When thou lack wisdom, let them ask of god with all thy heart. You have been blinded Hun and the only thing and living being that's perfect is god not the people in the church remember that
Atheism is not a "lack of beliefs". You are confusing "atheism" with "agnosticism". You are wrong because
1. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the standard reference material in the field, defines atheism as a positive affirmation of the non-existence of God.
2. If atheism is a "lack of beliefs", then babies, trees, mountains, and dogs can be considered "atheists" because they "lack a belief" in God, also. Therefore, your definition trivializes the word and ultimately renders it useless.
@Smithfriend I fail to see the distinction you're trying to make in point 1. What's the difference between lacking belief and affirming one's lack of belief? When talking about other supernatural entities like, say, ghosts, lacking belief automatically leads me to affirm their non-existence when questioned. I don't see how you can do one w/o the other. As for point 2, I think it's taken for granted that we're talking about thinking persons capable of believing things.
@qrqrqrqr1 Here's the difference: "atheism" makes the positive claim that "God does not exist". That is the STANDARD philosophical definition, and it is a positive propositional knowledge or truth claim. It is not defined as a simple "lack of beliefs" or a statement that you are "withholding a belief" in God, as agnostics do. Agnostics withhold belief because they claim that they lack sufficient information (or they don't care). Psychonaut is conflating/trivializing the terms.
@Smithfriend Hm, I guess it's a difference in interpretation. When I hear someone say, "There is no God", I interpret that as functionally meaning the same as, "I don't believe in God". What if I "withhold belief" to the same extent that I do for any other hypothetical supernatural entities? Does that make me merely agnostic about gods and everything else?
@qrqrqrqr1 It is not a difference in interpretation. The proposition "God does not exist" is a completely different proposition than "I believe that God does not exist". They are two different truth claims. One could be true, but not the other. It could be true that you do not believe that God exists, but he still could exist despite your unbelief.
Claiming to withhold belief in any "other hypothetical entities" begs the question, but yes, you could be agnostic about other beings.
@Smithfriend I am conflating/trivialising? If you say so, but then you are being narrow-minded if you see atheism as a single concept with no division. You are referring to positive, or "strong" atheism, a perhaps less common view that God/gods most certainly do NOT exist. I see that as as short-sighted as theism. If this makes me closer to an agnostic then fine. Definitions aside, if you will, the key point here is that you believe in God and I don't.
@Smithfriend That's like saying there is no division in Christianity. As you must know there are various "modes" of atheism. Please quote from the Encyclopaedia. How often is religious belief attributed to non-humans? Why is it relevant if they are not sapient?
@Psychonaut1992 no one can experience God in the flesh and live "as in with your senses", if you wanna experience God in matter forms the only thing you will experience is YOUrself and your selfish desiers... 2nd atheism is literally a RELIGION based on experiment and matter etc... you can't talk about spiritualism without having higher spiritual authority over you..
@emanueltafta Epic fail. Leaders and masters alike spread lies such as this so that religion (their tool for control) can not be challenged by those who have accepted it.
@LiberatedMind1 well, in this case Albert Pike would be your most favorable probably even spiritual gothfather of your atheism... "morals&dogma" say anything to you?
Epic? perhaps "science" would be much more appropriate... besides, science is a religion if i may... Now you graduated from COLLEGE.. there goes faith, prosperity; lots of all kinds of science the birth of many Hightech bombs etc..not to mention aristocracy doctrines.. and ultimately a New World Order.. better said "hi Hitler"
@emanueltafta Buddhists might argue that spiritualism is, to be succinct, awareness. If I am not spiritual through attempted awareness outside and in then so be it. Atheism is not a religion because it lacks solid organisation (clergies, hierarchies), cultural/belief systems, rituals, ethics, etc. which are common to almost all religions. I once lay in hospital near death and experienced nothing supernatural or divine; that's sufficient for me. Even before then I was faithless.
@Psychonaut1992 Again, you seem to refer to your own idiosyncratic definitions of terms in order to justify your position. Merriam-Webster defines "religion" in one sense as
"a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"
Which contradicts your presuppositions. Certainly atheism fits that description, and is, so, a religion. Rather than relying on your own definitions, you should consult standard reference works so that other people can understand you.
@Smithfriend ...and you are using a single dictionary definition and not several. Atheism is a /lack/ of beliefs. It does not in itself pertain to humanism, and its "system" of "beliefs" (disbeliefs, really) are found in its more specific categorisations. If you want to call atheism a religion then by all means, but I don't believe in a traditional god or supernaturalism.
@Psychonaut1992 Of course you can't say that you can be 100% confident that "the universe sprang into existence", that it was "caused", or that "God" with "utmost certainty". But you have to follow the evidence wherever it leads, and pick the conclusion that makes the most sense. Very little in this life can be proven with 100% certainty. Even scientific theories cannot be proven with 100% accuracy, and if that is your standard of proof, you will never commit to anything.
@Smithfriend You don't need to tell me about 100% certainty. I already made it clear I'm a sceptic. I choose science and reason because they get as close as I see as possible, and it's hard living life doubting everything 100% - that is perhaps going too far. Conversely you cannot prove God, so I'm not sure of your point.
to tell you the truth i enjoy sharing with you some edvice on truth from my perspective... here's the thing: you never die, eventhough you close your physical eyes in this life... there's nothing supernatural about death... I too would hate to live with bunch of hypocrites saying im christian; now, i've been near dead from poisoning... All i remeber was my last screem before passing out into coma... but i'll never forget the cry when i woke up... IT WAS TERRIBLE..
@emanueltafta If it's your perspective then it's not "truth", though. If you want to get abstract then I can agree that we don't die, because our chemicals can be traced to the elements in the stars, and our bodily matter degrades into the Earth one way or another. There's only something supernatural about death when people don't want to face it, talk about deities and afterlives. I've had a near-death experience too and had no supernatural experience - I can relate to the trauma.
There is a lot of B.S. in religion! I am still trying to rightly divide the word called the Truth. Many churches are doctrinated and twisted. Many are called but very few are chosen.
"Gods word was tried and put up for the public to view,
@Psychonaut1992 prove the existence of your mind and i prove the existence of God. If you reason your mind being in your brain, then I prove to you that God exists as well... that would exclude Nazi, Darwinian, communist concept of YOU and Nature
@emanueltafta You can prove the existence of God empirically? I'd like to see that. I can prove my mind exists only insofar as I am experiencing it, but on what level it exists is another matter. What, presently, does the Nazi and communist concept of self and nature have to do with the existence of God? I'm thinking you might be a troll.
Lacey, you are searching for a way to make yourself a better or "good" person by your own good deeds or acts of righteouness. Humanism isn't going to get you there. We were born into sin, and the only way we can "get it right" is thru Jesus Christ Who paid for your sins and mine on the cross. Only with the Holy blood of Jesus Christ will we be able to "get it right".
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His MERCY He saved us" Titus 3:5
@DuneWest It's your distorted views that cause unrest in the world, not Laci's. You believe in fairy tales, Laci lives in reality. Now go watch some videos from the Darth Vader-Lightsaber group (Christian videos that have huge red dislike bars)
@DuneWest Your religion condemns all that do not follow your specific flavour of God to eternal suffering, whose Bible commands its adherents to commit murder and abide slavery, all while claiming to be the single path of morality.
It doesn't take Christ to be a "good" person. I donate, I volunteer, I respect my parents - not because a book told me to, but because it's being cooperative. If I even believed in Hell, I wouldn't care, because at least I wouldn't be condemning others.
Lacey, to be a "good person", but to obtain what goal at the end of life? Let's say you become the best, nicest, most giving person on earth and when you die and that is good, but it will NOT be good enough to get you into heaven.
"For there is not a just man upon earth, that does good and sins not" Ecclesiastes 7:20
Jesus is the only One Who can save you and make you clean and white as snow that you may enter the kingdom of heaven with Him for eternity. He already FREELY paid for your sins.
I am a scientist and a believer, and I find no conflict between those world views.
As the director of the Human Genome Project, I have led a consortium of scientists to read out the 3.1 billion letters of the human genome, our own DNA instruction book. As a believer, I see DNA, the information molecule of all living things, as God's language, and the elegance and complexity of our own bodies and the rest of nature as a reflection of God's plan.
@bluepastry Can you provide proof you are the director of the Human Genome Project? If God is mysterious and not fully understandable then why is the universe in such a way that it operates mechanically in ways we are understanding more and more with each passing decade?
i come from a catholic background and Jewish heritage.....please do not believe that democrats and Obama are the answer for people....they are not! Abortion is the murder of the unborn....would u allow abortions for parents who want to have a boy? or is they discover a gay gene? How do you know there is no god..where did the Universe come from? big bang? where did that come from?
@bluepastry Ask any doctor/biologist and he/she will tell you that a fetus is not human as we are. It is a bundle of cells with the potential for humanness. Do you think it's right that a rape victim should have to give birth to the child of her attacker and raise that child? How could that be fair?
If there IS a god, then where did it come from? If you say God was always there, then why not the universe instead?
Perhaps this is not the place to make this distinction but here goes. Spirit is interpreted by religion to mean it comes from a deity not as an integral part of life. What I intended on saying was that from a scientific point of view it does not need such for it to exist however the question should be formed in direct relationn to all life and not just sentient since that would incite some to exclude all other life but human. I am no scientist bbut I am a thinking person.
Interesting video that you have made here. I am having some trouble understanding something, however. Physicists tell us that in the future, the universe will reach a state of high entropy and become dilute to a molecular scale. Therefore, on an atheistic worldview, all life is doomed to individual and collective extinction. Therefore, why would it matter how someone lives their life, since all life is doomed to perish? Doesn't atheism presume that purpose in life is illusory and subjective?
@Smithfriend "....on an atheistic worldview, all life is doomed to individual and collective extinction. Therefore, why would it matter how someone lives their life, since all life is doomed to perish?"
Ha, excellent question!!! Lacey claims to be an Atheist, but at the same time she wants to be a "good person" and make her life mean something which tells me she there is HOPE for her---only to be found thru the salvation plan in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Im praying for her
@Smithfriend Disregarding an unstoppable sudden meteor collision or gamma ray burst destroying all or most life on Earth, these end-of-universe events are so, so far into the future, so far that it's arguably not worth allowing to affect our efforts in self-understanding/ethics/what have you. Even if Earth holds out 500 millions years and gets crisped by the sun then we are talking about descendants so far down the line that they would look nothing like us.
