This is one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard. God doesnt "depend" on any perception to exist. Is your existence dependent on whether you are being perceived? If so, you just popped into existence the moment I read your comment and perceived you. Therefore, you do not exist outside of my mind. Watch out! I'm about to unperceive you, then you cease to exist again.
To Perceive - means to become aware of something. I never said we bring things in and out of existence. I am suggesting "if" god exists, god needs thinking minds to have the potential to become aware of god. If god didn't create thinking minds, it doesn't matter whether god exists or not, no one or no thing would ever know. Another example is just because "you" didn't know me you came across my post doesnt mean I didnt exist before that time, it ... cont
@benaberry "If god didn't create thinking minds, it doesn't matter whether god exists or not, no one or no thing would ever know."
Thats an assumption.....you believe that why? If God has untold power i'm pretty sure its a small measure to make other beings sense/understand His presence when He wants them to.
means that you were not aware of me. Therefor I had no impact or influence or anything towards you. So the same applies to god, without thinking minds whats the point of god, or more specifically a theistic god. A deist god I can possibly understand.
I thought you were making a different point, but I agree with that much. Obviously, if we have the ability to understand, know, and seek things with a conscious mind simply goes to show that God intended for us to know Him. Sounds like an argument more fitted for Christianity.
If there is no absolute moral value then how come rape is allways been a bad thing and loving your children is still good? Are you perhaps confounding morality wiyh social standards? I'll give you an example: morality says homosexuality is not normal, but our society accepts it today as normal, wright? Well, if it is normal, then how come gays are not accepted to donate blood? You see, social satandards are human creation and allways changing, but morality comes from God and isn
Oh dear Ozzyman and @Jim1905, I wonder who is playing the game of semantics here!! "A-Theist" - how do you define this term in the simplest way? There is an old song that proves true: "There is none so blind as he who WILL NOT see..."... I wonder...
Oh dear Ozzyman and @Jim1905, I wonder who is palying the game of semantics here!! "A-Theist" - how do you define this term in the simplest way? There is an old song that proves true: "There is none so blind as he who WILL NOT see..."... I wonder...
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 secular social perspectives
Funny how you trail Ravi videos haunting others who are 'intellectually weak' in Christ- like the ghost of Richard Dawkins.
You do not understand because you do not wish to. You do not want to acknowledge evidence that there is a God. You cheer the official (PhD's) Idiocy that the limited human man an rationalize, but when someone who realizes that they know little, and the little they know of God they use to defend Christianity- you are quick to dissect .
@TheAtheistOasis It was then in God's hands. And we did everything with prayer. And God was definitely honored. One Dr said there was no question this was a Hell Mary pass. (football analogy) They will forever be close to my heart. To God be the Glory
@TheAtheistOasis God send me the best of Drs. When I remember their faces and how sad they looked at me because I refuse to accept their diagnoses. And they said to me you have to make calls. I said the only call I'm making is to my God. And I walked away saying God did u hear what she TOld me. She doesn't know the God I serve. So, once they declared she had no hope.
@TheAtheistOasis In the supernatural GOd blessed me. Because I believe. 1 John 5:4 For whoever is born of God overcomes the world. Hebrew 13:5 And my god will not lieave me or forsake me. I have always kept God in its simplicity. I'm not into all these mathematics, science etc. One thing I am 100% sure of and that is that He is real. Thank you for being nice. = )
@TheAtheistOasis MY mother is old now. And i am grateful tht she was a great Santa Clause( wonderful memories.) I'm not here to prove anyone wrong. I'm here to share my testimony regarding MY God. When my daughter was taken by ambulance to the hospital. I am aware tht God has blessed Drs. with knowledge to help His children on earth. However when they told me that she only had one hr. to live. I refuse to believe or accept it. In the natural there was no hope.
@TheAtheistOasis thank you for ur kind words regarding my daughter's recovery. The bible does say tht we should know God individually. I know Him. When I called the name of Jesus He heard me. And honored my trust,faith and believe in Him. One of the best times of my life was thinking Santa Claus was real. Boy, How exciting. Then one day. I open this closet door before Christmas and I saw all these gifts. My heart sank. I never said anything about it.
@Ozzyman200 "Atheism is simply open-mindedness and common sense" if that isn't a used car salesman slappin on the "extras" label i don't know what is.....sure are adding alot to what atheist "means".
@Ozzyman200 true only by your own personal standards. I read the dictionary for my terminology of "atheism" and it says nothing about "open" ...nothing about "mindedness" in fact nothing to do with the mind at all except the assertion that "there is no god(s)" .......atheism is a minority by world standards and always has been so theres absolutely nothing at all "common" about it.....and the only "sense" involved is a personal case of senses.
If you only read the definition that is a good start, but only a start. Atheism allows both the possibilities of gods and no gods. It is not neccesarily the assertion there are no gods.
Atheism may be a minority, but then so are all religions. It is common sense simply because it fits the evidence.
@Ozzyman200 I would say that atheism looks simply at naturalist causation for its answers. That alone means it already preclude there is no god(s). If science cannot test for god(s)...how can one assert htere is not one there? Thats not common sense...at best one could assert agnosticism or just say "we don't know" and "science may never know for lack of machines capable of detecting such a powerful being".
Again, a strawman. I asked you to research, by at least reading wikipedia. Most athests don't make any such claim.
"at best one could assert agnosticism or just say "we don't know" and "science may never know for lack of machines capable of detecting such a powerful being"."
Exactly, the heart of atheism, agnosticism and science. Congratulations, you're an agnostic atheist, just like me.
@hexusziggurat atheism does not say there is no god! atheism is the assertion that there is no reason to believe in god as there is a lack of evidence. you prove the existence of god, then there will be no atheists. its that simple. learn your definitions for fucks sake. you are making the claim that there is a god and that the christian god is the only god, so you have to prove that is true. you cant say disprove it and if you cant, then there must be a god.
@GOOdGuyGreg1 "atheism does not say there is no god! atheism is the assertion that there is no reason to believe in god as there is a lack of evidence" you lack nothing unless you don't even know what the concept of God is....get the concept and you won't be lacking anything. The dictionary says time and again (unless those written by atheists who sneak in extra meanings). Atheism : The belief that there is no god(s). Scientism might say "there is not sufficient evidence".
@hexusziggurat "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities". there we go. the rejection of belief-not the assertion/claim that there is no god. its the stance that there is no reason to believe unless proven. every religious kook thinks that they have it right and that everyone else has it wrong. they think their scripture is correct. i have no reason to believe any of it
@GOOdGuyGreg1 "i have no reason to believe any of it" so you don't believe any of it....appple sure don't fall far from the tree.
"its the stance that there is no reason to believe unless proven" that is what agnosticism is &oddly atheists have been trying this trick for the past decade where they steal into the agnostic camp to somehow vindicate their position based on scientific beliefs. The BEST you could say is you don't know if you base anything on PROOF for yourself=agnostic
@hexusziggurat no agnostics accept that there may be a god and there may not be. they re on the fence. atheists say that since there is absolutely no evidence/no encounter, then we can assume that it is more plausable that there isnt a god, compared to the fictious creations of religion all over the world. atheists do not believe in any human created god. we couldnt possibly disprove the existence of god. but you cant disprove dragons can you? it is the rejection of faith.
@GOOdGuyGreg1 "atheists say that since there is absolutely no evidence/no encounter, then we can assume that it is more plausable that there isnt a god, compared to the fictious creations of religion all over the world. atheists do not believe in any human created god" which cannot be claimed unless you have personally exhausted every avenue of evidence. I don't believe in human created gods either. I am not on some saga to disprove dragons either. I have my proof.
@hexusziggurat atheism doesnt say there cannot be a god because it cannot disprove it. what is your point? you cant disprove many things. you cant disprove that zeus doesnt exist. the point of atheists is that the bible and other monotheistic creations, in many cases are inaccurate and the bible is an extremely evil creation. have you actually read it? the things in there are nonsensical. you say you have proof. what is yours? if you ve had a personal experience, why were you favoured?
@GOOdGuyGreg1 "atheism doesnt say there cannot be a god because it cannot disprove it. what is your point? you cant disprove many things." but we're not talking about other things here.
"extremely evil creation" where did you borrow you idea of what "evil" is?
"if you ve had a personal experience, why were you favoured?"
Thats a good question, of one i've asked myself many times. Do i think myself the only one privy to such things? definately not,special...nope. clarified-yes
@hexusziggurat "we re not talking about other things here"... are you actually retarded? if i asked you to disprove that that bigfoot exists, could you do it? No you couldnt. why don't you believe in bigfoot? because theres no evidence to show he exists. that is the athiest stance. i get my morals from the environment brought up in. i decide that genocide is evil. god condones it. therefore god is evil.
@Ozzyman200 "If you only read the definition that is a good start, but only a start. Atheism allows both the possibilities of gods and no gods. It is not neccesarily the assertion there are no gods." you must be reading an atheist dictionary.
"possiblity" of god(s) means you are more inclined to be Agnostic.
"but then so are all religions" at least they can easily agree that there is something more powerful than us, regardless of their interpretation on the manifestation.
I am simply reading a dictionary, which wouldn't hurt you. Your definition of agnostic is correct. I am an agnostic atheist as are almost all atheists.
@Ozzyman200 "I am simply reading a dictionary, which wouldn't hurt you." I use dictionaries on a regular basis......nice jab. Try to be a bit more nice, it wouldn't hurt you. So now you are meshing 2 worldviews...thats like saying "i'm an agnostic-theist" or better yet, a woman says she's half-pregnant. If you are undecided about God and "proof" would change your mind ...you are agnostic. If you say "there is no god(s)" thats atheist...and thats out of the dictionary.
"I use dictionaries on a regular basis". Again you make a claim that fits no evidence. You criticised me but as soon as you get it back you whine that I'm not being nice. Classic hypocrisy. If you want to be treated nicely, then start by being nice.
Again, look the words up. There is no contradiction between being atheistic and agnostic. If you think so, then provide evidence. Use a dictionary.
@Ozzyman200 agnostic:a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience
atheist:a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
subnote in atheism:Can be confused: 1. agnostic, atheist (see synonym note at the current entry ); 2. atheist, theist, deist.
@Ozzyman200 synonym:An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine.
They may have similar "notes" to a degree or perhaps even the same "feel" but they are most definately different.
You have done some very limited research, which is commendable. Still, you miss the point that according to the definitions, an atheist does not necessaraily claim there are no gods. I am an agnostic atheist for example.
@Ozzyman200 "atheist:a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."
too many entries explain this....its a given. You would literally have to find a specific dictionary (probably made by an atheist) to show something other than what "atheist" means. The new age atheist commonly tries to steal into the camp of agnostics to refrain from onus. as any tilt to "yes or no" implies concentric grouping. The only one who stays clear of onus is "i don't know".
The only solution is for you to do the research yourself. You don't get to define words however you want. Dictionaries define words. An atheist can indeed be one who claims there are no gods, or can be simply one who doesn't believe there are any. An atheist can also be an agnostic, as indeed I am. The two are not mutually exclusive. If you think so, then demonstrate this using a dictionary.
