@HAPPYCAT1441 man thats so true if you look at it especially the abrahamic faiths are all based on conquest and imperialism and are essentialy the same exept they dont have the same dress code!
you should have put Zoroastrianism as the roots to western religion. Even though it was founded in Persia, many believe the first Jews to have been Zoroastrians that were exiled and persecuted into pilgrimage, which eventually lead to their settlement, and in turn, Christianity and Islam.
@viking403 in a sense its true he pretty much represents the human nature and a fun trivia for you religious school used to slap you if youd write with your left-hand because they said it was the devil's side or hand (satanism being a left-hand path in a other words a more indivudual faith)
We re proud of that Chinese is the only atheist or secular major civilization in ancient world. This make ancient Chinese civilization the most merciful, rational and different from all other major civilizations which their peoples believed in one single God.
It's just that many people wouldnt watch it becasue of the music. This subject needs something more neutral, philosophical and withouth some evil screaming dude :)
I don't think he said that. Evolution does contradict with religious texts claiming to know what really happened at the beginning. However, it does not deny the existance of a diety.
In my own experiance which do not have have much credibility; Only people of the Anglican denomination and various Jewish people do not take their book as fact.
It's actually quite absurd how many Americans contest evolution and warp science to fit their religion. Really, it is only the judeo faiths that have a problem with Evolution.
Sadly there seems to be at least a couple angry baptists in every community.
And instead of being angry about there being people who can't find a solid job they're mad that the local science teacher is explaining the fossil record as we understand it is in disagreement with literalism.
I don't see what evidence there is for lack of existence of 'God'. 'God' is usually defined as something that is not physical, therefore no amount of physical evidence can show that there is no God (or that there is, actually, despite the old 'Cosmological Proofs').
Agnosticism is a very sensible option in the circumstances. I go beyond even that because I think the notion of 'God' is confused, such that any opinion on 'his' existence is incoherent. I call it Theo-Incoherentism.
Right. God's existence can not be disproven just as the Flying Spaghetti Monster or pixies and fairies can not. At the same time, there is no evidence that gods or mythical creatures exist.
What IS clear is that the ancient holy books are deeply flawed, self-contradictory and provincial. Their writers were obviously primitive men and not inspired by any divine omnipotent beings. It is all just folklore, legends, fairytales anf bigotry.
Atheism is 'taking the plunge' into a new belief, just as theism is a belief. It's no more ballsy or commonsensical than religious belief, in fact I've heard religious people say it takes courage to adopt a faith, or that it is common sense that God exists.
No, atheism is belief in a lack (of God). Lack of belief is just "non-theism".
I have a lack of belief in God, but I certainly don't consider myself an atheist. Because I also don't believe there is a God. This confusion allows true atheists some empire-building as they supposedly absorb all the undecided, uncertain people. I even once read someone saying all babies were atheists. This is a total devaluation of the original meaning, rendering it almost redundant.
I'm not an atheist, or a theist, 'about' Zeus and Krishna, or any other putative deity. You can count me an agnostic, except as I said upthread I consider the question too confused to have a coherent answer, even "I don't know". I think there is no matter of fact on the question of God's existence, so even agnosticism is based on a mistake.
Right. When you lay the logic out on the table it all adds up evenly. And it took centuries for the church to perfect that.
Walking away from the argument itself makes you an atheist. [even though that becomes a useless term] Since it is a shorter jump with less energy to ask "what is a god and why do I care?" than it does to say "god is... dot dot dot..."
I choose to walk away, I have become an involuntary atheist, and I am happy with myself.
I am glad that you are happy with yourself, especially after taking the plunge to walk away. But I am not made an atheist by walking away from the argument, and I've already explained why; and I am not even really doing that. I don't what the length of a jump or amount of energy has to do with anything. And do I detect irony regarding the truth and logic? Once again, my opponent does not have answers to my points.
Agnosticism is the realization that we don't have enough evidence to categorically assert the existence of a higher deity, or to categorically deny it. I'm agnostic because I simply do not know whether God exists or if he/she/it doesn't, and I'm not afraid to admit that. Atheists go as far as asserting that God does not exist, but they don't really know that either. How can you say something exists or doesn't exist when there's no hard, tangible evidence backing your assertion up either way?
agnostic in theory atheist in practice. as an atheist i deny god because the probability of one existing is near 0 and even if one exists we dont know what it wants, if anything, for us to do. for that reason i deny higher powers until there is evidence.
do you believe in the boogeyman? why not? because there is no evidence for this creature existing. same goes for the good argument. if there is no evidence in favor of something we generally agree it doesnt exist.
so until there is evidence of something, it does not exist? What if you are incapable of recognizing the evidence? For instance, germs certainly existed before their discovery. Evidence for germs certainly existed prior to their discovery but no one recognized the evidence. Are you really so arrogant as to dismiss the existence of a Creator based solely on your inability to recognize the evidence for one based on the experiences of your brief time on the Earth?
that is a very good point. however if the concept of a god made sense rationally i would consider the evidence for it. there is almost no way a god can exist when reason and logic are applied.
