@Snakepliskinist (cont)So it doesnt matter if 5th Watchers parents "ate" Christianity or any other variant copy and then "fed" it to him which explains his current Christian worldview. This type of argument has nothing to do with the truth or validity of a belief system. This logic is flawed right out the gate.
@Snakepliskinist Dawkins point and the point you seem to be arguing here is a moot one. This is nothing more than a classic example of a genetic fallacy. Dawkins is basically saying that sinse you can explain how a belief arose, therfore the belief is false.
I choose to believe what I was told to believe. After long, hard consideration the merits of what I was taught outweigh the merits of all the things everyone else believes. Do you hear yourself? You are ridulous. You might even have a feeble argument if you were Hindu, but you currently posess the exact religion pervasive in your region. You believe the very thing your parents taught you. How many more ways can I say you are ridiculous?
@5thWatcher Big whoop. You got a slightly different copy of the same thing. That slight difference is your "individuality." Hundreds of religions exist, and yet you just so happen to believe in a variation of what you were taught. It's like this: if you lived in China you would probably eat Chinese food. It wouldn't be exactly what your parents ate, nor would it necessarily be exactly the same as what anyone else ate. But it would still be Chinese food.
@5thWatcher The point being that if any one religion had a better factual basis than all others, it would spread like wildfire. That doesn't happen because no religion, as a matter of definition, is of a factual nature. It is a fully formed framework of belief and ritual behavior that is culturally transmitted, and for this reason most people's religion is a reflection of the culture into which they were born. All religions are crap, so you chose the crap that's familiar.
I thought the people in Sweden, believed in Odin, or something? The northern people were never truly Christened, or "baptised". That's why christians are so rare there, up norse.
I agree. Dawkins does fail. How would he explain people like that one Korn dude who found Jesus and other people who want to become part of the catholic church? biology is based on evidence however why did biology have to exist? why did the universe have to come into existence? why did DNA have to exist and why is it so intrinsically complex? why do cells repair themselves? (that in itself is a miracle). btw i was an atheist and now i'm reverting back to Catholicism stronger than ever.
@ajhrockerboy6 Dawkins' point is one that has to do with probability, you missed the boat in terms of what he's saying. And you also miss out on evolution and reproduction, everything started out from single celled organisms, which in term became more complex when the situation allowed, allowing for processes such as replication, which led to complex life. This took BILLIONS of years to accomplish, but you if want to believe in the young earth creationist crap thump your bible away sir.
A born again Christian because that book had nice words.
About this changing mindset ideology, I believe you can agree wholeheartedly that once a religion has been indoctrinated, it can be nearly impossible to remove. Its concepts are binding. Most people that will consider their religion with logic, will become atheists. You very rarely hear of a Muslim (etc) becoming Jewish (etc) because of reason.
I totally agree that Dawkins should stick to biology. When he talks about religion, he just sounds ignorant. I'm sure there are other atheists who understand religion in a less superficial way.
@5thwatcher I wanted to add, in yr art background, did you have extensive art & design history classes as well? For me, those were some very challenging but thought provoking classes in my degree and I had the "Dawkins argument" likelihood observed by myself over a decade before I even heard of Dawkins. Atheists don't worship people (like Dawkins etc) of similar logical beliefs; so there's no need to parrot them as people do with holy books. I highly doubt athiests are "quoting" his argument.
Most Christians I know focus mostly on the NT as well and why not, Jesus was a cool character. You turned out to be "that" very kind of Christian. Only entertained Dawkins book in effort to rebutt the very first thing u (& poorly at that, sorry) could and it was in the foreword! Lmao. That shows complete lack of open-mindedness IMHO. Personally I didn't read it till I was sure my faith was 99% gone from religion to give it serious thought of what him and others had to write.
(cont.) Me thinks not since the childhood authority aspect is talked about near the end. Did u read the whole bible even? U flipped to the NT and liked the Jesus guy, but what about the God of the OT? He was a massive prick and god doesn't change. (cont)
@5thwatcher Each culture is a special scenario. The point is once a person in a FREER society grows up, if they have a decent IQ and are inquisitive, and can afford books or know the right people to help them learn, then perhaps they'll will learn more with knowledge if it's available for them. Still u may face ostracism (known from experience of myself and friends), EVEN in the states. Did u even read Dawkins entire book? (cont.)
@5thwatcher It's humorous that you assume every culture and country openly allows you to change yr mind on beliefs without complete ostracism or physical harm/punishment. Try daring to change yr belief system if you lived in north Korea or Afghanistan. For christs sake even yr background in studying art wouldn't have been allowed if you lived in a Muslim state much less openly read or discuss other belief systems. Comprehend generalization based off of common knowledge. No degrees needed.
@5thWatcher your right, everyone has free will. Just that expressing it can get you killed. Hmmm... i wonder what you and I would do in that situation.
@5thWatcher It has nothing to do with laws. It has to do with family and social dynamics. I was raised a fundamental baptist. Put yourself in my shoes and tell your parents that you are atheist. You have no idea how pressured people are into their religious status. Also, when it comes to other religions it is much less tolerable to deter from those beliefs.
The Old Lady’s TORTOISE (Hinduism) and DRAGON (Taoism) are symbols for WAVE (energy), both are analog with MAGEN DAVID (Judaism). "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" is the metaphor, and also similar with allegory of rituals Thawaf circling around the Ka'ba and Sa’i oscillating along “the sinus” Marwah-Shafa during the Hajj pilgrimage (Abraham). YIN-YANG: energy-particle . CROSS (Christian) and SWASTIKA (Buddhism) are symbols for “Balance of Nature.”
dawkins is well aware that there are exceptions. But the fact remains, that the majority of people with faith were brought up with it. And I agree that the same thing goes with atheists, and you can also be brainwashed into atheism etc.
But the main difference is that atheism has no dogma, and that's the danger of religion imo. That is what should be discussed, not wether or not god exists, because to me it doesn't matter what people believe as long as they don't harm or bother others.
You seriously have a mental condition. A person doesn't need a degree in theology to dismiss those wild claims about the existence of some sky-fairy. Do I need to have a degree in Leprechaunism to disbelieve in leprechauns? And yes Dawkins is correct. When you were born you were clueless to the idea of religion. By default, you were an atheist. When your parents subjected you to Christianity, your parents taught you their delusion that they were taught as children. You fail yet again.
The reality is, as Dawkins presents, is depending on the area and culture you are born into, the likelihood is, you will be that faith. You will be indoctrinated into it, regardless of what it is. Though you may change your mind in older years, that is what you generally are taught when you are young. I don't see a discrepancy with this. It is statistically proven. Most do not leave their faith due to fear of being ostracized , or cast out of their cultures/families
@5thWatcher Ahh. Basically, at least from my understanding, the statement is a debasement of the powerful thoughts of truth behind any one God. It is a shedding of light on the claims of "one truth" and the "One deity" concept. Not everyone can be correct, past or present, even though they feel as strongly today about their personal deity as much as people had in the past regarding Thor, Wotan, et al. This argument makes claims without evidence baseless at its core.
@5thWatcher ...Okay, relevent, and you forgot a comma, there (A: I'm just pointing it out; and b: It would be a piddly thing as long as your point or anything else in your post was intelligent; but lots of people would mindlessly bully you; n' call you rude, sinful and a whole lot of other, mindless, social bullshit, hey, I have been the *Victim* of that; (many times(!)))
@5thWatcher And your question is bogus. Clearly your religion, whoever you are doesn't have any special pull to it. People convert away from it just like they convert in. and in the rise of atheism that's occurring more people aren't coming in. Congrats on being a rebel and all that but so called "special cases" don't just destroy the rule. Who knows why jumped branches, but it's not like you represent some hidden truth of humanity.
@5thWatcher I think it would be meaningful if you had 10,000 christian people defending creationist delusions just because they happened to be born into an area that believes it. Or 10,000 islamic people mistreating women because they were born in the middle east. Of course there are exceptions, but people tend to speak about the millions who follow the rule as opposed to the hundred who don't.
On that note, why do you call it a "dawkin's fail" if you agree it happens?
You have not made anything close to an apposing argument to what Richard was saying. If you are born in a particular enviroment and are raised and indoctrinated in its Religion that is the religion you have. Like following a football team, yet some will change teams but the majority will not, often due to social preasure.
If you were born in India you would be Hindu.
Atheists just don't believ in one less God than you.
That argument isn't really an argument for any particular worldview, except for one aspect of it - namely that we can see that people all over the place invent false superstitious notions of how the universe works and that a vast number of these have died out for various reasons. Yet, their believers always thought they were right. This is a pretty strong clue that the faith based approach to understanding reality is worthless and that evidence and reason is superior.
Dawkins has never argued that people can't change their minds - Changing minds is his entire motivation for making the argument for crying out loud! He is arguing that people should be more critical of what kind of beliefs they embrace - because today most of what people believe is necessarily false due to the law of non contradiction. However, in the absence of critical thinking, what you get is the state of affairs we see today, with most people believing lies.
So to your main point, which seems to be about the ability to analyze one's viewpoint and change their minds: you are completely correct. The problem is that all religions are fashioned to subdue critical analysis of themselves and to promote unquestioning obedience to authority. This is why "holy" books like the bible are the "word of god" instead of just human teachings - so that they can be labeled as irreproachable. I would enjoy debating religion with you I think.
You don't get the point of what Dawkins is talking about. He is not suggesting that it is only possible for a person to believe in a religion because that's what they were raised in. What he is saying is that more people who believe their religion to be true and accurate are most likely just victims of their upbringing and society - and that if they were born into a different religion (which others are) they would be more likely to believe those fantasies just as vehemently.