Perhaps this will help to explain it: Name an atheist.
@Ozzyman200 "You don't get to define words however you want. Dictionaries define words." and thats what i did....I READ A DICTIONARY!!!!!
thats what i posted right from the dictionary in my previous posts!!!
there was even a subnote that said "CAN BE CONFUSED" agnostic, atheist!!!!!!
definition:
An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine.
You still haven't done the basic research I asked for. You have only found one definition. If you want to know a definition, use a dictionary, don't be lazy.
I challenged you to name an atheist and you failed. You can't even name one?! No wonder you don't even know the definition of one.
@Ozzyman200 "I challenged you to name an atheist and you failed. "
I have 2 friends who are atheists, Rene & Andrew. Enough said. I have 2 friends as well who are agnostics, Raymond and Mike. They pretty much all agree on the definitions, if they didn't they would change what they call themselves. You can call yourself what fits a definition....OR you can change definitions to fit what you think you are.....but the latter isn't being honest.
@Ozzyman200 "I challenged you to name an atheist and you failed. You can't even name one?! No wonder you don't even know the definition of one."
I don't need to meet a prostitute to know what one is. I don't need to meet a murderer to know what one is. I don't need to meet a brick layer to know what one is. I don't need to meet an astronaut to know what one is.....do you see a trend there?
Name a famous atheist. You have a reputation for dishonesty, so you'll need to do better than that. You are desparately trying to change a defintion to try to win an online argument. hat says so much about you. And then you project very obviously. Look it up. If you really are right and all the dictionaries so wrong, then prove it. Name one if you can.
@Ozzyman200 "You have a reputation for dishonesty, so you'll need to do better than that."
Actually since i read the dictionary and seen that you've tried to enter in new ideas of the definition of atheism...i'd say you're the one being dishonest. I just wrote down what i read, nothing more...i even wrote down the footnote to the definition about where it says "can be confused:atheism, agnostic" and that was right from the definition!!!!!
Woody Allen, Bruce Lee, Peter Atkins, Richard Carrier, Barrack Obamma SR.
there lots, but regardless of who an atheist IS ...they are not the people that establish a definition. The definition of words come from differing sources especially when new words enter the arena of global communication....the largest difference about new words compared to words already established is that the word "atheism" has already been defined long long ago!!!
Woody Allen, Bruce Lee, Peter Atkins, Richard Carrier, Barrack Obamma SR.
there lots, but regardless of who an atheist IS...they're not the people that establish a definition. The definition of words come from differing sources especially when new words enter the arena of global community..the largest difference about new words compared to words already established is that the word "atheism" has already been defined long long ago!!!
Ravi Zacharias go forth in the name of Jesus. Isaiah 54:17 No weapon formed against u shall not prosper. Romans 16:20 And my God shall crush satan under ur feet. Romans 8:37 And you are more than a conqueror through Him who loves you. Joshua 1:9 So you will be strong and courageous, never terrified never discouraged, because our God is with you. Esther 9:1 And on the day ur enemies hope to overpower you, the opposite will occur And you will overpower them. 1 Corn 15:57, Eph 4:27, 1John 5:4 Amen
@TheAtheistOasis Prove to me that my prayers were not real when, in 2008 Drs gave my daughter 1 to live. God restored both my daughter's lungs. And Drs call it miraculous. And for the record I wasn't always a believer. To God be the Glory.
@TheAtheistOasis Christianity is real. Like God is. One thing everyone agrees with is that this world will one day come to an end. Show us a fossil of every single transitional animal that has ever lived on earth. To proof ur claim. What ppl don't understand is that faith and believe is what proves God exist. BEcause u will have a personal relationship with Him. God is not subject to higher authority. We don't have to prove God. BIBLe says if you believe....
@Ozzyman200 It's worse than that... Zacharias doesn't provide the evidence because he claims that it's the Atheist's job to disprove God... as if there's a single pre-law college freshman in the world that couldn't explain why he's got that backwards. Then he claims in this particular video (in Part 1) that he's going to address why Atheists have the burden of proof, and immediately leaves that on the table and never comes back to it. Clever trick, I'll bet he sells a lot of books.
@instereovideos He never claims that the atheist has to prove God doesn't exist, he simply says that the atheist also has to answer for some of the implications that would be true if there is not a god and I am convinced that if there is no god then good and evil are nothing more than imaginary ideas concocted by humans with no real value and I think that we can all agree that this is not the case.
@BigAl9432 No, I'm sorry, you didn't listen. He clearly says that the burden of proof is on the atheist to show that there is no God. And he's wrong... and so are you.
You are right about one thing: "If there is no god, then good and evil are nothing more than imaginary ideas concocted by humans."
But you are wrong that they have "no value." We concocted them because they have value TO US. We don't need imaginary beings to give us that value. We give them their value. Start thinking.
@instereovideos If you listen to the talk his exact words are "(atheists) have to find some answers as well". You also just admitted that good and evil are imaginary ideas so if something is imaginary it doesn't have value. And if society comes up with what is good and evil and who is valuable who's moral law and determination of worth are we to follow by and why? You will never get an absolute answer that applies to everyone in atheism and if it is true then you can't say that murder is wrong
You're confused. They're "imaginary" in the sense that they're not tangible things. But the feelings that we label "good" and "evil" are real.
The Christian idea of "good" and "evil" is that they exist separately from us. They don't. They are nothing more than our feelings about how others treat us.
They have value. You're just having a terrible time drawing the distinction between "value" as a magical concept, and "valuable to humans."
@instereovideos Using 'good' and 'evil' like that, is not using it in the moral sense, but the colloquial sense. Good like ice-cream is good. That may be true for me, but not for you.
Good and evil in the moral sense, is talking about a normative, not a descriptive. Normative as in how things 'ought' to be, not how they are. Descriptive is how they 'are', and is totally subjective. You talk of value, and say moral foundations are man-made, if so, you have really heard nothing RZ has said.
@DigitalDecadence I'm sorry, but you're trying to draw distinctions that aren't necessary in this argument.
My very point is that there is no "normative" sense that we can use "good" and "evil" in, because there is no "ought to be" outside of our subjective experiences.
You're missing the point by a mile and trying (poorly) to make me sound confused. The matter is simple. Good and evil do exist and they do have value. They just don't have supernatural value the way that you think they do.
@instereovideos If you say good and evil exist and they have value, and that there is no normative value other than what we subjectively assign them, then you believe in subjective morality - in which case you have no right to say that anything is evil and expect anyone to take that statement as anything other than your sole, singular opinion.
As RZ points out, some people eat their neighbours, others love them - do you have a preference? :)
My preference is loving my neighbor. Just because that's not written on a cloud doesn't mean that this idea has no value, or that I don't have the "right" to say eating my neighbor isn't moral. Rights, like moral values, are given to us by... yep... ourselves.
Do you really think that humans require a magical being to tell them what they should prefer with respect to their neighbors? I hate to insult, but you're starting to sound like an idiot.
I think that for morality to have ANY objective foundation, it requires God. You don't believe in objective morality thought, as you said it yourself, 'Your preference.'
So when someone rapes someone else, you can prefer they don't, but they prefer they do - and neither of you is more right.
I see you THINK that, but you have no basis for that.
It's OK that morality is just a preference. It doesn't mean that you or I can go out and do anything we want. We live in societies, and our actions have consequences. That's how "morality" evolved. You're implying that my understanding of this makes me less moral somehow. You're confused.
It's really the opposite. If you believe that things are only moral if "God" is real, then you're the one who has the moral issues.
@instereovideos Sure I have a basis for that, you own words, "My preference is loving my neighbor." if you admit that it's a *preference* then morality is subjective. That means anyone can do anything and no one has any authority to say otherwise. You say there are consequences, "Well, they will get arrested and put in jail." but that is meaningless. It's just saying, 'Might makes right.' It's not saying what is right, and why it's right. You have no foundation, as it's a personal opinion.
@DigitalDecadence I'm sorry, but you're missing the point so often, I don't know if we can finish this...
You're having the worst time drawing meaningful distinctions. Yes, morality is subjective for each individual. Yes, I can say that anything is moral... TO ME. I can't say what "moral" is to YOU.
You keep assuming that "morality" is some kind of living thing that exists on its own, and thus needs some supernatural author. It isn't and it doesn't.
@instereovideos You can't say what is moral to me, because you adhere to subjective morality. I adhere to objective morality. Most atheists also adhere to objective morality, so you are sort of off by yourself there, the issue is that your moral foundation is non-existent. So if someone rapes and murders your sister, you (who believes in subjectively morality) can say, "That was so immoral!" but the other person can say, "No, it was actually moral." and you are both correct. lol.
@DigitalDecadence No, that's incorrect. When you say that "most atheists adhere to objective morality," those atheists mean something different than you do (hence why you're having trouble drawing distinctions). They mean that since it's obvious that everyone can feel suffering, that there is an objective way to decide what we should and shouldn't do... YOU mean: that there must be a cosmic controller who decides for us. But you don't have any evidence for that.
@instereovideos Objective morality has no different meanings, it just means moral values and duties are independent of our personal beliefs on them. It has different foundations, which is where atheist and theist disagree.
You equivocate between general meaning and ultimate meaning. General meaning is day-to-day meaning in our lives and actions. Ultimate meaning is meaning given to us by our existence - on atheism there is no ultimate meaning, there is only general meaning.
@DigitalDecadence What you actually mean is: "I can't distinguish between its different meanings... I can only understand one thing that objectivity can mean."
I'm not equivocating anything, you are. Let me explain it for you one last time. By "objective," I mean, there is a simple, human method by which we can determine right vs. wrong. You mean, there has to be a magical, cosmic significance connected to a magical being.
My conception holds up under logical scrutiny. Yours doesn't. Period.
@instereovideos "By 'objective', I mean, there is a simple, human method by which we can determine right vs. wrong."
Objective: "Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."
If humans determine it, then it's subjective not objective. This is just basic English at this stage, I would encourage you to learn more about moral philosophy, and not to let this stop you from becoming a Christian. :)
Here's your mistake: You believe that if everyone dies, and that's it, then nothing matters... but things DO matter, while we're alive. It's wrong to rape someone's sister, because she suffers when it happens.
It's actually you who has no real basis for morality. By your logic, "God" could just change the rules tomorrow if he wanted to, and rape could be moral. By mine, rape would still be wrong. I think it's time you considered the absurdity of what you believe.
@instereovideos I am having difficulty in understanding how this view works in a practical way. If morality is determined by the individual, and is simply a human perspective, what happens when those perceptions contradict. For instance, I say it is wrong to rape, but what about the pedafile who believes he really loves the child he forces sexually, and sees no wrong? How is this determined? Is my perception more accurate than his? Accuracy is determined by the proximity to a fixed point.
@jensenc86 This isn't easy to get at first, so don't feel left out. Yes, morality is determined by individuals. But that doesn't mean that one individual can determine "morality" in the over-arching sense for EVERYONE.
