The fact is that neither the CCCP, Germany, Cambodia, China or North Korea were democracies, They were in fact Theocracies with a supreme leader in sole charge of the country thus the had more in common with religion than any refusal to believe in a deity. The fact that religions were suppressed in these countries is not because their leaders were Atheists, there is little evidence of this, it was because they did not recognise the supreme authority of the leaders,
If you have actually read the origin of species then you will know what I am talking about.... It claims some nationalities of people (I won't say which ones as not to insult), are sub-human, as in they are less-evolved. Read it, that is what it says
mmm.... =3 but I guess the most accurate thing to say its there is different races of humans because its an adaptation to the different environments. I mean.... Inuits are the only humans who can avoid eating fruit or vegetables for months without getting seriously ill (and eventually die).
@tenedria Perhaps, however how far allong the chain are we going to determine "new races"... it is this kind equivocation that is hotly debated in what constitutes a species. That said, it is a form of variation, however I would say it is within the species, as the humans aren't deviating from the original plan too far.. ie- 1 head, 2legs, 2arms etc. If one of these had deviated to the point of no longer resembling a mainstream human, then that is a new species as its DNA would be different too.
but DNA is different for each individual =) anyways. Also, as far as I know, most mammals have 1 head, 2legs, 2arms etc. Cause they all come from the "original plan" of the first living thing with a head. (its a worm)
@tenedria Yes my DNA is different to yours that is true. However we contain the same GENES, ie- we both have a gene for eye colour. Whilst our eyes may be different in colour that difference does not impact on the total physiology, ie we are still both humans. What you have said is misleading. Where did the original plan emmanate from? Do you accept that DNA is a code?
yup, well we can represent it has a code but DNA is basically the plan that is made right after the conception of any living animal. Its a code contained in any cell. Thats why its possible to clone with a cell and a ovule (YET it creates only a 50% owner of cell, 50% owner of the ovule + possibilities of a slight change ex. allergies, other eye color, etc.) The human skin, heart, eyes are almost exactly the same in pigs BTW, were not aliens, were very close to animals physically
@tenedria Never said anything about aliens, so not sure why you are spouting off about them? SO if DNA is a CODE, and a CODE represents information. Where did this information come from? As the only examples of the origins of information in reality are, from intelligence.... :D DNA proves the existance of something greater, (not sure what it is, but it is out there)
"were not aliens, were very close to animals physically" is a metaphor, I tough it was obvious.
Ok, its not because something isn't understood yet that you must go "omg god created it" I bet you don't know how a television works, yet you KNOW its not god who builder it.
@tenedria Actually I do know how a Television works, (I did Physics at high school), and Yes God / Gods / Transformer Cube didn't BUILD it. However what solution do you have to the fact that DNA is proof of a design and thus a designer. Nature cannot Design information, we have not observed any such case of it doing so, and to suggest as such is an assumption, NOT science. Hence Evolution really isn't scientific as it is based on assumptions, not scientific facts of reality.
also how they change is not magic, its trough the long process of natural selection. Exemple; new pesticide is out, eliminates almost every fly around. However, we all know each individual is different, its true to flies as well. All the fly who were already immune to it are the only one to survive and they than reproduce. Now the whole fly specie is immune to the new pesticide. With a colder climate and wolf, same thing but only the wolves with ticker fur or more fat survives.
@tenedria Yes insects can develop resistance to pesticides, but guess what at the end of the day... THEY ARE STILL THE SAME KIND OF INSECT! Don't you understand this? No change to another species is observed as such you haven't posted evidence of evoution.
....... gosh OF COURSE there still the same insect thats what a MICRO-EVOLUTION, I never said it was a macro-evolution. and I can't send links, its you-tube's laws.
Anyways, even if the pesticide makes a slight change its also a slight modification in the specie's DNA, I asked a student in biology and she told me once the DNA becomes too different they can't breed between them successfully anymore (horse+donkey= sterile mule or Hinny) and even further, it gets impossible.
@tenedria So you admit that even though they ARE OBSERVED to stay the same insect, it is ASSUMED that macro-evolution occurs. Have you ever seen a cat turn into a dog no, hence what you claim is not observed and is an ASSUMPTION, not science.
no its not exactly the same insect, because their immunization to pesticides is hereditary. It means a change happened in their DNA. They might look like their "ancestors" but their DNA is different. :) its simple like that.
ugh, what you don't get about science is this....
fact-> what we can conclude from it -> THAN theory
thats the process that created the evolution theory, a guy started observing animals and how they are linked together. Than more and more facts points to that theory, until there is so many that its hardly a theory.
Yes something complicated could result of evolution, just think about how worms are simple compared to eels, than fish, than reptiles, than birds, than mammals.
@tenedria Judging from the posts here, I know more about science than you, (as I should I am a Uni student). However I am not here to say how good I am. What Darwin did was assume a link, as mentioned before assumptions are not scientific. Did he observe one species changing to another? NO so how can the theory of evolution be scientific when no observations have been made.
and.... about god... gosh you really really seriously believe a guy existed like.... forever and ever... like even long before there was earth and he suddenly went like "I'm bored and I feel lonely even tough I don't even know what anyone else is... Oh I know lets create stuffs!"
yeah right... if you can assume a guy like that existed forever, why can't you think a DNA code might have been created by natural selection... after all, the fist ones weren't complicated.
@tenedria The reason why I don't believe that nature can form a code out of random stuff, is that it doesn't. PERIOD. What you have posted here is a FAITH statement, as such it is a perfect example of how belief in evolution is much like a belief in a religion. Just exchange God for Natural selection and there you go. Furthermore, I never said I was religious, just that the EVIDENCE IN REALITY points to a creator as such.
no, simple primitive organism have a simpler DNA its just a fact, it doesn't have anything to do with faith. >__> pffff Your claiming that something like a god existed forever and ever and never was created... and why? cause thats what a BOOK told you? a book and who else... your mom who read the same book?
No! I say what is unknown should be researched until we find the PROVEN TRUTH. Prove me that god exist!!! NOW! you can't, no one can, guess why?
@tenedria BAHAHAHA... Ok show me how some forms of DNA are simpler to others. That statement is entirely fallicious, and is conjured by your FAITH in evolution. You need it to be true, at any cost, so will sporadicaly make false statements to ascertain this. Also you are making more false statements as I am not religious, hence your BS response is a knee-jerk reaction to be shown wrong in your logic.
@tenedria Yes but you just said inuits are humans, so if they are humans and we are humans then where is the change. Its only a change WITHIN a kind / species, ie- different breeds (like dogs and cats)... Never have we seen a change from one species to another.
well it takes more than a generation to see any change at all, we can't live that long (dah). However, what I spoke about is called a micro-evolution and its more than likely that they can cumulate. Assuming that, tons of micro-evolutions cumulating will eventually reach a different looking animal, and even further an other species.Dogs are still dogs now, even with all the races we made BUT you CANT reproduce a chihuahua with any dog, which suggest the start of an other species.
@tenedria No the changes in so called "micro-evolution" cannot culminate to form "macro-evolution". If you knew anything about physiology you'd see how incredulous this notion is. There are systems in Biology that require ALL the parts to function properly BEFORE any benefit can be gained from the system, (the human digestion system is one), as such it is impossible for such a system to "evolve" over the years, as no benefit is gained until it is fully formed.
Micro-evos happens...if the environment changes slightly and slightly like this: tropical -> savanna->temperate->"boreal"->ice age, animals will change with it too but they can't remain tropical and survive in the ice age... Their physical traits obviously had to change a HELL lot.
@tenedria Wrong again! Macro evolution via micro evolution is an assumption nothing more. Assumptions are not scientific, nor are they factual. If evolution theory is a scientific theory, where is the scientific evidence?
*face palm* DNA, dating of bones... look at a bonobo chimp... than the Australopithecus, than the Australopithecus sediba, than the homo erectus, than homo neandertalis, The're all human/monkeys and we keep finding new missing links all the time. How else can you explain why those human-monkeys exist uh?
dam it, I'm wasting my time with you, you couldn't see evolution if it happened right in front of your eyes... you would go like "OMG a miracle from god!"
@tenedria Actually, all the "transitional forms" you have stated have been debunked. They are either bones from apes. Or are acceptable variations within the same species, ie- scientists feel that there are not enough change in order to regard them as a "new" species. As such you are spouting of old false info from an evo religious site. Go read a book, and learn for yourself
Also, if what you just said was true, it would have been in modern debates and news. Any one can publish a book, just look at all the crap you can get into a library, it doesn't mean the book is true... for a study to be really serious it needs more and more study pointing into the same direction cause you know, no mater the research, there is always some mad scientist pointing in an other direction than anyone else. >_> its sad but true, science is a twisted field
pfff... well I didn't want to go there but anyways... you can say watever you want with maths and I would like you to point out a reliable source (no forums, no Wikipedia, no news-journal, no "mister-anyone"'s web page) of those "discoveries that disproof evolution"
Anyways, if you are so sure of what you claim than explain to me right now why humans have an apprentice if its completely worthless to them? The only explanation to it is evolution for now as far as I know.
@tenedria Ok here is one of the many out there. However due to the BIAS in scientific circles. (I have experienced it first hand), I don't hold much faith in their system of review. Its reviewed by people, people are flawed. Mathematically read about Dr Lee Spetner, or just some casual reviewing of the internet. Don't fall into the trap of "arguementum ad populus", research the topic yourself.
What the journal article shows is that over 35 years of research on fruit flys, whilst the population genetics changed over time due to selection, there was no fixation of a wholly benefitial mutation. They admit the selection pressures were HIGHER and were more sustained than in nature itself, thus if anything were to happen that study was the prime candidate for it to occur.
I think its obvious I builded my own theory about how evolution works...
I know I'm still lacking knowledge into genomes for it but I know the genome for legs can't be found in a fish but CAN be found in a dolphin or a whale (both mammals) which is something else then the human appendice that proves evolution. Also, with humans again, did you know we have the genome to build a tail? but its just "turned off", OR the jaw muscle, atrophied because of a missing chromosome in humans.
