Do you think scientists will be able to take non-living matter and organize it to create a spaghetti monster that has self-awareness, sentience, and qualia? If they fail, it does not matter because, one will eventually appear mysteriously in our universe by spontaneous generation not requiring an intelligent designer. If life came to exist by means of spontaneous generation, then why can't an invisible God come to exist by the same means? The religion of atheism requires just as much faith.
The Atheist Experience team are a bunch of hypocrites; they don't want reasoned sensible discussion or debate; if you make any relevant point they end up blocking you; clearly they just want the fundie fruitcake calling who will only be aware of this idiotic reductive literalist extreme interpretation of the Bible; this is old hat; debated down the centuries; they offer nothing new, only extremism and become as the people they accuse
Matt should be on this show alone. All the others just belittle and ridicule the callers. They're not going to get through to any of them like that...
Check out my videos "Religion is Ridiculous" (specifically Christianity)....Good stuff, rate it! Christians I CHALLENGE you to watch with an open mind. Atheists watch the vids and give them a thumbs up! Help spread the truth!!
why need faith? if he showed himself to his followers after he died, he could certainly do it again. so why not? why isn't there any long standing evidence of his existence and not that ambiguous cloak of turin or whatever? why was he not in his tomb?
because he! is! a! LIE!!!! the absence of his body, the ambitiousness of the cloak, the lack of testimony from the blind man - and what about lazerus? what happened to him?
the writings of flavius josephus, pliny the younger and tacitus are now being widely known to have been deliberately tampered with by chrisitanity between the years 70 - 250 to give the impression of them being around since the year 33 so the fire of rome can be linked to them so rome and nero's reaction could be hated
whether or not, paul's vision was just that - a hallucination that ONLY HE SAW. that is not evidence - that is a manipulation tool
and seriusly, the vision was to cover up for his time as a bounty hunter. 'I was once a bad, bad man, but-' blah, blah - you get the idea. i even doubt he was a bounty hunter, and it was a part of his con story. find records of whom he captured and prove to me these people were actual victims he hunted. why don't we ever hear of his bounties?
Christianity offers an accurate narrative of the realities of the human condition based on demonstrated human behaviors, thoughts and sentiments.... Some people have the ability to come to their own personal recognition of the Bible account to their own circumstances and social realities. Regrettably, there are loads of pple who choose their own delusions by insisting that thousands of generations of human experience (good and bad) are not factually represented in the Bible account.
@ecartman9270 the caller was a poe. "Mark from stone church" was one of many different aliases this guy used over a period of a few months. He even went so far as to attempt different accents every week.
Not sure you can correctly label him a "prank caller" because good discussions arose from the many times he called in but each time he never was who he claimed to be.
In the end it seemed all the fake calls from him were due to some issue he had with Matt Slick. Maybe HE is Matt Slick.
religion is kinda like a movie, you cant question it cause it takes the fun out of it and anything can happen and things aren't suppose to make sense XD
why does the man on the phone seem to be getting attacked? hmm two atheists against one christian:/ seems unfair... even the playing field. i dont get why atheists think that God is a "monster"... i dont understand that...
@skelitalmisfit12 "i dont get why atheists think that God is a "monster"... i dont understand that... " I think the god of the bible is a monster because : He sends people to hell simply because no one is in his club. He is a mysoginist, homophbic, bigoted, prejudice god. he punishes "Adam" and "Eve" for and action they committed even when they had no knowledge between right and wrong. He orders the murder of women and children. He advocates slavery as well. That god is evil.
@Shiesha32941000 ... ugh really... i guess if you really wanted to misinterpret the bibles stories in that twisted mind set then go right ahead. you have no idea gods plans for you or anyone. ugh. foot in mouth, the golden rule obviously doesn't apply in society anymore...
@skelitalmisfit12 No im just reading the bible for what it says not for what believers want it to say. "you have no idea gods plans for you or anyone"... uuhhh do you? You are the believer, you tell me. "the golden rule obviously doesn't apply in society anymore... " , really.. where does it say that in your bible? And how is it that your interpretation is the right one. I do not have a twisted mindset, if you have more to say inbox me and we can have a civil discussion. Peace
@skelitalmisfit12 maybe he shouldn't call in, if he isn't prepared to be faced with the reality of what the bible says. It's easy to be a xian in a secluded group where none of the tough questions are ever asked.
@yankwilliams The lack of proof of God is proof of the lack of God. And the reason Religion is separate from Science in public libraries is because it's fiction.
christianity is a fake religion created by roman emperor constantin in order to get power . all the basement of this religion have been decided on the Nicée concile . So stop believing in the trinity and believe ine islam wich is the religion of pure monotheism cause we worship only one god. His name is allah in arabic , elah in armenian(jesus language) , jehovah in hebrew . whatever u call him he is ur creator so start believe in him and worship him cause those who dont will end up in hell.
@pcandlve Christianity was a Religion made by god in a Human form, I know Christianity isn't the first Religion but it was the first Western Religion. As I have heard the Lord I don't know if Islam was cause to make Confusion to the existing Religions but that's the Task of the Devil. To drive us off and cause Conflict between ourselves. As I have seen and heard does Islam follow the Ten Commandments? the Trinity is only one person if you see it from a Certain Point.
@ProblmSolvd Albert Einstein: God is a Product of Human Weakness
The Word God is for me Nothing more than the Expression and Product of Human Weaknesses, the Bible a Collection of Honorable, but still Primitive Legends which are Nevertheless Pretty Childish. No Interpretation no Matter how Subtle can, for me, change this.
Letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954
-Yeah He's an Idiot Along with 70% of the World who aren't Christian. I Go To Oxford University. What Do You Do??
@ProblmSolvd Capitalization brings Emphasizes to the Important Words within a Sentence to Give you a Clear & Better Understanding of what I'm trying to Tell You. Besides, I just Showed You that Albert Einstein, The Brilliance of the Modern Era, just Called Your Religion Childish & that's all You have to say about it. Kind of Sad... No God For You =(
@yankwilliams Nice counterargument. I have wanted to call in and ask if they ever feel joy or compassion or empathy, with or without any kind of God. I just want to know if good will and caring for your brother (fellow people) exists outside of religion.
haha these guys are propping there heads up cause there so freaking bored with these ignorant callers who can't even explain why they believe in the bible.
@urcorrect So choosing not to produce can not be immoral since the individual is not hurting any life form. These gametes are impossible to produce life until matched with the opposite sex cell. In the case of a pregnant rape victim, is she right in killing the possibility of life?
@captaingregstar He can be logical and well researched however I can't believe he is correct in a sense that he cannot prove the bibles is not inerrant nor the word of God. He does raise up very reasonable questions which makes one think in his perspective but in the end of the day the proof of the bible not being the authoritative word of God cannot be precisely proven fictional nor a fallacy.
@SeedsOfHatred How would that be of any significance? I am being serious when stating one cannot deny nor prove the existence of God. If you believe we are transitional creatures who evolved from slime then fine. How would we have intelligent minds which contain questions about our existence or origin of the universe. How would we depict law in terms of what is right or wrong? There is a value to a human life superior to animals and the many other creatures of the world. So whats youre argument
@hatementality It's of significance because - like the existence of God - we can neither prove nor disprove it. However, even though there is no concrete proof for or against it, it doesn't take such proof for us to draw a conclusion about it based on common sense.
As for our current level of intelligence and morality, Evolution has answers for that. However, they're extensive and not the topic of this debate.
If you'd like them, though, I will gladly message you to explain them in depth.
@SeedsOfHatred I do believe astronomers can deny the existence of a life form on Saturn or a spaghetti monster orbiting the earth etc. I completely agree to some extent. I believe one can receive a revelation of the existence of God through reasonable thought. How would you know what is right from wrong. There is a law of nature in which is followed by nature invariably and there is a law which humans ought to follow but most of the times break this law. This universal law established .
@hatementality The things you're saying about revelations and morality - again - can be explained through perfectly scientific means. No God required.
As for a "universal law", I'm not entirely sure what you mean.
@SeedsOfHatred I would like to see you're input based on this scientific theory presenting the essence of good and evil. Not saying that I am not open minded but I just cant resonate that man has declared himself what evil and purity specifically is. You would have to base your assumption of what is right and wrong to a universal code in which works for all humans to live a virtuous, moral life. I do not see much evidence in the evolution theory but I am absolutely open ears to reasonable input.
@SeedsOfHatred is created by a being other than a human. If humans came up with this law then you would have every region of the earth quarreling with one another. Even if each would compare in which law is morally virtuous they would have to compare and base their own perception of right and wrong to a universal code.
@hatementality Ah, I understand now. A "universla law" of morality.
Well again, evolution provides an answer for why we have morals. I see I'm going to have to explain them in a message after all. While I'm at it, I'll explain why morality is not set - it is completely subjective.
