He then obviously isn't certain either.And if you actualy do what the Gospel says there would be complete peace.The problem is nobody reads it for themselves and have men dictate it too them.Just like people take evidence and twist it too their needs in science you have religious people who twist the scripture to what they think it belives.That is why there is no peace.Either by secular Humanists marxists or religions.Only guilty play the blame game and war is waged from all sects.
@TomFynn I guess that you mean secularists don't lie because that is the point I was making.Doesn't matter who you are it is what you do that matters.And the day you travel to one end of this Universe and back is the day you can say there is no GOD till then remember you are stuck on a tiny planet and know nothing realy about what is in it or what is beyond it.How pathetic is it that we haven't stepped off this rock and yet we know everything.Even you're string theory contradicts you.
@TomFynn Well you people waisted a lot of money on fantasy that LHC diddn't even work.And it is a contradiction because withing that theory they believe there are other dimensions.And the Hubble can't see the end of the Universe nothing can.And we still don't know where the moon came from they still have 4 theories on that.Yeh peer review a couple guys get into a room and agree on a theory out of 4 and then call it a fact.Sorry to say that isn't very scientific.We have theories not fact's.
@korzon Do try to inform yourself on the Universe: watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
As for the LHC: It is the most complex machine ever invented. To make it work the way it should is complicated. And even if it works and does not find a Higgs boson where it is predicted, is has found an important scientific result.
As for the 4 theories on the origin of the moon: Who gives a fuck?
@TomFynn It's broken and will break again it's the largest magnet made in the world for now.Even the people who put their money into it arent happy with it,and just as nasa shut down they will to.They should stick with real science,Like x boxes pc's and cell phones that actualy work.Even LHC enthusiasts even have said we should scap the string theory already and move on to something differen't in the forums.We had one here in the U.S. we scraped it.
@korzon You are comparing X boxes with the LHC? No wonder your country is going down the drain right now if that is the level of scientific ignorance you have achieved.
PS: The LHC is about the Higgs-bosun. Nothing to do with string-theory and never had.
@korzon So basically... since we don't know EVERYTHING in the universe with the snap of our fingers, all science and technology is pointless and we should just go live on the savannas of Africa, unclothed and gathering berries, worshipping whatever supernatural forces strike our fancy?
I've got an idea, why don't YOU do that, and leave the rest of us to our knowledge and understanding and technological achievements.
Take your "married bachelor" example. The strict definition of marriage (e.g. processing the required legal documents) may not be shared by everyone. The same can be said about being a bachelor (e.g. polygamy) It's only when you use your own unique (more or less - yet nonetheless unique) definitions about terms that you begin to feel any sense of certainty about them. For the sake of simplicity, they do work. But they do not, nor cannot, explain any profound underlying truths about anything.
@optionqb He's certain by the process of acquiring knowledge through the application of reason. For religious people - who have opened the door to credulity through faith - this is difficult to grasp and may even sound absurd. But an individual's growth in knowledge is accompanied by the increasing awareness of the limits of such (or any) knowledge; equating to the increase of understanding and of uncertainty at the same time. Remember Socrates: "All that I know is that I know nothing"? Same.
@CertainUncertainty My point is that there cannot be uncertainty about all other propositions and yet certainty about that one claim. How can one "acquire knowledge" at all if there are no objective standards to discern knowledge from ignorance? We have to at least be certain of the standards, right? Otherwise, there can never be knowledge in any meaningful sense at all. Socrates was not a skeptic nor a relativist. He also said "The only good is knowledge the only evil is ignorance."
@optionqb Of course there are "standards" used to learn and gain an understanding of reality (but these standards are by no means objective - this is why we argue...).And there is no "objective" knowledge or ignorance for that matter. These are simply conditions that vary in humans.The condition of "certainty" is a bit of a paradox; for the greater the understanding, a greater sense of uncertainty is sure to follow. So really, ignorance is revealed as more and more inescapable as knowledge grows
@CertainUncertainty No doubt there are limits to human knowledge. But my point is that for there to be any knowledge at all there must be some foundation of absolute standards, for example the basic rules of logic. You use the phrase "the greater the understanding". How do you know that understanding is becoming greater? By what standard can you make that statement? If the standard is not objective, then you cannot be sure that our knowledge increases at all. One more thing then I'll shut up..
There is no objective ignorance? If a friend of yours said that he was a married bachelor, would he not qualify as someone objectively wrong/ignorant? I mean if he clearly understood what the terms meant and insisted that he was a a married bachelor, would you even need to appeal to empirical evidence? How would a "condition that varies in humans" possibly affect the truth value of this statement? Anyway, I'll let you have the last word . It's beddie-bye time.
All I am saying is that "certainty" comes in degrees - there is no "absolute certainty" about anything (not even this statement). This is why gathering knowledge reveals continually that there is even more about reality that we don't understand. Not only does our understanding not close in on consummation, it only feels more and more inadequate. This is how, and why, knowledge grows. Certainty would mean we have have something completely figured out - and NOTHING is competey figured out.
this was informative & helpful discussion;.I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general atheistic social perspectives
So some people are spending money to win the belief of the stupid ones who cannot think for themselves, once upon a time the conflict to win the stupid mass of the slaves was between islam and christianity, now is a race of atheists and theists. i wish if there was a third competitor that just wanted for people to start think freely and have a way to believe what they want, and not what they have to choose only from served options. Atheism as developed nowdays is dangerous for the free person
@NeutronCafe What makes you think atheists are against thinking freely? That's the foundation of their belief, isn't it? Most atheists would have no problem with theists if the theists didn't use their religion to hurt other people and stifle progress.
@KayBeeEee1983 what i want to say is that an atheist that became such on his own, that arrived at that conclution through logic is a true atheist. but humans are mimic animals and most of the atheists i find when talking with them are just so because they happened to be in a company that the most people there were atheists and they never thought of it a lot. or sometimes just influenced by media, same as religion works.
@KayBeeEee1983 i am sorry i translated my thought of the word "company" in my language first and i guess because my english are not that good there must be a mistake. when i write company i mean team, companion, friends, circle of friends, something like that.
@NeutronCafe Oh okay, I see what you mean. I agree that probably very few people come to the atheist conclusion on their own. The seed must be planted in their head first. If they only associate with people of their religion, they will not become atheist. But atheists like Hitchens, who try to "convert" people aren't claiming that what they say is the correct answer, they just point out that religions have serious flaws and are NOT the correct answer. They are encouraging free, logical thinking.
Recordemos, tanto la ciencia como las religiones tienen algo en común, ambas requieren de tener fe. Ambas ocultan muchas verdades para seguir mintiendo, ambas usan frecuentemente las palabras; quizás, creo, pienso, imagino. Ambas causan destrucción y construcción, paz y guerra, con conocimiento de causa o sin este. Ambas tienen líderes honestos como deshonestos. Ambas nos dan descanso y tensión, odio y amor, risas y llantos.
Entonces, porque pelear si ambas son igual de conflictivas?
Sometimes me thinks the 3 corner fight between ((1) Come Back Christianity (maybe enhanced by the Destroyer- Nib-iru is coming round again) and (2) God-away scientists and (3) Come Up Islam in America will be a great show to watch. The bets are on.
@JayDeeVK I think Hitchens knows more than based primarily on what he has read, Reading = Information/Knowledge yeah? As far as youtube comments, I leave em for anyone to read, if no one reads them then thats alright, when it comes to personal opinion "I like Blue - I like Green" sure, who cares, they are both right. When someone comments "My God Blah Blah Blah" I'm sick of living in a society where people can make up bullshit and disguise it as God and NO ONE QUESTIONS IT? I can on u-tube
Bottom Line? St. Thomas Aquinas proves God's existence in the Summa. Atheists, in their lack of understanding, only misrepresent what Thomas says. Not even Hitchens and Dawkins can defeat Aquinas. God wins again :)
I'm an Atheist but it seems to me nearly everyone who comments on a video like this or at least makes an attempt at it comes across as thinking they know more than the person who commented before, it is ridiculous in a way that cannot be explained and the mere thought of this can almost wear your mind to the point of, "What's the point"?...These conversations are very important but let's all at least admit that nobody knows more than anyone else no matter what they have read, peace
@JayDeeVK its not that the person is trying to say they know more than someone else, but they're just pointing out their faults or misunderstandings. conversation is a very powerful tool. when you use it correctly, you can accomplish alot.
A pox on the houses of the dipsomaniacs: historical revisionist Christ' Hitchens & corporate teleprompter-reader Diane Sawyer for sermonizing that moral-absolutes are situational; the U.S. Constitutional stands for naught and that perpetual warfare equals freedom. To Hades to these sob-sisters-in-crime who stand for the consolidation of power through "globaloney" climate-change carbon credits, casino economies, property forfeiture, confiscatory taxation and govt.-run contraband markets.
Humans are Thinking machines, and as we know a machine needs a creator. We are made of nature stuff. Nature Has nutrons and protons as we do. There is nothing that we have and nature does not, isnt that true? so if we have what nature gave us... what about our thinking ability? nature gave us our thinking ability. So nature must have thinking ability as well. We cant say that nature is like human, but it is Certain that nature is inteligent and thoght before it created us. So there is a reason.
