That's a good fair video, you don't demean anyone in your video, you just refute in the areas of concern with civilty. A far cry from many of your peers. Btw, Ockham's Razor is spelled with a K
I did not see this debate until today. I have as yet not read it all, but I will for sure make a video on it as I can see by skimming it that logical fallacies are raised. I will review this debate and make a video and thank you both!
might accept as proof: atoms being like dust, the nature of light and mass having frequencies like sound, historical information that cooberates information in the Bible, my interpretation of my life experiences and their symmetry, or even how our posture kicks our *** for negative emotion (look into chinese medicine) as proof. Which lead me to know... and you might say, "that's subjective."
Relying on the bible as proof for anything is ridiculous. Not sure what you are smoking, but if you search for answers to life's questions, you have to be open to ALL sides. You cannot reject any evidence, just because it is in conflict with a book, whose relevance has NEVER, not in the SLIGHTEST EVER been proven. If you want to be delusional, at least be true to yourself and accept that life will elude you
I imagine if you wanted to look for proofs of the historical content of the Bible you could find them. You said the Bible is a book whose relevance has never, not in the slightest ever been proven. I think that would be an obvious logical fallacy. I actually can say I am much better off with my faith than without it, but enjjoy your life. Truly, MCM
Again, distortions, ignorance, and then some more .. distortions. I said RELYING ON THE BIBLE AS PROOF FOR ANYTHING is ridiculous. You cannot explain natural phenomena or your understanding of the world and then double check with the bible to assert their validity. The bible has NO RELEVANCE FOR THAT. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the historical accuracy of the bible
I cannot even believe you use the word fallacy. Let me spell out a fallacy for you. B explains A correctly, therefore B explains C correctly. Say B is the bible, and A is what the fuck ever you failed to name, where the bible was ever historically accurate. C is any other phenomen. Don't use words you CANNOT understand, because you restrict your mind with delusions
Please feel free to read about the excavations of and accidental discoveries of these individuals: Reisner, Lyons, and Fisher (University of Harvard), Henry Layard, Clermont-Ganneau, Lt. Cabane, Parrot and Schaeffer... (I'm sure many of them have scientific explanations of various miracles, in fact, not to say you will take the effort to read them, but I know one does...)
You said," relying it for anything," funny thing about language, to communicate you have to specify I took it to mean what it says. As a reference for historical information... Now, if you want to specify and say," it doesn't explain natural phenomena..." that would be different. Yes?
Funny thing about comments sections in videos is, you can scroll up and see what I said. I said RELYING ON THE BIBLE AS PROOF FOR ANYTHING is ridiculous. I said TWICE before. So for you to say, you took it to mean what it said and then to falsely claim, I said anything about ONLY the historical accuracy of the bible, once again makes you look like an idiot. Guess you can't help it
And before I get flooded with another barrage of your ignorant responses. I am not interested in the historical accuracy of the bible. If something was accurate, then it would be accurate, whether it was written in the bible or not. So the discussion ends right here. If you can prove any accuracy in the bible, it still doesn't make the bible a part of the proof or else it is a CIRCLE PROOF
Also, the whole... can I concretely prove to you that there is a God. You can't prove anything to anyone if they don't want to accept the "proofs". Sounds like a deadlock.
Anyone can believe in "some" God concept. The problem begins, when you make random leaps of faith, defining God as you please out of thin air and the vaccum in your mouldy skull (or a mouldy book). If you do THAT, then you have to prove the validity of your statements. Otherwise you are leaving the ground of humanity and consensus, and tread in a realm of dangerous delusions
How can P and not P exist in the same place at the same "time"... In a place where there is no time. Which would go along with some of the "Big Bang" theories. Also, before God declares such and such day and night I don't actually remember there being a day and night, do you?? I actually find it generally doesn't matter, most athiests want God to show up and dance for them, rather than prove he exists.