Real, objective morality exists, but not in a magical, cosmic, or absolute sense. There is a reasonable way to determine how we should treat other people, based on a general sense of outcomes they prefer, demand or require, weighed in relation to consequences (continued)
(cont. from previous) to yourself and to others. It helps to understand that "rights" are not absolute things, but are a function of living in a complex society. For example, I'm free to pursue what I want, until that conflicts with something that you or someone else wants, and THEN we members of society have to make a rule or determination, written or otherwise understood.
The rapist isn't "wrong" in the absolute sense. But yes, you could say your perception is more accurate (continued)
(cont. from previous) in a sense. There is no "cosmic" way to show that the rapist is "evil," but there is a very simple, human way to decide that he is causing suffering to someone else, or is not harming his "victim" in some sense. This isn't an exact science, but that doesn't mean it is invalid. And it certainly does not suggest by default that "if we can't be exact, then morality must have a divine, cosmic author." WE are most certainly the author(s), (continued)
(cont. from previous) of this ever-changing, ever refined, social idea of "morality."
To understand, you are going to have to let go of your need for absolutes. They don't exist. There are no certainties in life, not even in science. That doesn't mean that we don't understand things by our applications of science. Like morality, science is "the best we can do with the information we have." No magical answers exist, but we've gotten this far as a species without them, and will continue to do so.
@instereovideos The issue I come to with morality not being an absolute, whether it is a standard from God or someone else, is that if morality is a "moving standard," and from what you have said, seems to be more preference than absolute...then what purpose are our moral standards? Is it for our survival as a species? Or something else? I am really just curious as to what yout think. I am also wondering if you could further explain what you mean by "real, objective morality exist"... cont.
@instereovideos "Objective" defined is: "of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality" or "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased" The way in which you are using the word "objective," to me appears to contradict the its own defintion fact that it is not external or independent of our own perception.
@jensenc86 Yes, that is one definition of "objective." But that pertains to being "absolute," which as I've said, morality is not. What I and other non-believers mean by "objective" is that there is an objective way to determine that our actions have consequences, and affect others who are capable of being harmed or experiencing suffering. This is not entirely subjective. Other people suffer whether everyone is subjectively aware of it or not. I'll elaborate further in message form.
@instereovideos "To understand, you are going to have to let go of your need for absolutes. They don't exist." which completely implodes your whole panorama of vindicating the atheist.....your statement itself PRESUPPOSES AN ABSOLUTE!!!!!! If absolutes "don't exist"....thats an ABSOLUTE!!!!!
@hexusziggurat Whoa, easy... you got way too excited there with all of your capital letters and exclamation points.
No, you're missing the point, and you're wrong. When I said "Absolutes don't exist," that means with respect to our knowledge. My claim is the same as any that I would make about a "God," or the "tooth fairy." Sure, I can't say absolutely, "Tooth fairies don't exist," but I can make a reasonable claim about their non-existence, just like I can with "absolutes."
can i ask if the historical Jesus is real or not? if he is just real and you don't need to answer what he claims to be. I need to know your first answer first.
@archangelcats I'm not sure why you are so interested in whether the historical jesus existed or not. We don't have incontrovertible evidence that he was real.... but even if he was, that wouldn't mean that the claims about him were true. What's more, even if the claims about him were true (the miracles, I mean), that wouldn't necessarily make him the son of a supernatural god who created the universe. Lots of people existed who supposedly performed miracles. So why do you care?
my friend. do you believe that he existed? that is the first question. so i ask do you believe he existed? we can expand on that after your answer. because there is really no point in discussion if people don't even believe he existed. To prove that Jesus didn't exist is the end of Christianity my friend.
@archangelcats I don't want to insult you, but you're kind of an idiot. Let me explain it for you again:
It doesn't MATTER if he existed. I don't care, and I'm not trying to cause "the end of Christianity," you dramatic weirdo.
The point is that there is no evidence to make me believe ANY supernatural claim, whether made about a real or a mythical person. Even if you could prove that Jesus did or did not exist, you haven't made ANY case for why someone should or shouldn't be a Christian.
My friend since you don't or don't want know if he is real or not then i completely understand why you choose not to believe. That is the first step. No Jesus means no Christianity my friend plain and simple. What he claims to be is another thing all together. Since for you it doesn't matter if he existed or not then we couldn't even get to step two. For us Jesus is the only thing that matters. So if you say it doesn't matter he existed then we have nothing to discuss. God bless
@archangelcats First, stop calling me "my friend." That's about the douchiest thing I've heard in a month. Just stop.
Gilgamesh was a historical person too... is that going to change your Christian beliefs?
You see? You don't care at all if Gilgamesh was real, because you don't have any reason to believe the myths about him. So no, I don't think you remotely "understand" why I don't believe, because if you had that capacity, you wouldn't be trying to follow this pointless line of questioning.
@instereovideos Believe me I understand you, more than you want to admit. what you are doing is but a little trifle compared to what i have done.
I pray that you will find your answers. I respect you for your courage. It makes me stronger for my convictions. Continue with what you do. I know our faith has been lambasted over the centuries and it only makes our resolve stronger. We need people like you to challenge us and make us better. May God bless you. .You can have the last word.
@archangelcats haha, I didn't realize until now, but I've talked to you before. Thanks for that "last word," that's really kind of you. You keep it stong, crusader. Don't let those pesky logical people deter you from being a moron ; )
@instereovideos So many Gods but here we sit and still dispute Jesus, not Gilgamesh, Zalmoxis Gargamel, Papa Smurf etc..Why such a desire to suppress such an individual as Jesus Christ? No other so called God proclaims what Jesus did. Gilgamesh was a so called demi-god and Zalmoxis though said to have come out of his cave after three years his death never confirmed. You need better arguments than these.
@giovanone Honestly, you need better grammar and communication skills, because I actually don't know if your comment is intended to agree with me or to refute me... When debating, it's always really important to be very clear and concise, otherwise people have no idea what you're saying. From your comment, I can't even tell if you're Christian or atheist.
I think it's more likely that you just didn't understand the gist of my comment to begin with. Read carefully, then reply carefully. Thanks.
Respond to this video... I was talking to you. Archangel is smoking you on your post and you cannot even answer his simple question. I'm Christian once a pagan good doer, haha. When debating a subject is good to know both sides. Being able to determine my belief should not discredit or yet disprove my argument. I was saying Gilgamesh stories exist but they don't compare to Jesus' claims at all. Elementary my dear!! I even added another story of Zalmoxis but I guess you didn't catch it.
@giovanone No, I wasn't trying to discredit your argument (yet). I didn't know what it was, because you typed it like a five year old.
Yes, Gilgamesh stories do compare to Jesus stories in the one respect that counts. They are both supernatural claims. There is no evidence for the "divinity" or supernatural status of Jesus anymore than any other figure.
So I guess no one was "smoking me on my post" after all. And seriously, don't say "Elementary my dear!!" ever again. Just don't...
@instereovideos LMBo at your last comment..You have it all wrong if you think Christians believe in Jesus because of his supernatural abilities. His powers confirmed his claim of being God. He preached love and repentance and proclaimed he was the God above all other Gods (idols). Being supernatural it's not what counts. You see, you have no idea. We don't need his birth certificate as much as you don't need your own mother's proof of kinship.
First, no, you don't have any evidence of any "powers" that some character named "Jesus" supposedly had.
Second, "powers," even if they were genuine, would not confirm any claim that he was "God." Someone making magic happen does not lead to the necessary conclusion that he is the son of a supernatural creator of the universe.
You're talking out in left field and it's just not working for you.
@instereovideos then you could reasonably claim that absolutes do indeed exist.....kind of just making suggestions to a possibility then. It like living in a world where you figure you could be right about stuff but not really ever knowing....so the only thing you could honestly say is "you don't know?" Personally i don't know if thats what boils down to the heart of what you're getting at. I don't want to be putting words in your mouth. In which case...i wasn't really wrong.
@hexusziggurat No, I can reasonably claim that absolutes do not exist, because yes... you're right about one thing... the only thing we can honestly say is "we don't know."
Wow, you really can answer your own questions. Congratulations, I think you've made progress today : )
@instereovideos "the only thing we can honestly say is "we don't know."" so we honestly know we don't know....therefor we know for sure we don't rerally know....once again an absolute arises. inescapable.
(continued from below) I can really tell that you're terrified of the notion that no one is out there calling the shots for humans. But you shouldn't be. Just because each person has his or her own separate "morality" doesn't mean that's useless. It has meaning in the CONTEXT of our interactions with each other.
Saying that there are consequences is NOT the same as saying "might makes right," because "right" is subjective also. Wow, you live in a magical world of false absolutes, don't you?
@Ozzyman200 - sometimes for some of us the pill of Truth is difficult to swallow. The taste of truth will not permit the pill to be ingested, and so we cannot grasp, rather, refuse to grasp what is plainly being stated. The Lord Jesus said it best (paraphrased) people love darkness, so they will not some into the light because it is not comfortable. I pray mind-sets will change before reality becomes too stark to refute and too late to accept.
@Ozzyman200 - sometimes for some of us the pill of Truth is difficult to swallow. The taste of truth will not permit the pill to be ingested, and so we cannot grasp, rather, refuse to grasp what is plainly being stated. The Lord Jesus said it best (paraphrased) people love darkness, so they will not come into the light because it is not comfortable. I pray mind-sets will change before reality becomes too stark to refute and too late to accept.
Lkisten to his answers. He never actually answers a direct question. He usually asks another questionor sidesteps. In the whole video, he never gives any evidence or reasoning to bakc up his claims. Watch them for yourself.
So you claim, but can you back this up with any evidence, or will you be like Ravi? There are a lot of pepole claiming there is such "irrifutable evidence", but no one ever presents it. If he were right, he could easily have given this evidence by now. Don't believe everything you hear. Listen to him for yourself, and think with an open mind. Really think and make up your own mind.
Never in my experience. Think of all the most famous atheists. None of them claim there are no gods, they just say they don't beleive their are any. "Can one prove that God isnt real?"
No, no one is claiming that. Theists are making the claim, hence the onus is on them to provide evidence.
Funny how you trail Ravi videos haunting others who are 'intellectually weak' in Christ- like the ghost of Richard Dawkins.
You do not understand because you do not wish to. You do not want to acknowledge evidence that there is a God. You cheer the official (PhD's) Idiocy that the limited human man an rationalize, but when someone who realizes that they know little, and the little they know of God they use to defend Christianity- you are quick to dissect .
@Ozzyman200 [cont.] (probably as you will dissect this message). If you really seek the truth, and not the flaws in attempts to explain it. You will see it. If you pray (whether you believe in God or not) God will reveal himself to you, it happens everyday. I hope you will choose life, cause even though you are living... you are dead. Satan comes only to steal and kill and destroy; Jesus came that you may have life, and have it to the fullest. Don't wait to see before u believe- u may be 2 late
Oh dear. Another propaganda victim. Think for yourself with an open mind. You make so many claims, but you never back them up. You think there is a god who gave you an intellect but didn't want you to use it. You are all fancy words, but you never get real and give any evidence. Here's my challeneg to you. Read your own comment, and find any reasoning you can't also apply to the Emporer's new clothes. You're so quick to dismiss reason, but open your mind, you'll be glad you did.
