen, so you spend your energy all in one place.
Well, I am afraid yr use of the term persecute is rather loose don't u think ? In a free debate, when one party is criticised , is it the equivalent of being persecuted ?
You r begining to sound like the pple who argues for creationism and I am pretty disappointed , there was a short message that I pointed out as flawed argument in yr video, but the long exchange I am having with u have revealed a lot more arguments which r ironically typical of how creationists argues .. sigh ..
@kkdkk7 And I am afraid you feel the need to call people names so that they feel shame and agree with you. Well it does not work on me. Religious is Dangerous when it is abused. When it is not abused I could not care less what they do with their mind. Its their business. Thats what I got. Take it or leave it.
Call you names ? I am confused , when did I call u bad names ?
You said " Religions is Dangerous when it is abused. When it is not abused I could not care less .."
(well, to this I'll just say its too general an observation to be of any use, everything is dangerous when abused, not just religions .. u shld ask "which aspect of that religion makes it more prone to abuse)
I say, Certain Religions WITH AMBIGUOUS POTENTIALLY INFLAMMATORY TEXTS are dangersou, but not all ..
@kkdkk7 -- baby steps. first you must work to curb the most dangerous/explosive limb of the problem, and then make your way to the more benign sections. if you cut off the striking head of the snake, eventually the remainder will wither and die on its own.
Well if u think that Christianity/Islam/Judaism (with all their ambiguous writings) are inherently good religions, and u have no wish to re-examine yr opinion - I have no further words for you for I have tried my best to make u see ..
I'm off to catch videos of "non-stamp collector", DarkMatter, Atheist Experience, and some Christian videos which I've always avail myself to listen to the other side (contrary to what u said that I do not try to know these religions) .. bye
@kkdkk7 It is exactly for that reason that we do not become ourselves behaving like Christians and Muslims then, and persecute people for their beliefs. Thats why we have law. You and others and the "new voice" represent those who like to forget that threats to our freedom come from everywhere and everywhen, so you spend your energy all in one place. That does not make the rest of us moderate. It makes us more focused and realistic. It makes us be objective of our fears..
It sounds like u r trying to strip away the undesirable parts of these religions and leave just the parts that you like .. I'm afraid u are indeed going one big circle - trying to induce a mass amnesia on billions of followers to take some parts of the religions while leaving out other parts is like what I said about the limb analogy .. u get my gist ..
@kkdkk7 Well to me sounds you do not understand the difference between Utopia and progress. The difference is that Utopia is somewhere, somehow and somewhen people do not know and can not go there. Then there is history, which shows documented cases of Progress. Now, do you want to go just on fervor with no plan, or do you want to study history and see what works when with whom and try it?
The goodness found in these 3 religions can be gleaned from many other non-religious sources, there is no necessity or necessary dependence on these 3 religions as the only unique source of inspiration .. why should I lug a termite-infested tree log when there are other termite-free logs available ?
I'm not sure if you admire Jesus as a human being .. but thats just like admiring some other well-behaved human beings, there are millions of such pple even pple who live around us ..
The thing about Jesus that is contentious is the divine aspects believers claims he has, beyond the divine aspects there is nothing about him that really catch my attention ..
sorry .. I'm not really into what Karen Carpenter says ..
Quite frankly, in my eyes, the portrayals of Jesus and Mohamed do not impress me, considering that some of their ideals certainly are not universal ideals, which r sometimes at odds with my own set of ideals .. in fact non of the acceptable ideals they espouses are not unique to them, much of those ideals has already been espoused by many before them.
The crucial thing is I find much of their sayings to be rather ambiguous and this ambiguity is dangerous sitting article ..
Shld we keep pronouncing that the religions itself is good, its the followers who are flawed ?
If we do that , we r failing to examine the fact that the religious writings itself are incitations in itself, waiting for someone to pick it up to rouse the masses ..
As an analogy, think of why Obama chose not to bury BinLaden in a plot of land, its just a harmless piece of corpse covered by soil you say .. wrong, its a visible constant incitation to carry out violent jihad ..
0:55 The ultimate joke of the universe - God is a product of natural selection.
mirex951 4 months ago
@mirex951 Ironically so :)
ONESPECIES 4 months ago
This video supports creation and a God. Was that his intent?
The idea that man apparently needs to believe in something like a God, tells you that we were created to need a higher power. That has nothing to do with 'evolution'. Because man misuses and distorts who God is, does not mean there is no God.
The scientific evidence we have on earth, supports only a God.
the real facts are
1 life comes from life
2 a human comes from humans
3 there is design in life
Those facts are the bottom line.
MrDunsapy 4 months ago
@MrDunsapy My dear lord Jesus! You have totally convinced me! I have now seen the light and will disregard sanity, reason, critical thinking and mountains of evidence and worship the one true God!
mirex951 3 months ago
@mirex951 Thank you very much, but it seem you already have disregarded sanity, reason, critical thinking. ( I just meant that in fun)
But seriously, those 3 facts include the life we see. No one has seen or recorded or has evidence that these are not true.
Can you break anything I said? The scientists have given us lots of little bits of info, but where are the facts that life could start on its own or that 'evolution' actually is real?
MrDunsapy 3 months ago
@MrDunsapy Wrong, wrong and Wrong. Having a father figure projection, collectively, by a species that is in totality raised by parent figures for the whole first part of their lives, is pretty expectable. And our pattern seeking abilities, as well as our social order were formed incrementally by evolution. Humans come not from non humans, but from their parents, who are one more step in a huge evolutionary ladder. Evolution happens in generations and populations Sucka! And there is no Design : )
ONESPECIES 3 months ago
@ONESPECIES What I said here is that life comes from life, this is a fact. a human only comes from other humans, nothing else. And it is obvious that there is design in the life we see. Now scientists do not know what a species is. There are a least 24 interpretations, and here is one more. But as to design, if I ask you to build a cat (robot ) that does all the things a cat does? Do you think you would have to design it?
This is what there is evidence for.
MrDunsapy 3 months ago
@MrDunsapy I am thankful you are not minister of education or anything like that! :P
ONESPECIES 3 months ago
@ONESPECIES Well I don't advocate teaching creation in the schools. But 'evolution' is only an idea. So what ideas should the school system handle? Just anything that comes along? Would it not be better to only teach things that are proven? That are real. If nothing else the scientists should say they don't know how life started and we don't know why all the variety. That would at least be the honest approach. There’s nothing wrong with science.