Here we have a pathetic example of a Christian's attempt at convoluted logic. Princeohsodumb finally answers the great question, that has baffled the world: How can P exist and not exist at the same time? Answer: In a world, where there is no time! Brillant. Of course ignoring the fact, that in a world without time nothing exists at the same TIME, because there is no concept of time, dumbass
And besides, if you have to go as far as to claim that Jesus is a time traveler (in a timeless space, hahaha) in order to prove that he really did miracles, then it looks a lot like your belief is pretty crap. And keep in mind, it's you who comes up with these ludicrous theories. Shows who really wants God to dance. As an Atheist, I don't care one way or other
Actually in referring to the how can two things occur at once I wasn't trying to prove anything for you or anyone. Nor do I expect YOU to follow my logic. If however, you'd like to find out more about the world with out time you might read about singularities and some of the various theories that discuss how the "big bang" came about.
1st of all, you don't use logic, so I don't follow it. 2ndly don't use big words, that you don't understand. True, 2 things can exist at the same time. 3, 4, 5, 1mill things can exist at the same time. But they cannot exist and NOT exist at the same time. Singularities are structures completely outside of our "universe" (light can't escape). They have NOTHING to do with your argument. You're utterly confused
I like how fundies always grasp any unexplained or sparsely understood phenomena and try to fill the void with your random LEAPS of faith and their distortions, and ignorance ... and then some more distortions. Assuming that as long as no one can prove them wrong, their delusion is right WITHOUT proof. The desperation in this is amusing, because they know they are running out of air
And as for the Big Bang, there are various theories about the way the universe expands. But if you say, that God started off the Big Bang, you have to start defining what God is FIRST. In fact, it would probably turn out as some other form of natural force, and not some human like entity. Are you aware how insignificant humans are to the history and course of the universe?
Vested interest. Breaking it down. If there is no God, you'd have nothing to worry about. You die, you rot, it's over. If there is a God, you end up in Hell. Therefore it would be in your interests to be correct.
A hypothesis is basically a eduacated guess. Only A guess, without absolute proof, not knowing and never in all your wisdom knowing all the variables...
means that you are invested belief in something without it being proven. Faith, as soon as it is proven wrong or right it stops being, faith... Get it?
Ok dipshit, Let ME break down something for YOU. I am not interested in God. The God of your bible is totally random, fabricated bullshit, not properly defined, and used to argue any manipulative brainfart of yours. I don't give a shit about this God, and I am not worried about rotting in hell in the LEAST. Nice try, but it didn't work, fearmonger
And I already pointed that out, but God is not a hypothesis. Stop trying to make it look scientific. God is not properly defined and not in the least consistent in any model. Religion is a DOGMA (some call it fairy tale), and that is the beginning and end of all the problems. It cannot be verified or refuted, because it simply isn't open for discussion. It is FAITH based! And I mean that in the worst way
Athiests take less leaps of faith. Ok. Do you believe we are made of Neutrons, Protons, and Electrons... basically dust. Do you believe as some Athiests do that when the world was made there was no rain? Some theories of evolution say this, and the Bible actually talks about this prior to the arc.
Neurons, Protons, Electrons are models, based on premises, scientific methods, and observations. God, you faith based people are so stupid. Science is in constant evolution, developing better models, discarding old ones. It has ZILCH to do with faith. The best models of their times let us develop cars, planes, and the computers that give you the opportunity to spread your ignorance on the internet
I would say as an atheist you'd have a vested interest in the fact that your right... You say you don't care one way or the other, but your trying to insult people's intelligence because they don't agree with you. Makes you sound like the way most scientist talk about fundamentalists... have a great day!!
Vested interest? No one cares about the FSM, because there is no evidence for its existence. How about you STFU? Also, you don't even understand the concept of faith, and just try any distortion to justify your deluded comprehension limitations. That makes your argument unintelligent. And if I called you a fat, horny toadfucker, it is still your ARGUMENT, that is stupid, and that was defeated
hahaha, you are not only confused by posting this shit in the wrong thread, you are also totally ocnfused about what I said. Your retarded a->b, b->c, a->c would be a correct syllogism. I was pointing out to you the fallacy of false authority that you committed in the other thread. Again, foiled distortion of yours! I am not going to respond to any posts, if you fail to even post them in the correct thread
Well I give more credit to the actual experts who do the NUMEROUS translations to placing that word as FOOL. Not some christ puncher who is clearly biased with an agenda. I also double checked with hebrew-english dictionary and the crap he was spewing is absolutely wrong.