I find it annoying that we have to debate semantics over atheism, theism (did you know there is such a thing as agnostic theism lol). We should drop the labels. If you claim there is no God, then it must be backed up. If you claim that there is no good evidence for God and thus cannot believe, then no backing up is required. However, you can only dispute the theist and therefore cannot say God does not exist, which many atheists do.
"I find it annoying that we have to debate semantics over atheism," Yes, exactly. Pure samantics. This is why we have dictionaries.
"say God does not exist, which many atheists do." I strongly doubt that. Can you give an example of such an atheist?
"If you claim there is no God, then it must be backed up." As I've said, I don't make that claim. I'm an atheist. The theist does make a claim, and so should be able to back that up. Can you?
@Ozzyman200 Actually, Atheists do say that God does not exist, if you merely lack the belief, then you, rocks, trees, and dirt all have the same belief system. Congratulations, it took zero thought to be on your belief level.
No, look it up. Atheism can mean the belief there are no gods. More commonly it means the lack of beliefs. According to your petty insult you used less than 0 thought. Lol.
@Ozzyman200 Actually, if you'd get your head out of your butt and look. If you LACK A BELIEF, this means a rock lacks a belief too. Go ask a rock what it feels about God. It takes absolutely no thought at all to lack a belief. It's intellectual laziness and you can't deny that, unless you're just being an ass.
No, stop with the ad hominems, that's just a signpost saying even you know you're wrong. If you were right you would be able to present evidence, not just chuck insults around. Look it up. It takes 10 seconds online.
@Ozzyman200 - Well for me, the onus cannot be on the believer to prove God for God has not commissioned us to. The antithesis of God is to prove Him actually, for He says "Blessed are those who believe and Have not seen".
As far as evidence in man, I know many lives that have been transformed by God, I am but one. For me, I am talking about being changed from one moment to another by God power and love. From loving sin and feeling powerless against to hating it and having victory over it.
@Ozzyman200 If I make a claim and you say I am wrong, the onus is on you actually. You must prove me wrong.
If one believe's in God & the other doesnt, the only difference is what we believe but its belief all the same. So if by believing I am saying that God is real by not believing one is saying that God isnt real or that there are no gods. That has to be the premise of Atheistm, if not I would call it a profound joke. One must stand and be counted, be really wrong or really right.
@Ozzyman200 No, I would never try to prove God and I dont believe Christians should do that. If I believe in God, that is a statement of faith that cannot be proved. This vid is making an arguement for God and why one believes it is not a statement to prove God.
You are trying to make athiesm more than it is.
"unbelief in God or deities: disbelief in the existence of God or deities"
I don't think you read my post. It doesn't mention proof.
Oh no, not this again. Please, look it up, there are 2 definitions. Atheism can be either the belief there are no gods (strong atheism- these are almost non-existent) or the lack of belief in gods (weak atheism-I'm a weak atheist, as are many). You are trying to make atheism more than it is.
Agnosticism is separate from atheism, one can be both, one, or neither.
@Ozzyman200 I am thinking for myself instead of following the likes of Dawkins and Hutchins who are both self admitted "God haters". They have made their decisions based on emotional responses to that which they do not understand and emotional responses are almost always erred. I would follow Jesus Christ before either of them. Atheism is the most dishonest of all religions as God certainly cannot be disproved not will He ever be. At least agnostics are honest.
No. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any of the gods. Look it up for yourself, don't just believe what the likes of RZ say. Don't let your emotions think for you. Look at reality.
You claim that Dawkins is a self-admitted god hater.
Firstly, never say 'self-admitted', that's a tautology. This is how I know you're not thinking.
Secondly, back this up. Give me an honest quote from Dawkins where he says that. He said he doesn't. He can't hate what he doesn't think exists.
@Ozzyman200 Dawkins book 'The God Delusion' gives an account of his opinion of the God of the OT and it reveals his obvious hatred. Dawkins is an agnostic who according to him is an "practicing atheist in theory'. He cannot deny the existence of God with absolute certainty. Dawkins description is an emotional child like banter that none would argue that he has nothing but contempt and hatred towards the God of the OT.
Good, so you've corrected at least one of the errors in your last post. That means you can learn and that's a start. You were wrong to claim he said there was no god, he didn't. The God Delusion gives his real views. However then you lost it, by yet more ad hominems, which betray your hatred for him. Control your emotions, don't let them control your thinking. It's very noticeable that you keep on saying he's wrong, but you never step up and point out any flaws in his reasoning.
Also note, I challenged you to back up what you said with a quote, yet you didn't. As soon as someone asks you for evidence for a claim, you back down. That is a very obvious sign you aren't thinking. If you were you wouldn't have jujmped to a false conclusion and then when asked for evidence you'd have been right and so had some. Think before you post and you'll never get busted t]like that again.
No, look at the quote from wikipedia: "Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.". You actually posted it yourself, but didn't really read it. It does not say: "believing there is no God.".
If you read past the 1st sentence of the article you'll see a simpler definition: "atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist".
"... if he dismisses atheism, he dismisses the belief that there is no God. Therefore, he gives evidence that there is a God. "
Wrong:
1) Atheism is not necessarily the "belief there is no god"- I can't think of any atheist who claims this. Can you? Atheism is usually the lack of such a belief; simply keeping an open mind.
2) Merely dismissing something is very different from giving evidence. If he dismisses gravity, that's not giving evidence against it, it's just him talking.
@Ozzyman200 I see what you're saying, but what you're talking about is Agnosticism. The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god".
He does say purpose allot.
God depends of thinking minds to perceive him, therefore god is impotent without thinking minds, therefor god is not all powerful.
benaberry 6 days ago
@benaberry
This is one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard. God doesnt "depend" on any perception to exist. Is your existence dependent on whether you are being perceived? If so, you just popped into existence the moment I read your comment and perceived you. Therefore, you do not exist outside of my mind. Watch out! I'm about to unperceive you, then you cease to exist again.
PhilosophersCreed 4 days ago
@PhilosophersCreed
To Perceive - means to become aware of something. I never said we bring things in and out of existence. I am suggesting "if" god exists, god needs thinking minds to have the potential to become aware of god. If god didn't create thinking minds, it doesn't matter whether god exists or not, no one or no thing would ever know. Another example is just because "you" didn't know me you came across my post doesnt mean I didnt exist before that time, it ... cont
benaberry 4 days ago
@benaberry "If god didn't create thinking minds, it doesn't matter whether god exists or not, no one or no thing would ever know."
Thats an assumption.....you believe that why? If God has untold power i'm pretty sure its a small measure to make other beings sense/understand His presence when He wants them to.
hexusziggurat 3 days ago
@PhilosophersCreed
means that you were not aware of me. Therefor I had no impact or influence or anything towards you. So the same applies to god, without thinking minds whats the point of god, or more specifically a theistic god. A deist god I can possibly understand.
benaberry 4 days ago
@benaberry
I thought you were making a different point, but I agree with that much. Obviously, if we have the ability to understand, know, and seek things with a conscious mind simply goes to show that God intended for us to know Him. Sounds like an argument more fitted for Christianity.
PhilosophersCreed 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@benaberry "God depends of thinking minds to perceive him, therefore god is impotent without thinking minds, therefor god is not all powerful."
???
The power of a being doesn't hinge on whether another being can perceive that being at all. You'd be assuming that God couldn't choose otherwise.
hexusziggurat 3 days ago
Superb PWNage material! 3 major topics to ridicule! There's months of guff here :-)
calmreason 5 months ago
@instereovideos
If there is no absolute moral value then how come rape is allways been a bad thing and loving your children is still good? Are you perhaps confounding morality wiyh social standards? I'll give you an example: morality says homosexuality is not normal, but our society accepts it today as normal, wright? Well, if it is normal, then how come gays are not accepted to donate blood? You see, social satandards are human creation and allways changing, but morality comes from God and isn
thenetrider7 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Oh dear Ozzyman and @Jim1905, I wonder who is playing the game of semantics here!! "A-Theist" - how do you define this term in the simplest way? There is an old song that proves true: "There is none so blind as he who WILL NOT see..."... I wonder...
srilankan59 8 months ago
Oh dear Ozzyman and @Jim1905, I wonder who is palying the game of semantics here!! "A-Theist" - how do you define this term in the simplest way? There is an old song that proves true: "There is none so blind as he who WILL NOT see..."... I wonder...
srilankan59 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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 secular social perspectives
shieldsff 9 months ago
Funny how you trail Ravi videos haunting others who are 'intellectually weak' in Christ- like the ghost of Richard Dawkins.
You do not understand because you do not wish to. You do not want to acknowledge evidence that there is a God. You cheer the official (PhD's) Idiocy that the limited human man an rationalize, but when someone who realizes that they know little, and the little they know of God they use to defend Christianity- you are quick to dissect .
Omnipharious 11 months ago
truth transcends us. it cannot be explained human to human.
helpmetony 1 year ago
@TheAtheistOasis It was then in God's hands. And we did everything with prayer. And God was definitely honored. One Dr said there was no question this was a Hell Mary pass. (football analogy) They will forever be close to my heart. To God be the Glory
Godbtheglory1 1 year ago
@TheAtheistOasis God send me the best of Drs. When I remember their faces and how sad they looked at me because I refuse to accept their diagnoses. And they said to me you have to make calls. I said the only call I'm making is to my God. And I walked away saying God did u hear what she TOld me. She doesn't know the God I serve. So, once they declared she had no hope.
Godbtheglory1 1 year ago
@TheAtheistOasis In the supernatural GOd blessed me. Because I believe. 1 John 5:4 For whoever is born of God overcomes the world. Hebrew 13:5 And my god will not lieave me or forsake me. I have always kept God in its simplicity. I'm not into all these mathematics, science etc. One thing I am 100% sure of and that is that He is real. Thank you for being nice. = )
Godbtheglory1 1 year ago
@TheAtheistOasis MY mother is old now. And i am grateful tht she was a great Santa Clause( wonderful memories.) I'm not here to prove anyone wrong. I'm here to share my testimony regarding MY God. When my daughter was taken by ambulance to the hospital. I am aware tht God has blessed Drs. with knowledge to help His children on earth. However when they told me that she only had one hr. to live. I refuse to believe or accept it. In the natural there was no hope.
Godbtheglory1 1 year ago
@TheAtheistOasis thank you for ur kind words regarding my daughter's recovery. The bible does say tht we should know God individually. I know Him. When I called the name of Jesus He heard me. And honored my trust,faith and believe in Him. One of the best times of my life was thinking Santa Claus was real. Boy, How exciting. Then one day. I open this closet door before Christmas and I saw all these gifts. My heart sank. I never said anything about it.