MrDunsapy 3 months ago
@MrDunsapy Sorry, but for the millionth time, exactly what has been proven is being taught. For one thing, gravity theory and astronomy are less informed than Evolution in their respective fields, so why don't you question them? Abiogenesis is so far a valid hypothesis, and as such it is taught and not as fact. As for the heritable traits of all DNA based Creatures, and how that leads to biological diversity its all a theory that sums up the FACTS. And more facts are being gathered every day.
ONESPECIES 3 months ago
@ONESPECIES 'Evolution' is an interpretation of fossils found, for example. That is all it is. That is why I can say God created all life and variety, and the scientists do not have any evidence that I am incorrect.
But the 3 facts that I said show that creation is the only answer. That tells us the scientists are not following the evidence. They are following their own ideas, without evidence.
It is a con. That is why I call it The Greatest Snow Job on Earth.
.
MrDunsapy 3 months ago
@ONESPECIES Abiogenesis, really has no evidence at all. The scientists say they don't even have any good stories about that. The reason is , that because, a cell has to be complete before it can function. But to be complete, the problem is that proteins are needed in the production of RNA, but the RNA is needed in the production of the proteins. It is a catch 22 situation. So it is an impossibility. Besides this is just one thing, there many thing that prevent a cell as just being complete.
MrDunsapy 3 months ago
@MrDunsapy Ooo please, get educated on the issue, from the real books and sources. Reading Creation ministries and similar sources won't get you anywhere. You would learn more facts about Science by reading the back of a cloth detergent. For your car problems you don't ask the Church, you ask a mechanic. For Science don;t ask a preacher, ask a Scientists. So please rest your cause until you have something appreciable to talk about.
ONESPECIES 3 months ago
@ONESPECIES For Science don;t ask a preacher, ask a Scientists
Then if you want to know about science, would you not go the the one who created science, and all of it's laws.
You make it sound like there is no science without the scientists. Science was around long before scientists.
MrDunsapy 3 months ago
@MrDunsapy Sorry, but you don't seem to understand the evidence for evolution, probably because you don't really understand what evolution is.
The evidence for evolution exists in the form of fossils, that's true. it also exists in ecology, morphology, phylogeny, genetics, geography, and more.
That's why there isn't a single scientific paper today which is published contrary to evolution. It is an accepted scientific fact. That is, of course, what "theory" means.
TaslemGuy 2 months ago
@TaslemGuy " Sorry, but you don't seem to understand the evidence for evolution,"
I understand what the scientists say it is.But there is no evidence that over time one kind of animal becomes another. There is adaption,breeding,natural selection, and mutations. But none of these makes a new animal. That's there are no, almost humans or ex-humans. (the small changes) Any similarity in some animals can be explained by my, Patterns of Creation.
patternsofcreation.weebly.com
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@MrDunsapy Define "new animal," please. We have observed multiple new species of organisms, although only a few are animals. Most are plants, fungi, or microbes.
Your site explains why there are systematic similarities within the DNA. It does not explain why there are systematic differences within the DNA exhibiting an evolutionary phylogeny. Why is that?
TaslemGuy 2 months ago
@TaslemGuy "Define "new animal," please."
The real problem with this is that what exactly is a 'kind', and the scientist do not know what a species is. They have at least 2 dozen ideas on that. I think of a Liger. a Lion and Tiger. But the Liger can not reproduce. They are all cats. There is a barrier there, with there Liger. So cats are a 'kind' . They do not become dogs,over time. There also is a creation , of domestic life and wild life.
1/2
patternsofcreation.weebly.com
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TaslemGuy "Define "new animal," please."
The real problem with this is that what exactly is a 'kind', and the scientist do not know what a species is. They have at least 2 dozen ideas on that. I think of a Liger. a Lion and Tiger. But the Liger can not reproduce. They are all cats. There is a barrier there, with there Liger. So cats are a 'kind' . They do not become dogs,over time. There also is a creation , of domestic life and wild life.
1 of 2
patternsofcreation.weebly.com
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@TaslemGuy 2 of 2
This interesting because there are similarities within the DNA. But they can be explained in my 'Patterns of Creation'. Where one life is created from another. That also includes, different 'kinds' of life. And the population histories as well. This would be efficiency of creation. How far could you go before it was more efficient to start an other line of creation.
This is not just my idea, the creator said he did this.
go here to see that.
patternsofcreation.weebly.com
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@MrDunsapy You did not answer my question at all. Why can we generate genetic phylogenies?
TaslemGuy 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TaslemGuy "Why can we generate genetic phylogenies"
But I will try this again. There does seem to be line of descent of family tree. This can also be explained in Patterns of Creation. This is the idea of a creator, using one life, and creating other life from that. So in time you would have a family tree. This along with intelligent breeding, produces genetic phylogenies. The record also shows that there is not one common descent , but many lines of descent
patternsofcreation.weebly.com
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@MrDunsapy Actually the Evolution of WHALES from Land Mammals is very well documented. Further:
HumanKind evolved/mutated from PRIMATES
Abrahamic Creator, G-D of the (respective) chosen people evolved, mutated from PolyTheism
J(the)C evolved/mutated from Spiritual PreCursors. Eventually the posthumous glorification of the aSSaSSinated Julius (the)Caesar.
10 commandements evolved/mutated from the listing in the Egyptian PolyTheistic "Book of the Dead"
I know EXACTLY why you deny EVOLUTION.
kleenex3000 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kleenex3000 the scientific hypothesis of 'evolution' is based on assumptions. Not on actually science. If you are going to create millions of animals, you would do this in an orderly way. So you would build from previous life. in my Patterns of Creation found here patternsofcreation.weebly.com
The idea that God created Eve from Adam not just DNA but also from actually materials. This would retain any histories of previous populations.
The creation came down through Noah.
MrDunsapy 2 weeks ago
@MrDunsapy
It is only assumption that man came from primates, all the missing links go missing from the scientists. There are no almost humans or any ex-humans.
Moses never believed in pagan ideas.
I deny 'evolution' because it is not real, it is a myth. From the scientific evidence, it is impossible. Was that what you were thinking?