@SeedsOfHatred Your theory is based on the assumption in which we are derived from a species of special apes which transitioned into us humans. I can go a step back and ask for evidence of such an incredibly far stretched belief. There is no evidence that man is the offspring of an animal of any sort. You can send me pictures of ape like bones but the evidence cannot become a fact because no one can prove the reproduction or the evidence that the particular set of bones actually gave birth.
@hatementality It'd be a lot easier for you to have responded with a message. Then I can explain further.
If you read into the fossil record, it becomes very clear that Humans evolved from other ape-like creatures. This is not an assumption, it's observation. An observation that no one but creationists seem to have a problem with.
As for the "bones giving birth", that is such an incredibly weak argument that it's not even funny. The given set of bones represents an entire species of
@SeedsOfHatred Have you considered the bible in which men in the beginning age lived over 900 years? Scientifically, a various amount of our bones never cease to grow especially the facial bones. There is no evidence that this world has been around for more than 10,000 years which makes sense to say in that case that it is impossible for humans to arrive from the transitioning of another species.
@hatementality I have considered the Bible. For the first 20 years of my life, in fact.
Then I considered the other side of the argument. As it turns out, the "other side" makes a lot more sense.
There is in fact PLENTY of evidence that the world (as well as the Universe) is much older than 10,000 years. You cannot assert that there is no evidence for this as though it were fact and pressume it to be true.
@SeedsOfHatred I would like to first say I appreciate your insight. I can see we are both on the opposite sides of this coin of origin however I would like to send you a video debate between a creationist and evolutionist. I affirm I lack knowledge into which to persuade one into thinking in creationism. Hopefully this video can be of interest to you and be of relevance to this profound topic.
@hatementality You may send the video, but let me point out that no amount of "knowledge" will persuade one into believing in Creationism. The fact of reality is that there is no evidence for creation. None. I'm sorry that's the case, but it is. Science has shown - repeatedly - that things can and do exist without the intervention of a god.
Thus, any thinking person would not be persuaded into believing something for which there is no evidence. It simply wouldn't happen.
@SeedsOfHatred I can say the same phrasing of your statement and substitute evolution. There has been error in the testing of carbon dating for example which presumed the same amount of carbon has always been in our atmosphere for all the years of the earths life. That's just one example. I regress and state that the belief of the origin of all physical matter will be ones religion in which we must closely examine and test since there can only be one truth.
@hatementality You cannot say the same about Evolution, I'm afraid. And to imply that carbon dating is the only means of dating shows ignorance of the topic. There are many different ways of dating the Earth that are used to support one another. That is how we've dated the age of the Earth.
If you're getting your "facts" from Hovind, I can then understand your lack of insight. I've seen a number of his videos and it is clear that he is just as ignorant of the topic as any other Christian.
@SeedsOfHatred I just presented one example. I'm not the biased type to accept all scientific statements by a creationist as fact however it sounds reasonable. I can be wrong. He does bring up solid assumptions such as if creationist is true then man brought death into the world and if evolution is true death brought man into the world. This obviously holds no ground in the debate however it sounds as if Hovind is trying the best possible to present sound, truthful facts regarding origin.
What exactly does this mean? It sounds deep and insightful, but when you really THINK about it, it makes no sense at all. He says that it's either one or the other, but where does he get the assumption that either option holds any actual merit? How does he figure it's one or the other? Because quite obviously, death cannot bring anything living into the world. He's simply contradicting himself based on an assumption.
@SeedsOfHatred After a period of transitioning in which in the evolution theory proclaims as apes or monkeys slowly but steadily brought forth us humans. In this case humans were not a primary species but came to being after a faulty primitive ancestor species. The deaths and "progression" of this ape like species developed into man in the case of evolution. I guess you can bring up natural selection in this occurrence.
@SeedsOfHatred In any case, I don't see the value of life if believing in no God. The human as portrayed in the evolution theory is merely an animal in which got lucky to evolve and obtain an intellectual way of thinking to question the meaning of life. There are no absolutes in regards of law but rather relativity. After death I guess we just zap out of existence therefore gaining no hope nor motivation in this temporary life. If this world is all life has to offer then what is my purpose
@SeedsOfHatred to live for an estimate of 100 yrs then die, FOREVER. That kinda blows man. I didnt choose to live therefore there must be a purpose for my life and I cant imagine ceasing in existence after my short life hear on earth.
@hatementality It blows, yes. But unfortunately, the fact that it blows does nothing to change the fact that it's true. Who says life is supposed to be a poetic magical fairy-tale?
The problem with theists is that they get so upset about the idea of not existing after they die that they forget to realize that after they're dead; they wont be around to care that they're dead.
The will to survive is an important aspect of evolutionary development, but let's not be irrational about it.
@SeedsOfHatred "The problem with theists is that they get so upset about the idea of not existing after they die that they forget to realize that after they're dead; they wont be around to care that they're dead."
I am indeed a theist and I can say for myself that I am at peace with the fact that I must die and that death is only the beginning to my eternal life. Physically I might not want to bear with a painful death but there is no fear in my mind in the concept.
@hatementality No, you're misunderstanding me (despite my having clearly spelled it out). I'm not saying the death itself. Because as you just said, you believe that it's "only the begining". I'm talking about death as an END. No life afterward (which is common sense, when you think about it). You get upset about the idea of not existing anymore at all. And of course, it's only natural to want to keep going.
But that doesn't mean that you will. And when you're dead, you wont care that
@hatementality (Part 2) you're dead, because you're dead! You're not alive to care!
And no, atheists and agnostics do not fear death. Perhaps some - we all have our fears - but it's not inherant of non-believing. I myself realize that - as I said - I wont be around to care that I'm dead, so it doesn't bother me.
@SeedsOfHatred I understand you clearly. The fact of the matter is, death or total end to ones life in which one would not have an eternal soul is not a belief of mine therefore I cannot be upset about it. What I said was clear as well. Naturally speaking, everyone fears death. If one contains a supernatural perception of an afterlife and has full assurance of life after death, there is no spiritual/mental fear in the exception of physical pain.
But as I said before; that has absolutely no bearing on whether or not you're right. The fact that one believes there is life after death does not mean that there is. I can have the uttmost belief that I don't have Cancer. It doesn't mean that I don't. It is based on pure faith - there is no evidence for it whatsoever.
Because of that, it stands to reason that no rational human being would invest any belief in it at all.
@SeedsOfHatred The analogy you brought up is tainted with ignorance since it is logical to determine when you are sick or in need of medical help. Sure you need faith but at the end of the day so do people who don't believe in eternal life or destruction. The only evidence which we can bear witness to is the near death testimonies of those who experienced out of body sensations when announced dead,
@SeedsOfHatred in which doctors studied as consistently accurate based on the patients similar message each had to give. There testimonies bare witness to the fact that after death, their senses were sharpened and the reality was unexplainable compared to the everyday lives we live hear on earth.
@hatementality My analogy is accurate, because there are many out there right now who do in fact have Cancer, yet have no physical symptoms at all. You don't seek medical help when you don't know you're sick. But that's beside the point.
As for the testimonies of those who have been NEAR death, I have studied psychology for a number of years, so I have heard my fair share of them. However, the reason psychologists hear such stories is because they offer a greater insight into how the brain
@SeedsOfHatred The term near death is used because the person comes back to life somehow. There are examples for those who are announced DEAD. There is one testimony in which the person was completely dead for 3 days and has his documents from the hospital to prove it. How can you explain someone completely dead and testifying to seeing their own body from the outside? This can be possible since there is no proof against it.
@hatementality Again, I've heard the stories. And I've heard those stories as a precursor to the scientific explanation that was to follow. People who are truly dead do not come back to life. No such case has ever occured. And in regard to the one you mentioned, this is not possible, because the body undergoes significant decay after 3 days. Even if by some miracle (emphasis on that word) he DID come back to life, he would die soon after as a result of that decay.
@hatementality (Part 2) has such profound experiences, his brain is in a massive state of alteration. There are many factors involved, but for the sake of keeping this short; the brain simply does fucked-up things when it's under duress. And a person who is "pronounced dead" and yet "comes back" was never really dead at all. All signs were there for a simple paramedic to pronounce him dead, but he is not actually dead. The brain is still alive. Otherwise, he would not "come back" at all.
@hatementality (Part 2) actually works. There are perfectly scientific ways to explain NDE's. They are only "unexplainable" to those ignorant of how the human mind functions.
Just as with morality - as we discussed earlier - near-death experiences are just another by-product of an incredibly evolved human brain. Nothing more - no supernatural required.
I truly am sorry, but a divine explanation fails each and every time.