@Psychonaut1992 I don't understand how your response adequately addresses my question. Regardless of how our descendants look, physicists and the laws of thermodynamics tell us that on a molecular scale, the universe will eventually become completely dilute. ALL LIFE will cease to exist in the universe at some point. Therefore, what objective purpose can be claimed for life? On atheism, any meaning or purpose is ILLUSORY, and he who claims meaning to life is deluding himself.
@Smithfriend The scale is often macro, though, as with cosmology, and there is not a general consensus about the end of time, life, and the universe as a whole. Objective purpose in life is rather a different and subjective matter. Atheism in its broadest sense does not necessarily entail a complete lack of purpose, but it could be argued that on any grand scale that purpose is indeed illusory.
@Psychonaut1992 You are not making sense. There's no "general consensus" about the Laws of Thermodynamics? Yes there is. They are scientific laws. And they entail that at some point in the future, the universe will die of a heat loss.
"Objective purpose...is rather a different and subjective matter." What does this contradictory statement mean? How can something that is objective be subjective? Your statements here are confusing and muddled. Try to state your position clearly.
@Smithfriend No, I said there is no general consensus about the finality of the universe as a whole (as in, big crunch, big freeze, etc.) I did not talk specifically about the laws of thermodynamics. Of course an expanding universe and dissipating energy means widespread heat loss is inevitable, but what that entails exactly is another matter. The /concept/ of "objective purpose" is subjective because I see no reason to believe there is an inherent purpose or drive in the universe.
@Psychonaut1992 Objective purpose cannot, by definition, be subjective. "Objective" does not mean "inherent".
"Widespread heat loss" in terms of the universe's eschatology means that eventually the universe will consist entirely of single molecules that lie trillions of miles apart from each other. Therefore, life will become completely unsustainable. And yes, there is a "general consensus" about that.
@Smithfriend I was quoting you, "Therefore, what objective purpose can be claimed for life?", perhaps misunderstanding; my point was that the concept of objective purpose I don't think is possible on a cosmic, irrefutable level... thus, subjective. I was not once disagreeing with the mass dispersion of matter would occur; I was disagreeing with the idea that the /exact/ "way out" for the universe is a unanimously agreed upon.
@Smithfriend If I understand, you seem to be saying that if something does not continue infinitely into the future, it should not matter to us. How does this follow? That's like saying if I can't ride a roller-coaster eternally, I shouldn't do it. Obviously nothing will "matter" in a future state of the universe devoid of conscious beings, since there'll be nobody to care about anything. But why would you then apply that to a state of the universe which does contain sentient life?
@Smithfriend Well then what's the point of bringing up the heat death of the universe as? It seems to imply that if sentient life somehow continued eternally, then we ought to place much greater value on it.
What if all it all boiled down to that all energy was what animates matter? This simply is what spirit would be if stripped entirely of religious assertions. This is my opinion and I could be wrong but I do not think I am and even if I am I raised an interesting question. It is hard fiting in here without having science quotes.
@g2thumbs1 Well I'm not a big science guy but what your saying is what if energy gave life to matter? which is what the word animate means? giving life to. Matter means everything living around you that takes up space.I really don't see any type of energy giving life to me or you which kind of goes along the lines of the big bang theory where all energy and matter at some point was just contained. Spirit is made in us from are creator. You strip God from it and you totally take away the maker.
@Joeyyy71 - would like to get in on this, it would be a damn shame if you weren't made to realise how ignorant you are being. If you are unaware of the basic principle that the human body needs energy to function you really did make a gross understatement when you said you weren't a big science guy. What do you think humans achieve from eating and sleeping ?
@lightspeedchump Alright chump even a three year old kid is aware of that so let me shut you up here for a moment. Without God who created all things living and ENERGY key word like I was saying! energy would not have a meaning. POINT- I was saying energy is in fact not the only thing humans need! without God humans are nothing! Everything is pointless and has no meaning at all. Yes energy is one thing that keeps us going. NOT the only thing though! #pickupabibleandreadit!
@Joeyyy71 - what you are saying is not fact - simply by claiming that it is does not make it so. Energy is in fact the only thing humans need to survive a lifetime. What makes my statement fact is evidence, something that your argument doesn't have. I wont hashtag in youtube because I'm not a moron, but I will say - pick up a textbook and read it.
@lightspeedchump Your textbook isn't going to help you when your kneeling before your king and the only thing coming out of your ignorant let me say this too unwise mouth are you are God and NONE stand before you. So I guess stick to your science. Its not for me to judge that would be Gods job. So you got any thing left to say science chump? Oh and don't come at me with there's no evidence in God. Joy,peace,and salvation is the evidence chump! your textbook yeah that's weak bro!
@lightspeedchump Oh wait and another thing since your smart and let me quote you! "Energy is in fact the only thing humans need to survive a lifetime". ONLY! I think you need to catch up on your textbook?! I believe oxygen plays a big part in being able to survive a lifetime dumbo! the only thing humans need to survive! maybe you shouldn't have joined this argument. Go back and review your textbooks on what humans need to survive. There's much more then just energy.
@Joeyyy71 Energy can be found in water and food, just not in the way it's commonly defined as. The body, god or no god, "converts" the nutritional contents of food to turn into energy that can be used by humans, and water hydrates bodily systems. So yes, in a manner of speaking, energy is all humans need (on a basic biological level, spirituality notwithstanding).
@Psychonaut1992 Yeah thanks for stating that in a nice way. Its hard to find somebody to talk to on here without getting attacked. Yes I agree with energy and having a lot of factors on we as humans surviving. I was just saying that oxygen has apart with it too. Also are creator God. don't know if you believe in that but I do and If you think about my logic you would understand what I'm saying as having no life or breath or energy without him creating all things.
@Joeyyy71 You're right... the internet brings out the worst in people. Yes, oxygen is required, but I take the atmosphere as a given since all life we know of exists on Earth. I think the difference in opinion here is that you look backward to God's work while myself and others start from the beginning and look forwards, tracking the progression of the various systems of nature to explain its present state.
@Psychonaut1992 In Genesis 1:1 God created the heavens and the earth. There's no proof in science that tells me who created it all. Big bang is false. evolution has come to an end since there's been no evidence. The only loophole in science is you still can't prove how things came of existence. We have a book dating back 1000's of years ago. What book dates back that long and states that all bible teachings are false? None. Just level with me here. Prove me wrong?
@Joeyyy71 There's your first mistake: "who created it at all". Most people in scholarly positions do not consider it a "who", but a "how". Again, sweeping and uneducated statements from theists... If the big bang theory was "false" and evolution at an end then modern physics and biology would not exist as they do now. I cannot prove you wrong in every area because then I would be as narrow-minded as you and other believers. Your book over 2000 years old is riddled with inconsistencies.
@Joeyyy71 I can begin to "prove you wrong" by starting with Genesis - not that it's used as any kind of respectable literature in science. God supposedly created created light on the first day but did not create a light source until the fourth. Indeed, that an omnipotent being took six days at all, let alone a day of rest, throws doubt on such a being's actual power. Since God is "mysterious" I see no reason why he could not just have created the Earth in an infinitesimal timespan.
@Psychonaut1992 And your statements to Joeyyy71 are shallow and ignorant, although you act as if they are representative of scholarly work. You don't begin to address any material or efficient cause of the universe. Why does anything exist at all, rather than nothing? For atheists, there is no explanation of the efficient cause of the universe. If you are an atheist you must believe that the universe just popped into being without a cause, which violates every known metaphysical principle.
@Smithfriend I don't claim my views to be representative of anything but themselves. The cause of the universe? We're not sure /exactly/; that's why we have science. What of God - what of his cause? Can nothing be known to exist without there being something? "For atheists, there is no explanation of the efficient cause of the universe." You call me ignorant and then come out with this sweeping statement?
@Psychonaut1992 If we're not sure"/exactly/" of the cause of the universe, then why can't it be God? Because your philosophical predispositions say so?
The fact that you inquire as to God's "cause" shows that you have no understanding of the philosophical concept of the differences between necessary and contingent beings. God has no cause. He exists out of the necessity of his own nature. He is the first uncaused cause. You would do well to educate yourself on this subject.
@Smithfriend I'm not saying it can't be a higher power, but currently I'm not convinced. At the very least I see no logic in the idea of a benevolent god. If you want to debate super-intelligence simulating this universe, us as their programs, then perhaps you could say I consider the involvement of a higher power, but such a thing would be improvable so could we say for sure? You make a point about uncaused cause, but then surely the same logic could apply to the universe too.
@Psychonaut1992 If the universe ALWAYS existed, then there would be an infinite number of events that have occurred in its past. However, metaphysics has proven that actual infinite numbers do not exist, because they lead to mathematical contradictions. Besides, all of the scientific evidence points towards an absolute beginning around 13.7 billion years ago. You can speculate about such "eternal universe" scenarios, but in doing so, you contradict all of the scientific evidence.
@Smithfriend I didn't say I staunchly supported the idea of an origin-less universe - it's merely an idea. I have no good reason to disagree with the current theory of a 13.7b y.o. universe. I'd be interested in the source of the claim about the non-existence of infinite numbers. I'm still unsure whether or not you believe in a higher power.
@Psychonaut1992 I believe that God created the universe. The Kalam Cosmological argument provides warrant via deductive logic:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
The logic is sound, and it is a deductive argument, so the conclusion inescapably follows from the premises. To deny the conclusion, you must deny one or more of the premises, which would contradict the scientific and metaphysical evidence.
@Smithfriend Conclusion only follows inescapably if the previous deductions are rational, and I'd dare say you might favour its rationality if you live by that argument. Can a conclusion not be denied if it extrapolates grossly and veers off from the premises? It seems a bit too clear-cut to say those who disagree with that one argument are denying all scientific evidence. How, exactly, can metaphysics have evidence? Rather, what evidence is there beyond extrapolations from physics?
@Psychonaut1992 Where does the conclusion "extrapolate grossly and veer off from the premises"? Why can't I say that people who deny the beginning of the universe are denying the best science that we have? It's true. Why can't metaphysics sustain an evidential component? Must "evidence" only have a materialistic nature? Is it fair to deny the existence of the immaterial and to only require material evidence for its existence? Doesn't that beg the question?
@Smithfriend I didn't mean your argument particularly veered off from the premises in its conclusion, but that it happens, and that some conclusions are dramatic and fallible. Of course those denying mainstream science are perhaps foolish. Metaphysics could by all means sustain evidence but I do not think more so than physics. Science first, philosophy second, the tangible being closer to us (arguably). Yes, evidence must be material in nature... I believe that is its definition.
@Psychonaut1992 Well, according to Merriam-Webster, evidence is defined as:
1. An outward sign : indication
or,
2. Something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
Immaterial "things" like "testimony" are considered as evidence, so, no, evidence is not by definition exclusively material in nature. Perhaps in our discussion we can use terms according to their standard definitions?