Godbtheglory1 1 year ago
Atheism is simply open-mindedness and common sense. Atheists have always been persecuted by slick preachers like this.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ozzyman200 "Atheism is simply open-mindedness and common sense" if that isn't a used car salesman slappin on the "extras" label i don't know what is.....sure are adding alot to what atheist "means".
hexusziggurat 5 months ago
@hexusziggurat
And yet true. You can disgaree, but it's very noticeable and used-car salesman like of you to never give any evidence to back up your claim. Well?
Ozzyman200 5 months ago
@Ozzyman200 true only by your own personal standards. I read the dictionary for my terminology of "atheism" and it says nothing about "open" ...nothing about "mindedness" in fact nothing to do with the mind at all except the assertion that "there is no god(s)" .......atheism is a minority by world standards and always has been so theres absolutely nothing at all "common" about it.....and the only "sense" involved is a personal case of senses.
hexusziggurat 5 months ago
@hexusziggurat
If you only read the definition that is a good start, but only a start. Atheism allows both the possibilities of gods and no gods. It is not neccesarily the assertion there are no gods.
Atheism may be a minority, but then so are all religions. It is common sense simply because it fits the evidence.
Ozzyman200 5 months ago
@Ozzyman200 I would say that atheism looks simply at naturalist causation for its answers. That alone means it already preclude there is no god(s). If science cannot test for god(s)...how can one assert htere is not one there? Thats not common sense...at best one could assert agnosticism or just say "we don't know" and "science may never know for lack of machines capable of detecting such a powerful being".
hexusziggurat 5 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@hexusziggurat
"how can one assert htere is not one there? "
Again, a strawman. I asked you to research, by at least reading wikipedia. Most athests don't make any such claim.
"at best one could assert agnosticism or just say "we don't know" and "science may never know for lack of machines capable of detecting such a powerful being"."
Exactly, the heart of atheism, agnosticism and science. Congratulations, you're an agnostic atheist, just like me.
Ozzyman200 5 months ago
@hexusziggurat atheism does not say there is no god! atheism is the assertion that there is no reason to believe in god as there is a lack of evidence. you prove the existence of god, then there will be no atheists. its that simple. learn your definitions for fucks sake. you are making the claim that there is a god and that the christian god is the only god, so you have to prove that is true. you cant say disprove it and if you cant, then there must be a god.
GOOdGuyGreg1 3 weeks ago
@GOOdGuyGreg1 "atheism does not say there is no god! atheism is the assertion that there is no reason to believe in god as there is a lack of evidence" you lack nothing unless you don't even know what the concept of God is....get the concept and you won't be lacking anything. The dictionary says time and again (unless those written by atheists who sneak in extra meanings). Atheism : The belief that there is no god(s). Scientism might say "there is not sufficient evidence".
hexusziggurat 3 weeks ago
@hexusziggurat "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities". there we go. the rejection of belief-not the assertion/claim that there is no god. its the stance that there is no reason to believe unless proven. every religious kook thinks that they have it right and that everyone else has it wrong. they think their scripture is correct. i have no reason to believe any of it
GOOdGuyGreg1 3 weeks ago
@GOOdGuyGreg1 "i have no reason to believe any of it" so you don't believe any of it....appple sure don't fall far from the tree.
"its the stance that there is no reason to believe unless proven" that is what agnosticism is &oddly atheists have been trying this trick for the past decade where they steal into the agnostic camp to somehow vindicate their position based on scientific beliefs. The BEST you could say is you don't know if you base anything on PROOF for yourself=agnostic
hexusziggurat 3 weeks ago
@hexusziggurat no agnostics accept that there may be a god and there may not be. they re on the fence. atheists say that since there is absolutely no evidence/no encounter, then we can assume that it is more plausable that there isnt a god, compared to the fictious creations of religion all over the world. atheists do not believe in any human created god. we couldnt possibly disprove the existence of god. but you cant disprove dragons can you? it is the rejection of faith.
GOOdGuyGreg1 3 weeks ago
@GOOdGuyGreg1 "atheists say that since there is absolutely no evidence/no encounter, then we can assume that it is more plausable that there isnt a god, compared to the fictious creations of religion all over the world. atheists do not believe in any human created god" which cannot be claimed unless you have personally exhausted every avenue of evidence. I don't believe in human created gods either. I am not on some saga to disprove dragons either. I have my proof.
hexusziggurat 3 weeks ago
@hexusziggurat atheism doesnt say there cannot be a god because it cannot disprove it. what is your point? you cant disprove many things. you cant disprove that zeus doesnt exist. the point of atheists is that the bible and other monotheistic creations, in many cases are inaccurate and the bible is an extremely evil creation. have you actually read it? the things in there are nonsensical. you say you have proof. what is yours? if you ve had a personal experience, why were you favoured?
GOOdGuyGreg1 3 weeks ago
@GOOdGuyGreg1 "atheism doesnt say there cannot be a god because it cannot disprove it. what is your point? you cant disprove many things." but we're not talking about other things here.
"extremely evil creation" where did you borrow you idea of what "evil" is?
"if you ve had a personal experience, why were you favoured?"
Thats a good question, of one i've asked myself many times. Do i think myself the only one privy to such things? definately not,special...nope. clarified-yes
hexusziggurat 3 weeks ago
@hexusziggurat "we re not talking about other things here"... are you actually retarded? if i asked you to disprove that that bigfoot exists, could you do it? No you couldnt. why don't you believe in bigfoot? because theres no evidence to show he exists. that is the athiest stance. i get my morals from the environment brought up in. i decide that genocide is evil. god condones it. therefore god is evil.
GOOdGuyGreg1 3 weeks ago
@Ozzyman200 "If you only read the definition that is a good start, but only a start. Atheism allows both the possibilities of gods and no gods. It is not neccesarily the assertion there are no gods." you must be reading an atheist dictionary.
"possiblity" of god(s) means you are more inclined to be Agnostic.
"but then so are all religions" at least they can easily agree that there is something more powerful than us, regardless of their interpretation on the manifestation.
hexusziggurat 3 weeks ago
@hexusziggurat
I am simply reading a dictionary, which wouldn't hurt you. Your definition of agnostic is correct. I am an agnostic atheist as are almost all atheists.
Ozzyman200 3 weeks ago
@Ozzyman200 "I am simply reading a dictionary, which wouldn't hurt you." I use dictionaries on a regular basis......nice jab. Try to be a bit more nice, it wouldn't hurt you. So now you are meshing 2 worldviews...thats like saying "i'm an agnostic-theist" or better yet, a woman says she's half-pregnant. If you are undecided about God and "proof" would change your mind ...you are agnostic. If you say "there is no god(s)" thats atheist...and thats out of the dictionary.
hexusziggurat 3 weeks ago
@hexusziggurat
"I use dictionaries on a regular basis". Again you make a claim that fits no evidence. You criticised me but as soon as you get it back you whine that I'm not being nice. Classic hypocrisy. If you want to be treated nicely, then start by being nice.
Again, look the words up. There is no contradiction between being atheistic and agnostic. If you think so, then provide evidence. Use a dictionary.
Ozzyman200 3 weeks ago
@Ozzyman200 agnostic:a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience
atheist:a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
subnote in atheism:Can be confused: 1. agnostic, atheist (see synonym note at the current entry ); 2. atheist, theist, deist.
hexusziggurat 3 weeks ago
@Ozzyman200 synonym:An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine.
They may have similar "notes" to a degree or perhaps even the same "feel" but they are most definately different.
hexusziggurat 3 weeks ago
@hexusziggurat
You have done some very limited research, which is commendable. Still, you miss the point that according to the definitions, an atheist does not necessaraily claim there are no gods. I am an agnostic atheist for example.
Ozzyman200 1 week ago
@Ozzyman200 "atheist:a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."
too many entries explain this....its a given. You would literally have to find a specific dictionary (probably made by an atheist) to show something other than what "atheist" means. The new age atheist commonly tries to steal into the camp of agnostics to refrain from onus. as any tilt to "yes or no" implies concentric grouping. The only one who stays clear of onus is "i don't know".
hexusziggurat 1 week ago
@hexusziggurat
The only solution is for you to do the research yourself. You don't get to define words however you want. Dictionaries define words. An atheist can indeed be one who claims there are no gods, or can be simply one who doesn't believe there are any. An atheist can also be an agnostic, as indeed I am. The two are not mutually exclusive. If you think so, then demonstrate this using a dictionary.
Perhaps this will help to explain it: Name an atheist.
Ozzyman200 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ozzyman200 "You don't get to define words however you want. Dictionaries define words." and thats what i did....I READ A DICTIONARY!!!!!
thats what i posted right from the dictionary in my previous posts!!!
there was even a subnote that said "CAN BE CONFUSED" agnostic, atheist!!!!!!
definition:
An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine.
hexusziggurat 1 week ago
@Ozzyman200
definition:
An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings.
hexusziggurat 1 week ago
@hexusziggurat
You still haven't done the basic research I asked for. You have only found one definition. If you want to know a definition, use a dictionary, don't be lazy.
I challenged you to name an atheist and you failed. You can't even name one?! No wonder you don't even know the definition of one.
Ozzyman200 1 week ago
@Ozzyman200 "I challenged you to name an atheist and you failed. "
I have 2 friends who are atheists, Rene & Andrew. Enough said. I have 2 friends as well who are agnostics, Raymond and Mike. They pretty much all agree on the definitions, if they didn't they would change what they call themselves. You can call yourself what fits a definition....OR you can change definitions to fit what you think you are.....but the latter isn't being honest.
hexusziggurat 1 week ago
@Ozzyman200 "I challenged you to name an atheist and you failed. You can't even name one?! No wonder you don't even know the definition of one."
I don't need to meet a prostitute to know what one is. I don't need to meet a murderer to know what one is. I don't need to meet a brick layer to know what one is. I don't need to meet an astronaut to know what one is.....do you see a trend there?
hexusziggurat 6 days ago
@hexusziggurat
Name a famous atheist. You have a reputation for dishonesty, so you'll need to do better than that. You are desparately trying to change a defintion to try to win an online argument. hat says so much about you. And then you project very obviously. Look it up. If you really are right and all the dictionaries so wrong, then prove it. Name one if you can.
Ozzyman200 3 days ago
@Ozzyman200 "You have a reputation for dishonesty, so you'll need to do better than that."
Actually since i read the dictionary and seen that you've tried to enter in new ideas of the definition of atheism...i'd say you're the one being dishonest. I just wrote down what i read, nothing more...i even wrote down the footnote to the definition about where it says "can be confused:atheism, agnostic" and that was right from the definition!!!!!
hexusziggurat 3 days ago
@Ozzyman200 a few famous atheists:
Woody Allen, Bruce Lee, Peter Atkins, Richard Carrier, Barrack Obamma SR.
there lots, but regardless of who an atheist IS ...they are not the people that establish a definition. The definition of words come from differing sources especially when new words enter the arena of global communication....the largest difference about new words compared to words already established is that the word "atheism" has already been defined long long ago!!!
hexusziggurat 3 days ago
@Ozzyman200 @Ozzyman200 a few famous atheists:
Woody Allen, Bruce Lee, Peter Atkins, Richard Carrier, Barrack Obamma SR.
there lots, but regardless of who an atheist IS...they're not the people that establish a definition. The definition of words come from differing sources especially when new words enter the arena of global community..the largest difference about new words compared to words already established is that the word "atheism" has already been defined long long ago!!!
hexusziggurat 3 days ago
@Ozzyman200
Your an atheist.
benaberry 6 days ago
@benaberry
Yes, yes I am.