@SeedsOfHatred Sure their are textbooks about how the brain works but don't you have to base a certain kind of faith that when a person doesnt come back to life at all that this person will not experience this out of body sensation?
@hatementality (Part 3) So no, I'm sorry, but I don't have a certain kind of faith when I hear such stories, because I understand how and why they occured. I know the reasons and the science behind them. The lamen does not understand this science, so he attributes it to God or to angels or to divinity. But that does not make it so.
@hatementality (Part 3) So no, I'm sorry, but I don't have a certain kind of faith when I hear such stories, because I understand how and why they occured. I know the reasons and the science behind them. The lamen does not understand this science, so he attributes it to God or to angels or to divinity. But that does not make it so.
@SeedsOfHatred I believe atheist or agnostics live in fear of having only one life therefore one must live it to the fullest, do what you want. Sure thats an oversimplified way of portraying the perception of an unbeliever but preserving the human race or preserving the earth i believe is secondary in rank of importance to ones life.
@hatementality (Part 2) animal that very obviously DID give birth, because there is evidence of those animals existing afterward. So who cares if the specific bones we found didn't give birth? That means nothing for the other millions of dead animals of the same kind. That does nothing to disprove Evolution. It doesn't effect the argument at all.
@hatementality what's the point saying something is moral just because it says so in a book? All that matters is whether or not it makes sense. No one ever said there was only one morality. But just because there is no absolute morality doesn't mean you can't have a morality at all and make moral judgment. You should read books on ethics and see how they differ from scripture.
It is ignorant to say we make our own moral laws. There would be chaos in this world and society would destruct very very fast. Hey I just made my own moral law and that is to never say hello to people of the Asian race. Now obviously thats wrong, but how do you come to the conclusion that being a racist is wrong? Most of the purest laws established in our governments are essentially from the bible. These laws are made for our own good and are ought to be followed.
@hatementality It's not ignorant, it is a fact. People do use their own morality, we have common interests in this world such as not wanting to be murdered or robbed. Which is why such laws are commonplace across the world. Things such as the civil rights movement led to people examining racism and it's harm. The bible is incredibly tribalistic favoring the jews over everyone else, and having slaves. IDK how you define "purity" in a law but that's all nonsense anyway.
@ajax515 Purity is the absence of impurity. So what is the essence of only good? As for tribalism, we can perceive throughout the old testament that God makes promises or covenants with his faithful people. Not once did God turn His back on His word. Exclusions were made among other tribes because of their idolatry and immorality. God has a plan for every life, but people these days are trying to find God like the way thief's find policemen.
@hatementality you can make up your law, but others will be making their suggestions, too and asking you why you think your law should be instituted. it was socrates who first urged his fellow citizens to explain why they hold certain views on morality. if you cannot account for your morality and just say that you stand for certain things because you read it in a book, then you are not really a moral person. you must provide a reasoned account.
@topperheartramada Ok I see you're point. How would you provide a valid account in order to pass judgment on what is moral or immoral? Wouldn't you have to base your decision on historical text in which clearly describes what is love and what is evil and how each of these are undeniably far from being parallel? There is virtue and there is vice. But who are us humans to decide which is correct for our own desires?
@hatementality Sound historical information about what works in a society vs what doesn't would be helpful in determining what ought to be done, but not imperative. 'Who are we to decide what is correct?' Who else could? It's called responsibility; and quite frankly, I find it rather irresponsible to act (on faith) in accordance with any book. I promise you that atheistic communities do just fine without the assumption of divine decree, and substantiate their morality with reason.
@urcorrect Is it wrong to abort baby fetus' or in the case of rape, bear with the burden of pregnancy and possibly give up the baby for adoption. Such cases as this cannot be absolutely declared as a fallacy in the atheistic perspective. In certain texts such as the bible or other "holy" traditional religious, all cases of murder is immoral. So we can chase down various examples to depict there is a law above and beyond human understanding which we cannot touch.
@hatementality So you want to discuss the abortion issue huh? How about this? Why start judgement at the fetus? Is it immoral to abort an embryo too? What about a zygote? An oocyte or spermatozoon? Would you say that men and women ought make every possible attempt at reproduction to avoid the death of as many gametes as possible? There are no absolute morals or laws, and need not be. I submit that dynamic regulation is more powerful than absolutes in an ever changing system.
@hatementality If you want an objective reference upon which to base a system of morality or law, consider the goal of continuing the existence of the species; or you go go beyond us and consider the goal of continuing life. If abortion can be seen as detrimental to the survival or wellbeing of the species (or life) you have grounds for categorizing it as 'wrong' without religious faith. Just one easy example...
@urcorrect "There are no absolute morals or laws, and need not be. I submit that dynamic regulation is more powerful than absolutes in an ever changing system." Are you absolutely sure? Is abortion murder or not? Plainly i believe the aborting of a fetus or whatever else you may call the egg and sperm in fertilization in which the woman obtains full responsibility for the future life form is in essence murder. Is this absolutely right, wrong, or possibly, maybe?
@hatementality I'm not absolutely sure about anything. Absolute certainty is a fools position; if one is honest, they admit the limits of their perception. I don't see a need to oversimplify matters like abortion with a black and white labeling system. Consider a rape/pregnancy scenario where carrying or birthing is a danger to the woman for one example. Now if the gametes in union are precious, what about when separate? Ought we copulate at every chance from puberty onward?
@urcorrect Neither am I. I don't know everything and I bet I barely know 1/5th of everything that could be obtained in ones mind. I just don't see the clear perception of the theory in which there are no absolutes in deciphering virtue and vice. Its ignorant to question therefore if there are absolutes and the life process of a human is profound we must never waste our bullets so to speak by not putting every gamete into use.
@hatementality I don't think it is ignorant to question whether there are absolutes, but I think it is irresponsible to assume there are, or to act as though there are on faith alone. "we must never waste our bullets ~ putting every gamete into use" So do you think a ten to fifteen year old should be having intercourse as often as possible? Can you imagine the negative impact on society if everyone had as many children as possible? Poverty and death rates would skyrocket.
@urcorrect When the sperm enters the egg, this is when a woman has full responsibility for this new life form. She has the responsiblilty to care for and cherish her new offspring. Ofcourse things can go wrong in this process but the woman does have the opportunity to abort the baby for any negative reasoning she may have. This is just one example in which I cannot believe a woman is right in any way when murdering her child to be, no matter what stage of her pregnancy.
@hatementality Where does her responsibility come from when the child is conceived by an act of rape? By cause/effect, if the woman aborts a child in such a case, for most reasons the responsibility should rest solely on the trespasser rather than the victim. I can imagine severe psychological and social issues with domino effects leading to more deaths than one abortion resulting from just bearing with the illegitimate child. There are too many variables for a binary judgement.
@urcorrect I don't think you quoted me in the right context. My point in the case of gametes is not in fact the murdering of a child since the sperm and egg didnt meet. I start to reflect at the fertilization period because this is the focal point in which the woman is declared she is pregnant. Therefore not reproducing constantly to not "waste bullets" is not in any way wrong. If thats not clear then i don't know what is. When the damage is done psychologically in the case of rape, there are
@urcorrect many options. Keep the child and love the child, abort, or a beautiful option of adoption. Aborting is simply an act of murder in which is accepted by secular humanist who do not see the value of life. This is just an opinion of mine in which i can be wrong. I just do see any evidence proclaiming my error.
@hatementality I hope you don't think I was twisting your words, I just thought that was in response to my question of when life becomes valuable. So what makes a fertilized egg more valuable than separate gametes? What's your justification for not preventing as many their deaths as possible? You're inaccurate to stereotype secular humanists as pro-choice, and to say any humanist doesn't see the value of human life is an oxymoron. What evidence have you to proclaim your accuracy?
@urcorrect I think its clear that the gametes purpose is to pair up together in order to form a life form. Each gamete of the opposite sex is necessary to perform this process of life. Once these the sperm enters the egg we can conclude the procedure has begun for a life form to exist. Why do i start to judge what is murder in the case of a woman being pregnant is because she now has the advantage and the power to maintain a healthy lifestyle to naturally deliver the baby or chemically or
@hatementality So you're saying gametes are not life forms? If so, you're wrong, but regardless you're ridiculously oversimplifying things again, and I'm growing tired of reading responses that try to dodge my questions. I won't repeat them anymore. Take care.
@urcorrect I never said that. All I'm saying is that we cannot be responsible for each one of these gametes to use each one because it is impossible to be held accountable for each one. It is obvious to plan out a proper birth rather than attempt to reproduce every second we have a new gamete which can be used. My argument is that the fetus is each gamete interacting with each other in which serves each purpuse to produce life. Singling out each gamete is nonsense because its purpose
@hatementality Since sex cells are alive, the man and woman have a responsibility for those 'life forms', right? If you don't support *maximizing* the number of successful fertilizations, you are pro-choice at that level. So, how is choosing not to reproduce any more virtuous than choosing not to carry a rapist's child?