@Smithfriend Read: that's specifically in the context of law and is not immediately applied to metaphysics. I say science first because I think it's good to have one's head in the cloud only if his feet are on the ground too. What is in front of us is material reality - whatever that may be - and so using neurology or what have you to understand diseases, rather than starting with the ultimate nature of things.
@Psychonaut1992 "Science first and philosophy second", huh? The problem with that is, science presupposes logic and cannot function without it. How can you begin to evaluate any kind of scientific data, or draw any reasonable conclusions apart from logic? This trend towards a belief in "scientism" among atheists is sad, and ultimately self-refuting.
@Psychonaut1992 "...you might favour its rationality if you live by that argument". What does this mean? The syllogism that I have provided is logically sound, and it is a deductive argument. Therefore, the conclusion follows inescapably from the premisses. To deny the conclusion, you have to deny one or more of the premisses. Which one do you deny? Is it (1), You believe that things begin to exist "uncaused", or (2), which would deny the best scientific evidence that we have?
@Smithfriend I was referring to the bias blind spot. I'm a sucker for Cartesian doubt. Yes, the conclusion follows fluidly IF the premises are well constructed. Surely this is relied upon. I never said that I specifically denied Kalam's argument - only the apparently irrefutable nature of any and all syllogisms. Again, not your argument specifically! It makes sense, yes, but without a foreword about the concept of "god" it is not of great use...
@Psychonaut1992 I think that I gave you the concept of God that most efficiently explains the origin of the universe. The cause of the universe must lie outside of time, space, matter, and energy. That gives us a being that is spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and extremely powerful, and stands within a causal capacity. If you can think of anything other than "God" that fits that description, I'm ready to hear it. Until then, I think that God is the best explanation.
@Smithfriend There, again directly from "cause" to "being". I am /not/ saying this removes the concept of God from the table - just that it might be too soon to jump to a conclusion when the world has a very diverse, often perverse view of God or gods. I'll give some examples: a different form of higher power that could be described as godlike but not in an explicit Western sense, or beings beyond our comprehension of sapience that simulate this universe artificially.
@Smithfriend Perhaps, though, I could agree with the argument there as it stands, and my qualm is that you come out of the tunnel as it were with god, while I wouldn't. Yes, the universe would then, by that route of logic, have a cause - but why then must the cause be a god, especially one so easily mistaken for the typical, personal, Abrahamic God? In this context, what is your concept of God?
@Psychonaut1992 I am saying that the BEST possible explanation as to the cause of the universe is God, for reasons that I have listed.
Are you waiting for me to admit my belief in the Abrahamic God so that our discussion can devolve into accusations of perceived Biblical inaccuracies and discrepancies? Is it possible that your beliefs are based on a skewed philosophical worldview instead of a sincere, in-depth investigation of what the Bible REALLY says?
@LiberatedMind1 "Don't gimme that eternal bullshit"? If you are unwilling to rationally discuss philosophical issues regarding the nature of necessary and contingent beings, then you are simply being closed-minded. Your dismissive response seems somewhat dogmatic and uneducated. It also reinforces the opinion that atheists often hold their beliefs regardless of reason and logic.
@Smithfriend Perhaps he/she was referring to the fact that if a theist doesn't fall into silence when asked of God's origin, they talk about causeless origin. Perhaps, yes, but as we've discussed, could the Big Bang not instead be the causeless? If there is a supernatural component, then must it be a Western or personal god, let alone an Abrahamic one?
@Psychonaut1992 Is that reasonable to you? The universe just "sprang" into existence out of nothing, uncaused? Why doesn't everything and anything just "spring" into existence, uncaused, then? That theory is worse than saying that "magic" is responsible for the universe. Think about it. "Nothing" has NO properties. Therefore, it doesn't even have the POTENTIAL for existence, on its own. Yet, why is there something here, rather than nothing? Isn't a cause a better explanation?
@Smithfriend We've already covered that I am not 100% confident that the universe "sprang" into existence. I am neither confident that it is a "god", period. Have I ever said that "the universe is uncaused and I can say this with the utmost certainty"? If so, please quote me. Of course cause is a better explanation, but extrapolation with basis is perhaps going too far. You might call me an agnostic by that reasoning, but it's rather more agnostic atheism.
@Psychonaut1992 "must it be a Western or personal god, let alone an Abrahamic one?" Well, I'm not arguing a specific God, yet. At this point, I am content to expose atheism as an irrational worldview, and argue for the classical Western philosophical God, a "maximally great being" as He is often defined.
I have beliefs regarding the specific nature of God (and I am prepared to defend them), but I think that embarking on that trail would complicate the discussion at this point.
@Smithfriend I'm not sure if it's the best possible explanation, but it's not entirely ridiculous either. No, I'm not waiting for that. You're obviously intelligent and far more tolerable than the average YT user. I believe all beliefs are skewed by personality (rather, the mind of the individual, his ways) and experience. I wouldn't use the Bible as a basis for my beliefs as it's unreliable, etc.; I'd based them off personal insight adapted by others' thoughts and challenges.
@Smithfriend Earlier you talked about how as an atheist, what would the point in living purposefully be if the universe is doomed to end? As that event is probably so far into the future that it is relevant only in cosmology or philosophy, should it affect the day-to-day life right now? Thus because non-destructive (or at least neutral) acts which may not require much effort may have benefit, there then is not necessarily true purpose, but a motive to cooperate.
@Psychonaut1992 The extinction of life is so far in the distance as to only be relevant to cosmology? Give me a break.
As an atheist, it makes no difference if you live life as a Stalin or a saint. You can become a president or a great diplomat and save millions of lives, or you can be a vicious, selfish dictator and kill millions. It doesn't REALLY matter, because everyone is doomed to die anyway. Any purpose that you ascribe to life is subjective and illusory, on atheism.
@Psychonaut1992 Scientists tell us that at the Big Bang, all matter, energy, space, time, and universal physical properties were created. Since matter, energy, space, time, and physical properties could not have created themselves out of nothing, their cause must lie outside of themselves. Therefore, the cause of the universe must be an immaterial, timeless, space-less being of immense power , which is the classic Western philosophical definition of God.
@Smithfriend That's one of the classic definitions, yes. It's also the definition of elements in science fiction, and as such does not hold it to be the only logical result.
@Smithfriend The definition of atheism does not specifically include an intellectual position on the origins of the universe. This is the typical false dichotomy BS theists work with. Perhaps the universe always existed but did so in an obscure form before the big bang. I don't claim to be sure because then I would be as self-limiting and narrow-minded as theism. As I said, we have science so we can find out for sure, if possible.
There's nothing useful in the world of Science fiction. Lets drop that subject for the only reason its called fiction meaning not real,fake, a myth. Lets get back on the topic of whats real. You say you don't need all the evidence to know God doesn't exist? What logic do you see in that statement? That's like saying you don't need all the evidence to solve a murder! Therefor don't tell me God doesn't exist. You cant support your claim with assumptions and inconclusive evidence.
@Joeyyy71 give me evidence that is actually convincing and not this stupid crap please. it seems you are EXTREMELY gullible, do you just believe anything a people tell you or do you have proof. also dont bother saying the bible thats just silly., its like saying the lord of the rings is true because it says so in the book. come on you can give proof thats not reliant on the bible right?
@theUKatheist I already did. Your just not listening to what I'm saying because its not what you believe in or want to hear. Like I said before you wont understand until you choose to be humble and have an ear about this subject. If you would actually read the bible you would see that there's prophecies and things coming true everyday. your trying to bash my belief with what motive? The evidence is from the joy and love I feel inside from the lord. that's all the evidence I need.
wow your sad u have a haterd for religion when ur owen beliefs r also full of shit but u dont here me complaning make a porno and that way u can learn something or help some and get a life
I JUST DISCOVERED HOW TO RESPOND DIIRECTLY TO FOLKS. SO WATCH OUT I AM DRUNK ON NEW KNOWLEDGE. I hope I do not get a ticket for riding my bike while drunk.
Please refer to Dr. Neil deGrasse who said something like we are of the universe and the universe is in us as we are in the universe. However, Laci is spot on regarding our intricate connections withh each other and the earth and all life here. Oddly I can ignore her chest even at the risk of headaches and red eyes and stuff. GO LACI.....
What makes you think we only have one life? It's a fact that energy can't be destroyed, and we're all made up of energy. I am a believer in spirituality. I also believe that we don't die, but are reincarnated.
matter is but the lowest frequency energy can reach according to physiics. Thus even matter must return to the raw form of energy and cannot actually disappear as much as it can morph into other forms of energy. I do not want to argue wiith you I do not like that. I can appreciate your statement though.
@dubysauce I don't think you really understand what "energy" is. I blame new age religions for skewing its definition. Don't look to the supernatural for discussions on energy, look to physics.
One can be spiritual without there being a religion or deity required. If we can use the word spiritualism as a satement of connection then of course we can be atheist with spiritual connections. We simply leave religious crap out of it.
@g2thumbs1 yes but the "spirit" or "soul" is supernatural, sure you could be an atheist or theist to believe it, but believing the supernatural still makes little sense to me. just like God, there is no evidence to support anything that resembles a "spirit" or "soul" so why believe it?
We come from the earth? I thought Atheists like to talk intelligent but at the same time you say things that haven't even been proven. Do you want to play the fact game? theirs more things that are coming true and unfolding itself from out of of the bible then any other scientific study or whatever atheism likes to believe in. You talk about peace that you will never find! study the bible if you prove it wrong let me know! k? for now stop posting videos that make you look like a complete dumbass
@Joeyyy71 I've studied the Bible and proven it wrong in many accounts. And you say Atheists will never find peace? I'm evidence to the contrary. After thousands of years of bloody religious warfare, I think the theists are the ones that haven't yet found peace.
@hobbit2245 Religion is a funny word to me. You can ask me anytime what I believe in or what my "Religion" is and I will tell you I don't have religion. I dont like it and Its the main reason why people flee from Jesus. Religion isnt a connection or feeling. Its a bunch of showy people dressed in robes at a Catholic church. Ask me what I believe in and what I connect with... God. That's what gives me peace, Joy, strength. Religion is the reason why there's no peace. #thesoureofitall
@Joeyyy71 Illogical beliefs is why there's no peace. I can say definitively that God and Jesus do not exist. I don't know that with absolute certainty though, of course. God doesn't give you joy, peace, or strength. He doesn't exist. You give yourself those things.
@hobbit2245 Okay. I agree with you that Illogical beliefs are the reason why there is no peace. With that said, your atheism is illogical. You can not prove there is no God. You would have to seen all evidences to prove there is no God. You can not claim this therefor your atheism is illogical. I have a question are you a strong atheist or a weak one?