Christ' Hitchens: The Smarmy King of Red Herrings (red herring 2 : a diversion intended to distract attention fr. the real issue) -- “Religion poisons everything”? What role has religion in the centralized, fractional-reserve banking of fiat money (money that represents debt, not capital; that is created from nothing; that accrues usurious interest)? What role does religion play in the Anglo-American Alliance's master plan to create a totalitarian government based on Malthusian eugenics? None.
Why is it some people believe you absolutely require a god for there to be peace? Don't they watch the news to see all those people around the world killing each other in the name of their god? In some cases, it's the same god but the point of contention is what he truly was trying to convey in his holy book. Have they ever realized (not thought, realized) that the very word and concept of god was implanted in their mind as a kid? How could they not come to that conclusion on honest reflection?
@azmanabdula Absolutely. Also, I find that people's lifelong emotional investment in a particular set of magic rules and rituals in itself creates a willingness to remain under the delusion, no matter the cost. No one wants to think "what have I DONE with my life?!?!".
@xminorthreatx, you answered it yourself with the last rows in your comment.. Its all about the implementation of god in their minds as kids.
The fact that it was done in their youth over rules many of their own "rational" thoughts later on in life and is hard to change i think.
But i agree with what you are saying, it seems very strange to me as well and I get kind of frustrated at times that they don't just see how stupid it is.
They are mind-washed into believing false teachings. Trust me, the Bible, Quran etc interpreted in the wrong way in the wrong hands has an awful power. YOU are able to reason because you know otherwise, but they on the other hand cannot, because it is all they know. While religion is very controversial, its intent was never violence. After all we are all Gods people, it is stupid to think killing, raping, pillaging etc would be acceptable in ANY God's eyes.
Im sure no religious person will ever believe this when I say it, but Ill say it anyway.
I remember being a kid, around 7 or 8 or so, and thinking to myself, what happens when you die? I thought about it, and for a while I just couldnt conceptualize the lack of something that death actually is. I just thought of blackness. Eventually I came to the conclusion that you are dead, and there is literally no thinking to be done anyway. There is nothing. My parents never taught me--
-- about religion, but through the years from media and the world in general I found out that people seemed to believe in some version an answer to my question. My point is that as a child, before anyone ever tried indoctrinate me, I didnt know about god. My story is proof that god is a figment of man's imagination, and requires inception into the mind. Belief in god is not innate in us as humans, like the religious love to assume.
@xminorthreatx If you were constantly brainwashed to believe in bullshit, you'd believe bullshit. You wouldn't dare question bullshit. You'd fear the wrath of the bull.
@xminorthreatx The world has never know peace because it has abandoned God ..No-one is killing each other in the name of God ..Don't bore me with the Arabs & Jews..that's about land ..There have been millions of murders ..99% have nothing to do with God ..You're an imbecile
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@kick08ful There is a God. That's science. You wouldn't pass a computer in BestBuy and even CONSIDER that its atoms coalesced without human hands and not even the most intricate computer is as complicated as the simplest protein. The chance for random formation of the simplest protein on Earth is less than 1 in 10 to the 100th power (there are 10 to the 80th power electrons in the universe). And you need more than protein to reproduce.
@tpstrat14 Yes, but who said that proteins formed randomly?
Self-replication does not require proteins.
The ability to generate proteins is not a sufficient property to infer the existence of a god (let alone your God). Your insistence that the "There is a God" is science, is unwarranted.
@Griexxt "My God" is everyone's God. I may give it a different name and idea, but that is only because I am an ignorant, lost soul, just as we all are. But there is one God and we all need to tap into that truth to really start to love each other and fix humanity's sickness.
@tpstrat14 u really think the watchmaker argument holds water,please tell me your joking . You cannot compare a computer or a watch to a living organism. The most important part of evolution is reproduction,some thing man made inventions can't do...do I really need to point that out.
@glossop08 You are specifically wrong, it seems you are not familiar with the scientific discoveries of Rensselaer and other research institutions,that have confirmed our knowledge around the notion of naturalistic PRNA abiogenisis. So while (as this video states), it is not possible to refute the notion that god might exist, science give a perfectly adequate factual answer to how life began, how a "first" can be created, the watchmater argument, isn't just some rhetorical device, it's a fact.
@glossop08 I do believe I meant to click on @kick08ful rather than yourself. Mea apologia. And to the point, I think objectively it's possible to consider that there might be some Kardashev type 3 civilizations, that engineer star-systems - perhaps even some unfathomably old polity that engineered our star system - or has/tried to interact with our pre-literate bronze-age cultures - there is just - as Mr. Hitchens points out - no objectively valid evidence to suggest this is what happened.
@glossop08 Sorry to sound as if I'm playing the devil's advocate, but do you mean to say that man made inventions cannot ever be capable of reproduction? Or consciousness? I recognize the fallacy of the argument for the universe's intelligent design, and I say this as a human-being before any other denomination, but have you ever read of nano technology? Or artificial intelligence? There is most probably no God, but I'm curious as to why you think artificial reproduction is not possible.
@alolfan1 You miss the point. He is using known man made things to talk about evolution,a process that uses reproduction to work. He is the one that said "You wouldn't pass a computer in BestBuy and even CONSIDER that its atoms coalesced without human hands " .
@glossop08 Right, and I think I conceded that point. His conviction--that the mode of production for a computer is identical, in principle, to that of the universe itself--can be objected to by the argument that what is true of the part is not necessarily true of the whole. But I was simply curious if Craig's narrow conception of the universe had made you skeptical of the possibilities of technology. Forgive me if i sounded particularly critical, but I was simply curious about your opinion.
Hitlerian-styled eugenics was about improving the populace thru racial hygiene. The sermons of Darwin, Dawkins, Cousteau, Ted Turner, Margaret Sanger, Jane Goodall, Paul Ehrlich, the Huxleys, H.G. Wells, Elizabeth Regina's husband, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates etc. humanely stress the reduction of humanity through weaponized serums, laboratory-fabricated viruses (pathogens), perpetual war, food & water shortages/rationing, de-industrialization & aborticides.
Let's see how Hitchens handles his personal denigration in the next several months, after he's championed the denigration of Arab children from the comfort of his luxurious Washington, D.C. townhouse.
@TheWorldFarOff Either you don't know what the word means or I wasn't aware that Hitchens championed the attack on Arab children's reputation from his luxurious Washington, D.C. townhouse.
if people actually by this bullshit, well...it explains a lot about the way the world is these days. Hitchens is a horrible philosopher and thinker. He's just an egotistical prick making money off of secular politics.
Atheism is a disease. It is a typo cancer. It kills the soul rapidly and makes you hate everything—everybody, especially religious people. Your soul becomes bitter full of hatred and your mouth full of poison/venom. It contaminates the world; it rejects reasoning it causes harm in the heart of little ones. Most of the time in the heart of ignorant/ irrational people. Atheists become irrational by it. LETS SAY NO to that cancer—toxic monkeys/apes.
There is no logic in asking the question "name a moral action that a believer makes that I could not make". CH's morality was clearly already defined before he made a conscious decision to be an atheist.
@Ebrainiac1 Atheism is much more than a "default" as you put it. Continual attempts to describe atheism as a "lack of belief in God" are incorrect as this position of thought is a manifestation of ego and the irreconcilable idea of the existence of reality outside of current perception. There is not enough evidence to believe in many scientific theories however they are accepted by atheists. Even plainer and simpler.
Atheism is "much more" than not believing in god? What dictionary or encyclopedia can you use to back that claim up?
Putting aside semantics, the fact remains that i see no adequate reason to believe the claim "a god exists". Apply to me any label you want, but that' where i stand.
You call my definition of atheism wrong, and back this up not with an entry in a linguistic source, but your own opinion? Plainer and simpler my ass, you're throwing my words back at me like an elementary schooler.
@Ebrainiac1 Now the insults start. I returned your laughable notion of simplicity so you might learn that emphasizing a position does not make it correct. You can call me an "elementary schooler" (perhaps you mean scholar) if you like however neither does that help your argument. It actually reinforces the notion of egotistical behaviour driving the idea of atheism.
@Ebrainiac1 Atheism is just an extreme form of arrogance. That is extremely evident. Even to the extent of making ludicrous comments like "put up or shut up".
To believe that it is limited to a disbelief is naive in simplicity.
I think asking someone to provide evidence for their claims is perfectly reasonable. Further asking someone to stop making claims found to be baseless is likewise reasonable. Do you have evidence that supports your arguments or not?
Childishly demanding information? If it is childish to seek answers and understanding instead of being satisfied with not knowing, then i am proud to be childish.
Demanding evidence when presented with a claim isn't childish. It's what respectable scientists do and it's how progress happens. Why can't you accept this?
@Ebrainiac1 What seems like "desperation" (as you continually state) is a call for the respect you talk about but do not afford to others. I have no desire to feel accomplished, I do not need to prove anything. Nor do I feel the desire to order others to prove themselves as you have done. the more you write the clearer your abusive intent becomes.
Did you even read what i accused you of? Are you blind to criticism? Let me spell it out:
YOU APPEAL TO EMOTION, NOT LOGIC
You don't give objective evidence. Your supports appeal to people's emotions, not basic logic.
I am trying to break you of this habit by setting a standard that emotional appeals cannot meet. Which would you rather have as a standard for truth: Facts and objective evidence or what simply feels right?
