The theist are trying to rationalize their belief, the trick is knowing the rational. Then showing how it does not make sense. I have to admit, they appear to make sense at first, till I think about it.
I aint DUBBED athiest.. but come on people.. there HAs to be life some where else.. we are organisms living in a suitable environment from the sun.. its chemical. there are who knows how many suns.. there is no one GODLY person that created all this..if you wanna blame issues on someone that cant defend it.. blame it on the tree that spoke to you 5 minutes ago.. cause thats how crazy you sound..
If we can make a bible thumper know what it feels like to watch people fuck up the planet over a story book, maybe, just maybe, they'll realize there wasn't as much truth to that book they're holding either.
You know what I think is the problem? I think Pastafarians are too nice. The original point was that we wanted FSM creationism in schools, to be just as belligerent as creationists are, but we've become this anamorphic new age nicety-nice since then. We've lost our roots! I say we need to pick a book that is clearly fiction (I personally suggest HP) and be just as annoying and stubborn that THAT book is real; lobby to change laws, wage holy wars, wear sandwich boards, the works.
I believe in a God who personifies true love. Giving, loving, gracious, compassionate, free, and unconditional. Whenever I hear an atheist mock God, say God doesn't exist, God is bullshit, God is an illusion, a fantasy, wishful thinking... I just replace the word God with Love, and suddenly I just feel sad for these people. "True love doesn't exist. It's bullshit. It's an illusion, a fantasy. Nobody ever laid down their life for anybody out of pure, unconditional, self-less love." Just sad.
Why do you hate us so? You claim that the problem of religion is faith and hope. That is the point of it. And lets just say for arguments sake that I am wrong and there is no God (Lord forgive me lol) At least when I die, my last conscious thought will be that I will have life everlasting in paradise. Is that not worth dying for? And if you're ashamed of these tactics why bother? Why care? It is my own FREE WILL to do as I wish, not yours to define. I will pray for you and God Bless
@AndroxineVortex The problem with religion is not "faith and hope", the problem with religion is faith, as in "believing shit for no good reason". I'm interested in THE TRUTH, not your fantasies.
...especially when religion is so often used as an excuse to be really CRAPPY to other people.
Think of the wars that have been fought over religion, the people who have been killed because of it. Now try to tell me again that it's just harmless fun. RELIGION DOES HARM, that's why I fight it.
@BionicDance there is a lot of bs that goes on with religion but we cant blame "religion" for problems (mostly) but instead "people". People might say All Muslims should die because they are terrorists. Its just a small percent that are radical extremnists. The rest of them are peacefull. And believe me without my faith in God I would be a horribly corrupt person. I know who I am and without my faith I would probably be inprisoned for life. If anything my faith has made me stronger
@AndroxineVortex ...Exactly, any of those things you pointed out could be the real thing to be aware of and/or act on, hey, you're really hell-fucking solid, there.
@AndroxineVortex Oh, come now...that's just passing the buck. Are you telling me that these people would be doing what they're doing if they DIDN'T have religion as an excuse? If their religion didn't INSTRUCT them to do these things?
No. Religion creates prejudices and hatreds and jealousies that would not exist without it; religion is to blame just as much as the people who follow it. A benign religion would not have all this killing, bigotry, and harm attached to it.
@BionicDance You're right that some religions produce prejudices & hatreds, but the key word here is "some". Not all religions instruct their followers to go against people of other beliefs. In fact, very few religions encourage conflict. The ones that do facilitate bloodshed are usually followers of an extreme or twisted version, such as Osama's followers and the Crusaders. Not all Muslim people are out there to kill everybody non-Muslim, and not all Christians are killing for their God.
How about this: We let Atheists believe what they want to believe, and Christians/Catholics/Buddhists/Muslims/etc. believe what they want to believe and not have one party or religion attacking another based on what they believe. It's pointless.
@552Industries Won't work; it's built into religion that the world belongs to them, given to them by their god...and they have rules that are unacceptable. Live-and-let-live is not something religion allows for, so it HAS to be fought if we wanna live our own lives our own way.
@BionicDance As a *technical* atheist, not an *active* one, I just don't see why we have to fight. Are we being oppressed in any way? I mean, if judges are declaring Shari'a Law has no merit in state and federal law, what judge or legislation will say that Christian or any other religion's "laws" will have any merit that would in turn, oppress us?
@BionicDance That's a matter of civil rights. Sure, there may be religiously biased legislators and judges that believe that homosexual marriages are against their religion. However, when you compare the homosexual rights issue with the race issue a few decades ago, the same case occurred - Much of that discrimination based on race was backed with religious reasoning.
@BionicDance I do agree that some of these issues need to be fought, but just not on the religious front. Think about: we would be just as bad as them if we prevented them to believe what they want to believe. Specifically, I oppose PUBLIC funded stem cell research as well as abortion because I am a (rare) Atheist Conservative. (My opposition to abortion is not due to political party; I just personally believe it is murder in a person's most vulnerable state.)
@BionicDance First, I want to state again that I am an Atheist myself, and I know some backing of opposition to these issues is religion oriented, but we can't just strip them of their religion - they have a right to it. Yes, persuasion is an option, but that would make us just as bad as them. It's a tricky subject, especially when it brings the 1st Amendment into play.
@BionicDance Again, I want to state that I am making these comments with all due respect, and do not intend to oppress, discriminate, etc. I have NO problem whatsoever with you being a lesbian, and have NO problem whatsoever over your beliefs. (I just want to protect myself against some pretty hateful comments I see floating around YouTube and such.)
Thats because, the bible is set in stone for them and in many cases thats all the evidence they will ever need/want/accept.
To tell them they are wrong even if you give evidence is like threatening to take a sledge hamme to that stone, the end result being a lot of angry people with an excuse to attack you back.
Really I guess the point i'm trying to make is that simply telling these people they are wrong even with evidence will never work.
@sirAthrus Agreeing to disagree CAN'T happen; the religious have been told this world is THEIRS, that their god gave it to THEM.
Religion has to be neutered, demolished, destroyed, otherwise the rest of us will never be safe from it; the religious don't play well with others, they never learned to share...that's why it will ALWAYS be a fight.
@sirAthrus "That's great for them"...? *raised eyebrow*
No, I really don't think it is. Most religious people have some pretty specific ideas about how EVERYONE is supposed to behave, and they think they have the right to enforce it because their god gives them a mandate. I fight against religion because it looks like SOMEbody never learned to share.
So, no, it's NOT "great for them" to believe in god...it's AWFUL for the rest of us, and that's why it needs to be fought.
@BionicDance By that logic aren't you trying to do the same thing to them?
As an athiest you also seem to have some pretty specific ideas as to how THEY should behave because you think that scientific explanation gives you the right to?
By telling them how to behave you are doing exactly what they are, albeit with differant logic and motives but at the core it's the same more or less.
I have been told I'm going to hell for not believing but simply state:
@sirAthrus That's just silly; I have specific ideas about how they should behave because they're hurting people, not because of science. If they weren't hurting people, I'd have very little to say about how they behave at all.
You seem to have gotten exactly the wrong message from my reply to you, so please let this clarification modify your view of my position.
@BionicDance The actions of the few can't be held over the entire people.
There are a few stupid people in the world that use religion as a shield to cover their agenda's like the Taliban or the KKK of the westboro baptist church. But when you let those people poison you against what is usually a good set of people then you have lost.
The bible makes people feel that in the vast void of the universe there is someone watching over them and when someone says it's wrong they react badly.
@sirAthrus Until and unless religious people who don't condone the actions of the assholes who are on their side begin CALLING THEM OUT for their bullshit, they're at least tacitly culpable.
@BionicDance Perhaps, but in truth religion has been around for centuries and yes it's caused people to do some stupid things in the name of their God.
Atheists have only just popped up recently in large numbers and in that short time religious people feel like they have come under attack and need to defend their belifes because we keep telling them they're wrong
For example, you have solved a math problem and then someone comes over and tells you, you are wrong repeatedly despite what you say
Slow down, wait what? Why do you want to convince them that they are wrong? Who are you to hold your beliefs to be more than just right? That would be stooping to the level of people who harass us by shoving their religion down our throats and attack our conclusions aggressively. I would never wish that on another person because when I deconverted that's what I had to deal with for a month non-stop. It was intrusive and made it hard to live life the way I like to, doing hobbies.
everything in this world points out a miracle but u still ignore it. i am sure if u would be honest to urselves ,u can see that quantum pyshics or dark matter ,the meaningless of the word nothing in pyshics would show u the miracle. but no u have to choose to be an atheist because its easy .
what do I think? I think that this tactic is FUCKING RETARDED. Imagine there where like a houndered christians pointing at you saying "You don't believe in God? You must be a complete Moron!". Would even concider for a fraction of a moment the possibility of them having a point? NO! Neither does the Majority of your dumbass country when atheists (a roughly 10% minority) point and laugh at the majority. You make yourself look like the weirdos then.