@urcorrect Your argument doesnt make much sense and doesnt hold much ground. Choosing not to produce all the time is a responsibility. If you were to have kids all the time non stop, in the long run you wouldnt be able to support your large family in many cases due to your income. Thats just one example towards how irrational it would be to be held responsible for every gamete. Once you are guaranteed you have a successful starting point to a life form in which is promised
@urcorrect to evolve into a human being the woman carrying the fetus is held liable to maintain a healthy lifestyle to help the baby grow. That is morally accepted just like abortion for some reason.
@urcorrect Another example I can describe is when a mans partner is pregnant. In this case you are assuming the man must continue to use his gametes since they are life forms as well. This scenario indicates that the man now must have an affair with another woman to make sure he is making use of every sperm he has. The reasoning goes on and on.
@hatementality I'm simply applying the reasoning you gave to support your inflexible position on abortion; responsibility for a life form. So how is choosing not to reproduce any more virtuous than choosing not to carry a rapist's child?
@urcorrect Consider the act of sex. I'm sure you're aware of this but in the practice of sex intended to plan for a child, only one sperm and one egg produce one child. If you want me to say not reproducing is absolutely wrong, that's like saying to conceive a child is wrong because of the loss of the gametes in which weren't capable to being matched up together to form a fetus. This is another reason why we don't have a valid control over all our sex cells until a woman has conceived a fetus.
@urcorrect So choosing not to produce can not be immoral since the individual is not hurting any life form. These gametes are impossible to produce life until matched with the opposite sex cell. In the case of a pregnant rape victim, is she right in killing the possibility of life? As for these gametes being alive, they cannot be fully alive until each of the opposite sex meet together. Thats the beaty of life. So these gametes produce life, each has 23 chromosomes which need each other.
@urcorrect Back to our original argument on morality. When asserting the statement that all truth is relative,, that statement either includes itself or excludes itself. If it includes itself that statement declares it is also relative which means it is not always true. If it excludes itself, its positing an absolute while denying an absolute exists. Try to wrap your head around that. It is a self defeating proposition.
@urcorrect NO it is not wrong to not reproduce because our own sex cells die in the act of sex. One sperm and one egg conceive one child while many other cells simply don't make it. As for believing all truth is relative, you would have to say that relative truth is absolute itself, or probably not true. Which one do you agree upon?
@hatementality Many cells are going to die with or without copulation, but without, the carrier has chosen to eliminate all possibility of their survival. By your logic, it is not wrong to not carry a rapist's child because many embryos terminate during pregnancies. You've made it clear why you 'think' it isn't wrong to not reproduce, but you haven't resolved the dilemma. How does it differ from "kill[ing] a possible child"? What's the relevance in the "truth is relative" idea?
@urcorrect Either way if both premises are true in which: a) one chooses to not reproduce b) one decides to abort a child; are both absolutely wrong, you have decided to agree with me that there are absolute right and wrongs. I am not a scientist so i cannot go into depth about sex cells and describe fully and clearly our responsibility over them. It is impossible for new life without sex but its very possible for new life when having sex especially when the fetus has evolved in fertilization.
@urcorrect As humans we make decisions some right and some wrong. To choose not to have kids is sometimes right based on personal situations. To withhold from having a child can be wrong in cases of selfishness or hate towards children in general. That is simply the beauty of life. We are not forced to produce children. If so, the process would not be done in love but in obligation.
@urcorrect Do you agree with the statements i just made or nay? I thought I made it clear that humans are not obligated to have children because in the contrary there is no love involved in having a child. The situations tend to differ based on every persons issues. How is this any more virtuous than aborting a child? We are given a choice to start the possibility to conceive new birth. In the case of rape when the victim isnt given a choice, she has the new choices of killing off the possible
@urcorrect As for believing all truth is relative, it is a self contradictory belief. There must be absolutes in moral right and wrong which has been established beyond our understanding.
@urcorrect The difference between the two are the situations. One would choose not to have a child for various amounts of valid moral choices. I have made those type of examples clear. In the case of rape, the damage has been done and the victim is only left with three choices. Terminating the fetus is immoral because you are taking the life of the child. It is not the child's fault that his father raped his mother. What I'm trying to say is quite mathematical; two wrongs don't make a right.
@hatementality Perhaps you forgot what the questions were. 1) How is not supporting the life of gametes morally superior to not supporting the life of a zygote? 2) Why were you rambling about the statement "truth is relative"?
This has been flagged as spam show
Do you think scientists will be able to take non-living matter and organize it to create a spaghetti monster that has self-awareness, sentience, and qualia? If they fail, it does not matter because, one will eventually appear mysteriously in our universe by spontaneous generation not requiring an intelligent designer. If life came to exist by means of spontaneous generation, then why can't an invisible God come to exist by the same means? The religion of atheism requires just as much faith.
cindyisa10 6 days ago
why does this guy keep exhaling before every sentence he makes. ITS ANNOYING!
Flaw55 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Atheist Experience team are a bunch of hypocrites; they don't want reasoned sensible discussion or debate; if you make any relevant point they end up blocking you; clearly they just want the fundie fruitcake calling who will only be aware of this idiotic reductive literalist extreme interpretation of the Bible; this is old hat; debated down the centuries; they offer nothing new, only extremism and become as the people they accuse
no1hoopsman 1 week ago
Matt should be on this show alone. All the others just belittle and ridicule the callers. They're not going to get through to any of them like that...
derkomissar100 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Check out my videos "Religion is Ridiculous" (specifically Christianity)....Good stuff, rate it! Christians I CHALLENGE you to watch with an open mind. Atheists watch the vids and give them a thumbs up! Help spread the truth!!
gasmask4poop 3 weeks ago
yeah. faith
did jesus live or not?
why need faith? if he showed himself to his followers after he died, he could certainly do it again. so why not? why isn't there any long standing evidence of his existence and not that ambiguous cloak of turin or whatever? why was he not in his tomb?
because he! is! a! LIE!!!! the absence of his body, the ambitiousness of the cloak, the lack of testimony from the blind man - and what about lazerus? what happened to him?
beware of covered-up tracks
infernalone666 3 weeks ago
@infernalone666
the writings of flavius josephus, pliny the younger and tacitus are now being widely known to have been deliberately tampered with by chrisitanity between the years 70 - 250 to give the impression of them being around since the year 33 so the fire of rome can be linked to them so rome and nero's reaction could be hated
whether or not, paul's vision was just that - a hallucination that ONLY HE SAW. that is not evidence - that is a manipulation tool
infernalone666 3 weeks ago
@infernalone666
and seriusly, the vision was to cover up for his time as a bounty hunter. 'I was once a bad, bad man, but-' blah, blah - you get the idea. i even doubt he was a bounty hunter, and it was a part of his con story. find records of whom he captured and prove to me these people were actual victims he hunted. why don't we ever hear of his bounties?
infernalone666 3 weeks ago
“To terrify children with the image of hell, to consider women an inferior creation—is that good for the world?” ― Christopher Hitchens
RandomMan800 1 month ago 15
This has been flagged as spam show
Christianity offers an accurate narrative of the realities of the human condition based on demonstrated human behaviors, thoughts and sentiments.... Some people have the ability to come to their own personal recognition of the Bible account to their own circumstances and social realities. Regrettably, there are loads of pple who choose their own delusions by insisting that thousands of generations of human experience (good and bad) are not factually represented in the Bible account.
shieldsff 1 month ago
Not a single Clue, no, no an iota of understanding whatsoever.
RobbeyT 1 month ago
I think you guys made an atheist of the caller
ecartman9270 1 month ago
@ecartman9270 the caller was a poe. "Mark from stone church" was one of many different aliases this guy used over a period of a few months. He even went so far as to attempt different accents every week.
Not sure you can correctly label him a "prank caller" because good discussions arose from the many times he called in but each time he never was who he claimed to be.
In the end it seemed all the fake calls from him were due to some issue he had with Matt Slick. Maybe HE is Matt Slick.
stiimuli 1 month ago
Comment removed
aker1993 1 month ago
So Religion is a lie eating the weak....
aker1993 1 month ago
religion is kinda like a movie, you cant question it cause it takes the fun out of it and anything can happen and things aren't suppose to make sense XD
NileMxpx666 1 month ago
It's 4.6 billion years....