@Ebrainiac1 You haven't even made a criticism towards an emotive post I have made. I have advised you of the meaning of the word "atheist" and you do not want to accept it. That's not my problem. I am trying to break you out of your habit of arrogantly demanding answers to basic truths that you obviously have no knowledge of. That is the pure logical fact of the matter.
Your arguments have an emotional, not factual appeal. How many times do i have to tell you this? (10 bucks says you'll throw the last sentence right back at me)
You've been trying to break ME of a habit? BULLSHIT! You just keep throwing my words back at me and insulting me. You don't care about me, you care about your own prejudices.
Again i ask, requesting a dictionary definition is arrogant? What universe are you from?
@Ebrainiac1 Why do you persist with a dead line of argument? You have the definition I have given. If you don't like it, tough. My position is not emotive, it is REAL. You are a classic case in question and I need no more proof. You have changed your wording from "demanding' to "asking" in a vain attempt to save face. Quite laughable.
I have reasonable standards for accepting things, standards i absolutely won't give up based on personal attacks or appeals to emotion. Do you have a problem with non-faith based standards for truth? The world does not revolve around your beliefs.
.
I changed my wording, So what? You're nitpicking now, a non sequitur.
I don't demand or ask, i require. I require cold, hard, facts. That's how the world works, and if YOU don't like THAT, tough.
@Ebrainiac1 Your standards are quite unreasonable. You accept multiple meanings of the word but stick to only the one you like. Your reasoning is similar to the argument of multiple Gods, if one exists the others don't. The dichotomy in your thinking is quite entertaining. If you don't like it, take it up with the billions who use it.
A DICTIONARY OR ENCYCLOPEDIA CAN CHANGE MY MIND. GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD!!
I Don't fucking care which group i belong to. I know what i believe. Sorting is secondary.
If not believing in god means i'm labeled as an atheist, i don't give a shit. If it means i'm labeled an agnostic, again i don't give a shit. Labels don't matter, CONTENT MATTERS.
.
"X believes it, therefore i should believe it" is bullshit no matter how you spin it.
@Ebrainiac1 You say that labels do not matter however you will not accept my definition of atheism after admitting there are many such definitions. Fuck off and bother someone else.
Labels do not affect reality. You can call a cube whatever you want, it won't change the fact that it's a three dimensional polygon with six equal square sides.
Labels bend to suit reality, not the other way around.
I'm not in any way attached to the label "atheist".
That is what i mean by "labels do not matter", not assigning labels willy nilly based on what feels good like you do.
Fuck off and bother someone else? Whassamatter, getting tired of getting your ass intellectually handed to you?
@Ebrainiac1 I really don't want to argue with you. I have cited my definition for you, if you don't like it what can I do? My credibility is fine thank you however the longer you continue to deny the validity of my claim it becomes harder for you continue. You have 2 options now -
1) Accept the definition and leave it
2) Refute the specificity of the accepted definition with arguments relating to what it purports.
You continue to chant that i have some sort of personal issue with the definition (as if that's going to make it true) to somehow render yourself immune from backing up your claims.
ALL I can do? Now who's talking false dichotomy?
.
Fact is, you don't tell me what to do. I can continue to say that a holy text is not valid evidence. I can continue to say that "everybody is doing it" is not a valid rationalization, and i can continue to call you on your bullshit.
@Ebrainiac1 Fine, if you want to live in delusional denial that is your problem. How can you possibly say that a "holy text" cannot define a position in relation to God. That in itself is laughably arrogant. Then again atheism is all about denial. Your false ego refuses to accept information which threatens your sense of self importance.
Projection: The psychological mechanism of subconsciously crediting (or discrediting) another person with qualities or shortcomings which are in fact elements of one's own psyche.
.
Is your idea of argument insulting people with their own words? You wretched plagiarist.
Attacking me to support your own points and inflate your own self-esteem? Fallacious and despicable.
I refuse to accept information? WHAT PART OF "DICTIONARY OR ENCYCLOPEDIA" DON'T YOU GET????
This proves how little you know about science and about the scientific method.
To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.
Distilled:
"You have a claim? Back it up with objective evidence and it'll be accepted." That's the polar opposite of arrogant.
Does that clash with your prejudices? Good.
Questioning everything isn't arrogant, it's good procedure.
@Ebrainiac1 Now you attempt to lecture me on scientific methodology. How sad that you do not know the meaning of "arrogance" and that you demand information instead of politely asking for it. I suggest you change your attitude if you want people in debates such as this to take you seriously.
@Ebrainiac1 Please refer to the Śrīmad Bhāgavatam where an atheist is known as a - Heretical, hypocritical impostor, an unreferring, non-bonafide, jealous philosopher or false teacher. They cannot see anything beyond the jurisdiction of the subtle mind, intelligence or ego, but they are very much proud of their advancement in knowledge, science and material prosperity.
@Ebrainiac1 Is your problem reading or comprehension? I have cited my documented definition. The fact is there are many definitions of the idea. The one I have mentioned is used by over 2 billion people worldwide. Your credibility is zilch if you think Wikipedia is more reliable than acknowledged authoritative religious texts. Laughable.
Ad populum (2 billion believers = it must be true)
Ad hominem (linking my habits and personal beliefs to the validity of the evidence supporting the arguments i make)
Ad verecundiam (authoritative religious texts say it so it must be true)
Try not to use these logical fallacies from now on.
Now that that's out of the way,
YES, there ARE varied definitions of the word "atheist". If we can't agree on one, then why not stop using it as a blanket term and start arguing actual points?
@Ebrainiac1 I use it because it is the oldest and most universal definition of the term. In regard to your Ad-bullshit remarks you should try making yourself understood in English before you attempt Latin.Finally in reference to your other arrogant remark, no I will keep using it for it is the cornerstone of the issue.
Using a definition because it is old IS bullshit. Definitions change. Opinions change. Facts, however, stay constant. Truth is not dependent on what a holy book does or doesn't have to say. Truth is not dependent on tradition or the opinions of billions of people. Tough toenails if you don't like not being in control of everything.
Regarding the latin, they are the names for the numerous logical fallacies you were using. If you can't accept when you are wrong, then YOU are the arrogant one.
@Ebrainiac1 Again you have problems with comprehension. I wrote "oldest and most universal definition". Your statement on truth is a nothing more than a joke. Billions of people around the world accept scripture as the truth and you just cannot handle it. Childish statements like "tough toenails" do not change that fact. Accept it or remain in ignorant your arrogance. Yet again I ask you to try and make sense in English before you attempt to grandstand with irrelevant Latin argumentum.
I never said i have a beef with people believing. Ever. Did you seriously think i wouldn't catch that little straw man tactic?
I have a huge problem with you claiming that a something is valid simply because a lot of people believe it. Everyone in the world used to believe the earth was flat. (time doesn't matter, the point is still proven)
Childish statements? This isn't oxford, it's youtube, and in it anyone can emphasize any point in whatever way they want.
@Ebrainiac1 Now you are hurling flat earth strawmen. It matters not whether it is Oxford or Youtube. Apparently you have decided that common decency is subjective to where you are. Make a point or go away, you are embarrassing yourself.
Flat earth straw man? Do you even know what a straw man argument is? It's making up a fictional claim that your opponent didn't make. I never said YOU thought the earth was flat. I can use the "if everyone jumped off a bridge would you do it too?" argument, but your point is already demolished.
Decency IS subjective both in meaning and existence. I'm not saying it doesn't help society.
Why do i have to make a point of my own? One doesn't need to contribute to be a critic.
@Ebrainiac1 You don't have to lecture me on the "strawman" argument. The fact is you threw it to change the subject. You will have to just accept my definition. I know it is hard for your gigantic ego, but try it. "One doesn't need to contribute to be a critic. " is such a trite response. As for my point being demolished I'm afraid it looms towering over your lack of argumentative discourse.
Change the subject? I called you on your bullshit and got back to the debate. End of story.
I will "just have to" accept your definition? I'm afraid not my friend. You haven't met my (quite reasonable) standard of evidence: A semantic AUTHORITY like an ENCYCLOPEDIA or DICTIONARY.
.
"Does the dictionary support your definition?"
.
"OMG YOUR EGO IS SO MASSIVE STOP DEMANDING SO MUCH FROM ME!"
.
Your point of believing something because a lot of people believe it WAS soundly demolished. Get over it.
@Ebrainiac1 You mean you tried unsuccessfully to get out of being wrong. Think about your assertions before falling over your ego for once. The fact that I am demanding to your intelligence speaks volumes about your understanding of the matter.
Me? Trying to get out of being wrong? Only in your delusional dreams amigo. If you give me a dictionary or encyclopedia entry supporting your definition, i will gladly concede defeat.
.
Why is it so important that i be arrogant and egotistical? Is your small-minded prejudicial idea of what an atheist should be so important to you? Do you want it to be true that much?
.
Do a few gears grind in your head because of the fact that i CAN be humbled by simple evidence? Again, that's good.
@Ebrainiac1 You are not making any sense at all now. Your only line of argument is that my definition of atheism is emotive. In doing this you fail to understand that the term itself is emotive and deals with a belief system. Therefore how can the description of a position in regards to a belief not be emotional? Perhaps you have banana skins in your head to stop the violent egotistical sound of your pointless gear changes.
Eh, No. My point is that your evidence is emotive, It's appeal is that it FEELS right.