You do know he addressed this the video directly that people DON'T want to listen to emotional appeals. Quite frankly though, I am a theist and I watch your videos for a good laugh....
@TheJesusKey The burden of proof is on you, the believer, to provide evidence that your assertion(s) - that a god exists, what that gods nature is and that it is, in fact, your Jesus (if you can prove Jesus existed).
For most atheists, having examined what little evidence there is, we conclude that you are wrong because the evidence does not support your assertion. We will believe if that evidence ever comes around. Can you say the same? No.
Frankly, I think converting the faithful is a non-issue. Their recruitment is falling, and the ranks of the fence sitters is growing. All I really care about is getting the true believers out of office, and in this regard, I have to admit that ridicule may be effective to some extent. Not for the reasons used in its defense , but simply because it plants the seeds of distrust in potential voters... it's negative advertising which drives the sway of god talk out of those in the voting booth.
@TheJesusKey Let's start over. Can you prove there is a God? No? Than why is it so outlandish for me to say there is no God, and really why do you still believe it? Is it because you don't understand science? Is it because you don't want to believe that when we die that's it? I wouldn't be so hard on religion if Theists weren't trying to spread their beliefs into the classroom. I gave you evidence that supports claims that are contradictory to the Bible. WOW, you Christians can be so ignorant!
@TheJesusKey :of course invisible pink unicorn is false god, only real god is Flying Spaghetti Monster. Deny it and you will be tortured for eternity in lake of extremely hot tomato sauce. Next point - I agree, absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence - but it makes believing in god really irrational. And lastly, I apologize. Yes, I shouldnt have said "there is no God". It is unscientific and I agree it was a fault. I should have said "there is no reason to believe there is a God". Sorry!
@TheJesusKey :YOU say positive claim (there is a God), YOU have to prove you are right. YOU have burden of proof. I mean, there is invisible pink unicorn on wall next to you. If you dont believe in him, you will go to hell. Of course he is not there, but PROVE it! You can not. Thats the reason the one who says positive claim. We can not disprove your god, its impossible. But we can destroy any argument for his existence and as a bonus, there is no evidence of his existence. => There is no God.
"The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead."
To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.
I am not going to believe in something with no evidence. No evidence means you need to justify your beliefs by faith, and faith is childish. Read carefully.
@TheJesusKey I will disprove theistic claims when you prove them. You follow along again. The neutral position is no God. You're skipping ahead to me making a positive assertion off of a positive assertion. If nothing else at all, my evidence is your lack of evidence.
@TheJesusKey You closed minded, 12-year-old, ignorant jerk! The burden of proof lies with who make the claim. I don't have to disprove God. You have to prove him. You haven't finished me off. Maybe you think you did, but you've denied all of the evidence that I ALREADY HAD. You misunderstood how science works. You insulted your Christian brothers by showing me that you have the intelligence of a cat! Abiogenesis has been proven! You don't know your evidence and the neutral position is no God!
@TheJesusKey - You are correct. a 'Gnostic' stance on either side, when it comes to "god(/s)" is (at least mildly) insane.
If (s)he's correct and 'god' is imaginary, it certainly couldn't prove that because imaginary things are completely intangible; and you can't disprove (or prove for that matter) the existence of totally intangible things.
@TheJesusKey I'm not her. My evidence was clear. Maybe not to you, but your head's clouded with God. You don't disprove a positive assertion! You only prove it! So far YOU'VE not given evidence of God: no reason to believe. You keep saying "you crushed my statements, you're done, WRONG!, or Ha! busted you" when even your arguments are flawed. You're closed minded, brainwashed, and rude to (up till this point) a polite person! Your statements revolve around false claims. Your God is immoral.
"You don't disprove a positive assertion! You only prove it! " What the hell is that???!! So we can't disprove the statements: "the world is flat" or "2+2=5" or "president Obama is 3 foot tall"
In fact, the whole scientific enterprise depends on falsification - the dispoving of positive assertions (or at least the possibility of doing so)
@bushfingers It would be up to you to prove that 2+2=5. That's how science works, and that information is incorrect until you prove it to be true. That's what @TheJesusKey misunderstood, and now he thinks he has me cornered with the circular logic that says "can you disprove him?" Well I actually can, if the Bible truly is took verbatim. Your God created the Earth about 6,000 years ago, but carbon dating proves that we have fossils much older on Earth, which Christians attribute to God.
@TheJesusKey No, we're not. You misunderstood once again. MY stage 2 is "here is a claim with evidence: aka proven," but yours is "here is a claim with none". Stage 3 is prove it. The one who made the first claim is the one who has to prove it: aka God exists. Your doubt is not reasonable, because you misunderstood so many things. Throughout this debate I have been called: thick headed, pompous, a sycophant, and childish. Hypocritical much? I've tried to keep my cool, but you crossed the line!
@TheJesusKey I have disproven it! You just aren't listening! The neutral position isn't based on evidence. Theories are based on evidence. Yes that was stupid of you. You took it the wrong way.
Stage 1: I don't know
Stage 2: Here's a claim that has no evidence (God/spaghetti monster)
@TheJesusKey God has had 2000 years to be proven and yet there is still no evidence outside of a book that says you can stone your own children to death. Aboigenesis and Dark Energy at least have a way to be observed.
"You cannot establish that no God is the neutral position"
The question which we are debating is, "How did the universe come into existence?" The neutral position is "I don't know (neither God nor Big Bang)" So use 6th grade science before saying something so stupid next time.
@TheJesusKey You DO NOT understand the scientific method. There is a neutral position that is that there is no God. God is an idea, he is an opinion. I don't need faith to believe that. You are saying that the neutral position is God ,when in fact, God is a claim. You may see it as a fact, but it is not, and it isn't a fact because there is no evidence. I'm telling you to prove it. You are telling me to disprove it. There is an invisible spaghetti monster in my back yard. Disprove that.
@TheJesusKey If you believe in Old Earth creation then you aren't a true, by the book, Christian. If God programs in the adaptations then he did one hell of a bad job. We breathe out of the same tube we eat with so that we can choke. That's not intelligent design. That's incredibly stupid design. What would a Christian accept as valid evidence, because all your arguments are "yeah, but what if that was God."? I will become a Christian in the blink of an eye if I just see some damn proof!
There is absolutely no conflict between science and religion. Most religious people believe in such things as the big bang and evolution. Abiogenesis (something coming from nothing) could possibly be seen as the work of god, no? You're all fucking stupid.
@endlessintertwined Abiogensis is not something coming from nothing; it's something changing. That's it.
And there is PLENTY of conflict between science and religion, because the religious insist "god did it" without EVER proving it, or even proving that there is a god in the first place. That's about as unscientific as you can possibly get.
@BionicDance Science has to do with method. How, and what happened. Religion, specifically the concept of God, has to do with the metaphysical meaning of things. No conflict. You do know monks and priests were the first scientists, right? The fathers of genetics and all that?
@AwesomenessVidStudio What do fossils, carbon dating, evolution, abiogenesis, or any of that have to do with "disproving" God? There is not, and will never be, a conflict between God and science.
@endlessintertwined Fossils show how evolution occurred as opposed to Adam naming the animals in the Garden of Eden. Carbon dating shows that some things even on this Earth are older than the Bible says the Earth is. Abiogenesis shows that life can come from non-life which further proves Evolution. And you said that there is no conflict between God and science? Come on. What do you think I'm doing here?
@AwesomenessVidStudio The Bible itself disproves it. It has two "theories" about the creation. It's all symbolism and allegory, anyway. Most christians believe in evolution. I would say the vast majority do. Do you really expect a thousands-year old book full of heavy, deep symbolism, mysticism, and mystery, on top of that which has been re-translated millions of times, and also the meaning of words changing over time, to be taken 100% literally? If so, you're just as bad as fundies.
@endlessintertwined Originally, the Bible was to be taken literally, but Christians got lazy. You can't pick and chose which pieces to take literally and which pieces are symbolism.