@Joeyyy71 I am a strong atheist. I say that nothing that humans call a god could or does exist, unless present in some other universe/multiverse, which is completely speculative and only useful is the realm of science fiction. And I don't need all the evidence to know God doesn't exist. By that logic, we can never know anything, which is false
"Ask me what I believe in and what I connect with... God"
so i ask you, what is God? what is his defining attribute that nothing else possesses? if you tell me this i will then seek god to see if it/he is real. so please, again i ask, what is god?
@theUKatheist God is love. I'm not talking about the kind of love me and you hold in are hearts for are family or friends. I'm talking about a unconditional love, a perfect love. A love that shows mercy and forgiveness on ones sins and wrong doings. then you say to yourself people have that!? I know tons of people who have those qualities. Okay that's fine. I have a question for you? Have you ever met a father that would give up his son to die for a man that doesn't deserve it?
@Joeyyy71 "'im talking about a unconditional love, a perfect love"
you do realise that this makes no sense right? a perfect love? what exactly is that?
you are throwing around phrases that you are taught which don't actually make any sense.
if god is love, then we dont need god because we already understand love is simply brain chemistry. im sorry but "god is love" is a VERY poor definition. "A love that shows mercy and forgiveness on ones sins and wrong doings"
@Joeyyy71 "Have you ever met a father that would give up his son to die for a man that doesn't deserve it?"
no , and i would not want to because that is absolutely disgusting.
1 - if in fact the son died he has taken a life which was not his own. are you saying it would be moral for you to murder your own son to save another persons life?
2 - HE DID NOT DIE! so how was it a sacrifice exactly?
your definition and question is really poor, is that really what convinced you?
@theUKatheist I'm saying that I am grateful for Jesus dying on the cross for are sins that's what gives us eternal life in heaven. Am I saying that it would be moral too die for all of humanity? Yes I am. You can say all you want on how disgusting it might be I don't care. I have another question for you? How do you know he didn't die? In the bible it says that he died and rose on the third day? Give me a book stating that didn't happen and I will believe you. Poor evidence.
The Peace you speak of my very well be the Beginning of a God Encounter. Wouldn't that mess you all up? See it's not Reasonable to Believe that Helping People, or Learning Anything, or Doing Anything Maters.Because We're all just Stardust floating out here in the middle of nowhere. No point. No Meaning.
But. In fact, the reason it Feels Good to Help People.. Is Evidence of a Higher Purpose. Otherwise, why cares about Starving Children. Why bother Breathing in and out. It's all just Pointless.
I think you should find a word other than spiritual. Spiritual means of the spirit. Spirit means SOUL. The problem is you are promoting these supernatural ideas....including religion. Just by saying the word. Realize that all of the major religions were founded on this idea of the soul. Use the word connectedness...anything other than spiritual :D
contradict much she says "religion is big fat pile of BS" 3 minutes later "I want to take time to leave a positive mark on this planet" "i want to help people to live better happy and peaceful"
the thing that makes a person an atheist is absolute denial that God exists In other words show me an individual who embraces atheism because he or she can prove that God does not exist and I will show you a true atheist they are just a group of people who are anti-religion
@staywithaces1984 I'm an atheist. I am not anti-religion provided it's not thrust at me and provided it is kept totally separate from the state and the education system. It's not up to me to prove God doesn't exist. The person making the claim needs to do the proving. Or do you think I should spend my time disproving all the silly claims that people make?
@staywithaces1984 Is there a reason people should NOT be anti-religion? She seems to be logical and caring... but without the money-grubbing, judgemental, child-raping aspect that is rife throughout organized religion. God works in mysterious ways.. why not without churches, huh?
@TheDing1701"without the money-grubbing, judgemental, child-raping aspect that is rife throughout organized religion" like there is not all of those things in atheism....logical and caring until anyone disagrees with her
Theres no evidence you are going to get one life. I think your atheism lays you the same trap as any religion when you express certanties. If you think as yourself as the evidence of your existence to yourself you can understand that you can come to be again or even never cease to exist as consciousness. I hate that claim "this is your only life" when infact the probability of your only 75 year longing existence at this very moment in infinite time is almost 0 before the actual happening.
As an addendum to a comment found below which indicated that the word "spiritual" has some baggage that goes along with it, I offer the following:
Although similar in meaning, "spiritual" and "numinous" have somewhat different connotations.
The former tends to be seen as indicating that something supernatural is at work, i.e. noncorporeal agency, whereas the latter often indicates more of an intellectual, or aesthetic, take on rarified, or reflective experiences.
BABY you need to check My Big TOE, and see if college really help you undertand this teory thta,s going to freak the sh4t of all religiuos people,that itself its going to be HELL for them.
GOD is the intellingent force behind all thing, in things ,in you.human form is a temporal dream you chose to experience.
Your use of "spirituality" is confusing and unhelpful. Like you, I find awe in the universe and feel connected to the world around me, but I don't call that spirituality. The word "spiritual" concerns the literal concept of a spirit. Theists didn't steal or pervert the word, it's THEIR word, let them have it. True, theists sometimes call themselves "spiritual" when they mean "deep and contemplative," but that doesn't mean atheists should follow suit. The word doesn't HAVE baggage, it IS baggage.
What I REALY hate about creationism is they try and disprove proven theorys(and laws) such as evolution(fail at it), and then think the only other option for creation is THEIR religion.
WHY crave meaning, design, or any sort of divine connections, etc? Everything around us, the things that happen, are products of marvelous patterns of accident - figurative invisible hands that can be rationally deducted from reality - Ideas many times more powerful, value-laden & beautiful than anything 'outside the box'. Have one faith: that the unknown is just that. If uncovered, it'll bear an elegance gravely insulted by such so-manifestly man-made deficient shit as that waffled above.
Lol atheists graduate from college, and christians get promoted to manager at Wal-Mart. I'm just kidding Christians...I still hate you and think you all need to be killed in a global holocausting, but I'm just kidding about the Wal-Mart thing.
youre sooooooooooooooooooooo lovely, damn, i wanna make love you so much, i love you so much
antiasianwomen 21 hours ago
it irritates me to know you.
NitroDSP 1 day ago
When thou lack wisdom, let them ask of god with all thy heart. You have been blinded Hun and the only thing and living being that's perfect is god not the people in the church remember that
Dulcesweetkandy 2 days ago
Atheism is not a "lack of beliefs". You are confusing "atheism" with "agnosticism". You are wrong because
1. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the standard reference material in the field, defines atheism as a positive affirmation of the non-existence of God.
2. If atheism is a "lack of beliefs", then babies, trees, mountains, and dogs can be considered "atheists" because they "lack a belief" in God, also. Therefore, your definition trivializes the word and ultimately renders it useless.
Smithfriend 2 days ago
Comment removed
Smithfriend 2 days ago
@Smithfriend I fail to see the distinction you're trying to make in point 1. What's the difference between lacking belief and affirming one's lack of belief? When talking about other supernatural entities like, say, ghosts, lacking belief automatically leads me to affirm their non-existence when questioned. I don't see how you can do one w/o the other. As for point 2, I think it's taken for granted that we're talking about thinking persons capable of believing things.
qrqrqrqr1 2 days ago
@qrqrqrqr1 Here's the difference: "atheism" makes the positive claim that "God does not exist". That is the STANDARD philosophical definition, and it is a positive propositional knowledge or truth claim. It is not defined as a simple "lack of beliefs" or a statement that you are "withholding a belief" in God, as agnostics do. Agnostics withhold belief because they claim that they lack sufficient information (or they don't care). Psychonaut is conflating/trivializing the terms.
Smithfriend 1 day ago
@Smithfriend Hm, I guess it's a difference in interpretation. When I hear someone say, "There is no God", I interpret that as functionally meaning the same as, "I don't believe in God". What if I "withhold belief" to the same extent that I do for any other hypothetical supernatural entities? Does that make me merely agnostic about gods and everything else?
qrqrqrqr1 1 day ago
@qrqrqrqr1 It is not a difference in interpretation. The proposition "God does not exist" is a completely different proposition than "I believe that God does not exist". They are two different truth claims. One could be true, but not the other. It could be true that you do not believe that God exists, but he still could exist despite your unbelief.
Claiming to withhold belief in any "other hypothetical entities" begs the question, but yes, you could be agnostic about other beings.
Smithfriend 1 day ago
@Smithfriend I am conflating/trivialising? If you say so, but then you are being narrow-minded if you see atheism as a single concept with no division. You are referring to positive, or "strong" atheism, a perhaps less common view that God/gods most certainly do NOT exist. I see that as as short-sighted as theism. If this makes me closer to an agnostic then fine. Definitions aside, if you will, the key point here is that you believe in God and I don't.
Psychonaut1992 16 hours ago
@Smithfriend That's like saying there is no division in Christianity. As you must know there are various "modes" of atheism. Please quote from the Encyclopaedia. How often is religious belief attributed to non-humans? Why is it relevant if they are not sapient?
Psychonaut1992 16 hours ago
@Smithfriend Here are definitions from several sources:
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
(Philosophy) rejection of belief in God or gods
There you have it: disbelief, and not purely outright denial.
Psychonaut1992 16 hours ago
ur so pretty :3
AliciaA8598 4 days ago
@Psychonaut1992 no one can experience God in the flesh and live "as in with your senses", if you wanna experience God in matter forms the only thing you will experience is YOUrself and your selfish desiers... 2nd atheism is literally a RELIGION based on experiment and matter etc... you can't talk about spiritualism without having higher spiritual authority over you..
emanueltafta 4 days ago
@emanueltafta Epic fail. Leaders and masters alike spread lies such as this so that religion (their tool for control) can not be challenged by those who have accepted it.
LiberatedMind1 4 days ago
@LiberatedMind1 well, in this case Albert Pike would be your most favorable probably even spiritual gothfather of your atheism... "morals&dogma" say anything to you?
Epic? perhaps "science" would be much more appropriate... besides, science is a religion if i may... Now you graduated from COLLEGE.. there goes faith, prosperity; lots of all kinds of science the birth of many Hightech bombs etc..not to mention aristocracy doctrines.. and ultimately a New World Order.. better said "hi Hitler"
emanueltafta 3 days ago
@emanueltafta Buddhists might argue that spiritualism is, to be succinct, awareness. If I am not spiritual through attempted awareness outside and in then so be it. Atheism is not a religion because it lacks solid organisation (clergies, hierarchies), cultural/belief systems, rituals, ethics, etc. which are common to almost all religions. I once lay in hospital near death and experienced nothing supernatural or divine; that's sufficient for me. Even before then I was faithless.