MrDunsapy 2 weeks ago
@MrDunsapy @ONESPECIES As far as Abiogenesis goes, this might be what you guys are looking for. I don't know what 3 facts you have stated, and I honestly don't care. I have spent way too much time debating people over factual things like science to actually enter into debate. This is a video explaining abiogenesis, and may explain evolution before our working definition of life.
ted.com/talks/martin_hanczyc_the_line_between_life_and_not_life.html
Anichels 3 months ago
"When you pull the tab contents do not squirt on your face" .... LOL What??!! :D
CreativeVisionary92 4 months ago
@CreativeVisionary92 Thats a golden segment of Ray Comfort's seminal presentation on why Bananas prove the Existence of YAHWEH.
ONESPECIES 4 months ago
@ONESPECIES Oh, is that so? I'm gonna look that up. :D
Loved the banana video. So much lulz.
CreativeVisionary92 4 months ago
@CreativeVisionary92 Perfect comedy is when something was not intended for comedy.
ONESPECIES 4 months ago
@ONESPECIES seriousness creates even greater ridicule indeed
CreativeVisionary92 4 months ago
I follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and Study Science, This video hit the nail on the head didn't it?!
truthseeker010101 4 months ago
@truthseeker010101 I certainly hope so!
ONESPECIES 4 months ago
magnificent. goosebumps. Wonderful
kelbykross1 5 months ago
@kelbykross1 (bows) :-)
ONESPECIES 5 months ago
heavy and simple at same time awsome !
sexyxrs 6 months ago
@sexyxrs Cheers!
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
3:30 "the salesman for religion depict faith as static so that all people work for them, while they offer the same poor answers, and challenged by any new prophet that may have a better idea than them." So religion serves as a helper for mental changes for a society over time? eh ok I'd be interested in seeing that on a graph of some kind (showing adaptive/positive changes over time).
5:28 "Your religion is protected by secularism" Like a yin-yang balance? Provide examples please.
LampPlaceThing 6 months ago
@LampPlaceThing Religion was not always monolithic oppressive and backward. In prehistoric times, Religion was the collection of knowledge and myths of a tribe. It was an evolving body of "knowledge". It would normally lead to Science and social freedom. But monotheism and other state endorsed organized religions in the later empires, froze the progress of the "dogma" at one point in time that was convenient for sociopaths. Then they enforce the dead, fixed unchangeable Dogma.
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
2:06 "While no god in the mind of a respectable person, require any evidence at all." Is it good to have evidence in a serious discussion about ancient history? Many non-scholorly people doubt the historicity of Jesus, and you want Christians to ignore their calling to educate with EVIDENCE of Jesus?!
Perhaps he is referring to a new-age type of religion which sees "evidence" as unimportant for convincing others. It would be a more self-fullfiling "spirituality" (keep it to yourself).
LampPlaceThing 6 months ago
@LampPlaceThing You misunderstand the whole concept. The concept is that there is freedom of Religion, under secularism, thus, I care not what one believes, I care how one integrates in society, how ones treats one's fellow humans and what one offers to the society. If one believes in a God I consider inexistent, yet behaves like an admirable or respectable human, I have no reason to occupy my mind with the nature and nonexistence of ones "God". That all changes for a dysfunctional person.
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
@ONESPECIESWith You clarify that "...I care how one integrates in society" Should this "person" have the ability to consider YHWH(God) will, at a political Governmental lvl, and considering this "person" is considering the Christian demographic in the country?
I know you don't care if politicians or what not, are theists, but you do care if they use those beliefs in governing choices right?
P.S. I shudder at the notion "SHARIA LAW" but it's too many Christians for that
LampPlaceThing 6 months ago
@LampPlaceThing Secular is the key word here. Whoever can believe whatever, as long as their contribution is positive and their activity can stand within secularism. The blame game starts when there is something serious someone has to be blamed for.
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
Very interesting video and good food for thought, thank you.
ornitorrinco01 6 months ago
@ornitorrinco01 Thank you very much for all the motivational feedback!
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
@onespecies Religion occurs to me as a phase that humanity had to go through, like a child goes through a phase of telling tall tales and having naive theories. But we're stuck in this phase because people made up religion in a way that reflects dualistic thinking and absolutism-right/wrong, us/them, etc. They made it wrong to question and think. They painted us all into a ridiculous corner and it's self perpetuating.
beautyinbreakdowns2 6 months ago
@beautyinbreakdowns2 Exactly, and with all the competing self perpetuating narratives, people loose a great deal of their life, their livelihood and experiences. And then the whole species is set back. But we need to be patient. Its only been a couple of centuries of proper Science. It gets better.
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
@onespecies @baileybeads Religion is just us, thinking part of ourselves -consciousness- is actually something external and calling it god. Then we try to complement it with themes and fables. Now it's in the way of real understanding that comes from science, because science came later. Overcoming this default delusion of humanity is a kind of mental evolution that's no less important the the biological kind.
beautyinbreakdowns2 6 months ago
@onespecies @baileybeads. Great video, great discussion. I agree esp. about the profit motives etc. As far as why we have religions, I think it's people experiencing their own consciousness -which really cant be explained or defined- and then thinking it's something external, like we default into duality. Then we thematize it and call it god. Then we make up fables to show superiority of our made up god to others-more duality.
beautyinbreakdowns2 6 months ago
@beautyinbreakdowns2 Yap, its a mess like that. And its up to each one to untangle it.
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
I do NOT believe that most apologists are doing it solely for the purpose of money. Yes, it is their a livelihood but it is theology and belief which are the primary drivers. I'm sure you know that if evolution is true, creationists and many apologists (with their literal interpretations of scripture) won't be able to explain how "sin" arrived in the first place. Therefore, undermining Jesus' death and resurrection. That in turn renders their brand of Christianity or Islam totally irrelevant.
LameCrippled 6 months ago
@LameCrippled I have met Theologians, believers, Priests and others that do what they do out of "real" faith, and they all present some uniform characteristics: They do not collect money for their own functions, they do not raise controversial but empty issues like Anti-Science, and they do not align themselves with a conservative pro-rich anti-poor policy. The fuckers in this video, defend the lies as well as their Theology because its their money machine.Honesty like cough, can not be hidden.
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
I really love the message of this video.
MrMattHerndon 6 months ago
@MrMattHerndon Thank you!
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
I think it's a misrepresentation to say ALL religious leaders are in it for the cash.
