By reason of his Creatorship, Jehovah God is the Supreme Sovereign of the universe and is above all of his creation. That Jehovah “is a God, not of disorder, but of peace”
@Gaolisvideolog you are a good example why mankind hasn't advanced further. Let's see, hmmmm. Hey Bob, how are we going to build that skyscraper? Let's ask God to do it, or let's rub Goats blood over our door. Well, how about we use time tested physics and engineering and avoiding past mistakes. Religious motivation is fine, but it's science that allows us to progress.
@bundabuna SCIENCE does much to help us understand the natural world, revealing a level of order, precision, and sophistication that points, in the eyes of many, to a God of infinite intelligence and power. In their view, science reveals not just details of the natural world but also facets of the mind of God.
All religion is all bad all the time for everyone everywhere in the past the present and the future. A future that looks short and bleak and oppressive thanks to the tyranny and death associated with all religion. A religious life is a cowards life. It undermines Humanity and it is a cancer on the human spirit. It dehumanizes homo sapein sapein, it sullies the greatness of who we can become as a species. Combat all religions and their failed fallen degenerate non thinking sycophants.
@699backstab So, you're an extremesist. That's all there is to say. From a sociological POV, why do you think religions were created in first place? From a PEARL POV, do you know all religion? I'm sure you know Christianity, but what do you know about taoism? How much do you know about the Aeta belief? Or do you know what the content of the abiogenesis story of the aborigine is? I assume not. You're just as biased as those few donkeys you wish to fight.
Desperate times call for desperate measures. I am the good guy, unencumbered by homophobia, religion, women, racism or any other of societies blankets of fail. I am not the smartest guy around but I represent the correct "type" of person. Religion represents the greatest threat to the survival of the mammal known as homo sapein sapein, of which I am one. There is no religion that gets cut a break or gets respect by me. None. You are either with Humans or against them. Thats it.
@699backstab The human brain perceives the world it lives in through stereotyping. Whether we're talking about audiovisual or abstract stereotypes. Whether you like it or not you're "[encumbered] by [...] societies blankets of fail".
The French revolution also only had "with us or against us". A lot of innocent people died because of this madness. Religion also inspires art like paintings, mythologies, music, architecture.
You're just trying to sound smart. BTW, it's "sapiens" not "sapein".
if religion had its way we would all be living in caves still and 30 years would be considered a long life. We live longer and have medical care and the internet. God did not make these,,,,, we did!!!!!
@andysim232 Your statement is false. Just because medival Catholicism prohibited non-Christian scriptures and tradition, religion and all that is part of it, like astrology, rain dances etc., serve(d) an actual purpose and helped mankind evolve. Look at medival Islam. Their achievements are incredible. Pyramids, Cologne Cathedral, the Forbidden City in Beijing, Angkor Wat are manifestations of religious belief. Or look at classical European music, it was created because of religious motivation.
@Abbadon380 That does not make all atheists bad. For instance, just because the catholic church committed atrocities like the Inquisition and Crusades does not mean all Catholics are evil.
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
@Mogley52 i have never heard anybody who actually believes that evolution is true say that natural selection operates before reproduction. Only people who don't believe evolution seem to think that.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
@Mogley52 I invite you to look at the Philippine flora and fauna where there are plants that eat rats and fish with legs that sometimes come out of the water and even climb trees. If you don't believe the fossil record or carbon dating, you can look at what can be found in today's world. Coz, if evolution is true, than you can find transitional forms even today. (Which you can, as I said. Look at the animals and plants in the Philippines.)
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST prevents macro-evolution. Natural selection wouldn't preserve the evolution of new traits because they wouldn't have any survival value. A partially-evolved hand evolving from a previous trait, partially-evolved tissues, organs, biological structures would make a species unfit for survival. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. They came into existence as complete!
NEW SPECIES: Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
"JUNK DNA" ISN'T JUNK: Recent research shows that these segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Random mutations, from radiation, are destructive. Even for every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, causing harm and even extinction, not upward evolution. Genetic similarities are better explained due to a common design for common purposes.
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
NO REAL VIOLATION OF CHURCH/STATE SEPARATION in teaching both evolution and Intelligent Design because no one is being forced to believe in God's existence or any religion. Taxpayers on the both sides of the issue pay for public education. It is only fair that scientific arguments and evidence of both sides be presented, at the very least in public school textbooks. The issue is important because it affects people's lives, their values, philosophy, and worldview.
ATHEISTS ARE MORE EDUCATED is a red herring argument. What about all the educated that aren't atheists? Many times, the minority has been right in history. The atheists and evolutionists control the education system and certain arguments and evidences aren't presented or known, even among the educated. There are strong personal motives involved on the issue of origins. That is why it is important to present arguments and evidences of both sides to the public.
DISORDER IN THE UNIVERSE is no argument against God's existence. The disorder is because of chance and entropy, but the order can only be rationally explained due to design. If I discovered a broken watch on the ground, the disorder is no evidence that there wasn't a designer behind the watch. Please read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Many atheists think they have no burden of proof because they’re not claiming the existence of something. That is not true. Atheists are claiming something. They are claiming that we are here by chance and atheists expect for everyone to accept that claim on faith because they certainly can’t prove it. Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
You can avoid the term "atheism" if you want, but since the debate of God's existence is one you actively engage in, it would be kind of dumb. You can say that you believe in "proof and evidence", but you're loading that definition with unspoken assumptions (ie, that theists *don't*) so you're making meaningful discussion more difficult. You'd be on firmer ground saying that atheism isn't a religion, but then you'd find yourself without a leg to stand on when it comes to first amendment issues.
Also, nice job recycling the "non-stamp collector" cliche-- shows how "free thinking" most atheists really are. It was originally intended as a reason why atheism isn't a RELIGION, so you kind of missed the point. We have terms for people who believe things and don't believe things, for positive attributes and negative attributes. Language changes and grows in accordance to what is USEFUL, not in accordance with arbitrary and absolute rules.
Ugh. These videos are just the same shit over and over again. You guys talk about the benefits of science and technology as if that's actually an argument for atheism, when the only place science and faith are opposed is in the imaginations of atheists. You really don't need to sell us on science, really, you don't, but the reason why science and religion are mutually exclusive has never, NOT ONCE, been satisfactorily explained to me.
and it probably will never been satisfactorily explained as you dont want that. you made a great effort that people cant attack you as you would need atleast 5 youtube comments to point out things. lets just say your comments are based on false assumptions. its not really about benefits of science, but it is an argument for areligion. the opposition between science and religion (NOT FAITH) is in the religious books, unless RELIGIOUS PPL say that it cant be taken word by word.ETC
@Skelros Well I'm at least willing to examine what my assumptions are, which I don't think Thunderf00t is. Yes, the story of Adam and Eve would conflict with the prevailing scientific understanding, but even Augustine in the fourth century talked about taking Genesis figuratively.
The fact is, religious people generally don't consider their beliefs to be either/or with science, so atheists aren't going to have much luck pursuing the subject from that angle.
the dilemma is that either you take whats in the book or leave it. you cant take parts you like and leave others beside and take this as a basis. science does not do this. and science is not really the point. the point is rather, that science has originated from logic and rational thinking, which religion does not provide. the point is further, that science has led humanity to great wealth (on short terms), while religion is mundanely useless and purposelessly brings pain
the dilemma is that either you take whats in the book or leave it. you cant take parts you like and leave others beside and take this as a basis. science does not do this. and science is not really the point. the point is rather, that science has originated from logic and rational thinking, which religion does not provide. the point is further, that science has led humanity to great wealth (on short terms), while religion is mundanely useless and purposelessly brings pain
@Skelros Ugh, this again. First off, every area of human knowledge involves interpretion, and they all have their own ways of being interpreted. History, philosophy, aesthetics, etc. It's not just all science on one side and religion on the other and nothing in between, as atheists like to frame it.
You seem to share many YouTube atheists' confusion over what "logic" is. Look it up.
Thirdly, you're still working from the assumption that it is an either/or choice between religion or science.
I am not talking about taking A word by word and interpreting B to ones liking. When you are talking about one thing, you need to stick to one method. Interpretate it, or take it word by word. If you are not, it rips off every foundation to take it seriously. Areligious people are not the ones that think in Black and White, its religious people.
I am not sharing atheists view of whats logic. I am sharing the definition of whats logic. There is one logic.