@AwesomenessVidStudio Are you so sure about that? Do you know anything at all about ancient Jewish mysticism on which fully half of the Bible is based? The Bible does have sections that are taken literally, and sections that are taken which symbolize others - much like every work of creativity in the entire history of humanity.
@endlessintertwined Which ones? The rapist must marry the seduced maiden Deut. 22:29 and He must not eat grape skins Num. 6:4. Honestly some of the stuff in the Bible is just Bullshit.
@AwesomenessVidStudio I see you're still stuck on the Old Testament. If you're not even going to bother doing basic research on the things you're trying to rip apart, it doesn't really bode well for your argument.
@endlessintertwined Your God is said to be omnipotent, so it doesn't matter if it was in the Old Testament or the New Testament. Alright, I'll give you some New Testament bullshit. Corinthians 11:14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him. (sounds like a certain messiah) Corinthians 11:19-24 commands a man should not go near a woman when she is on her period. Don't accuse me of not reading the Bible. I was a Christian for 20 years.
@endlessintertwined So you believe in God because you don't want to get a little messy? Aha! Everyone, you should be a Christian if you don't like getting dirty! Well, whatever floats your ark, and it wasn't the Red Sea anyways. It was the Reed Sea (a swampy marsh that constantly dried up then flooded back again). It got lost in translation. I quote your fellow Christian @TheJesusKey , "YOU LOST!"
@TheJesusKey If you say that we can't say "where is your proof there is a God" then you don't know how science works. You guys are the ones that made the claim there is a God, so you need to show the evidence to support it.
@TheJesusKey I"m saying that I have no evidence that there IS a god, so I have no reason TO believe...and if I don't believe, there is only one way to describe what I am: an atheist.
@BionicDance I"m saying that I have no evidence that there IS a god, so I have no reason TO believe
re u really sure? there is no evidence huh? u all just choose to be an atheist nothing more. wht is fuckin evidence? is it an equation? a feeling? wht do u search for? u dont think or u re not capable of thinking about this kind of things now ( i am sure there is no opportunity while trying to be seen as a cool atheist girl)
@esraretin Look up the words 'objective' and 'empirical'; that's the kinna evidence religious people need to present of their god before I'll believe. Same with a LOT of atheists.
@BionicDance just say what would it be like if there is a scientific evidence for god? i am afraid u will never understand that u have feelings for some kind of things. u can feel but u reject them why? 2+2=4 is that all? btw atheists neil turok said universe can not create itself from nothing .hawking was wrong there. u know wht mr neil said? he said it was good and smart mathematical trick but it wasnt true. its like trying to deny basic feeling using equations ,the GOD ALLAH.
« what would it be like if there is a scientific evidence for god? »
Then this god would have become subject to naturalist methods of investigation, and therefore per definition a natural phenomenon. That would be very interesting: the proof of extraterrestrial life that we've all been waiting for.
@XGralgrathor That would be very interesting: the proof of extraterrestrial life that we've all been waiting for.
i got it. but i think the answer is not natural methods of investigation. its thinkin about ur investigations. u re searching for beggining of the universe and seeing that the first time of big bang does not fit the rules of pyshics also smallest particules doesnt fit and u say .i can get only how does it work but no one clearly understand wht happens.u still ignore the magic
Well, not me personally: I lack the expertise. I'm happy to leave that kind of stuff to the experts, the people who have an intimate knowledge of physics, astronomy, and so on.
« big bang does not fit the rules of pyshics »
Of course it does. It's just that our knowledge of physics is incomplete.
@XGralgrathor Of course it does. It's just that our knowledge of physics is incomplete.
do u really think it will be completed. in hawking book there was something interesting. a mathematician proved that not every problem can be solved. i mean u cant know wheteher u re at a point that u can not go further anymore. u can search forever. but u cant know that the problem has no solution in any way.
Did I say such a thing? No, I did not. And from my later comments, you'll understand that Ì don't think there'll *ever* be an end to scientific inquiry: there'll always be more to know.
« a mathematician proved that not every problem can be solved »
Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. His theorem is basically proof that mathematical systems cannot be both complete and consistent at the same time: for all axiomatic systems, there'll be statements that cannot be proved using the axioms of the system, meaning that the collection of axioms necessary for a complete and consistent mathematical model is infinitely large.
@XGralgrathor there'll be statements that cannot be proved using the axioms of the system, meaning that the collection of axioms necessary for a complete and consistent mathematical model is infinitely large.
it seems really interesting to be proven.btw i tried to understand some math proofs but it seems really hard. i mean some of proven things by axioms already seems axiom for me.i can get them but i cant prove by myself.i wish i was that smart
It isn't, at least not for simple proofs. All it requires is a methodical approach. The basics of proving mathematical statements are usually handled in high school, with some elaboration in university, depending on the direction you take.
Saying "it's magic" explains nothing. It's worse than useless: it's killing the question before you can even ask it. It contributes nothing to anyones understanding of anything. It's exactly the reason why science came about: to get some *answers*, in stead of people saying "it's magic".
@XGralgrathor Curiousity doesn't stop just because *one* question has been answered.
yes u re rigth ,completely .anyway u can still ask questions while u believe in a religion or god. for me there is no reason to be an atheist in any case
No problem with that. Although I would caution you to check your beliefs against reality. It is my considered opinion that it serves to have ones beliefs correspond to reality, rather than them standing aside from it.
@XGralgrathor at the same i dont see any bad thing about calling big bang a magic. they still can search for it. for my personal belief they can never find an answer. of course im curious about it.
@XGralgrathor u may be at the point of seeing a supernatural thing (particules,first time of big bang) but u still say i must search further. for example assume that people managed a big bang ( it will never possible , because its out of rule)and created a small universe. can god still exist in this case? i think yes because u dont see the truth there were particules that do it. u still dont know who created them.
every equation needs god. this childish but basic knowledge of humanbeing.
« u may be at the point of seeing a supernatural thing »
You can't see or test or detect "supernatural things" in any way: they're supernatural.
« but u still say i must search further »
Of course. Curiousity doesn't stop just because *one* question has been answered. There are *always* more questions to make us curious. If you can simply turn of your curiosity by saying "it's magic", then you're spiritually dead.
« btw atheists neil turok said universe can not create itself from nothing »
Of course not. For something to be able to result in anything, it must already exist. For anything to result in anything else, it must already exist. Conclusion: something that does not exist *cannot* be *caused* to come to exist. It's called the Kalaam cosmological argument, and it proves beyond any doubt that no god created the universe from nothing.
@XGralgrathor ''The Kalām cosmological argument is a variation of the cosmological argument that argues for the existence of a personal First Cause for the universe''.(from wiki)
how could u obtain that God can not create universe from nothing.even hawking said god could be still creator even if universe doesnt need to be created!! (which is based on false equation as Neil TUROK)
u dont get the God parameter so u dont understand:) its diffirent. it changed everything. every equation needs it.
@XGralgrathor 1. Something cannot be created from nothing (this requires a logical proof in itself).
2. The god X is defined as the being which created the universe from nothing.
3. Therefore the god X cannot exist as defined.
its perfect example wht happens when u assume urself as a robot.all parameters has same qualificiation rigth? u can not even imagine wht the god would mean. its incredible. its not x its GOD.
I have *no* idea what you're rambling about. I doubt even you know.
I think you're commenting in some way on the Kalam argument from my previous post. I suggest you rephrase your comment to make it legible and intelligible.
I think logic will win. Though it may take a long time. I hope that by the end of this century that the religious will be a minority, and freethinking individuals will be the majority.
I think it's important that we laugh at the ones who strictly believe their truths and nothing seems to change their mind... so yeah, after logic and evidence fails, just laugh.
@PaleoSteno What winning logic will you use?? The logic that you have that proves their God doesn't exist?? The logic that you have that proves your worldview is the right one?? What is the "logic" behind logic that can't disprove a point, can't prove a point, but can only claim to be "logic"?? What is the power behind your logic?? There is none, it's a lie, and you suckers buy into it, hook line and sinker. And you think Christians are going to worry about people that naive laughing at them????
In ancient Rome, early Christians chose to be feed to the lions or slaughtered in the Coliseum rather than renounce their faith in God. Even when Europe became Christianized, Christians were tortured and executed if they dissented from the Church. Even today, Christian missionaries willingly go to countries where even mentioning the name of Jesus is punishable by death. If Christians do not fear death, do you honestly think they fear ridicule?
@BionicDance Peer pressure only works on the weak. People with strong convictions aren’t as pliable, especially when they grow up believing the entire world is against them and persecuting them in the first place.