Um, your argument proves Dawkins, Atheism isn't a belief it's a lack thereof, thus it's possible to change to a theist, by definition. Defining a child as being of a faith by virtue of birth is a lack of choice until autonomy is achieved by which time, often, the autonomy of choice is trained out of you. Religion is a by-product of biology - it's called brain chemistry. Furthermore, Taoism is a belief system, not a religion, and thus is not consistent with the argument.
Of course an individual has the ability to choose their religion. It's difficult though, and that rarely happens with a majority, without threat of violence. I'm pretty sure Dawkins wasn't saying we didn't have a choice in the matter, just that very few make use of that choice.
I interpreted Dawkin's argument as meaning, "since you are this naive and gullible, if you were raised anywhere else, you would believe anything." He clearly doesn't mean to say that all people would be religious because of where they are born, just the gullible ones.
We are all small colonies of ants, fighting eachother over territory and differences. It's not like arguing is going to change most peoples minds. If anything I'm going to argue for the repeal of a failed war on drugs. Something which can advance the way we see eachother. We must hold the religious arguments and fight for what is good not for what others believe, we need equality, that is all that matters.
Hi! this is one of the first of your videos that I watched, and I believe that if you truly researched and looked at different beliefs, you can embrace them as your own. I think Prof. Dawkins was going in the direction that it is not merely the upbringing, but the faith, the unquestioning authority that people have (or had) that created the demographics.
He wanted to point out absurdity that the 'true word of god' is divided not by deep thought and individual pursuit, but where you were born.
Second, I seem to be misunderstanding you. From what I understand, Dawkins is saying that your personal religious belief is based on your upbringing which includes your birthplace. What makes your belief more right than a person who has just as much faith in their different belief halfway around the world? It seems to be arbitrary.
I can't see how the fact that there are predominantly atheist countries + the fact ppl change their minds refutes this. (cont in next reply)
@TheFanwindow That there are predominantly atheist countries only means that there are people there who do not believe in a god. That's it. Atheism is not a religion but a lack of belief. There are a lot of differing views of the world under the umbrella of atheism.
The fact that people change their minds is stumping me. Of course people change their minds about their faith. That doesn't mean it isn't arbitrary. The question from my previous comment is still there.
@TheFanwindow In terms of being arbitrary, I didn't really tackle that, I'll admit. I think in the end what religion is better depends on a person's preferences, and I am not really one to to try to argue why everyone should be Christian, I can only say why I'm one.
@MrByronDunbar Someone was just talking about Lennox in the comments here. He seemed to do fine, though he doesn't have that sort of, shall we say, X factor.
I've heard of many people who grew up atheist but were brought to God and vice versa. I don't think Richard Dawkins really looked too far into this stuff. Either way, good video. Nice touch of comedy :)
I'd say very few true atheists become religious, the usual story is someone brought up in a religion strays away from it, then goes back to it and says "I was an atheist" when they actually never really were.
The numbers of religious people who change, become and stay atheists vastly outnumber atheists who turn religious.
I'm sure you've heard this quote. The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike. Not that this disproves the existence of God but puts him (her? it?) in the same pile as fairies and Santa Clause and i use to believe in Santa. But he always seemed to run away after dropping off my present. Tried to talk to God but i found it was a was a one way conversation. Just the kind of conversation you would expect from a non-existent being.
Another thing Dawkins doesn't take into considerations is people raised one religion or belief system, and then turn to Christianity when they are older. I was raised atheist and became a Christian at 17, to the dismay of my parents.
Also, it is a delight to learn about different religions!
And it is great that different religious beliefs have different moral lessons that help people. I was raised with Confucianism and Christianity, both of which had great moral lessons, but I believe that I don't need it to be a moral person, and the presence of a god irks me.
I think you are missing the point of the argument. It says; "If it is divine truth, why is it that _most_ (not all) people adhere to the religion of their parents? Why would the christian god care so little about converting people in east Asia or northern Africa, but so much about Americans etc?".
@tanekki If that's the argument then I've got news there too. Christianity is receiving a boon in Asia, and I know Christians exist in Africa too, though I don't know about growth numbers. Even so, I am not of the mind that only Christians can get into heaven, but that a discussion for another video.
@5thWatcher "am not of the mind that only Christians can get into heaven."
Christians never cease to amaze me. So the whole purpose of the bible, to set up the concept of original sin, the need for salvation, and the "No one comes to the Father except through me" loophole...if all that isn't part of your mindset, why even bother calling yourself a Christian?
@5thWatcher You appear to be doing some DoubleThink. First you say "I'm of the mind not only Christians get in" (Christian being a believer in Jesus), and now you say "everyone has to do it."
Can you explain this logically? Or are you contradicting yourself?
@tanekki Obviously spending long periods of time in a particular environment will influence your habits/beliefs (especially in one's earlier years). I don't think 5thWatcher has so much defeated the argument here as much as pointed out its narrow scope. Things are always more complicated than they seem. A major theme of eastern philosophy (such as Taoism) is the interrelatedness of ALL things, and the limitations human senses impose on our capacity to understand or perceive true reality.
@ohNo231 Not really. The arguments point is that all of these billions that religions want to brag about are mostly made up out of people who have not actually thought about the issue. Had everyone been a tad bit inquisitive of religion, the number of religious people would likely be alot lower. Right? Ritght.
@tanekki Anecdotal evidence is kind of irrelevant though. Look at the correlation between nonreligiousity and level of education. It is quite telling that as standard of life improves and people get a chance to think religiosity goes down.
"IF Taoism is 100% compatible with Christianity, would you think it's okay, or are yo just turned off by it because it's a "religion" outside of the Christian tradition?"
Can you clarify? Not sure what you mean by "okay". Do you mean would I approve of Taoism? What are you getting at here?
@vadimcream Yes. If it were indeed compatible, would you approve of it, as a Christian? Or would you still deny it any rightness for the simple fact hat it's not Christianity?
From the comments I've left I thought it might be plain that I'm not a Christian. I'm not and I'd say from what I know of taoism, I'm cooler with it than Christianity. I haven't read up on it extensively but I have a good overview of it's teachings and I have read Lao Tzu's "art of war" which incorporates the philosophy... As for Christianity, I can see some similarities between the 2, but there is a lot of reprehensible things mixed in that make it differ greatly from Taoism...
@vadimcream Art of War is by SUN Tzu. Different guy. I do want to read that, though. Lao Tzu teaches non violent action is the best way to win a battle.
It's hard for me to keep user names straight, but if you're an atheist, I might suggest that you have an idea of Christianity based on the rejection of it. And if you rejected it it was probably a shitty version of it.
Ok, my bad. The art of war is a pretty noble book, even though it admits to the necessity of war it takes a sort of, don't attack unless provoked kind of stance and in is influenced by zen philosophy... I understand yr suggestion but Ive read through the bible and my rejection and interpretations are my own. It has 2 much fantasy to be taken seriously and the actions and rules of Yahweh are so childish, cruel, petty and destructive that as allegory it's ultimately dreadful 2 me.
@Upermonotheismos Look up abiogenesis if you are curious. but from one believer to another, science offers the "how", religion offers the "why". No need for abiogenesis to bother you if it was the method by which god creates life.
I do respect your intelligence and open-mindedness though. I actually subscribed to you a while back, but never really got around to watching your older videos. If I remember right, your faith is not dependent on dogma that contradicts reality, as is the faith of so many other people.
Jesus died to send the Holy ghost not another book. King james was born 6, 1566, 6th of scotland, he authorized 66 books and called them the word of God. Jesus is the word of God. THE BIBLE IS THE MARK OF THE BEAST. Pray that God shows you the truth. there aren't many Holy ghost filled people left
@5thWatcher just watched it. sounds to me like you have been touched by the Holy ghost. I hope so. Only follow God and no bible. If the bible never existed you would have just as many Holy ghost filled people just not as many actors. timothy 3 16 that was talking about scripture. timothy was a jew and it could make him wise unto salvation (Jesus) and it can show you how to be righteous but in the new testament (not written with INK ) the righteous are scarcely saved. the bible is just history
@sirbestnameever uh...not sure what you said...but if your definition of "Atheist" is something like "lacking belief in any supernatural god", that would include almost all Buddhists, most Taoists, some Hindus, and almost all Agnostics. Arguably, Deists and Pantheists fall into that category as well.
There's far more non-god-believers than theistic dominated cultures want to admit.
@TheHigherVoltage THere is a difference between those who are atheists by default and those who are actively atheists and fall under the "New Atheist Movement" that Dawkins is at the fore-front of.
@5thWatcher #1 so? An Atheist is an Atheist - whether they say nothing or actively counter religious propaganda or their idiotic initiatives (hindering stem cell research, pushing creationism into science classes, etc) Your making a division that doesn't mean anything when counting Atheists.
#2 Why are you responding to my conversation here, and not addressing the point I made to you about sadistic/self-mutilation orders from Jesus?
@5thWatcher let me refresh your memory : I cited the "if your eye causes you to sin pluck it out" verse of self-mutilation. Jesus, who's supposed to be an all-knowing, all-loving god, should have known it would be cited as "Jesus advocates mutilations and deaths"...because that's exactly what it advocates...and used to justify atrocities for centuries and centuries and centuries...possibly again in the future.
@TheHigherVoltage yes because everything in scripture always has a strictly litteral meaning can cannot possibly be meant any other way and no one has ever misinterpreted and misapplied scripture and other pieces of literature right?