Psychonaut1992 3 days ago
@Psychonaut1992 Again, you seem to refer to your own idiosyncratic definitions of terms in order to justify your position. Merriam-Webster defines "religion" in one sense as
"a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"
Which contradicts your presuppositions. Certainly atheism fits that description, and is, so, a religion. Rather than relying on your own definitions, you should consult standard reference works so that other people can understand you.
Smithfriend 3 days ago
@Smithfriend ...and you are using a single dictionary definition and not several. Atheism is a /lack/ of beliefs. It does not in itself pertain to humanism, and its "system" of "beliefs" (disbeliefs, really) are found in its more specific categorisations. If you want to call atheism a religion then by all means, but I don't believe in a traditional god or supernaturalism.
Psychonaut1992 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Psychonaut1992 Of course you can't say that you can be 100% confident that "the universe sprang into existence", that it was "caused", or that "God" with "utmost certainty". But you have to follow the evidence wherever it leads, and pick the conclusion that makes the most sense. Very little in this life can be proven with 100% certainty. Even scientific theories cannot be proven with 100% accuracy, and if that is your standard of proof, you will never commit to anything.
Smithfriend 2 days ago
@Smithfriend You don't need to tell me about 100% certainty. I already made it clear I'm a sceptic. I choose science and reason because they get as close as I see as possible, and it's hard living life doubting everything 100% - that is perhaps going too far. Conversely you cannot prove God, so I'm not sure of your point.
Psychonaut1992 16 hours ago
@Psychonaut1992
to tell you the truth i enjoy sharing with you some edvice on truth from my perspective... here's the thing: you never die, eventhough you close your physical eyes in this life... there's nothing supernatural about death... I too would hate to live with bunch of hypocrites saying im christian; now, i've been near dead from poisoning... All i remeber was my last screem before passing out into coma... but i'll never forget the cry when i woke up... IT WAS TERRIBLE..
emanueltafta 3 days ago
@emanueltafta If it's your perspective then it's not "truth", though. If you want to get abstract then I can agree that we don't die, because our chemicals can be traced to the elements in the stars, and our bodily matter degrades into the Earth one way or another. There's only something supernatural about death when people don't want to face it, talk about deities and afterlives. I've had a near-death experience too and had no supernatural experience - I can relate to the trauma.
Psychonaut1992 2 days ago
There is a lot of B.S. in religion! I am still trying to rightly divide the word called the Truth. Many churches are doctrinated and twisted. Many are called but very few are chosen.
"Gods word was tried and put up for the public to view,
now it is tested by me and you.
Like gold that is tried by fire,
the truth will separate the lier."
timestandingstill 4 days ago
@timestandingstill nice
babyrazorback1979 3 days ago
My friend, just because YOU don't like "religion" it does not mean that there is no God. :)
may God have mercy on you
emanueltafta 1 week ago
@emanueltafta ...and just because you don't like reason, does not mean there is a god.
Psychonaut1992 5 days ago
@Psychonaut1992 prove the existence of your mind and i prove the existence of God. If you reason your mind being in your brain, then I prove to you that God exists as well... that would exclude Nazi, Darwinian, communist concept of YOU and Nature
keep it real madam
emanueltafta 5 days ago
@emanueltafta You can prove the existence of God empirically? I'd like to see that. I can prove my mind exists only insofar as I am experiencing it, but on what level it exists is another matter. What, presently, does the Nazi and communist concept of self and nature have to do with the existence of God? I'm thinking you might be a troll.
Psychonaut1992 4 days ago
I think the definition is different
MrBsct 1 week ago
I love you so much.
motherroach1 1 week ago
So you went from being a pain in the ass to being a hippie. How nice
yomama629 1 week ago
You are a very joke! Make sure when u are at judgment you repeat ur words LOL.
whirkle 1 week ago
I want you in top of me with your boobs on my face, nothing would make me happier. And I say this honestly and respectfuly.
EphReinhard 1 week ago
Lacey, you are searching for a way to make yourself a better or "good" person by your own good deeds or acts of righteouness. Humanism isn't going to get you there. We were born into sin, and the only way we can "get it right" is thru Jesus Christ Who paid for your sins and mine on the cross. Only with the Holy blood of Jesus Christ will we be able to "get it right".
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His MERCY He saved us" Titus 3:5
That's the GOOD NEWS! :)
DuneWest 1 week ago
@DuneWest It's your distorted views that cause unrest in the world, not Laci's. You believe in fairy tales, Laci lives in reality. Now go watch some videos from the Darth Vader-Lightsaber group (Christian videos that have huge red dislike bars)
CerebrumPedere 1 week ago
@DuneWest shove your god up your ass
muck47 1 week ago in playlist Liked videos
@DuneWest Your religion condemns all that do not follow your specific flavour of God to eternal suffering, whose Bible commands its adherents to commit murder and abide slavery, all while claiming to be the single path of morality.
It doesn't take Christ to be a "good" person. I donate, I volunteer, I respect my parents - not because a book told me to, but because it's being cooperative. If I even believed in Hell, I wouldn't care, because at least I wouldn't be condemning others.
Psychonaut1992 1 week ago
Lacey, to be a "good person", but to obtain what goal at the end of life? Let's say you become the best, nicest, most giving person on earth and when you die and that is good, but it will NOT be good enough to get you into heaven.
"For there is not a just man upon earth, that does good and sins not" Ecclesiastes 7:20
Jesus is the only One Who can save you and make you clean and white as snow that you may enter the kingdom of heaven with Him for eternity. He already FREELY paid for your sins.
DuneWest 1 week ago
collins comment
I am a scientist and a believer, and I find no conflict between those world views.
As the director of the Human Genome Project, I have led a consortium of scientists to read out the 3.1 billion letters of the human genome, our own DNA instruction book. As a believer, I see DNA, the information molecule of all living things, as God's language, and the elegance and complexity of our own bodies and the rest of nature as a reflection of God's plan.
bluepastry 1 week ago 2
@bluepastry Can you provide proof you are the director of the Human Genome Project? If God is mysterious and not fully understandable then why is the universe in such a way that it operates mechanically in ways we are understanding more and more with each passing decade?
Psychonaut1992 1 week ago
i come from a catholic background and Jewish heritage.....please do not believe that democrats and Obama are the answer for people....they are not! Abortion is the murder of the unborn....would u allow abortions for parents who want to have a boy? or is they discover a gay gene? How do you know there is no god..where did the Universe come from? big bang? where did that come from?
bluepastry 1 week ago
@bluepastry Ask any doctor/biologist and he/she will tell you that a fetus is not human as we are. It is a bundle of cells with the potential for humanness. Do you think it's right that a rape victim should have to give birth to the child of her attacker and raise that child? How could that be fair?
If there IS a god, then where did it come from? If you say God was always there, then why not the universe instead?
Psychonaut1992 1 week ago
Perhaps this is not the place to make this distinction but here goes. Spirit is interpreted by religion to mean it comes from a deity not as an integral part of life. What I intended on saying was that from a scientific point of view it does not need such for it to exist however the question should be formed in direct relationn to all life and not just sentient since that would incite some to exclude all other life but human. I am no scientist bbut I am a thinking person.
g2thumbs1 1 week ago
Interesting video that you have made here. I am having some trouble understanding something, however. Physicists tell us that in the future, the universe will reach a state of high entropy and become dilute to a molecular scale. Therefore, on an atheistic worldview, all life is doomed to individual and collective extinction. Therefore, why would it matter how someone lives their life, since all life is doomed to perish? Doesn't atheism presume that purpose in life is illusory and subjective?
Smithfriend 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Smithfriend "....on an atheistic worldview, all life is doomed to individual and collective extinction. Therefore, why would it matter how someone lives their life, since all life is doomed to perish?"
Ha, excellent question!!! Lacey claims to be an Atheist, but at the same time she wants to be a "good person" and make her life mean something which tells me she there is HOPE for her---only to be found thru the salvation plan in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Im praying for her
DuneWest 1 week ago
@Smithfriend Disregarding an unstoppable sudden meteor collision or gamma ray burst destroying all or most life on Earth, these end-of-universe events are so, so far into the future, so far that it's arguably not worth allowing to affect our efforts in self-understanding/ethics/what have you. Even if Earth holds out 500 millions years and gets crisped by the sun then we are talking about descendants so far down the line that they would look nothing like us.
Psychonaut1992 1 week ago
@Psychonaut1992 I don't understand how your response adequately addresses my question. Regardless of how our descendants look, physicists and the laws of thermodynamics tell us that on a molecular scale, the universe will eventually become completely dilute. ALL LIFE will cease to exist in the universe at some point. Therefore, what objective purpose can be claimed for life? On atheism, any meaning or purpose is ILLUSORY, and he who claims meaning to life is deluding himself.
Smithfriend 1 week ago
@Smithfriend The scale is often macro, though, as with cosmology, and there is not a general consensus about the end of time, life, and the universe as a whole. Objective purpose in life is rather a different and subjective matter. Atheism in its broadest sense does not necessarily entail a complete lack of purpose, but it could be argued that on any grand scale that purpose is indeed illusory.
Psychonaut1992 6 days ago
@Psychonaut1992 You are not making sense. There's no "general consensus" about the Laws of Thermodynamics? Yes there is. They are scientific laws. And they entail that at some point in the future, the universe will die of a heat loss.
"Objective purpose...is rather a different and subjective matter." What does this contradictory statement mean? How can something that is objective be subjective? Your statements here are confusing and muddled. Try to state your position clearly.
Smithfriend 6 days ago
@Smithfriend No, I said there is no general consensus about the finality of the universe as a whole (as in, big crunch, big freeze, etc.) I did not talk specifically about the laws of thermodynamics. Of course an expanding universe and dissipating energy means widespread heat loss is inevitable, but what that entails exactly is another matter. The /concept/ of "objective purpose" is subjective because I see no reason to believe there is an inherent purpose or drive in the universe.
Psychonaut1992 5 days ago
@Psychonaut1992 Objective purpose cannot, by definition, be subjective. "Objective" does not mean "inherent".
"Widespread heat loss" in terms of the universe's eschatology means that eventually the universe will consist entirely of single molecules that lie trillions of miles apart from each other. Therefore, life will become completely unsustainable. And yes, there is a "general consensus" about that.
Smithfriend 5 days ago
@Smithfriend I was quoting you, "Therefore, what objective purpose can be claimed for life?", perhaps misunderstanding; my point was that the concept of objective purpose I don't think is possible on a cosmic, irrefutable level... thus, subjective. I was not once disagreeing with the mass dispersion of matter would occur; I was disagreeing with the idea that the /exact/ "way out" for the universe is a unanimously agreed upon.