Yet, the only part in the 'debate', not willing to undergo strict, scrutinous investigation is one side, and one side alone. Religions. It's hardly fair to DEMAND scientific value when DEMANDING to be excempt from the scientific method? Twist it whatever way you like - prove your particular god-myth (amongst the many thousands) and we atheists may start to listen
Why does this new breed of atheist continue to speak about a God they dont believe in or others that do? Is this some kind of cry out for help? I can see making one video about your beliefs or lack of them, but to make it your past time? Maybe the thought of someone finding peace is too much to bear. Maybe misery truly does love company.
Not sure I wholly agree but it is a very interesting concept of being a PEARList.
I had to smile when you talked of blood infections. It reminded me of showing a Christian friend of mine around Linlithgow Palace, which was built in the 16th century. She was going on about how much she would love to go back to those days, then added "But not without a shot of penicillin first. In those days the slightest scratch could end up killing you."
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS FOR CREATIONISM-EVOLUTIONISM DEBATE (See Subchapter 10.2.2, Chapter 10, of Part Two.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balancedway.yolasite.com
balancedway1.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
@zenoparodie Hardly. The genocide of the Native americans is the largest and longest genocide in history, and has taken place all in Christian nations. Also Stalin and Mao both created cults of personality that elevated them to the status of demi-gods. People actually prayed to them. If there's a god involved, it's not A-THEISM now is it? It's a common fallacy to say they were atheists.
@zenoparodie Perhaps, but two things to consider there. The cult of personality is a religious thing, hardly an atheist thing. But even if you're right, and he was an atheist, the genocides of the Native Americans number around 100 million alone. It's possible if the deaths that occurred in china can be attributed to him alone, that he can be said to have the highest individual kill count, but Christians as a whole still have the lead by a very wide margin.
@zenoparodie Mao Zedong was born and raised as a Buddhist, so you could easily connect the dots and make the argument that his religious upbringing was the primary cause of his silliness, regardless of his views on religion later in life.
Besides, in terms of murders Christians are still #1.
Atheists can also have other non-religious beliefs which are dangerous. Those non-religious beliefs should be fought as strenuously as religious beliefs, so the end result is an atheist individual who is also not insane. It never hurts to believe one fewer false thing, and god is always a good place to start. Nobody claims their LACK of a divine commandment from god to slaughter other gives them the right to commit genocide. They come up with OTHER reasons just as irrational as god.
If you only believe it because it works, that makes you a pragmatist. You don't believe it because it is objectively true, but because it rewards you with nice toys. If I was a Christain, and I am not, I would point out that the rewards I believe I will get for my believeing in what works for me are much greater than your lousy I phones and short brual life. Futhermore you assume knowledge is possible, and since nothing is present in an effect that is not in the cause, where is knowledge?
this video actually makes a great point FOR Chritianty! You see, if your perceptions of reality are all based on media and other forms of human influence, then of course you can question what is real or truth..BUT if you experience something that noone else can possibly explain, then how can you honestly assume that your experience is anything other than the truth? Faith in God does NOT come from the influence of man, but the experience from within through God !
@SugaNutt This is just silly. Through which god? Zeus? Your idea of the Christian god? Why should I pay any attention to how you read old books? This kind of stuff is just impossible to believe and reaveas the paltry nature of faith. Faith can contain anything, it has no method to keep its contents consistant. Thus every example of a person with faith is an example of solipsism. Only you know what your idea of god is and only your idea is valid! This is obvious silliness. Faith--not
@SugaNutt Just because no one has explained it to you doesn't mean there's no explanation. Religious experiences have been reproduced scientifically through manipulation of the brain.
But, even if there's no explanation, that's no excuse for you to make one up. That's an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy.
@Antifides Oh..Ok.. I just made that up? What!? Sir, Just because YOU haven't experienced something from your HEART that you know to be true, doesn't mean that I made that up!?!?! See the problem with you atheists, is that by saying that you KNOW for A FACT that there is no possibility that there is a God is admitting that YOU KNOW EVERYTHING! primarily based on influence of other men, EGO DRIVEN puppets afraid of something superior to them !
@SugaNutt "See the problem with you atheists, is that by saying that you KNOW for A FACT that there is no possibility that there is a God is admitting that YOU KNOW EVERYTHING!"
I don't believe you've ever seen an atheist say that. I certainly never said it. You're the one claiming absolute knowledge of something which cannot be known... based on a FEELING.
The only thing I've ever experienced from my heart is blood circulation. I'm willing to wager the same of you.
@Antifides WHAT!?!? How old are you? 12? ALL ATHEISTS believe that the existance of God is NOT POSSIBLE, If they believed God was a possibility it would make them AGNOSTIC! Do you need a lesson in religion? What I FEEL and EXPERIENCE and WITNESS and STUDY defines everything that is truth, and no man could argue. I am very sorry that you haven't had the honor to be filled with the Holy Spirit and shown miracles on a daily basis! I will pray that God redeems your eyes!
@SugaNutt I'm sorry that you refuse to accept atheists' definition of atheism, but I have no reason to try to convince you.
There are people that experience being Napoleon. We put them in asylums and try to fix them. That which you experience does not define truth. I just argued.
Whether or not I've experienced that which you call being "filled with the Holy Spirit" would depend on what that sensation is. Regardless, as I said, religious experiences have been duplicated with science.
@SugaNutt Are these miracles making children all around the world die of hunger? The world wars which kill millions of people? The fatal diseases which kill millions as well? Anything good that happens in the world is apparently god whilst everything shit is our fault. Why would i want to believe in a god who does nothing to help people, I am not weak and need basic directions from a book, and feelings and sensations are not truth, they are mere feelings and sensations.
@SugaNutt Apparantly You know EVERYTHING already and MAN MADE science backs your beliefs! Typical atheist who tries to argue EVERYTHING because there SCARED of the TRUTH! Im through casting my pearls to swine like you! Good luck with your matrix and your science and your ego, they will serve you well in the next couple of years ! LMAO !
Why is "atheism" getting more and more dogmatic and ridiculous? You're arrogant and believe your ideas supreme (while demonstrating terrible ignornace of history, philosophy and science). You have absolute faith in that apparently!?
Look up ignosticism on wikipedia. If you really want to reason then do it once in a while instead of saying the word as loud and with as much irony as possible (like loving Xian armies of mercy)
@bikerusl "God is a complicated idea" for which there is no evidence. So we do not believe, because it is unreasonable to believe in something without evidence. Thus we are atheists.
What part of that is dogmatic, ridiculous, or ironic?
If non stamp collecting is not a hobby then atheism is not a valid position. How does this go over your head so easily?
By your logic you would have to include everything that you don't believe. Or should we assume that you believe in Santa Clause until you call yourself an asanta?
Why not find a hobby yourself instead of advertising your asexual life style over the atelevision?
Atheists have protestant values. What scientific reasoning leads you to believe that your private individualistic views on the meaning of the universe (or whatever) matters at all to the problems of the world (ie murder and war)
Protestant values do. You think you earn heaven my your work at being pure in this life. Purity to you is rejecting the "primative" "bronze age" notions of god.
You can't escape an idea by "rejecting" it in your own head.
what happens if i accepect god (christian) but i also acpect what you say (minus god not real) and agree with the idea that radicals in religon are a threat to freedom and our species
Great video. Except for the new movement you are promoting. Your label (PEARL) is the same of many others made for centuries that you "borrowed". Your criticism of the "Atheist" is the same criticism for "PEARL" Jam :)
Except you define YOURSELF as an atheist. YOU'RE the one making the big deal out of this. Most "theists" really couldn't care less what you believe. It's mostly some Christians, and some Muslims who are trying to shove their beliefs down your throat. Oh yeah, and SOME atheists.
"when jesus christ returns in World War 3, coming soon"
well, i couldn't agree more with you. have WW 1 and WW 2 really not been enough already?
it is frightening really how people like that actually crave for another world war, which is especially frightening in the age of weapons of mass destruction, ranging from nuclear, to biological to chemical based weaponry.
people, remember the Fallout series of games and what happened in this fictional timeline! 'nuff said.
@Timberwolftrass I love fallout 3 :D and, I seriously believe that, sometime in the future, our thirst for all out war will no longer be contained, and something like what happened in fallout will happen, and that will send us back to the dark ages.
@Timberwolftrass I like how you pointed out Fallout. If you have played Fallout as much as i have you'd know how effin bad it will be if we start nuking one another. Brining ourselves back 500 for at least 500 years before we can start climbing up again. Horrible.
@Timberwolftrass ROFL oh those crazy believers its always the end of the world with you. Not going to happen for at least another few billion years, get over it.
What if I agree with you (and honor your opinion), but I still think a belief in God (or gods, or any other name for a central diety) is good? I believe in being a good person for the pure fact of being good. What would that be called?