@OGAndizzo Rational, intelligent people speak literally and directly. They say what they mean and mean what they say. Kind, loving people do not use violence, or metaphors calling for violence, as a teaching method.
On both these counts, biblegod fails to be rational, intelligent, kind or loving.
@TheHigherVoltage I think you have a basic misunderstanding of the word "metaphore" . The particular metaphore in question did not call for violence it emphasized that we should stop sinning at all costs. The idea that you're irational and stupid simply because you speak figuratively is just funny and false. Don't attack a metaphore or analogy simply because you couldn't be bothered to find out what it means.
@OGAndizzo I understand metaphors fine. Definitely enough to know it's not spelled with an 'e' at the end. And EVEN IF it's a metaphor, it's ordering mutilation. And it was carried out that way throughout the Dark Ages -1400+ years of inquisition butchery cause Jesus was stupid or evil enough to his biggest church, word for word, the literal license to do it.
If Jesus is all-knowing, he's a sadistic psychopath. If he's not all-knowing, he's not God.
@TheHigherVoltage The Qur'an is pretty good, I own a copy. Don't just assume I hate all other religions, I would have thought you knew better by the content of this video. I'm a Taoist too, remember? Surely this warning Jesus gives is loving if the alternative is Hell.
@5thWatcher And just for clarification that's not to say you SHOULD cut off your hand, the point is to exercise some serious self control, so you don't get in a bad way.
@5thWatcher "Surely this warning Jesus gives is loving if the alternative is Hell. "
Jesus doesn't give a warning - he gives an ultimatum. Submit or burn. "Give me your wallet or it's your fault I shoot you." And once Christians are robbed they work to rob others. Like Stockholm syndrome and no different than other Theistic religions who play God.
The bible should be condensed to 1 line - "do onto others as you would have them do to you." - the rest thrown on the pile of stupid mythology.
@5thWatcher "The Qur'an is pretty good, I own a copy. Don't just assume I hate all other religions," I don't assume anything.
Which parts of the Qur'an did you like? When Jesus is declared lesser then Mohammad? When 7 year old Aisha married 32 year old Mohammad? When Jihads are declared against all non-Muslims?
The Qur'an claims Islam will take over the world. The Bible claims Christianity will take over the world. They both set themselves up for perpetual war -is that the part you like?
@TheHigherVoltage I could also care less for good and decent people. Why are they good? Why are they decent? are they productive individuals are they upstanding members of their community? To be 'an upstanding members of the community' means nothing to me. Just simply that you're more likely to be some kind of politician.
@TheHigherVoltage well let me take a shot. Humans are born enemies of God and naturally children of the Devil. As such, their sin separates them from God both now and in eternity. To no longer be separated from God requires redemption which requires repentance. This means that you must turn from sin and leave those things which caused you to sin. If it where as easy as cutting out your eye or hand then do that, but it's not because your eye and hand only follow the orders you give them.
@TheHigherVoltage long story-short: repentence is not easy. You have to part with things that are dear to you and it hurts. You sever your conection to things you've grown attached to like you would sever a part of your own body. It is worth it because of God's redemption which is only possible because of God's forgiveness and love.
@OGAndizzo Wow. Just wow. You're like a Christian version of a Muslim extremist. No questioning or thinking at all - just a broken mind, obedient to utter stupidity. Do you tithe as well?
@TheHigherVoltage in Logic, this is what we call an ad hominem. It's a falacy and it's generally the recourse of someone with nothing better to say. You asked for an explanation, I gave it. You didn't like what I said, but because it was exactly the explanation you asked for you did not address the merits of what I actually said you just dismis me as a mindless fundy and hope your done with it. What I think is that bigotry doesn't require belief in God. What I question is your philosophy.
@OGAndizzo My philosophy is being honest with myself - and searching/testing for the truth - not claiming to know it. I don't know if real Creator(s) exist or not. What I do know is every religion claims their God(s) are our Creator(s), their mythology is our history, and their books are the Words of God(s).
You say that we were born evil. You say this, not based on verifiable, testable evidence - but on the story of a book.
If you want to cite logic, why don't you apply it to your myths?
@OGAndizzo Yep, you're right - that was an ad hominem. My bad. I shortened the post to fit and lost my point...which was :
Islam tells their children the same thing : we are born evil, and only in faith and submission to God can anyone hope to escape eternal damnation. Sure it's got some variables, but the mind-warping cult message is still there "everyone is evil but believers in (our) God (mythology)".
Christianity is the essentially the same cult as Islam : everyone is evil but us.
@TheHigherVoltage believe it or not I won't argue with you there. The best lies are made of 95% truth. One small correction though: In comparison to Jesus, Christian believers are still evil. Their sin is simply covered by the blood of Christ and Christians have an opertunity walk in the will of God.
@OGAndizzo "Their sin is simply covered by the blood of Christ and Christians have an opertunity walk in the will of God."
Do you actually believe that our Creator requires blood sacrifices for appeasement? In the OT, biblegod demands animal sacrifices, and even a few human sacrifices. One ritual involves literal scapegoating - placing your sins on a goat then driving it out in the desert to die.
I find it impossible to believe any real God would need appeasement like a pagan god.
@TheHigherVoltage I will never understand why people who think God is on the same plane as the tooth fairy and Santa Clause think they can appeal to some sophisticated sensibility about Him: as if any real god would have to be 'above' blood sacrifices in order to exist. Tell me, if God were something other than the God of the bible, do you think he'd show up with a perfectly modern, 21st century, western standard of right and wrong? Would he wear white after Lobor Day or w/e the cliche is?
@OGAndizzo #1 Biblegod IS on the same plane as the tooth fairy, Santa Clause, Zeus, AmenRa, Ptah, pink unicorns and every mythological creature we've imagined - and that has no bearing on the question of whether or not any real Creator(s) may or may not exist.
#2 I would expect any real Creator to question the childish stupidity and injustice of killing one thing to make up for the perceived transgression of another. It's no different than slaughtering virgins with faith God will make it rain.
The best lies are so big and outrageous, and told so often, that people accept them.
Every cult declares the most outrageous non-sense as truth. Scientology, Mormonism, and Heaven's Gate come to mind.
Islam claims Mohammad rode up to heaven on a horse - witnessed by thousands. Christianity claims thousands rose from the dead - witnessed by even more thousands.
@TheHigherVoltage you know what. I don't even know what you're talking about anymore. In the Bible, hundreds of millions will rise from the dead, but only several people have risen; Jesus' resurection being witnessed by hundreds not thousands. Then again, there's a whole Catholic mythology of saints and miracles that aren't in the Bible. I can only assume that's what you have in mind. In which case you're painting with a pretty broad brush when you proport what Christians 'claim' .
@OGAndizzo Matthew 27:51-53 states that after an earthquake, many people were raised from the dead to walk around the city. Funny how only one documentation can be found for this unbelievable event. One would think that if it actually happened, it would have been written down by more than one questionable source, decades after it supposedly happened.
I see no reason to accept the "eyewitness" accounts of Jesus' resurrection any more than I should accept the "eyewitness" accounts (CONT)
@TheHigherVoltage so maybe dozens of people not serveral. Whatever "many" means. I'm sorry to hear that the Creater doesn't conform to your expectations. Protip: He never will.
@OGAndizzo I have no expectations of any real Creator(s) - because there's no real evidence of him/her/it/they showing themselves.
Biblegod on the other hand, conforms to all other man-made gods. I use to believe the bible - without question it was the Word of God. Then I learned ALL religions tell their followers their God is the true God - their books/stories/history are from a TRUE Creator.
You think biblegod is special? He's just another puppet god of man-made, man-run cults.
@TheHigherVoltage I think His name is not biblegod and I think you're betraying quite a bit of prejudice when you talk about "ALL religions". You said once that your philosophy is to be honest with yourself but you can't possibly do that and go around saying things that you have no intention of proving and no expectation of being called out on. Hindus in particular may be devotees of one god yet casually worship another god. Lao Tsu said the wolrd is eternal. So where is the creator in Taoism?
@OGAndizzo Biblegod is biblegod. Not much different to qurangod, illiadgod, vedasgod, etc.etc.etc. - ALL -- theistic -- religions call their god THE god. And I am not the one going around saying things with no intention of proving their validity - that would be people who take their fantasies on faith.
And what about Hindus? Ganeshu and his pantheon of lesser gods is not much different to Yahweh and his pantheon of lesser angels.
@TheHigherVoltage what you "Learned" about "ALL religions" is complete garbage. They do not all tell their followers that their particular dogma is from the one"true creator". That was my point with the Hindus. There are also many Buddhists who are quite emphatic that Buddha was merely man and that his teaching are merely for the cessation of suffering. You're likewise completely ignoring point I raised about Taoism. Seems to me you don't have to believe in God to still avoid hard questions.
@OGAndizzo I'm not avoiding anything. There are people who call themselves Christian who do not believe Jesus was supernatural in any way. That doesn't change a word the bible says - it just makes them hypocrites. Same with Hindus who play word games with the vedas to make them say what they want them to say, that doesn't change the fact vedasgod (Ganeshu) declares himself "the one true supreme God", and those Hindus are hypocritical towards their "holy books".
@OGAndizzo (CONT) And yes, there are some Buddhists who go against what Buddha taught - and call him God. Hypocrites to their own religions as well.
As far as Taoism goes, as I said before, I'm talking about THEISTIC religions. Taoism, in no form that I know of, is a THEISTIC religion - nor does it claim to be from any God(s).