In the case of that rationality, you must be Agnostic towards Santa Claus aswell. To be uncertain of something imaginative is nothing but fooling oneself due to emotion. I find it a much wiser practice to engage in subjects that are factual, are known to exist, can be proven to exist and have logical implication. The existence of 'a' God, is based apon assumption and enforced with fear and false promises. With the use of reasoned logic, it's illogical to assume in deities, without any doubt.
@armyveteran101st I have never met a gnostic atheist. However I have met plenty of agnostic atheists. Do not confuse the terms. Theists are gnostic by definition. They claim to be in possession of knowledge.
@armyveteran101st As am I. Although I personally am not a fan of either term. I see no purpose in identifying myself by what I am not or by what I do not know.
If anything, I am a naturalist. Or as a joke, I sometimes identify as an ironic pantheist. :)
@armyveteran101st The problem with your comment is that atheist don't assert there is no god, theist assert there is a god, and atheist say prove it or STFU (essentially). Atheist don't feel the need to prove a negative, nor are they required to by any standards of a logical debate.
@karn33333 Maybe not the ones you know, but the ones I know go out of their way to categorically assert that they are certain god does not exist. Back to my point: How can you be certain, when no one really knows, and there is no known evidence to prove or disprove the assertion? I personally lean towards an atheistic point of view, but can't say that I'm sure there is no god, because I don't know that for a fact. Negative or not, people need to be able to back their assertions with evidence.
@armyveteran101st even from your own words it sounds like they are denying an assertion once again they do not have to disprove the existence of something. if something exist it can be proven. if there is no evidence for a claim something exist why would you even consider that it does exist. keep in mind I am NOT an atheist. to answer your question how certain are you that santa clause doesn't exist how certain are you that the boggy man doesn't live under your bed? or the tooth fairy?
@karn33333 I am an Army Veteran. I'm not scared of the Boogey Man. He's scared of me! };-)
You're getting too philosophical for me. All I'm saying is that you can't say something doesn't exist when you don't really know, that's all. I'm pretty sure the Boogey Man doesn't exist, but I haven't seen any hard, tangible evidence to the contrary, so I can't say that I'm 100% certain he doesn't exist. And if he does, he'd better not live under my bed or I'll kick his boogey ass up and down the house.
@armyveteran101st no you see its not RELIGION that tries to sell a bullshit story religion exist because at the time its a logical explanation to fill in the gaps of human knowledge of the natural world surrounding us. its DOGMA that really, and blind faith that stunts human understanding of the world. you have to be able to change what you believe when the facts present themselves. most people don't want to do that.
@armyveteran101st I understand & appreciate the logic of agnosticism, but at some point it leaves you in a weak non-committal position. Do you believe mythical faeries exist? Or are you waiting for evidence? Do you disbelieve the myth that the universe rests on the back of a giant turtle? Or are you waiting for evidence? Personally, I think belief is related to probability, for or against. I reserve my agnostic fence-sitting for issues that could reasonably go either way.
@rmcdaniel423 I guess I agree with you. However, these days I'm leaning more towards atheism than I ever did. I do think your points make a lot of sense };-)
@armyveteran101st but thats just it they are denying the assertions of others because there is no evidence. its amazing the level of bullshit most religions actually get people to believe. almost every religion that asserts there is a god has a book to back it up but the book is so riddled with contradictions and fucked up fairy tales why would you believe anything these people try to sell you? i have even heard someone say that the bible has all the answers in the universe you just need to
@armyveteran101st mean while this same guy is convicted of fraud multiple times found to be a wife beater cheated on his taxes and has been married 4 times. there seams to be two major reason someone solicits to bible to others 1. they need you to believe in it so they can feel justified in believing it even though they claim they already do, and 2 to socially control you so they can manipulate you. while you are off doing what they say they do the exact opposite while your back is turned.
@karn33333 I completely agree with you on that, chief. I've always been of the opinion that religion was invented by a smart person in antiquity, so that he could exercise control over the other not-so-smart ones. To me, religion is poison for the human mind, because it plants the seeds of discord and intolerance. The very worst people I've met in my life were devout church-goers who carried a Bible everywhere they went, only to stab their fellow human beings in the back as often as possible.
@armyveteran101st i think you grasped only part of what i am saying so i will try again a different way. if i lie and there for make up something would you believe me the second time i told you something? if i lied and made up a whole bunch of crap EVERY SINGLE TIME i talk to you how certain are you that the next thing i say is a lie? also L ron hubbard made up everything about scientology for the soul purpose of making money and i am 100% sure there is no xenu.
@armyveteran101st Another example of why I sometimes believe/disbelieve, sometimes hold agnosticism: Sasquatch is sorta mythical. I haven't seen evidence to make me believe, but many people say they have. A creature like Sasquatch COULD exist as he is described. So I am agnostic. I would even say "hopefully" agnostic because I think he would be a cool addition to the family tree. But, a mythical supernatural god that is described differently by 1000s of different cults? That, I disbelieve.
@armyveteran101st Things are not so black or white. There is an enormous probability that God does not exist, while we have mountains of evidence suggesting that life evolved through natural and explainable means. Produce a shred of evidence that God exists and I will call myself agnostic.
@armyveteran101st atheists dont outright deny the possibility of gods existence, they just see no tangible evidence for him, so they basically say "i dont believe in god...for now"
No semantic gymnastics for me, altho I notice you've avoided answering my points.