DannyPhantomBeast 6 months ago
If you don't think evolution refutes god, then you don't understand evolution.
BaileysBeads 6 months ago
@BaileysBeads Technically, evolution doesn't refute god, only the god of the bible and the creation myth. If someone wants to believe in a god of all things, a god that created the universe and the laws of physics, they can believe in both god and evolution. I don't think there's a contradiction there.
cutes22 6 months ago
@cutes22 There is, evolution shows us what it takes for an organism to have certain properties. Throughout the history of the universe it's always simplicity going towards complexity. Something sentient that creates the universe and governs it has complex properties that beg an explanation which can only be attributed to evolution.
Or are you saying this 'god' isn't sentient and didn't create the universe on purpose? You can just call that the big bang, no need to play semantics with that.
BaileysBeads 6 months ago
@BaileysBeads can you elaborate on this?...I'm an athiest, but I've never found evolution (science) a philosophical (religion) question...my athiesm has nothing to do my acceptance of evolution...if you don't want to elaborate, no worries, just found your statement worthy of discussion...
drfitnessnow 6 months ago
@drfitnessnow Even before evolution was discovered the idea of a god starting everything was deemed problematic, if everything required a creator at the start, then so would the creator need it, which would cause an infinite regression of creators. So the origin and diversity of life was pretty mysterious, but not a free-pass for god just yet. The Greeks already came pretty close to understanding evolution, but never made that leap.
BaileysBeads 6 months ago
@BaileysBeads You got a good point in this comment. But your previous one, despite its merit is rendered unrealistic by reality itself. The biggest group of people accepting Evolution is the Christians that accept Evolution. Even just before I became an Atheist, at about 9, I knew about Evolution and about Christianity. I understand what you mean. A literal Bible's God is proven inexistent. However you yourself said that started before Evolution. I let them sort out their own theology.
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
@ONESPECIES That was my initial point, if they believe they can have their god alongside evolution, then they don't fully grasp what evolution means, they way it explains nature, the way it is used to reveal the true source of whatever feature an organism may have, the way life shaped throughout time.
Evolution is a blind process, it's a fundamental principle and the moment you say it's a guided process, like the Christians do, evolution will turn into a meaningless word.
BaileysBeads 6 months ago
@BaileysBeads I agree, but still I see it in a different way too. The correct definition of Evolution is only one. People can either accept it or deny it. But there is no correct definition of Jesus or Allah. Organized Religions likes to portray their "Gods" as certain fixed personalities that their followers perceive uniformly.That is quite untrue. There are as many Jesus and Allah's as there are followers. To most, these are inspirational stories that vary but Evolution is a stable fact.
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
@ONESPECIES Okay I can see that, but for many people there's an overlap in what is explained by evolution and what is explained by religion. And where it overlaps it's often religion that takes presedence.
The problem many believers refuse to recognise is that evolution leaves little (or simply nothing) to explain for religion. They think it's a story of how reptiles evolved into mammals and that it was all a plan to make us. The theory itself is so much more than that.
BaileysBeads 6 months ago
@BaileysBeads Yes, I agree. If one does not really immerse oneself deep in the understanding of Evolution, one misses all the philosophical connotations, the deeper understanding of the nature of the world, and all the inspiration and ideas that come from it. Like the outstanding PhilHellenes points out, if you don't leave the God of Abraham behind, you miss all the beauty of the Universe. But that is outside the "fact" zone, so lets say for now I am happy when people do not become anti-science.
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
@ONESPECIES That's one of Richard Dawkins biggest dilemmas. Go with a watered down theory of evolution or don't compromise on the science and alienate believers. That's what I appreciate about creationists, they understand that evolution excludes their belief so they try to fight the science on it. That's more honest than saying it's compatible.
Still, if it gets parents to expose their kids to it, I hope the kids will figure it out and it will eventually erode the beliefs they grew up in.
BaileysBeads 6 months ago
@BaileysBeads Do not be so sure about erosion. Child abuse in its meaning as held by my country's society includes what Creationists do. Parents here are so sure they absolutely love their children, and so uncertain of their belief in God, that they never put belief above children. But the Creationists are masters of the art of destroying a young mind, irreversibly forever in most cases. Evolution is fact, can not be watered down. It should be just separate from the belief realm. Like all facts.
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
@BaileysBeads but what if someone believes in a god that they believe is the one that is responsible for evolution ever having occurred?...Even Pope John Paul II, a very astute science man himself, believed in evolution and big bang cosmology, and felt that god 'ensouled' modern man...obviously he didn't take Genesis literally...so I guess I'm still wondering why you feel the two are completely incompatible...
drfitnessnow 6 months ago
@drfitnessnow Then they've taken away one of the fundamental principles of evolution, that it is a blind process.
This theory can explain why all our bodily functions, including our conciousness, are the way they are. Yet they place a concious agent in front of all that. How did this god came to be? Conventional Christian doctrine says he's eternal. If you believe something with such an evolutionary trait is eternal, then you've clearly missed the clue.
BaileysBeads 6 months ago
@BaileysBeads ok...but if I throw some dice, I'm the causal agent, but how the dice land is not my decision and I can't make it be what I want...so maybe god did something similar with the universe?...I don't believe that, but it is possibility, while not probable...yes, I'm am, and pardon the pun, playing the devil's advocate..
drfitnessnow 6 months ago
@drfitnessnow That would leave more of the theory intact, but still not quite.
Before Darwin there was a tremendous problem with requiring a higher intelligence to create life. Intelligence had to 'just exist' for an eternity, or it had to be made by a higher intelligence. All religions conveniently ommit this problem or skip over it. But it's still there.
Simplicity needs less explanation than complexity. Evolution SOLVES this by demonstrating how complexity can arise from simplicity.
BaileysBeads 6 months ago
I blame the parents, and their parents and the parents of the parents parents all the way back to the beginning of time.
twistedbass15 6 months ago
liked faved subbed. Good work!
PlasteredDragon 6 months ago
very good video.
religious belief can coexist with science because religion is faith and science is evidence. they belong to two different group of thinking. one is logical rationalization and the other the imagination of the unseen.
jojoinhere 6 months ago
@jojoinhere Thanks! Thats how I see it.
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
@ONESPECIES I think I might have been misunderstood. I thought that the phrasing was hilarious, I 'liked' the video as soon as I heard it. It just sounded so hippy and awesome!