@OGAndizzo (CONT) Now specifically - prove me wrong. Point to any theistic religion that doesn't claim it's book(s) are the words of god(s). I'd love to see that. I have no problem being proven wrong. I actually look forward to being proven wrong - it means I get to learn something new.
@TheHigherVoltage Two days ago you were saying all relegions do this and that. Now you're only interested in theistic religions.You should have made that distinction in the first place.
@OGAndizzo Let me clarify - the obvious is alluding you. All Theistic religion declare their mythology real, their stories true, their accounts magic/miracles/whatever proof - and of course, include messages/words from what claims to be our "true" Creator(s).
As far as I'm concerned, Atheistic religions, without supernatural mumbojumbo, are philosophies not religions. With supernatural mumbojumbo, they are on par with Theistic religions -making fairy tales up and declaring it truth.
@TheHigherVoltage well let's see, all sects of Buddhism that I know of require belief in karma (as a system of good and bad generally along with reincarnation). Taoists believe that the Tao is everywhere and in everything and thus are something of pantheists in that regard. All sounds supernatural to me. What exactly is "atheistic religion"? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of even being an Atheist? Seems like it'd be the perfect unholy marriage of arrogance and self-righteousness.
@TheHigherVoltage wow how about you cut the pretentiousness and just say 'I know you are, but what am I?' Look bro, you said "then I learned ALL religions tell their followers their God is the true God - their books/stories/history are from a TRUE Creator." something I knew to be a total lie. Then you limited your point to theistic religions, when you defined what you meant it became apparant that my counter-examples were theistic, and now you introduce a spectre of an "atheistic religion"
@OGAndizzo Atheist = no belief in any Gods. Traditional Buddhism is a considered by most to be an Atheistic religion. Personally, I consider it a philosophy - until - supernatural mombojumbo gets involved, then it's a religion. Is that so hard to understand?
And to clarify - all religions, who claim there's god(s), claim their religion, and mythology, comes from communication and interactions with said god(s). Point to one god religion that doesn't.
@OGAndizzo (CONT) accounts of Mohammad riding up to heaven on a horse, or Horus appearing to Egyptians in Alexandria every year, or Ganesha appearing before Hindus to teach them. EVERY religion claims miracles/god stories witnessed by believers. Christianity is no different.
The only difference I see, is believers of each religion are childishly, intellectually dishonest enough to their own supernatural mythology, that they ignorantly proclaim theirs is the only mythology that isn't fake.
@TheHigherVoltage oh you corrected my spelling? Maybe you should have looked at the dictionary long enough to get to the actual definition not just spell check me because you still don't get it. It's odering no such thing. As for the Dark Ages, if the Church in Rome and it's various tentacles would actually use a litteral reading of scripture it would at other times act in wanton disregard and defiance of scripture as suited its political needs and sensibilities. That's an institution of man
@TheHigherVoltage What I'm getting at here, is that people don't think for themselves. This, along with the fact that people feel the need to think for others, are the biggest problems today. People fail to connect with the spiritual side of religion – the side that see's God not as a supernatural entity but as the embodiment of love. Speaking the word of God is speaking through love; the admiration, compassion, and respect of all things in the universe and they ways they are connected.
@TheHigherVoltage Actually hardly anyone at all views it that way, in fact you'd be of the first I've seen to think that, so Jesus' foresight actually is doing fine in that regard. Those who would use it to cut off OTHER people's shit forgot about Thou shalt not kill and the golden rule. People who want to do a bad thing will find any justification, even it's at odds with itself.
@TheHigherVoltage Many religions have had incidents of misinterpretation born of ignorance since they've been around. Humans have misinterpreted many more things unrelated to religion since we've been around. We all prefer to have someone else do the thinking for us when it comes to certain things, so problems like this will always be propagated. Jesus' word was a Jewish movement, with heavy emphasis on self-interpretation coming before discussion and guidance gleaned from discussion w/ others.
@Snakepliskinist (cont)So it doesnt matter if 5th Watchers parents "ate" Christianity or any other variant copy and then "fed" it to him which explains his current Christian worldview. This type of argument has nothing to do with the truth or validity of a belief system. This logic is flawed right out the gate.
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 1 month ago
@Snakepliskinist Dawkins point and the point you seem to be arguing here is a moot one. This is nothing more than a classic example of a genetic fallacy. Dawkins is basically saying that sinse you can explain how a belief arose, therfore the belief is false.
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 1 month ago
I choose to believe what I was told to believe. After long, hard consideration the merits of what I was taught outweigh the merits of all the things everyone else believes. Do you hear yourself? You are ridulous. You might even have a feeble argument if you were Hindu, but you currently posess the exact religion pervasive in your region. You believe the very thing your parents taught you. How many more ways can I say you are ridiculous?
Snakepliskinist 1 month ago
@Snakepliskinist I don not believe the very thing my parents taught me. There's more than one brand of Christianity.
5thWatcher 1 month ago
@5thWatcher Big whoop. You got a slightly different copy of the same thing. That slight difference is your "individuality." Hundreds of religions exist, and yet you just so happen to believe in a variation of what you were taught. It's like this: if you lived in China you would probably eat Chinese food. It wouldn't be exactly what your parents ate, nor would it necessarily be exactly the same as what anyone else ate. But it would still be Chinese food.
Snakepliskinist 1 month ago
@5thWatcher The point being that if any one religion had a better factual basis than all others, it would spread like wildfire. That doesn't happen because no religion, as a matter of definition, is of a factual nature. It is a fully formed framework of belief and ritual behavior that is culturally transmitted, and for this reason most people's religion is a reflection of the culture into which they were born. All religions are crap, so you chose the crap that's familiar.
Snakepliskinist 1 month ago
It seems like the 5th watcher doesn't quite understand the point being made by Prof R Dawkins.
Indie9999 1 month ago
"The words of Jesus"?
You mean the words that were, Even if Copied down "Verbatum", were subject too nearly 2000 years of Edit's, and bad translations.
Oh Yeah, and seriously you should Call into the Athiest experience if you are so confident in your arguments.
ParasiteS27 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I thought the people in Sweden, believed in Odin, or something? The northern people were never truly Christened, or "baptised". That's why christians are so rare there, up norse.
They're more .... uhmm pagan, I guess.
Soveraine 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Well I'm Satanist, in a country where Orthodox Christianity is the official religion. It's not about family or society, really.
Soveraine 2 months ago
I agree. Dawkins does fail. How would he explain people like that one Korn dude who found Jesus and other people who want to become part of the catholic church? biology is based on evidence however why did biology have to exist? why did the universe have to come into existence? why did DNA have to exist and why is it so intrinsically complex? why do cells repair themselves? (that in itself is a miracle). btw i was an atheist and now i'm reverting back to Catholicism stronger than ever.
ajhrockerboy6 2 months ago
@ajhrockerboy6 Dawkins' point is one that has to do with probability, you missed the boat in terms of what he's saying. And you also miss out on evolution and reproduction, everything started out from single celled organisms, which in term became more complex when the situation allowed, allowing for processes such as replication, which led to complex life. This took BILLIONS of years to accomplish, but you if want to believe in the young earth creationist crap thump your bible away sir.
Waredwr 1 month ago
A born again Christian because that book had nice words.
About this changing mindset ideology, I believe you can agree wholeheartedly that once a religion has been indoctrinated, it can be nearly impossible to remove. Its concepts are binding. Most people that will consider their religion with logic, will become atheists. You very rarely hear of a Muslim (etc) becoming Jewish (etc) because of reason.
sageclem 2 months ago
I totally agree that Dawkins should stick to biology. When he talks about religion, he just sounds ignorant. I'm sure there are other atheists who understand religion in a less superficial way.
americanmuslimgirl 3 months ago
HEY BRO YOU ROCK. IT'S NICE TO SEE SOME LOGICAL CHRISTIANS. ATHEISTS ARE RETARDED.
ajhrockerboy6 3 months ago
@5thwatcher I wanted to add, in yr art background, did you have extensive art & design history classes as well? For me, those were some very challenging but thought provoking classes in my degree and I had the "Dawkins argument" likelihood observed by myself over a decade before I even heard of Dawkins. Atheists don't worship people (like Dawkins etc) of similar logical beliefs; so there's no need to parrot them as people do with holy books. I highly doubt athiests are "quoting" his argument.
billmaher4tw 5 months ago
Most Christians I know focus mostly on the NT as well and why not, Jesus was a cool character. You turned out to be "that" very kind of Christian. Only entertained Dawkins book in effort to rebutt the very first thing u (& poorly at that, sorry) could and it was in the foreword! Lmao. That shows complete lack of open-mindedness IMHO. Personally I didn't read it till I was sure my faith was 99% gone from religion to give it serious thought of what him and others had to write.
billmaher4tw 5 months ago
(cont.) Me thinks not since the childhood authority aspect is talked about near the end. Did u read the whole bible even? U flipped to the NT and liked the Jesus guy, but what about the God of the OT? He was a massive prick and god doesn't change. (cont)
billmaher4tw 5 months ago
@5thwatcher Each culture is a special scenario. The point is once a person in a FREER society grows up, if they have a decent IQ and are inquisitive, and can afford books or know the right people to help them learn, then perhaps they'll will learn more with knowledge if it's available for them. Still u may face ostracism (known from experience of myself and friends), EVEN in the states. Did u even read Dawkins entire book? (cont.)
billmaher4tw 5 months ago
@5thwatcher It's humorous that you assume every culture and country openly allows you to change yr mind on beliefs without complete ostracism or physical harm/punishment. Try daring to change yr belief system if you lived in north Korea or Afghanistan. For christs sake even yr background in studying art wouldn't have been allowed if you lived in a Muslim state much less openly read or discuss other belief systems. Comprehend generalization based off of common knowledge. No degrees needed.
billmaher4tw 5 months ago
@billmaher4tw Laws don't effect free will. And even when laws like that do deter people, they don;t deter all people, and that a special senario.