I conclude on the balance of evidence and reason that Santa Claus does not exist, not thru faith. I have very little faith in general actually. Now what is your point?
And why do you believe your certainty in your own belief is any more justified than that of any supernatural believer?
This video is very attractive aesthetically; unfortunately the message is a sad one. It purports to show many strands of something evil. While I would certainly agree there are many bad aspects of religion, there are also many good or neutral ones. To me the many branchings off indicate the diversity of human culture, which is a natural process, including the striving to understand. Atheism is just another stage in the same pageant of human thought, not something separate and superior.
Atheism is not the absence of faith, it is faith in a negative. If you don't have that, you are an agnostic.
I do not believe atheism always existed. Doubt about the local religion, maybe.
I disagree with Twain as well: faith is believing/trusting something you don't know is true, as if you know it is.
I don't like the tendency of 'faith', or religion, but religions have a lot more to them than faith and just replacing them with atheism doesn't replace everything important about them.
There is no faith involved in atheism. It is the abscence of belief, by definition.
You need to read more about the ancient greek thinkers. Try Epicurus, Democratus. They were not superstitious at all. Waaayyy before the Christian mythology, they were free men without supernatural delusion.
Absence of belief in God is non-theism. Atheism is belief in a lack of God. That's a kind of belief. By definition.
There were various Greek thinkers with various beliefs. Some, tho certanly not all, will have had no supernatural belief. But such is not automatically 'delusion' just because you say it is. That's just your belief. And the fact that they preceded Christianity doesn't mean much either.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Whatever was written on the slides is too small for me to see, but the overall effect is obvious. Religion is growing and spreading like a tree and its roots. That's a great thing.
Matur1n, you missed the point entirely. First, religions generally frown on the theory of evolution despite tons of evidence (pubmedcentral evolution gives more than 100,000 scientific papers for you to read. Read at least 1% ...) yet here we see that religions themselves evolve. Second the fact that they evolved led to many incompatible forms, demonstrating that none of them are right.
"First, religions generally frown on the theory of evolution"
Did you take a poll? The Creationists are loud and pushy. There are many Christians that believe God using natural selection in some way
"many incompatible forms, demonstrating that none of them are right."
That isn't logical at all. There are dozens of theories about who shot JFK. That doesn't mean one of them isn't right. If I say WWII, WWIII, WWIV, & WWV never happened, proving WWIV didn't happen doesn't mean WWII didn't
Matur1n, it took the Catholic Cruch [sic] 150 years to accept evolution but NOT to realize that destroys the basis of their philosohy. A god using natural selection in the same way as a random coin flip? Superfluous, 'I have no need of that hypothesis'. Finally, if you think ONE religion is right, which one? Prove it. They contradict each other and all contradict known science that is well proven
Natural selection doesn't explain abiogenesis. God started it all, knowing exactly how it would work out. Seems very elegant to me.
Logically, I don't see why you think contradiction by different religions matters. Some are wrong, at least one isn't. There are many theories about exactly who killed JFK. One person says Oswald, another a Mafia hitman, or a Cuban, or a rogue CIA agent. With your logic, because there are so many contradicting ideas, no one killed JFK. But someone did.
We don't know whether someone created the Universe - there is no evidence of a creator unless you consider man-made and long-proven false bunch of desert texts as proof. LOL
The point is that conflicting claims don't negate that. Just like conflicting claims don't negate tne existence of God. I have to use an example where you know the answer, using one where you don't wouldn't prove anything. It would just be the same as the arguments about God.
Oh, don't you love moving the goal posts Matur1n ? abiogenesis is a separate topic, go read the work of Szostak. Even if some being started it,
you have an infinite loop, which is not a solution. Further, if a being started it the result is not predictable, it's a chaotic system. It's not elegant, it's millions of years of torture - torn bodies, death.
Always? You have never seen anybody cause anything? Sometimes somebody causes things.
"Even if some being started it,"
Think of what you just said. If there were a being that could do something like that, why would you just ignore him/her? Personally, if there is even a chance that being exists, I think giving a little bit of thought to that being, its motives and what it is trying to achieve to is a good idea.
Matur1n, you are right, SOMETHING can be either a person or a thing. Not realizing that the something is a thing has fooled IDiots into thinking that a being created the wonderful diversity of life, despite avalanches of evidence: pubmetcentral: evolution gives more than 100,000 papers for you to read! If there were a flying spaghetti monster that will cause you to choke on your next bite of pasta and die, perhaps you had better think about this possibility and not ignore her!
farvision: I have no problem with natural selection. It is the reasons for the creation of the universe and the creation of life I would like to see. Not natural selection, I am fine with one animal becoming more efficient and acquiring traits that help it. It is the reason for the first life, and the universe itself that I seek. Natural selection among animals is irrelevant to that. Also, I am as interested in the "why" as the "how".
Ok, look up the work of szostak. People are making good progress on this without any mysterious gods being involved (that hypothesis only gets in the way). Consider that there may be no 'why'.