Meepit1 1 month ago
Matt and Jeff we love you. So articulate,, logical and empassioned. God and religion is poison!
veronicats100 1 month ago
why does the man on the phone seem to be getting attacked? hmm two atheists against one christian:/ seems unfair... even the playing field. i dont get why atheists think that God is a "monster"... i dont understand that...
skelitalmisfit12 1 month ago
@skelitalmisfit12 "Hey Abraham, I want you to kill your son to prove how much you love me! NAH JUST KIDDING LOL"
killerkerara 1 month ago
@killerkerara cute. very cute... lol your hilarious! be a comedian...
skelitalmisfit12 1 month ago
@skelitalmisfit12 Try to read your Bible from an unbiased point of view, and the atrocities committed by the Christian god are overwhelming.
killerkerara 1 month ago
@skelitalmisfit12 looks like yet another non bible-reading christian here.
charlesfosterkane 1 month ago
@charlesfosterkane lmao your a dumb ass i read some today actually foot in mouth dick.
skelitalmisfit12 1 month ago
@skelitalmisfit12 that's some very christian language you're using there.
charlesfosterkane 1 month ago
@skelitalmisfit12 "i dont get why atheists think that God is a "monster"... i dont understand that... " I think the god of the bible is a monster because : He sends people to hell simply because no one is in his club. He is a mysoginist, homophbic, bigoted, prejudice god. he punishes "Adam" and "Eve" for and action they committed even when they had no knowledge between right and wrong. He orders the murder of women and children. He advocates slavery as well. That god is evil.
Shiesha32941000 1 month ago 8
@Shiesha32941000 ... ugh really... i guess if you really wanted to misinterpret the bibles stories in that twisted mind set then go right ahead. you have no idea gods plans for you or anyone. ugh. foot in mouth, the golden rule obviously doesn't apply in society anymore...
skelitalmisfit12 1 month ago
@skelitalmisfit12 No im just reading the bible for what it says not for what believers want it to say. "you have no idea gods plans for you or anyone"... uuhhh do you? You are the believer, you tell me. "the golden rule obviously doesn't apply in society anymore... " , really.. where does it say that in your bible? And how is it that your interpretation is the right one. I do not have a twisted mindset, if you have more to say inbox me and we can have a civil discussion. Peace
Shiesha32941000 1 month ago
@skelitalmisfit12 maybe he shouldn't call in, if he isn't prepared to be faced with the reality of what the bible says. It's easy to be a xian in a secluded group where none of the tough questions are ever asked.
tristbjorn 1 month ago
@yankwilliams If Jesus comes back, it will no longer be a matter of faith.
VerumAdNauseam 1 month ago
@yankwilliams The lack of proof of God is proof of the lack of God. And the reason Religion is separate from Science in public libraries is because it's fiction.
VerumAdNauseam 1 month ago
proving things in the bible using the bible is like me using the lord of the rings to prove hobbits exist.
snipesnrifles 1 month ago 2
@snipesnrifles Whoa man, don't joke about hobbits, they DO exist, ok? Seriously, Frodo is a hero... XD
cavemantiger 1 month ago
@yankwilliams well said, thank you so much for your witness to God.
elibeth121 1 month ago
@yankwilliams Saw your reply on and read the word Texas. I really hated living there.
elibeth121 1 month ago
You need bill mahr on the show just to watch him laugh his ass off
1zacster 1 month ago
christianity is a fake religion created by roman emperor constantin in order to get power . all the basement of this religion have been decided on the Nicée concile . So stop believing in the trinity and believe ine islam wich is the religion of pure monotheism cause we worship only one god. His name is allah in arabic , elah in armenian(jesus language) , jehovah in hebrew . whatever u call him he is ur creator so start believe in him and worship him cause those who dont will end up in hell.
pcandlve 1 month ago
@pcandlve Not fake in any way.
elibeth121 1 month ago
@pcandlve Christianity was a Religion made by god in a Human form, I know Christianity isn't the first Religion but it was the first Western Religion. As I have heard the Lord I don't know if Islam was cause to make Confusion to the existing Religions but that's the Task of the Devil. To drive us off and cause Conflict between ourselves. As I have seen and heard does Islam follow the Ten Commandments? the Trinity is only one person if you see it from a Certain Point.
jediguardian1 1 month ago
@jediguardian1 Actually, Christianity was a Religion made by humans pretending to be God.
cavemantiger 1 month ago
@cavemantiger Just like all the others.
snipesnrifles 1 month ago
@snipesnrifles Precisely.
cavemantiger 1 month ago
Osiris is a black god!!! \M/
DarknessDave 1 month ago
@yankwilliams Your an Idiot
ssohood2011 2 months ago
@ssohood2011 You're an idiot* Fixed it and also directed it at you.
ProblmSolvd 1 month ago
@ProblmSolvd Albert Einstein: God is a Product of Human Weakness
The Word God is for me Nothing more than the Expression and Product of Human Weaknesses, the Bible a Collection of Honorable, but still Primitive Legends which are Nevertheless Pretty Childish. No Interpretation no Matter how Subtle can, for me, change this.
Letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954
-Yeah He's an Idiot Along with 70% of the World who aren't Christian. I Go To Oxford University. What Do You Do??
ssohood2011 1 month ago
@ssohood2011 Why do you capitalize every few words when it isn't required?
For someone who allegedly goes to Oxford, your English sucks.
ProblmSolvd 1 month ago
@ProblmSolvd Capitalization brings Emphasizes to the Important Words within a Sentence to Give you a Clear & Better Understanding of what I'm trying to Tell You. Besides, I just Showed You that Albert Einstein, The Brilliance of the Modern Era, just Called Your Religion Childish & that's all You have to say about it. Kind of Sad... No God For You =(
ssohood2011 1 month ago
@ssohood2011 You just committed a logical fallacy named "appeal to authority". Your argument is false and incoherent.
hatementality 1 month ago
@yankwilliams What is one example of them blocking a "Smart" person?
Reaper818dn 2 months ago
The cognitive dissonance is ringing so loud in the caller's head that even I can hear it.
kshackleton 2 months ago
@yankwilliams
There is no pit unless God made it and also threw us in it.
kshackleton 2 months ago
@yankwilliams Caps lock is cruise control for cool.
therealjammit 2 months ago
@yankwilliams Nice counterargument. I have wanted to call in and ask if they ever feel joy or compassion or empathy, with or without any kind of God. I just want to know if good will and caring for your brother (fellow people) exists outside of religion.
sbranson01 2 months ago
@sbranson01 - Of course it does. All of those things are based in biology, not religion.
chibiariel 2 months ago
Comment removed
sbranson01 2 months ago
haha these guys are propping there heads up cause there so freaking bored with these ignorant callers who can't even explain why they believe in the bible.
ttone2379 2 months ago
Comment removed
hatementality 2 months ago
7:35 - You can actually hear the wall cognitive dissonance creaking under strain.
mkbcoolman 2 months ago
Comment removed
hatementality 2 months ago
Comment removed
hatementality 2 months ago
Comment removed
hatementality 2 months ago
This is nearly the best antireligion video I've ever seen, if not exactly the best.
terrorlone 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@urcorrect So choosing not to produce can not be immoral since the individual is not hurting any life form. These gametes are impossible to produce life until matched with the opposite sex cell. In the case of a pregnant rape victim, is she right in killing the possibility of life?
hatementality 2 months ago
absolutely amazing. Matt Dillahunty is so articulate, logical, well researched, and most importantly, devastatingly correct
captaingregstar 2 months ago
@captaingregstar He can be logical and well researched however I can't believe he is correct in a sense that he cannot prove the bibles is not inerrant nor the word of God. He does raise up very reasonable questions which makes one think in his perspective but in the end of the day the proof of the bible not being the authoritative word of God cannot be precisely proven fictional nor a fallacy.
hatementality 2 months ago
@hatementality We can't prove - without a shadow of doubt - that there is not a unicorn galloping across the rings of Saturn, either.
But come on...let's be serious...
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
@SeedsOfHatred How would that be of any significance? I am being serious when stating one cannot deny nor prove the existence of God. If you believe we are transitional creatures who evolved from slime then fine. How would we have intelligent minds which contain questions about our existence or origin of the universe. How would we depict law in terms of what is right or wrong? There is a value to a human life superior to animals and the many other creatures of the world. So whats youre argument
hatementality 2 months ago
@hatementality It's of significance because - like the existence of God - we can neither prove nor disprove it. However, even though there is no concrete proof for or against it, it doesn't take such proof for us to draw a conclusion about it based on common sense.
As for our current level of intelligence and morality, Evolution has answers for that. However, they're extensive and not the topic of this debate.
If you'd like them, though, I will gladly message you to explain them in depth.
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
@SeedsOfHatred I do believe astronomers can deny the existence of a life form on Saturn or a spaghetti monster orbiting the earth etc. I completely agree to some extent. I believe one can receive a revelation of the existence of God through reasonable thought. How would you know what is right from wrong. There is a law of nature in which is followed by nature invariably and there is a law which humans ought to follow but most of the times break this law. This universal law established .
hatementality 2 months ago
@hatementality The things you're saying about revelations and morality - again - can be explained through perfectly scientific means. No God required.