Good video. God may exist, but invisible unicorns (my chosen example, FSM is 2nd) may as well (my personal belief). In response to IndBill57, unless you were "dead" for 30+ minutes, and are still able to type, then "dead" is quite different than dead beyond the abilities of MODERN SCIENCE to "resurrect" you.
It is rare to hear atheists say this. For me it is a great indicator of intellectual integrity whether atheist or not. The invisible pink unicorn was so worn out that I used the "12 fairies that orbit Pluto and love us" for years. FSM, IPU, Jesus, Mickey Mouse, all mythical for the same reason, the only verification of them is a story. This brings up history, where I say the further back we go the more faith we need. :) Cheers.
You are wrong about people coming back from the dead, happens all the time. I died on the table and they brought me back. I find it funny that people that follow science can't believe in Jesus and the things they said he did. After all most scientist believe that sometime in the future time travel may be possible. Look at what someone just with today's knowledge would look like to the people back then (now add 100 years more to our knowledge)
IndBill: You are properly retarded. Noone takes time travel seriously, that's fiction. The Terminator movies were NOT actually based on a real story or any real science. I hate to break it to you. And besides: Wtf are you talking about? Was Jesus the son of God or was he a time traveler from the future? Which one, dufus?
If a supposed time traveling entity E came into existence at a time T, then it was by definition NOT in existence at time T-t0. If E travels back in time to time T-t0, then by definition it is in existence at time T-t0. Contradiction. Sorry I had to spell it out for you. I feel bad now. Lay off the SF books, they're bad for you
Greg - You're missing my point concerning Christians ending up in prison. Sure, a Christian could commit a crime and find himself in prison. However, the majority of people practicing true Christian principals would not commit acts worthy of prison time. The atheist video clip's contention that the majority of America's prison population is comprised of Christians is a false and spurious statistic.
I believe you have a large number of so called "Christians" in prison because they believe they have a better chance at parole if they say they've been saved.
Solomon, you're an ignorant douchebag. Not committing a crime is NOT a principle, that is particular to Christianity. It's a human principle. In fact, Christianity classifies these things as less important than obeying and believing in God. You can sin and still go to heaven, as long as you believe in God. The only requirement to go to heaven is your belief. And that is the source of that whole hipocrisy and Christian ignorance
Wanna try another bible spin on that one? Then how about confession. How comes a Christian can supposedly find absolution from his crimes by confessing and reaffirming his blind obedience to God? That's all it takes as far as Christianity is concerned. That just shows you, that this ideology doesn't give a flying flip about humanity and real ethics. Now I will make a second video exposing your ignorance
ok... I had a comment that was too big for one post, so I split it into two. I don't know where the first part went... maybe it'll show up... but oh well, just don't blame me if something I said didn't make sense.
(...continued) To be a Christian, should the person beleive in the other Chritian beleifs? I think yes. For example, one would ask God to forgive them if they had sinned. However these... "un-true Christians" would not care about this. Infact, they probably don't care what religion they have, as long as they fit in with the people they know. I don't beleive it is right for someone to claim they are a certain religion without that person even knowing what it means to have those beliefs.
In a reply, the limitation is the first comments I am replying to. Defining what a christian is, could be turned back on my claim there is no "true christian" as it would seem that is what I was defining. There needs to be some clarification in my opinion. It requires a cleanup to say the least.
"P and not P" is known as the law of the excluded middle. And yes, all contradictions are equivalent and reduce to this. This is an insightful and productive discussion, well done gklr.
I believe you are an atheist, but most people who claim to be an atheist act like they do belive in God but Hate and anyone who doesn't hate him. That sir is the Contradiction. You are a man of integretiy because your defending what you believe, instead of trying to disprove someone elses beliefs. I thank you.