Psychonaut1992 5 days ago
@Smithfriend If I understand, you seem to be saying that if something does not continue infinitely into the future, it should not matter to us. How does this follow? That's like saying if I can't ride a roller-coaster eternally, I shouldn't do it. Obviously nothing will "matter" in a future state of the universe devoid of conscious beings, since there'll be nobody to care about anything. But why would you then apply that to a state of the universe which does contain sentient life?
qrqrqrqr1 1 day ago
@qrqrqrqr1 I'm not saying that. Merely infusing an activity with temporal duration does not confer it with objective meaning or value.
Smithfriend 1 day ago
@Smithfriend Well then what's the point of bringing up the heat death of the universe as? It seems to imply that if sentient life somehow continued eternally, then we ought to place much greater value on it.
qrqrqrqr1 1 day ago
@qrqrqrqr1 What I'm trying to say is that mere temporal duration is not the ONLY characteristic that confers life with objective meaning.
Smithfriend 1 day ago
Go spirituality! :)
CresentMoonEnergy 2 weeks ago in playlist More videos from gogreen18
Comment removed
lightspeedchump 2 weeks ago
re:spirit.
What if all it all boiled down to that all energy was what animates matter? This simply is what spirit would be if stripped entirely of religious assertions. This is my opinion and I could be wrong but I do not think I am and even if I am I raised an interesting question. It is hard fiting in here without having science quotes.
g2thumbs1 2 weeks ago
@g2thumbs1 Well I'm not a big science guy but what your saying is what if energy gave life to matter? which is what the word animate means? giving life to. Matter means everything living around you that takes up space.I really don't see any type of energy giving life to me or you which kind of goes along the lines of the big bang theory where all energy and matter at some point was just contained. Spirit is made in us from are creator. You strip God from it and you totally take away the maker.
Joeyyy71 2 weeks ago
@Joeyyy71 - would like to get in on this, it would be a damn shame if you weren't made to realise how ignorant you are being. If you are unaware of the basic principle that the human body needs energy to function you really did make a gross understatement when you said you weren't a big science guy. What do you think humans achieve from eating and sleeping ?
lightspeedchump 2 weeks ago
@lightspeedchump Alright chump even a three year old kid is aware of that so let me shut you up here for a moment. Without God who created all things living and ENERGY key word like I was saying! energy would not have a meaning. POINT- I was saying energy is in fact not the only thing humans need! without God humans are nothing! Everything is pointless and has no meaning at all. Yes energy is one thing that keeps us going. NOT the only thing though! #pickupabibleandreadit!
Joeyyy71 2 weeks ago
@Joeyyy71 - what you are saying is not fact - simply by claiming that it is does not make it so. Energy is in fact the only thing humans need to survive a lifetime. What makes my statement fact is evidence, something that your argument doesn't have. I wont hashtag in youtube because I'm not a moron, but I will say - pick up a textbook and read it.
lightspeedchump 2 weeks ago
@lightspeedchump Your textbook isn't going to help you when your kneeling before your king and the only thing coming out of your ignorant let me say this too unwise mouth are you are God and NONE stand before you. So I guess stick to your science. Its not for me to judge that would be Gods job. So you got any thing left to say science chump? Oh and don't come at me with there's no evidence in God. Joy,peace,and salvation is the evidence chump! your textbook yeah that's weak bro!
Joeyyy71 2 weeks ago
@lightspeedchump Oh wait and another thing since your smart and let me quote you! "Energy is in fact the only thing humans need to survive a lifetime". ONLY! I think you need to catch up on your textbook?! I believe oxygen plays a big part in being able to survive a lifetime dumbo! the only thing humans need to survive! maybe you shouldn't have joined this argument. Go back and review your textbooks on what humans need to survive. There's much more then just energy.
Joeyyy71 2 weeks ago
@Joeyyy71 Energy can be found in water and food, just not in the way it's commonly defined as. The body, god or no god, "converts" the nutritional contents of food to turn into energy that can be used by humans, and water hydrates bodily systems. So yes, in a manner of speaking, energy is all humans need (on a basic biological level, spirituality notwithstanding).
Psychonaut1992 1 week ago
@Psychonaut1992 Yeah thanks for stating that in a nice way. Its hard to find somebody to talk to on here without getting attacked. Yes I agree with energy and having a lot of factors on we as humans surviving. I was just saying that oxygen has apart with it too. Also are creator God. don't know if you believe in that but I do and If you think about my logic you would understand what I'm saying as having no life or breath or energy without him creating all things.
Joeyyy71 1 week ago
@Joeyyy71 You're right... the internet brings out the worst in people. Yes, oxygen is required, but I take the atmosphere as a given since all life we know of exists on Earth. I think the difference in opinion here is that you look backward to God's work while myself and others start from the beginning and look forwards, tracking the progression of the various systems of nature to explain its present state.
Psychonaut1992 1 week ago
@Psychonaut1992 In Genesis 1:1 God created the heavens and the earth. There's no proof in science that tells me who created it all. Big bang is false. evolution has come to an end since there's been no evidence. The only loophole in science is you still can't prove how things came of existence. We have a book dating back 1000's of years ago. What book dates back that long and states that all bible teachings are false? None. Just level with me here. Prove me wrong?
Joeyyy71 1 week ago
@Joeyyy71 There's your first mistake: "who created it at all". Most people in scholarly positions do not consider it a "who", but a "how". Again, sweeping and uneducated statements from theists... If the big bang theory was "false" and evolution at an end then modern physics and biology would not exist as they do now. I cannot prove you wrong in every area because then I would be as narrow-minded as you and other believers. Your book over 2000 years old is riddled with inconsistencies.
Psychonaut1992 6 days ago
@Joeyyy71 I can begin to "prove you wrong" by starting with Genesis - not that it's used as any kind of respectable literature in science. God supposedly created created light on the first day but did not create a light source until the fourth. Indeed, that an omnipotent being took six days at all, let alone a day of rest, throws doubt on such a being's actual power. Since God is "mysterious" I see no reason why he could not just have created the Earth in an infinitesimal timespan.
Psychonaut1992 6 days ago
@Psychonaut1992 And your statements to Joeyyy71 are shallow and ignorant, although you act as if they are representative of scholarly work. You don't begin to address any material or efficient cause of the universe. Why does anything exist at all, rather than nothing? For atheists, there is no explanation of the efficient cause of the universe. If you are an atheist you must believe that the universe just popped into being without a cause, which violates every known metaphysical principle.
Smithfriend 5 days ago
@Smithfriend I don't claim my views to be representative of anything but themselves. The cause of the universe? We're not sure /exactly/; that's why we have science. What of God - what of his cause? Can nothing be known to exist without there being something? "For atheists, there is no explanation of the efficient cause of the universe." You call me ignorant and then come out with this sweeping statement?
Psychonaut1992 5 days ago
@Psychonaut1992 If we're not sure"/exactly/" of the cause of the universe, then why can't it be God? Because your philosophical predispositions say so?
The fact that you inquire as to God's "cause" shows that you have no understanding of the philosophical concept of the differences between necessary and contingent beings. God has no cause. He exists out of the necessity of his own nature. He is the first uncaused cause. You would do well to educate yourself on this subject.
Smithfriend 5 days ago
@Smithfriend I'm not saying it can't be a higher power, but currently I'm not convinced. At the very least I see no logic in the idea of a benevolent god. If you want to debate super-intelligence simulating this universe, us as their programs, then perhaps you could say I consider the involvement of a higher power, but such a thing would be improvable so could we say for sure? You make a point about uncaused cause, but then surely the same logic could apply to the universe too.
Psychonaut1992 5 days ago
@Psychonaut1992 If the universe ALWAYS existed, then there would be an infinite number of events that have occurred in its past. However, metaphysics has proven that actual infinite numbers do not exist, because they lead to mathematical contradictions. Besides, all of the scientific evidence points towards an absolute beginning around 13.7 billion years ago. You can speculate about such "eternal universe" scenarios, but in doing so, you contradict all of the scientific evidence.
Smithfriend 5 days ago
@Smithfriend I didn't say I staunchly supported the idea of an origin-less universe - it's merely an idea. I have no good reason to disagree with the current theory of a 13.7b y.o. universe. I'd be interested in the source of the claim about the non-existence of infinite numbers. I'm still unsure whether or not you believe in a higher power.
Psychonaut1992 5 days ago
@Psychonaut1992 I believe that God created the universe. The Kalam Cosmological argument provides warrant via deductive logic:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
The logic is sound, and it is a deductive argument, so the conclusion inescapably follows from the premises. To deny the conclusion, you must deny one or more of the premises, which would contradict the scientific and metaphysical evidence.
Smithfriend 5 days ago
@Smithfriend Conclusion only follows inescapably if the previous deductions are rational, and I'd dare say you might favour its rationality if you live by that argument. Can a conclusion not be denied if it extrapolates grossly and veers off from the premises? It seems a bit too clear-cut to say those who disagree with that one argument are denying all scientific evidence. How, exactly, can metaphysics have evidence? Rather, what evidence is there beyond extrapolations from physics?
Psychonaut1992 5 days ago
@Psychonaut1992 Where does the conclusion "extrapolate grossly and veer off from the premises"? Why can't I say that people who deny the beginning of the universe are denying the best science that we have? It's true. Why can't metaphysics sustain an evidential component? Must "evidence" only have a materialistic nature? Is it fair to deny the existence of the immaterial and to only require material evidence for its existence? Doesn't that beg the question?
Smithfriend 4 days ago
@Smithfriend I didn't mean your argument particularly veered off from the premises in its conclusion, but that it happens, and that some conclusions are dramatic and fallible. Of course those denying mainstream science are perhaps foolish. Metaphysics could by all means sustain evidence but I do not think more so than physics. Science first, philosophy second, the tangible being closer to us (arguably). Yes, evidence must be material in nature... I believe that is its definition.
Psychonaut1992 3 days ago
@Psychonaut1992 Well, according to Merriam-Webster, evidence is defined as:
1. An outward sign : indication
or,
2. Something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
Immaterial "things" like "testimony" are considered as evidence, so, no, evidence is not by definition exclusively material in nature. Perhaps in our discussion we can use terms according to their standard definitions?
Smithfriend 3 days ago
@Smithfriend Read: that's specifically in the context of law and is not immediately applied to metaphysics. I say science first because I think it's good to have one's head in the cloud only if his feet are on the ground too. What is in front of us is material reality - whatever that may be - and so using neurology or what have you to understand diseases, rather than starting with the ultimate nature of things.