As for a "universal law", I'm not entirely sure what you mean.
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
@SeedsOfHatred I would like to see you're input based on this scientific theory presenting the essence of good and evil. Not saying that I am not open minded but I just cant resonate that man has declared himself what evil and purity specifically is. You would have to base your assumption of what is right and wrong to a universal code in which works for all humans to live a virtuous, moral life. I do not see much evidence in the evolution theory but I am absolutely open ears to reasonable input.
hatementality 2 months ago
@SeedsOfHatred is created by a being other than a human. If humans came up with this law then you would have every region of the earth quarreling with one another. Even if each would compare in which law is morally virtuous they would have to compare and base their own perception of right and wrong to a universal code.
hatementality 2 months ago
@hatementality Ah, I understand now. A "universla law" of morality.
Well again, evolution provides an answer for why we have morals. I see I'm going to have to explain them in a message after all. While I'm at it, I'll explain why morality is not set - it is completely subjective.
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
@SeedsOfHatred Your theory is based on the assumption in which we are derived from a species of special apes which transitioned into us humans. I can go a step back and ask for evidence of such an incredibly far stretched belief. There is no evidence that man is the offspring of an animal of any sort. You can send me pictures of ape like bones but the evidence cannot become a fact because no one can prove the reproduction or the evidence that the particular set of bones actually gave birth.
hatementality 2 months ago
@hatementality It'd be a lot easier for you to have responded with a message. Then I can explain further.
If you read into the fossil record, it becomes very clear that Humans evolved from other ape-like creatures. This is not an assumption, it's observation. An observation that no one but creationists seem to have a problem with.
As for the "bones giving birth", that is such an incredibly weak argument that it's not even funny. The given set of bones represents an entire species of
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
@SeedsOfHatred Have you considered the bible in which men in the beginning age lived over 900 years? Scientifically, a various amount of our bones never cease to grow especially the facial bones. There is no evidence that this world has been around for more than 10,000 years which makes sense to say in that case that it is impossible for humans to arrive from the transitioning of another species.
hatementality 2 months ago
@hatementality I have considered the Bible. For the first 20 years of my life, in fact.
Then I considered the other side of the argument. As it turns out, the "other side" makes a lot more sense.
There is in fact PLENTY of evidence that the world (as well as the Universe) is much older than 10,000 years. You cannot assert that there is no evidence for this as though it were fact and pressume it to be true.
Your assertion is NOT fact. There IS evidence.
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
@SeedsOfHatred I would like to first say I appreciate your insight. I can see we are both on the opposite sides of this coin of origin however I would like to send you a video debate between a creationist and evolutionist. I affirm I lack knowledge into which to persuade one into thinking in creationism. Hopefully this video can be of interest to you and be of relevance to this profound topic.
hatementality 2 months ago
@hatementality You may send the video, but let me point out that no amount of "knowledge" will persuade one into believing in Creationism. The fact of reality is that there is no evidence for creation. None. I'm sorry that's the case, but it is. Science has shown - repeatedly - that things can and do exist without the intervention of a god.
Thus, any thinking person would not be persuaded into believing something for which there is no evidence. It simply wouldn't happen.
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
@SeedsOfHatred I can say the same phrasing of your statement and substitute evolution. There has been error in the testing of carbon dating for example which presumed the same amount of carbon has always been in our atmosphere for all the years of the earths life. That's just one example. I regress and state that the belief of the origin of all physical matter will be ones religion in which we must closely examine and test since there can only be one truth.
hatementality 2 months ago
@hatementality You cannot say the same about Evolution, I'm afraid. And to imply that carbon dating is the only means of dating shows ignorance of the topic. There are many different ways of dating the Earth that are used to support one another. That is how we've dated the age of the Earth.
If you're getting your "facts" from Hovind, I can then understand your lack of insight. I've seen a number of his videos and it is clear that he is just as ignorant of the topic as any other Christian.
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
@SeedsOfHatred I just presented one example. I'm not the biased type to accept all scientific statements by a creationist as fact however it sounds reasonable. I can be wrong. He does bring up solid assumptions such as if creationist is true then man brought death into the world and if evolution is true death brought man into the world. This obviously holds no ground in the debate however it sounds as if Hovind is trying the best possible to present sound, truthful facts regarding origin.
hatementality 2 months ago
@hatementality "Death brought Man into the world"
What exactly does this mean? It sounds deep and insightful, but when you really THINK about it, it makes no sense at all. He says that it's either one or the other, but where does he get the assumption that either option holds any actual merit? How does he figure it's one or the other? Because quite obviously, death cannot bring anything living into the world. He's simply contradicting himself based on an assumption.
A false one, at that.
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
@SeedsOfHatred After a period of transitioning in which in the evolution theory proclaims as apes or monkeys slowly but steadily brought forth us humans. In this case humans were not a primary species but came to being after a faulty primitive ancestor species. The deaths and "progression" of this ape like species developed into man in the case of evolution. I guess you can bring up natural selection in this occurrence.
hatementality 2 months ago
@hatementality I suppose that's one (somewhat vague) way for him to put it.
But the choice of words is "death brought Man into the world". That's a confusing and rather misleading implication.
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
@SeedsOfHatred In any case, I don't see the value of life if believing in no God. The human as portrayed in the evolution theory is merely an animal in which got lucky to evolve and obtain an intellectual way of thinking to question the meaning of life. There are no absolutes in regards of law but rather relativity. After death I guess we just zap out of existence therefore gaining no hope nor motivation in this temporary life. If this world is all life has to offer then what is my purpose
hatementality 2 months ago
@SeedsOfHatred to live for an estimate of 100 yrs then die, FOREVER. That kinda blows man. I didnt choose to live therefore there must be a purpose for my life and I cant imagine ceasing in existence after my short life hear on earth.
hatementality 2 months ago
@hatementality It blows, yes. But unfortunately, the fact that it blows does nothing to change the fact that it's true. Who says life is supposed to be a poetic magical fairy-tale?
The problem with theists is that they get so upset about the idea of not existing after they die that they forget to realize that after they're dead; they wont be around to care that they're dead.
The will to survive is an important aspect of evolutionary development, but let's not be irrational about it.
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
@SeedsOfHatred "The problem with theists is that they get so upset about the idea of not existing after they die that they forget to realize that after they're dead; they wont be around to care that they're dead."
I am indeed a theist and I can say for myself that I am at peace with the fact that I must die and that death is only the beginning to my eternal life. Physically I might not want to bear with a painful death but there is no fear in my mind in the concept.
hatementality 2 months ago
@hatementality No, you're misunderstanding me (despite my having clearly spelled it out). I'm not saying the death itself. Because as you just said, you believe that it's "only the begining". I'm talking about death as an END. No life afterward (which is common sense, when you think about it). You get upset about the idea of not existing anymore at all. And of course, it's only natural to want to keep going.
But that doesn't mean that you will. And when you're dead, you wont care that
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
@hatementality (Part 2) you're dead, because you're dead! You're not alive to care!
And no, atheists and agnostics do not fear death. Perhaps some - we all have our fears - but it's not inherant of non-believing. I myself realize that - as I said - I wont be around to care that I'm dead, so it doesn't bother me.
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
@SeedsOfHatred I understand you clearly. The fact of the matter is, death or total end to ones life in which one would not have an eternal soul is not a belief of mine therefore I cannot be upset about it. What I said was clear as well. Naturally speaking, everyone fears death. If one contains a supernatural perception of an afterlife and has full assurance of life after death, there is no spiritual/mental fear in the exception of physical pain.
hatementality 2 months ago
@hatementality I'm aware of that.
But as I said before; that has absolutely no bearing on whether or not you're right. The fact that one believes there is life after death does not mean that there is. I can have the uttmost belief that I don't have Cancer. It doesn't mean that I don't. It is based on pure faith - there is no evidence for it whatsoever.
Because of that, it stands to reason that no rational human being would invest any belief in it at all.
So why do you?
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
@SeedsOfHatred The analogy you brought up is tainted with ignorance since it is logical to determine when you are sick or in need of medical help. Sure you need faith but at the end of the day so do people who don't believe in eternal life or destruction. The only evidence which we can bear witness to is the near death testimonies of those who experienced out of body sensations when announced dead,
hatementality 2 months ago
@SeedsOfHatred in which doctors studied as consistently accurate based on the patients similar message each had to give. There testimonies bare witness to the fact that after death, their senses were sharpened and the reality was unexplainable compared to the everyday lives we live hear on earth.
hatementality 2 months ago
@hatementality My analogy is accurate, because there are many out there right now who do in fact have Cancer, yet have no physical symptoms at all. You don't seek medical help when you don't know you're sick. But that's beside the point.