Thanks for this. You have a rational approach to the whole debate if there is or is not a God. How I wish a few Christians, those hardcore believers will take the time to watch this and then access the value of your argument.
very well done.
thank you.
i've just subscribed to your channel and i look forward to hearing more of your ideas.
ulipika 4 years ago
That's a good fair video, you don't demean anyone in your video, you just refute in the areas of concern with civilty. A far cry from many of your peers. Btw, Ockham's Razor is spelled with a K
flyinhigh17 4 years ago
You're a very intelligent and eloquent guy.
Thanks for this.
fodsaks 5 years ago
theevilpimp and prince of autumn,
I did not see this debate until today. I have as yet not read it all, but I will for sure make a video on it as I can see by skimming it that logical fallacies are raised. I will review this debate and make a video and thank you both!
Greg
gklr 5 years ago
might accept as proof: atoms being like dust, the nature of light and mass having frequencies like sound, historical information that cooberates information in the Bible, my interpretation of my life experiences and their symmetry, or even how our posture kicks our *** for negative emotion (look into chinese medicine) as proof. Which lead me to know... and you might say, "that's subjective."
princeofautumn 5 years ago
Relying on the bible as proof for anything is ridiculous. Not sure what you are smoking, but if you search for answers to life's questions, you have to be open to ALL sides. You cannot reject any evidence, just because it is in conflict with a book, whose relevance has NEVER, not in the SLIGHTEST EVER been proven. If you want to be delusional, at least be true to yourself and accept that life will elude you
thaevilpimp 5 years ago
I imagine if you wanted to look for proofs of the historical content of the Bible you could find them. You said the Bible is a book whose relevance has never, not in the slightest ever been proven. I think that would be an obvious logical fallacy. I actually can say I am much better off with my faith than without it, but enjjoy your life. Truly, MCM
princeofautumn 5 years ago
Again, distortions, ignorance, and then some more .. distortions. I said RELYING ON THE BIBLE AS PROOF FOR ANYTHING is ridiculous. You cannot explain natural phenomena or your understanding of the world and then double check with the bible to assert their validity. The bible has NO RELEVANCE FOR THAT. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the historical accuracy of the bible
thaevilpimp 5 years ago
I cannot even believe you use the word fallacy. Let me spell out a fallacy for you. B explains A correctly, therefore B explains C correctly. Say B is the bible, and A is what the fuck ever you failed to name, where the bible was ever historically accurate. C is any other phenomen. Don't use words you CANNOT understand, because you restrict your mind with delusions
thaevilpimp 5 years ago
Please feel free to read about the excavations of and accidental discoveries of these individuals: Reisner, Lyons, and Fisher (University of Harvard), Henry Layard, Clermont-Ganneau, Lt. Cabane, Parrot and Schaeffer... (I'm sure many of them have scientific explanations of various miracles, in fact, not to say you will take the effort to read them, but I know one does...)
princeofautumn 5 years ago
You said," relying it for anything," funny thing about language, to communicate you have to specify I took it to mean what it says. As a reference for historical information... Now, if you want to specify and say," it doesn't explain natural phenomena..." that would be different. Yes?
princeofautumn 5 years ago
Funny thing about comments sections in videos is, you can scroll up and see what I said. I said RELYING ON THE BIBLE AS PROOF FOR ANYTHING is ridiculous. I said TWICE before. So for you to say, you took it to mean what it said and then to falsely claim, I said anything about ONLY the historical accuracy of the bible, once again makes you look like an idiot. Guess you can't help it
thaevilpimp 5 years ago
And before I get flooded with another barrage of your ignorant responses. I am not interested in the historical accuracy of the bible. If something was accurate, then it would be accurate, whether it was written in the bible or not. So the discussion ends right here. If you can prove any accuracy in the bible, it still doesn't make the bible a part of the proof or else it is a CIRCLE PROOF
thaevilpimp 5 years ago
Also, the whole... can I concretely prove to you that there is a God. You can't prove anything to anyone if they don't want to accept the "proofs". Sounds like a deadlock.