Psychonaut1992 2 days ago
@Psychonaut1992 "Science first and philosophy second", huh? The problem with that is, science presupposes logic and cannot function without it. How can you begin to evaluate any kind of scientific data, or draw any reasonable conclusions apart from logic? This trend towards a belief in "scientism" among atheists is sad, and ultimately self-refuting.
Smithfriend 3 days ago
@Psychonaut1992 "...you might favour its rationality if you live by that argument". What does this mean? The syllogism that I have provided is logically sound, and it is a deductive argument. Therefore, the conclusion follows inescapably from the premisses. To deny the conclusion, you have to deny one or more of the premisses. Which one do you deny? Is it (1), You believe that things begin to exist "uncaused", or (2), which would deny the best scientific evidence that we have?
Smithfriend 4 days ago
@Smithfriend I was referring to the bias blind spot. I'm a sucker for Cartesian doubt. Yes, the conclusion follows fluidly IF the premises are well constructed. Surely this is relied upon. I never said that I specifically denied Kalam's argument - only the apparently irrefutable nature of any and all syllogisms. Again, not your argument specifically! It makes sense, yes, but without a foreword about the concept of "god" it is not of great use...
Psychonaut1992 3 days ago
@Psychonaut1992 I think that I gave you the concept of God that most efficiently explains the origin of the universe. The cause of the universe must lie outside of time, space, matter, and energy. That gives us a being that is spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and extremely powerful, and stands within a causal capacity. If you can think of anything other than "God" that fits that description, I'm ready to hear it. Until then, I think that God is the best explanation.
Smithfriend 3 days ago
@Smithfriend There, again directly from "cause" to "being". I am /not/ saying this removes the concept of God from the table - just that it might be too soon to jump to a conclusion when the world has a very diverse, often perverse view of God or gods. I'll give some examples: a different form of higher power that could be described as godlike but not in an explicit Western sense, or beings beyond our comprehension of sapience that simulate this universe artificially.
Psychonaut1992 2 days ago
@Smithfriend Perhaps, though, I could agree with the argument there as it stands, and my qualm is that you come out of the tunnel as it were with god, while I wouldn't. Yes, the universe would then, by that route of logic, have a cause - but why then must the cause be a god, especially one so easily mistaken for the typical, personal, Abrahamic God? In this context, what is your concept of God?
Psychonaut1992 5 days ago
@Psychonaut1992 I am saying that the BEST possible explanation as to the cause of the universe is God, for reasons that I have listed.
Are you waiting for me to admit my belief in the Abrahamic God so that our discussion can devolve into accusations of perceived Biblical inaccuracies and discrepancies? Is it possible that your beliefs are based on a skewed philosophical worldview instead of a sincere, in-depth investigation of what the Bible REALLY says?
Smithfriend 4 days ago
@Smithfriend Ha! What caused God then? Don't gimme that eternal bullshit it makes zero sense.
LiberatedMind1 4 days ago
@LiberatedMind1 "Don't gimme that eternal bullshit"? If you are unwilling to rationally discuss philosophical issues regarding the nature of necessary and contingent beings, then you are simply being closed-minded. Your dismissive response seems somewhat dogmatic and uneducated. It also reinforces the opinion that atheists often hold their beliefs regardless of reason and logic.
Smithfriend 3 days ago
@Smithfriend Perhaps he/she was referring to the fact that if a theist doesn't fall into silence when asked of God's origin, they talk about causeless origin. Perhaps, yes, but as we've discussed, could the Big Bang not instead be the causeless? If there is a supernatural component, then must it be a Western or personal god, let alone an Abrahamic one?
Psychonaut1992 3 days ago
@Psychonaut1992 Is that reasonable to you? The universe just "sprang" into existence out of nothing, uncaused? Why doesn't everything and anything just "spring" into existence, uncaused, then? That theory is worse than saying that "magic" is responsible for the universe. Think about it. "Nothing" has NO properties. Therefore, it doesn't even have the POTENTIAL for existence, on its own. Yet, why is there something here, rather than nothing? Isn't a cause a better explanation?
Smithfriend 3 days ago
@Smithfriend We've already covered that I am not 100% confident that the universe "sprang" into existence. I am neither confident that it is a "god", period. Have I ever said that "the universe is uncaused and I can say this with the utmost certainty"? If so, please quote me. Of course cause is a better explanation, but extrapolation with basis is perhaps going too far. You might call me an agnostic by that reasoning, but it's rather more agnostic atheism.
Psychonaut1992 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Psychonaut1992 "must it be a Western or personal god, let alone an Abrahamic one?" Well, I'm not arguing a specific God, yet. At this point, I am content to expose atheism as an irrational worldview, and argue for the classical Western philosophical God, a "maximally great being" as He is often defined.
I have beliefs regarding the specific nature of God (and I am prepared to defend them), but I think that embarking on that trail would complicate the discussion at this point.
Smithfriend 3 days ago
@Smithfriend I'm not sure if it's the best possible explanation, but it's not entirely ridiculous either. No, I'm not waiting for that. You're obviously intelligent and far more tolerable than the average YT user. I believe all beliefs are skewed by personality (rather, the mind of the individual, his ways) and experience. I wouldn't use the Bible as a basis for my beliefs as it's unreliable, etc.; I'd based them off personal insight adapted by others' thoughts and challenges.
Psychonaut1992 3 days ago
@Smithfriend Earlier you talked about how as an atheist, what would the point in living purposefully be if the universe is doomed to end? As that event is probably so far into the future that it is relevant only in cosmology or philosophy, should it affect the day-to-day life right now? Thus because non-destructive (or at least neutral) acts which may not require much effort may have benefit, there then is not necessarily true purpose, but a motive to cooperate.
Psychonaut1992 5 days ago
@Psychonaut1992 The extinction of life is so far in the distance as to only be relevant to cosmology? Give me a break.
As an atheist, it makes no difference if you live life as a Stalin or a saint. You can become a president or a great diplomat and save millions of lives, or you can be a vicious, selfish dictator and kill millions. It doesn't REALLY matter, because everyone is doomed to die anyway. Any purpose that you ascribe to life is subjective and illusory, on atheism.
Smithfriend 4 days ago
@Smithfriend Right on!
LiberatedMind1 4 days ago
@Psychonaut1992 Scientists tell us that at the Big Bang, all matter, energy, space, time, and universal physical properties were created. Since matter, energy, space, time, and physical properties could not have created themselves out of nothing, their cause must lie outside of themselves. Therefore, the cause of the universe must be an immaterial, timeless, space-less being of immense power , which is the classic Western philosophical definition of God.
Smithfriend 5 days ago
@Smithfriend That's one of the classic definitions, yes. It's also the definition of elements in science fiction, and as such does not hold it to be the only logical result.
Psychonaut1992 5 days ago
@Smithfriend The definition of atheism does not specifically include an intellectual position on the origins of the universe. This is the typical false dichotomy BS theists work with. Perhaps the universe always existed but did so in an obscure form before the big bang. I don't claim to be sure because then I would be as self-limiting and narrow-minded as theism. As I said, we have science so we can find out for sure, if possible.
Psychonaut1992 5 days ago
There's nothing useful in the world of Science fiction. Lets drop that subject for the only reason its called fiction meaning not real,fake, a myth. Lets get back on the topic of whats real. You say you don't need all the evidence to know God doesn't exist? What logic do you see in that statement? That's like saying you don't need all the evidence to solve a murder! Therefor don't tell me God doesn't exist. You cant support your claim with assumptions and inconclusive evidence.
Joeyyy71 2 weeks ago
@Joeyyy71 give me evidence that is actually convincing and not this stupid crap please. it seems you are EXTREMELY gullible, do you just believe anything a people tell you or do you have proof. also dont bother saying the bible thats just silly., its like saying the lord of the rings is true because it says so in the book. come on you can give proof thats not reliant on the bible right?
theUKatheist 2 weeks ago
@theUKatheist I already did. Your just not listening to what I'm saying because its not what you believe in or want to hear. Like I said before you wont understand until you choose to be humble and have an ear about this subject. If you would actually read the bible you would see that there's prophecies and things coming true everyday. your trying to bash my belief with what motive? The evidence is from the joy and love I feel inside from the lord. that's all the evidence I need.
Joeyyy71 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Joeyyy71 i have read the bible several times, its VERY unlikely that you have read it all the way even once.
all you are doing right now is repeating what you have heard others say, its quite sad.
"The evidence is from the joy and love I feel inside from the lord. that's all the evidence I need."
how is that evidence for anyone else. i feel love for fairies so do they exist?
you talk no sense, you are illogical and say things exist because it makes you feel good. only a fool would do that.
theUKatheist 2 weeks ago
wow your sad u have a haterd for religion when ur owen beliefs r also full of shit but u dont here me complaning make a porno and that way u can learn something or help some and get a life
lasboor2006 2 weeks ago
@lasboor2006 arnt religious people suppose to be nice to others?
theUKatheist 2 weeks ago
I JUST DISCOVERED HOW TO RESPOND DIIRECTLY TO FOLKS. SO WATCH OUT I AM DRUNK ON NEW KNOWLEDGE. I hope I do not get a ticket for riding my bike while drunk.
g2thumbs1 2 weeks ago
Please refer to Dr. Neil deGrasse who said something like we are of the universe and the universe is in us as we are in the universe. However, Laci is spot on regarding our intricate connections withh each other and the earth and all life here. Oddly I can ignore her chest even at the risk of headaches and red eyes and stuff. GO LACI.....
g2thumbs1 2 weeks ago
What makes you think we only have one life? It's a fact that energy can't be destroyed, and we're all made up of energy. I am a believer in spirituality. I also believe that we don't die, but are reincarnated.
dubysauce 2 weeks ago
@dubysauce matter and energy don't die, but the way that matter and energy are organized can disappear :)
MySuperlame 2 weeks ago
@MySuperlame re:energy.
matter is but the lowest frequency energy can reach according to physiics. Thus even matter must return to the raw form of energy and cannot actually disappear as much as it can morph into other forms of energy. I do not want to argue wiith you I do not like that. I can appreciate your statement though.
g2thumbs1 2 weeks ago
@g2thumbs1 I didn't know that. thanks.
MySuperlame 2 weeks ago
@dubysauce I don't think you really understand what "energy" is. I blame new age religions for skewing its definition. Don't look to the supernatural for discussions on energy, look to physics.
hobbit2245 2 weeks ago in playlist More videos from gogreen18
there's no such thing as spiritual atheism, is called "being on drugs"
theUKatheist 2 weeks ago
@theUKatheist
Hi.