@vamped66 I personally say - I have my own believes. Since they change all the time i do not name them. I believe this is what you refer too though i cannot be sure ofcourse.
Loved the "Dark Star" clip. Been almost 30 years since I saw that. The beachball alien is priceless. Now I have to try and find that movie. Thanks for jogging my memory.
the problem in these debates seems to be the deffinition of god. maybe this deffinition can resemble a scientific discovery/theory that is yet to be made and makes everyone see something they would consider pretty much god like, and impossible. What laws about space/time are talked about? There is so much that is amazing, why would you believe the end conclusion does not have wierd unforseen attributes, infinite universes?4real? maybe god is consciousness or god is everything?
@Action52TheMovie His actions weren't done BECAUSE of his atheism though, Jihads are.. hitler wanted revenge on the jews for killing jesus 2000 years ago so thats killing in the name of religion too.
@musicplayah OR he just wanted jews cuz they were effin rich and taking all of their posessions and money would feed his war machine. ;) Simpler explanation. Though he didnt think how strong the jews really are and how they would rape his reputation after he dies.
it's true. The word atheist is redundant. Atheism is the default position until some supernatural deity is proven. atheist is simply human without an allegiance to some organized cult or delusions of grandure and belief in unproven myths and folklore.
@jarroddudley I did not say that. I said atheists are simply human without an association or membership with(in) an organized cult (etc) and believers are simply human with all the baggage of delusions of supernatural favouritism. We're all human. Atheists are just the people who threw away their membership cards or never filled in the application form to begin with.
@viridismonasteriense What if you have your own believes that you have created but you dont have a membership card and you dont reject all religions completely but u do think science is right but also do not believe that it is completely right ;)
@2RayneR7 so science doesn't have all the answers yet? So what? Personally, I suspect your appeal is becoming close to an argument from ignorance, if not spot on. A UFO doesn't make an alien spacecraft just yet. Not knowing does not validate a positive belief. You'd need evidence. That's where science comes in, to discern fact from fiction and reality from imagination/wishful thinking. Every mystery so far has turned out to be NOT magic. The onus, the burden of proof lies with the believer :)
@viridismonasteriense I simply wanted to point out that you should not lose your spirituality for chasing reality and fact. No one understands anything. Religion is just maxed out to the point of dreaming, ANd science is maxed out to the point of only with complete evidence and denying the spiritual part. Both deny each other and both are wrong for doing so. As i have said before balance is needed. U of course will say there is nothing else except what we see and have evidence for.
@2RayneR7 " Both deny each other and both are wrong for doing so."
Hmmm. I wonder how we could ever prove this claim true or false. Oh, wait! I know! SCIENCE.
Spirituality is a nonsensical label with no explanatory value whatsoever. It's whatever you want it to mean. If it influences this world it can be proven to be real. It hasn't been, therefore non-belief. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. Claims asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
@2RayneR7 And you're wrong on another count. Science is not denying anything. We can't know everything 100%. That's why scientists label everything a theory, humbly accepting the fact that they can be proven wrong when another theory makes more sense, in the future. We can't know everything, but we can be less wrong than before. Scientists are open-minded where religionists are closed-minded. It loves to dream of possibilities. But without evidence no cookie.
@2RayneR7 "I simply wanted to point out that you should not lose your spirituality for chasing reality and fact."
And why is that a bad thing? Who needs spirituality? Don't you care whether your beliefs are accurate and correct, that your worldview reflects reality accurately? Or are you satisfied in chasing fairytales and whatever your fancy may be as long as you're happy? You'd be deluding yourself. It's dangerous.
@2RayneR7 "No-one understands anything": therefore all crackpot claims are somehow credible? A complete argument from ignorance fallacy, as I've pointed out before. A UFO doesn't make an alien ship just yet! You can't say no-one knows and then immediately jump to a conclusion and show that somehow you have knowledge that others don't. How do you know this? Do you have evidence? If you don't, you're just as bad as the religious who believe based on nothing but their faith in faith. Gullibility.
Repeat, rinse, wash and dry and MyITRcom still won't accept the facts. The reason is simple. Atheists think atheism is the most intelligent position and can't handle when smarter people are not atheist. No attempt is made to understand why, they'll just call the person an atheist. Calling Einstein an atheist when HE SAYS he isn't, requires faith.
@IIXVXII :) So what do you think is a more intelligent position, Atheism or Faith ... Atheist wont be offended when smart people are not atheist, they would only think the so called "smart" people are probably not smart enough. Einstein has said lot of different statements every single time to create a confusion ... what he was consistent on was that believing in the god of old testament would be a very bad idea. But Come-on who are we fooling he also make mistakes right ..?
There is a large piece missing from your video. Not saying it would complete it, but you have effectively ignored the subject. Science is very wonderful, It provides amazing conveniences and makes life "easier". But science and all these wonderful conveniences exist and only exist because someone paid for it. You portray science and knowledge as if they are the very signature of human existence. A market drives its "evolution" Mr. Pearl.
That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations." - Albert Einstein
@IIXVXII Nor does he make the erroneous claim that it is a God. I guess what you will never understand or get is that unless you define exactly what a God is, How do you even know to call it one? That has been the point you have been evading all along and is what is driving me bonkers with you. You don't seem to see the flawed logic with putting the burden of proof on me, when you won't say what a God is and how you can tell it apart from advanced space aliens? EVADE! EVADE! EVADE!
"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is.
IIXXVXII Definition of God = It's a thing out their that creates Universes. I have no idea what it is, its attributes or how it does it, but it creates Universes. ( Does that help you to see how stupid your idea is? ) The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.
The values religion has brought our world. 9/11, The Crusades, Witch Trials, the Current Witch Trials against Gays with regard to Marriage, Constant suppression of human progress ( Stem Cell Research) Slavery condoned by the Bible, Killing and murdering those who believe differently, more divisness. We don't argue about science... Why? We all know it works, we all are using a computer right now to have this conversation. It doesn't need the most absurd concept ever created... FAITH.
@MyITRcom I battle religious people and atheists and religious people are much more comfortable admitting their belief is faith. Where I have never met an atheist that admits their belief might be faith. Atheists are always convinced it's the logical position to know nothing about how the universe began, but magically know for sure it wasn't a God. I see little difference compared to religious people that say they don't know how the universe began, but magically know for sure it was a God.
@IIXVXII Does the computer and the fact that is is functioning prove to you why science might be a little different then the need for faith? It isn't magic that we know it wasn't a God, when the God concept itself is like the Cubic Sphere. The point is, your God is anything you want it to be, it is not a valid concept, this is why it is logical to know it is not your non-concept. I am sorry you choose not to think, There is no value for humanity even if your correct is my point.
@IIXVXII Thanks for proving my point that your God becomes anything you want it to be, when I point out the biblical version of God, you call me narrow minded. Hence why the concept is a non-defined floating abstraction. So by default you aren't saying anything when you say God created the Universe. By leaving the term undefined and meaningless, you can say its anything, everything, and nothing. So you have all the outs covered, nice, but unless YOU define the term, it is just a silly game
@MyITRcom I've defined God, I've told you many times I'm not religious, but agnostic. You make baseless claims while denying valid ones. You restate talking points demonstrated as false. Now you're saying again a scientific theorys validity is determined by it's benefits to humanity, which is utter stupidity that truth is subjectively determined. Your mind is closed, you can't understand my position, which is identical to Einsteins. You're a typical atheist that thinks your faith is logical.
@IIXVXII You have? Where is your definition? What is your evidence? Why do you think its God and not advanced space aliens? I have yet to see anything from you but an argument from Ignorance... I am presuposing that the Universe must have been created, ( When we have zero evidence to even support that idea. ) Then because I have made that claim without any evidence... I must invent this non-concept God to be responsible for it, when I have zero evidence for that extrodinary claim. Grow up
What are the valid claims again? This has nothing to do with you being religious or not, it has everything to do with you seeing the flaw in your logic. You want to put the burden of proof on the atheist, but how can the Atheist prove anything one way or another if you won't come forward with us even know what it is if we were to discover it? That is why God as a term is a floating abstraction... You will say see... The Laws of Physics... that is God! or the Universe it self.. Thats God!