LOLS! xD you don't get it... what your thinking about is its arms, a whale has no legs because the gene is turned off but if you look at its DNA it has the potential of building legs. Some whales were even found with tiny bone legs integrated in their skin.
@tenedria I asked you, how do you KNOW the whale has the gene for actual legs. Have you sequenced the genes of whales?
If you haven't then you are ASSUMING that whales have this gene. Tiny bones mean Jack, as I have heard that they asist in keeping the whales sexual parts protected whilst mating, (however this is speculative)
im not assuming it, useless limbs is one of the most OBVIOUS evidence of evolution. Whales, dolphins and snakes are found with legs sometimes, blend fact (Dolphin: wwwDOTunderwatertimesDOTcom/newsDOTphp?article_id=31071605289 SNAKE: wwwDOTtelegraphDOTcoDOTuk/earth/wildlife/6187320/Snake-with-foot-found-in-ChinaDOThtml) 2 choice: leg genes turned off and on OR random mutation that created a leg (both pro-evolution anyways)
ALSO WHERE IS THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDANCE OF ANY OTHER POSSIBLE THEORY ABOUT LIFE.
the bible doesn't count... its a book, that was written by Mans and BTW, in the years where the Christ was born, rare were those who knew how to write, that makes it highly unlikely that the bible was actually written by many of Jesus prophets.
@tenedria I am not putting an alternative theory forward, hence I don't need to show any evidence for anything. This is why I am agnostic. I am just showing you how evolution is illogical in the eyes of science.
@tenedria The Chihuahua and Great Dane are the same species, just different breeds of the same species.. It isn't impossible, and your atempts really are silly. Test your hypothesis by getting a Great Dane egg and Chihuahua sperm and see if a cross-breed develops. I bet you it will.
Geronami is doctor. You can search for his full name Paul Geronami Kattupalli. If you see about 10 of his videos, you will see that he is right wing propagandist. The republicans have found a non-white face and it's an attempt by them to hide their racism. He is the perfect propagandist because he is well educated. It's just like the republicans to indulge in this hoodwinking.
"U cannot provide a link of causal relationship between these people being athiests and their actions".Let me do it for him then. It is very apparent that Darwinism and athiesm have very, very strong ties. I put it to you that the evil works of, to use one example,Stalin,directly correlates with that of Darwinian theory and athiesm.The systematic extermination of the weakest in society,who cannot benefit the gene pool.Stalin was employing himself as mother nature in a Darwin - influenced logic
Nope, bro. Stalin's victims were by and large political enemies that he executed for being enemies of the state. Anybody that didn't fall in line with the Soviet master plan got iced. It didn't have much to do with being weak—at least not in a Darwinian sense of weakness.
Hitler = Eugenics = Darwin = Atheist = not Catholic
He embraced the Catholic church for political reasons not because of faith in God!!!
You're way off your argument. You don't understand what that guy was saying.
The point is that Religion = violence and genocide was the first argument that Dawkin's brought up in his book, when he is supposed to present arguments to support his claim that God doesn't exist. It is no different than a political smear campaign and the same can be done to him!
@markpasky08 oh yeah, why does it say in mein kampf that he was doing the word of god and when asked, actually sincerely believed it. he has actually been said to have been aprehensive of some acts that he caused/comminted.
@daemonowner Yet when you read Darwins Origin of the Species, it gives cause for racism and genocide. Some nationalities of people were considered "sub-humans", and were slaughtered for study... Anyway this is semantics and really has no bearing on the evidence of evolution... What empirical evidence is there? All science starts with empirical evidence
@Gilbertus1986 how on earth does the origin of species give cause for racism and genocide, darwin was opposed to that and sexism, and natural selection does not advocate that. if your argument is that natural selection means we should kill the handicaps and other races, you haven't understood it. we are a social species, and not killing other members of our species is vital to our survival as a species, and we have gained empathy which also benefits us in the same way.
As a thought experiment, what would serve as an example of an evil done in the name of atheism?
In listening to you and it seems you've defined your way out of any accountability. So I'm just curious to see if you think any "evil" could be classified as being caused by an atheist or atheism in general.
Trenton, as stated in the beginning, provide a casual link between lack of religion (or rather, belief that God is not real IE. athiesm) and violence.
A suicide bomber killing infidels because an interpretation of a religious text is a casual link between religion and violence. Because the interpretation of the holy text told him to kill infidels, and he believed in that religion, he committed a violent act.
If atheism causes violence, show the same kind of casual link.
Ha. But that's what I'm asking you. What would serve as an example of atheism causing evil?
Hypothetically, If I concluded there was no objective moral standard because god did not exist, then would my choice to kill a puppy be caused by atheism?
or ....
Because god does not exist, charity is ultimately pointless and all those kids in africa can starve. Would that be caused by atheism?
If you can show that lack of moral standard is derived by atheism, than sure, those would qualify. But that's going to be a hard task. As Dawkins points out, Atheists tend to live the best (often most moral) lives they can because they believe that this is the only life we get.
And by the way, your question is kinda silly. After all, I'm not asking you how to show that theists cause violence am I? Of course an atheist isn't going to give you the example you're looking for. Find it yourself!
Just be careful though. Finding an example that MIGHT be because of atheism isn't good enough. The Crusades is NOT an example that MIGHT be because of religion - it WAS because of religion. They were initiated by the church, there's no other explanation than religion begin the cause of that violence.
In order to blame atheism for violence, you need to find an example that can ONLY be explained due to atheism. There can't be any other explanation or we don't really know the cause at all.
I don't need to provide you with a hypothetical, you've already provided one. Showing that atheists lack morals and thus go on to do a violent act is what your hypothetical. There's plenty of atheists who did violent things, now just prove they have no morals because they are atheist.
Your comment about fairness shows your LACK of understanding of a proof. Asking for a burden an evidence that shows your explanation is the only possibility is a reasonable (and the only logical) request.
Ok. Then I am your example. When I rejected god and objective morality I did things knowing I wouldn't be caught which were clearly evil (stealing). I told myself that despite feeling it was wrong, it ultimately didn't matter because there was no god and I did it.
Don't get condescending ... I'm attempting to answer your challenge. I'm just trying to find what you really want so that I don't waste our time with things you'll dismiss.
It wasn't to be condescending, it was an observation based on your statement.
Okay, I'll accept your example. While I think you're making it up to prove your point, lets just accept it as fact. It's your personal experience, and your stated reason, so I will accept it.
Now go start a war that kills tens of thousands of people because you don't believe in God. Or blow up a building full of people because you don't believe in God. Until then, atheism's evil doesn't hold a candle to religion's.
So you're agreeing that people can do immoral things like lie/cheat/steal for atheistic reasons but you find it hard to believe that those could be responsible for the deaths of X quantity of people?
If a person states that as their reason, then of course I'll accept it, who am I to deny it?
But saying that you stole is not proof that atheism causes the deaths of people. If you're going to give up because I won't accept that connection, then good! It's not proof of anything except that you stole.
I will concede the POSSIBILITY that atheism can cause murder, but unless given proof that it has, I won't accept that it DID cause murder. That's the difference.
Well, I have 2 problems with this comment. For one, you're implying that atheism removes morality, and yet there are atheist people who are moral and do good things even by your standards. So that case isn't very clear cut.
As for abortion, you imply that people abort babies because they don't believe in God, rather than not wanting to have the baby. Your statement also implies that theists NEVER get abortions. Clearly abortion is not as cut and dry as "atheist murder." See my point?
I didn't mean to imply that. Re-read what I wrote. I said it could remove one's obligation to act "rightly".
I'd be really interested to see the numbers of people who believe in god and justify abortion to those who don't believe in god and justify abortion.
I didn't imply that. To the contrary, I've already stated that, as a theist, I believe we all have a similar moral standard within us, independent of our beliefs. Stop the straw man args.
Okay, then let me rephrase: you imply that atheists removes "acting rightly" and yet there are atheists who act rightly. Is that better?
I'd be interested to see too. After all, in the US at least, atheists are a huge minority.
They're not strawman arguments, you cited an example of abortion when I asked for example of atheism being responsible for murder. If you don't want the connection to be made, don't bring up the example! It's easy to mistakenly make this conclusion based on what you say
No. You're changing what I'm saying and then attacking it. Hence my reason for calling them straw men attacks.
I'm not sure if you're doing it on purpose or if you are just unaware.
I said atheism "could" remove your "obligation" to "act rightly" (like it did me). That is vastly different than "atheism removes acting rightly".
I would never make the argument that atheists are immoral. I've met quite a few people of all backgrounds and we all seem to share a common moral code.
Ahh, then I stick to my original statement still because I dispute the implication that there is an ultimate moral and that, therefor, theists are any different morally then atheists (and therefor, are any more or less inclined to do the "right" thing).
Still no strawman, unless you plan to prove the existence of an ultimate morality and that atheists lack it (and thus "could" be more inclined to commit "evil" acts).
I can provide specific examples in which religion HAS caused murder (IE. the crusades, 9/11, etc.). I'm asking YOU to provide an example of a time where atheism HAS caused that kind of murder (something that was clearly caused by atheism or lack of belief in God). If you can't do that, then I'm sorry, I'm not going to accept that atheism HAS caused murder on LACK of an example.
As the internet mime goes, "screenshot or it didn't happen." Lack of an example is not an example.
Make fair complaints about other belief systems. Followers of Jesus make this point too. God is not our enemy he is like our Father and Jesus taught us that. And to love Him above all everything else!
We have our morals built into us and we know that the morality Jesus taught is the truth and it comes from God who created us.
We embrace that God is our judge and he is righteous. All who believe and follow after Jesus are righteous to God!
I know a father that abused his children emotionally, physically and sexually. A Catholic.
Morality comes from personality, not some god. Animals have morality and get along nicely without anyone reading them a Bible.
You can threaten people as much as you like, it will never happen. People have been threatened with the return of some deity for 50000 years without any reaction from any of the 3000 gods. Shame.