Ozzyman200 3 days ago
An atheist will always have an excuse. And will hardly never answer a question.
Godbtheglory1 1 year ago
Ravi Zacharias go forth in the name of Jesus. Isaiah 54:17 No weapon formed against u shall not prosper. Romans 16:20 And my God shall crush satan under ur feet. Romans 8:37 And you are more than a conqueror through Him who loves you. Joshua 1:9 So you will be strong and courageous, never terrified never discouraged, because our God is with you. Esther 9:1 And on the day ur enemies hope to overpower you, the opposite will occur And you will overpower them. 1 Corn 15:57, Eph 4:27, 1John 5:4 Amen
Godbtheglory1 1 year ago
@TheAtheistOasis Prove to me that my prayers were not real when, in 2008 Drs gave my daughter 1 to live. God restored both my daughter's lungs. And Drs call it miraculous. And for the record I wasn't always a believer. To God be the Glory.
Godbtheglory1 1 year ago
@TheAtheistOasis Christianity is real. Like God is. One thing everyone agrees with is that this world will one day come to an end. Show us a fossil of every single transitional animal that has ever lived on earth. To proof ur claim. What ppl don't understand is that faith and believe is what proves God exist. BEcause u will have a personal relationship with Him. God is not subject to higher authority. We don't have to prove God. BIBLe says if you believe....
Godbtheglory1 1 year ago
this gifted guy is amazing...just listen to the words.. such wisdom..
bradschmitt1990 1 year ago
this gifted guy is amazing...just listen to the words.. such wisdom..
bradschmitt1990 1 year ago
Zacharias is so quick to dismiss atheism but it's very noticeable he never gives any evidence for his claim there's a god.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago 6
@Ozzyman200 It's worse than that... Zacharias doesn't provide the evidence because he claims that it's the Atheist's job to disprove God... as if there's a single pre-law college freshman in the world that couldn't explain why he's got that backwards. Then he claims in this particular video (in Part 1) that he's going to address why Atheists have the burden of proof, and immediately leaves that on the table and never comes back to it. Clever trick, I'll bet he sells a lot of books.
instereovideos 1 year ago
@instereovideos
Yes, he comes across as a used car salesman. He's getting rich off the gullible. Sad to see.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
@instereovideos He never claims that the atheist has to prove God doesn't exist, he simply says that the atheist also has to answer for some of the implications that would be true if there is not a god and I am convinced that if there is no god then good and evil are nothing more than imaginary ideas concocted by humans with no real value and I think that we can all agree that this is not the case.
BigAl9432 7 months ago
@BigAl9432 No, I'm sorry, you didn't listen. He clearly says that the burden of proof is on the atheist to show that there is no God. And he's wrong... and so are you.
You are right about one thing: "If there is no god, then good and evil are nothing more than imaginary ideas concocted by humans."
But you are wrong that they have "no value." We concocted them because they have value TO US. We don't need imaginary beings to give us that value. We give them their value. Start thinking.
instereovideos 7 months ago
@instereovideos If you listen to the talk his exact words are "(atheists) have to find some answers as well". You also just admitted that good and evil are imaginary ideas so if something is imaginary it doesn't have value. And if society comes up with what is good and evil and who is valuable who's moral law and determination of worth are we to follow by and why? You will never get an absolute answer that applies to everyone in atheism and if it is true then you can't say that murder is wrong
BigAl9432 7 months ago
You're confused. They're "imaginary" in the sense that they're not tangible things. But the feelings that we label "good" and "evil" are real.
The Christian idea of "good" and "evil" is that they exist separately from us. They don't. They are nothing more than our feelings about how others treat us.
They have value. You're just having a terrible time drawing the distinction between "value" as a magical concept, and "valuable to humans."
Who determines moral values? We do.
instereovideos 7 months ago
@instereovideos Using 'good' and 'evil' like that, is not using it in the moral sense, but the colloquial sense. Good like ice-cream is good. That may be true for me, but not for you.
Good and evil in the moral sense, is talking about a normative, not a descriptive. Normative as in how things 'ought' to be, not how they are. Descriptive is how they 'are', and is totally subjective. You talk of value, and say moral foundations are man-made, if so, you have really heard nothing RZ has said.
DigitalDecadence 7 months ago
@DigitalDecadence I'm sorry, but you're trying to draw distinctions that aren't necessary in this argument.
My very point is that there is no "normative" sense that we can use "good" and "evil" in, because there is no "ought to be" outside of our subjective experiences.
You're missing the point by a mile and trying (poorly) to make me sound confused. The matter is simple. Good and evil do exist and they do have value. They just don't have supernatural value the way that you think they do.
instereovideos 7 months ago
@instereovideos If you say good and evil exist and they have value, and that there is no normative value other than what we subjectively assign them, then you believe in subjective morality - in which case you have no right to say that anything is evil and expect anyone to take that statement as anything other than your sole, singular opinion.
As RZ points out, some people eat their neighbours, others love them - do you have a preference? :)
DigitalDecadence 7 months ago
I know this is hard for you, I can tell...
My preference is loving my neighbor. Just because that's not written on a cloud doesn't mean that this idea has no value, or that I don't have the "right" to say eating my neighbor isn't moral. Rights, like moral values, are given to us by... yep... ourselves.
Do you really think that humans require a magical being to tell them what they should prefer with respect to their neighbors? I hate to insult, but you're starting to sound like an idiot.
instereovideos 7 months ago
@instereovideos
I think that for morality to have ANY objective foundation, it requires God. You don't believe in objective morality thought, as you said it yourself, 'Your preference.'
So when someone rapes someone else, you can prefer they don't, but they prefer they do - and neither of you is more right.
Good luck with that. :)
DigitalDecadence 7 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
I see you THINK that, but you have no basis for that.
It's OK that morality is just a preference. It doesn't mean that you or I can go out and do anything we want. We live in societies, and our actions have consequences. That's how "morality" evolved. You're implying that my understanding of this makes me less moral somehow. You're confused.
It's really the opposite. If you believe that things are only moral if "God" is real, then you're the one who has the moral issues.
instereovideos 7 months ago
@instereovideos Sure I have a basis for that, you own words, "My preference is loving my neighbor." if you admit that it's a *preference* then morality is subjective. That means anyone can do anything and no one has any authority to say otherwise. You say there are consequences, "Well, they will get arrested and put in jail." but that is meaningless. It's just saying, 'Might makes right.' It's not saying what is right, and why it's right. You have no foundation, as it's a personal opinion.
DigitalDecadence 7 months ago
@DigitalDecadence I'm sorry, but you're missing the point so often, I don't know if we can finish this...
You're having the worst time drawing meaningful distinctions. Yes, morality is subjective for each individual. Yes, I can say that anything is moral... TO ME. I can't say what "moral" is to YOU.
You keep assuming that "morality" is some kind of living thing that exists on its own, and thus needs some supernatural author. It isn't and it doesn't.
(continued above)
instereovideos 7 months ago
@instereovideos You can't say what is moral to me, because you adhere to subjective morality. I adhere to objective morality. Most atheists also adhere to objective morality, so you are sort of off by yourself there, the issue is that your moral foundation is non-existent. So if someone rapes and murders your sister, you (who believes in subjectively morality) can say, "That was so immoral!" but the other person can say, "No, it was actually moral." and you are both correct. lol.
DigitalDecadence 7 months ago
@DigitalDecadence No, that's incorrect. When you say that "most atheists adhere to objective morality," those atheists mean something different than you do (hence why you're having trouble drawing distinctions). They mean that since it's obvious that everyone can feel suffering, that there is an objective way to decide what we should and shouldn't do... YOU mean: that there must be a cosmic controller who decides for us. But you don't have any evidence for that.
(continued above)
instereovideos 7 months ago
@instereovideos Objective morality has no different meanings, it just means moral values and duties are independent of our personal beliefs on them. It has different foundations, which is where atheist and theist disagree.
You equivocate between general meaning and ultimate meaning. General meaning is day-to-day meaning in our lives and actions. Ultimate meaning is meaning given to us by our existence - on atheism there is no ultimate meaning, there is only general meaning.
DigitalDecadence 7 months ago
@DigitalDecadence What you actually mean is: "I can't distinguish between its different meanings... I can only understand one thing that objectivity can mean."
I'm not equivocating anything, you are. Let me explain it for you one last time. By "objective," I mean, there is a simple, human method by which we can determine right vs. wrong. You mean, there has to be a magical, cosmic significance connected to a magical being.
My conception holds up under logical scrutiny. Yours doesn't. Period.
instereovideos 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@instereovideos "By 'objective', I mean, there is a simple, human method by which we can determine right vs. wrong."
Objective: "Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."
If humans determine it, then it's subjective not objective. This is just basic English at this stage, I would encourage you to learn more about moral philosophy, and not to let this stop you from becoming a Christian. :)
DigitalDecadence 7 months ago
(cont. from below)
Here's your mistake: You believe that if everyone dies, and that's it, then nothing matters... but things DO matter, while we're alive. It's wrong to rape someone's sister, because she suffers when it happens.
It's actually you who has no real basis for morality. By your logic, "God" could just change the rules tomorrow if he wanted to, and rape could be moral. By mine, rape would still be wrong. I think it's time you considered the absurdity of what you believe.
instereovideos 7 months ago
@instereovideos I am having difficulty in understanding how this view works in a practical way. If morality is determined by the individual, and is simply a human perspective, what happens when those perceptions contradict. For instance, I say it is wrong to rape, but what about the pedafile who believes he really loves the child he forces sexually, and sees no wrong? How is this determined? Is my perception more accurate than his? Accuracy is determined by the proximity to a fixed point.
jensenc86 6 months ago
@jensenc86 This isn't easy to get at first, so don't feel left out. Yes, morality is determined by individuals. But that doesn't mean that one individual can determine "morality" in the over-arching sense for EVERYONE.
Real, objective morality exists, but not in a magical, cosmic, or absolute sense. There is a reasonable way to determine how we should treat other people, based on a general sense of outcomes they prefer, demand or require, weighed in relation to consequences (continued)
instereovideos 6 months ago
(cont. from previous) to yourself and to others. It helps to understand that "rights" are not absolute things, but are a function of living in a complex society. For example, I'm free to pursue what I want, until that conflicts with something that you or someone else wants, and THEN we members of society have to make a rule or determination, written or otherwise understood.