The other way to know if a philosophy is accurate or not, is by the values it brings to our world and humanity. If God was really talking to people, he should be able to tell them how to build flying cars, cure Cancer, Cure Aids, and actually have somthing to say that is worth something. He is perfect after all and knows the answers to all these questions. Science is the philosophy moving us to greater and great understanding and values, unlike any religion will ever do. Religion... HUGE FAIL
Part 10: Also, the occupants of heaven, who presumably must have freewill to be happy, will never use that freewill to make imperfect decisions. Why would the originally perfect humans do differently? The point remains: the presence of imperfections in the universe disproves the supposed perfection of its creator, therefore the Christian God as depicted in the Bible absolutely cannot exist and is a contradiction in terms. The creation of God is simply to create a Mind control fraud trap.
Part 9: Second, even if we were to allow the necessity of freewill for happiness, God could have created humans with freewill who did not have the ability to choose evil, but to choose between several good options. Third, God supposedly has freewill, and yet he does not make imperfect decisions. If humans are miniature images of God, our decisions should likewise be perfect.
@MyITRcom I concede, with no argument, that you disproved the Christian god. Now why not make the harder step and prove to me that the order of the universe, the physical laws, was not the intent of a higher consciousness. There is no reason God has to be the personal God of religion, that is your narrow assumption.
@IIXVXII Because you only create an endless regression, it simply begs that next question of who created the creator? Why not just stay with what science discovers until we have better tools to know more? It is silly to just make claims when one has no reasons other then their mind being infected with the God virus. ( Threats of Hell and Bribes of Heaven, being the biggest reason anyone believes at all... fear of eternal damnation.. The terrorist God wins! Yippeee! )
@MyITRcom ANY mechanism that caused the Big Bang begs the question of what created that mechanism. My definition of God is no different than many scientists, including Einstein, that God is the genius behind the logic of the universe. But Einsteins God and religions God have things in common, like both creating the universe. Thus, denying a consciousness was required to create the universe is sufficient to deny these Gods. Go for it. Your first problem will be, why even have physical laws?
@IIXVXII Sorry but Einstien was far more like myself as much as you would like to warp him to your absurd view of knowing without any reason, and your inability to confess a definition that makes any sense. I have no problem with physical laws, what I have a problem with is your absurd need to asbcribe a floating abstraction to those laws?
@MyITRcom Demanding Negative Proof is a logical fallacy. You're the one making the atheist claim, it's your burden of proof. I've never argued God exists. You assume that simply because I challenge you. I don't claim God exists, I however, don't deny God as a "possibility". Hence, why I'm agnostic. When will you understand that? And as I've already said, Einstein did not believe in personal Gods. CLEARLY, you do not understand what that means if you think your belief is similar to Einsteins.
@IIXVXII Einstein didn't believe in any Gods, he thought it was childish just like I do. Words actually have meanings, the actually describe real things and ideas, I don't understand how you don't see that God itself is not even a concept? To say Creator of the Universe tells us absolutely nothing about anything, zero value. It is not on the Athiests to prove that Floating abstractions exist or don't exist, we know that until their is a definition, it is impossible to say anything about it.
@MyITRcom I can know what a non-concept is.. it is an undefined floating abstraction. The fact that you can't see your flawed logic is far from my problem. The one making the extrodinary claim has the burden of proof, I am just still wondering what your claim even is? You won't define it, even though you say you do? I am still waiting? So your calling laws God? Your the one with the need to say it may be God, I am only asking how will you know it is a God?
@IIXVXII Words have meanings... You are simply describing the Universe a word that we know what it is. So just stick with the term Universe and lose all the baggage that comes with the term God. To try an redefine God just to suit you only creates confusion. You are describing what we know as the Universe. Energy can neither be created or destroyed... Hence no need for a creator is there?
@IIXVXII Why don't you make the harder step and prove to me that the order of the universe and physical laws were not just random chance? That we exist because of the millions of possiblities that were tried, with millions of universes and billions of planets and trillions of possibilities? Why your need to make more out of it then what it is? WhY? So you can deny gays marriage?
@MyITRcom Gay marriage? Wow dude, you're a total loser, this ends this conversation. How many times do I have to beat through your neutrino blocking skull that I'm not religious. You paint people as how you want to see them and then NOTHING can change that perception. I can't even convince you I'm not religious. I might as well go beat my head against this wall and see if my dripping blood will believe me. I'd probably have a better chance then talking with an atheist zealot.
Part 8: First, if God is omnipotent, then the assumption that freewill is necessary for happiness is false. If God could make it a rule that only beings with freewill may experience happiness, then he could just as easily have made it a rule that only robots may experience happiness. The latter option is clearly superior, since perfect robots will never make decisions which could render them or their creator unhappy, whereas beings with freewill could.
Part 7: They say that a being must have freewill to be happy. The omnibenevolent God did not wish to create robots, so he gave humans freewill to enable them to experience love and happiness. But the humans used this freewill to choose evil, and introduced imperfection into God's originally perfect universe. God had no control over this decision, so the blame for our imperfect universe is on the humans, not God. Here is why the argument is weak....
Part 6: and yet this "perfect" God created a "perfect" universe which was rendered imperfect by the "perfect" humans. The ultimate source of imperfection is God. What is perfect cannot become imperfect, so humans must have been created imperfect. What is perfect cannot create anything imperfect, so God must be imperfect to have created these imperfect humans. A perfect God who creates imperfect humans is impossible. The Christians' objection to this argument involves freewill.
Part 5: But, for the sake of argument, let's continue. Let us suppose that this perfect God did create the universe. Humans were the crown of his creation, since they were created in God's image and have the ability to make decisions. However, these humans spoiled the original perfection by choosing to disobey God. What!? If something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it and yet this "perfect" God created a "perfect" universe which was rendered imperfect by the "perfect" humans.
Part 4: What did God do during that eternity before he created everything? If God was all that existed back then, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium and compelled him to create? Was he bored? Was he lonely? God is supposed to be perfect. If something is perfect, it is complete--it needs nothing else. We humans engage in activities because we are pursuing that elusive perfection, because there is disequilibrium caused by a difference between what we are and what we want to be,so why is God?
i wonder how many people give up their religion after seeing your vids.. you'd be my hero
dgaagjezeken 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
By reason of his Creatorship, Jehovah God is the Supreme Sovereign of the universe and is above all of his creation. That Jehovah “is a God, not of disorder, but of peace”
TheButtascotchbro1 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Oh Lord,
Oh you are so big!
So absolutely huge!
Gosh we’re all really impressed down here I can tell you.
Forgive us oh Lord, for this our dreadful toting.
But you’re so strong and well just so super!”
The1VoiceOfReason 2 weeks ago
@Gaolisvideolog you go to a priest and I'll go to a doctor to cure a disease. Let's see who gets better.
paramattic70 4 weeks ago
@Gaolisvideolog you are a good example why mankind hasn't advanced further. Let's see, hmmmm. Hey Bob, how are we going to build that skyscraper? Let's ask God to do it, or let's rub Goats blood over our door. Well, how about we use time tested physics and engineering and avoiding past mistakes. Religious motivation is fine, but it's science that allows us to progress.
paramattic70 4 weeks ago
I will never reject the flying spaghetti monster, nor will I reject science.
Very nicely done video.
bundabuna 1 month ago
@bundabuna SCIENCE does much to help us understand the natural world, revealing a level of order, precision, and sophistication that points, in the eyes of many, to a God of infinite intelligence and power. In their view, science reveals not just details of the natural world but also facets of the mind of God.
TheButtascotchbro1 1 week ago
Is there a difference between mythology and Christianity? No.
TextingMuffin6 1 month ago
I love not collecting stamps. It's almost as fun as not being stupid like theists.
TehFunnehMann 1 month ago 8
All religion is all bad all the time for everyone everywhere in the past the present and the future. A future that looks short and bleak and oppressive thanks to the tyranny and death associated with all religion. A religious life is a cowards life. It undermines Humanity and it is a cancer on the human spirit. It dehumanizes homo sapein sapein, it sullies the greatness of who we can become as a species. Combat all religions and their failed fallen degenerate non thinking sycophants.
699backstab 2 months ago
@699backstab So, you're an extremesist. That's all there is to say. From a sociological POV, why do you think religions were created in first place? From a PEARL POV, do you know all religion? I'm sure you know Christianity, but what do you know about taoism? How much do you know about the Aeta belief? Or do you know what the content of the abiogenesis story of the aborigine is? I assume not. You're just as biased as those few donkeys you wish to fight.
GaolisVideoLog 2 months ago
Desperate times call for desperate measures. I am the good guy, unencumbered by homophobia, religion, women, racism or any other of societies blankets of fail. I am not the smartest guy around but I represent the correct "type" of person. Religion represents the greatest threat to the survival of the mammal known as homo sapein sapein, of which I am one. There is no religion that gets cut a break or gets respect by me. None. You are either with Humans or against them. Thats it.