That's not the traditional theistic view of morality though. "We" don't claim that you need to believe in god or a bible in order to know what is moral. We are even open to morals being an evolutionary biproduct.
The issue is are they objective and real or are they merely subjective and ultimately illusory? Those are the 2 options.
Of course morality is subjective! To suggest anything else is absolutely absurd!
In traditional roman culture, murdering a parent was perhaps the worst crime a person could commit. In other cultures of the same period, killing your father when he reached his prime was considered a moral obligation.
By the very definition of a moral, it would be immoral to kill a parent as a roman, and immoral not to kill your father in his prime in the other culture.
Then you failed. Maybe it's your lack of understanding? (kidding ..)
I agree that people groups come to subjective morals. That's not the issue. The issue is who is right? Is there an objective standard or is it the case that there is no standard and both your examples are morally "right"?
No, that's a good point. It does become an issue of faith and can't really be argued either way. You could choose to believe that one is correct and the other not.
For me, without any observable evidence, I'm forced to conclude that there is no absolute right or wrong - and certainly nothing ingrained in human beings that would give them guidance (since the same humans can come to opposite conclusions of morality). But that's an opinion based on lack of evidence for the opposite.
Well I applaud your attempt to remain consistent but I highly doubt you live your life that way ... ie that things aren't really good or evil.
What you're saying then is that things like child rape aren't really wrong. They're just wrong to you. And if a person believed it was good, it would just be your subjective opinion against theirs ... but ultimately the act is neither right nor wrong.
Well, I'm amused by your attempt to judge my life without ever meeting me, but to each their own.
You nailed my beliefs on the head actually. I choose to believe that things are wrong, such as rape, but I also feel obligated to recognize that the opinion I have is a product of my upbringing and the way I choose to live my life. While I will admit, I don't think anyone could ever get me to agree that it's not evil, I don't believe that morality is anything more than what we decide it to be.
(I'm drawing conclusions about your belief from what you say/write)
Right ... and if we had all been raised another way, it might be the case that child rape is good.
I find that really hard to believe. It seems entirely more plausible that things are really evil, like child rape, despite any subjective society that claimed it good.
The age of sexual consent in the US isn't even a federal issue, each state has it's own guidelines and punishments. For something is not subjective, it's amazing... well... subjective!
And to conclude that you would or wouldn't believe things even if you grew up in a different culture is preposterous! You can't possibly know what different experiences would have had on you.
Many child molesters were abused and molested as children. It stands to reason that a society that do this regularly would probably perpetuate it in their children.
I didn't conclude you would or wouldn't. I was using a philosophical idea known as possible worlds to show what your belief concludes.
Imagine if an alien civilization joined our planet and believed forcibly raping their young was ethical. Would you have any standing to tell them they were wrong or prevent them from doing it?
By any standing, do you mean any standing beyond my own personal opinion?
If so, then no, I wouldn't.
If including my opinion, then I would have my own opinion.
Btw, my previous comment was stating that you don't know how you would behave if you grew up in a society that molested children. Many child molesters were themselves abused and molested, so it stands to reason that if you grew up in society that condoned that, you probably wouldn't think it "evil."
As a theist, I would make the claim that although the molester feels compelled to do it, he wouldn't feel justified.
I can't prove that. It's an inference from my own experience. I grew up in a society of liars and I feel compelled to lie many times, but I don't feel justified in lying (in MOST cases)
Then I think we basically agree. We both only have our own opinions to stand on.
And as I said before, I'm willing to accept the fact that my opinions are based on my upbringing (at least in large part) and that I could be wrong. But I don't see any evidence for a universal moral truth, so I think that right and wrong is also a matter of opinion. But that's just me!
The part that is hard for me to accept on your belief is that if you didn't exist and the remainder of the society thought the act was moral, then it would be.
Like if all of us who believed that putting jews in internment camps was wrong were killed, would it then be moral to put jews in internment because everyone (except for the jews) believed it was?
it just seems to me that more plausible that things are right/wrong whether i'm alive to think it or not
Here's another question, if humans didn't exist at all, would morality still exist? We're the only living things that are capable of thinking about it, so without us, is it even real anymore?
You're asking a question that can't be answered. So, I my response is based on what I observe:
I don't observe a morality outside of what humans make it, so if all humans agree that something is moral, like killing jews (which would require jews to agree), then surely it must be moral!
...if jews don't agree, than the issue is not very clear.
Kind of reminds me of the way the world is now. Not on that particular issue, but on others.
The end result though, for me, is that morality is a human construct. Humans define what is and is not moral, there's no evidence of anything else. So, with that in mind, surely if all human beings agree something is moral, than it must be moral, even if people didn't think that way in the past.
the part that bothers me about your belief is that things that are really evil in their set of circumstances can be morally right at a later time in similar circumstances.
for me, i can accept that a society was wrong and thought something was right, which our current society now deems evil (like child sacrifice). but what I can't accept is that it WAS right to do it back then and now it IS right to not do it.
But that ignores the complexity of how people are raised, as is the case in the murdering parents example I gave above.
It's a fine opinion that you have, but it's based on how you were raised. So even if there was a universal moral truth (which you have no evidence of) you have no idea if you're falling it or not, even if you think you are. Your morals were taught to you by your culture, you can't really prove otherwise as the only evidence shows culture imparts acceptable behavior.
I agree with you though. I could be wrong on what is moral and not moral. But how we come to know what is moral is not the question. The question is if anything truly is moral or not. It's an ontological question, not epistemological.
and all we can do is play hypotheticals (without just invoking deities) in regards to both our views and then determine which seems more plausible.
I certainly agree with you there. Can people be moral, I think so. Is there a "true moral" or a "universal moral?" I think not. But that's just my opinion.
That's not really a luxury afforded to your position. People are moral if they act in accordance with your moral standard. If they act outside it, all you can say is that yes they are still moral (only it's their moral standard and not mine).
I think you take this line to be consistent, which I actually admire. I just don't think you live that way. When someone cuts in front of you, they were following their moral code but you still object.
You can choose to believe I live my life any way you want, it's not really any concern of mine nor a concern of this debate. If that's all you have to say, I'm not really going to address it.
You're asking when does something become justifiable? I think things are justifiable to the extend that a person wants to live with it.
That is to say, if a person cannot live their life knowing that something is happening and not doing something about it, they should do something about it - and they should do as much as they believe necessary to live with themselves.
I can't tell a person how to live their life or live up to their morals. A person must decide that on their own.
When would YOU be justified in forcing your morality on someone else ... like in the case of female circumcision. When you could you force the father to stop and how would you justify that?
In regards to the alien society, would you be justified in taking action to prevent them from committing their act of rape? If so, how would you justify that they were wrong?
Would I be justified in trying to stop them? That depends on how well I am able to live with myself.
Speaking honestly, it would probably depend on if it was forced on me, and if it was publicized often. Rape is rampant in our existing culture, how do you justify not spending your life trying to stop it?
That being said, if I (or you) did stop it, you couldn't justify that they were wrong (you'd have to prove a universal moral to do that). You simply justify that you believe...
I don't believe they are objective in the sense that there are these rule floating about like "killing is wrong". Rather I think about them circumstantially. ie that there is a right and wrong in each circumstance.
as an extreme example: I would say it was moral to rape a child if the only inescapable alternative was to rape 5 children.
re: your wife - She'll put you in hell if you don't! :)
most christian theists don't believe doing bad things sends you to hell ...fyi
Jesus taught peace and truth. Why despise those who read and adhere to Jesus?
If Jesus' teaching = peace, how do you make argument that Jesus followers = violent?
At any moment a person is not following/obey/behaving as Jesus commands they are not following Jesus. So how say Jesus is problem and dangerous?
Human nature is arrogance and hate to be told what to do even when it is the right thing. True believers in God are humble, loving, forgiving and live their life to serve others.
The word "atheism" does not necessarily make sense outside Middle Eastern religions.
Mao and Pol Pot had a Chinese background; the concept of "atheism" has no direct correspondence to oriental metaphysics.
Hitler, Franco and Salazar were devout Catholics.
Mussolini was formally a Catholic.
Stalin came from a traditional Slavic culture, he would be an "atheist" anyway, relatively to Abrahamic religions, even if he were deeply religious regarding his own traditions.
hat does warfare and weapons, such as the sword, have to do with the reign of God?Jesus came in peace to reconcile a broken and sinful humanity with an all-merciful and loving God.Jesus also came to wage war, to overthrow the powers and principalities arrayed against God and his kingdom.What are these powers? Jesus describes Satan as the ruler of this world whom he will cast out (John 12:31). battle Jesus had in mind was not an earthly conflict bu a spiritual warfare between Satan and God.
Ok ,u say wheres the link between atheism and violence.Plz explain whers the link between teachings of Jesus who said love your enemies and if someone slaps u on one cheek offer him the other and violence.There is no justification to violence if u follow the teachings of jesus but atheism though it never encourages killing ,the fact is that it does not have a moral code and beleives we were apes once and gives one no reason to examine the wellbeing of others coz he essentially doesnt need to.
your the perfecrt example of close minded athiest.
read your Bible a little more in depth. between the lines. find out what the sword will be used for. not going to tell you. find out for yourself.
And if anyone does not obey instruction, take special note of that man and do not associate with him, so that he may be put to shame. And yet do not regard him as your enemy.
I just get angry at idiots who have zero idea and demonstrate their ignorance in an inane comment.
jeremy: yes, I am biased and close minded as I will listen to arguments but will not go back to the cave.
I hear your objection and grant you the necessity to read between the lines and interpret and decide when to take literally, allegorically or metaphorically. And that's my problem: I can't accept any of the 3 Bibles as reliable basis, because you need to do that.