It is my duty as someone with an evidence-based standard to not care about the content of the argument being made.
.
Stop rationalizing and face reality: my rejection of your definition is based on the lack of unbiased semantic evidence supporting it, NOT because of personal dislike.
@Ebrainiac1 It has nothing to do with my "personal dislike". We have already established that there are many definitions of the word. The one I have given you is universally accepted based on fact not emotion. Your recalcitrance just confirms it.
@Ebrainiac1 How many times do I have to refer you to the definition I have cited before you accept it? If you fail to accept it then I really cannot help you and you are wasting our time. Please try to put your arrogant ego aside for a moment and contemplate the reasoning of your stance in relation to God. That atheism is restricted to one simple denial is just incredibly misleading.
@Ebrainiac1 In your case they are known as an "idiot". Now run along I am sure that you have a lot of God denying to do, and it is a such an intricately complex task for you.
@Ebrainiac1 What nonsense is "no reason to believe". A belief admits of all degrees, from the slightest suspicion to the fullest assurance. Or do you have a problem with the definition of "belief" as well? It is the acceptance of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge.
@Ebrainiac1 You idiot, I don't know why I am bothering with you. If an idea is proven first hand by evidence then it is not a belief it is a fact. Evolution is not a belief it is a fact, or are you saying that it is a belief?
@Ebrainiac1 How the shit did you get your name idiot. A fact is a statement or assertion of verifiable information. You really are annoying, first you want me to cite definitions and then when I do you accuse me of quote mining. How can you quote mine a definition dickhead? You are just looking even more foolish now.
@Ebrainiac1 What you have quoted makes no difference to the definition. The presence of "OR" does not make one explanation incorrect, it describes various explanations. I really don't know how you can claim a definitive source or variation on a definition as having more weight than another. It is entirely dependent on the usage of the word. Etymology is obviously not your strong point Mr Braniac. As for the cop nonsense I think he would fine you for trying to park in an intelligence zone.
As man becomes determiners of truth, there is no differance between Christians and non Christians as in the knowledge of good and evil-this is relying on self and not on God. Christianity is not a faith of having a crutch but rather an absolute denunciation of self as righteous and only reliant upon God. As the knowledge of good and evil is sin-Christians tend to cleanse sin with sin
@daveme7 but if there is no god then you'd have to conclude that evil and good are merely human constructs. You have to ponder the question of whether there is a god before you build upon that assumption and make inferences about what such a god wants.
@fatmeteor Mighty big if. Do not have to conclude anything-there is a God-can I prove this? Nope-no one can. Why? Faith. Certaint6y in faith and knowledge from experiance cannot be communicated to anyone else exept for the Spirit of God. If you do not believe in God-I can do othing of myself to show you certainty in faith.
As a Christian, I cannot say I disagree with this thought of morality and Christianity. There is almost no differance, though I have different reasons for no differance. I t5hink quite a few do not see how this is especially as it relates to free will. Sin is the knowledge of good and evil as God never intended man to be selfdeterminitive of sin and to act as asolute authorities over sin
@1:10"sorry dinesh again"...lol
on a side note, their are alot of hot chicks there. Imagine being an atheist over there and turning their minds to seclurist!!!!. Easy Score!!
2yung4grey 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GREAT !! You and those like you make youtube great. thanks for sharing
jonathancarolls 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My 1 page masterpiece DESTROYS atheism, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 4 months ago
Well said Christopher
Wordlaw12 5 months ago
He then obviously isn't certain either.And if you actualy do what the Gospel says there would be complete peace.The problem is nobody reads it for themselves and have men dictate it too them.Just like people take evidence and twist it too their needs in science you have religious people who twist the scripture to what they think it belives.That is why there is no peace.Either by secular Humanists marxists or religions.Only guilty play the blame game and war is waged from all sects.
korzon 6 months ago
@korzon Rule #1: If people twist evidence it's not science. Most likely they are politicians.
Rule #2: Religion is completely made up. It is nothing *but* twisting words.
Rule #3: Secular Humanism is not a sect.
TomFynn 5 months ago
@TomFynn I guess that you mean secularists don't lie because that is the point I was making.Doesn't matter who you are it is what you do that matters.And the day you travel to one end of this Universe and back is the day you can say there is no GOD till then remember you are stuck on a tiny planet and know nothing realy about what is in it or what is beyond it.How pathetic is it that we haven't stepped off this rock and yet we know everything.Even you're string theory contradicts you.
korzon 5 months ago
@korzon Rule #4: String Theory contradicts itself at this point.
Rule #5: I can travel to the end of the universe and back. It's called Hubble Space Telescope plus LHC.
Rule #6: We know quite a lot about the world. That's why warp drive is still Star Trek fantasy.
TomFynn 5 months ago
@TomFynn Well you people waisted a lot of money on fantasy that LHC diddn't even work.And it is a contradiction because withing that theory they believe there are other dimensions.And the Hubble can't see the end of the Universe nothing can.And we still don't know where the moon came from they still have 4 theories on that.Yeh peer review a couple guys get into a room and agree on a theory out of 4 and then call it a fact.Sorry to say that isn't very scientific.We have theories not fact's.
korzon 5 months ago
@korzon Do try to inform yourself on the Universe: watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
As for the LHC: It is the most complex machine ever invented. To make it work the way it should is complicated. And even if it works and does not find a Higgs boson where it is predicted, is has found an important scientific result.
As for the 4 theories on the origin of the moon: Who gives a fuck?
TomFynn 5 months ago
@TomFynn It's broken and will break again it's the largest magnet made in the world for now.Even the people who put their money into it arent happy with it,and just as nasa shut down they will to.They should stick with real science,Like x boxes pc's and cell phones that actualy work.Even LHC enthusiasts even have said we should scap the string theory already and move on to something differen't in the forums.We had one here in the U.S. we scraped it.
korzon 5 months ago
@korzon You are comparing X boxes with the LHC? No wonder your country is going down the drain right now if that is the level of scientific ignorance you have achieved.
PS: The LHC is about the Higgs-bosun. Nothing to do with string-theory and never had.
TomFynn 5 months ago
@korzon So basically... since we don't know EVERYTHING in the universe with the snap of our fingers, all science and technology is pointless and we should just go live on the savannas of Africa, unclothed and gathering berries, worshipping whatever supernatural forces strike our fancy?
I've got an idea, why don't YOU do that, and leave the rest of us to our knowledge and understanding and technological achievements.
Ryakki 5 months ago
Are YOU certain of this?
MrNewkingjames 7 months ago
Are YOU certain?
MrNewkingjames 7 months ago
Take your "married bachelor" example. The strict definition of marriage (e.g. processing the required legal documents) may not be shared by everyone. The same can be said about being a bachelor (e.g. polygamy) It's only when you use your own unique (more or less - yet nonetheless unique) definitions about terms that you begin to feel any sense of certainty about them. For the sake of simplicity, they do work. But they do not, nor cannot, explain any profound underlying truths about anything.
CertainUncertainty 7 months ago
When asked his opinion about religion, Albert D. Xavier replied, "Just get me some Peyote and a Hang-glider."
MrBeautifulba1 8 months ago
Why did you cut the 2nd part of that question??
"While i can give you many examples of immoral things that a moral person wouldn't do, if it wern't for religion." (or something like that)
CCLJunky 8 months ago
man created god in his own imagination
octoron85 8 months ago
"The only think certain is uncertainty." Hmmm.....how is he certain of that?
optionqb 9 months ago
@optionqb He's certain by the process of acquiring knowledge through the application of reason. For religious people - who have opened the door to credulity through faith - this is difficult to grasp and may even sound absurd. But an individual's growth in knowledge is accompanied by the increasing awareness of the limits of such (or any) knowledge; equating to the increase of understanding and of uncertainty at the same time. Remember Socrates: "All that I know is that I know nothing"? Same.
CertainUncertainty 7 months ago
@CertainUncertainty My point is that there cannot be uncertainty about all other propositions and yet certainty about that one claim. How can one "acquire knowledge" at all if there are no objective standards to discern knowledge from ignorance? We have to at least be certain of the standards, right? Otherwise, there can never be knowledge in any meaningful sense at all. Socrates was not a skeptic nor a relativist. He also said "The only good is knowledge the only evil is ignorance."
optionqb 7 months ago
@optionqb I am in agreement with you a little here, however...
CertainUncertainty 7 months ago
@optionqb Of course there are "standards" used to learn and gain an understanding of reality (but these standards are by no means objective - this is why we argue...).And there is no "objective" knowledge or ignorance for that matter. These are simply conditions that vary in humans.The condition of "certainty" is a bit of a paradox; for the greater the understanding, a greater sense of uncertainty is sure to follow. So really, ignorance is revealed as more and more inescapable as knowledge grows
CertainUncertainty 7 months ago
@CertainUncertainty No doubt there are limits to human knowledge. But my point is that for there to be any knowledge at all there must be some foundation of absolute standards, for example the basic rules of logic. You use the phrase "the greater the understanding". How do you know that understanding is becoming greater? By what standard can you make that statement? If the standard is not objective, then you cannot be sure that our knowledge increases at all. One more thing then I'll shut up..
optionqb 7 months ago
There is no objective ignorance? If a friend of yours said that he was a married bachelor, would he not qualify as someone objectively wrong/ignorant? I mean if he clearly understood what the terms meant and insisted that he was a a married bachelor, would you even need to appeal to empirical evidence? How would a "condition that varies in humans" possibly affect the truth value of this statement? Anyway, I'll let you have the last word . It's beddie-bye time.
optionqb 7 months ago
All I am saying is that "certainty" comes in degrees - there is no "absolute certainty" about anything (not even this statement). This is why gathering knowledge reveals continually that there is even more about reality that we don't understand. Not only does our understanding not close in on consummation, it only feels more and more inadequate. This is how, and why, knowledge grows. Certainty would mean we have have something completely figured out - and NOTHING is competey figured out.