Szostak is doing interesting work. Unfortunately, the more we learn about RNA and replication, the less likely it is it happened by chance and certainly not in the time on Earth we have for it to have happened. The botanists keep pushing back earlier and earlier the date complicated life forms existed on earth. It has become so short, many like Crick are suggesting it must have happened elsewhere in a solar system where there was more time or better conditions and came to Earth as spores/seeds.
Until we actually have nailed down the mechanisms responsible, we cannot make an estimate of the probability. It certainly is possible that earth was seeded, but of course that sets the problem elsewhere.
Which is another way of saying that in comparison to natural selection we know very little about how abiogenesis could have occurred. Setting the problem elsewhere helps, as instead of only 1 or 2 billion years, you could have ten billion years+ on the right planet. And have more favorable conditions. We do know earth's conditions are not favorable. Postulating underwater thermal vents just to get close, which again greatly narrows the number of places on earth it could have occurred.
Could you upload this one again with a higher resolution and higher bit-rate, so we can get the option "Watch In High Quality"? I'd really like to see what it says. Thanks.
However, if you did, sometimes it takes a day or two for that option to show up.
I can't really read the things in this.
randomperson2538 4 months ago
Tactical Mute launched
Nowak18827 5 months ago
@HAPPYCAT1441 man thats so true if you look at it especially the abrahamic faiths are all based on conquest and imperialism and are essentialy the same exept they dont have the same dress code!
svaldof 7 months ago
you should have put Zoroastrianism as the roots to western religion. Even though it was founded in Persia, many believe the first Jews to have been Zoroastrians that were exiled and persecuted into pilgrimage, which eventually lead to their settlement, and in turn, Christianity and Islam.
Organimation 9 months ago
Alternative title: Human Stupidity Throughout History
AngelBiLove 1 year ago 2
Satan is our true creator God. Know the truth
joyofsatan(dot)org
viking403 1 year ago
@viking403 in a sense its true he pretty much represents the human nature and a fun trivia for you religious school used to slap you if youd write with your left-hand because they said it was the devil's side or hand (satanism being a left-hand path in a other words a more indivudual faith)
svaldof 7 months ago
Is the guy with the axe Darwin?
shadywolf91 1 year ago
You forgot to Include Heaven Worship, or Shang Di in the Eastern Religions.
StopPanSlavicLies 1 year ago
so christianity, judaism, and islam came from the same base, if only all 3 could get along...
ilikepie4526 1 year ago
Fuck u with ur labels...
MrMethadrine 1 year ago
Quality is kinda bad some words a burly
westeastxybzd 1 year ago
The great tree of fail
thefutureboom 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We re proud of that Chinese is the only atheist or secular major civilization in ancient world. This make ancient Chinese civilization the most merciful, rational and different from all other major civilizations which their peoples believed in one single God.
mapscraper 2 years ago
Comment removed
CoolSubZero98 2 years ago
Why always crappy music on good videos?????
snotverdorie 2 years ago 7
Good question. The record co. censored the Rush track so I was forced to use the sanctioned drums required by big brother.
thruthem 2 years ago 2
big brother gave you this music? hehe
It's just that many people wouldnt watch it becasue of the music. This subject needs something more neutral, philosophical and withouth some evil screaming dude :)
snotverdorie 2 years ago
crappy music is free.
Good music you have to pay for.
Andrewcranky 2 years ago
RUSH CRAPPY?!
Forkroute 2 years ago
Silly video.
Everyone knows Darwin said religion and evolution were not at odds.
CHARESTHEHAMER 2 years ago
I don't think he said that. Evolution does contradict with religious texts claiming to know what really happened at the beginning. However, it does not deny the existance of a diety.
HKK91 2 years ago
Evolution contradicts only some religions text and then it is only a literal interpretation that it contradicts.
CHARESTHEHAMER 2 years ago
Yep, the fact that Abrahamic faiths says god created us as Humans doesn't contradict Evolution at all.
IntellectualLiberty 2 years ago
Is that sarcasm?
CHARESTHEHAMER 2 years ago
I'll let you figure that one out by yourself.
IntellectualLiberty 2 years ago
In other words you don't know.
CHARESTHEHAMER 2 years ago
No, in other words I think my statement was pretty obvious that I was being sarcastic. I don't think it could've been more obvious.
IntellectualLiberty 2 years ago
Like I said literal interpretation of some religions texts.
CHARESTHEHAMER 2 years ago
In my own experiance which do not have have much credibility; Only people of the Anglican denomination and various Jewish people do not take their book as fact.
It's actually quite absurd how many Americans contest evolution and warp science to fit their religion. Really, it is only the judeo faiths that have a problem with Evolution.
IntellectualLiberty 2 years ago
To my knowledge most Denominations don't take Genesis to be a 100% literal historic record.
CHARESTHEHAMER 2 years ago
If that were true I assume that Evolution wouldn't be so controversial in America.
IntellectualLiberty 2 years ago
Sadly there seems to be at least a couple angry baptists in every community.
And instead of being angry about there being people who can't find a solid job they're mad that the local science teacher is explaining the fossil record as we understand it is in disagreement with literalism.
CHARESTHEHAMER 2 years ago
Angry baptists? They are more geared towards "hating fags" and holding signs that say "God hates America" than school.
Also, Baptists aren't 63% of the population. 63% of Americans don't accept Evolution.