@StopSpamming1 dude make your own decisions. i am saying that you are not getting some of the bible (my opinion). God will lift the veil from the eyes no one else. Christians are not going to convert anyone in such debates EVER!!!!!! if the athiest is concerned and needs questions answered about Christianity, then we will. to debate Gods existance is blasphemy
@StopSpamming1 you dont know shit. you need all this proof. you sound like a litle girl. i dont give a shit what you believe!!! your ignorant as hell. go find someone else you can debate your nothing to. your weak, pathetic and needy. i will not waste another moment on your pathetic statements.
christians that defend themselves after all the facts that show the negative impact they have had on society are just stupid... this world would be a completely different place if they didnt make up religion
You're completely right. Why do theists keep coming out with "OMFG look at Stalin, Mao, Pot, Hitler!"... do they not realized their argument is based on fallacy?
I didnt care to write on his wall becos his admiration to Christianity comes of a revenge attitude so there is no place for reason of logic. Christianity has given him a reason & chance to show that he too is great. That is human nature to show how we r superior than others. Christianity & Islam have all the ingredients that can help support this false pride without being reasonable & logical.
you made good points.. but u got to understand the psychology of a converted Christians like the other dude. Christians in Southeast Asia r mostly from the oppressed class of their societies. these people have been exploited by religious fanatics from centuries. So they r the ones who convert to some alternative religion n have became more vocal in showing down other religions.
you made good points.. but u got to understand the psychology of a converted Christians like the other dude. Christians in Southeast Asia r mostly from the oppressed class of their societies. these people have been exploited by religious fanatics from centuries. So they r the ones who convert to some alternative religion n have became more vocal in showing down other religions.
pray while you still come if you had alot of nightmares your day of life might come to an end soon ibeen around a girl that was possesed that was no joke very fucking real the demon was actually speaking to and my friend it was realest thing ever very scARY to even think about god is real do you realize you can talk from your mouth and your brain thats spiritual bad vibes around people thats spiritual
So let me ask you this. Its kind of funny how the only religion atheists try to refute is christianity. tell me what "atrocities" jews have commited or Hindus have commited or the several other religions noone seems to pay much attention to. By the way I am an agnostic.
Joseph Stalin commited those crimes the same as any christians or creationists did. He despised anyone with other beleifs and therefor killed them for it. Simply put. So your argument is that Stalins acts are excusable just because his acts were an effort to get more athority. He was equally as intollerant of religion and christians were when they commited those crimes against atheism.
Ummmm how do you even know that these religiously motivated crimes were TRUELY done for religious motives? Dont you think these people used religion as a MASK to HIDE the fact that they TOO like these Atheists were "Authoritarian Assholes"? Then what is the difference?
its not religion that makes people violent. authoritarians utilize peoples religious beliefs as an excuse to get followers to commit violence. citing the religion as the reason is only going skin deep. the religion itself is not to blame for the violence, as usual it is PEOPLE who are to blame for manipulating other people into violence regardless of pretext.
Well said sir, if even a molecule of what you said got through you have done something worthwhile. All our views on this very important question must be informed through history and logic...those that refuse to do so basically rule themselves out of the conversation.
Dude, you are hardcore in the right. I was going to write almost this same rant and then saw your video. Be happy that you are smarter than most of America....rock on man
I never said there was not a difference. I'm saying that killing people that attack atheism was justified to them because it maintained the power structure, not because it maintained atheism. And they certainly did not cite atheism as a reason for killing them. The blame is not placed on atheism, but on these people. It was not in the name of atheism. You've yet to show a source that showed any of these said "we are executing you because atheism tells us to."
Your words: "You've yet to show a source that showed any of these said 'we are executing you because atheism tells us to'."
Atheism has no substance by itself, that is why it is to easily incorporated into political ideologies that have to use for religion. If the USSR was not an Atheist state
millions of people would not have been jailed or executed.
Atheism is not an actual centralized ideology, you're right. It's just the disbelief that God exists. Your claim that the USSR would not have killed that many people if it was not atheistic is farcical. What proof do you have for this other than this empty platitude?
If the USSR did not adopt an ideology that incorporated Atheism they would have had no reason to persecute people of faith who criticized Atheism. Tens of millions were killed by the the USSR for different reasons but a least a nice percentage of those people could have been spared if there were no laws in place making it OK to jail and kill people of faith. If you don't believe me just do a little bit of research yourself and you'll see what I'm talking about.
Yes they would. They would have the same reason that they made it illegal for to do it. It subverts government authority by presenting an alternative authority system.
lol do you hear your self? You prove that people can use atheism to kill!
Saying its not comparable is no different than Christians saying the crusaders are not comparable to current Christians lol.
efletch91 = absolute proof that at least one atheist is a MORON!
kkid84 5 months ago
Commism doesn't tolerate other ideologies. Othe ideologies are inferior.
Hitler was only Christian, he said he was doing what he was doing for the Christian God, and was also a creationist., as he said in his book.
Al1981X 1 year ago
@Al1981X Was he Christian? Or rather a praticing Catholic? I seem to remember him being Catholic... however, I could be wrong.
ccline84 1 year ago
@ccline84 Catholic, and by Catholic not that bad.
Al1981X 1 year ago
The fact is that neither the CCCP, Germany, Cambodia, China or North Korea were democracies, They were in fact Theocracies with a supreme leader in sole charge of the country thus the had more in common with religion than any refusal to believe in a deity. The fact that religions were suppressed in these countries is not because their leaders were Atheists, there is little evidence of this, it was because they did not recognise the supreme authority of the leaders,
TheTomtompiper 1 year ago
If you have actually read the origin of species then you will know what I am talking about.... It claims some nationalities of people (I won't say which ones as not to insult), are sub-human, as in they are less-evolved. Read it, that is what it says
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
mmm.... =3 but I guess the most accurate thing to say its there is different races of humans because its an adaptation to the different environments. I mean.... Inuits are the only humans who can avoid eating fruit or vegetables for months without getting seriously ill (and eventually die).
tenedria 1 year ago
@tenedria Perhaps, however how far allong the chain are we going to determine "new races"... it is this kind equivocation that is hotly debated in what constitutes a species. That said, it is a form of variation, however I would say it is within the species, as the humans aren't deviating from the original plan too far.. ie- 1 head, 2legs, 2arms etc. If one of these had deviated to the point of no longer resembling a mainstream human, then that is a new species as its DNA would be different too.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
but DNA is different for each individual =) anyways. Also, as far as I know, most mammals have 1 head, 2legs, 2arms etc. Cause they all come from the "original plan" of the first living thing with a head. (its a worm)
tenedria 1 year ago
@tenedria Yes my DNA is different to yours that is true. However we contain the same GENES, ie- we both have a gene for eye colour. Whilst our eyes may be different in colour that difference does not impact on the total physiology, ie we are still both humans. What you have said is misleading. Where did the original plan emmanate from? Do you accept that DNA is a code?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
yup, well we can represent it has a code but DNA is basically the plan that is made right after the conception of any living animal. Its a code contained in any cell. Thats why its possible to clone with a cell and a ovule (YET it creates only a 50% owner of cell, 50% owner of the ovule + possibilities of a slight change ex. allergies, other eye color, etc.) The human skin, heart, eyes are almost exactly the same in pigs BTW, were not aliens, were very close to animals physically
tenedria 1 year ago
@tenedria Never said anything about aliens, so not sure why you are spouting off about them? SO if DNA is a CODE, and a CODE represents information. Where did this information come from? As the only examples of the origins of information in reality are, from intelligence.... :D DNA proves the existance of something greater, (not sure what it is, but it is out there)
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
*face plam*
"were not aliens, were very close to animals physically" is a metaphor, I tough it was obvious.
Ok, its not because something isn't understood yet that you must go "omg god created it" I bet you don't know how a television works, yet you KNOW its not god who builder it.
tenedria 1 year ago
@tenedria Actually I do know how a Television works, (I did Physics at high school), and Yes God / Gods / Transformer Cube didn't BUILD it. However what solution do you have to the fact that DNA is proof of a design and thus a designer. Nature cannot Design information, we have not observed any such case of it doing so, and to suggest as such is an assumption, NOT science. Hence Evolution really isn't scientific as it is based on assumptions, not scientific facts of reality.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
also how they change is not magic, its trough the long process of natural selection. Exemple; new pesticide is out, eliminates almost every fly around. However, we all know each individual is different, its true to flies as well. All the fly who were already immune to it are the only one to survive and they than reproduce. Now the whole fly specie is immune to the new pesticide. With a colder climate and wolf, same thing but only the wolves with ticker fur or more fat survives.
tenedria 1 year ago
@tenedria Yes insects can develop resistance to pesticides, but guess what at the end of the day... THEY ARE STILL THE SAME KIND OF INSECT! Don't you understand this? No change to another species is observed as such you haven't posted evidence of evoution.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
....... gosh OF COURSE there still the same insect thats what a MICRO-EVOLUTION, I never said it was a macro-evolution. and I can't send links, its you-tube's laws.
Anyways, even if the pesticide makes a slight change its also a slight modification in the specie's DNA, I asked a student in biology and she told me once the DNA becomes too different they can't breed between them successfully anymore (horse+donkey= sterile mule or Hinny) and even further, it gets impossible.
tenedria 1 year ago
@tenedria So you admit that even though they ARE OBSERVED to stay the same insect, it is ASSUMED that macro-evolution occurs. Have you ever seen a cat turn into a dog no, hence what you claim is not observed and is an ASSUMPTION, not science.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
no its not exactly the same insect, because their immunization to pesticides is hereditary. It means a change happened in their DNA. They might look like their "ancestors" but their DNA is different. :) its simple like that.
tenedria 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
ugh, what you don't get about science is this....
fact-> what we can conclude from it -> THAN theory
thats the process that created the evolution theory, a guy started observing animals and how they are linked together. Than more and more facts points to that theory, until there is so many that its hardly a theory.