As for the testimonies of those who have been NEAR death, I have studied psychology for a number of years, so I have heard my fair share of them. However, the reason psychologists hear such stories is because they offer a greater insight into how the brain
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
@SeedsOfHatred The term near death is used because the person comes back to life somehow. There are examples for those who are announced DEAD. There is one testimony in which the person was completely dead for 3 days and has his documents from the hospital to prove it. How can you explain someone completely dead and testifying to seeing their own body from the outside? This can be possible since there is no proof against it.
hatementality 2 months ago
@hatementality Again, I've heard the stories. And I've heard those stories as a precursor to the scientific explanation that was to follow. People who are truly dead do not come back to life. No such case has ever occured. And in regard to the one you mentioned, this is not possible, because the body undergoes significant decay after 3 days. Even if by some miracle (emphasis on that word) he DID come back to life, he would die soon after as a result of that decay.
The fact is that when a person
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
@hatementality (Part 2) has such profound experiences, his brain is in a massive state of alteration. There are many factors involved, but for the sake of keeping this short; the brain simply does fucked-up things when it's under duress. And a person who is "pronounced dead" and yet "comes back" was never really dead at all. All signs were there for a simple paramedic to pronounce him dead, but he is not actually dead. The brain is still alive. Otherwise, he would not "come back" at all.
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
@hatementality (Part 2) actually works. There are perfectly scientific ways to explain NDE's. They are only "unexplainable" to those ignorant of how the human mind functions.
Just as with morality - as we discussed earlier - near-death experiences are just another by-product of an incredibly evolved human brain. Nothing more - no supernatural required.
I truly am sorry, but a divine explanation fails each and every time.
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
@SeedsOfHatred Sure their are textbooks about how the brain works but don't you have to base a certain kind of faith that when a person doesnt come back to life at all that this person will not experience this out of body sensation?
hatementality 2 months ago
@hatementality (Part 3) So no, I'm sorry, but I don't have a certain kind of faith when I hear such stories, because I understand how and why they occured. I know the reasons and the science behind them. The lamen does not understand this science, so he attributes it to God or to angels or to divinity. But that does not make it so.
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hatementality (Part 3) So no, I'm sorry, but I don't have a certain kind of faith when I hear such stories, because I understand how and why they occured. I know the reasons and the science behind them. The lamen does not understand this science, so he attributes it to God or to angels or to divinity. But that does not make it so.
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
@hatementality It seems I misunderstood your "certian kind of faith" assertion. However, the point I made against it still stands.
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hatementality It seems I misunderstood your "certian kind of faith" assertion. However, the point I made against it still stands.
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hatementality It seems I misunderstood your "certian kind of faith" assertion. However, the point I made against it still stands.
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hatementality It seems I misunderstood your "certian kind of faith" assertion. However, the point I made against it still stands.
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hatementality It seems I misunderstood your "certain kind of faith" comment. However, my point against it still stands.
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hatementality It seems I misunderstood your "certain kind of faith" comment. However, my point against it still stands.
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hatementality It seems I misunderstood your "certain kind of faith" comment. However, my point against it still stands.
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hatementality It seems I misunderstood your "certain kind of faith" comment. However, my point against it still stands.
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
@SeedsOfHatred I believe atheist or agnostics live in fear of having only one life therefore one must live it to the fullest, do what you want. Sure thats an oversimplified way of portraying the perception of an unbeliever but preserving the human race or preserving the earth i believe is secondary in rank of importance to ones life.
hatementality 2 months ago
@hatementality (Part 2) animal that very obviously DID give birth, because there is evidence of those animals existing afterward. So who cares if the specific bones we found didn't give birth? That means nothing for the other millions of dead animals of the same kind. That does nothing to disprove Evolution. It doesn't effect the argument at all.
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
4,52 billion years old.
alex007152 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hatementality what's the point saying something is moral just because it says so in a book? All that matters is whether or not it makes sense. No one ever said there was only one morality. But just because there is no absolute morality doesn't mean you can't have a morality at all and make moral judgment. You should read books on ethics and see how they differ from scripture.
topperheartramada 2 months ago
Comment removed
hatementality 2 months ago
It is ignorant to say we make our own moral laws. There would be chaos in this world and society would destruct very very fast. Hey I just made my own moral law and that is to never say hello to people of the Asian race. Now obviously thats wrong, but how do you come to the conclusion that being a racist is wrong? Most of the purest laws established in our governments are essentially from the bible. These laws are made for our own good and are ought to be followed.
hatementality 2 months ago
@hatementality It's not ignorant, it is a fact. People do use their own morality, we have common interests in this world such as not wanting to be murdered or robbed. Which is why such laws are commonplace across the world. Things such as the civil rights movement led to people examining racism and it's harm. The bible is incredibly tribalistic favoring the jews over everyone else, and having slaves. IDK how you define "purity" in a law but that's all nonsense anyway.
ajax515 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ajax515 Purity is the absence of impurity. So what is the essence of only good? As for tribalism, we can perceive throughout the old testament that God makes promises or covenants with his faithful people. Not once did God turn His back on His word. Exclusions were made among other tribes because of their idolatry and immorality. God has a plan for every life, but people these days are trying to find God like the way thief's find policemen.
hatementality 2 months ago
@hatementality you can make up your law, but others will be making their suggestions, too and asking you why you think your law should be instituted. it was socrates who first urged his fellow citizens to explain why they hold certain views on morality. if you cannot account for your morality and just say that you stand for certain things because you read it in a book, then you are not really a moral person. you must provide a reasoned account.
topperheartramada 2 months ago
@topperheartramada Ok I see you're point. How would you provide a valid account in order to pass judgment on what is moral or immoral? Wouldn't you have to base your decision on historical text in which clearly describes what is love and what is evil and how each of these are undeniably far from being parallel? There is virtue and there is vice. But who are us humans to decide which is correct for our own desires?
hatementality 2 months ago
@hatementality Sound historical information about what works in a society vs what doesn't would be helpful in determining what ought to be done, but not imperative. 'Who are we to decide what is correct?' Who else could? It's called responsibility; and quite frankly, I find it rather irresponsible to act (on faith) in accordance with any book. I promise you that atheistic communities do just fine without the assumption of divine decree, and substantiate their morality with reason.
urcorrect 2 months ago
@urcorrect Is it wrong to abort baby fetus' or in the case of rape, bear with the burden of pregnancy and possibly give up the baby for adoption. Such cases as this cannot be absolutely declared as a fallacy in the atheistic perspective. In certain texts such as the bible or other "holy" traditional religious, all cases of murder is immoral. So we can chase down various examples to depict there is a law above and beyond human understanding which we cannot touch.
hatementality 2 months ago
@hatementality So you want to discuss the abortion issue huh? How about this? Why start judgement at the fetus? Is it immoral to abort an embryo too? What about a zygote? An oocyte or spermatozoon? Would you say that men and women ought make every possible attempt at reproduction to avoid the death of as many gametes as possible? There are no absolute morals or laws, and need not be. I submit that dynamic regulation is more powerful than absolutes in an ever changing system.
urcorrect 2 months ago
@hatementality If you want an objective reference upon which to base a system of morality or law, consider the goal of continuing the existence of the species; or you go go beyond us and consider the goal of continuing life. If abortion can be seen as detrimental to the survival or wellbeing of the species (or life) you have grounds for categorizing it as 'wrong' without religious faith. Just one easy example...
urcorrect 2 months ago
@urcorrect "There are no absolute morals or laws, and need not be. I submit that dynamic regulation is more powerful than absolutes in an ever changing system." Are you absolutely sure? Is abortion murder or not? Plainly i believe the aborting of a fetus or whatever else you may call the egg and sperm in fertilization in which the woman obtains full responsibility for the future life form is in essence murder. Is this absolutely right, wrong, or possibly, maybe?
hatementality 2 months ago
@hatementality I'm not absolutely sure about anything. Absolute certainty is a fools position; if one is honest, they admit the limits of their perception. I don't see a need to oversimplify matters like abortion with a black and white labeling system. Consider a rape/pregnancy scenario where carrying or birthing is a danger to the woman for one example. Now if the gametes in union are precious, what about when separate? Ought we copulate at every chance from puberty onward?
urcorrect 2 months ago
@urcorrect Neither am I. I don't know everything and I bet I barely know 1/5th of everything that could be obtained in ones mind. I just don't see the clear perception of the theory in which there are no absolutes in deciphering virtue and vice. Its ignorant to question therefore if there are absolutes and the life process of a human is profound we must never waste our bullets so to speak by not putting every gamete into use.