5thWatcher 5 months ago
@5thWatcher your right, everyone has free will. Just that expressing it can get you killed. Hmmm... i wonder what you and I would do in that situation.
mikeja008 2 months ago
@5thWatcher It has nothing to do with laws. It has to do with family and social dynamics. I was raised a fundamental baptist. Put yourself in my shoes and tell your parents that you are atheist. You have no idea how pressured people are into their religious status. Also, when it comes to other religions it is much less tolerable to deter from those beliefs.
b1rdn05 1 month ago
well still surprised alittle how much i like hearing what you think.
HolyHogShit 5 months ago
lmao... this video makes me laugh every time I watch it! That motherf-----.
InventorGorilla 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GOD - Philosophia Perennis and Science.
The Old Lady’s TORTOISE (Hinduism) and DRAGON (Taoism) are symbols for WAVE (energy), both are analog with MAGEN DAVID (Judaism). "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" is the metaphor, and also similar with allegory of rituals Thawaf circling around the Ka'ba and Sa’i oscillating along “the sinus” Marwah-Shafa during the Hajj pilgrimage (Abraham). YIN-YANG: energy-particle . CROSS (Christian) and SWASTIKA (Buddhism) are symbols for “Balance of Nature.”
TatoSugiarto 6 months ago
dawkins is well aware that there are exceptions. But the fact remains, that the majority of people with faith were brought up with it. And I agree that the same thing goes with atheists, and you can also be brainwashed into atheism etc.
But the main difference is that atheism has no dogma, and that's the danger of religion imo. That is what should be discussed, not wether or not god exists, because to me it doesn't matter what people believe as long as they don't harm or bother others.
nejtilsvampe 6 months ago
You seriously have a mental condition. A person doesn't need a degree in theology to dismiss those wild claims about the existence of some sky-fairy. Do I need to have a degree in Leprechaunism to disbelieve in leprechauns? And yes Dawkins is correct. When you were born you were clueless to the idea of religion. By default, you were an atheist. When your parents subjected you to Christianity, your parents taught you their delusion that they were taught as children. You fail yet again.
FallofDarkness55 6 months ago
The reality is, as Dawkins presents, is depending on the area and culture you are born into, the likelihood is, you will be that faith. You will be indoctrinated into it, regardless of what it is. Though you may change your mind in older years, that is what you generally are taught when you are young. I don't see a discrepancy with this. It is statistically proven. Most do not leave their faith due to fear of being ostracized , or cast out of their cultures/families
lebeaubastion 7 months ago
@lebeaubastion I'm not denying it happens I am questioning how meaningful that really is.
5thWatcher 7 months ago
@5thWatcher Ahh. Basically, at least from my understanding, the statement is a debasement of the powerful thoughts of truth behind any one God. It is a shedding of light on the claims of "one truth" and the "One deity" concept. Not everyone can be correct, past or present, even though they feel as strongly today about their personal deity as much as people had in the past regarding Thor, Wotan, et al. This argument makes claims without evidence baseless at its core.
lebeaubastion 7 months ago
@5thWatcher ...Okay, relevent, and you forgot a comma, there (A: I'm just pointing it out; and b: It would be a piddly thing as long as your point or anything else in your post was intelligent; but lots of people would mindlessly bully you; n' call you rude, sinful and a whole lot of other, mindless, social bullshit, hey, I have been the *Victim* of that; (many times(!)))
meteosurreal 6 months ago
@5thWatcher And your question is bogus. Clearly your religion, whoever you are doesn't have any special pull to it. People convert away from it just like they convert in. and in the rise of atheism that's occurring more people aren't coming in. Congrats on being a rebel and all that but so called "special cases" don't just destroy the rule. Who knows why jumped branches, but it's not like you represent some hidden truth of humanity.
ebonmaskarade77 1 month ago
@5thWatcher I think it would be meaningful if you had 10,000 christian people defending creationist delusions just because they happened to be born into an area that believes it. Or 10,000 islamic people mistreating women because they were born in the middle east. Of course there are exceptions, but people tend to speak about the millions who follow the rule as opposed to the hundred who don't.
On that note, why do you call it a "dawkin's fail" if you agree it happens?
TheoryOfThought 1 month ago
You have not made anything close to an apposing argument to what Richard was saying. If you are born in a particular enviroment and are raised and indoctrinated in its Religion that is the religion you have. Like following a football team, yet some will change teams but the majority will not, often due to social preasure.
If you were born in India you would be Hindu.
Atheists just don't believ in one less God than you.
No church is a good church.
VideoAudioDisco09 7 months ago
@VideoAudioDisco09 ...He doesn't usually talk about church, and when he does; it's usually to describe it as boring (sometimes shitty)
meteosurreal 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
5 questions every intelligent Christian must answer..
1. How did god create the universe exactly? (in detail; i don't want answers like 'he just did it' or 'the big bang').
2. Why can't nature always exist? (You can't solve a mystery with a mystery)
3. Why did god have to come down in human form and sacrifice himself to himself for something he created?
4. Why does a loving god send people to hell?
5. If you accept evolution then when did "sin" and the "soul" enter the world?
FallofDarkness55 7 months ago
That argument isn't really an argument for any particular worldview, except for one aspect of it - namely that we can see that people all over the place invent false superstitious notions of how the universe works and that a vast number of these have died out for various reasons. Yet, their believers always thought they were right. This is a pretty strong clue that the faith based approach to understanding reality is worthless and that evidence and reason is superior.
Gnomefro 7 months ago
Dawkins has never argued that people can't change their minds - Changing minds is his entire motivation for making the argument for crying out loud! He is arguing that people should be more critical of what kind of beliefs they embrace - because today most of what people believe is necessarily false due to the law of non contradiction. However, in the absence of critical thinking, what you get is the state of affairs we see today, with most people believing lies.
Gnomefro 7 months ago
@Gnomefro ...It's something that some people can imply; it's not necessarily something that Dawkins himself wouls say.
meteosurreal 6 months ago
You didn't grasp the argument at all. What Dawkins is saying is this:
1. People's worldviews, regardless of what they are, are typically inherited.
2. Most worldviews humans hold are mutually exclusive.
3. Therefore it's clear that the truth of the claims are irrelevant to whether or not people believe in a given worldview.
4. Because of this, everyone should use evidence and reason to determine what's true and not blindly trust whatever they grew up with.
Gnomefro 7 months ago
People choose religion, like a person chooses their fav cake or beverage. It's always been a matter of taste, just look at Scientology 5thWatcher.
Revolution2pointO 7 months ago
So to your main point, which seems to be about the ability to analyze one's viewpoint and change their minds: you are completely correct. The problem is that all religions are fashioned to subdue critical analysis of themselves and to promote unquestioning obedience to authority. This is why "holy" books like the bible are the "word of god" instead of just human teachings - so that they can be labeled as irreproachable. I would enjoy debating religion with you I think.
Pandonodrim 8 months ago
This is very much opposed to the reasons why people find science true and accurate - that's the main point.
Pandonodrim 8 months ago
You don't get the point of what Dawkins is talking about. He is not suggesting that it is only possible for a person to believe in a religion because that's what they were raised in. What he is saying is that more people who believe their religion to be true and accurate are most likely just victims of their upbringing and society - and that if they were born into a different religion (which others are) they would be more likely to believe those fantasies just as vehemently.
Pandonodrim 8 months ago
Burning a kindle... how clever
theastralproject 8 months ago
I'd love to see you call in to the Atheist Experience. Would be a nice change from the usual retards they get.
Nightmare91o 8 months ago 2
@Nightmare91o I've thought about it.
5thWatcher 8 months ago
Um, your argument proves Dawkins, Atheism isn't a belief it's a lack thereof, thus it's possible to change to a theist, by definition. Defining a child as being of a faith by virtue of birth is a lack of choice until autonomy is achieved by which time, often, the autonomy of choice is trained out of you. Religion is a by-product of biology - it's called brain chemistry. Furthermore, Taoism is a belief system, not a religion, and thus is not consistent with the argument.
COEXISTential 8 months ago
Nice mittens
OpethNation 8 months ago
@OpethNation Those are fingerless gloves. That's right, they're back.
5thWatcher 8 months ago
@5thWatcher Those are mittens, I'll grant you they're fingerless mittens.
OpethNation 8 months ago
@OpethNation But... they have holes for individual fingers. I think that makes them gloves.
5thWatcher 8 months ago
Of course an individual has the ability to choose their religion. It's difficult though, and that rarely happens with a majority, without threat of violence. I'm pretty sure Dawkins wasn't saying we didn't have a choice in the matter, just that very few make use of that choice.
seeqer66 8 months ago
I interpreted Dawkin's argument as meaning, "since you are this naive and gullible, if you were raised anywhere else, you would believe anything." He clearly doesn't mean to say that all people would be religious because of where they are born, just the gullible ones.
MykeTaylor11 8 months ago
@MykeTaylor11 If that's what he meant at least in my case, my beliefs, on the basic level, are vindicated by research.
5thWatcher 8 months ago
We are all small colonies of ants, fighting eachother over territory and differences. It's not like arguing is going to change most peoples minds. If anything I'm going to argue for the repeal of a failed war on drugs. Something which can advance the way we see eachother. We must hold the religious arguments and fight for what is good not for what others believe, we need equality, that is all that matters.