Yes something complicated could result of evolution, just think about how worms are simple compared to eels, than fish, than reptiles, than birds, than mammals.
tenedria 1 year ago
@tenedria Judging from the posts here, I know more about science than you, (as I should I am a Uni student). However I am not here to say how good I am. What Darwin did was assume a link, as mentioned before assumptions are not scientific. Did he observe one species changing to another? NO so how can the theory of evolution be scientific when no observations have been made.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
and.... about god... gosh you really really seriously believe a guy existed like.... forever and ever... like even long before there was earth and he suddenly went like "I'm bored and I feel lonely even tough I don't even know what anyone else is... Oh I know lets create stuffs!"
yeah right... if you can assume a guy like that existed forever, why can't you think a DNA code might have been created by natural selection... after all, the fist ones weren't complicated.
tenedria 1 year ago
@tenedria The reason why I don't believe that nature can form a code out of random stuff, is that it doesn't. PERIOD. What you have posted here is a FAITH statement, as such it is a perfect example of how belief in evolution is much like a belief in a religion. Just exchange God for Natural selection and there you go. Furthermore, I never said I was religious, just that the EVIDENCE IN REALITY points to a creator as such.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
no, simple primitive organism have a simpler DNA its just a fact, it doesn't have anything to do with faith. >__> pffff Your claiming that something like a god existed forever and ever and never was created... and why? cause thats what a BOOK told you? a book and who else... your mom who read the same book?
No! I say what is unknown should be researched until we find the PROVEN TRUTH. Prove me that god exist!!! NOW! you can't, no one can, guess why?
tenedria 1 year ago
@tenedria BAHAHAHA... Ok show me how some forms of DNA are simpler to others. That statement is entirely fallicious, and is conjured by your FAITH in evolution. You need it to be true, at any cost, so will sporadicaly make false statements to ascertain this. Also you are making more false statements as I am not religious, hence your BS response is a knee-jerk reaction to be shown wrong in your logic.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@tenedria Yes but you just said inuits are humans, so if they are humans and we are humans then where is the change. Its only a change WITHIN a kind / species, ie- different breeds (like dogs and cats)... Never have we seen a change from one species to another.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
well it takes more than a generation to see any change at all, we can't live that long (dah). However, what I spoke about is called a micro-evolution and its more than likely that they can cumulate. Assuming that, tons of micro-evolutions cumulating will eventually reach a different looking animal, and even further an other species.Dogs are still dogs now, even with all the races we made BUT you CANT reproduce a chihuahua with any dog, which suggest the start of an other species.
tenedria 1 year ago
@tenedria No the changes in so called "micro-evolution" cannot culminate to form "macro-evolution". If you knew anything about physiology you'd see how incredulous this notion is. There are systems in Biology that require ALL the parts to function properly BEFORE any benefit can be gained from the system, (the human digestion system is one), as such it is impossible for such a system to "evolve" over the years, as no benefit is gained until it is fully formed.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
*facepalm again*
macro-evolutions= micro-evolution+micro-evolution+ micro-evolution+ micro-evolution+ micro-evolution+ micro-evolution+ micro-evolution+ micro-evolution+ micro-evolution
Micro-evos happens...if the environment changes slightly and slightly like this: tropical -> savanna->temperate->"boreal"->ice age, animals will change with it too but they can't remain tropical and survive in the ice age... Their physical traits obviously had to change a HELL lot.
tenedria 1 year ago
@tenedria Wrong again! Macro evolution via micro evolution is an assumption nothing more. Assumptions are not scientific, nor are they factual. If evolution theory is a scientific theory, where is the scientific evidence?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
*face palm* DNA, dating of bones... look at a bonobo chimp... than the Australopithecus, than the Australopithecus sediba, than the homo erectus, than homo neandertalis, The're all human/monkeys and we keep finding new missing links all the time. How else can you explain why those human-monkeys exist uh?
dam it, I'm wasting my time with you, you couldn't see evolution if it happened right in front of your eyes... you would go like "OMG a miracle from god!"
Suborn as a donkey.
tenedria 1 year ago
@tenedria Actually, all the "transitional forms" you have stated have been debunked. They are either bones from apes. Or are acceptable variations within the same species, ie- scientists feel that there are not enough change in order to regard them as a "new" species. As such you are spouting of old false info from an evo religious site. Go read a book, and learn for yourself
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
........ uh no, because of the skulls... I mean, the body could have been mixed up but not the skull....
lol what the hell is your reference anyways? a random guy from youtube?
tenedria 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
Also, if what you just said was true, it would have been in modern debates and news. Any one can publish a book, just look at all the crap you can get into a library, it doesn't mean the book is true... for a study to be really serious it needs more and more study pointing into the same direction cause you know, no mater the research, there is always some mad scientist pointing in an other direction than anyone else. >_> its sad but true, science is a twisted field
tenedria 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
so than mister smarty pants 1+1=2 is an assumption?
I assume you said no. micro-evolution + micro-evolution +micro evolution = 3 x micro-evolution
would that be an assumption?
NO, ITS CALLED MATHS (algebra to be precise)
If a micro-evolution = 1 change in DNA than,
micro evolution x 10 = 10 changes in DNA code
if even further micro-evo. x 100 = 100 changes in DNA code IF it continues to
micro-evo x 100 000 ...
its not impossible to be a completely different animal now.
tenedria 1 year ago
@tenedria No what you said was an assumption, (nowhere near maths too), if you haven't seen it happen, then you are assuming it did. Period.
Furthermore, maths actually disprove evolution on the basis of mutation frequency as well as spontaneous protein occurance (abiogeneisis)
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
pfff... well I didn't want to go there but anyways... you can say watever you want with maths and I would like you to point out a reliable source (no forums, no Wikipedia, no news-journal, no "mister-anyone"'s web page) of those "discoveries that disproof evolution"
Anyways, if you are so sure of what you claim than explain to me right now why humans have an apprentice if its completely worthless to them? The only explanation to it is evolution for now as far as I know.
tenedria 1 year ago
@tenedria Ok here is one of the many out there. However due to the BIAS in scientific circles. (I have experienced it first hand), I don't hold much faith in their system of review. Its reviewed by people, people are flawed. Mathematically read about Dr Lee Spetner, or just some casual reviewing of the internet. Don't fall into the trap of "arguementum ad populus", research the topic yourself.
wwwDOTnatureDOTcom/nature/journal/v467/n7315/full/nature09352.html
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
Comment removed
tenedria 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
oh sorry, I figured it out... anyways.... I SAID NO JOURNALS. >__> dam it...
the're not true enough, too many of them tells lies.
tenedria 1 year ago
@tenedria
What the journal article shows is that over 35 years of research on fruit flys, whilst the population genetics changed over time due to selection, there was no fixation of a wholly benefitial mutation. They admit the selection pressures were HIGHER and were more sustained than in nature itself, thus if anything were to happen that study was the prime candidate for it to occur.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
I think its obvious I builded my own theory about how evolution works...
I know I'm still lacking knowledge into genomes for it but I know the genome for legs can't be found in a fish but CAN be found in a dolphin or a whale (both mammals) which is something else then the human appendice that proves evolution. Also, with humans again, did you know we have the genome to build a tail? but its just "turned off", OR the jaw muscle, atrophied because of a missing chromosome in humans.
tenedria 1 year ago
@tenedria Who told you whales have the genes for legs... Look at a picture of a whale, looks like a flipper to me.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
LOLS! xD you don't get it... what your thinking about is its arms, a whale has no legs because the gene is turned off but if you look at its DNA it has the potential of building legs. Some whales were even found with tiny bone legs integrated in their skin.
tenedria 1 year ago
@tenedria I asked you, how do you KNOW the whale has the gene for actual legs. Have you sequenced the genes of whales?
If you haven't then you are ASSUMING that whales have this gene. Tiny bones mean Jack, as I have heard that they asist in keeping the whales sexual parts protected whilst mating, (however this is speculative)
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
im not assuming it, useless limbs is one of the most OBVIOUS evidence of evolution. Whales, dolphins and snakes are found with legs sometimes, blend fact (Dolphin: wwwDOTunderwatertimesDOTcom/newsDOTphp?article_id=31071605289 SNAKE: wwwDOTtelegraphDOTcoDOTuk/earth/wildlife/6187320/Snake-with-foot-found-in-ChinaDOThtml) 2 choice: leg genes turned off and on OR random mutation that created a leg (both pro-evolution anyways)
tenedria 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
I would like you to explain why, why would a whale have the genes for legs but not fish if it wasn't for evolution?
tenedria 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
ALSO WHERE IS THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDANCE OF ANY OTHER POSSIBLE THEORY ABOUT LIFE.
the bible doesn't count... its a book, that was written by Mans and BTW, in the years where the Christ was born, rare were those who knew how to write, that makes it highly unlikely that the bible was actually written by many of Jesus prophets.
tenedria 1 year ago
@tenedria I am not putting an alternative theory forward, hence I don't need to show any evidence for anything. This is why I am agnostic. I am just showing you how evolution is illogical in the eyes of science.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
about the chihuahua, please don't tell me you need a prof for how impossible it would be to breed a chihuahua with a grand Dane.
tenedria 1 year ago
@tenedria The Chihuahua and Great Dane are the same species, just different breeds of the same species.. It isn't impossible, and your atempts really are silly. Test your hypothesis by getting a Great Dane egg and Chihuahua sperm and see if a cross-breed develops. I bet you it will.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
yeah it will BUT the pup is likely to be born deformed enough to die in the first days or simply be so ugly that the owner would go kill it himself.
tenedria 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Geronami is doctor. You can search for his full name Paul Geronami Kattupalli. If you see about 10 of his videos, you will see that he is right wing propagandist. The republicans have found a non-white face and it's an attempt by them to hide their racism. He is the perfect propagandist because he is well educated. It's just like the republicans to indulge in this hoodwinking.
jckshrff 1 year ago
"U cannot provide a link of causal relationship between these people being athiests and their actions".Let me do it for him then. It is very apparent that Darwinism and athiesm have very, very strong ties. I put it to you that the evil works of, to use one example,Stalin,directly correlates with that of Darwinian theory and athiesm.The systematic extermination of the weakest in society,who cannot benefit the gene pool.Stalin was employing himself as mother nature in a Darwin - influenced logic
GoldenbanjoDJ 1 year ago
@GoldenbanjoDJ
Nope, bro. Stalin's victims were by and large political enemies that he executed for being enemies of the state. Anybody that didn't fall in line with the Soviet master plan got iced. It didn't have much to do with being weak—at least not in a Darwinian sense of weakness.
efletch91 1 year ago
With or without religion, good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things.