The rapist isn't "wrong" in the absolute sense. But yes, you could say your perception is more accurate (continued)
instereovideos 6 months ago
(cont. from previous) in a sense. There is no "cosmic" way to show that the rapist is "evil," but there is a very simple, human way to decide that he is causing suffering to someone else, or is not harming his "victim" in some sense. This isn't an exact science, but that doesn't mean it is invalid. And it certainly does not suggest by default that "if we can't be exact, then morality must have a divine, cosmic author." WE are most certainly the author(s), (continued)
instereovideos 6 months ago
(cont. from previous) of this ever-changing, ever refined, social idea of "morality."
To understand, you are going to have to let go of your need for absolutes. They don't exist. There are no certainties in life, not even in science. That doesn't mean that we don't understand things by our applications of science. Like morality, science is "the best we can do with the information we have." No magical answers exist, but we've gotten this far as a species without them, and will continue to do so.
instereovideos 6 months ago
@instereovideos The issue I come to with morality not being an absolute, whether it is a standard from God or someone else, is that if morality is a "moving standard," and from what you have said, seems to be more preference than absolute...then what purpose are our moral standards? Is it for our survival as a species? Or something else? I am really just curious as to what yout think. I am also wondering if you could further explain what you mean by "real, objective morality exist"... cont.
jensenc86 6 months ago
@instereovideos "Objective" defined is: "of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality" or "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased" The way in which you are using the word "objective," to me appears to contradict the its own defintion fact that it is not external or independent of our own perception.
jensenc86 6 months ago
@jensenc86 Yes, that is one definition of "objective." But that pertains to being "absolute," which as I've said, morality is not. What I and other non-believers mean by "objective" is that there is an objective way to determine that our actions have consequences, and affect others who are capable of being harmed or experiencing suffering. This is not entirely subjective. Other people suffer whether everyone is subjectively aware of it or not. I'll elaborate further in message form.
instereovideos 6 months ago
@instereovideos "To understand, you are going to have to let go of your need for absolutes. They don't exist." which completely implodes your whole panorama of vindicating the atheist.....your statement itself PRESUPPOSES AN ABSOLUTE!!!!!! If absolutes "don't exist"....thats an ABSOLUTE!!!!!
hexusziggurat 5 months ago
@hexusziggurat Whoa, easy... you got way too excited there with all of your capital letters and exclamation points.
No, you're missing the point, and you're wrong. When I said "Absolutes don't exist," that means with respect to our knowledge. My claim is the same as any that I would make about a "God," or the "tooth fairy." Sure, I can't say absolutely, "Tooth fairies don't exist," but I can make a reasonable claim about their non-existence, just like I can with "absolutes."
instereovideos 5 months ago
@instereovideos
can i ask if the historical Jesus is real or not? if he is just real and you don't need to answer what he claims to be. I need to know your first answer first.
archangelcats 5 months ago
@archangelcats I'm not sure why you are so interested in whether the historical jesus existed or not. We don't have incontrovertible evidence that he was real.... but even if he was, that wouldn't mean that the claims about him were true. What's more, even if the claims about him were true (the miracles, I mean), that wouldn't necessarily make him the son of a supernatural god who created the universe. Lots of people existed who supposedly performed miracles. So why do you care?
instereovideos 5 months ago
@instereovideos
my friend. do you believe that he existed? that is the first question. so i ask do you believe he existed? we can expand on that after your answer. because there is really no point in discussion if people don't even believe he existed. To prove that Jesus didn't exist is the end of Christianity my friend.
archangelcats 5 months ago
@archangelcats I don't want to insult you, but you're kind of an idiot. Let me explain it for you again:
It doesn't MATTER if he existed. I don't care, and I'm not trying to cause "the end of Christianity," you dramatic weirdo.
The point is that there is no evidence to make me believe ANY supernatural claim, whether made about a real or a mythical person. Even if you could prove that Jesus did or did not exist, you haven't made ANY case for why someone should or shouldn't be a Christian.
instereovideos 5 months ago
@instereovideos
My friend since you don't or don't want know if he is real or not then i completely understand why you choose not to believe. That is the first step. No Jesus means no Christianity my friend plain and simple. What he claims to be is another thing all together. Since for you it doesn't matter if he existed or not then we couldn't even get to step two. For us Jesus is the only thing that matters. So if you say it doesn't matter he existed then we have nothing to discuss. God bless
archangelcats 5 months ago
@archangelcats First, stop calling me "my friend." That's about the douchiest thing I've heard in a month. Just stop.
Gilgamesh was a historical person too... is that going to change your Christian beliefs?
You see? You don't care at all if Gilgamesh was real, because you don't have any reason to believe the myths about him. So no, I don't think you remotely "understand" why I don't believe, because if you had that capacity, you wouldn't be trying to follow this pointless line of questioning.
instereovideos 5 months ago
@instereovideos Believe me I understand you, more than you want to admit. what you are doing is but a little trifle compared to what i have done.
I pray that you will find your answers. I respect you for your courage. It makes me stronger for my convictions. Continue with what you do. I know our faith has been lambasted over the centuries and it only makes our resolve stronger. We need people like you to challenge us and make us better. May God bless you. .You can have the last word.
archangelcats 5 months ago
@archangelcats haha, I didn't realize until now, but I've talked to you before. Thanks for that "last word," that's really kind of you. You keep it stong, crusader. Don't let those pesky logical people deter you from being a moron ; )
instereovideos 5 months ago
@instereovideos So many Gods but here we sit and still dispute Jesus, not Gilgamesh, Zalmoxis Gargamel, Papa Smurf etc..Why such a desire to suppress such an individual as Jesus Christ? No other so called God proclaims what Jesus did. Gilgamesh was a so called demi-god and Zalmoxis though said to have come out of his cave after three years his death never confirmed. You need better arguments than these.
giovanone 5 months ago
@giovanone Honestly, you need better grammar and communication skills, because I actually don't know if your comment is intended to agree with me or to refute me... When debating, it's always really important to be very clear and concise, otherwise people have no idea what you're saying. From your comment, I can't even tell if you're Christian or atheist.
I think it's more likely that you just didn't understand the gist of my comment to begin with. Read carefully, then reply carefully. Thanks.
instereovideos 5 months ago
Respond to this video... I was talking to you. Archangel is smoking you on your post and you cannot even answer his simple question. I'm Christian once a pagan good doer, haha. When debating a subject is good to know both sides. Being able to determine my belief should not discredit or yet disprove my argument. I was saying Gilgamesh stories exist but they don't compare to Jesus' claims at all. Elementary my dear!! I even added another story of Zalmoxis but I guess you didn't catch it.
giovanone 5 months ago
@giovanone No, I wasn't trying to discredit your argument (yet). I didn't know what it was, because you typed it like a five year old.
Yes, Gilgamesh stories do compare to Jesus stories in the one respect that counts. They are both supernatural claims. There is no evidence for the "divinity" or supernatural status of Jesus anymore than any other figure.
So I guess no one was "smoking me on my post" after all. And seriously, don't say "Elementary my dear!!" ever again. Just don't...
instereovideos 5 months ago
@instereovideos LMBo at your last comment..You have it all wrong if you think Christians believe in Jesus because of his supernatural abilities. His powers confirmed his claim of being God. He preached love and repentance and proclaimed he was the God above all other Gods (idols). Being supernatural it's not what counts. You see, you have no idea. We don't need his birth certificate as much as you don't need your own mother's proof of kinship.
giovanone 5 months ago
@giovanone What you've said is circular nonsense.
"his powers confirmed his claim of being god."
First, no, you don't have any evidence of any "powers" that some character named "Jesus" supposedly had.
Second, "powers," even if they were genuine, would not confirm any claim that he was "God." Someone making magic happen does not lead to the necessary conclusion that he is the son of a supernatural creator of the universe.
You're talking out in left field and it's just not working for you.
instereovideos 5 months ago
@instereovideos then you could reasonably claim that absolutes do indeed exist.....kind of just making suggestions to a possibility then. It like living in a world where you figure you could be right about stuff but not really ever knowing....so the only thing you could honestly say is "you don't know?" Personally i don't know if thats what boils down to the heart of what you're getting at. I don't want to be putting words in your mouth. In which case...i wasn't really wrong.
hexusziggurat 5 months ago
@hexusziggurat No, I can reasonably claim that absolutes do not exist, because yes... you're right about one thing... the only thing we can honestly say is "we don't know."
Wow, you really can answer your own questions. Congratulations, I think you've made progress today : )
instereovideos 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@instereovideos "the only thing we can honestly say is "we don't know."" so we honestly know we don't know....therefor we know for sure we don't rerally know....once again an absolute arises. inescapable.
hexusziggurat 5 months ago
(continued from below) I can really tell that you're terrified of the notion that no one is out there calling the shots for humans. But you shouldn't be. Just because each person has his or her own separate "morality" doesn't mean that's useless. It has meaning in the CONTEXT of our interactions with each other.
Saying that there are consequences is NOT the same as saying "might makes right," because "right" is subjective also. Wow, you live in a magical world of false absolutes, don't you?
instereovideos 7 months ago
@Ozzyman200 No - I think he covered that. h[t]tp://w[w]w.youtube.c[o]m/watch?v=MNZHVdD0ocM :)
EZdrifter21 1 year ago
@EZdrifter21
No, that video doesn't cover that.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
@Ozzyman200 You are such a liar. He is not a coward.
Godbtheglory1 1 year ago
@Godbtheglory1
He never backs up his claims. He sidesteps the truth like a slippery car salesman.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
@Ozzyman200 Are u kidding me!
Godbtheglory1 1 year ago
@Ozzyman200 This session is a question and answers session, bro. Research more speeches he clearly gives evidence.
jshjamaarify 1 year ago
@jshjamaarify
I've seen a good dozen of them and he never does. Always skirts around it like a used car salesman. Watch them for yourself beforeyou decide.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago 11
@Ozzyman200 - sometimes for some of us the pill of Truth is difficult to swallow. The taste of truth will not permit the pill to be ingested, and so we cannot grasp, rather, refuse to grasp what is plainly being stated. The Lord Jesus said it best (paraphrased) people love darkness, so they will not some into the light because it is not comfortable. I pray mind-sets will change before reality becomes too stark to refute and too late to accept.
srilankan59 8 months ago
@srilankan59
"sometimes for some of us the pill of Truth is difficult to swallow. The taste of truth will not permit the pill to be ingested,"
That's why we have theists.
Open your mind, you'll be glad you did.
Ozzyman200 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ozzyman200 - sometimes for some of us the pill of Truth is difficult to swallow. The taste of truth will not permit the pill to be ingested, and so we cannot grasp, rather, refuse to grasp what is plainly being stated. The Lord Jesus said it best (paraphrased) people love darkness, so they will not come into the light because it is not comfortable. I pray mind-sets will change before reality becomes too stark to refute and too late to accept.
srilankan59 8 months ago
@Ozzyman200 ravi zacharias is not a politician, he answers any question presented him, he also doesnt just ask questions back like atheists do.
ganekelioque 7 months ago
@ganekelioque
Lkisten to his answers. He never actually answers a direct question. He usually asks another questionor sidesteps. In the whole video, he never gives any evidence or reasoning to bakc up his claims. Watch them for yourself.