princeofautumn 5 years ago
Anyone can believe in "some" God concept. The problem begins, when you make random leaps of faith, defining God as you please out of thin air and the vaccum in your mouldy skull (or a mouldy book). If you do THAT, then you have to prove the validity of your statements. Otherwise you are leaving the ground of humanity and consensus, and tread in a realm of dangerous delusions
thaevilpimp 5 years ago
How can P and not P exist in the same place at the same "time"... In a place where there is no time. Which would go along with some of the "Big Bang" theories. Also, before God declares such and such day and night I don't actually remember there being a day and night, do you?? I actually find it generally doesn't matter, most athiests want God to show up and dance for them, rather than prove he exists.
princeofautumn 5 years ago
Here we have a pathetic example of a Christian's attempt at convoluted logic. Princeohsodumb finally answers the great question, that has baffled the world: How can P exist and not exist at the same time? Answer: In a world, where there is no time! Brillant. Of course ignoring the fact, that in a world without time nothing exists at the same TIME, because there is no concept of time, dumbass
thaevilpimp 5 years ago
And besides, if you have to go as far as to claim that Jesus is a time traveler (in a timeless space, hahaha) in order to prove that he really did miracles, then it looks a lot like your belief is pretty crap. And keep in mind, it's you who comes up with these ludicrous theories. Shows who really wants God to dance. As an Atheist, I don't care one way or other
thaevilpimp 5 years ago
Actually in referring to the how can two things occur at once I wasn't trying to prove anything for you or anyone. Nor do I expect YOU to follow my logic. If however, you'd like to find out more about the world with out time you might read about singularities and some of the various theories that discuss how the "big bang" came about.
princeofautumn 5 years ago
1st of all, you don't use logic, so I don't follow it. 2ndly don't use big words, that you don't understand. True, 2 things can exist at the same time. 3, 4, 5, 1mill things can exist at the same time. But they cannot exist and NOT exist at the same time. Singularities are structures completely outside of our "universe" (light can't escape). They have NOTHING to do with your argument. You're utterly confused
thaevilpimp 5 years ago
I like how fundies always grasp any unexplained or sparsely understood phenomena and try to fill the void with your random LEAPS of faith and their distortions, and ignorance ... and then some more distortions. Assuming that as long as no one can prove them wrong, their delusion is right WITHOUT proof. The desperation in this is amusing, because they know they are running out of air
thaevilpimp 5 years ago
And as for the Big Bang, there are various theories about the way the universe expands. But if you say, that God started off the Big Bang, you have to start defining what God is FIRST. In fact, it would probably turn out as some other form of natural force, and not some human like entity. Are you aware how insignificant humans are to the history and course of the universe?
thaevilpimp 5 years ago
Vested interest. Breaking it down. If there is no God, you'd have nothing to worry about. You die, you rot, it's over. If there is a God, you end up in Hell. Therefore it would be in your interests to be correct.
princeofautumn 5 years ago
A hypothesis is basically a eduacated guess. Only A guess, without absolute proof, not knowing and never in all your wisdom knowing all the variables...
means that you are invested belief in something without it being proven. Faith, as soon as it is proven wrong or right it stops being, faith... Get it?
princeofautumn 5 years ago
Ok dipshit, Let ME break down something for YOU. I am not interested in God. The God of your bible is totally random, fabricated bullshit, not properly defined, and used to argue any manipulative brainfart of yours. I don't give a shit about this God, and I am not worried about rotting in hell in the LEAST. Nice try, but it didn't work, fearmonger
thaevilpimp 5 years ago
And I already pointed that out, but God is not a hypothesis. Stop trying to make it look scientific. God is not properly defined and not in the least consistent in any model. Religion is a DOGMA (some call it fairy tale), and that is the beginning and end of all the problems. It cannot be verified or refuted, because it simply isn't open for discussion. It is FAITH based! And I mean that in the worst way
thaevilpimp 5 years ago
Athiests take less leaps of faith. Ok. Do you believe we are made of Neutrons, Protons, and Electrons... basically dust. Do you believe as some Athiests do that when the world was made there was no rain? Some theories of evolution say this, and the Bible actually talks about this prior to the arc.