But for good people to do bad things that takes religion. (Steven Weinberg)
joferbrasil 1 year ago
Hitler = Eugenics = Darwin = Atheist = not Catholic
He embraced the Catholic church for political reasons not because of faith in God!!!
You're way off your argument. You don't understand what that guy was saying.
The point is that Religion = violence and genocide was the first argument that Dawkin's brought up in his book, when he is supposed to present arguments to support his claim that God doesn't exist. It is no different than a political smear campaign and the same can be done to him!
markpasky08 1 year ago
@markpasky08 oh yeah, why does it say in mein kampf that he was doing the word of god and when asked, actually sincerely believed it. he has actually been said to have been aprehensive of some acts that he caused/comminted.
daemonowner 1 year ago
@daemonowner Yet when you read Darwins Origin of the Species, it gives cause for racism and genocide. Some nationalities of people were considered "sub-humans", and were slaughtered for study... Anyway this is semantics and really has no bearing on the evidence of evolution... What empirical evidence is there? All science starts with empirical evidence
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 how on earth does the origin of species give cause for racism and genocide, darwin was opposed to that and sexism, and natural selection does not advocate that. if your argument is that natural selection means we should kill the handicaps and other races, you haven't understood it. we are a social species, and not killing other members of our species is vital to our survival as a species, and we have gained empathy which also benefits us in the same way.
daemonowner 1 year ago
Goddamn you're stupid.
ZenMuadDib1 1 year ago
Nice job Fletch. You could have said that Stalin et. al were atheists because they wanted to be God.
Haroldbeavis1969 1 year ago
As a thought experiment, what would serve as an example of an evil done in the name of atheism?
In listening to you and it seems you've defined your way out of any accountability. So I'm just curious to see if you think any "evil" could be classified as being caused by an atheist or atheism in general.
trenton1980 2 years ago
Trenton, as stated in the beginning, provide a casual link between lack of religion (or rather, belief that God is not real IE. athiesm) and violence.
A suicide bomber killing infidels because an interpretation of a religious text is a casual link between religion and violence. Because the interpretation of the holy text told him to kill infidels, and he believed in that religion, he committed a violent act.
If atheism causes violence, show the same kind of casual link.
ialsoagree 1 year ago
@ialsoagree
Ha. But that's what I'm asking you. What would serve as an example of atheism causing evil?
Hypothetically, If I concluded there was no objective moral standard because god did not exist, then would my choice to kill a puppy be caused by atheism?
or ....
Because god does not exist, charity is ultimately pointless and all those kids in africa can starve. Would that be caused by atheism?
trenton1980 1 year ago
If you can show that lack of moral standard is derived by atheism, than sure, those would qualify. But that's going to be a hard task. As Dawkins points out, Atheists tend to live the best (often most moral) lives they can because they believe that this is the only life we get.
And by the way, your question is kinda silly. After all, I'm not asking you how to show that theists cause violence am I? Of course an atheist isn't going to give you the example you're looking for. Find it yourself!
ialsoagree 1 year ago
Just be careful though. Finding an example that MIGHT be because of atheism isn't good enough. The Crusades is NOT an example that MIGHT be because of religion - it WAS because of religion. They were initiated by the church, there's no other explanation than religion begin the cause of that violence.
In order to blame atheism for violence, you need to find an example that can ONLY be explained due to atheism. There can't be any other explanation or we don't really know the cause at all.
ialsoagree 1 year ago
@ialsoagree
Give me a hypothetical then. I think you're setting the rules of the game so that you can't lose. I'm just curious if this is the case.
I think you'll always evade any responsibility by saying "no, that was an atheist who did X but not because he was an atheist".
I'm up for a challenge but I just don't think your game is fair.
trenton1980 1 year ago
I don't need to provide you with a hypothetical, you've already provided one. Showing that atheists lack morals and thus go on to do a violent act is what your hypothetical. There's plenty of atheists who did violent things, now just prove they have no morals because they are atheist.
Your comment about fairness shows your LACK of understanding of a proof. Asking for a burden an evidence that shows your explanation is the only possibility is a reasonable (and the only logical) request.
ialsoagree 1 year ago
@ialsoagree
Ok. Then I am your example. When I rejected god and objective morality I did things knowing I wouldn't be caught which were clearly evil (stealing). I told myself that despite feeling it was wrong, it ultimately didn't matter because there was no god and I did it.
Don't get condescending ... I'm attempting to answer your challenge. I'm just trying to find what you really want so that I don't waste our time with things you'll dismiss.
trenton1980 1 year ago
It wasn't to be condescending, it was an observation based on your statement.
Okay, I'll accept your example. While I think you're making it up to prove your point, lets just accept it as fact. It's your personal experience, and your stated reason, so I will accept it.
Now go start a war that kills tens of thousands of people because you don't believe in God. Or blow up a building full of people because you don't believe in God. Until then, atheism's evil doesn't hold a candle to religion's.
ialsoagree 1 year ago
@ialsoagree
So you're agreeing that people can do immoral things like lie/cheat/steal for atheistic reasons but you find it hard to believe that those could be responsible for the deaths of X quantity of people?
haha
I give up then
trenton1980 1 year ago
@trenton1980
If a person states that as their reason, then of course I'll accept it, who am I to deny it?
But saying that you stole is not proof that atheism causes the deaths of people. If you're going to give up because I won't accept that connection, then good! It's not proof of anything except that you stole.
I will concede the POSSIBILITY that atheism can cause murder, but unless given proof that it has, I won't accept that it DID cause murder. That's the difference.
ialsoagree 1 year ago
@ialsoagree
I would make a more general conclusion that the lack of ultimate morality and meaning could remove one's obligation to do the right thing.
I feel justified in saying "the right thing" because I am granting you religious people doing the "wrong" thing.
I would offer abortion as an example to my first point. people killing because of inconvenience (even granting rape and incest specialty cases).
trenton1980 1 year ago
Well, I have 2 problems with this comment. For one, you're implying that atheism removes morality, and yet there are atheist people who are moral and do good things even by your standards. So that case isn't very clear cut.
As for abortion, you imply that people abort babies because they don't believe in God, rather than not wanting to have the baby. Your statement also implies that theists NEVER get abortions. Clearly abortion is not as cut and dry as "atheist murder." See my point?
ialsoagree 1 year ago
@ialsoagree
I didn't mean to imply that. Re-read what I wrote. I said it could remove one's obligation to act "rightly".
I'd be really interested to see the numbers of people who believe in god and justify abortion to those who don't believe in god and justify abortion.
I didn't imply that. To the contrary, I've already stated that, as a theist, I believe we all have a similar moral standard within us, independent of our beliefs. Stop the straw man args.
trenton1980 1 year ago
Okay, then let me rephrase: you imply that atheists removes "acting rightly" and yet there are atheists who act rightly. Is that better?
I'd be interested to see too. After all, in the US at least, atheists are a huge minority.
They're not strawman arguments, you cited an example of abortion when I asked for example of atheism being responsible for murder. If you don't want the connection to be made, don't bring up the example! It's easy to mistakenly make this conclusion based on what you say
ialsoagree 1 year ago
@ialsoagree
No. You're changing what I'm saying and then attacking it. Hence my reason for calling them straw men attacks.
I'm not sure if you're doing it on purpose or if you are just unaware.
I said atheism "could" remove your "obligation" to "act rightly" (like it did me). That is vastly different than "atheism removes acting rightly".
I would never make the argument that atheists are immoral. I've met quite a few people of all backgrounds and we all seem to share a common moral code.
trenton1980 1 year ago
Actually, you don't know what you said, to quote you:
"lack of ultimate morality and meaning"
If that is atheism (which is what the statement "atheism "could" remove your "obligation"" DIRECTLY implies) then I go back to my original statement:
" For one, you're implying that atheism removes morality"
Sorry, no strawman arguments here!
ialsoagree 1 year ago
@ialsoagree
The key is "ultimate". I never implied you don't/can't have a subjective moral standard.
Atheism removes ultimate morality (in the sense of reality) but not a subjective personal moral code, such as you yourself have.
If we even push further, I would say that atheism only attempts to explain a subjective moral code and theism attempts to explain an objective code.
but the reality is independent of both of those the views.
trenton1980 1 year ago
Ahh, then I stick to my original statement still because I dispute the implication that there is an ultimate moral and that, therefor, theists are any different morally then atheists (and therefor, are any more or less inclined to do the "right" thing).
Still no strawman, unless you plan to prove the existence of an ultimate morality and that atheists lack it (and thus "could" be more inclined to commit "evil" acts).
ialsoagree 1 year ago
@ialsoagree
well ... that was why I liked your video. challenging and stimulating ...
I wasn't sure I could.
trenton1980 1 year ago
@trenton1980
Not sure I understand what you meant. But just in case there is any confusion, this video isn't mine.
ialsoagree 1 year ago
@ialsoagree
haha ... i didn't even check to see the name of the guy who made the video. I assumed it was you due to your response on my first post.
my fault
trenton1980 1 year ago
@trenton1980
No problem, reasonable mistake to make.
ialsoagree 1 year ago
@trenton1980
I can provide specific examples in which religion HAS caused murder (IE. the crusades, 9/11, etc.). I'm asking YOU to provide an example of a time where atheism HAS caused that kind of murder (something that was clearly caused by atheism or lack of belief in God). If you can't do that, then I'm sorry, I'm not going to accept that atheism HAS caused murder on LACK of an example.
As the internet mime goes, "screenshot or it didn't happen." Lack of an example is not an example.
ialsoagree 1 year ago
geez time to get it now. you are blaming loss of faith because people went out in Gods name and did evil. hello! free will! does it get any simpler?!
jeremy208 2 years ago
Make fair complaints about other belief systems. Followers of Jesus make this point too. God is not our enemy he is like our Father and Jesus taught us that. And to love Him above all everything else!
We have our morals built into us and we know that the morality Jesus taught is the truth and it comes from God who created us.