hatementality 2 months ago
@hatementality I don't think it is ignorant to question whether there are absolutes, but I think it is irresponsible to assume there are, or to act as though there are on faith alone. "we must never waste our bullets ~ putting every gamete into use" So do you think a ten to fifteen year old should be having intercourse as often as possible? Can you imagine the negative impact on society if everyone had as many children as possible? Poverty and death rates would skyrocket.
urcorrect 2 months ago
@urcorrect When the sperm enters the egg, this is when a woman has full responsibility for this new life form. She has the responsiblilty to care for and cherish her new offspring. Ofcourse things can go wrong in this process but the woman does have the opportunity to abort the baby for any negative reasoning she may have. This is just one example in which I cannot believe a woman is right in any way when murdering her child to be, no matter what stage of her pregnancy.
hatementality 2 months ago
@hatementality Where does her responsibility come from when the child is conceived by an act of rape? By cause/effect, if the woman aborts a child in such a case, for most reasons the responsibility should rest solely on the trespasser rather than the victim. I can imagine severe psychological and social issues with domino effects leading to more deaths than one abortion resulting from just bearing with the illegitimate child. There are too many variables for a binary judgement.
urcorrect 2 months ago
@urcorrect I don't think you quoted me in the right context. My point in the case of gametes is not in fact the murdering of a child since the sperm and egg didnt meet. I start to reflect at the fertilization period because this is the focal point in which the woman is declared she is pregnant. Therefore not reproducing constantly to not "waste bullets" is not in any way wrong. If thats not clear then i don't know what is. When the damage is done psychologically in the case of rape, there are
hatementality 2 months ago
@urcorrect many options. Keep the child and love the child, abort, or a beautiful option of adoption. Aborting is simply an act of murder in which is accepted by secular humanist who do not see the value of life. This is just an opinion of mine in which i can be wrong. I just do see any evidence proclaiming my error.
hatementality 2 months ago
@hatementality i just do not* see any evidence proclaiming my error
hatementality 2 months ago
@hatementality I hope you don't think I was twisting your words, I just thought that was in response to my question of when life becomes valuable. So what makes a fertilized egg more valuable than separate gametes? What's your justification for not preventing as many their deaths as possible? You're inaccurate to stereotype secular humanists as pro-choice, and to say any humanist doesn't see the value of human life is an oxymoron. What evidence have you to proclaim your accuracy?
urcorrect 2 months ago
@urcorrect I think its clear that the gametes purpose is to pair up together in order to form a life form. Each gamete of the opposite sex is necessary to perform this process of life. Once these the sperm enters the egg we can conclude the procedure has begun for a life form to exist. Why do i start to judge what is murder in the case of a woman being pregnant is because she now has the advantage and the power to maintain a healthy lifestyle to naturally deliver the baby or chemically or
hatementality 2 months ago
@hatementality So you're saying gametes are not life forms? If so, you're wrong, but regardless you're ridiculously oversimplifying things again, and I'm growing tired of reading responses that try to dodge my questions. I won't repeat them anymore. Take care.
urcorrect 2 months ago
@urcorrect I never said that. All I'm saying is that we cannot be responsible for each one of these gametes to use each one because it is impossible to be held accountable for each one. It is obvious to plan out a proper birth rather than attempt to reproduce every second we have a new gamete which can be used. My argument is that the fetus is each gamete interacting with each other in which serves each purpuse to produce life. Singling out each gamete is nonsense because its purpose
hatementality 2 months ago
@hatementality Since sex cells are alive, the man and woman have a responsibility for those 'life forms', right? If you don't support *maximizing* the number of successful fertilizations, you are pro-choice at that level. So, how is choosing not to reproduce any more virtuous than choosing not to carry a rapist's child?
urcorrect 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@urcorrect Your argument doesnt make much sense and doesnt hold much ground. Choosing not to produce all the time is a responsibility. If you were to have kids all the time non stop, in the long run you wouldnt be able to support your large family in many cases due to your income. Thats just one example towards how irrational it would be to be held responsible for every gamete. Once you are guaranteed you have a successful starting point to a life form in which is promised
hatementality 2 months ago
@urcorrect to evolve into a human being the woman carrying the fetus is held liable to maintain a healthy lifestyle to help the baby grow. That is morally accepted just like abortion for some reason.
hatementality 2 months ago
@urcorrect Another example I can describe is when a mans partner is pregnant. In this case you are assuming the man must continue to use his gametes since they are life forms as well. This scenario indicates that the man now must have an affair with another woman to make sure he is making use of every sperm he has. The reasoning goes on and on.
hatementality 2 months ago
@hatementality I'm simply applying the reasoning you gave to support your inflexible position on abortion; responsibility for a life form. So how is choosing not to reproduce any more virtuous than choosing not to carry a rapist's child?
urcorrect 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@urcorrect Consider the act of sex. I'm sure you're aware of this but in the practice of sex intended to plan for a child, only one sperm and one egg produce one child. If you want me to say not reproducing is absolutely wrong, that's like saying to conceive a child is wrong because of the loss of the gametes in which weren't capable to being matched up together to form a fetus. This is another reason why we don't have a valid control over all our sex cells until a woman has conceived a fetus.
hatementality 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@urcorrect So choosing not to produce can not be immoral since the individual is not hurting any life form. These gametes are impossible to produce life until matched with the opposite sex cell. In the case of a pregnant rape victim, is she right in killing the possibility of life? As for these gametes being alive, they cannot be fully alive until each of the opposite sex meet together. Thats the beaty of life. So these gametes produce life, each has 23 chromosomes which need each other.
hatementality 2 months ago
@urcorrect Back to our original argument on morality. When asserting the statement that all truth is relative,, that statement either includes itself or excludes itself. If it includes itself that statement declares it is also relative which means it is not always true. If it excludes itself, its positing an absolute while denying an absolute exists. Try to wrap your head around that. It is a self defeating proposition.
hatementality 2 months ago
@hatementality Why don't you just answer the question? And how is that statement about truth supposed to follow our exchange on morality?
urcorrect 2 months ago
@urcorrect NO it is not wrong to not reproduce because our own sex cells die in the act of sex. One sperm and one egg conceive one child while many other cells simply don't make it. As for believing all truth is relative, you would have to say that relative truth is absolute itself, or probably not true. Which one do you agree upon?
hatementality 2 months ago
@hatementality Many cells are going to die with or without copulation, but without, the carrier has chosen to eliminate all possibility of their survival. By your logic, it is not wrong to not carry a rapist's child because many embryos terminate during pregnancies. You've made it clear why you 'think' it isn't wrong to not reproduce, but you haven't resolved the dilemma. How does it differ from "kill[ing] a possible child"? What's the relevance in the "truth is relative" idea?
urcorrect 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@urcorrect Either way if both premises are true in which: a) one chooses to not reproduce b) one decides to abort a child; are both absolutely wrong, you have decided to agree with me that there are absolute right and wrongs. I am not a scientist so i cannot go into depth about sex cells and describe fully and clearly our responsibility over them. It is impossible for new life without sex but its very possible for new life when having sex especially when the fetus has evolved in fertilization.
hatementality 2 months ago
@urcorrect As humans we make decisions some right and some wrong. To choose not to have kids is sometimes right based on personal situations. To withhold from having a child can be wrong in cases of selfishness or hate towards children in general. That is simply the beauty of life. We are not forced to produce children. If so, the process would not be done in love but in obligation.
hatementality 2 months ago
Comment removed
hatementality 2 months ago
@hatementality Answer the questions.
urcorrect 2 months ago
@urcorrect Do you agree with the statements i just made or nay? I thought I made it clear that humans are not obligated to have children because in the contrary there is no love involved in having a child. The situations tend to differ based on every persons issues. How is this any more virtuous than aborting a child? We are given a choice to start the possibility to conceive new birth. In the case of rape when the victim isnt given a choice, she has the new choices of killing off the possible
hatementality 2 months ago
@urcorrect child, keeping the child as her own, or giving it up for adoption. I believe one of these choices are completely wrong.
hatementality 2 months ago
@hatementality You have not answered either question; please address them.
urcorrect 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@urcorrect As for believing all truth is relative, it is a self contradictory belief. There must be absolutes in moral right and wrong which has been established beyond our understanding.
hatementality 2 months ago
@urcorrect The difference between the two are the situations. One would choose not to have a child for various amounts of valid moral choices. I have made those type of examples clear. In the case of rape, the damage has been done and the victim is only left with three choices. Terminating the fetus is immoral because you are taking the life of the child. It is not the child's fault that his father raped his mother. What I'm trying to say is quite mathematical; two wrongs don't make a right.
hatementality 2 months ago
@hatementality Perhaps you forgot what the questions were. 1) How is not supporting the life of gametes morally superior to not supporting the life of a zygote? 2) Why were you rambling about the statement "truth is relative"?
urcorrect 2 months ago