IntellectualLiberty 2 years ago
Some Baptists, evangelicals, pentecostals, I suspect most of the Mormons, some factions of smaller denominations and non Christians.
CHARESTHEHAMER 2 years ago
Comment removed
drche420 2 years ago
Hrmm... You really need to upload this in high-quality! Thx anyway : )
EpicHiroDJ 3 years ago
Unfortunately this is the only available version. It was created some years ago for Rush DVD.
thruthem 3 years ago
I don't see what evidence there is for lack of existence of 'God'. 'God' is usually defined as something that is not physical, therefore no amount of physical evidence can show that there is no God (or that there is, actually, despite the old 'Cosmological Proofs').
Agnosticism is a very sensible option in the circumstances. I go beyond even that because I think the notion of 'God' is confused, such that any opinion on 'his' existence is incoherent. I call it Theo-Incoherentism.
SpirAn1971 3 years ago
Right. God's existence can not be disproven just as the Flying Spaghetti Monster or pixies and fairies can not. At the same time, there is no evidence that gods or mythical creatures exist.
What IS clear is that the ancient holy books are deeply flawed, self-contradictory and provincial. Their writers were obviously primitive men and not inspired by any divine omnipotent beings. It is all just folklore, legends, fairytales anf bigotry.
thruthem 3 years ago
I think agnosticism is stepping up to the brink of saying there is no god. [Saying there is no proof]. And atheism is taking the plunge.
I am forced to say that Atheism is agnosticism with balls. Or Common sense. Or what have you.
awormyourhonor 3 years ago
Atheism is 'taking the plunge' into a new belief, just as theism is a belief. It's no more ballsy or commonsensical than religious belief, in fact I've heard religious people say it takes courage to adopt a faith, or that it is common sense that God exists.
SpirAn1971 3 years ago
SpirAn, atheism is lack of belief, not another belief. Like OFF is not another tv channel or bold is not a hair color.
thruthem 3 years ago
No, atheism is belief in a lack (of God). Lack of belief is just "non-theism".
I have a lack of belief in God, but I certainly don't consider myself an atheist. Because I also don't believe there is a God. This confusion allows true atheists some empire-building as they supposedly absorb all the undecided, uncertain people. I even once read someone saying all babies were atheists. This is a total devaluation of the original meaning, rendering it almost redundant.
SpirAn1971 3 years ago
Babies ARE atheist because a belief system has to be made up before it can be taught.
Again, a-theism is non-belief in gods, not some form of belief. You seem to be having trouble understanding this distinction.
thruthem 3 years ago
Aren't you an atheist when it comes to Zeus and Krishna? Does this require you to believe something?
thruthem 3 years ago
I'm not an atheist, or a theist, 'about' Zeus and Krishna, or any other putative deity. You can count me an agnostic, except as I said upthread I consider the question too confused to have a coherent answer, even "I don't know". I think there is no matter of fact on the question of God's existence, so even agnosticism is based on a mistake.
SpirAn1971 3 years ago
If a-theism is lack of belief in gods, an a-theist is a lack of believers in gods. That doesn't make sense.
You're parsing the word wrongly: it's (a-the)ism - (lack-god)belief. Not a(the-ism) - lack(god-belief).
Babies are not atheists because they have no belief on the matter of even understanding of the issues. They are non-theists and non-atheists.
I've had countless arguments about this very question. When the word was created it was intended to mean "deniers of God", not doubters.
SpirAn1971 3 years ago
Right. When you lay the logic out on the table it all adds up evenly. And it took centuries for the church to perfect that.
Walking away from the argument itself makes you an atheist. [even though that becomes a useless term] Since it is a shorter jump with less energy to ask "what is a god and why do I care?" than it does to say "god is... dot dot dot..."
I choose to walk away, I have become an involuntary atheist, and I am happy with myself.
awormyourhonor 3 years ago
I am glad that you are happy with yourself, especially after taking the plunge to walk away. But I am not made an atheist by walking away from the argument, and I've already explained why; and I am not even really doing that. I don't what the length of a jump or amount of energy has to do with anything. And do I detect irony regarding the truth and logic? Once again, my opponent does not have answers to my points.
SpirAn1971 3 years ago
Agnosticism is the realization that we don't have enough evidence to categorically assert the existence of a higher deity, or to categorically deny it. I'm agnostic because I simply do not know whether God exists or if he/she/it doesn't, and I'm not afraid to admit that. Atheists go as far as asserting that God does not exist, but they don't really know that either. How can you say something exists or doesn't exist when there's no hard, tangible evidence backing your assertion up either way?
armyveteran101st 3 years ago 2
agnostic in theory atheist in practice. as an atheist i deny god because the probability of one existing is near 0 and even if one exists we dont know what it wants, if anything, for us to do. for that reason i deny higher powers until there is evidence.
do you believe in the boogeyman? why not? because there is no evidence for this creature existing. same goes for the good argument. if there is no evidence in favor of something we generally agree it doesnt exist.
thaprecepta 3 years ago 2
I could tentatively agree to a large extent with that...