Dqowreorn 6 months ago
@Dqowreorn No I did not want to sound like that. Just offered my reason behind the phrase in a condensed form. I am glad you liked the phrasing! I think Danaroth may have gotten you wrong though. :P
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
0:47 "The human brain apparently needs to visit a mythical realm where it can draw courage and confidence from."! LOL!
Dqowreorn 6 months ago
@Dqowreorn What else can I say with all of this mythology, religion, comics, epics, Hollywood blockbusters? People obviously need to absorb or release some purely unreal stuff. The problem is some of the ways to do that are poisonous.
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
@Dqowreorn Yeah, it's called escapism. Ever played a video game, watched a movie or read a novel? Then you're probably guilty of this yourself.
Danaroth 6 months ago
@Danaroth in that way, religion was also a way of escaping the harsh reality of daily lives back in the days.
karsten69 6 months ago
Thanks for this video, I think it is true!
SuperMemzzz 6 months ago
@SuperMemzzz Cheers! : )
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
14 retards don't have an intellectually free mind.
LeoNatan25 8 months ago
at 2:06 what is that thing on the left supposed to mean?
liandzbergis 8 months ago
@liandzbergis Its a scale model of a Bacteria Flagellum.
ONESPECIES 8 months ago
This is funny. Are you serious?
MyConsciousnessLives 9 months ago
@MyConsciousnessLives About what?
ONESPECIES 9 months ago
@ONESPECIES - About the argument in this video.
MyConsciousnessLives 9 months ago
@MyConsciousnessLives No I am not joking, and there is not only one argument. So would you care to clarify so that you make some sense?
ONESPECIES 9 months ago 5
@MyConsciousnessLives
oh come on, this guy has legitimate reasons to say what he says in this video. did u even listen to it?..he makes sound points.
itzahazylife 8 months ago
@itzahazylife - Oh, fair enough. Like what?
MyConsciousnessLives 7 months ago
@MyConsciousnessLives
1:32-148
he brings up a very interesting point there.
itzahazylife 7 months ago
Excellent video OS!
Sulcuscentralis 9 months ago
@Sulcuscentralis Thank you!
ONESPECIES 9 months ago
Kenneth miller is an evolutionist and a cell biologist, yeah he is a roman catholic, but he dose not go along with the traditinal creationist theology. T.Dobsansky, the one who said "nothing in biology makes sence without evolution" he was a methodist, he also did not go along with the traditinal creationist theology and he did not go along with orgonized religion
pbrskater26 9 months ago
@pbrskater26 True true. And Organized Religion in many occasions has accepted mainstream Science. They themselves have quit the Creationist story in many cases. My country for one was never Creationist after Science doubted the Creation story for the first time, because our older and more sensible creation myths that predated the Bible, made the believers take the Bible metaphorically on most of its "Scientific" claims by default.
ONESPECIES 9 months ago
this video is brillant :D
bellyzbad 9 months ago
Wonderful video! Beautifully made.
opesam 9 months ago
@opesam Cheers!
ONESPECIES 9 months ago
Wow, a very powerful and well thought out message, and an interesting new perspective as well. Thank you.
soulhunger1 9 months ago
This is certainly a new way to think about things. This is a reasonable and well thought out theory, and I might adopt this and think on it a bit more myself. It actually makes sense, and I feel foolish for not thinking about this already. lol
Ty for bringing this up, this is actually very insightful imo.
afterhumanity333 9 months ago
@afterhumanity333 Stirring thoughts is as high as I can aim! Thanks!
ONESPECIES 9 months ago
@squareatheist Ah.. Ethics. Well, thats the Problem Religion took up on its shoulders and then failed at it repetitively ... It is a social problem as well one related to Science. However I think that Science as a form of reasonable thinking, should be able to extrapolate the amount of responsibility it's role comes with, and thus have an indeed scientific ethic standard on where to draw the line.
ONESPECIES 9 months ago
@squareatheist Well why are we so subjective? Science can be bad even when people do not want to. For instance there would be no mass exterminations of people without modern weapons, which are modern Science. Why do we have to impale only the values of others, and never scrutinize our own? Yes Religion is faulty, but it can not Blow up the Earth. Only Science can do that. I hope you know what I mean and not slay me.
ONESPECIES 9 months ago
@ONESPECIES
Sorry but I have to once again chime .. with all due respect to you (I can see that u r a reasonable person)
What me (and probably squareatheist) meant to say about religion is that there are definitely 3 very pwerfully disruptive religions among many relatively peaceful ones, and those are the 3 religions we have to minimise its influence if we are really serious about striving to achieve human peace and cohesiveness..
kkdkk7 9 months ago
@ONESPECIES
And u r right, there are departments of science which have developed in a non-desirable direction for example nuclear weapons.. To be fair, just like we should not eradicate all religions becos of 3 undesirable ones, similarly, we cannot stop all scientific departments but should instead focus on destroying nuclear heads.
The US (except dissident nations) have progressively destroyed nuclear heads for many yrs.. So not all religions shld be dealt with, just the problematic ones..
kkdkk7 9 months ago
@kkdkk7 True. Of course I did not mention negative Science feats to discredit Science. That is impossible. What I mean is, Science gets the facts right but it can still cause pain, Religion gets the facts Wrong and it still can cause pain. It seems that the common factor among them is human weaknesses, and not Science or Religion it self. OF course Science has demonstrably useful fruits. But that does not change the fact that both in Religion and Science the nasty bits are human weakness.
ONESPECIES 9 months ago
@ONESPECIES
Science is not a dogmatic ideology, science has a willingness to examine and re-examine itself ..
Not so for most religions , especially the 3 that I mentioned. I am totally ok with most religions, but not the 3 currently dominating politics and the new headlines ..
Pls try to avoid overgeneralising in your comparisons ..
kkdkk7 9 months ago
@ONESPECIES
Furthermore, to say that religions cannot blow up the earth is taking the current situations too lightly ..
This is my take on the recent developments on Al Qaeda.
Pakistan is a nation with a lot of supporters and sympathisers for the Islamic terrorist networks. The recent expose of Bin Laden's secret hiding place in the heart of Pakistan has raised alarms in the US , Pakistan IS A NUCLEAR ARMED NATION .