699backstab 2 months ago
@699backstab The human brain perceives the world it lives in through stereotyping. Whether we're talking about audiovisual or abstract stereotypes. Whether you like it or not you're "[encumbered] by [...] societies blankets of fail".
The French revolution also only had "with us or against us". A lot of innocent people died because of this madness. Religion also inspires art like paintings, mythologies, music, architecture.
You're just trying to sound smart. BTW, it's "sapiens" not "sapein".
GaolisVideoLog 2 months ago
if religion had its way we would all be living in caves still and 30 years would be considered a long life. We live longer and have medical care and the internet. God did not make these,,,,, we did!!!!!
andysim232 3 months ago 2
@andysim232 Your statement is false. Just because medival Catholicism prohibited non-Christian scriptures and tradition, religion and all that is part of it, like astrology, rain dances etc., serve(d) an actual purpose and helped mankind evolve. Look at medival Islam. Their achievements are incredible. Pyramids, Cologne Cathedral, the Forbidden City in Beijing, Angkor Wat are manifestations of religious belief. Or look at classical European music, it was created because of religious motivation.
GaolisVideoLog 2 months ago
WAIT I GET HITLER WAS CATHOLIC BUT STALIN WAS AN ATHEIST
Abbadon380 3 months ago
@Abbadon380 That does not make all atheists bad. For instance, just because the catholic church committed atrocities like the Inquisition and Crusades does not mean all Catholics are evil.
Also, caps lock is not cruise control for win.
micometer 3 months ago
why the hell would you want a sentient bomb anyway?
viking977 3 months ago 11
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 3 months ago
@Mogley52 i have never heard anybody who actually believes that evolution is true say that natural selection operates before reproduction. Only people who don't believe evolution seem to think that.
dwarvenater 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
Mogley52 3 months ago
@Mogley52 get out you spagetti monster objectionist !
machielste1 3 months ago
@Mogley52 I invite you to look at the Philippine flora and fauna where there are plants that eat rats and fish with legs that sometimes come out of the water and even climb trees. If you don't believe the fossil record or carbon dating, you can look at what can be found in today's world. Coz, if evolution is true, than you can find transitional forms even today. (Which you can, as I said. Look at the animals and plants in the Philippines.)
GaolisVideoLog 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST prevents macro-evolution. Natural selection wouldn't preserve the evolution of new traits because they wouldn't have any survival value. A partially-evolved hand evolving from a previous trait, partially-evolved tissues, organs, biological structures would make a species unfit for survival. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. They came into existence as complete!
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW SPECIES: Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"JUNK DNA" ISN'T JUNK: Recent research shows that these segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Random mutations, from radiation, are destructive. Even for every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, causing harm and even extinction, not upward evolution. Genetic similarities are better explained due to a common design for common purposes.
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NO REAL VIOLATION OF CHURCH/STATE SEPARATION in teaching both evolution and Intelligent Design because no one is being forced to believe in God's existence or any religion. Taxpayers on the both sides of the issue pay for public education. It is only fair that scientific arguments and evidence of both sides be presented, at the very least in public school textbooks. The issue is important because it affects people's lives, their values, philosophy, and worldview.
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ATHEISTS ARE MORE EDUCATED is a red herring argument. What about all the educated that aren't atheists? Many times, the minority has been right in history. The atheists and evolutionists control the education system and certain arguments and evidences aren't presented or known, even among the educated. There are strong personal motives involved on the issue of origins. That is why it is important to present arguments and evidences of both sides to the public.
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DISORDER IN THE UNIVERSE is no argument against God's existence. The disorder is because of chance and entropy, but the order can only be rationally explained due to design. If I discovered a broken watch on the ground, the disorder is no evidence that there wasn't a designer behind the watch. Please read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Many atheists think they have no burden of proof because they’re not claiming the existence of something. That is not true. Atheists are claiming something. They are claiming that we are here by chance and atheists expect for everyone to accept that claim on faith because they certainly can’t prove it. Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 months ago
Anyone else kinda wanna play that old flash game Pearls Before Swine now?
xXShadowEyesXx 3 months ago
Bomb is GOD!
dRevan64 3 months ago in playlist More videos from Thunderf00t
We are sorry to have to inform you that, due to a metaphysical dichotomy, your bomb has shut down and must be recalled...
DaToNyOyO 4 months ago in playlist More videos from Thunderf00t
You can avoid the term "atheism" if you want, but since the debate of God's existence is one you actively engage in, it would be kind of dumb. You can say that you believe in "proof and evidence", but you're loading that definition with unspoken assumptions (ie, that theists *don't*) so you're making meaningful discussion more difficult. You'd be on firmer ground saying that atheism isn't a religion, but then you'd find yourself without a leg to stand on when it comes to first amendment issues.
stallion4life 4 months ago
Also, nice job recycling the "non-stamp collector" cliche-- shows how "free thinking" most atheists really are. It was originally intended as a reason why atheism isn't a RELIGION, so you kind of missed the point. We have terms for people who believe things and don't believe things, for positive attributes and negative attributes. Language changes and grows in accordance to what is USEFUL, not in accordance with arbitrary and absolute rules.
stallion4life 4 months ago
Ugh. These videos are just the same shit over and over again. You guys talk about the benefits of science and technology as if that's actually an argument for atheism, when the only place science and faith are opposed is in the imaginations of atheists. You really don't need to sell us on science, really, you don't, but the reason why science and religion are mutually exclusive has never, NOT ONCE, been satisfactorily explained to me.
stallion4life 4 months ago
@stallion4life
and it probably will never been satisfactorily explained as you dont want that. you made a great effort that people cant attack you as you would need atleast 5 youtube comments to point out things. lets just say your comments are based on false assumptions. its not really about benefits of science, but it is an argument for areligion. the opposition between science and religion (NOT FAITH) is in the religious books, unless RELIGIOUS PPL say that it cant be taken word by word.ETC
Skelros 4 months ago
@Skelros Well I'm at least willing to examine what my assumptions are, which I don't think Thunderf00t is. Yes, the story of Adam and Eve would conflict with the prevailing scientific understanding, but even Augustine in the fourth century talked about taking Genesis figuratively.
The fact is, religious people generally don't consider their beliefs to be either/or with science, so atheists aren't going to have much luck pursuing the subject from that angle.
stallion4life 4 months ago
@stallion4life
the dilemma is that either you take whats in the book or leave it. you cant take parts you like and leave others beside and take this as a basis. science does not do this. and science is not really the point. the point is rather, that science has originated from logic and rational thinking, which religion does not provide. the point is further, that science has led humanity to great wealth (on short terms), while religion is mundanely useless and purposelessly brings pain
Skelros 4 months ago
@stallion4life
the dilemma is that either you take whats in the book or leave it. you cant take parts you like and leave others beside and take this as a basis. science does not do this. and science is not really the point. the point is rather, that science has originated from logic and rational thinking, which religion does not provide. the point is further, that science has led humanity to great wealth (on short terms), while religion is mundanely useless and purposelessly brings pain
Skelros 4 months ago
@Skelros Ugh, this again. First off, every area of human knowledge involves interpretion, and they all have their own ways of being interpreted. History, philosophy, aesthetics, etc. It's not just all science on one side and religion on the other and nothing in between, as atheists like to frame it.
You seem to share many YouTube atheists' confusion over what "logic" is. Look it up.
Thirdly, you're still working from the assumption that it is an either/or choice between religion or science.
stallion4life 4 months ago
@stallion4life
I am not talking about taking A word by word and interpreting B to ones liking. When you are talking about one thing, you need to stick to one method. Interpretate it, or take it word by word. If you are not, it rips off every foundation to take it seriously. Areligious people are not the ones that think in Black and White, its religious people.
I am not sharing atheists view of whats logic. I am sharing the definition of whats logic. There is one logic.
Thirdly, no, I am not.
Skelros 4 months ago
@stallion4life
Yet, the only part in the 'debate', not willing to undergo strict, scrutinous investigation is one side, and one side alone. Religions. It's hardly fair to DEMAND scientific value when DEMANDING to be excempt from the scientific method? Twist it whatever way you like - prove your particular god-myth (amongst the many thousands) and we atheists may start to listen
tdjdk 3 months ago
I'm atheist too and proud of it! :)
Adler36 4 months ago
Why does this new breed of atheist continue to speak about a God they dont believe in or others that do? Is this some kind of cry out for help? I can see making one video about your beliefs or lack of them, but to make it your past time? Maybe the thought of someone finding peace is too much to bear. Maybe misery truly does love company.
benthemiester 4 months ago
I get what you're saying, Thunderf00t, but I think atheist is really the best term at the moment. Nobody is going to know what a PEARList is :/
zombieman841 4 months ago
Flying Spaghetti Monster.. hmm.. Comet FSM, anyone? Ahh I quit I'm probably the only one here who longboards x_x
JoshKnightmare 5 months ago
Not sure I wholly agree but it is a very interesting concept of being a PEARList.