If you base your beliefs on what other people think, especially how they think of you, then you’re not really the type who thinks for yourself, now are you?
@BionicDance It won't work for anyone who reasons through your arguments, or knows enough about their religion to be able to defend it. By the way, why do you guys still call yourself atheists?? Why not come out and admit that you're actually anti-theists?? Last question, and I don't mean to be offensive, but are you male or female??
@r3v3ng3ofthef4113n In my experience a majority of theists do not 'believe' as some may have done in the past. Dan Dennet has it correct when he says todays theist actually only believes in 'belief'. I've tested this hypothesis in a small scale and found more than 9 of 10 are indeed in this category.Thus when confronted with ridicule and derision, do in fact feel compelled to ponder convictions apparently firm.1 questioning a papal decree which hitherto would've been anathema to her. A 1st step.
Well I don't know what to say because I think it was logic, reason and evidence that got trough to me and I was a pretty strong believer at the time but now I am currently arguing with a theist where none of that is getting through to them.
I dont know if logic will ever win the day, but I am pretty sure laughing at them will not convince them, some of those believers endured quite a lot to cling to their faith. I assume that would just lead to the situation that they would be more cautious about whom they tell about their faith
I have started to find that asking them what they believe and why they believe it is enough to tie most of them in knots.
And the ones who have the pat answers are the terminally deluded. They are to be pitied [in private] and ridiculed [in public]
I justify this because every bible browser converted represents a chance that a child somewhere will not be mentally tortured by this insidious think called religion.
I agree with you, spider-girl. Different tactics, being non-offensive, telling them that the world is a beautiful place even without god, and that we enjoy life even without the need for any belief.
I’ve burned many bridges –smart, pretty and otherwise -- for attacking theists, crypto-zoologists, conspiracy theorists et al… I equate all of these quackeries with mental retardation proudly and unapologetically. Am I a mean drunk?
Love your stuff. LOVE THE SHIRT! Seriously, I wonder if some of the ridicule would get through to otherwise thick-skulled folks. Not sure if or when I'll try it... We'll see.
The theist are trying to rationalize their belief, the trick is knowing the rational. Then showing how it does not make sense. I have to admit, they appear to make sense at first, till I think about it.
CapQuacer 3 weeks ago
I aint DUBBED athiest.. but come on people.. there HAs to be life some where else.. we are organisms living in a suitable environment from the sun.. its chemical. there are who knows how many suns.. there is no one GODLY person that created all this..if you wanna blame issues on someone that cant defend it.. blame it on the tree that spoke to you 5 minutes ago.. cause thats how crazy you sound..
Myersjoemike 2 months ago
It is so easy to point and laugh. > ha ha ha ha > ha ha ha ha
mhayes38501 2 months ago
If we can make a bible thumper know what it feels like to watch people fuck up the planet over a story book, maybe, just maybe, they'll realize there wasn't as much truth to that book they're holding either.
DepressedAnnnie 3 months ago
You know what I think is the problem? I think Pastafarians are too nice. The original point was that we wanted FSM creationism in schools, to be just as belligerent as creationists are, but we've become this anamorphic new age nicety-nice since then. We've lost our roots! I say we need to pick a book that is clearly fiction (I personally suggest HP) and be just as annoying and stubborn that THAT book is real; lobby to change laws, wage holy wars, wear sandwich boards, the works.
DepressedAnnnie 3 months ago
Atheists have been using the "point and laugh" strategy for years.
LordDemosair 4 months ago
I'm an atheist and I think militant Atheism is completely the stupidest thing ever
Prounounced 4 months ago
@Prounounced Even stupider than polka music and Pauly Shore movies? Come ON! *rolls eyes*
BionicDance 4 months ago
@BionicDance some polka music can be ok
Prounounced 4 months ago
I believe in a God who personifies true love. Giving, loving, gracious, compassionate, free, and unconditional. Whenever I hear an atheist mock God, say God doesn't exist, God is bullshit, God is an illusion, a fantasy, wishful thinking... I just replace the word God with Love, and suddenly I just feel sad for these people. "True love doesn't exist. It's bullshit. It's an illusion, a fantasy. Nobody ever laid down their life for anybody out of pure, unconditional, self-less love." Just sad.
kevnar 5 months ago
@kevnar Except that love DOES exist; god is imaginary, but there IS love.
BionicDance 5 months ago 2
@BionicDance If I can't hold love in my hand, it's all in my head.
marasu66 4 weeks ago
@marasu66 ...isn't it?
If love is in your hand, chances are good you're watching porn. ;)
BionicDance 4 weeks ago 2
im sorry to say this but the only way to make religen to go away with out very slowly converting poeple and leting the died hard died off is war...
grunt03033 6 months ago
Why do you hate us so? You claim that the problem of religion is faith and hope. That is the point of it. And lets just say for arguments sake that I am wrong and there is no God (Lord forgive me lol) At least when I die, my last conscious thought will be that I will have life everlasting in paradise. Is that not worth dying for? And if you're ashamed of these tactics why bother? Why care? It is my own FREE WILL to do as I wish, not yours to define. I will pray for you and God Bless
AndroxineVortex 6 months ago
@AndroxineVortex The problem with religion is not "faith and hope", the problem with religion is faith, as in "believing shit for no good reason". I'm interested in THE TRUTH, not your fantasies.
...especially when religion is so often used as an excuse to be really CRAPPY to other people.
Think of the wars that have been fought over religion, the people who have been killed because of it. Now try to tell me again that it's just harmless fun. RELIGION DOES HARM, that's why I fight it.
BionicDance 6 months ago
@BionicDance there is a lot of bs that goes on with religion but we cant blame "religion" for problems (mostly) but instead "people". People might say All Muslims should die because they are terrorists. Its just a small percent that are radical extremnists. The rest of them are peacefull. And believe me without my faith in God I would be a horribly corrupt person. I know who I am and without my faith I would probably be inprisoned for life. If anything my faith has made me stronger
AndroxineVortex 6 months ago
@AndroxineVortex ...Exactly, any of those things you pointed out could be the real thing to be aware of and/or act on, hey, you're really hell-fucking solid, there.
meteosurreal 5 months ago
@AndroxineVortex Oh, come now...that's just passing the buck. Are you telling me that these people would be doing what they're doing if they DIDN'T have religion as an excuse? If their religion didn't INSTRUCT them to do these things?
No. Religion creates prejudices and hatreds and jealousies that would not exist without it; religion is to blame just as much as the people who follow it. A benign religion would not have all this killing, bigotry, and harm attached to it.
BionicDance 6 months ago
@BionicDance You're right that some religions produce prejudices & hatreds, but the key word here is "some". Not all religions instruct their followers to go against people of other beliefs. In fact, very few religions encourage conflict. The ones that do facilitate bloodshed are usually followers of an extreme or twisted version, such as Osama's followers and the Crusaders. Not all Muslim people are out there to kill everybody non-Muslim, and not all Christians are killing for their God.
JGAO93 2 months ago
@AndroxineVortex im pretty sure we dont like the wars and mass suicides it can sumtimes cause but i see ur point.
dragonup56 6 months ago
@AndroxineVortex Yeah your last thoughts will be A FUCKING LIE.
Exactly what the hell part of that doesn't bother you?
Herufaia 6 months ago
@Herufaia It dosen't bother me because I know it isn't
AndroxineVortex 6 months ago
How about this: We let Atheists believe what they want to believe, and Christians/Catholics/Buddhists/Muslims/etc. believe what they want to believe and not have one party or religion attacking another based on what they believe. It's pointless.
552Industries 6 months ago
@552Industries Won't work; it's built into religion that the world belongs to them, given to them by their god...and they have rules that are unacceptable. Live-and-let-live is not something religion allows for, so it HAS to be fought if we wanna live our own lives our own way.
BionicDance 6 months ago
@BionicDance As a *technical* atheist, not an *active* one, I just don't see why we have to fight. Are we being oppressed in any way? I mean, if judges are declaring Shari'a Law has no merit in state and federal law, what judge or legislation will say that Christian or any other religion's "laws" will have any merit that would in turn, oppress us?
552Industries 6 months ago
@552Industries I'm a lesbian...STILL can't get married. And don't kid yourself that the objections to gay marriage aren't religious.
BionicDance 6 months ago
@BionicDance That's a matter of civil rights. Sure, there may be religiously biased legislators and judges that believe that homosexual marriages are against their religion. However, when you compare the homosexual rights issue with the race issue a few decades ago, the same case occurred - Much of that discrimination based on race was backed with religious reasoning.