Ozzyman200 6 months ago
@Ozzyman200
You are wrong.
perhaps you should ask him directly in an email.
I'm sure you will get an answer to your question.
Whether it is an answer you will accept, its up to you.
I can assure you this- I live in southern california, USA; there
is a radio program of him every sunday morning.
'Let my people think'. In this program he does give irrifutable evidence.
There are others that do also.
Omnipharious 11 months ago
@Omnipharious
"You are wrong."
So you claim, but can you back this up with any evidence, or will you be like Ravi? There are a lot of pepole claiming there is such "irrifutable evidence", but no one ever presents it. If he were right, he could easily have given this evidence by now. Don't believe everything you hear. Listen to him for yourself, and think with an open mind. Really think and make up your own mind.
Ozzyman200 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ozzyman200 You must be quick to do the right thing.
Omnipharious 11 months ago
@Ozzyman200
you can get the answers you are looking for from others if Ravi isn't cutting it out for you.
Omnipharious 11 months ago
@Omnipharious
No, so far there haven't been any. Can you give any?
Ozzyman200 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ozzyman200 but let me ask you this-
do you have evidence that there is no God?
Omnipharious 11 months ago
@Ozzyman200 Dont many athiest's dismiss God without proof? Can one prove that God isnt real?
Evidence for God in a mans life, is a man transformed. God doesnt ask believers to prove him but by a life that is being transformed by Him.
prn72271 11 months ago
@prn72271
"Dont many athiest's dismiss God without proof?"
Never in my experience. Think of all the most famous atheists. None of them claim there are no gods, they just say they don't beleive their are any. "Can one prove that God isnt real?"
No, no one is claiming that. Theists are making the claim, hence the onus is on them to provide evidence.
"Evidence for God in a mans life,"
How so? Can you think of any other explanations?
Ozzyman200 11 months ago 2
@Ozzyman200
Funny how you trail Ravi videos haunting others who are 'intellectually weak' in Christ- like the ghost of Richard Dawkins.
You do not understand because you do not wish to. You do not want to acknowledge evidence that there is a God. You cheer the official (PhD's) Idiocy that the limited human man an rationalize, but when someone who realizes that they know little, and the little they know of God they use to defend Christianity- you are quick to dissect .
Omnipharious 11 months ago
@Ozzyman200 [cont.] (probably as you will dissect this message). If you really seek the truth, and not the flaws in attempts to explain it. You will see it. If you pray (whether you believe in God or not) God will reveal himself to you, it happens everyday. I hope you will choose life, cause even though you are living... you are dead. Satan comes only to steal and kill and destroy; Jesus came that you may have life, and have it to the fullest. Don't wait to see before u believe- u may be 2 late
Omnipharious 11 months ago
@Omnipharious
Oh dear. Another propaganda victim. Think for yourself with an open mind. You make so many claims, but you never back them up. You think there is a god who gave you an intellect but didn't want you to use it. You are all fancy words, but you never get real and give any evidence. Here's my challeneg to you. Read your own comment, and find any reasoning you can't also apply to the Emporer's new clothes. You're so quick to dismiss reason, but open your mind, you'll be glad you did.
Ozzyman200 11 months ago 3
@Ozzyman200
I find it annoying that we have to debate semantics over atheism, theism (did you know there is such a thing as agnostic theism lol). We should drop the labels. If you claim there is no God, then it must be backed up. If you claim that there is no good evidence for God and thus cannot believe, then no backing up is required. However, you can only dispute the theist and therefore cannot say God does not exist, which many atheists do.
Jim1905 11 months ago
@Jim1905
"I find it annoying that we have to debate semantics over atheism," Yes, exactly. Pure samantics. This is why we have dictionaries.
"say God does not exist, which many atheists do." I strongly doubt that. Can you give an example of such an atheist?
"If you claim there is no God, then it must be backed up." As I've said, I don't make that claim. I'm an atheist. The theist does make a claim, and so should be able to back that up. Can you?
Ozzyman200 11 months ago 3
@Ozzyman200 Actually, Atheists do say that God does not exist, if you merely lack the belief, then you, rocks, trees, and dirt all have the same belief system. Congratulations, it took zero thought to be on your belief level.
xdairybastardx 6 months ago
@xdairybastardx
No, look it up. Atheism can mean the belief there are no gods. More commonly it means the lack of beliefs. According to your petty insult you used less than 0 thought. Lol.
Ozzyman200 5 months ago
@Ozzyman200 Actually, if you'd get your head out of your butt and look. If you LACK A BELIEF, this means a rock lacks a belief too. Go ask a rock what it feels about God. It takes absolutely no thought at all to lack a belief. It's intellectual laziness and you can't deny that, unless you're just being an ass.
xdairybastardx 5 months ago
@xdairybastardx
No, stop with the ad hominems, that's just a signpost saying even you know you're wrong. If you were right you would be able to present evidence, not just chuck insults around. Look it up. It takes 10 seconds online.
Ozzyman200 5 months ago
@Ozzyman200 - Well for me, the onus cannot be on the believer to prove God for God has not commissioned us to. The antithesis of God is to prove Him actually, for He says "Blessed are those who believe and Have not seen".
As far as evidence in man, I know many lives that have been transformed by God, I am but one. For me, I am talking about being changed from one moment to another by God power and love. From loving sin and feeling powerless against to hating it and having victory over it.
prn72271 11 months ago
@Ozzyman200 If I make a claim and you say I am wrong, the onus is on you actually. You must prove me wrong.
If one believe's in God & the other doesnt, the only difference is what we believe but its belief all the same. So if by believing I am saying that God is real by not believing one is saying that God isnt real or that there are no gods. That has to be the premise of Atheistm, if not I would call it a profound joke. One must stand and be counted, be really wrong or really right.
prn72271 11 months ago
@prn72271
You're confusing yourself. Think about it. You made the claim, so of course the onus is on you to demonstrate it.
"by not believing one is saying that God isnt real or that there are no gods."
No, I am not claiming that, and I've never heard anyone make that claim.
"That has to be the premise of Atheistm" No, look up atheism.
"One must stand and be counted, be really wrong or really right."
No, the beginning of wisdom is to admit one doesn't know. Better to keep an open mind.
Ozzyman200 11 months ago 2
@Ozzyman200 No, I would never try to prove God and I dont believe Christians should do that. If I believe in God, that is a statement of faith that cannot be proved. This vid is making an arguement for God and why one believes it is not a statement to prove God.
You are trying to make athiesm more than it is.
"unbelief in God or deities: disbelief in the existence of God or deities"
You are talking about agnosticism not atheism.
prn72271 11 months ago
@prn72271
"No, I would never try to prove God"
I don't think you read my post. It doesn't mention proof.
Oh no, not this again. Please, look it up, there are 2 definitions. Atheism can be either the belief there are no gods (strong atheism- these are almost non-existent) or the lack of belief in gods (weak atheism-I'm a weak atheist, as are many). You are trying to make atheism more than it is.
Agnosticism is separate from atheism, one can be both, one, or neither.
Ozzyman200 11 months ago
@Ozzyman200 He does and maybe you have deaf ears to the truth...
gallantentry 10 months ago
@gallantentry
Nope, and you can bet if he did he'd have presented it by now.
You have simply shut off your mind to atheism, and that's sad. Think for yourself.
Ozzyman200 10 months ago
@Ozzyman200 I am thinking for myself instead of following the likes of Dawkins and Hutchins who are both self admitted "God haters". They have made their decisions based on emotional responses to that which they do not understand and emotional responses are almost always erred. I would follow Jesus Christ before either of them. Atheism is the most dishonest of all religions as God certainly cannot be disproved not will He ever be. At least agnostics are honest.
gallantentry 10 months ago
@gallantentry
Evidently you're not.
"Atheism is the most dishonest of all religions as God certainly cannot be disproved not will He ever be."
Oh dear. Think about what you just wrote. Wrong on every count.
1) Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair colour.
2) Atheists don't claim there is no god. Dawkins has specifically said he doesn't claim there is no god.
3) If making such a claim is dishonest, then all religions are dishonest. Good point.
Think for yourself.
Ozzyman200 10 months ago
@gallantentry
No. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any of the gods. Look it up for yourself, don't just believe what the likes of RZ say. Don't let your emotions think for you. Look at reality.
You claim that Dawkins is a self-admitted god hater.
Firstly, never say 'self-admitted', that's a tautology. This is how I know you're not thinking.
Secondly, back this up. Give me an honest quote from Dawkins where he says that. He said he doesn't. He can't hate what he doesn't think exists.
Ozzyman200 10 months ago
@Ozzyman200 Dawkins book 'The God Delusion' gives an account of his opinion of the God of the OT and it reveals his obvious hatred. Dawkins is an agnostic who according to him is an "practicing atheist in theory'. He cannot deny the existence of God with absolute certainty. Dawkins description is an emotional child like banter that none would argue that he has nothing but contempt and hatred towards the God of the OT.
gallantentry 10 months ago
@gallantentry
Good, so you've corrected at least one of the errors in your last post. That means you can learn and that's a start. You were wrong to claim he said there was no god, he didn't. The God Delusion gives his real views. However then you lost it, by yet more ad hominems, which betray your hatred for him. Control your emotions, don't let them control your thinking. It's very noticeable that you keep on saying he's wrong, but you never step up and point out any flaws in his reasoning.
Ozzyman200 10 months ago
@Ozzyman200
Also note, I challenged you to back up what you said with a quote, yet you didn't. As soon as someone asks you for evidence for a claim, you back down. That is a very obvious sign you aren't thinking. If you were you wouldn't have jujmped to a false conclusion and then when asked for evidence you'd have been right and so had some. Think before you post and you'll never get busted t]like that again.
Ozzyman200 10 months ago
@Ozzyman200 From Wikipedia: Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
Basically, believing there is no God.
Therefore, if he dismisses atheism, he dismisses the belief that there is no God. Therefore, he gives evidence that there is a God.
bsgonlinegame 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bsgonlinegame
No, look at the quote from wikipedia: "Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.". You actually posted it yourself, but didn't really read it. It does not say: "believing there is no God.".
If you read past the 1st sentence of the article you'll see a simpler definition: "atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist".
Ozzyman200 10 months ago
@bsgonlinegame
"... if he dismisses atheism, he dismisses the belief that there is no God. Therefore, he gives evidence that there is a God. "
Wrong:
1) Atheism is not necessarily the "belief there is no god"- I can't think of any atheist who claims this. Can you? Atheism is usually the lack of such a belief; simply keeping an open mind.
2) Merely dismissing something is very different from giving evidence. If he dismisses gravity, that's not giving evidence against it, it's just him talking.
Ozzyman200 10 months ago
@Ozzyman200 I see what you're saying, but what you're talking about is Agnosticism. The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god".
bsgonlinegame 10 months ago