Revolution2pointO 8 months ago
Hi! this is one of the first of your videos that I watched, and I believe that if you truly researched and looked at different beliefs, you can embrace them as your own. I think Prof. Dawkins was going in the direction that it is not merely the upbringing, but the faith, the unquestioning authority that people have (or had) that created the demographics.
He wanted to point out absurdity that the 'true word of god' is divided not by deep thought and individual pursuit, but where you were born.
guyana001 8 months ago
@guyana001 I think my argument could still apply to that spin on it.
5thWatcher 8 months ago
First, nice video tags.
Second, I seem to be misunderstanding you. From what I understand, Dawkins is saying that your personal religious belief is based on your upbringing which includes your birthplace. What makes your belief more right than a person who has just as much faith in their different belief halfway around the world? It seems to be arbitrary.
I can't see how the fact that there are predominantly atheist countries + the fact ppl change their minds refutes this. (cont in next reply)
TheFanwindow 8 months ago
@TheFanwindow That there are predominantly atheist countries only means that there are people there who do not believe in a god. That's it. Atheism is not a religion but a lack of belief. There are a lot of differing views of the world under the umbrella of atheism.
The fact that people change their minds is stumping me. Of course people change their minds about their faith. That doesn't mean it isn't arbitrary. The question from my previous comment is still there.
TheFanwindow 8 months ago
@TheFanwindow In terms of being arbitrary, I didn't really tackle that, I'll admit. I think in the end what religion is better depends on a person's preferences, and I am not really one to to try to argue why everyone should be Christian, I can only say why I'm one.
5thWatcher 8 months ago
Dawkins has some retarded arguments. But I am glad to see fellow Christians who see Christ's real message instead of handing out Chick Tracts.
Bigsquid91 8 months ago
What do you think of John Lennox's debates with Dawkins? I feel he does a better job than MacGrath, even if he does fall into some of the same traps.
MrByronDunbar 8 months ago
@MrByronDunbar Someone was just talking about Lennox in the comments here. He seemed to do fine, though he doesn't have that sort of, shall we say, X factor.
5thWatcher 8 months ago
I've heard of many people who grew up atheist but were brought to God and vice versa. I don't think Richard Dawkins really looked too far into this stuff. Either way, good video. Nice touch of comedy :)
TheKulrai 8 months ago
@TheKulrai
I'd say very few true atheists become religious, the usual story is someone brought up in a religion strays away from it, then goes back to it and says "I was an atheist" when they actually never really were.
The numbers of religious people who change, become and stay atheists vastly outnumber atheists who turn religious.
Wordavee1 8 months ago
Glad this guy is back making videos! Prob the best Christian youtuber as far as being able to take the fight to Atheists and actually win!
elvisfan22 8 months ago
I'm sure you've heard this quote. The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike. Not that this disproves the existence of God but puts him (her? it?) in the same pile as fairies and Santa Clause and i use to believe in Santa. But he always seemed to run away after dropping off my present. Tried to talk to God but i found it was a was a one way conversation. Just the kind of conversation you would expect from a non-existent being.
TomSkorupski 8 months ago
Another thing Dawkins doesn't take into considerations is people raised one religion or belief system, and then turn to Christianity when they are older. I was raised atheist and became a Christian at 17, to the dismay of my parents.
staralfur9 8 months ago
@staralfur9 You are indeed somewhat of a rare one, Staral, but yes, this of course happens too.
5thWatcher 8 months ago
Also, it is a delight to learn about different religions!
And it is great that different religious beliefs have different moral lessons that help people. I was raised with Confucianism and Christianity, both of which had great moral lessons, but I believe that I don't need it to be a moral person, and the presence of a god irks me.
But otherwise, thanks for the video!
guyana001 8 months ago
To challenge yourself, try reading the bible objectively.
thekwizatshaderach 8 months ago
I think you are missing the point of the argument. It says; "If it is divine truth, why is it that _most_ (not all) people adhere to the religion of their parents? Why would the christian god care so little about converting people in east Asia or northern Africa, but so much about Americans etc?".
tanekki 8 months ago
@tanekki If that's the argument then I've got news there too. Christianity is receiving a boon in Asia, and I know Christians exist in Africa too, though I don't know about growth numbers. Even so, I am not of the mind that only Christians can get into heaven, but that a discussion for another video.
5thWatcher 8 months ago
@5thWatcher I want to see that video.
ugabandit7 8 months ago
@5thWatcher I would like to hear it. I am of the same opinion as you.
Bigsquid91 8 months ago
@5thWatcher "am not of the mind that only Christians can get into heaven."
Christians never cease to amaze me. So the whole purpose of the bible, to set up the concept of original sin, the need for salvation, and the "No one comes to the Father except through me" loophole...if all that isn't part of your mindset, why even bother calling yourself a Christian?
TheHigherVoltage 8 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage No it is and everyone has to do it. Just not necessarily in life.
5thWatcher 8 months ago
@5thWatcher You appear to be doing some DoubleThink. First you say "I'm of the mind not only Christians get in" (Christian being a believer in Jesus), and now you say "everyone has to do it."
Can you explain this logically? Or are you contradicting yourself?
TheHigherVoltage 8 months ago
Comment removed
ohNo231 8 months ago
@tanekki Obviously spending long periods of time in a particular environment will influence your habits/beliefs (especially in one's earlier years). I don't think 5thWatcher has so much defeated the argument here as much as pointed out its narrow scope. Things are always more complicated than they seem. A major theme of eastern philosophy (such as Taoism) is the interrelatedness of ALL things, and the limitations human senses impose on our capacity to understand or perceive true reality.
ohNo231 8 months ago
@ohNo231 Not really. The arguments point is that all of these billions that religions want to brag about are mostly made up out of people who have not actually thought about the issue. Had everyone been a tad bit inquisitive of religion, the number of religious people would likely be alot lower. Right? Ritght.
tanekki 8 months ago
Comment removed
ohNo231 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tanekki Not really. I know quite a few atheists who became inquisitive, and then decided they were theists.
ohNo231 8 months ago
@tanekki Anecdotal evidence is kind of irrelevant though. Look at the correlation between nonreligiousity and level of education. It is quite telling that as standard of life improves and people get a chance to think religiosity goes down.
tanekki 8 months ago
"IF Taoism is 100% compatible with Christianity, would you think it's okay, or are yo just turned off by it because it's a "religion" outside of the Christian tradition?"
Can you clarify? Not sure what you mean by "okay". Do you mean would I approve of Taoism? What are you getting at here?
vadimcream 8 months ago
@vadimcream Yes. If it were indeed compatible, would you approve of it, as a Christian? Or would you still deny it any rightness for the simple fact hat it's not Christianity?
5thWatcher 8 months ago
@5thWatcher
From the comments I've left I thought it might be plain that I'm not a Christian. I'm not and I'd say from what I know of taoism, I'm cooler with it than Christianity. I haven't read up on it extensively but I have a good overview of it's teachings and I have read Lao Tzu's "art of war" which incorporates the philosophy... As for Christianity, I can see some similarities between the 2, but there is a lot of reprehensible things mixed in that make it differ greatly from Taoism...
vadimcream 8 months ago
@vadimcream Art of War is by SUN Tzu. Different guy. I do want to read that, though. Lao Tzu teaches non violent action is the best way to win a battle.
It's hard for me to keep user names straight, but if you're an atheist, I might suggest that you have an idea of Christianity based on the rejection of it. And if you rejected it it was probably a shitty version of it.
5thWatcher 8 months ago
@5thWatcher
Ok, my bad. The art of war is a pretty noble book, even though it admits to the necessity of war it takes a sort of, don't attack unless provoked kind of stance and in is influenced by zen philosophy... I understand yr suggestion but Ive read through the bible and my rejection and interpretations are my own. It has 2 much fantasy to be taken seriously and the actions and rules of Yahweh are so childish, cruel, petty and destructive that as allegory it's ultimately dreadful 2 me.
vadimcream 8 months ago
@Upermonotheismos Look up abiogenesis if you are curious. but from one believer to another, science offers the "how", religion offers the "why". No need for abiogenesis to bother you if it was the method by which god creates life.
5thWatcher 8 months ago
have you seen the richard dawkins vs. john lennox debate?
you can watch it on fixedpointfounsations if you haven't... it was really interesting- focused on the god delusion...
pianoboypiano 8 months ago
@pianoboypiano I feel like I might have watched som of that actually. I'll check it out again.
5thWatcher 8 months ago
@pianoboypiano This isn't the guy I remember. Phooey. He seems fine so far though.
5thWatcher 8 months ago
@pianoboypiano the guy I was thinking of before, I think was William Lane Craig.
5thWatcher 8 months ago
I do respect your intelligence and open-mindedness though. I actually subscribed to you a while back, but never really got around to watching your older videos. If I remember right, your faith is not dependent on dogma that contradicts reality, as is the faith of so many other people.
Zachk2391 8 months ago
@Zachk2391 Yeah I try. Thanks. :-)
5thWatcher 8 months ago
Jesus died to send the Holy ghost not another book. King james was born 6, 1566, 6th of scotland, he authorized 66 books and called them the word of God. Jesus is the word of God. THE BIBLE IS THE MARK OF THE BEAST. Pray that God shows you the truth. there aren't many Holy ghost filled people left
MarkofBeastRevealed 8 months ago
@MarkofBeastRevealed Have you seen my video "Jesus or the Bible: The True Word of God"? Sounds right up your ally.