armyveteran101st 3 years ago 3
so until there is evidence of something, it does not exist? What if you are incapable of recognizing the evidence? For instance, germs certainly existed before their discovery. Evidence for germs certainly existed prior to their discovery but no one recognized the evidence. Are you really so arrogant as to dismiss the existence of a Creator based solely on your inability to recognize the evidence for one based on the experiences of your brief time on the Earth?
imfromthepast 2 years ago
that is a very good point. however if the concept of a god made sense rationally i would consider the evidence for it. there is almost no way a god can exist when reason and logic are applied.
thaprecepta 2 years ago
hmm 9 monthes ago, w/e,
i agree,
lets show these two sides of the argument
if there is a god, most of us are not serial killers, we dont cheat on our spouses, we are good people, we'll go to heaven or reincarnate or w/e
if there is no god, then, well, were dead, what do we care, were not going to rise from the dead 3 days later are we, were dead
cluch9 2 years ago
In the case of that rationality, you must be Agnostic towards Santa Claus aswell. To be uncertain of something imaginative is nothing but fooling oneself due to emotion. I find it a much wiser practice to engage in subjects that are factual, are known to exist, can be proven to exist and have logical implication. The existence of 'a' God, is based apon assumption and enforced with fear and false promises. With the use of reasoned logic, it's illogical to assume in deities, without any doubt.
xIntoThePitx 2 years ago
@armyveteran101st I have never met a gnostic atheist. However I have met plenty of agnostic atheists. Do not confuse the terms. Theists are gnostic by definition. They claim to be in possession of knowledge.
Pinage 1 year ago
@Pinage No confusion here, my friend. I happen to be one of those atheistic agnostics you speak of.
armyveteran101st 1 year ago
@armyveteran101st As am I. Although I personally am not a fan of either term. I see no purpose in identifying myself by what I am not or by what I do not know.
If anything, I am a naturalist. Or as a joke, I sometimes identify as an ironic pantheist. :)
Pinage 1 year ago
@armyveteran101st The problem with your comment is that atheist don't assert there is no god, theist assert there is a god, and atheist say prove it or STFU (essentially). Atheist don't feel the need to prove a negative, nor are they required to by any standards of a logical debate.
karn33333 1 year ago
@karn33333 Maybe not the ones you know, but the ones I know go out of their way to categorically assert that they are certain god does not exist. Back to my point: How can you be certain, when no one really knows, and there is no known evidence to prove or disprove the assertion? I personally lean towards an atheistic point of view, but can't say that I'm sure there is no god, because I don't know that for a fact. Negative or not, people need to be able to back their assertions with evidence.
armyveteran101st 1 year ago
@armyveteran101st even from your own words it sounds like they are denying an assertion once again they do not have to disprove the existence of something. if something exist it can be proven. if there is no evidence for a claim something exist why would you even consider that it does exist. keep in mind I am NOT an atheist. to answer your question how certain are you that santa clause doesn't exist how certain are you that the boggy man doesn't live under your bed? or the tooth fairy?
karn33333 1 year ago
@karn33333 I am an Army Veteran. I'm not scared of the Boogey Man. He's scared of me! };-)
You're getting too philosophical for me. All I'm saying is that you can't say something doesn't exist when you don't really know, that's all. I'm pretty sure the Boogey Man doesn't exist, but I haven't seen any hard, tangible evidence to the contrary, so I can't say that I'm 100% certain he doesn't exist. And if he does, he'd better not live under my bed or I'll kick his boogey ass up and down the house.
armyveteran101st 1 year ago
@armyveteran101st no you see its not RELIGION that tries to sell a bullshit story religion exist because at the time its a logical explanation to fill in the gaps of human knowledge of the natural world surrounding us. its DOGMA that really, and blind faith that stunts human understanding of the world. you have to be able to change what you believe when the facts present themselves. most people don't want to do that.
karn33333 1 year ago
@armyveteran101st I understand & appreciate the logic of agnosticism, but at some point it leaves you in a weak non-committal position. Do you believe mythical faeries exist? Or are you waiting for evidence? Do you disbelieve the myth that the universe rests on the back of a giant turtle? Or are you waiting for evidence? Personally, I think belief is related to probability, for or against. I reserve my agnostic fence-sitting for issues that could reasonably go either way.
rmcdaniel423 1 year ago
@rmcdaniel423 I guess I agree with you. However, these days I'm leaning more towards atheism than I ever did. I do think your points make a lot of sense };-)
armyveteran101st 1 year ago
@armyveteran101st but thats just it they are denying the assertions of others because there is no evidence. its amazing the level of bullshit most religions actually get people to believe. almost every religion that asserts there is a god has a book to back it up but the book is so riddled with contradictions and fucked up fairy tales why would you believe anything these people try to sell you? i have even heard someone say that the bible has all the answers in the universe you just need to
karn33333 1 year ago
@armyveteran101st mean while this same guy is convicted of fraud multiple times found to be a wife beater cheated on his taxes and has been married 4 times. there seams to be two major reason someone solicits to bible to others 1. they need you to believe in it so they can feel justified in believing it even though they claim they already do, and 2 to socially control you so they can manipulate you. while you are off doing what they say they do the exact opposite while your back is turned.