Do u see the danger of the influence of Islam, its writings ?
kkdkk7 9 months ago
@kkdkk7 The way I see it, Science can destroy the world but does want to, and fanatics want to destroy the world but can't. So although I see the problems with radical Islam (and how could I not see them) I also see a less obvious truth.... That a fanatic without the help of Science can not be really dangerous to anyone. So at some point we should be really discussing why the fuck so much Science goes into death machines and so few on educating the ones left behind.
ONESPECIES 9 months ago
@ONESPECIES
Lets be clear, like what sqareatheist said , ethics and science are related but separate topics. You do not seem to articulate in a clear and precise manner which topic u r addressing ..
U see, saying "Science can destroy the world" is overgeneralising. Science covers such a broad spectrum such as astronomy, physics, chemistry etc .. can the study on astronomy actually destroy the world ?
Thats why I said pls do not over generalise, be precise .. which departments of science?
kkdkk7 9 months ago
@ONESPECIES
I am also not condemning all religions like I said I find Buddhism mostly quite peaceful and harmless.
I'm here to suggest that with regards to PRECISELY 3 disruptive and harmful religions (Islam/Judaism/Christianity), the very intrinsic writings which defines these 3 religions are dangerous to a multi-cultural diverse human society.
I am saying that we can't cover up the destructive dangers they pose by saying some parts of the writings and some followers r nice ..
kkdkk7 9 months ago
@kkdkk7 True. But a) we have to understand what we deal with here instead of just opposing. All things have a key to them, if you know it, you can make them work for you. Thats what Science achieves everyday. b) The Abrahamic believers are just a dinosaur with a huge splinter stuck in its paw. The followers as a majority are the victims of a doctrine not the ones benefiting. Of course their leadership is the one that profits. So we need to act according to this observation.
ONESPECIES 9 months ago
@ONESPECIES
I am saying that parts of your video seem to send across the message that the Judeo religions themselves are good religions, its the followers who are wayward ..
I am not in support of this message of yours ..
The religions are defined by each their own religious writings, if the writings contains incitations which are inhumane and destructive, from the point of view of wanting to have a harmonious and cohesive society , these 3 religions itself r bad .
kkdkk7 9 months ago
@kkdkk7 In my country the writings mostly catch dust on the shelf. The belief of the people is just a social and psychological function, and the participants shape it's most crucial aspects. So what the Abrahamic dogmas say can be very far from what people experience. Its like Gospel Music. Who could ever expect such sound come from a death cult? Greeks are blaspheming Jesus every time the get angry at something. People can not jump straight to atheism. first they need to take control of dogma.
ONESPECIES 9 months ago
@ONESPECIES
I can only say that you are oblivious to the mighty power of words written down.
Whether quoting ambiguous verses in or out of context, there is just no hiding the fact that the negative influences are prevalent throughout the history of human conflicts .. a piece of writing takes on a life of its own, its ambiguity takes on a life of its own in many shapes and forms, its doctrinal nature takes on a life of its own - is it still a good thing to be held up as a moral code?
kkdkk7 9 months ago
@kkdkk7 No scripture is not positive,I agree with you,but then I do not say that do I?What I am saying is that people will be drawn to inspirational stories and characters naturally.Religious indoctrinators will be there to profit. The key is for people to understand that the function of figures used by religion is that they were progressive in their time and not to be worshiped and untouchable.The point is that as time progresses so should the inspirational stories. Just like before monotheism.
ONESPECIES 9 months ago
@ONESPECIES
The problem with your video is at 3:12-3:20
kkdkk7 9 months ago
@kkdkk7 Well,i did not think that was the issue.I think that is a very defensible statement.Jesus was a socialist in a time of Empires, and Muhammad preached dogma that held all races equal at a peak time of slavery. Those lads did not care for the previous scripture.They were progressive for the time and place, NOT NOW. The priest-class that followed, uses these captivating characters to indoctrinate people but does not allow them to become captivating characters themselves which is the point.
ONESPECIES 9 months ago
@ONESPECIES
So many things Jesus and Mohammed "did" or are written to have done are so questionable from the standpoint of our modern society, I would hardly describe them as being progressive ..
Perhaps you can look up The Atheist Experience episode of how Matt Dilahunty tore down Jesus's perceived good image .. u may not agree with what he said, but at least u can watch it to think further about your previous impression of these religions ..
I don't even want to talk about Mohammed ..
kkdkk7 9 months ago
@kkdkk7 I answered to the previous one check it.However on this you miss the point.You can not expect apes to send rockets to space.Its all evolving right?Jesus added a few useful changes in the local society of his time.Muhammad did too.And of course there is no reason they would still be progressive.For them to be progressive still we would have to be bronze age people.But the moral of the story is that "prophets" should be celebrated for their renegade actions not for their timelessnesss
ONESPECIES 9 months ago
@ONESPECIES
Pls go ahead and think that Jesus is such a great guy , I certainly don't .. I would sooner listen to what Einstein says, or watch a few videos on the Atheist Experience than read on the sayings of Jesus .. sorry thats just me , I get my inspirations from others sources ..
Anyway, why am I even arguing over a character whose attributes are possibly manmade embellishments ? I'm not even sure if he existed .. but I am not interested in that, the experts have done their jobs..
kkdkk7 9 months ago
@kkdkk7 You let your passion get the best of you. No one said Jesus is a Great Guy. At least not now. Why do you have this problem reading what you already want to read? Besides, how the hell did humans come all the way here? We had a better version of everything every time. Jesus and Muhammad were the version of social revolutionary that existed when camels and horse where the only known means of transport. They were not evil. Their "priests" are and the false scripture they sell.
ONESPECIES 9 months ago
@ONESPECIES
You may find me insulting and even ironic especially considering we are both in the same boat in agreeing that evolution is very much more acceptable than creationism .. at least for the time being ..
I guess there is a critical and important difference between you and my way of thinking and that difference can lies in the fact that I disagree with 3:12 of your video ..