5thWatcher 8 months ago
@5thWatcher just watched it. sounds to me like you have been touched by the Holy ghost. I hope so. Only follow God and no bible. If the bible never existed you would have just as many Holy ghost filled people just not as many actors. timothy 3 16 that was talking about scripture. timothy was a jew and it could make him wise unto salvation (Jesus) and it can show you how to be righteous but in the new testament (not written with INK ) the righteous are scarcely saved. the bible is just history
MarkofBeastRevealed 8 months ago
are atheist rare outside of England?
sirbestnameever 8 months ago
@sirbestnameever No, but they are usually a minority. Not a asmall minority though, maybe medium sized.
5thWatcher 8 months ago
@sirbestnameever There's over a billion Atheists in the world, spread out all over.
TheHigherVoltage 8 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage wait it a lot because baby's don't believe in god
sirbestnameever 8 months ago
@sirbestnameever uh...not sure what you said...but if your definition of "Atheist" is something like "lacking belief in any supernatural god", that would include almost all Buddhists, most Taoists, some Hindus, and almost all Agnostics. Arguably, Deists and Pantheists fall into that category as well.
There's far more non-god-believers than theistic dominated cultures want to admit.
TheHigherVoltage 8 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage THere is a difference between those who are atheists by default and those who are actively atheists and fall under the "New Atheist Movement" that Dawkins is at the fore-front of.
5thWatcher 8 months ago
@5thWatcher #1 so? An Atheist is an Atheist - whether they say nothing or actively counter religious propaganda or their idiotic initiatives (hindering stem cell research, pushing creationism into science classes, etc) Your making a division that doesn't mean anything when counting Atheists.
#2 Why are you responding to my conversation here, and not addressing the point I made to you about sadistic/self-mutilation orders from Jesus?
TheHigherVoltage 8 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage Well I think a lot of times there are differences, but ultimately it's unimportant so whatever.
I am only one man, I can't keep track of all these replies.
5thWatcher 8 months ago
@5thWatcher let me refresh your memory : I cited the "if your eye causes you to sin pluck it out" verse of self-mutilation. Jesus, who's supposed to be an all-knowing, all-loving god, should have known it would be cited as "Jesus advocates mutilations and deaths"...because that's exactly what it advocates...and used to justify atrocities for centuries and centuries and centuries...possibly again in the future.
So, how can you claim Jesus is good?
TheHigherVoltage 8 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage yes because everything in scripture always has a strictly litteral meaning can cannot possibly be meant any other way and no one has ever misinterpreted and misapplied scripture and other pieces of literature right?
OGAndizzo 8 months ago
@OGAndizzo Rational, intelligent people speak literally and directly. They say what they mean and mean what they say. Kind, loving people do not use violence, or metaphors calling for violence, as a teaching method.
On both these counts, biblegod fails to be rational, intelligent, kind or loving.
TheHigherVoltage 8 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage I think you have a basic misunderstanding of the word "metaphore" . The particular metaphore in question did not call for violence it emphasized that we should stop sinning at all costs. The idea that you're irational and stupid simply because you speak figuratively is just funny and false. Don't attack a metaphore or analogy simply because you couldn't be bothered to find out what it means.
OGAndizzo 8 months ago
@OGAndizzo I understand metaphors fine. Definitely enough to know it's not spelled with an 'e' at the end. And EVEN IF it's a metaphor, it's ordering mutilation. And it was carried out that way throughout the Dark Ages -1400+ years of inquisition butchery cause Jesus was stupid or evil enough to his biggest church, word for word, the literal license to do it.
If Jesus is all-knowing, he's a sadistic psychopath. If he's not all-knowing, he's not God.
Logic. Kills bullshit dead.
TheHigherVoltage 8 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage Logic? That's an emotional argument if I've ever heard one.
5thWatcher 8 months ago
@5thWatcher So you think it perfectly logical for an 'all-knowing' and 'all-loving' anything, to :
(1) use literal orders of self-mutilation...as a metaphor...
(2) knowing it will be taken, word for word, as justification for countless tortures and amputations.
Just what exactly is your definition of love? and wise? It sure doesn't conform to anything any good or decent people would define it as.
TheHigherVoltage 8 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage I don't see how you've established either of those points.
5thWatcher 8 months ago
@5thWatcher "I don't see how you've established either of those points."
Loving minds do not use sadistic metaphors.
Loving minds do not use self-mutilation as a teaching mechanism.
If this passage was found in the Qur'an I'd bet you'd agree with me.
TheHigherVoltage 8 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage The Qur'an is pretty good, I own a copy. Don't just assume I hate all other religions, I would have thought you knew better by the content of this video. I'm a Taoist too, remember? Surely this warning Jesus gives is loving if the alternative is Hell.
5thWatcher 8 months ago
@5thWatcher And just for clarification that's not to say you SHOULD cut off your hand, the point is to exercise some serious self control, so you don't get in a bad way.
5thWatcher 8 months ago
@5thWatcher "Surely this warning Jesus gives is loving if the alternative is Hell. "
Jesus doesn't give a warning - he gives an ultimatum. Submit or burn. "Give me your wallet or it's your fault I shoot you." And once Christians are robbed they work to rob others. Like Stockholm syndrome and no different than other Theistic religions who play God.
The bible should be condensed to 1 line - "do onto others as you would have them do to you." - the rest thrown on the pile of stupid mythology.
TheHigherVoltage 8 months ago
@5thWatcher "The Qur'an is pretty good, I own a copy. Don't just assume I hate all other religions," I don't assume anything.
Which parts of the Qur'an did you like? When Jesus is declared lesser then Mohammad? When 7 year old Aisha married 32 year old Mohammad? When Jihads are declared against all non-Muslims?
The Qur'an claims Islam will take over the world. The Bible claims Christianity will take over the world. They both set themselves up for perpetual war -is that the part you like?
TheHigherVoltage 8 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage I could also care less for good and decent people. Why are they good? Why are they decent? are they productive individuals are they upstanding members of their community? To be 'an upstanding members of the community' means nothing to me. Just simply that you're more likely to be some kind of politician.
OGAndizzo 8 months ago
@OGAndizzo Explain to me then how metaphors of self-mutilation fit into any definition of love.
TheHigherVoltage 8 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage well let me take a shot. Humans are born enemies of God and naturally children of the Devil. As such, their sin separates them from God both now and in eternity. To no longer be separated from God requires redemption which requires repentance. This means that you must turn from sin and leave those things which caused you to sin. If it where as easy as cutting out your eye or hand then do that, but it's not because your eye and hand only follow the orders you give them.
OGAndizzo 8 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage long story-short: repentence is not easy. You have to part with things that are dear to you and it hurts. You sever your conection to things you've grown attached to like you would sever a part of your own body. It is worth it because of God's redemption which is only possible because of God's forgiveness and love.
OGAndizzo 8 months ago
@OGAndizzo Wow. Just wow. You're like a Christian version of a Muslim extremist. No questioning or thinking at all - just a broken mind, obedient to utter stupidity. Do you tithe as well?
TheHigherVoltage 8 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage in Logic, this is what we call an ad hominem. It's a falacy and it's generally the recourse of someone with nothing better to say. You asked for an explanation, I gave it. You didn't like what I said, but because it was exactly the explanation you asked for you did not address the merits of what I actually said you just dismis me as a mindless fundy and hope your done with it. What I think is that bigotry doesn't require belief in God. What I question is your philosophy.
OGAndizzo 8 months ago
@OGAndizzo My philosophy is being honest with myself - and searching/testing for the truth - not claiming to know it. I don't know if real Creator(s) exist or not. What I do know is every religion claims their God(s) are our Creator(s), their mythology is our history, and their books are the Words of God(s).
You say that we were born evil. You say this, not based on verifiable, testable evidence - but on the story of a book.
If you want to cite logic, why don't you apply it to your myths?
TheHigherVoltage 8 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage to answer your question I'm in between churches at the moment and so do not tithe
OGAndizzo 8 months ago
@OGAndizzo Yep, you're right - that was an ad hominem. My bad. I shortened the post to fit and lost my point...which was :
Islam tells their children the same thing : we are born evil, and only in faith and submission to God can anyone hope to escape eternal damnation. Sure it's got some variables, but the mind-warping cult message is still there "everyone is evil but believers in (our) God (mythology)".
Christianity is the essentially the same cult as Islam : everyone is evil but us.
TheHigherVoltage 8 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage believe it or not I won't argue with you there. The best lies are made of 95% truth. One small correction though: In comparison to Jesus, Christian believers are still evil. Their sin is simply covered by the blood of Christ and Christians have an opertunity walk in the will of God.
OGAndizzo 8 months ago
@OGAndizzo "Their sin is simply covered by the blood of Christ and Christians have an opertunity walk in the will of God."
Do you actually believe that our Creator requires blood sacrifices for appeasement? In the OT, biblegod demands animal sacrifices, and even a few human sacrifices. One ritual involves literal scapegoating - placing your sins on a goat then driving it out in the desert to die.
I find it impossible to believe any real God would need appeasement like a pagan god.
TheHigherVoltage 8 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage I will never understand why people who think God is on the same plane as the tooth fairy and Santa Clause think they can appeal to some sophisticated sensibility about Him: as if any real god would have to be 'above' blood sacrifices in order to exist. Tell me, if God were something other than the God of the bible, do you think he'd show up with a perfectly modern, 21st century, western standard of right and wrong? Would he wear white after Lobor Day or w/e the cliche is?