karn33333 1 year ago
@karn33333 I completely agree with you on that, chief. I've always been of the opinion that religion was invented by a smart person in antiquity, so that he could exercise control over the other not-so-smart ones. To me, religion is poison for the human mind, because it plants the seeds of discord and intolerance. The very worst people I've met in my life were devout church-goers who carried a Bible everywhere they went, only to stab their fellow human beings in the back as often as possible.
armyveteran101st 1 year ago
@armyveteran101st i think you grasped only part of what i am saying so i will try again a different way. if i lie and there for make up something would you believe me the second time i told you something? if i lied and made up a whole bunch of crap EVERY SINGLE TIME i talk to you how certain are you that the next thing i say is a lie? also L ron hubbard made up everything about scientology for the soul purpose of making money and i am 100% sure there is no xenu.
karn33333 1 year ago
@armyveteran101st Another example of why I sometimes believe/disbelieve, sometimes hold agnosticism: Sasquatch is sorta mythical. I haven't seen evidence to make me believe, but many people say they have. A creature like Sasquatch COULD exist as he is described. So I am agnostic. I would even say "hopefully" agnostic because I think he would be a cool addition to the family tree. But, a mythical supernatural god that is described differently by 1000s of different cults? That, I disbelieve.
rmcdaniel423 1 year ago
@armyveteran101st Things are not so black or white. There is an enormous probability that God does not exist, while we have mountains of evidence suggesting that life evolved through natural and explainable means. Produce a shred of evidence that God exists and I will call myself agnostic.
shangobah 1 year ago
@armyveteran101st
that's why it's called faith, it's your distinct belief in one of those two directions
MolotovDaSkwerl 1 year ago
@armyveteran101st atheists dont outright deny the possibility of gods existence, they just see no tangible evidence for him, so they basically say "i dont believe in god...for now"
generosos87 1 year ago
No semantic gymnastics for me, altho I notice you've avoided answering my points.
I conclude on the balance of evidence and reason that Santa Claus does not exist, not thru faith. I have very little faith in general actually. Now what is your point?
And why do you believe your certainty in your own belief is any more justified than that of any supernatural believer?
SpirAn1971 3 years ago
I have no certainty but I my conviction is based on evidence not faith.
thruthem 3 years ago
This video is very attractive aesthetically; unfortunately the message is a sad one. It purports to show many strands of something evil. While I would certainly agree there are many bad aspects of religion, there are also many good or neutral ones. To me the many branchings off indicate the diversity of human culture, which is a natural process, including the striving to understand. Atheism is just another stage in the same pageant of human thought, not something separate and superior.
SpirAn1971 3 years ago
You had me until your conclusion. If this is the tree of faith and atheism is the absence of faith, it is NOT just another stage of the faith tree.
Also, atheism always existed but too often under the persecution by the faithers.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true." -Mark Twain
thruthem 3 years ago
Atheism is not the absence of faith, it is faith in a negative. If you don't have that, you are an agnostic.
I do not believe atheism always existed. Doubt about the local religion, maybe.
I disagree with Twain as well: faith is believing/trusting something you don't know is true, as if you know it is.
I don't like the tendency of 'faith', or religion, but religions have a lot more to them than faith and just replacing them with atheism doesn't replace everything important about them.
SpirAn1971 3 years ago
LOL
There is no faith involved in atheism. It is the abscence of belief, by definition.
You need to read more about the ancient greek thinkers. Try Epicurus, Democratus. They were not superstitious at all. Waaayyy before the Christian mythology, they were free men without supernatural delusion.
I'm with Clemens!
thruthem 3 years ago
Absence of belief in God is non-theism. Atheism is belief in a lack of God. That's a kind of belief. By definition.
There were various Greek thinkers with various beliefs. Some, tho certanly not all, will have had no supernatural belief. But such is not automatically 'delusion' just because you say it is. That's just your belief. And the fact that they preceded Christianity doesn't mean much either.
SpirAn1971 3 years ago
You see, this is the kind of semantic gymnastics that a theist performs in order to rationalize the absurdity of faith.
Do you require faith to conclude that Santa Claus doesn't exist or is just a lack of belief?
thruthem 3 years ago
Fuck Religion. Fuck theism. Fuck willful ignorance.
XVX for life, R.A.S.H. 'til death.
aquamammal 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Whatever was written on the slides is too small for me to see, but the overall effect is obvious. Religion is growing and spreading like a tree and its roots. That's a great thing.
Matur1n 3 years ago
Matur1n, you missed the point entirely. First, religions generally frown on the theory of evolution despite tons of evidence (pubmedcentral evolution gives more than 100,000 scientific papers for you to read. Read at least 1% ...) yet here we see that religions themselves evolve. Second the fact that they evolved led to many incompatible forms, demonstrating that none of them are right.
farvision 3 years ago
"First, religions generally frown on the theory of evolution"
Did you take a poll? The Creationists are loud and pushy. There are many Christians that believe God using natural selection in some way
"many incompatible forms, demonstrating that none of them are right."