552Industries 6 months ago
@552Industries Stem cell research too. Again, religion. Abortion rights; religion.
Etc, etc.
Religion pokes its nose in everyone else's business, and it needs to be fought.
BionicDance 6 months ago
@BionicDance I do agree that some of these issues need to be fought, but just not on the religious front. Think about: we would be just as bad as them if we prevented them to believe what they want to believe. Specifically, I oppose PUBLIC funded stem cell research as well as abortion because I am a (rare) Atheist Conservative. (My opposition to abortion is not due to political party; I just personally believe it is murder in a person's most vulnerable state.)
552Industries 6 months ago
@552Industries You've buried your head in the sand if you think these problems don't stem from religion, kiddo.
BionicDance 6 months ago
@BionicDance First, I want to state again that I am an Atheist myself, and I know some backing of opposition to these issues is religion oriented, but we can't just strip them of their religion - they have a right to it. Yes, persuasion is an option, but that would make us just as bad as them. It's a tricky subject, especially when it brings the 1st Amendment into play.
552Industries 6 months ago
@552Industries The point remains that religion needs to be fought, as it interferes in issues which are none of its business.
BionicDance 6 months ago
@BionicDance Again, I want to state that I am making these comments with all due respect, and do not intend to oppress, discriminate, etc. I have NO problem whatsoever with you being a lesbian, and have NO problem whatsoever over your beliefs. (I just want to protect myself against some pretty hateful comments I see floating around YouTube and such.)
552Industries 6 months ago
Thats because, the bible is set in stone for them and in many cases thats all the evidence they will ever need/want/accept.
To tell them they are wrong even if you give evidence is like threatening to take a sledge hamme to that stone, the end result being a lot of angry people with an excuse to attack you back.
Really I guess the point i'm trying to make is that simply telling these people they are wrong even with evidence will never work.
To them God is everywhere we have yet to see.
sirAthrus 6 months ago
@sirAthrus So what WILL work...? *raised eyebrow*
BionicDance 6 months ago
@BionicDance Truthfully?
No matter what you say or do people will always belive in that sort of thing.
Frankly I say let them.
As with many things, it gets better with time.
Maybe at some point religious people and athiests will get along and simply agree to disagree.
I know that sounds like a crap Idea, but really at the heart of all of this it really comes down to tolerance and acceptance.
People once thought of black people as sub human, now there is a black president.
same with religion.
sirAthrus 6 months ago
@sirAthrus Agreeing to disagree CAN'T happen; the religious have been told this world is THEIRS, that their god gave it to THEM.
Religion has to be neutered, demolished, destroyed, otherwise the rest of us will never be safe from it; the religious don't play well with others, they never learned to share...that's why it will ALWAYS be a fight.
BionicDance 6 months ago
@BionicDance And by saying that religion must be destroyed and neutered, they will respond in the same way.
By declaring war on they're belifes, you give them the ammunition and reason to strike back.
This kind of war can only end when both sides back down and take a moment to relax.
But from their view people like you won't back down and from your view its the same.
both sides are pointing the finger, but both sides are to blame for the warring and confusion.
sirAthrus 6 months ago
@sirAthrus "Strike back"...? They ALREADY STRIKING, that's the point.
BionicDance 6 months ago
I'm an athiest myself but I have no intention of trying to make other people think the same way I do.
Just because there are some religous nuts in the world that want to make athiest feel bad doesn't give us the right to do the same back at them.
That would simply start off a never ending cycle that gets both parties no where.
If there are people who want to belive in god then thats great for them, same goes for athiest and everyone else.
I actually like the norse gods like thor and Odin.
sirAthrus 6 months ago
@sirAthrus "That's great for them"...? *raised eyebrow*
No, I really don't think it is. Most religious people have some pretty specific ideas about how EVERYONE is supposed to behave, and they think they have the right to enforce it because their god gives them a mandate. I fight against religion because it looks like SOMEbody never learned to share.
So, no, it's NOT "great for them" to believe in god...it's AWFUL for the rest of us, and that's why it needs to be fought.
BionicDance 6 months ago
@BionicDance By that logic aren't you trying to do the same thing to them?
As an athiest you also seem to have some pretty specific ideas as to how THEY should behave because you think that scientific explanation gives you the right to?
By telling them how to behave you are doing exactly what they are, albeit with differant logic and motives but at the core it's the same more or less.
I have been told I'm going to hell for not believing but simply state:
If God made me, he made me athiest.
sirAthrus 6 months ago
@sirAthrus That's just silly; I have specific ideas about how they should behave because they're hurting people, not because of science. If they weren't hurting people, I'd have very little to say about how they behave at all.
You seem to have gotten exactly the wrong message from my reply to you, so please let this clarification modify your view of my position.
BionicDance 6 months ago
@BionicDance The actions of the few can't be held over the entire people.
There are a few stupid people in the world that use religion as a shield to cover their agenda's like the Taliban or the KKK of the westboro baptist church. But when you let those people poison you against what is usually a good set of people then you have lost.
The bible makes people feel that in the vast void of the universe there is someone watching over them and when someone says it's wrong they react badly.
sirAthrus 6 months ago
@sirAthrus Until and unless religious people who don't condone the actions of the assholes who are on their side begin CALLING THEM OUT for their bullshit, they're at least tacitly culpable.
BionicDance 6 months ago
@BionicDance Perhaps, but in truth religion has been around for centuries and yes it's caused people to do some stupid things in the name of their God.
Atheists have only just popped up recently in large numbers and in that short time religious people feel like they have come under attack and need to defend their belifes because we keep telling them they're wrong
For example, you have solved a math problem and then someone comes over and tells you, you are wrong repeatedly despite what you say
sirAthrus 6 months ago
@sirAthrus So people are having emotional reactions...but they being told that they're wrong for INTELLECTUAL reasons; there is a disconnect there.
If someone tells me that I'm wrong and then SHOWS ME WHY, I'll change my mind...religious people WON'T.
BionicDance 6 months ago
Try subbing to Coughlan616.
misterstarwars 7 months ago
@misterstarwars WAY ahead of you on that score! ;)
BionicDance 7 months ago
@BionicDance Lol I unfortunatly notced only a few minuites after posting that comment.
misterstarwars 7 months ago
@misterstarwars *grin* I've been subbed since he was coughlan666, back in the day. :)
No worries.
BionicDance 7 months ago
@BionicDance Same, o how I miss the glory days of Coughlan.
*wheeps*
misterstarwars 7 months ago
I think being the better person is always best. we just need to chill out and let them embarrass themselves as they get angrier and angrier.
twizelby 7 months ago
Slow down, wait what? Why do you want to convince them that they are wrong? Who are you to hold your beliefs to be more than just right? That would be stooping to the level of people who harass us by shoving their religion down our throats and attack our conclusions aggressively. I would never wish that on another person because when I deconverted that's what I had to deal with for a month non-stop. It was intrusive and made it hard to live life the way I like to, doing hobbies.
ligerman30 7 months ago
@ligerman30 Facts are facts; if I'm wrong, I wanna know it just as much as if I'm right.
And theists actively make our lives worse; combating that is a worthy goal as well.
BionicDance 7 months ago 2
Agree atheist sister. People who don’t like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn’t have such funny beliefs.
+sub
JediVerse 7 months ago
everything in this world points out a miracle but u still ignore it. i am sure if u would be honest to urselves ,u can see that quantum pyshics or dark matter ,the meaningless of the word nothing in pyshics would show u the miracle. but no u have to choose to be an atheist because its easy .
esraretin 7 months ago
what do I think? I think that this tactic is FUCKING RETARDED. Imagine there where like a houndered christians pointing at you saying "You don't believe in God? You must be a complete Moron!". Would even concider for a fraction of a moment the possibility of them having a point? NO! Neither does the Majority of your dumbass country when atheists (a roughly 10% minority) point and laugh at the majority. You make yourself look like the weirdos then.
BuecherFuerAlle 7 months ago
You do know he addressed this the video directly that people DON'T want to listen to emotional appeals. Quite frankly though, I am a theist and I watch your videos for a good laugh....
TheLueii 7 months ago
@TheJesusKey The burden of proof is on you, the believer, to provide evidence that your assertion(s) - that a god exists, what that gods nature is and that it is, in fact, your Jesus (if you can prove Jesus existed).