I had to smile when you talked of blood infections. It reminded me of showing a Christian friend of mine around Linlithgow Palace, which was built in the 16th century. She was going on about how much she would love to go back to those days, then added "But not without a shot of penicillin first. In those days the slightest scratch could end up killing you."
Yep, there's faith in action.
ThomasTrue 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (Donated) For Debates And Governance
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS FOR CREATIONISM-EVOLUTIONISM DEBATE (See Subchapter 10.2.2, Chapter 10, of Part Two.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balancedway.yolasite.com
balancedway1.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
@Thunderf00t I am now an atheist
MoralRapist 5 months ago
Why is he talking to a creeper?
shinryu1285 5 months ago
This is why you don't give a bomb sentience, and an AI....and the ability to think....and the ability to not understand that he was tricked.
omegaheartless 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (DONATED) FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
what moron said "you know what, we need our bombs to be sentient so they can argue when we try to turn it off."
viking977 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
THUNDERF00T IS CORRECT™
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
SquareRo0o0t 5 months ago
hahahahahhahaa people fighting over this just move on your not going to get the other person to agree with you hahaha
hunyamaster69 6 months ago
UHM, thunderfoot, ehhh, i really dont wanna say this but Mao and Stalin which where atheists killed the most people
zenoparodie 6 months ago
@zenoparodie Hardly. The genocide of the Native americans is the largest and longest genocide in history, and has taken place all in Christian nations. Also Stalin and Mao both created cults of personality that elevated them to the status of demi-gods. People actually prayed to them. If there's a god involved, it's not A-THEISM now is it? It's a common fallacy to say they were atheists.
humanistheart 6 months ago
@humanistheart i have to say i dont know about stalin, but Mao was surely an atheist, and he killed something like 20 million people
zenoparodie 6 months ago
@zenoparodie Perhaps, but two things to consider there. The cult of personality is a religious thing, hardly an atheist thing. But even if you're right, and he was an atheist, the genocides of the Native Americans number around 100 million alone. It's possible if the deaths that occurred in china can be attributed to him alone, that he can be said to have the highest individual kill count, but Christians as a whole still have the lead by a very wide margin.
humanistheart 6 months ago
@zenoparodie Mao Zedong was born and raised as a Buddhist, so you could easily connect the dots and make the argument that his religious upbringing was the primary cause of his silliness, regardless of his views on religion later in life.
Besides, in terms of murders Christians are still #1.
PickiestEater 6 months ago
@zenoparodie
Atheists can also have other non-religious beliefs which are dangerous. Those non-religious beliefs should be fought as strenuously as religious beliefs, so the end result is an atheist individual who is also not insane. It never hurts to believe one fewer false thing, and god is always a good place to start. Nobody claims their LACK of a divine commandment from god to slaughter other gives them the right to commit genocide. They come up with OTHER reasons just as irrational as god.
rkyeun 5 months ago
@rkyeun exactly
zenoparodie 5 months ago
Hahaha that bomb is hilarious.. The segment kinda reminded me of monthy python
Mirata87 6 months ago
this is a Shameless re-branding no different than cdesign proponentsists
ThePuppyTurtle 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 6 months ago
You do not seem to have much of an understanding to what philosophers do, i.e. the following are things that philosophers ponder on:
-what counts as science
-universal ethics
-social and economical structures
philosophy is not just metaphysics, there's a lot of practical things as well
uchihashikon 6 months ago
If you only believe it because it works, that makes you a pragmatist. You don't believe it because it is objectively true, but because it rewards you with nice toys. If I was a Christain, and I am not, I would point out that the rewards I believe I will get for my believeing in what works for me are much greater than your lousy I phones and short brual life. Futhermore you assume knowledge is possible, and since nothing is present in an effect that is not in the cause, where is knowledge?
sowcratees 6 months ago
this video actually makes a great point FOR Chritianty! You see, if your perceptions of reality are all based on media and other forms of human influence, then of course you can question what is real or truth..BUT if you experience something that noone else can possibly explain, then how can you honestly assume that your experience is anything other than the truth? Faith in God does NOT come from the influence of man, but the experience from within through God !
SugaNutt 6 months ago
@SugaNutt This is just silly. Through which god? Zeus? Your idea of the Christian god? Why should I pay any attention to how you read old books? This kind of stuff is just impossible to believe and reaveas the paltry nature of faith. Faith can contain anything, it has no method to keep its contents consistant. Thus every example of a person with faith is an example of solipsism. Only you know what your idea of god is and only your idea is valid! This is obvious silliness. Faith--not
sowcratees 6 months ago
@SugaNutt Just because no one has explained it to you doesn't mean there's no explanation. Religious experiences have been reproduced scientifically through manipulation of the brain.
But, even if there's no explanation, that's no excuse for you to make one up. That's an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy.
Antifides 6 months ago
@Antifides Oh..Ok.. I just made that up? What!? Sir, Just because YOU haven't experienced something from your HEART that you know to be true, doesn't mean that I made that up!?!?! See the problem with you atheists, is that by saying that you KNOW for A FACT that there is no possibility that there is a God is admitting that YOU KNOW EVERYTHING! primarily based on influence of other men, EGO DRIVEN puppets afraid of something superior to them !
SugaNutt 6 months ago
@SugaNutt "See the problem with you atheists, is that by saying that you KNOW for A FACT that there is no possibility that there is a God is admitting that YOU KNOW EVERYTHING!"
I don't believe you've ever seen an atheist say that. I certainly never said it. You're the one claiming absolute knowledge of something which cannot be known... based on a FEELING.
The only thing I've ever experienced from my heart is blood circulation. I'm willing to wager the same of you.
Antifides 6 months ago
@Antifides WHAT!?!? How old are you? 12? ALL ATHEISTS believe that the existance of God is NOT POSSIBLE, If they believed God was a possibility it would make them AGNOSTIC! Do you need a lesson in religion? What I FEEL and EXPERIENCE and WITNESS and STUDY defines everything that is truth, and no man could argue. I am very sorry that you haven't had the honor to be filled with the Holy Spirit and shown miracles on a daily basis! I will pray that God redeems your eyes!
SugaNutt 6 months ago
@SugaNutt I'm sorry that you refuse to accept atheists' definition of atheism, but I have no reason to try to convince you.
There are people that experience being Napoleon. We put them in asylums and try to fix them. That which you experience does not define truth. I just argued.
Whether or not I've experienced that which you call being "filled with the Holy Spirit" would depend on what that sensation is. Regardless, as I said, religious experiences have been duplicated with science.
Antifides 6 months ago
@SugaNutt Are these miracles making children all around the world die of hunger? The world wars which kill millions of people? The fatal diseases which kill millions as well? Anything good that happens in the world is apparently god whilst everything shit is our fault. Why would i want to believe in a god who does nothing to help people, I am not weak and need basic directions from a book, and feelings and sensations are not truth, they are mere feelings and sensations.
EliteZodiac92 6 months ago
@SugaNutt Atheism is not having belief in any god(s). No more, no less.
Strangerinasland 6 months ago
@SugaNutt Apparantly You know EVERYTHING already and MAN MADE science backs your beliefs! Typical atheist who tries to argue EVERYTHING because there SCARED of the TRUTH! Im through casting my pearls to swine like you! Good luck with your matrix and your science and your ego, they will serve you well in the next couple of years ! LMAO !
SugaNutt 6 months ago
@SugaNutt Let's see. First, you replied to yourself. Nice job.
I never claimed to know everything.
Science isn't MADE. It is the only reliable process for determining the nature of reality. I use that process and accept when others do.
Skeptics argue a lot. I'm a skeptic. I am not scared of the truth. Truth is extremely important to me.
I don't believe in luck.
My matrix? What?
My ego? I'm not the one with the arrogance to assert knowledge where none can be had.
Antifides 6 months ago
lulz... Great scene from Dark Star, haven't seen it in 20 years at least. Goes well with your assertion.
ScottFree37 6 months ago
Why is "atheism" getting more and more dogmatic and ridiculous? You're arrogant and believe your ideas supreme (while demonstrating terrible ignornace of history, philosophy and science). You have absolute faith in that apparently!?