princeofautumn 5 years ago
Neurons, Protons, Electrons are models, based on premises, scientific methods, and observations. God, you faith based people are so stupid. Science is in constant evolution, developing better models, discarding old ones. It has ZILCH to do with faith. The best models of their times let us develop cars, planes, and the computers that give you the opportunity to spread your ignorance on the internet
thaevilpimp 5 years ago
I would say as an atheist you'd have a vested interest in the fact that your right... You say you don't care one way or the other, but your trying to insult people's intelligence because they don't agree with you. Makes you sound like the way most scientist talk about fundamentalists... have a great day!!
princeofautumn 5 years ago
Vested interest? No one cares about the FSM, because there is no evidence for its existence. How about you STFU? Also, you don't even understand the concept of faith, and just try any distortion to justify your deluded comprehension limitations. That makes your argument unintelligent. And if I called you a fat, horny toadfucker, it is still your ARGUMENT, that is stupid, and that was defeated
thaevilpimp 5 years ago
Oh, and it's not b->a therefore b explains c. No wonder your struggling with your logic; your leaving stuff out. The correct format is:
a->b B->c a->c
princeofautumn 5 years ago
hahaha, you are not only confused by posting this shit in the wrong thread, you are also totally ocnfused about what I said. Your retarded a->b, b->c, a->c would be a correct syllogism. I was pointing out to you the fallacy of false authority that you committed in the other thread. Again, foiled distortion of yours! I am not going to respond to any posts, if you fail to even post them in the correct thread
thaevilpimp 5 years ago
Well I give more credit to the actual experts who do the NUMEROUS translations to placing that word as FOOL. Not some christ puncher who is clearly biased with an agenda. I also double checked with hebrew-english dictionary and the crap he was spewing is absolutely wrong.
munky99999 5 years ago
So do I and I am glad to see that many atheists looked it up. What I took "on faith" didn't pan out: a lesson.
gklr 5 years ago
Good video. God may exist, but invisible unicorns (my chosen example, FSM is 2nd) may as well (my personal belief). In response to IndBill57, unless you were "dead" for 30+ minutes, and are still able to type, then "dead" is quite different than dead beyond the abilities of MODERN SCIENCE to "resurrect" you.
alanshvetz 5 years ago
It is rare to hear atheists say this. For me it is a great indicator of intellectual integrity whether atheist or not. The invisible pink unicorn was so worn out that I used the "12 fairies that orbit Pluto and love us" for years. FSM, IPU, Jesus, Mickey Mouse, all mythical for the same reason, the only verification of them is a story. This brings up history, where I say the further back we go the more faith we need. :) Cheers.
gklr 5 years ago
You are wrong about people coming back from the dead, happens all the time. I died on the table and they brought me back. I find it funny that people that follow science can't believe in Jesus and the things they said he did. After all most scientist believe that sometime in the future time travel may be possible. Look at what someone just with today's knowledge would look like to the people back then (now add 100 years more to our knowledge)
IndBill57 5 years ago
Prove you were dead. Show it and prove it. You cannot know what you cannot show. I also hear people say they were abducted by UFOs.
gklr 5 years ago
define death..
when I think death I think your brain has stopped..