For most atheists, having examined what little evidence there is, we conclude that you are wrong because the evidence does not support your assertion. We will believe if that evidence ever comes around. Can you say the same? No.
johnycannuk 8 months ago
Frankly, I think converting the faithful is a non-issue. Their recruitment is falling, and the ranks of the fence sitters is growing. All I really care about is getting the true believers out of office, and in this regard, I have to admit that ridicule may be effective to some extent. Not for the reasons used in its defense , but simply because it plants the seeds of distrust in potential voters... it's negative advertising which drives the sway of god talk out of those in the voting booth.
AutodidacticPhd 8 months ago
@TheJesusKey Let's start over. Can you prove there is a God? No? Than why is it so outlandish for me to say there is no God, and really why do you still believe it? Is it because you don't understand science? Is it because you don't want to believe that when we die that's it? I wouldn't be so hard on religion if Theists weren't trying to spread their beliefs into the classroom. I gave you evidence that supports claims that are contradictory to the Bible. WOW, you Christians can be so ignorant!
AwesomenessVidStudio 8 months ago
@TheJesusKey There is no God is a negative claim.
AwesomenessVidStudio 8 months ago
@TheJesusKey :of course invisible pink unicorn is false god, only real god is Flying Spaghetti Monster. Deny it and you will be tortured for eternity in lake of extremely hot tomato sauce. Next point - I agree, absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence - but it makes believing in god really irrational. And lastly, I apologize. Yes, I shouldnt have said "there is no God". It is unscientific and I agree it was a fault. I should have said "there is no reason to believe there is a God". Sorry!
N4nth4o 8 months ago
@TheJesusKey :YOU say positive claim (there is a God), YOU have to prove you are right. YOU have burden of proof. I mean, there is invisible pink unicorn on wall next to you. If you dont believe in him, you will go to hell. Of course he is not there, but PROVE it! You can not. Thats the reason the one who says positive claim. We can not disprove your god, its impossible. But we can destroy any argument for his existence and as a bonus, there is no evidence of his existence. => There is no God.
N4nth4o 8 months ago
Groovy Spider-Man shirt.
CelestialWoodway 8 months ago
"The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead."
Albert Einstein
wintereis57 8 months ago
To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.
Albert Einstein
wintereis57 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheJesusKey absence of evidence= no evidence
I am not going to believe in something with no evidence. No evidence means you need to justify your beliefs by faith, and faith is childish. Read carefully.
AwesomenessVidStudio 8 months ago
@TheJesusKey I will disprove theistic claims when you prove them. You follow along again. The neutral position is no God. You're skipping ahead to me making a positive assertion off of a positive assertion. If nothing else at all, my evidence is your lack of evidence.
AwesomenessVidStudio 8 months ago
@TheJesusKey You closed minded, 12-year-old, ignorant jerk! The burden of proof lies with who make the claim. I don't have to disprove God. You have to prove him. You haven't finished me off. Maybe you think you did, but you've denied all of the evidence that I ALREADY HAD. You misunderstood how science works. You insulted your Christian brothers by showing me that you have the intelligence of a cat! Abiogenesis has been proven! You don't know your evidence and the neutral position is no God!
AwesomenessVidStudio 8 months ago
@AwesomenessVidStudio PS way to finally understand how science works, but the positive assertion is God exists. Google Russell's teacup.
AwesomenessVidStudio 8 months ago
@TheJesusKey - You are correct. a 'Gnostic' stance on either side, when it comes to "god(/s)" is (at least mildly) insane.
If (s)he's correct and 'god' is imaginary, it certainly couldn't prove that because imaginary things are completely intangible; and you can't disprove (or prove for that matter) the existence of totally intangible things.
PurpleGhost 8 months ago
@TheJesusKey Well said (or written)!
bushfingers 8 months ago
Yes, that's just what we need - another smug self-promoter. If you were really logical and rational, you would never make a video like this
And by the way - you've all been obnoxious for a long time.
bushfingers 8 months ago
@TheJesusKey I'm not her. My evidence was clear. Maybe not to you, but your head's clouded with God. You don't disprove a positive assertion! You only prove it! So far YOU'VE not given evidence of God: no reason to believe. You keep saying "you crushed my statements, you're done, WRONG!, or Ha! busted you" when even your arguments are flawed. You're closed minded, brainwashed, and rude to (up till this point) a polite person! Your statements revolve around false claims. Your God is immoral.
AwesomenessVidStudio 8 months ago
@AwesomenessVidStudio Dude, I think you are very confused.
"You don't disprove a positive assertion! You only prove it! " What the hell is that???!! So we can't disprove the statements: "the world is flat" or "2+2=5" or "president Obama is 3 foot tall"
In fact, the whole scientific enterprise depends on falsification - the dispoving of positive assertions (or at least the possibility of doing so)
bushfingers 8 months ago
@bushfingers It would be up to you to prove that 2+2=5. That's how science works, and that information is incorrect until you prove it to be true. That's what @TheJesusKey misunderstood, and now he thinks he has me cornered with the circular logic that says "can you disprove him?" Well I actually can, if the Bible truly is took verbatim. Your God created the Earth about 6,000 years ago, but carbon dating proves that we have fossils much older on Earth, which Christians attribute to God.
AwesomenessVidStudio 8 months ago
@AwesomenessVidStudio It would be up to you to prove that carbon dating works
PS Good luck
bushfingers 8 months ago
@bushfingers yeah, and we did.
AwesomenessVidStudio 8 months ago
@TheJesusKey No, we're not. You misunderstood once again. MY stage 2 is "here is a claim with evidence: aka proven," but yours is "here is a claim with none". Stage 3 is prove it. The one who made the first claim is the one who has to prove it: aka God exists. Your doubt is not reasonable, because you misunderstood so many things. Throughout this debate I have been called: thick headed, pompous, a sycophant, and childish. Hypocritical much? I've tried to keep my cool, but you crossed the line!
AwesomenessVidStudio 8 months ago
@TheJesusKey I have disproven it! You just aren't listening! The neutral position isn't based on evidence. Theories are based on evidence. Yes that was stupid of you. You took it the wrong way.
Stage 1: I don't know
Stage 2: Here's a claim that has no evidence (God/spaghetti monster)
Your stage 3: Now disprove that
Science's stage 3: Now prove that
The Scientific way:
Here's the evidence. What conclusion can we draw
The Christian way:
Here's a conclusion. What evidence can we find?
AwesomenessVidStudio 8 months ago
@TheJesusKey God has had 2000 years to be proven and yet there is still no evidence outside of a book that says you can stone your own children to death. Aboigenesis and Dark Energy at least have a way to be observed.
"You cannot establish that no God is the neutral position"
The question which we are debating is, "How did the universe come into existence?" The neutral position is "I don't know (neither God nor Big Bang)" So use 6th grade science before saying something so stupid next time.
AwesomenessVidStudio 8 months ago
@TheJesusKey You DO NOT understand the scientific method. There is a neutral position that is that there is no God. God is an idea, he is an opinion. I don't need faith to believe that. You are saying that the neutral position is God ,when in fact, God is a claim. You may see it as a fact, but it is not, and it isn't a fact because there is no evidence. I'm telling you to prove it. You are telling me to disprove it. There is an invisible spaghetti monster in my back yard. Disprove that.
AwesomenessVidStudio 8 months ago
@TheJesusKey If you believe in Old Earth creation then you aren't a true, by the book, Christian. If God programs in the adaptations then he did one hell of a bad job. We breathe out of the same tube we eat with so that we can choke. That's not intelligent design. That's incredibly stupid design. What would a Christian accept as valid evidence, because all your arguments are "yeah, but what if that was God."? I will become a Christian in the blink of an eye if I just see some damn proof!
AwesomenessVidStudio 8 months ago
There is absolutely no conflict between science and religion. Most religious people believe in such things as the big bang and evolution. Abiogenesis (something coming from nothing) could possibly be seen as the work of god, no? You're all fucking stupid.
endlessintertwined 8 months ago
@endlessintertwined Abiogensis is not something coming from nothing; it's something changing. That's it.
And there is PLENTY of conflict between science and religion, because the religious insist "god did it" without EVER proving it, or even proving that there is a god in the first place. That's about as unscientific as you can possibly get.
BionicDance 8 months ago 2
@BionicDance Science has to do with method. How, and what happened. Religion, specifically the concept of God, has to do with the metaphysical meaning of things. No conflict. You do know monks and priests were the first scientists, right? The fathers of genetics and all that?
endlessintertwined 8 months ago
@TheJesusKey fossils, carbon dating, evolution, no God.