CertainUncertainty 7 months ago
WTF, this video is patched together horribly from bits and pieces... what for?!
SierraSierraFoxtrot 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this was informative & helpful discussion;.I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general atheistic social perspectives
shieldsff 9 months ago
mono?
Lily2U1515 10 months ago
So some people are spending money to win the belief of the stupid ones who cannot think for themselves, once upon a time the conflict to win the stupid mass of the slaves was between islam and christianity, now is a race of atheists and theists. i wish if there was a third competitor that just wanted for people to start think freely and have a way to believe what they want, and not what they have to choose only from served options. Atheism as developed nowdays is dangerous for the free person
NeutronCafe 10 months ago
@NeutronCafe What makes you think atheists are against thinking freely? That's the foundation of their belief, isn't it? Most atheists would have no problem with theists if the theists didn't use their religion to hurt other people and stifle progress.
KayBeeEee1983 9 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 what i want to say is that an atheist that became such on his own, that arrived at that conclution through logic is a true atheist. but humans are mimic animals and most of the atheists i find when talking with them are just so because they happened to be in a company that the most people there were atheists and they never thought of it a lot. or sometimes just influenced by media, same as religion works.
NeutronCafe 9 months ago
@NeutronCafe A company? Like their job?
KayBeeEee1983 9 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 i am sorry i translated my thought of the word "company" in my language first and i guess because my english are not that good there must be a mistake. when i write company i mean team, companion, friends, circle of friends, something like that.
NeutronCafe 9 months ago
@NeutronCafe Oh okay, I see what you mean. I agree that probably very few people come to the atheist conclusion on their own. The seed must be planted in their head first. If they only associate with people of their religion, they will not become atheist. But atheists like Hitchens, who try to "convert" people aren't claiming that what they say is the correct answer, they just point out that religions have serious flaws and are NOT the correct answer. They are encouraging free, logical thinking.
KayBeeEee1983 9 months ago
trying to hash things out here
might just be a compete waste of time
troupesvirtues 11 months ago
Recordemos, tanto la ciencia como las religiones tienen algo en común, ambas requieren de tener fe. Ambas ocultan muchas verdades para seguir mintiendo, ambas usan frecuentemente las palabras; quizás, creo, pienso, imagino. Ambas causan destrucción y construcción, paz y guerra, con conocimiento de causa o sin este. Ambas tienen líderes honestos como deshonestos. Ambas nos dan descanso y tensión, odio y amor, risas y llantos.
Entonces, porque pelear si ambas son igual de conflictivas?
joe90kz 11 months ago
GENIUS!
oznerflexo 1 year ago
Sometimes me thinks the 3 corner fight between ((1) Come Back Christianity (maybe enhanced by the Destroyer- Nib-iru is coming round again) and (2) God-away scientists and (3) Come Up Islam in America will be a great show to watch. The bets are on.
CardinalSinga 1 year ago
@JayDeeVK I think Hitchens knows more than based primarily on what he has read, Reading = Information/Knowledge yeah? As far as youtube comments, I leave em for anyone to read, if no one reads them then thats alright, when it comes to personal opinion "I like Blue - I like Green" sure, who cares, they are both right. When someone comments "My God Blah Blah Blah" I'm sick of living in a society where people can make up bullshit and disguise it as God and NO ONE QUESTIONS IT? I can on u-tube
shandcunt 1 year ago
Unfortunately I was unable to hear it! What's with youtube?!
beanie928 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Bottom Line? St. Thomas Aquinas proves God's existence in the Summa. Atheists, in their lack of understanding, only misrepresent what Thomas says. Not even Hitchens and Dawkins can defeat Aquinas. God wins again :)
helpyouseeit 1 year ago
I'm an Atheist but it seems to me nearly everyone who comments on a video like this or at least makes an attempt at it comes across as thinking they know more than the person who commented before, it is ridiculous in a way that cannot be explained and the mere thought of this can almost wear your mind to the point of, "What's the point"?...These conversations are very important but let's all at least admit that nobody knows more than anyone else no matter what they have read, peace
JayDeeVK 1 year ago
@JayDeeVK its not that the person is trying to say they know more than someone else, but they're just pointing out their faults or misunderstandings. conversation is a very powerful tool. when you use it correctly, you can accomplish alot.
kiddhitta 1 year ago
I thought he is referee on a boxing ring!LOL
666dimensions 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A pox on the houses of the dipsomaniacs: historical revisionist Christ' Hitchens & corporate teleprompter-reader Diane Sawyer for sermonizing that moral-absolutes are situational; the U.S. Constitutional stands for naught and that perpetual warfare equals freedom. To Hades to these sob-sisters-in-crime who stand for the consolidation of power through "globaloney" climate-change carbon credits, casino economies, property forfeiture, confiscatory taxation and govt.-run contraband markets.
EasingDifficulties 1 year ago
Humans are Thinking machines, and as we know a machine needs a creator. We are made of nature stuff. Nature Has nutrons and protons as we do. There is nothing that we have and nature does not, isnt that true? so if we have what nature gave us... what about our thinking ability? nature gave us our thinking ability. So nature must have thinking ability as well. We cant say that nature is like human, but it is Certain that nature is inteligent and thoght before it created us. So there is a reason.
themhz 1 year ago
Christ' Hitchens: The Smarmy King of Red Herrings (red herring 2 : a diversion intended to distract attention fr. the real issue) -- “Religion poisons everything”? What role has religion in the centralized, fractional-reserve banking of fiat money (money that represents debt, not capital; that is created from nothing; that accrues usurious interest)? What role does religion play in the Anglo-American Alliance's master plan to create a totalitarian government based on Malthusian eugenics? None.
EasingDifficulties 1 year ago
Hitchens legally can be deported as his actions and rhetoric are designed to foment revolt against the U.S. Constitution. DEPORT HITCHENS!!!
EasingDifficulties 1 year ago
@EasingDifficulties How is Hitchens fomenting revolt against the US Constitution? Besides, Hitchens is a naturalized US citizen.
bigballer215 1 year ago
Hitchens looks better bald
MauricXe 1 year ago
He's talking about Hitler like Hitler was a bad guy. I like Hitchens, but I'm not sure I can go along with that.
ArmoredFelix 1 year ago
Why is it some people believe you absolutely require a god for there to be peace? Don't they watch the news to see all those people around the world killing each other in the name of their god? In some cases, it's the same god but the point of contention is what he truly was trying to convey in his holy book. Have they ever realized (not thought, realized) that the very word and concept of god was implanted in their mind as a kid? How could they not come to that conclusion on honest reflection?
xminorthreatx 1 year ago 35
@xminorthreatx ive pondered that question many a time........
no one likes being wrong?
azmanabdula 1 year ago
@azmanabdula Absolutely. Also, I find that people's lifelong emotional investment in a particular set of magic rules and rituals in itself creates a willingness to remain under the delusion, no matter the cost. No one wants to think "what have I DONE with my life?!?!".
xminorthreatx 1 year ago
@xminorthreatx damn emotions, getting in the way again : )
azmanabdula 1 year ago
@xminorthreatx, you answered it yourself with the last rows in your comment.. Its all about the implementation of god in their minds as kids.
The fact that it was done in their youth over rules many of their own "rational" thoughts later on in life and is hard to change i think.
But i agree with what you are saying, it seems very strange to me as well and I get kind of frustrated at times that they don't just see how stupid it is.
btw sorry for bad english.
AOKONE 1 year ago
They are mind-washed into believing false teachings. Trust me, the Bible, Quran etc interpreted in the wrong way in the wrong hands has an awful power. YOU are able to reason because you know otherwise, but they on the other hand cannot, because it is all they know. While religion is very controversial, its intent was never violence. After all we are all Gods people, it is stupid to think killing, raping, pillaging etc would be acceptable in ANY God's eyes.
BlakeBarable 10 months ago
@xminorthreatx
Im sure no religious person will ever believe this when I say it, but Ill say it anyway.
I remember being a kid, around 7 or 8 or so, and thinking to myself, what happens when you die? I thought about it, and for a while I just couldnt conceptualize the lack of something that death actually is. I just thought of blackness. Eventually I came to the conclusion that you are dead, and there is literally no thinking to be done anyway. There is nothing. My parents never taught me--
dudesonman4200 8 months ago
@xminorthreatx
-- about religion, but through the years from media and the world in general I found out that people seemed to believe in some version an answer to my question. My point is that as a child, before anyone ever tried indoctrinate me, I didnt know about god. My story is proof that god is a figment of man's imagination, and requires inception into the mind. Belief in god is not innate in us as humans, like the religious love to assume.
dudesonman4200 8 months ago
@xminorthreatx If you were constantly brainwashed to believe in bullshit, you'd believe bullshit. You wouldn't dare question bullshit. You'd fear the wrath of the bull.