That isn't logical at all. There are dozens of theories about who shot JFK. That doesn't mean one of them isn't right. If I say WWII, WWIII, WWIV, & WWV never happened, proving WWIV didn't happen doesn't mean WWII didn't
Matur1n 3 years ago
Matur1n, it took the Catholic Cruch [sic] 150 years to accept evolution but NOT to realize that destroys the basis of their philosohy. A god using natural selection in the same way as a random coin flip? Superfluous, 'I have no need of that hypothesis'. Finally, if you think ONE religion is right, which one? Prove it. They contradict each other and all contradict known science that is well proven
(like evolution).
farvision 3 years ago
Natural selection doesn't explain abiogenesis. God started it all, knowing exactly how it would work out. Seems very elegant to me.
Logically, I don't see why you think contradiction by different religions matters. Some are wrong, at least one isn't. There are many theories about exactly who killed JFK. One person says Oswald, another a Mafia hitman, or a Cuban, or a rogue CIA agent. With your logic, because there are so many contradicting ideas, no one killed JFK. But someone did.
Matur1n 3 years ago
There is a major flaw in your logic...
We know someone killed Kennedy.
We don't know whether someone created the Universe - there is no evidence of a creator unless you consider man-made and long-proven false bunch of desert texts as proof. LOL
thruthem 3 years ago
The point is that conflicting claims don't negate that. Just like conflicting claims don't negate tne existence of God. I have to use an example where you know the answer, using one where you don't wouldn't prove anything. It would just be the same as the arguments about God.
Matur1n 3 years ago
Oh, don't you love moving the goal posts Matur1n ? abiogenesis is a separate topic, go read the work of Szostak. Even if some being started it,
you have an infinite loop, which is not a solution. Further, if a being started it the result is not predictable, it's a chaotic system. It's not elegant, it's millions of years of torture - torn bodies, death.
SOMETHING causes things not SOMEBODY. You made
a false assumption. If it were SOMEBODY
then who made the SOMEBODY?
farvision 3 years ago
"SOMETHING causes things not SOMEBODY."
Always? You have never seen anybody cause anything? Sometimes somebody causes things.
"Even if some being started it,"
Think of what you just said. If there were a being that could do something like that, why would you just ignore him/her? Personally, if there is even a chance that being exists, I think giving a little bit of thought to that being, its motives and what it is trying to achieve to is a good idea.
Matur1n 3 years ago
Matur1n, you are right, SOMETHING can be either a person or a thing. Not realizing that the something is a thing has fooled IDiots into thinking that a being created the wonderful diversity of life, despite avalanches of evidence: pubmetcentral: evolution gives more than 100,000 papers for you to read! If there were a flying spaghetti monster that will cause you to choke on your next bite of pasta and die, perhaps you had better think about this possibility and not ignore her!
farvision 3 years ago
farvision: I have no problem with natural selection. It is the reasons for the creation of the universe and the creation of life I would like to see. Not natural selection, I am fine with one animal becoming more efficient and acquiring traits that help it. It is the reason for the first life, and the universe itself that I seek. Natural selection among animals is irrelevant to that. Also, I am as interested in the "why" as the "how".
Matur1n 3 years ago
Ok, look up the work of szostak. People are making good progress on this without any mysterious gods being involved (that hypothesis only gets in the way). Consider that there may be no 'why'.
farvision 3 years ago
Szostak is doing interesting work. Unfortunately, the more we learn about RNA and replication, the less likely it is it happened by chance and certainly not in the time on Earth we have for it to have happened. The botanists keep pushing back earlier and earlier the date complicated life forms existed on earth. It has become so short, many like Crick are suggesting it must have happened elsewhere in a solar system where there was more time or better conditions and came to Earth as spores/seeds.
Matur1n 3 years ago
Until we actually have nailed down the mechanisms responsible, we cannot make an estimate of the probability. It certainly is possible that earth was seeded, but of course that sets the problem elsewhere.
farvision 3 years ago
Which is another way of saying that in comparison to natural selection we know very little about how abiogenesis could have occurred. Setting the problem elsewhere helps, as instead of only 1 or 2 billion years, you could have ten billion years+ on the right planet. And have more favorable conditions. We do know earth's conditions are not favorable. Postulating underwater thermal vents just to get close, which again greatly narrows the number of places on earth it could have occurred.
Matur1n 3 years ago
that should be pubmedcentral and do a search for evolution.
farvision 3 years ago
Anyone know where we could find a final screenshot of what the trees look like? I'd love to see it.
AbsolutJake 3 years ago
Please see the description frame for a simpler organic flowchart of religions.
thruthem 3 years ago
I haven't seen a higher resolution version.
This animation is created by Bobby Standridge, as stated in the description.
thruthem 3 years ago
Could you upload this one again with a higher resolution and higher bit-rate, so we can get the option "Watch In High Quality"? I'd really like to see what it says. Thanks.
However, if you did, sometimes it takes a day or two for that option to show up.
freedom0f5peech 3 years ago
Very interesting. Wish it were higher resolution for easier reading.
intactivist1 3 years ago
Great work. Im not sure the Abrahamic religions came from an apple though. They grew from the pyramids of Egypt. Same script different actors.
mjdoyza 3 years ago
That was very well done, although perhaps a bit too long. :)
OzStone 3 years ago
That's a lot of different beliefs in the superdude/dudes up in the sky.
Each one of them the correct one in their own mind of course!
relic1076 3 years ago 2