AwesomenessVidStudio 8 months ago
@AwesomenessVidStudio What do fossils, carbon dating, evolution, abiogenesis, or any of that have to do with "disproving" God? There is not, and will never be, a conflict between God and science.
endlessintertwined 8 months ago
@endlessintertwined Fossils show how evolution occurred as opposed to Adam naming the animals in the Garden of Eden. Carbon dating shows that some things even on this Earth are older than the Bible says the Earth is. Abiogenesis shows that life can come from non-life which further proves Evolution. And you said that there is no conflict between God and science? Come on. What do you think I'm doing here?
AwesomenessVidStudio 8 months ago
@AwesomenessVidStudio The Bible itself disproves it. It has two "theories" about the creation. It's all symbolism and allegory, anyway. Most christians believe in evolution. I would say the vast majority do. Do you really expect a thousands-year old book full of heavy, deep symbolism, mysticism, and mystery, on top of that which has been re-translated millions of times, and also the meaning of words changing over time, to be taken 100% literally? If so, you're just as bad as fundies.
endlessintertwined 8 months ago
@endlessintertwined Originally, the Bible was to be taken literally, but Christians got lazy. You can't pick and chose which pieces to take literally and which pieces are symbolism.
AwesomenessVidStudio 8 months ago
@AwesomenessVidStudio Are you so sure about that? Do you know anything at all about ancient Jewish mysticism on which fully half of the Bible is based? The Bible does have sections that are taken literally, and sections that are taken which symbolize others - much like every work of creativity in the entire history of humanity.
endlessintertwined 8 months ago
@endlessintertwined so is stoning you children to death for disobeying you literal or figurative?
AwesomenessVidStudio 8 months ago
@AwesomenessVidStudio Old Testament. Do you know anything about anything?
endlessintertwined 8 months ago
@AwesomenessVidStudio Again, it's old testament, therefore not canon in christianity.
endlessintertwined 8 months ago
@endlessintertwined And where might the 10 Commandments be found?
AwesomenessVidStudio 8 months ago
@AwesomenessVidStudio Old Testament. But the Two Greatest Commandments are much more important than them.
endlessintertwined 8 months ago
@endlessintertwined Which ones? The rapist must marry the seduced maiden Deut. 22:29 and He must not eat grape skins Num. 6:4. Honestly some of the stuff in the Bible is just Bullshit.
AwesomenessVidStudio 8 months ago
@AwesomenessVidStudio I see you're still stuck on the Old Testament. If you're not even going to bother doing basic research on the things you're trying to rip apart, it doesn't really bode well for your argument.
endlessintertwined 8 months ago
@endlessintertwined Your God is said to be omnipotent, so it doesn't matter if it was in the Old Testament or the New Testament. Alright, I'll give you some New Testament bullshit. Corinthians 11:14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him. (sounds like a certain messiah) Corinthians 11:19-24 commands a man should not go near a woman when she is on her period. Don't accuse me of not reading the Bible. I was a Christian for 20 years.
AwesomenessVidStudio 8 months ago
@AwesomenessVidStudio To be fair, would you go near a woman on her period?
endlessintertwined 8 months ago
@endlessintertwined Hell yes!
AwesomenessVidStudio 8 months ago
@AwesomenessVidStudio Ah. I believe that is the root of our disagreement, my friend.
endlessintertwined 8 months ago
@endlessintertwined And why wouldn't you?
AwesomenessVidStudio 8 months ago
@AwesomenessVidStudio Because I don't really have the desire to "brave the Red Sea". I'm no Moses.
endlessintertwined 7 months ago
@endlessintertwined So you believe in God because you don't want to get a little messy? Aha! Everyone, you should be a Christian if you don't like getting dirty! Well, whatever floats your ark, and it wasn't the Red Sea anyways. It was the Reed Sea (a swampy marsh that constantly dried up then flooded back again). It got lost in translation. I quote your fellow Christian @TheJesusKey , "YOU LOST!"
AwesomenessVidStudio 7 months ago
@TheJesusKey The evidence for the claim? Microwave background radiation, the fossil record, confirming abiogenesis.
The evidence for God? The Bible, the tingly feeling in your stomach, and (my favorite) the banana.
AwesomenessVidStudio 8 months ago
@TheJesusKey If you say that we can't say "where is your proof there is a God" then you don't know how science works. You guys are the ones that made the claim there is a God, so you need to show the evidence to support it.
AwesomenessVidStudio 8 months ago
@TheJesusKey I"m saying that I have no evidence that there IS a god, so I have no reason TO believe...and if I don't believe, there is only one way to describe what I am: an atheist.
BionicDance 8 months ago 3
@BionicDance I"m saying that I have no evidence that there IS a god, so I have no reason TO believe
re u really sure? there is no evidence huh? u all just choose to be an atheist nothing more. wht is fuckin evidence? is it an equation? a feeling? wht do u search for? u dont think or u re not capable of thinking about this kind of things now ( i am sure there is no opportunity while trying to be seen as a cool atheist girl)
atheists u re really fool lol
esraretin 7 months ago
@esraretin Look up the words 'objective' and 'empirical'; that's the kinna evidence religious people need to present of their god before I'll believe. Same with a LOT of atheists.
BionicDance 7 months ago
@BionicDance i am not cristian i am muslim and i have evidences in my book but they only can be seen when u give a chance them.
esraretin 7 months ago
@esraretin Irrelevant.
Scientific evidence that god exists--evidence that does NOT require belief beforehand--or your religion and every other religion is full of crap.
BionicDance 7 months ago
@BionicDance just say what would it be like if there is a scientific evidence for god? i am afraid u will never understand that u have feelings for some kind of things. u can feel but u reject them why? 2+2=4 is that all? btw atheists neil turok said universe can not create itself from nothing .hawking was wrong there. u know wht mr neil said? he said it was good and smart mathematical trick but it wasnt true. its like trying to deny basic feeling using equations ,the GOD ALLAH.
esraretin 7 months ago
@esraretin You cannot FEEL your way to a right answer, kiddo; you need FACTS when it comes to questions of existence.
BionicDance 7 months ago
« what would it be like if there is a scientific evidence for god? »
Then this god would have become subject to naturalist methods of investigation, and therefore per definition a natural phenomenon. That would be very interesting: the proof of extraterrestrial life that we've all been waiting for.
XGralgrathor 7 months ago
@XGralgrathor That would be very interesting: the proof of extraterrestrial life that we've all been waiting for.
i got it. but i think the answer is not natural methods of investigation. its thinkin about ur investigations. u re searching for beggining of the universe and seeing that the first time of big bang does not fit the rules of pyshics also smallest particules doesnt fit and u say .i can get only how does it work but no one clearly understand wht happens.u still ignore the magic
esraretin 7 months ago
« u re searching for beggining of the universe »
Well, not me personally: I lack the expertise. I'm happy to leave that kind of stuff to the experts, the people who have an intimate knowledge of physics, astronomy, and so on.
« big bang does not fit the rules of pyshics »
Of course it does. It's just that our knowledge of physics is incomplete.
XGralgrathor 7 months ago
@XGralgrathor Of course it does. It's just that our knowledge of physics is incomplete.
do u really think it will be completed. in hawking book there was something interesting. a mathematician proved that not every problem can be solved. i mean u cant know wheteher u re at a point that u can not go further anymore. u can search forever. but u cant know that the problem has no solution in any way.
why cant the biggest problem be that problem?
esraretin 7 months ago
« do u really think it will be completed »
Did I say such a thing? No, I did not. And from my later comments, you'll understand that Ì don't think there'll *ever* be an end to scientific inquiry: there'll always be more to know.
XGralgrathor 7 months ago
« a mathematician proved that not every problem can be solved »
Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. His theorem is basically proof that mathematical systems cannot be both complete and consistent at the same time: for all axiomatic systems, there'll be statements that cannot be proved using the axioms of the system, meaning that the collection of axioms necessary for a complete and consistent mathematical model is infinitely large.
XGralgrathor 7 months ago
@XGralgrathor there'll be statements that cannot be proved using the axioms of the system, meaning that the collection of axioms necessary for a complete and consistent mathematical model is infinitely large.
it seems really interesting to be proven.btw i tried to understand some math proofs but it seems really hard. i mean some of proven things by axioms already seems axiom for me.i can get them but i cant prove by myself.i wish i was that smart
esraretin 7 months ago
« but it seems really hard »
It isn't, at least not for simple proofs. All it requires is a methodical approach. The basics of proving mathematical statements are usually handled in high school, with some elaboration in university, depending on the direction you take.