StrifeBlood 5 months ago
@xminorthreatx The world has never know peace because it has abandoned God ..No-one is killing each other in the name of God ..Don't bore me with the Arabs & Jews..that's about land ..There have been millions of murders ..99% have nothing to do with God ..You're an imbecile
Recordbhoy 3 months ago
Funny that Christopher has to suffer with Jesus Christ right in his name itself...what an irony.
cheapshot1234 1 year ago
News Flash... intelligence is a good thing. The devil is not going to burn you ghost for being worldly educated and nonsuperstitious.
kick08ful 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@kick08ful There is a God. That's science. You wouldn't pass a computer in BestBuy and even CONSIDER that its atoms coalesced without human hands and not even the most intricate computer is as complicated as the simplest protein. The chance for random formation of the simplest protein on Earth is less than 1 in 10 to the 100th power (there are 10 to the 80th power electrons in the universe). And you need more than protein to reproduce.
Are atheists not as smart as the say they are?
tpstrat14 1 year ago
@tpstrat14 Watch Thunderf00t's videos, I'm glad he took the trouble to refute arguments like this b/c it saves people a lot of time.
xSolraccarloSx 1 year ago
@xSolraccarloSx Agreed!
yourjunk420 1 year ago
@tpstrat14 Yes, but who said that proteins formed randomly?
Self-replication does not require proteins.
The ability to generate proteins is not a sufficient property to infer the existence of a god (let alone your God). Your insistence that the "There is a God" is science, is unwarranted.
Griexxt 1 year ago
@Griexxt "My God" is everyone's God. I may give it a different name and idea, but that is only because I am an ignorant, lost soul, just as we all are. But there is one God and we all need to tap into that truth to really start to love each other and fix humanity's sickness.
tpstrat14 1 year ago
@tpstrat14 the old watchmaker fallacy ...older then time itself.
glossop08 1 year ago
@glossop08 Debunk it yourself. I know others have tried, but it's quite stupid to just call me stupid and expect that to hold as an argument.
tpstrat14 1 year ago
@tpstrat14 u really think the watchmaker argument holds water,please tell me your joking . You cannot compare a computer or a watch to a living organism. The most important part of evolution is reproduction,some thing man made inventions can't do...do I really need to point that out.
glossop08 1 year ago 30
@glossop08 You are specifically wrong, it seems you are not familiar with the scientific discoveries of Rensselaer and other research institutions,that have confirmed our knowledge around the notion of naturalistic PRNA abiogenisis. So while (as this video states), it is not possible to refute the notion that god might exist, science give a perfectly adequate factual answer to how life began, how a "first" can be created, the watchmater argument, isn't just some rhetorical device, it's a fact.
proadmin1 11 months ago
@proadmin1 I think you've missunderstood me,I have never once backed the notion of a god exsisting...im an atheist.
glossop08 11 months ago
@glossop08 I do believe I meant to click on @kick08ful rather than yourself. Mea apologia. And to the point, I think objectively it's possible to consider that there might be some Kardashev type 3 civilizations, that engineer star-systems - perhaps even some unfathomably old polity that engineered our star system - or has/tried to interact with our pre-literate bronze-age cultures - there is just - as Mr. Hitchens points out - no objectively valid evidence to suggest this is what happened.
proadmin1 11 months ago
@glossop08 Sorry to sound as if I'm playing the devil's advocate, but do you mean to say that man made inventions cannot ever be capable of reproduction? Or consciousness? I recognize the fallacy of the argument for the universe's intelligent design, and I say this as a human-being before any other denomination, but have you ever read of nano technology? Or artificial intelligence? There is most probably no God, but I'm curious as to why you think artificial reproduction is not possible.
alolfan1 5 months ago
@alolfan1 You miss the point. He is using known man made things to talk about evolution,a process that uses reproduction to work. He is the one that said "You wouldn't pass a computer in BestBuy and even CONSIDER that its atoms coalesced without human hands " .
glossop08 5 months ago
@glossop08 Right, and I think I conceded that point. His conviction--that the mode of production for a computer is identical, in principle, to that of the universe itself--can be objected to by the argument that what is true of the part is not necessarily true of the whole. But I was simply curious if Craig's narrow conception of the universe had made you skeptical of the possibilities of technology. Forgive me if i sounded particularly critical, but I was simply curious about your opinion.
alolfan1 5 months ago
During fits and conniptions I insult my dog mercilessly by calling him Obama.
TheWorldFarOff 1 year ago
Hitlerian-styled eugenics was about improving the populace thru racial hygiene. The sermons of Darwin, Dawkins, Cousteau, Ted Turner, Margaret Sanger, Jane Goodall, Paul Ehrlich, the Huxleys, H.G. Wells, Elizabeth Regina's husband, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates etc. humanely stress the reduction of humanity through weaponized serums, laboratory-fabricated viruses (pathogens), perpetual war, food & water shortages/rationing, de-industrialization & aborticides.
TheWorldFarOff 1 year ago
@TheWorldFarOff As Hitchens says, "babble, more babble"
Dahvood 1 year ago
Let's see how Hitchens handles his personal denigration in the next several months, after he's championed the denigration of Arab children from the comfort of his luxurious Washington, D.C. townhouse.
TheWorldFarOff 1 year ago
@TheWorldFarOff I'm wondering if you even know what denigration means
Dahvood 1 year ago
@Dahvood : Read, research, impress women.
TheWorldFarOff 1 year ago
@TheWorldFarOff Either you don't know what the word means or I wasn't aware that Hitchens championed the attack on Arab children's reputation from his luxurious Washington, D.C. townhouse.
Try degradation perhaps?
Dahvood 1 year ago
if people actually by this bullshit, well...it explains a lot about the way the world is these days. Hitchens is a horrible philosopher and thinker. He's just an egotistical prick making money off of secular politics.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
Atheism is a disease. It is a typo cancer. It kills the soul rapidly and makes you hate everything—everybody, especially religious people. Your soul becomes bitter full of hatred and your mouth full of poison/venom. It contaminates the world; it rejects reasoning it causes harm in the heart of little ones. Most of the time in the heart of ignorant/ irrational people. Atheists become irrational by it. LETS SAY NO to that cancer—toxic monkeys/apes.
Airlightf 1 year ago
There is no logic in asking the question "name a moral action that a believer makes that I could not make". CH's morality was clearly already defined before he made a conscious decision to be an atheist.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore
Atheism is a default. You don't make a conscious decision to be an atheist just like you don't make one to not believe in the loch ness monster.
Didn't you watch the video? "the atheist says that there is not enough evidence to believe".
Plain, simple.
Ebrainiac1 1 year ago
@Ebrainiac1 Atheism is much more than a "default" as you put it. Continual attempts to describe atheism as a "lack of belief in God" are incorrect as this position of thought is a manifestation of ego and the irreconcilable idea of the existence of reality outside of current perception. There is not enough evidence to believe in many scientific theories however they are accepted by atheists. Even plainer and simpler.
hdregmore 1 year ago
Atheism is "much more" than not believing in god? What dictionary or encyclopedia can you use to back that claim up?
Putting aside semantics, the fact remains that i see no adequate reason to believe the claim "a god exists". Apply to me any label you want, but that' where i stand.
You call my definition of atheism wrong, and back this up not with an entry in a linguistic source, but your own opinion? Plainer and simpler my ass, you're throwing my words back at me like an elementary schooler.
Ebrainiac1 1 year ago
@Ebrainiac1 Now the insults start. I returned your laughable notion of simplicity so you might learn that emphasizing a position does not make it correct. You can call me an "elementary schooler" (perhaps you mean scholar) if you like however neither does that help your argument. It actually reinforces the notion of egotistical behaviour driving the idea of atheism.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore
You want to shift the debate with hot button comments?
Nice try, but no thanks.
Do you or do you not have an excerpt from an encyclopedia or dictionary that supports YOUR personal definition of what atheism is?
Put up or shut up.
Ebrainiac1 1 year ago
@Ebrainiac1 Atheism is just an extreme form of arrogance. That is extremely evident. Even to the extent of making ludicrous comments like "put up or shut up".
To believe that it is limited to a disbelief is naive in simplicity.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore
I think asking someone to provide evidence for their claims is perfectly reasonable. Further asking someone to stop making claims found to be baseless is likewise reasonable. Do you have evidence that supports your arguments or not?
Ebrainiac1 1 year ago
@Ebrainiac1 You obviously have a problem with the definition of baseless as well.
Please read up on the subject and stop childishly demanding information.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore
Childishly demanding information? If it is childish to seek answers and understanding instead of being satisfied with not knowing, then i am proud to be childish.
Demanding evidence when presented with a claim isn't childish. It's what respectable scientists do and it's how progress happens. Why can't you accept this?
Ebrainiac1 1 year ago
@Ebrainiac1 Wrong again, I say childishly because it's only an infant who would demand information as you do.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore
Oh noes! The last thing i want to be is like an infant! If an infant does or thinks something then it must not only be repulsive, but wrong!
Comparing someone to someone else to invalidate their argument is not a valid form of debate.
Does it even occur to you that your tactics are dishonest and fallacious?