I am just appalled at pple's blindness towards the written words of incitations which are held up as divine ..
kkdkk7 9 months ago
@ONESPECIES
As an analogy, when a surgeon is faced with a patient whose bloodstream in the leg has already been poisoned and is spreading .. the surgeon would be wise to suggest amputation of the working limb, altho its a working limb .. for it is impossible to separate the poisoned blood stream from the flesh of the leg ..
for when the poison weaves through the limb into the heart, it will be deadly ..
kkdkk7 9 months ago
@kkdkk7 Valuable an analogy though it may be, this leg is gonna fight back its amputation. Cause basically its not a leg, its a part of every organ. You say we chop it, I say cool, but a) it never happened successfully at once b) There is gonna be messy reaction all over. So I see more potential in simply modernizing religion, "cleaning the blood of the leg" which has happened before with success and causes far less adverse reactions. Because this "leg" has been preached not to allow to be cut.
ONESPECIES 9 months ago
@ONESPECIES
Of course in my analogy I am talking about a critical juncture whereby the poison is coursing through the blood stream rapidly - would you risk the patient's life for the sake of preserving a poisoned leg ?
Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, Pakistan is a nuclear ready country, everytime the religion is remotely satired , its followers starts chanting violent jihad .. The 3 most politically powerful religions in the world r often at loggerheads with each other..
kkdkk7 9 months ago
@kkdkk7 As I told you, I am Greek. My very recent ancestors had to butcher whole armies of Muslim soldiers to live. And I told you we can do it again. If anyone comes here to rule my country and snatch my free speech, he goes 6 feet under. However you misrepresent the situation.The poison is not yet compromising the leg. There is still time for peaceful negotiation with all sides.Pakistan owns nuke's, so they feel safe. No one is blowing no one. Preemtive is not my style,until force is initiated
ONESPECIES 9 months ago
@ONESPECIES
My take is simply that the rest of the world cannot simply sit by and let the conflicts take their course .. Someone has to engineer a way to lessen the influence of these 3 dogmatic ideologies .. am I going to listen to you when u say that these religions are ok ?
Should I turn a blind eye to the fact that certain disruptive verses r repeated more frequently than the "nicer" verses ?
Maybe someday when 90% of the world is Muslim-controlled would pple wake up .. too late.
kkdkk7 9 months ago
@ONESPECIES
How do we lessen the influence of these 3 religions ?
Discrediting creationism , discrediting the validity and histrocity of the stories , injecting into the current and next generation with an empahsis on non-religion based sense of kindness, love and mutual acceptance , emphasize the importance of scientific education and methodology ..
kkdkk7 9 months ago
@kkdkk7 Yes exactly. But I would say, even further. Science is the answer. Religion has almost died out in many countries, and in others people are clearly not willing to cause even a nose bleed for Religion. Understanding what has gone well in those cases, documenting it and analyzing it, and then trying to adapt it for the remainder of the countries or regions is crucial. The first thing religion does is build its own defense mechanism in the mind of the believer. Its good to dodge it.
ONESPECIES 9 months ago
@ONESPECIES
We are in agreements in how to lessen the influence of religion, by exposing the myths as unfounded on reality .. but I would not reverse the train of this effort by saying that these religions are intrinsically good religions if going by their dogmatic writings - to me its self-defeating the aforementioned efforts we put in ..
kkdkk7 9 months ago
@kkdkk7 \well actually I am not making that statement though. What I am saying is that liking Elvis does not mean one should like the Elvis impersonator or the elvis t-shirt salesman. What i am saying is, one can find Jesus or Muhammad attractive personalities, but that should in no way mean that one should also obey the same rules and teachings as then. Rather try to be progressive now, as those men might have been progressive then, and went against the teachings of their time.
ONESPECIES 9 months ago
@ONESPECIES
If u r going to go down the road of admiring some of Jesus's sayings, and if u r going to implore other pple to join u in doing so .. perhaps u should think twice, becos the pple who joins u in your Jesus admiration will be obsessed with certain ambiguous writings such as when Jesus said "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" ..
You might not take that writing too seriously but u cannot stop others from having their own violent interpretations of it ..
kkdkk7 9 months ago
@ONESPECIES
Thats why I say that it is the ambiguity of the so-called divine writings that are dangerous, becos it can take up many forms and shapes, and no one has any authority to stop others from acting violently on the ambiguous incitations ..
Thats why i say, stop joining the chorus of political correctness of pronouncing the 3 religions as intrinsically good - blare out the wake up call that these 3 are intrinsically ambiguous and dangerous ..
kkdkk7 9 months ago
@ONESPECIES
I don't know if Jesus or Mohammed are correct or divine or good , but I am sure that everything associated with them are dangerous to our harmonious relationships ..
kkdkk7 9 months ago
@ONESPECIES
Why do I have to repeat my points over and over again just becos you r not reading my comments ?
I said that once u open the flood gate of Jesus admiration and Mohammed admiration, u cannot stop their ambiguous writings from being violently interpreted .. becos those ambiguity can take any form and shape ..
I also said that once u accept the nice writings, the religions' dogmatic mechanism will draw pple into accepting those ambiguous questionable writings as well.
kkdkk7 9 months ago
@ONESPECIES
Thats what I meant by the poisonous blood coursing through the veins among the flesh .. u can't separate them simply because the system ensures they are inseparable ..
Should I also repeat my point that since the same kind of "good" teachings can be found in other literatures , why should we feel there is any necessity to tie ourselves down to these particular problematic characters (Jesus/Mohammed) ?
kkdkk7 9 months ago
@kkdkk7 No you do not need to repeat that. But as I said there are examples of Religion being modernized and claimed back by its people. We know at least one way is that way, with proof. Even Buddhism was not that okay just 150 years ago. I wish there was a magic button, making all dogma vanish. However it is a rather complicated process. And in that process I believe untangling believers form the claws of the Priesthood comes earlier than having no believers at all.
ONESPECIES 9 months ago
@ONESPECIES
May I know if u are a christian ?
Perhaps thats the reason for the reluctance to amputate the limb ?
You use terms which r similaryly vague and ambiguous - what do u mean by "religion claimed back by its people" ? and "making all dogma vanish" ?
kkdkk7 9 months ago
@kkdkk7 Oh, now this is ridiculous. Have we reached the point where I have to go through blasphemy challenge initiation to prove I am an Atheist? Jeez... Look I will end this discussion by saying this.... I find fast cars and popular sports completely idiotic and irrational. People get killed, there are hooligans and there is no serious gain to civilization. But that does not mean I have the right to eliminate it! Thats fascist. All I have the right to do, is demand my rights.Same with Religion!