Look up ignosticism on wikipedia. If you really want to reason then do it once in a while instead of saying the word as loud and with as much irony as possible (like loving Xian armies of mercy)
God is a complicated idea.
bikerusl 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bikerusl "God is a complicated idea" for which there is no evidence. So we do not believe, because it is unreasonable to believe in something without evidence. Thus we are atheists.
What part of that is dogmatic, ridiculous, or ironic?
Antifides 6 months ago
If non stamp collecting is not a hobby then atheism is not a valid position. How does this go over your head so easily?
By your logic you would have to include everything that you don't believe. Or should we assume that you believe in Santa Clause until you call yourself an asanta?
Why not find a hobby yourself instead of advertising your asexual life style over the atelevision?
knowwaie 7 months ago
seriously:
fuck religion
every time i think: ok let the people believe what makes them happy, something like 11. september happens
GoldenCrusader93 7 months ago
@GoldenCrusader93
Atheists have protestant values. What scientific reasoning leads you to believe that your private individualistic views on the meaning of the universe (or whatever) matters at all to the problems of the world (ie murder and war)
Protestant values do. You think you earn heaven my your work at being pure in this life. Purity to you is rejecting the "primative" "bronze age" notions of god.
You can't escape an idea by "rejecting" it in your own head.
bikerusl 6 months ago
what happens if i accepect god (christian) but i also acpect what you say (minus god not real) and agree with the idea that radicals in religon are a threat to freedom and our species
failurbanik 7 months ago
my favourite hobby is not collecting stamps though :/ thanks for shitting on my day TF
MrMrPWN 7 months ago 24
pretty sure stalin wasnt a flying spaghetti monster denialist but infact a pearlist. that said, i fully agree with this vid
theblitz6794 7 months ago
Great video. Except for the new movement you are promoting. Your label (PEARL) is the same of many others made for centuries that you "borrowed". Your criticism of the "Atheist" is the same criticism for "PEARL" Jam :)
strattfordcrass 7 months ago
sad
395131 7 months ago
Except you define YOURSELF as an atheist. YOU'RE the one making the big deal out of this. Most "theists" really couldn't care less what you believe. It's mostly some Christians, and some Muslims who are trying to shove their beliefs down your throat. Oh yeah, and SOME atheists.
seeqer66 8 months ago
Ha! Darkstar is my Favorite Sci Fi film of all time.
ThekingofTerrors 8 months ago
This video contains content from Content Lizenz Agentur, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.
trpax 1 year ago
"when jesus christ returns in World War 3, coming soon"
well, i couldn't agree more with you. have WW 1 and WW 2 really not been enough already?
it is frightening really how people like that actually crave for another world war, which is especially frightening in the age of weapons of mass destruction, ranging from nuclear, to biological to chemical based weaponry.
people, remember the Fallout series of games and what happened in this fictional timeline! 'nuff said.
Timberwolftrass 1 year ago 30
@Timberwolftrass I love fallout 3 :D and, I seriously believe that, sometime in the future, our thirst for all out war will no longer be contained, and something like what happened in fallout will happen, and that will send us back to the dark ages.
halflifefan84 8 months ago
@halflifefan84 Hopefully it wont happen soon so that we can colonize another planet and secure our future.
2RayneR7 7 months ago
@Timberwolftrass I like how you pointed out Fallout. If you have played Fallout as much as i have you'd know how effin bad it will be if we start nuking one another. Brining ourselves back 500 for at least 500 years before we can start climbing up again. Horrible.
2RayneR7 7 months ago
@Timberwolftrass ROFL oh those crazy believers its always the end of the world with you. Not going to happen for at least another few billion years, get over it.
Kiljoy616 6 months ago
@Timberwolftrass
War....
War Never Changes.
shadow11479 6 months ago
@shadow11479
"It's a game, and games have winners and losers" :D
DarkZerkerX 6 months ago
@DarkZerkerX War is not a game...
Everyone Loses, its about who can lose the least
shadow11479 6 months ago
What if I agree with you (and honor your opinion), but I still think a belief in God (or gods, or any other name for a central diety) is good? I believe in being a good person for the pure fact of being good. What would that be called?
vamped66 1 year ago
@vamped66 Philanthropist?
Feldkahl 1 year ago
@vamped66 I personally say - I have my own believes. Since they change all the time i do not name them. I believe this is what you refer too though i cannot be sure ofcourse.
2RayneR7 7 months ago
smoking in a spaceship... love it
sectioncp5518 1 year ago
Loved the "Dark Star" clip. Been almost 30 years since I saw that. The beachball alien is priceless. Now I have to try and find that movie. Thanks for jogging my memory.
Hisseefits 1 year ago
the problem in these debates seems to be the deffinition of god. maybe this deffinition can resemble a scientific discovery/theory that is yet to be made and makes everyone see something they would consider pretty much god like, and impossible. What laws about space/time are talked about? There is so much that is amazing, why would you believe the end conclusion does not have wierd unforseen attributes, infinite universes?4real? maybe god is consciousness or god is everything?
Idolcruisefix 1 year ago
Stalin was atheist. Wouldn't that make him a PEARList? Or are the two different from each other? Just asking.
Action52TheMovie 1 year ago
@Action52TheMovie His actions weren't done BECAUSE of his atheism though, Jihads are.. hitler wanted revenge on the jews for killing jesus 2000 years ago so thats killing in the name of religion too.
musicplayah 1 year ago
@musicplayah OR he just wanted jews cuz they were effin rich and taking all of their posessions and money would feed his war machine. ;) Simpler explanation. Though he didnt think how strong the jews really are and how they would rape his reputation after he dies.
2RayneR7 7 months ago
I love "Dark Star" one of the best alien beach-ball fights ever. "hey you're falling into that planet. What a beautiful way to die..."
ecppunk 1 year ago
it's true. The word atheist is redundant. Atheism is the default position until some supernatural deity is proven. atheist is simply human without an allegiance to some organized cult or delusions of grandure and belief in unproven myths and folklore.
viridismonasteriense 1 year ago
Comment removed
jarroddudley 1 year ago
@jarroddudley I did not say that. I said atheists are simply human without an association or membership with(in) an organized cult (etc) and believers are simply human with all the baggage of delusions of supernatural favouritism. We're all human. Atheists are just the people who threw away their membership cards or never filled in the application form to begin with.
viridismonasteriense 1 year ago
@viridismonasteriense and that is probably why I got many questions wrong on my exams at uni. Not reading the 'nots' withouts' and 'isnts'
kudos to you for your comment
jarroddudley 1 year ago
@viridismonasteriense What if you have your own believes that you have created but you dont have a membership card and you dont reject all religions completely but u do think science is right but also do not believe that it is completely right ;)
2RayneR7 7 months ago
@2RayneR7 so science doesn't have all the answers yet? So what? Personally, I suspect your appeal is becoming close to an argument from ignorance, if not spot on. A UFO doesn't make an alien spacecraft just yet. Not knowing does not validate a positive belief. You'd need evidence. That's where science comes in, to discern fact from fiction and reality from imagination/wishful thinking. Every mystery so far has turned out to be NOT magic. The onus, the burden of proof lies with the believer :)
viridismonasteriense 7 months ago
@viridismonasteriense I simply wanted to point out that you should not lose your spirituality for chasing reality and fact. No one understands anything. Religion is just maxed out to the point of dreaming, ANd science is maxed out to the point of only with complete evidence and denying the spiritual part. Both deny each other and both are wrong for doing so. As i have said before balance is needed. U of course will say there is nothing else except what we see and have evidence for.
2RayneR7 7 months ago
@2RayneR7 " Both deny each other and both are wrong for doing so."
Hmmm. I wonder how we could ever prove this claim true or false. Oh, wait! I know! SCIENCE.
Spirituality is a nonsensical label with no explanatory value whatsoever. It's whatever you want it to mean. If it influences this world it can be proven to be real. It hasn't been, therefore non-belief. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. Claims asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
viridismonasteriense 7 months ago
@2RayneR7 And you're wrong on another count. Science is not denying anything. We can't know everything 100%. That's why scientists label everything a theory, humbly accepting the fact that they can be proven wrong when another theory makes more sense, in the future. We can't know everything, but we can be less wrong than before. Scientists are open-minded where religionists are closed-minded. It loves to dream of possibilities. But without evidence no cookie.
viridismonasteriense 7 months ago
@2RayneR7 "I simply wanted to point out that you should not lose your spirituality for chasing reality and fact."