One can be spiritual without there being a religion or deity required. If we can use the word spiritualism as a satement of connection then of course we can be atheist with spiritual connections. We simply leave religious crap out of it.
g2thumbs1 2 weeks ago
@g2thumbs1 yes but the "spirit" or "soul" is supernatural, sure you could be an atheist or theist to believe it, but believing the supernatural still makes little sense to me. just like God, there is no evidence to support anything that resembles a "spirit" or "soul" so why believe it?
theUKatheist 2 weeks ago
We come from the earth? I thought Atheists like to talk intelligent but at the same time you say things that haven't even been proven. Do you want to play the fact game? theirs more things that are coming true and unfolding itself from out of of the bible then any other scientific study or whatever atheism likes to believe in. You talk about peace that you will never find! study the bible if you prove it wrong let me know! k? for now stop posting videos that make you look like a complete dumbass
Joeyyy71 2 weeks ago
@Joeyyy71 I've studied the Bible and proven it wrong in many accounts. And you say Atheists will never find peace? I'm evidence to the contrary. After thousands of years of bloody religious warfare, I think the theists are the ones that haven't yet found peace.
hobbit2245 2 weeks ago
@hobbit2245 Religion is a funny word to me. You can ask me anytime what I believe in or what my "Religion" is and I will tell you I don't have religion. I dont like it and Its the main reason why people flee from Jesus. Religion isnt a connection or feeling. Its a bunch of showy people dressed in robes at a Catholic church. Ask me what I believe in and what I connect with... God. That's what gives me peace, Joy, strength. Religion is the reason why there's no peace. #thesoureofitall
Joeyyy71 2 weeks ago
@Joeyyy71 Illogical beliefs is why there's no peace. I can say definitively that God and Jesus do not exist. I don't know that with absolute certainty though, of course. God doesn't give you joy, peace, or strength. He doesn't exist. You give yourself those things.
hobbit2245 2 weeks ago
@hobbit2245 Okay. I agree with you that Illogical beliefs are the reason why there is no peace. With that said, your atheism is illogical. You can not prove there is no God. You would have to seen all evidences to prove there is no God. You can not claim this therefor your atheism is illogical. I have a question are you a strong atheist or a weak one?
Joeyyy71 2 weeks ago
@Joeyyy71 I am a strong atheist. I say that nothing that humans call a god could or does exist, unless present in some other universe/multiverse, which is completely speculative and only useful is the realm of science fiction. And I don't need all the evidence to know God doesn't exist. By that logic, we can never know anything, which is false
hobbit2245 2 weeks ago
@Joeyyy71
"Ask me what I believe in and what I connect with... God"
so i ask you, what is God? what is his defining attribute that nothing else possesses? if you tell me this i will then seek god to see if it/he is real. so please, again i ask, what is god?
theUKatheist 2 weeks ago
@theUKatheist God is love. I'm not talking about the kind of love me and you hold in are hearts for are family or friends. I'm talking about a unconditional love, a perfect love. A love that shows mercy and forgiveness on ones sins and wrong doings. then you say to yourself people have that!? I know tons of people who have those qualities. Okay that's fine. I have a question for you? Have you ever met a father that would give up his son to die for a man that doesn't deserve it?
Joeyyy71 2 weeks ago
@Joeyyy71 "'im talking about a unconditional love, a perfect love"
you do realise that this makes no sense right? a perfect love? what exactly is that?
you are throwing around phrases that you are taught which don't actually make any sense.
if god is love, then we dont need god because we already understand love is simply brain chemistry. im sorry but "god is love" is a VERY poor definition. "A love that shows mercy and forgiveness on ones sins and wrong doings"
yet sends people to hell ?
theUKatheist 2 weeks ago
@Joeyyy71 "Have you ever met a father that would give up his son to die for a man that doesn't deserve it?"
no , and i would not want to because that is absolutely disgusting.
1 - if in fact the son died he has taken a life which was not his own. are you saying it would be moral for you to murder your own son to save another persons life?
2 - HE DID NOT DIE! so how was it a sacrifice exactly?
your definition and question is really poor, is that really what convinced you?
theUKatheist 2 weeks ago
@theUKatheist I'm saying that I am grateful for Jesus dying on the cross for are sins that's what gives us eternal life in heaven. Am I saying that it would be moral too die for all of humanity? Yes I am. You can say all you want on how disgusting it might be I don't care. I have another question for you? How do you know he didn't die? In the bible it says that he died and rose on the third day? Give me a book stating that didn't happen and I will believe you. Poor evidence.
Joeyyy71 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Joeyyy71
"I am grateful for Jesus dying on the cross for are sins"
He didnt
" In the bible it says that he died and rose on the third day? Give me a book stating that didn't happen and I will believe you. "
harry potter states that theres a school called hogwarts, give me a book that says there is not
now do you see how stupid you sound?
if the resurrection happened it would have documented EVERYWHERE not just the bible.im sorry but i feel like im arguing with a fool.
give proof please.
theUKatheist 2 weeks ago
....boobs....
ifyoublinkyouwilldie 2 weeks ago
yay
true298 2 weeks ago
Oh deer lord shes not fat anymore. NOOOOOOO.
Iwatchtrek 2 weeks ago
@Iwatchtrek Sorry, how is her not being fat anymore a bad thing? Are you a chubby chaser? If so, you're in luck, we're in America!
humanistheart 2 weeks ago
The Peace you speak of my very well be the Beginning of a God Encounter. Wouldn't that mess you all up? See it's not Reasonable to Believe that Helping People, or Learning Anything, or Doing Anything Maters.Because We're all just Stardust floating out here in the middle of nowhere. No point. No Meaning.
But. In fact, the reason it Feels Good to Help People.. Is Evidence of a Higher Purpose. Otherwise, why cares about Starving Children. Why bother Breathing in and out. It's all just Pointless.
Vulcaneer900 2 weeks ago
I think you should find a word other than spiritual. Spiritual means of the spirit. Spirit means SOUL. The problem is you are promoting these supernatural ideas....including religion. Just by saying the word. Realize that all of the major religions were founded on this idea of the soul. Use the word connectedness...anything other than spiritual :D
mykotron 2 weeks ago
contradict much she says "religion is big fat pile of BS" 3 minutes later "I want to take time to leave a positive mark on this planet" "i want to help people to live better happy and peaceful"
the thing that makes a person an atheist is absolute denial that God exists In other words show me an individual who embraces atheism because he or she can prove that God does not exist and I will show you a true atheist they are just a group of people who are anti-religion
staywithaces1984 2 weeks ago
@staywithaces1984 I'm an atheist. I am not anti-religion provided it's not thrust at me and provided it is kept totally separate from the state and the education system. It's not up to me to prove God doesn't exist. The person making the claim needs to do the proving. Or do you think I should spend my time disproving all the silly claims that people make?
mikelheron20 2 weeks ago
@staywithaces1984 How do you know ?
bshizzle911 2 weeks ago
@bshizzle911 asktheatheists.c o m
staywithaces1984 2 weeks ago
@bshizzle911 if you mean do i have proof and or evidence no....
staywithaces1984 2 weeks ago
@staywithaces1984 Is there a reason people should NOT be anti-religion? She seems to be logical and caring... but without the money-grubbing, judgemental, child-raping aspect that is rife throughout organized religion. God works in mysterious ways.. why not without churches, huh?
TheDing1701 2 weeks ago
@TheDing1701"without the money-grubbing, judgemental, child-raping aspect that is rife throughout organized religion" like there is not all of those things in atheism....logical and caring until anyone disagrees with her
staywithaces1984 2 weeks ago
Theres no evidence you are going to get one life. I think your atheism lays you the same trap as any religion when you express certanties. If you think as yourself as the evidence of your existence to yourself you can understand that you can come to be again or even never cease to exist as consciousness. I hate that claim "this is your only life" when infact the probability of your only 75 year longing existence at this very moment in infinite time is almost 0 before the actual happening.
StardustSpaceMonkey 3 weeks ago
As an addendum to a comment found below which indicated that the word "spiritual" has some baggage that goes along with it, I offer the following:
Although similar in meaning, "spiritual" and "numinous" have somewhat different connotations.
The former tends to be seen as indicating that something supernatural is at work, i.e. noncorporeal agency, whereas the latter often indicates more of an intellectual, or aesthetic, take on rarified, or reflective experiences.
Inannalu 3 weeks ago
I am a christian atheist and I approve of this message.
adlerzwei 3 weeks ago
You are remarkably insightful for someone so young.
Be proud of who you are at all times, you don't follow the crowd - you follow your heart.
That's what life is all about, seeing where YOU take YOU.
Have fun in Europe, you're gonna love it.
Just one thing.......stop plagiarizing my brain! ;-)
Getsen42 3 weeks ago
you are a very beautiful person. Thank you for your thoughts.
gloritl 3 weeks ago
message me lacey i'd like to take you on a date
youthank8 3 weeks ago
BABY you need to check My Big TOE, and see if college really help you undertand this teory thta,s going to freak the sh4t of all religiuos people,that itself its going to be HELL for them.
GOD is the intellingent force behind all thing, in things ,in you.human form is a temporal dream you chose to experience.
mate6mty 3 weeks ago
Good video, Laci you did a good job.
toucan780 3 weeks ago
Your use of "spirituality" is confusing and unhelpful. Like you, I find awe in the universe and feel connected to the world around me, but I don't call that spirituality. The word "spiritual" concerns the literal concept of a spirit. Theists didn't steal or pervert the word, it's THEIR word, let them have it. True, theists sometimes call themselves "spiritual" when they mean "deep and contemplative," but that doesn't mean atheists should follow suit. The word doesn't HAVE baggage, it IS baggage.
Archronis 3 weeks ago
DO PORN ALREADY!
megaphone69 3 weeks ago
What I REALY hate about creationism is they try and disprove proven theorys(and laws) such as evolution(fail at it), and then think the only other option for creation is THEIR religion.
TalkingLogic 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHY crave meaning, design, or any sort of divine connections, etc? Everything around us, the things that happen, are products of marvelous patterns of accident - figurative invisible hands that can be rationally deducted from reality - Ideas many times more powerful, value-laden & beautiful than anything 'outside the box'. Have one faith: that the unknown is just that. If uncovered, it'll bear an elegance gravely insulted by such so-manifestly man-made deficient shit as that waffled above.
abh88abh 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
abh88abh 3 weeks ago
Lol atheists graduate from college, and christians get promoted to manager at Wal-Mart. I'm just kidding Christians...I still hate you and think you all need to be killed in a global holocausting, but I'm just kidding about the Wal-Mart thing.
Punkandfunk420 3 weeks ago
Sorry, I meant she looks abit like Chelsea Clinton.
mrdarrickevenson 3 weeks ago