ONESPECIES 9 months ago
@ONESPECIES
I did not suggest we eradicale the 3 religions in one fell swoop, its impossible to do so.. What I said was to minimise their influence by educating pple turning them away from unscientific thinking ..
I am merely suggesting that a part of yr video seems to send the self-defeating message that these 3 religions r intrinsically good .. which if u r to take into account all the dangerous ambiguity in their "unchanging" writings is quite obviously the contrary , not good at all ..
kkdkk7 9 months ago
@ONESPECIES
How and in what way is that fascist ?
When communism did not work in the eastern bloc, pple stood up to end it, is the act of overturning communism a fascist act in yr eyes ?
We r simply pointing out the dangers in certain belief systems and we seek to minimise its influence for the sake of a harmonious, kinder society .. the problem with these 3 religions is that u cannot separate the "nice" writings from the "dangerous ambiguous" writings becos the bibles is a whole ..
kkdkk7 9 months ago
@ONESPECIES
.. think, for many centuries Islam/Christianity have always been split into the fundamentalist side and the moderate side ..
The moderate side have always tried to influence the fundamentalists to "modernise" and not focus on the violent verses, its not like what u suggested is anything entirely new, its been tried unsuccessfully over many hundreds of years ..
Me and a group of others represent a new voice, to blare a wake up call to pple like u who r oblivious to the situations.
kkdkk7 9 months ago
@kkdkk7 It is exactly for that reason that we do not become ourselves behaving like Christians and Muslims then, and persecute people for their beliefs. Thats why we have law. You and others and the new voice represent those who like to forget that threats to our freedom come from everywhere and everywhen, so you spend your energy all in one place.
ONESPECIES 9 months ago
@ONESPECIES
Well, I am afraid yr use of the term persecute is rather loose don't u think ? In a free debate, when one party is criticised , is it the equivalent of being persecuted ?
You r begining to sound like the pple who argues for creationism and I am pretty disappointed , there was a short message that I pointed out as flawed argument in yr video, but the long exchange I am having with u have revealed a lot more arguments which r ironically typical of how creationists argues .. sigh ..
kkdkk7 9 months ago
@kkdkk7 And I am afraid you feel the need to call people names so that they feel shame and agree with you. Well it does not work on me. Religious is Dangerous when it is abused. When it is not abused I could not care less what they do with their mind. Its their business. Thats what I got. Take it or leave it.
ONESPECIES 9 months ago
@ONESPECIES
Call you names ? I am confused , when did I call u bad names ?
You said " Religions is Dangerous when it is abused. When it is not abused I could not care less .."
(well, to this I'll just say its too general an observation to be of any use, everything is dangerous when abused, not just religions .. u shld ask "which aspect of that religion makes it more prone to abuse)
I say, Certain Religions WITH AMBIGUOUS POTENTIALLY INFLAMMATORY TEXTS are dangersou, but not all ..
kkdkk7 9 months ago
@kkdkk7 -- baby steps. first you must work to curb the most dangerous/explosive limb of the problem, and then make your way to the more benign sections. if you cut off the striking head of the snake, eventually the remainder will wither and die on its own.
bmille87 8 months ago
@ONESPECIES
Well if u think that Christianity/Islam/Judaism (with all their ambiguous writings) are inherently good religions, and u have no wish to re-examine yr opinion - I have no further words for you for I have tried my best to make u see ..
I'm off to catch videos of "non-stamp collector", DarkMatter, Atheist Experience, and some Christian videos which I've always avail myself to listen to the other side (contrary to what u said that I do not try to know these religions) .. bye
kkdkk7 9 months ago
@kkdkk7 It is exactly for that reason that we do not become ourselves behaving like Christians and Muslims then, and persecute people for their beliefs. Thats why we have law. You and others and the "new voice" represent those who like to forget that threats to our freedom come from everywhere and everywhen, so you spend your energy all in one place. That does not make the rest of us moderate. It makes us more focused and realistic. It makes us be objective of our fears..
ONESPECIES 9 months ago
@ONESPECIES
It sounds like u r trying to strip away the undesirable parts of these religions and leave just the parts that you like .. I'm afraid u are indeed going one big circle - trying to induce a mass amnesia on billions of followers to take some parts of the religions while leaving out other parts is like what I said about the limb analogy .. u get my gist ..
kkdkk7 9 months ago
@kkdkk7 Well to me sounds you do not understand the difference between Utopia and progress. The difference is that Utopia is somewhere, somehow and somewhen people do not know and can not go there. Then there is history, which shows documented cases of Progress. Now, do you want to go just on fervor with no plan, or do you want to study history and see what works when with whom and try it?
ONESPECIES 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ONESPECIES
again .. why should I lug a termite-infested tree log when there are other termite-free logs available ?
kkdkk7 9 months ago
@ONESPECIES
The goodness found in these 3 religions can be gleaned from many other non-religious sources, there is no necessity or necessary dependence on these 3 religions as the only unique source of inspiration .. why should I lug a termite-infested tree log when there are other termite-free logs available ?
kkdkk7 9 months ago
@ONESPECIES
I'm not sure if you admire Jesus as a human being .. but thats just like admiring some other well-behaved human beings, there are millions of such pple even pple who live around us ..
The thing about Jesus that is contentious is the divine aspects believers claims he has, beyond the divine aspects there is nothing about him that really catch my attention ..
sorry .. I'm not really into what Karen Carpenter says ..
kkdkk7 9 months ago
@ONESPECIES
sorry .. I mean Karen Armstrong
kkdkk7 9 months ago
@ONESPECIES
Quite frankly, in my eyes, the portrayals of Jesus and Mohamed do not impress me, considering that some of their ideals certainly are not universal ideals, which r sometimes at odds with my own set of ideals .. in fact non of the acceptable ideals they espouses are not unique to them, much of those ideals has already been espoused by many before them.
The crucial thing is I find much of their sayings to be rather ambiguous and this ambiguity is dangerous sitting article ..
kkdkk7 9 months ago
@ONESPECIES
Shld we keep pronouncing that the religions itself is good, its the followers who are flawed ?
If we do that , we r failing to examine the fact that the religious writings itself are incitations in itself, waiting for someone to pick it up to rouse the masses ..
As an analogy, think of why Obama chose not to bury BinLaden in a plot of land, its just a harmless piece of corpse covered by soil you say .. wrong, its a visible constant incitation to carry out violent jihad ..
kkdkk7 9 months ago