OGAndizzo 8 months ago
@OGAndizzo #1 Biblegod IS on the same plane as the tooth fairy, Santa Clause, Zeus, AmenRa, Ptah, pink unicorns and every mythological creature we've imagined - and that has no bearing on the question of whether or not any real Creator(s) may or may not exist.
#2 I would expect any real Creator to question the childish stupidity and injustice of killing one thing to make up for the perceived transgression of another. It's no different than slaughtering virgins with faith God will make it rain.
TheHigherVoltage 8 months ago
@OGAndizzo "The best lies are made of 95% truth."
The best lies are so big and outrageous, and told so often, that people accept them.
Every cult declares the most outrageous non-sense as truth. Scientology, Mormonism, and Heaven's Gate come to mind.
Islam claims Mohammad rode up to heaven on a horse - witnessed by thousands. Christianity claims thousands rose from the dead - witnessed by even more thousands.
And there's no evidence outside their storybooks.
TheHigherVoltage 8 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage you know what. I don't even know what you're talking about anymore. In the Bible, hundreds of millions will rise from the dead, but only several people have risen; Jesus' resurection being witnessed by hundreds not thousands. Then again, there's a whole Catholic mythology of saints and miracles that aren't in the Bible. I can only assume that's what you have in mind. In which case you're painting with a pretty broad brush when you proport what Christians 'claim' .
OGAndizzo 8 months ago
@OGAndizzo Matthew 27:51-53 states that after an earthquake, many people were raised from the dead to walk around the city. Funny how only one documentation can be found for this unbelievable event. One would think that if it actually happened, it would have been written down by more than one questionable source, decades after it supposedly happened.
I see no reason to accept the "eyewitness" accounts of Jesus' resurrection any more than I should accept the "eyewitness" accounts (CONT)
TheHigherVoltage 8 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage so maybe dozens of people not serveral. Whatever "many" means. I'm sorry to hear that the Creater doesn't conform to your expectations. Protip: He never will.
OGAndizzo 8 months ago
@OGAndizzo I have no expectations of any real Creator(s) - because there's no real evidence of him/her/it/they showing themselves.
Biblegod on the other hand, conforms to all other man-made gods. I use to believe the bible - without question it was the Word of God. Then I learned ALL religions tell their followers their God is the true God - their books/stories/history are from a TRUE Creator.
You think biblegod is special? He's just another puppet god of man-made, man-run cults.
TheHigherVoltage 8 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage I think His name is not biblegod and I think you're betraying quite a bit of prejudice when you talk about "ALL religions". You said once that your philosophy is to be honest with yourself but you can't possibly do that and go around saying things that you have no intention of proving and no expectation of being called out on. Hindus in particular may be devotees of one god yet casually worship another god. Lao Tsu said the wolrd is eternal. So where is the creator in Taoism?
OGAndizzo 8 months ago
@OGAndizzo Biblegod is biblegod. Not much different to qurangod, illiadgod, vedasgod, etc.etc.etc. - ALL -- theistic -- religions call their god THE god. And I am not the one going around saying things with no intention of proving their validity - that would be people who take their fantasies on faith.
And what about Hindus? Ganeshu and his pantheon of lesser gods is not much different to Yahweh and his pantheon of lesser angels.
TheHigherVoltage 8 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage what you "Learned" about "ALL religions" is complete garbage. They do not all tell their followers that their particular dogma is from the one"true creator". That was my point with the Hindus. There are also many Buddhists who are quite emphatic that Buddha was merely man and that his teaching are merely for the cessation of suffering. You're likewise completely ignoring point I raised about Taoism. Seems to me you don't have to believe in God to still avoid hard questions.
OGAndizzo 8 months ago
@OGAndizzo I'm not avoiding anything. There are people who call themselves Christian who do not believe Jesus was supernatural in any way. That doesn't change a word the bible says - it just makes them hypocrites. Same with Hindus who play word games with the vedas to make them say what they want them to say, that doesn't change the fact vedasgod (Ganeshu) declares himself "the one true supreme God", and those Hindus are hypocritical towards their "holy books".
TheHigherVoltage 8 months ago
@OGAndizzo (CONT) And yes, there are some Buddhists who go against what Buddha taught - and call him God. Hypocrites to their own religions as well.
As far as Taoism goes, as I said before, I'm talking about THEISTIC religions. Taoism, in no form that I know of, is a THEISTIC religion - nor does it claim to be from any God(s).
I'm not avoiding anything.
TheHigherVoltage 8 months ago
@OGAndizzo (CONT) Now specifically - prove me wrong. Point to any theistic religion that doesn't claim it's book(s) are the words of god(s). I'd love to see that. I have no problem being proven wrong. I actually look forward to being proven wrong - it means I get to learn something new.
TheHigherVoltage 8 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage Two days ago you were saying all relegions do this and that. Now you're only interested in theistic religions.You should have made that distinction in the first place.
OGAndizzo 8 months ago
@OGAndizzo Let me clarify - the obvious is alluding you. All Theistic religion declare their mythology real, their stories true, their accounts magic/miracles/whatever proof - and of course, include messages/words from what claims to be our "true" Creator(s).
As far as I'm concerned, Atheistic religions, without supernatural mumbojumbo, are philosophies not religions. With supernatural mumbojumbo, they are on par with Theistic religions -making fairy tales up and declaring it truth.
TheHigherVoltage 8 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage well let's see, all sects of Buddhism that I know of require belief in karma (as a system of good and bad generally along with reincarnation). Taoists believe that the Tao is everywhere and in everything and thus are something of pantheists in that regard. All sounds supernatural to me. What exactly is "atheistic religion"? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of even being an Atheist? Seems like it'd be the perfect unholy marriage of arrogance and self-righteousness.
OGAndizzo 8 months ago
@OGAndizzo Did you even read my comment? It doesn't seem so.
"Seems like it'd be the perfect unholy marriage of arrogance and self-righteousness."
That would be the backwards practice of declaring whatever you have "faith" in, as "truth".
TheHigherVoltage 8 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage wow how about you cut the pretentiousness and just say 'I know you are, but what am I?' Look bro, you said "then I learned ALL religions tell their followers their God is the true God - their books/stories/history are from a TRUE Creator." something I knew to be a total lie. Then you limited your point to theistic religions, when you defined what you meant it became apparant that my counter-examples were theistic, and now you introduce a spectre of an "atheistic religion"
OGAndizzo 8 months ago
@OGAndizzo Atheist = no belief in any Gods. Traditional Buddhism is a considered by most to be an Atheistic religion. Personally, I consider it a philosophy - until - supernatural mombojumbo gets involved, then it's a religion. Is that so hard to understand?
And to clarify - all religions, who claim there's god(s), claim their religion, and mythology, comes from communication and interactions with said god(s). Point to one god religion that doesn't.
TheHigherVoltage 8 months ago
Comment removed
OGAndizzo 8 months ago
@OGAndizzo (CONT) accounts of Mohammad riding up to heaven on a horse, or Horus appearing to Egyptians in Alexandria every year, or Ganesha appearing before Hindus to teach them. EVERY religion claims miracles/god stories witnessed by believers. Christianity is no different.
The only difference I see, is believers of each religion are childishly, intellectually dishonest enough to their own supernatural mythology, that they ignorantly proclaim theirs is the only mythology that isn't fake.
TheHigherVoltage 8 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage oh you corrected my spelling? Maybe you should have looked at the dictionary long enough to get to the actual definition not just spell check me because you still don't get it. It's odering no such thing. As for the Dark Ages, if the Church in Rome and it's various tentacles would actually use a litteral reading of scripture it would at other times act in wanton disregard and defiance of scripture as suited its political needs and sensibilities. That's an institution of man
OGAndizzo 8 months ago
@OGAndizzo So let's see if I got this right...
- Jesus orders us to follow his words, because if we don't, he says we'll burn for eternity.
- He gives orders of self-mutilation, and then hopes? no one takes him literally...even though many do.
- He's suppose to be all-knowing and all-loving, yet chooses words that, when followed word for word, are not all-loving, nor all-knowing.
I really don't know who's more sadistic. The people who wrote the bible or the people who justify belief in it.
TheHigherVoltage 8 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage What I'm getting at here, is that people don't think for themselves. This, along with the fact that people feel the need to think for others, are the biggest problems today. People fail to connect with the spiritual side of religion – the side that see's God not as a supernatural entity but as the embodiment of love. Speaking the word of God is speaking through love; the admiration, compassion, and respect of all things in the universe and they ways they are connected.
ohNo231 8 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage Actually hardly anyone at all views it that way, in fact you'd be of the first I've seen to think that, so Jesus' foresight actually is doing fine in that regard. Those who would use it to cut off OTHER people's shit forgot about Thou shalt not kill and the golden rule. People who want to do a bad thing will find any justification, even it's at odds with itself.
5thWatcher 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@5thWatcher Ah yes, who would interpret a book literally, when it declares itself to be taken literally - an not a personal interpretation.
Yesterday you commented how pedophile priests should have their junk cut off. You shoot yourself in the foot.
"People who want to do a bad thing will find any justification, even it's at odds with itself."
I agree. It's called being "faithful".
TheHigherVoltage 8 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage Many religions have had incidents of misinterpretation born of ignorance since they've been around. Humans have misinterpreted many more things unrelated to religion since we've been around. We all prefer to have someone else do the thinking for us when it comes to certain things, so problems like this will always be propagated. Jesus' word was a Jewish movement, with heavy emphasis on self-interpretation coming before discussion and guidance gleaned from discussion w/ others.
ohNo231 8 months ago
Comment removed
ohNo231 8 months ago