We embrace that God is our judge and he is righteous. All who believe and follow after Jesus are righteous to God!
Jesus will return to establish peace forever!
TricksAre4Figs 2 years ago
I know a father that abused his children emotionally, physically and sexually. A Catholic.
Morality comes from personality, not some god. Animals have morality and get along nicely without anyone reading them a Bible.
You can threaten people as much as you like, it will never happen. People have been threatened with the return of some deity for 50000 years without any reaction from any of the 3000 gods. Shame.
StopSpamming1 2 years ago
@StopSpamming1
That's not the traditional theistic view of morality though. "We" don't claim that you need to believe in god or a bible in order to know what is moral. We are even open to morals being an evolutionary biproduct.
The issue is are they objective and real or are they merely subjective and ultimately illusory? Those are the 2 options.
trenton1980 1 year ago
Of course morality is subjective! To suggest anything else is absolutely absurd!
In traditional roman culture, murdering a parent was perhaps the worst crime a person could commit. In other cultures of the same period, killing your father when he reached his prime was considered a moral obligation.
By the very definition of a moral, it would be immoral to kill a parent as a roman, and immoral not to kill your father in his prime in the other culture.
ialsoagree 1 year ago
@ialsoagree
Right. I understand that's your position. I was merely correcting the theistic claim on the other side.
trenton1980 1 year ago
@trenton1980
That's fine, I'm merely showing you that morality is quite clearly subjective. The answer to your question.
ialsoagree 1 year ago
@ialsoagree
Then you failed. Maybe it's your lack of understanding? (kidding ..)
I agree that people groups come to subjective morals. That's not the issue. The issue is who is right? Is there an objective standard or is it the case that there is no standard and both your examples are morally "right"?
trenton1980 1 year ago
@trenton1980
No, that's a good point. It does become an issue of faith and can't really be argued either way. You could choose to believe that one is correct and the other not.
For me, without any observable evidence, I'm forced to conclude that there is no absolute right or wrong - and certainly nothing ingrained in human beings that would give them guidance (since the same humans can come to opposite conclusions of morality). But that's an opinion based on lack of evidence for the opposite.
ialsoagree 1 year ago
@ialsoagree
Well I applaud your attempt to remain consistent but I highly doubt you live your life that way ... ie that things aren't really good or evil.
What you're saying then is that things like child rape aren't really wrong. They're just wrong to you. And if a person believed it was good, it would just be your subjective opinion against theirs ... but ultimately the act is neither right nor wrong.
trenton1980 1 year ago
Well, I'm amused by your attempt to judge my life without ever meeting me, but to each their own.
You nailed my beliefs on the head actually. I choose to believe that things are wrong, such as rape, but I also feel obligated to recognize that the opinion I have is a product of my upbringing and the way I choose to live my life. While I will admit, I don't think anyone could ever get me to agree that it's not evil, I don't believe that morality is anything more than what we decide it to be.
ialsoagree 1 year ago
I guess you could say, I recognize the fact that just because I choose to believe something doesn't make it so!
ialsoagree 1 year ago
@ialsoagree
(I'm drawing conclusions about your belief from what you say/write)
Right ... and if we had all been raised another way, it might be the case that child rape is good.
I find that really hard to believe. It seems entirely more plausible that things are really evil, like child rape, despite any subjective society that claimed it good.
trenton1980 1 year ago
The age of sexual consent in the US isn't even a federal issue, each state has it's own guidelines and punishments. For something is not subjective, it's amazing... well... subjective!
And to conclude that you would or wouldn't believe things even if you grew up in a different culture is preposterous! You can't possibly know what different experiences would have had on you.
ialsoagree 1 year ago
Many child molesters were abused and molested as children. It stands to reason that a society that do this regularly would probably perpetuate it in their children.
ialsoagree 1 year ago
@ialsoagree
I didn't conclude you would or wouldn't. I was using a philosophical idea known as possible worlds to show what your belief concludes.
Imagine if an alien civilization joined our planet and believed forcibly raping their young was ethical. Would you have any standing to tell them they were wrong or prevent them from doing it?
trenton1980 1 year ago
@trenton1980
By any standing, do you mean any standing beyond my own personal opinion?
If so, then no, I wouldn't.
If including my opinion, then I would have my own opinion.
Btw, my previous comment was stating that you don't know how you would behave if you grew up in a society that molested children. Many child molesters were themselves abused and molested, so it stands to reason that if you grew up in society that condoned that, you probably wouldn't think it "evil."
ialsoagree 1 year ago
@ialsoagree
Given said society ....
As a theist, I would make the claim that although the molester feels compelled to do it, he wouldn't feel justified.
I can't prove that. It's an inference from my own experience. I grew up in a society of liars and I feel compelled to lie many times, but I don't feel justified in lying (in MOST cases)
trenton1980 1 year ago
@trenton1980
Then I think we basically agree. We both only have our own opinions to stand on.
And as I said before, I'm willing to accept the fact that my opinions are based on my upbringing (at least in large part) and that I could be wrong. But I don't see any evidence for a universal moral truth, so I think that right and wrong is also a matter of opinion. But that's just me!
ialsoagree 1 year ago
@ialsoagree
opinion/reason
The part that is hard for me to accept on your belief is that if you didn't exist and the remainder of the society thought the act was moral, then it would be.
Like if all of us who believed that putting jews in internment camps was wrong were killed, would it then be moral to put jews in internment because everyone (except for the jews) believed it was?
it just seems to me that more plausible that things are right/wrong whether i'm alive to think it or not
trenton1980 1 year ago
Here's another question, if humans didn't exist at all, would morality still exist? We're the only living things that are capable of thinking about it, so without us, is it even real anymore?
You're asking a question that can't be answered. So, I my response is based on what I observe:
I don't observe a morality outside of what humans make it, so if all humans agree that something is moral, like killing jews (which would require jews to agree), then surely it must be moral!
But...
ialsoagree 1 year ago
...if jews don't agree, than the issue is not very clear.
Kind of reminds me of the way the world is now. Not on that particular issue, but on others.
The end result though, for me, is that morality is a human construct. Humans define what is and is not moral, there's no evidence of anything else. So, with that in mind, surely if all human beings agree something is moral, than it must be moral, even if people didn't think that way in the past.
ialsoagree 1 year ago
@ialsoagree
I think of it terms of ability. If an animal has the correct faculties to make a moral decision, then that animal is bound to do so.
ie. I don't consider mentally retarded people bound to ethics necessarily.
That is why we call it "stealing" when a human does it and "taking" when an bird does it.
trenton1980 1 year ago
the part that bothers me about your belief is that things that are really evil in their set of circumstances can be morally right at a later time in similar circumstances.
for me, i can accept that a society was wrong and thought something was right, which our current society now deems evil (like child sacrifice). but what I can't accept is that it WAS right to do it back then and now it IS right to not do it.
trenton1980 1 year ago
But that ignores the complexity of how people are raised, as is the case in the murdering parents example I gave above.
It's a fine opinion that you have, but it's based on how you were raised. So even if there was a universal moral truth (which you have no evidence of) you have no idea if you're falling it or not, even if you think you are. Your morals were taught to you by your culture, you can't really prove otherwise as the only evidence shows culture imparts acceptable behavior.
ialsoagree 1 year ago
@ialsoagree
I agree with you though. I could be wrong on what is moral and not moral. But how we come to know what is moral is not the question. The question is if anything truly is moral or not. It's an ontological question, not epistemological.
and all we can do is play hypotheticals (without just invoking deities) in regards to both our views and then determine which seems more plausible.
trenton1980 1 year ago
@trenton1980
I certainly agree with you there. Can people be moral, I think so. Is there a "true moral" or a "universal moral?" I think not. But that's just my opinion.
ialsoagree 1 year ago
@ialsoagree
That's not really a luxury afforded to your position. People are moral if they act in accordance with your moral standard. If they act outside it, all you can say is that yes they are still moral (only it's their moral standard and not mine).
I think you take this line to be consistent, which I actually admire. I just don't think you live that way. When someone cuts in front of you, they were following their moral code but you still object.
trenton1980 1 year ago
You can choose to believe I live my life any way you want, it's not really any concern of mine nor a concern of this debate. If that's all you have to say, I'm not really going to address it.
ialsoagree 1 year ago
@ialsoagree
To what extent would you be willing to authorize force upon another person or society who was acting against your moral code.
ie. Would you be willing to vote in favor of using force to prevent female circumcision in another society?
In your world view, is it the case, ultimately, that the guy with the biggest force (gun or pulpit) determines morality?
trenton1980 1 year ago
@trenton1980
You're asking when does something become justifiable? I think things are justifiable to the extend that a person wants to live with it.
That is to say, if a person cannot live their life knowing that something is happening and not doing something about it, they should do something about it - and they should do as much as they believe necessary to live with themselves.
I can't tell a person how to live their life or live up to their morals. A person must decide that on their own.
ialsoagree 1 year ago
@ialsoagree
Not "a" person. You. When would "you" be ...
When would YOU be justified in forcing your morality on someone else ... like in the case of female circumcision. When you could you force the father to stop and how would you justify that?
trenton1980 1 year ago
@trenton1980
As I stated before:
"[my life is not] a concern of this debate." The extent of my answer is in the previous comment. =)
ialsoagree 1 year ago
@ialsoagree
ha ... at least you're consistent. no obligation except to one's self.
trenton1980 1 year ago
@ialsoagree
In regards to the alien society, would you be justified in taking action to prevent them from committing their act of rape? If so, how would you justify that they were wrong?
trenton1980 1 year ago
@trenton1980
Would I be justified in trying to stop them? That depends on how well I am able to live with myself.
Speaking honestly, it would probably depend on if it was forced on me, and if it was publicized often. Rape is rampant in our existing culture, how do you justify not spending your life trying to stop it?
That being said, if I (or you) did stop it, you couldn't justify that they were wrong (you'd have to prove a universal moral to do that). You simply justify that you believe...
ialsoagree 1 year ago
...that you are right, and that you couldn't live with yourself if you stood around and did nothing.
ialsoagree 1 year ago
@trenton1980
Can you give me an example of objective morality?