Ebrainiac1 1 year ago
@Ebrainiac1 You have no entrance into the meaning of "valid form of debate". Your arrogance belies ignorance.
hdregmore 1 year ago
You are desperate to feel accomplished and above other people. Your want for this overshadows your respect for people and knowledge.
When you call me ignorant and arrogant instead of addressing my points, you display desperation.
When you link the validity of my arguments to said perceived flaws in my character, you display desperation.
When you say "__ behaves like you do, so stop" instead of actually debating, you display desperation.
Will you pull out another fallacy or will you argue?
Ebrainiac1 1 year ago
@Ebrainiac1 What seems like "desperation" (as you continually state) is a call for the respect you talk about but do not afford to others. I have no desire to feel accomplished, I do not need to prove anything. Nor do I feel the desire to order others to prove themselves as you have done. the more you write the clearer your abusive intent becomes.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore
Did you even read what i accused you of? Are you blind to criticism? Let me spell it out:
YOU APPEAL TO EMOTION, NOT LOGIC
You don't give objective evidence. Your supports appeal to people's emotions, not basic logic.
I am trying to break you of this habit by setting a standard that emotional appeals cannot meet. Which would you rather have as a standard for truth: Facts and objective evidence or what simply feels right?
Ebrainiac1 1 year ago
@Ebrainiac1 You haven't even made a criticism towards an emotive post I have made. I have advised you of the meaning of the word "atheist" and you do not want to accept it. That's not my problem. I am trying to break you out of your habit of arrogantly demanding answers to basic truths that you obviously have no knowledge of. That is the pure logical fact of the matter.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore
Your posts aren't emotive. Your ARGUMENTS are.
Your arguments have an emotional, not factual appeal. How many times do i have to tell you this? (10 bucks says you'll throw the last sentence right back at me)
You've been trying to break ME of a habit? BULLSHIT! You just keep throwing my words back at me and insulting me. You don't care about me, you care about your own prejudices.
Again i ask, requesting a dictionary definition is arrogant? What universe are you from?
Ebrainiac1 1 year ago
@Ebrainiac1 Why do you persist with a dead line of argument? You have the definition I have given. If you don't like it, tough. My position is not emotive, it is REAL. You are a classic case in question and I need no more proof. You have changed your wording from "demanding' to "asking" in a vain attempt to save face. Quite laughable.
hdregmore 1 year ago
I persist with an argument? That's a distortion.
I have reasonable standards for accepting things, standards i absolutely won't give up based on personal attacks or appeals to emotion. Do you have a problem with non-faith based standards for truth? The world does not revolve around your beliefs.
.
I changed my wording, So what? You're nitpicking now, a non sequitur.
I don't demand or ask, i require. I require cold, hard, facts. That's how the world works, and if YOU don't like THAT, tough.
Ebrainiac1 1 year ago
@Ebrainiac1 Your standards are quite unreasonable. You accept multiple meanings of the word but stick to only the one you like. Your reasoning is similar to the argument of multiple Gods, if one exists the others don't. The dichotomy in your thinking is quite entertaining. If you don't like it, take it up with the billions who use it.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore
UNREASONABLE? Are you insane?
A DICTIONARY OR ENCYCLOPEDIA CAN CHANGE MY MIND. GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD!!
I Don't fucking care which group i belong to. I know what i believe. Sorting is secondary.
If not believing in god means i'm labeled as an atheist, i don't give a shit. If it means i'm labeled an agnostic, again i don't give a shit. Labels don't matter, CONTENT MATTERS.
.
"X believes it, therefore i should believe it" is bullshit no matter how you spin it.
Ebrainiac1 1 year ago
@Ebrainiac1 You say that labels do not matter however you will not accept my definition of atheism after admitting there are many such definitions. Fuck off and bother someone else.
hdregmore 1 year ago
Labels do not affect reality. You can call a cube whatever you want, it won't change the fact that it's a three dimensional polygon with six equal square sides.
Labels bend to suit reality, not the other way around.
I'm not in any way attached to the label "atheist".
That is what i mean by "labels do not matter", not assigning labels willy nilly based on what feels good like you do.
Fuck off and bother someone else? Whassamatter, getting tired of getting your ass intellectually handed to you?
Ebrainiac1 1 year ago
@Ebrainiac1 You are the fucking moron bothering me idiot. Either make a comment worthy of an answer or piss off.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore
Ooh, touchy touchy.
Fine then. I'll ask one more time.
Can you point to a dictionary or encyclopedia which supports your definition of "atheist"?
.
I hope you realize how pathetic you are if you can't even produce a simple dictionary that supports you.
It's all up to you now, will you make or break your credibility?
Ebrainiac1 1 year ago
@Ebrainiac1 I really don't want to argue with you. I have cited my definition for you, if you don't like it what can I do? My credibility is fine thank you however the longer you continue to deny the validity of my claim it becomes harder for you continue. You have 2 options now -
1) Accept the definition and leave it
2) Refute the specificity of the accepted definition with arguments relating to what it purports.
That's all you can do.
hdregmore 1 year ago
Your delusions persist?
You continue to chant that i have some sort of personal issue with the definition (as if that's going to make it true) to somehow render yourself immune from backing up your claims.
ALL I can do? Now who's talking false dichotomy?
.
Fact is, you don't tell me what to do. I can continue to say that a holy text is not valid evidence. I can continue to say that "everybody is doing it" is not a valid rationalization, and i can continue to call you on your bullshit.
Ebrainiac1 1 year ago
@Ebrainiac1 Fine, if you want to live in delusional denial that is your problem. How can you possibly say that a "holy text" cannot define a position in relation to God. That in itself is laughably arrogant. Then again atheism is all about denial. Your false ego refuses to accept information which threatens your sense of self importance.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore
Projection: The psychological mechanism of subconsciously crediting (or discrediting) another person with qualities or shortcomings which are in fact elements of one's own psyche.
.
Is your idea of argument insulting people with their own words? You wretched plagiarist.
Attacking me to support your own points and inflate your own self-esteem? Fallacious and despicable.
I refuse to accept information? WHAT PART OF "DICTIONARY OR ENCYCLOPEDIA" DON'T YOU GET????
Ebrainiac1 1 year ago
@Ebrainiac1 It is nothing like what respectable scientists do, it is what arrogant egotists do.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore
This proves how little you know about science and about the scientific method.
To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.
Distilled:
"You have a claim? Back it up with objective evidence and it'll be accepted." That's the polar opposite of arrogant.
Does that clash with your prejudices? Good.
Questioning everything isn't arrogant, it's good procedure.
Ebrainiac1 1 year ago
@Ebrainiac1 Now you attempt to lecture me on scientific methodology. How sad that you do not know the meaning of "arrogance" and that you demand information instead of politely asking for it. I suggest you change your attitude if you want people in debates such as this to take you seriously.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@Ebrainiac1 Please refer to the Śrīmad Bhāgavatam where an atheist is known as a - Heretical, hypocritical impostor, an unreferring, non-bonafide, jealous philosopher or false teacher. They cannot see anything beyond the jurisdiction of the subtle mind, intelligence or ego, but they are very much proud of their advancement in knowledge, science and material prosperity.
I have put up, now shut up.
hdregmore 1 year ago
Sorry, but you can't get rid of me that easily.
I said an ENCYCLOPEDIA or DICTIONARY with a definition of "atheist" different or more extensive than "one who does not believe a god exists".
You have given neither.
I'll provide some actually reliable sources since you seem so reluctant to do so.
"Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities."
-Wikipedia
"atheistic - rejecting any belief in gods "
-Princeton wordnetweb
A-, without, "theism", belief in god
Ebrainiac1 1 year ago
@Ebrainiac1 Is your problem reading or comprehension? I have cited my documented definition. The fact is there are many definitions of the idea. The one I have mentioned is used by over 2 billion people worldwide. Your credibility is zilch if you think Wikipedia is more reliable than acknowledged authoritative religious texts. Laughable.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore
Ad populum (2 billion believers = it must be true)
Ad hominem (linking my habits and personal beliefs to the validity of the evidence supporting the arguments i make)
Ad verecundiam (authoritative religious texts say it so it must be true)
Try not to use these logical fallacies from now on.
Now that that's out of the way,
YES, there ARE varied definitions of the word "atheist". If we can't agree on one, then why not stop using it as a blanket term and start arguing actual points?
Ebrainiac1 1 year ago
@Ebrainiac1 I use it because it is the oldest and most universal definition of the term. In regard to your Ad-bullshit remarks you should try making yourself understood in English before you attempt Latin.Finally in reference to your other arrogant remark, no I will keep using it for it is the cornerstone of the issue.
hdregmore 1 year ago
Using a definition because it is old IS bullshit. Definitions change. Opinions change. Facts, however, stay constant. Truth is not dependent on what a holy book does or doesn't have to say. Truth is not dependent on tradition or the opinions of billions of people. Tough toenails if you don't like not being in control of everything.
Regarding the latin, they are the names for the numerous logical fallacies you were using. If you can't accept when you are wrong, then YOU are the arrogant one.