XGralgrathor 7 months ago
« u still ignore the magic »
Saying "it's magic" explains nothing. It's worse than useless: it's killing the question before you can even ask it. It contributes nothing to anyones understanding of anything. It's exactly the reason why science came about: to get some *answers*, in stead of people saying "it's magic".
XGralgrathor 7 months ago
@XGralgrathor Curiousity doesn't stop just because *one* question has been answered.
yes u re rigth ,completely .anyway u can still ask questions while u believe in a religion or god. for me there is no reason to be an atheist in any case
esraretin 7 months ago
« u can still ask questions while u believe in a religion or god »
Yes you can. As long as you keep in mind that one wants knowledge to be testable and *independently verifiable*.
XGralgrathor 7 months ago
@XGralgrathor thx friend for conversation. i just say wht i think directly
esraretin 7 months ago
« i just say wht i think directly »
No problem with that. Although I would caution you to check your beliefs against reality. It is my considered opinion that it serves to have ones beliefs correspond to reality, rather than them standing aside from it.
XGralgrathor 7 months ago
@XGralgrathor at the same i dont see any bad thing about calling big bang a magic. they still can search for it. for my personal belief they can never find an answer. of course im curious about it.
esraretin 7 months ago
« i dont see any bad thing about calling big bang a magic »
Call it 'Mary' for all I care. You're not an expert, and we don't look to you for answers regarding the nature of the observable universe.
XGralgrathor 7 months ago
@XGralgrathor u may be at the point of seeing a supernatural thing (particules,first time of big bang) but u still say i must search further. for example assume that people managed a big bang ( it will never possible , because its out of rule)and created a small universe. can god still exist in this case? i think yes because u dont see the truth there were particules that do it. u still dont know who created them.
every equation needs god. this childish but basic knowledge of humanbeing.
esraretin 7 months ago
« u may be at the point of seeing a supernatural thing »
You can't see or test or detect "supernatural things" in any way: they're supernatural.
« but u still say i must search further »
Of course. Curiousity doesn't stop just because *one* question has been answered. There are *always* more questions to make us curious. If you can simply turn of your curiosity by saying "it's magic", then you're spiritually dead.
XGralgrathor 7 months ago
« btw atheists neil turok said universe can not create itself from nothing »
Of course not. For something to be able to result in anything, it must already exist. For anything to result in anything else, it must already exist. Conclusion: something that does not exist *cannot* be *caused* to come to exist. It's called the Kalaam cosmological argument, and it proves beyond any doubt that no god created the universe from nothing.
XGralgrathor 7 months ago
@XGralgrathor ''The Kalām cosmological argument is a variation of the cosmological argument that argues for the existence of a personal First Cause for the universe''.(from wiki)
how could u obtain that God can not create universe from nothing.even hawking said god could be still creator even if universe doesnt need to be created!! (which is based on false equation as Neil TUROK)
u dont get the God parameter so u dont understand:) its diffirent. it changed everything. every equation needs it.
esraretin 7 months ago
« how could u obtain that God can not create universe from nothing »
Simple, really.
1. Something cannot be created from nothing (this requires a logical proof in itself).
2. The god X is defined as the being which created the universe from nothing.
3. Therefore the god X cannot exist as defined.
XGralgrathor 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@XGralgrathor 1. Something cannot be created from nothing (this requires a logical proof in itself).
2. The god X is defined as the being which created the universe from nothing.
3. Therefore the god X cannot exist as defined.
its perfect example wht happens when u assume urself as a robot.all parameters has same qualificiation rigth? u can not even imagine wht the god would mean. its incredible. its not x its GOD.
esraretin 7 months ago
« all parameters has same qualificiation rigth? »
I have *no* idea what you're rambling about. I doubt even you know.
I think you're commenting in some way on the Kalam argument from my previous post. I suggest you rephrase your comment to make it legible and intelligible.
XGralgrathor 7 months ago
@TheJesusKey We've debunked religious claims; that's enough.
BionicDance 8 months ago
logic wins everytime.
look where we are right now?
turbopro10 8 months ago
I think logic will win. Though it may take a long time. I hope that by the end of this century that the religious will be a minority, and freethinking individuals will be the majority.
I think it's important that we laugh at the ones who strictly believe their truths and nothing seems to change their mind... so yeah, after logic and evidence fails, just laugh.
PaleoSteno 8 months ago
@PaleoSteno What winning logic will you use?? The logic that you have that proves their God doesn't exist?? The logic that you have that proves your worldview is the right one?? What is the "logic" behind logic that can't disprove a point, can't prove a point, but can only claim to be "logic"?? What is the power behind your logic?? There is none, it's a lie, and you suckers buy into it, hook line and sinker. And you think Christians are going to worry about people that naive laughing at them????
medic85573 8 months ago
In ancient Rome, early Christians chose to be feed to the lions or slaughtered in the Coliseum rather than renounce their faith in God. Even when Europe became Christianized, Christians were tortured and executed if they dissented from the Church. Even today, Christian missionaries willingly go to countries where even mentioning the name of Jesus is punishable by death. If Christians do not fear death, do you honestly think they fear ridicule?
r3v3ng3ofthef4113n 8 months ago
@r3v3ng3ofthef4113n Yes. Yes, I do.
I've seen peer pressure work.
BionicDance 8 months ago
@BionicDance Peer pressure only works on the weak. People with strong convictions aren’t as pliable, especially when they grow up believing the entire world is against them and persecuting them in the first place.
If you base your beliefs on what other people think, especially how they think of you, then you’re not really the type who thinks for yourself, now are you?
r3v3ng3ofthef4113n 8 months ago
@r3v3ng3ofthef4113n The religious ARE "the weak".
BionicDance 8 months ago
@BionicDance It won't work for anyone who reasons through your arguments, or knows enough about their religion to be able to defend it. By the way, why do you guys still call yourself atheists?? Why not come out and admit that you're actually anti-theists?? Last question, and I don't mean to be offensive, but are you male or female??
medic85573 8 months ago
@medic85573 Atheist and anti-theist are not mutually exclusive.
And I'm a lesbian, I say so often. You do the fucking math.
BionicDance 8 months ago
@r3v3ng3ofthef4113n Is there something here we can use perhaps?
scrooge38 8 months ago
@r3v3ng3ofthef4113n In my experience a majority of theists do not 'believe' as some may have done in the past. Dan Dennet has it correct when he says todays theist actually only believes in 'belief'. I've tested this hypothesis in a small scale and found more than 9 of 10 are indeed in this category.Thus when confronted with ridicule and derision, do in fact feel compelled to ponder convictions apparently firm.1 questioning a papal decree which hitherto would've been anathema to her. A 1st step.
gallus1 8 months ago
Well I don't know what to say because I think it was logic, reason and evidence that got trough to me and I was a pretty strong believer at the time but now I am currently arguing with a theist where none of that is getting through to them.
SuperSayinAtheist 8 months ago
I love the final fantasy 7 esque music.
Revolution2pointO 8 months ago
I dont know if logic will ever win the day, but I am pretty sure laughing at them will not convince them, some of those believers endured quite a lot to cling to their faith. I assume that would just lead to the situation that they would be more cautious about whom they tell about their faith
DeHerg 8 months ago
I completely agree...
yesihateyoutoo 8 months ago
I have started to find that asking them what they believe and why they believe it is enough to tie most of them in knots.
And the ones who have the pat answers are the terminally deluded. They are to be pitied [in private] and ridiculed [in public]
I justify this because every bible browser converted represents a chance that a child somewhere will not be mentally tortured by this insidious think called religion.
Huttate1 8 months ago
Can't we do both. That's usually what I do. I first try to reason with them, but after a while I just... well... point and laugh.
sacredbunny246 8 months ago
I agree with you, spider-girl. Different tactics, being non-offensive, telling them that the world is a beautiful place even without god, and that we enjoy life even without the need for any belief.
Anonymous247n 8 months ago
I’ve burned many bridges –smart, pretty and otherwise -- for attacking theists, crypto-zoologists, conspiracy theorists et al… I equate all of these quackeries with mental retardation proudly and unapologetically. Am I a mean drunk?
GeneHarrogate 8 months ago
@GeneHarrogate Nope. Just a sensible person who isn't willing to take any shit.
BionicDance 8 months ago
Some of column A
And
Some of Column B
TheAnubisDrake 8 months ago
Love your stuff. LOVE THE SHIRT! Seriously, I wonder if some of the ridicule would get through to otherwise thick-skulled folks. Not sure if or when I'll try it... We'll see.