Your father develops a mental illness and holds a knife to your daughters throat. Will you sacrifice your daughter for objective morality?
I tell my 9-month pregnant wife she is sexy and desirable as always. Do I go to some hell for lying?
StopSpamming1 1 year ago
@StopSpamming1
I don't believe they are objective in the sense that there are these rule floating about like "killing is wrong". Rather I think about them circumstantially. ie that there is a right and wrong in each circumstance.
as an extreme example: I would say it was moral to rape a child if the only inescapable alternative was to rape 5 children.
re: your wife - She'll put you in hell if you don't! :)
most christian theists don't believe doing bad things sends you to hell ...fyi
trenton1980 1 year ago
@trenton1980
There you go: it is not objective qed
StopSpamming1 1 year ago
Jesus taught peace and truth. Why despise those who read and adhere to Jesus?
If Jesus' teaching = peace, how do you make argument that Jesus followers = violent?
At any moment a person is not following/obey/behaving as Jesus commands they are not following Jesus. So how say Jesus is problem and dangerous?
Human nature is arrogance and hate to be told what to do even when it is the right thing. True believers in God are humble, loving, forgiving and live their life to serve others.
TricksAre4Figs 2 years ago
The word "atheism" does not necessarily make sense outside Middle Eastern religions.
Mao and Pol Pot had a Chinese background; the concept of "atheism" has no direct correspondence to oriental metaphysics.
Hitler, Franco and Salazar were devout Catholics.
Mussolini was formally a Catholic.
Stalin came from a traditional Slavic culture, he would be an "atheist" anyway, relatively to Abrahamic religions, even if he were deeply religious regarding his own traditions.
LiberdadeHedonista 2 years ago
hat does warfare and weapons, such as the sword, have to do with the reign of God?Jesus came in peace to reconcile a broken and sinful humanity with an all-merciful and loving God.Jesus also came to wage war, to overthrow the powers and principalities arrayed against God and his kingdom.What are these powers? Jesus describes Satan as the ruler of this world whom he will cast out (John 12:31). battle Jesus had in mind was not an earthly conflict bu a spiritual warfare between Satan and God.
shaioliver 2 years ago
Typical reply from someone who needs some evolution lol.
shaioliver 2 years ago
Ok ,u say wheres the link between atheism and violence.Plz explain whers the link between teachings of Jesus who said love your enemies and if someone slaps u on one cheek offer him the other and violence.There is no justification to violence if u follow the teachings of jesus but atheism though it never encourages killing ,the fact is that it does not have a moral code and beleives we were apes once and gives one no reason to examine the wellbeing of others coz he essentially doesnt need to.
shaioliver 2 years ago
You are a perfect example of the uneducated believer.
No idea of what atheism is.
No idea of what evolution is.
No idea of what morality is.
But a bigot and naive like a child.
Jesus in Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
StopSpamming1 2 years ago
@StopSpamming1 sword against what?
your the perfecrt example of close minded athiest.
read your Bible a little more in depth. between the lines. find out what the sword will be used for. not going to tell you. find out for yourself.
And if anyone does not obey instruction, take special note of that man and do not associate with him, so that he may be put to shame. And yet do not regard him as your enemy.
quit entertaining these ignorantostics.
read Thessalonians 2:11 2:12
jeremy208 2 years ago
I just get angry at idiots who have zero idea and demonstrate their ignorance in an inane comment.
jeremy: yes, I am biased and close minded as I will listen to arguments but will not go back to the cave.
I hear your objection and grant you the necessity to read between the lines and interpret and decide when to take literally, allegorically or metaphorically. And that's my problem: I can't accept any of the 3 Bibles as reliable basis, because you need to do that.
StopSpamming1 2 years ago
@StopSpamming1 dude make your own decisions. i am saying that you are not getting some of the bible (my opinion). God will lift the veil from the eyes no one else. Christians are not going to convert anyone in such debates EVER!!!!!! if the athiest is concerned and needs questions answered about Christianity, then we will. to debate Gods existance is blasphemy
jeremy208 2 years ago
Thank you for granting me free will.
I agree with your assessment re conversion. I had questions about religions and found answers. All on my own.
It's funny in my eyes that someone with faith, i.e. no evidence or proof, can speak of lifting a veil to someone to accepts only evidence and proof.
Debating any god is not blasphemous at all. Finding truth is compulsory. No evidence for Jesus or God makes them nonexistent, hence no blasphemy.
StopSpamming1 2 years ago
@StopSpamming1 you dont know shit. you need all this proof. you sound like a litle girl. i dont give a shit what you believe!!! your ignorant as hell. go find someone else you can debate your nothing to. your weak, pathetic and needy. i will not waste another moment on your pathetic statements.
"i need proof" hahahahahahha
little school girl.
jeremy208 2 years ago
dude, why were you sweating, don't be sad.
mickalotz 2 years ago
your ignorent you are verry ignorent he showed you every thing
TURKSTA19 2 years ago
Hitler fully supported Catholicism, even if it was used to support his political motives.
Hitler killed the jews because they were jews.
He did not kill they because of their hair color, eye color, skin color
MaChOfSweden 2 years ago
christians that defend themselves after all the facts that show the negative impact they have had on society are just stupid... this world would be a completely different place if they didnt make up religion
PegCity008 2 years ago
You're completely right. Why do theists keep coming out with "OMFG look at Stalin, Mao, Pot, Hitler!"... do they not realized their argument is based on fallacy?
todore00 2 years ago
I didnt care to write on his wall becos his admiration to Christianity comes of a revenge attitude so there is no place for reason of logic. Christianity has given him a reason & chance to show that he too is great. That is human nature to show how we r superior than others. Christianity & Islam have all the ingredients that can help support this false pride without being reasonable & logical.
evolveupeople 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you made good points.. but u got to understand the psychology of a converted Christians like the other dude. Christians in Southeast Asia r mostly from the oppressed class of their societies. these people have been exploited by religious fanatics from centuries. So they r the ones who convert to some alternative religion n have became more vocal in showing down other religions.
evolveupeople 2 years ago
you made good points.. but u got to understand the psychology of a converted Christians like the other dude. Christians in Southeast Asia r mostly from the oppressed class of their societies. these people have been exploited by religious fanatics from centuries. So they r the ones who convert to some alternative religion n have became more vocal in showing down other religions.
evolveupeople 2 years ago
pray while you still come if you had alot of nightmares your day of life might come to an end soon ibeen around a girl that was possesed that was no joke very fucking real the demon was actually speaking to and my friend it was realest thing ever very scARY to even think about god is real do you realize you can talk from your mouth and your brain thats spiritual bad vibes around people thats spiritual
morenolindo84 2 years ago
Keep rocking the atheism dude.
billfred51 2 years ago
Soo I assume you are going to take after Dawkins now and question my intellect because I am not an atheist eh lol.
ivanahumpalot420 2 years ago
So let me ask you this. Its kind of funny how the only religion atheists try to refute is christianity. tell me what "atrocities" jews have commited or Hindus have commited or the several other religions noone seems to pay much attention to. By the way I am an agnostic.
ivanahumpalot420 2 years ago
Joseph Stalin commited those crimes the same as any christians or creationists did. He despised anyone with other beleifs and therefor killed them for it. Simply put. So your argument is that Stalins acts are excusable just because his acts were an effort to get more athority. He was equally as intollerant of religion and christians were when they commited those crimes against atheism.
ivanahumpalot420 2 years ago
Ummmm how do you even know that these religiously motivated crimes were TRUELY done for religious motives? Dont you think these people used religion as a MASK to HIDE the fact that they TOO like these Atheists were "Authoritarian Assholes"? Then what is the difference?
ramio1983 2 years ago
its not religion that makes people violent. authoritarians utilize peoples religious beliefs as an excuse to get followers to commit violence. citing the religion as the reason is only going skin deep. the religion itself is not to blame for the violence, as usual it is PEOPLE who are to blame for manipulating other people into violence regardless of pretext.
Suetonius88 2 years ago
Well said sir, if even a molecule of what you said got through you have done something worthwhile. All our views on this very important question must be informed through history and logic...those that refuse to do so basically rule themselves out of the conversation.
Applause.
reasonnotgod 3 years ago
Dude, you are hardcore in the right. I was going to write almost this same rant and then saw your video. Be happy that you are smarter than most of America....rock on man
MenMadeGod 3 years ago
you're right. = ] leave than poor believer guy alone, he is now messed up in his own psychology, you owned him.
ALEXTASY123 3 years ago
I never said there was not a difference. I'm saying that killing people that attack atheism was justified to them because it maintained the power structure, not because it maintained atheism. And they certainly did not cite atheism as a reason for killing them. The blame is not placed on atheism, but on these people. It was not in the name of atheism. You've yet to show a source that showed any of these said "we are executing you because atheism tells us to."
efletch91 3 years ago
Your words: "You've yet to show a source that showed any of these said 'we are executing you because atheism tells us to'."
Atheism has no substance by itself, that is why it is to easily incorporated into political ideologies that have to use for religion. If the USSR was not an Atheist state
millions of people would not have been jailed or executed.
ARMEDxWITHxAxMIND 3 years ago
Atheism is not an actual centralized ideology, you're right. It's just the disbelief that God exists. Your claim that the USSR would not have killed that many people if it was not atheistic is farcical. What proof do you have for this other than this empty platitude?
efletch91 3 years ago
If the USSR did not adopt an ideology that incorporated Atheism they would have had no reason to persecute people of faith who criticized Atheism. Tens of millions were killed by the the USSR for different reasons but a least a nice percentage of those people could have been spared if there were no laws in place making it OK to jail and kill people of faith. If you don't believe me just do a little bit of research yourself and you'll see what I'm talking about.
ARMEDxWITHxAxMIND 3 years ago
Yes they would. They would have the same reason that they made it illegal for to do it. It subverts government authority by presenting an alternative authority system.
efletch91 3 years ago