Ebrainiac1 1 year ago
@Ebrainiac1 Again you have problems with comprehension. I wrote "oldest and most universal definition". Your statement on truth is a nothing more than a joke. Billions of people around the world accept scripture as the truth and you just cannot handle it. Childish statements like "tough toenails" do not change that fact. Accept it or remain in ignorant your arrogance. Yet again I ask you to try and make sense in English before you attempt to grandstand with irrelevant Latin argumentum.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore
I never said i have a beef with people believing. Ever. Did you seriously think i wouldn't catch that little straw man tactic?
I have a huge problem with you claiming that a something is valid simply because a lot of people believe it. Everyone in the world used to believe the earth was flat. (time doesn't matter, the point is still proven)
Childish statements? This isn't oxford, it's youtube, and in it anyone can emphasize any point in whatever way they want.
Ebrainiac1 1 year ago
@Ebrainiac1 Now you are hurling flat earth strawmen. It matters not whether it is Oxford or Youtube. Apparently you have decided that common decency is subjective to where you are. Make a point or go away, you are embarrassing yourself.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore
Flat earth straw man? Do you even know what a straw man argument is? It's making up a fictional claim that your opponent didn't make. I never said YOU thought the earth was flat. I can use the "if everyone jumped off a bridge would you do it too?" argument, but your point is already demolished.
Decency IS subjective both in meaning and existence. I'm not saying it doesn't help society.
Why do i have to make a point of my own? One doesn't need to contribute to be a critic.
Ebrainiac1 1 year ago
@Ebrainiac1 You don't have to lecture me on the "strawman" argument. The fact is you threw it to change the subject. You will have to just accept my definition. I know it is hard for your gigantic ego, but try it. "One doesn't need to contribute to be a critic. " is such a trite response. As for my point being demolished I'm afraid it looms towering over your lack of argumentative discourse.
hdregmore 1 year ago
Change the subject? I called you on your bullshit and got back to the debate. End of story.
I will "just have to" accept your definition? I'm afraid not my friend. You haven't met my (quite reasonable) standard of evidence: A semantic AUTHORITY like an ENCYCLOPEDIA or DICTIONARY.
.
"Does the dictionary support your definition?"
.
"OMG YOUR EGO IS SO MASSIVE STOP DEMANDING SO MUCH FROM ME!"
.
Your point of believing something because a lot of people believe it WAS soundly demolished. Get over it.
Ebrainiac1 1 year ago
@Ebrainiac1 You mean you tried unsuccessfully to get out of being wrong. Think about your assertions before falling over your ego for once. The fact that I am demanding to your intelligence speaks volumes about your understanding of the matter.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore
Me? Trying to get out of being wrong? Only in your delusional dreams amigo. If you give me a dictionary or encyclopedia entry supporting your definition, i will gladly concede defeat.
.
Why is it so important that i be arrogant and egotistical? Is your small-minded prejudicial idea of what an atheist should be so important to you? Do you want it to be true that much?
.
Do a few gears grind in your head because of the fact that i CAN be humbled by simple evidence? Again, that's good.
Ebrainiac1 1 year ago
@Ebrainiac1 You are not making any sense at all now. Your only line of argument is that my definition of atheism is emotive. In doing this you fail to understand that the term itself is emotive and deals with a belief system. Therefore how can the description of a position in regards to a belief not be emotional? Perhaps you have banana skins in your head to stop the violent egotistical sound of your pointless gear changes.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore
Eh, No. My point is that your evidence is emotive, It's appeal is that it FEELS right.
It is my duty as someone with an evidence-based standard to not care about the content of the argument being made.
.
Stop rationalizing and face reality: my rejection of your definition is based on the lack of unbiased semantic evidence supporting it, NOT because of personal dislike.
Ebrainiac1 1 year ago
@Ebrainiac1 It has nothing to do with my "personal dislike". We have already established that there are many definitions of the word. The one I have given you is universally accepted based on fact not emotion. Your recalcitrance just confirms it.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore
How many times to i have to drive it into your thick skull? Acceptance does not equal truth.
.
"universal acceptance"? Slow down here.
This is the progression of your "evidence" that your definition of atheism is correct.
.
A passage from a hindu text held sacred by roughly 1 billion people -1 billion believers - "billions" of believers - "universal acceptance".
Does consistency mean absolutely nothing to you?
No matter how many people believe it, it still doesn't make it true.
Ebrainiac1 1 year ago
@Ebrainiac1 How many times do I have to refer you to the definition I have cited before you accept it? If you fail to accept it then I really cannot help you and you are wasting our time. Please try to put your arrogant ego aside for a moment and contemplate the reasoning of your stance in relation to God. That atheism is restricted to one simple denial is just incredibly misleading.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore
More parroting. Can't you come up with any good material of your own?
Repetition is not an argument
"x believes it, therefore you should/therefore it's true" is not an argument.
My allegiance is to objective evidence.
It's not my fault you can't face reality and see that your reasoning is unsupported by evidence.
.
Okay then smartypants, what would you call someone who doesn't believe in god and doesn't make any claims on the subject, hmmmmmmmmm?
Ebrainiac1 1 year ago
@Ebrainiac1 In your case they are known as an "idiot". Now run along I am sure that you have a lot of God denying to do, and it is a such an intricately complex task for you.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore
It isn't that difficult really. In effect, other people do it for you.
People have the opportunity to bring sound evidence for god's existence forward, but they don't.
No reason to believe = no reason to believe. Not too brain bendingly complex.
Ebrainiac1 1 year ago
@Ebrainiac1 What nonsense is "no reason to believe". A belief admits of all degrees, from the slightest suspicion to the fullest assurance. Or do you have a problem with the definition of "belief" as well? It is the acceptance of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore
Now who's getting attached to definitions?
From the oxford english dictionary:
Believe (verb): accept that (something) is true or (someone) is telling the truth.
That definition you used smacks of butchery. Simply googling it reveals your silly attempt at quotemining.
Ebrainiac1 1 year ago
@Ebrainiac1 You idiot, I don't know why I am bothering with you. If an idea is proven first hand by evidence then it is not a belief it is a fact. Evolution is not a belief it is a fact, or are you saying that it is a belief?
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore
I'm an idiot? This coming from the guy who avoids dictionaries and encyclopedias like the plague?
We all know that assertion has as much weight and formidability of tissue paper.
A fact is an assertion. "X happened" is a declaration that has the possibility of being backed up by evidence.
"I hold the claim 'X happened' to be true" is a statement of belief.
Get it right. (copyrighted from parroting)
Ebrainiac1 1 year ago
@Ebrainiac1 How the shit did you get your name idiot. A fact is a statement or assertion of verifiable information. You really are annoying, first you want me to cite definitions and then when I do you accuse me of quote mining. How can you quote mine a definition dickhead? You are just looking even more foolish now.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore
Okay..
"I want you to cite definitions"
Nooooo, i want professional evidence. When discussing definitions, An excerpt from a dictionary or encyclopedia fits that bill.
By the way, you DID quote mine. The full definition is as follows:
"ASSENT TO A PROPOSITION OR AFFIRMATION, OR the acceptance of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge"
You chopped, you flubbed, you got caught.
You can't get out of a traffic ticket by calling the cop foolish.
Ebrainiac1 1 year ago
@Ebrainiac1 What you have quoted makes no difference to the definition. The presence of "OR" does not make one explanation incorrect, it describes various explanations. I really don't know how you can claim a definitive source or variation on a definition as having more weight than another. It is entirely dependent on the usage of the word. Etymology is obviously not your strong point Mr Braniac. As for the cop nonsense I think he would fine you for trying to park in an intelligence zone.
hdregmore 1 year ago
As man becomes determiners of truth, there is no differance between Christians and non Christians as in the knowledge of good and evil-this is relying on self and not on God. Christianity is not a faith of having a crutch but rather an absolute denunciation of self as righteous and only reliant upon God. As the knowledge of good and evil is sin-Christians tend to cleanse sin with sin
daveme7 1 year ago
@daveme7 but if there is no god then you'd have to conclude that evil and good are merely human constructs. You have to ponder the question of whether there is a god before you build upon that assumption and make inferences about what such a god wants.
fatmeteor 1 year ago
@fatmeteor Mighty big if. Do not have to conclude anything-there is a God-can I prove this? Nope-no one can. Why? Faith. Certaint6y in faith and knowledge from experiance cannot be communicated to anyone else exept for the Spirit of God. If you do not believe in God-I can do othing of myself to show you certainty in faith.
daveme7 1 year ago
As a Christian, I cannot say I disagree with this thought of morality and Christianity. There is almost no differance, though I have different reasons for no differance. I t5hink quite a few do not see how this is especially as it relates to free will. Sin is the knowledge of good and evil as God never intended man to be selfdeterminitive of sin and to act as asolute authorities over sin
daveme7 1 year ago
Atheism is not a belief system.
It is mental freedom.
The only freedom you will ever know....If you dare.
BCT071 1 year ago
@mongolenpup You're a pooh pooh face...
kusalaviro 1 year ago
ATHEISM IS AN UNBELIEF SYSTEM
what type of atheism are you into?
brambau 1 year ago
@brambau
system? but we are not organized, we are like cats, fucking impossible to herd them ... sheeps are much easier :P
AnimusRat 1 year ago 2
Actually, atheism is a concept that is a part of some other belief systems such as realism, humanism, and truth-seeking...ism.
camdawg7 1 year ago
I know there is no god
XtraordinaryMT 1 year ago
@XtraordinaryMT Me either...
kusalaviro 1 year ago