Medically.. legally dead is when your heart stops..
if your brain stops haveing any waves.. and stops functioning.. and yo ucan proove this happened. We can talk..
thefakeyeti 5 years ago
IndBill: You are properly retarded. Noone takes time travel seriously, that's fiction. The Terminator movies were NOT actually based on a real story or any real science. I hate to break it to you. And besides: Wtf are you talking about? Was Jesus the son of God or was he a time traveler from the future? Which one, dufus?
thaevilpimp 5 years ago
PS: Maybe you were braindead, but I am not so sure they brought you back
thaevilpimp 5 years ago
If a supposed time traveling entity E came into existence at a time T, then it was by definition NOT in existence at time T-t0. If E travels back in time to time T-t0, then by definition it is in existence at time T-t0. Contradiction. Sorry I had to spell it out for you. I feel bad now. Lay off the SF books, they're bad for you
thaevilpimp 5 years ago
Greg - You're missing my point concerning Christians ending up in prison. Sure, a Christian could commit a crime and find himself in prison. However, the majority of people practicing true Christian principals would not commit acts worthy of prison time. The atheist video clip's contention that the majority of America's prison population is comprised of Christians is a false and spurious statistic.
Regards,
-Greg
GregSolomon 5 years ago
I believe you have a large number of so called "Christians" in prison because they believe they have a better chance at parole if they say they've been saved.
IndBill57 5 years ago
I believe christians outside of jail use similar logic.
gklr 5 years ago
Solomon, you're an ignorant douchebag. Not committing a crime is NOT a principle, that is particular to Christianity. It's a human principle. In fact, Christianity classifies these things as less important than obeying and believing in God. You can sin and still go to heaven, as long as you believe in God. The only requirement to go to heaven is your belief. And that is the source of that whole hipocrisy and Christian ignorance
MrSolomonsNonEffect 5 years ago
Wanna try another bible spin on that one? Then how about confession. How comes a Christian can supposedly find absolution from his crimes by confessing and reaffirming his blind obedience to God? That's all it takes as far as Christianity is concerned. That just shows you, that this ideology doesn't give a flying flip about humanity and real ethics. Now I will make a second video exposing your ignorance
MrSolomonsNonEffect 5 years ago
ok... I had a comment that was too big for one post, so I split it into two. I don't know where the first part went... maybe it'll show up... but oh well, just don't blame me if something I said didn't make sense.
StormCommander 5 years ago
I've nearly given up on these messages and stopped using it.
gklr 5 years ago
(...continued) To be a Christian, should the person beleive in the other Chritian beleifs? I think yes. For example, one would ask God to forgive them if they had sinned. However these... "un-true Christians" would not care about this. Infact, they probably don't care what religion they have, as long as they fit in with the people they know. I don't beleive it is right for someone to claim they are a certain religion without that person even knowing what it means to have those beliefs.
StormCommander 5 years ago
In a reply, the limitation is the first comments I am replying to. Defining what a christian is, could be turned back on my claim there is no "true christian" as it would seem that is what I was defining. There needs to be some clarification in my opinion. It requires a cleanup to say the least.
gklr 5 years ago
aw, trying to remind yourself that there is no 'flying spaghetti monster' because you're scared of it.
you cutie.
Jameshardpants 5 years ago
"P and not P" is known as the law of the excluded middle. And yes, all contradictions are equivalent and reduce to this. This is an insightful and productive discussion, well done gklr.
websnarf 5 years ago
I believe you are an atheist, but most people who claim to be an atheist act like they do belive in God but Hate and anyone who doesn't hate him. That sir is the Contradiction. You are a man of integretiy because your defending what you believe, instead of trying to disprove someone elses beliefs. I thank you.
vmanvand 5 years ago
'fewer' leaps
moorerandi 5 years ago
I stand corrected, thanks. :)
gklr 5 years ago
Thanks for this. You have a rational approach to the whole debate if there is or is not a God. How I wish a few Christians, those hardcore believers will take the time to watch this and then access the value of your argument.
Scottbuilt 5 years ago
great video, thank you for giving the proper definition of agnosticism.
itod82 5 years ago
Very well done. Enjoyed the clip!
wayman29 5 years ago
Brilliant video. I'll be checking out the rest of them now.
lazyoldsun 5 years ago
The more I watch this video the more imnportant I realise it is.
I've been getting my definition of agnosticism wrong, thank you for correctine me.
pdoeman 5 years ago
A great Vlog Greg.
I look forward to the continuation of our definition of the word atheism video tennis.
pdoeman 5 years ago