And why is that a bad thing? Who needs spirituality? Don't you care whether your beliefs are accurate and correct, that your worldview reflects reality accurately? Or are you satisfied in chasing fairytales and whatever your fancy may be as long as you're happy? You'd be deluding yourself. It's dangerous.
viridismonasteriense 7 months ago
@2RayneR7 "No-one understands anything": therefore all crackpot claims are somehow credible? A complete argument from ignorance fallacy, as I've pointed out before. A UFO doesn't make an alien ship just yet! You can't say no-one knows and then immediately jump to a conclusion and show that somehow you have knowledge that others don't. How do you know this? Do you have evidence? If you don't, you're just as bad as the religious who believe based on nothing but their faith in faith. Gullibility.
viridismonasteriense 7 months ago
"Einstein didn't believe in any Gods" -MyITRcom
"I'm not an atheist" -Einstein
Repeat, rinse, wash and dry and MyITRcom still won't accept the facts. The reason is simple. Atheists think atheism is the most intelligent position and can't handle when smarter people are not atheist. No attempt is made to understand why, they'll just call the person an atheist. Calling Einstein an atheist when HE SAYS he isn't, requires faith.
IIXVXII 1 year ago
@IIXVXII :) So what do you think is a more intelligent position, Atheism or Faith ... Atheist wont be offended when smart people are not atheist, they would only think the so called "smart" people are probably not smart enough. Einstein has said lot of different statements every single time to create a confusion ... what he was consistent on was that believing in the god of old testament would be a very bad idea. But Come-on who are we fooling he also make mistakes right ..?
pankaj66866 1 year ago
There is a large piece missing from your video. Not saying it would complete it, but you have effectively ignored the subject. Science is very wonderful, It provides amazing conveniences and makes life "easier". But science and all these wonderful conveniences exist and only exist because someone paid for it. You portray science and knowledge as if they are the very signature of human existence. A market drives its "evolution" Mr. Pearl.
ParadigmShifter29 1 year ago
that bomb is a TERRORIST !!!!
anteracmacash 1 year ago
What movie was that? It looked awesome! MUST SEE THE MOVIEEEEE! "Let there be light" BOOM! LOL
shldflght 1 year ago
@shldflght
the movie is "Dark Star"
GentleSavage1 1 year ago
That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations." - Albert Einstein
IIXVXII 1 year ago
@IIXVXII Nor does he make the erroneous claim that it is a God. I guess what you will never understand or get is that unless you define exactly what a God is, How do you even know to call it one? That has been the point you have been evading all along and is what is driving me bonkers with you. You don't seem to see the flawed logic with putting the burden of proof on me, when you won't say what a God is and how you can tell it apart from advanced space aliens? EVADE! EVADE! EVADE!
MyITRcom 1 year ago
"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is.
IIXVXII 1 year ago
IIXXVXII Definition of God = It's a thing out their that creates Universes. I have no idea what it is, its attributes or how it does it, but it creates Universes. ( Does that help you to see how stupid your idea is? ) The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.
-- A. Einstien.
MyITRcom 1 year ago
The values religion has brought our world. 9/11, The Crusades, Witch Trials, the Current Witch Trials against Gays with regard to Marriage, Constant suppression of human progress ( Stem Cell Research) Slavery condoned by the Bible, Killing and murdering those who believe differently, more divisness. We don't argue about science... Why? We all know it works, we all are using a computer right now to have this conversation. It doesn't need the most absurd concept ever created... FAITH.
MyITRcom 1 year ago
@MyITRcom I battle religious people and atheists and religious people are much more comfortable admitting their belief is faith. Where I have never met an atheist that admits their belief might be faith. Atheists are always convinced it's the logical position to know nothing about how the universe began, but magically know for sure it wasn't a God. I see little difference compared to religious people that say they don't know how the universe began, but magically know for sure it was a God.
IIXVXII 1 year ago
@IIXVXII Does the computer and the fact that is is functioning prove to you why science might be a little different then the need for faith? It isn't magic that we know it wasn't a God, when the God concept itself is like the Cubic Sphere. The point is, your God is anything you want it to be, it is not a valid concept, this is why it is logical to know it is not your non-concept. I am sorry you choose not to think, There is no value for humanity even if your correct is my point.
MyITRcom 1 year ago
@IIXVXII The bigger Question is why you have a need to say that a Creator is behind it all? What is the psychological confession?
MyITRcom 1 year ago
@IIXVXII Thanks for proving my point that your God becomes anything you want it to be, when I point out the biblical version of God, you call me narrow minded. Hence why the concept is a non-defined floating abstraction. So by default you aren't saying anything when you say God created the Universe. By leaving the term undefined and meaningless, you can say its anything, everything, and nothing. So you have all the outs covered, nice, but unless YOU define the term, it is just a silly game
MyITRcom 1 year ago
@MyITRcom I've defined God, I've told you many times I'm not religious, but agnostic. You make baseless claims while denying valid ones. You restate talking points demonstrated as false. Now you're saying again a scientific theorys validity is determined by it's benefits to humanity, which is utter stupidity that truth is subjectively determined. Your mind is closed, you can't understand my position, which is identical to Einsteins. You're a typical atheist that thinks your faith is logical.
IIXVXII 1 year ago
@IIXVXII You have? Where is your definition? What is your evidence? Why do you think its God and not advanced space aliens? I have yet to see anything from you but an argument from Ignorance... I am presuposing that the Universe must have been created, ( When we have zero evidence to even support that idea. ) Then because I have made that claim without any evidence... I must invent this non-concept God to be responsible for it, when I have zero evidence for that extrodinary claim. Grow up
MyITRcom 1 year ago
What are the valid claims again? This has nothing to do with you being religious or not, it has everything to do with you seeing the flaw in your logic. You want to put the burden of proof on the atheist, but how can the Atheist prove anything one way or another if you won't come forward with us even know what it is if we were to discover it? That is why God as a term is a floating abstraction... You will say see... The Laws of Physics... that is God! or the Universe it self.. Thats God!
MyITRcom 1 year ago
The other way to know if a philosophy is accurate or not, is by the values it brings to our world and humanity. If God was really talking to people, he should be able to tell them how to build flying cars, cure Cancer, Cure Aids, and actually have somthing to say that is worth something. He is perfect after all and knows the answers to all these questions. Science is the philosophy moving us to greater and great understanding and values, unlike any religion will ever do. Religion... HUGE FAIL
MyITRcom 1 year ago
Part 10: Also, the occupants of heaven, who presumably must have freewill to be happy, will never use that freewill to make imperfect decisions. Why would the originally perfect humans do differently? The point remains: the presence of imperfections in the universe disproves the supposed perfection of its creator, therefore the Christian God as depicted in the Bible absolutely cannot exist and is a contradiction in terms. The creation of God is simply to create a Mind control fraud trap.
MyITRcom 1 year ago
Part 9: Second, even if we were to allow the necessity of freewill for happiness, God could have created humans with freewill who did not have the ability to choose evil, but to choose between several good options. Third, God supposedly has freewill, and yet he does not make imperfect decisions. If humans are miniature images of God, our decisions should likewise be perfect.
MyITRcom 1 year ago
@MyITRcom I concede, with no argument, that you disproved the Christian god. Now why not make the harder step and prove to me that the order of the universe, the physical laws, was not the intent of a higher consciousness. There is no reason God has to be the personal God of religion, that is your narrow assumption.
IIXVXII 1 year ago
@IIXVXII Because you only create an endless regression, it simply begs that next question of who created the creator? Why not just stay with what science discovers until we have better tools to know more? It is silly to just make claims when one has no reasons other then their mind being infected with the God virus. ( Threats of Hell and Bribes of Heaven, being the biggest reason anyone believes at all... fear of eternal damnation.. The terrorist God wins! Yippeee! )
MyITRcom 1 year ago
@MyITRcom ANY mechanism that caused the Big Bang begs the question of what created that mechanism. My definition of God is no different than many scientists, including Einstein, that God is the genius behind the logic of the universe. But Einsteins God and religions God have things in common, like both creating the universe. Thus, denying a consciousness was required to create the universe is sufficient to deny these Gods. Go for it. Your first problem will be, why even have physical laws?
IIXVXII 1 year ago
@IIXVXII Sorry but Einstien was far more like myself as much as you would like to warp him to your absurd view of knowing without any reason, and your inability to confess a definition that makes any sense. I have no problem with physical laws, what I have a problem with is your absurd need to asbcribe a floating abstraction to those laws?
MyITRcom 1 year ago
@MyITRcom Demanding Negative Proof is a logical fallacy. You're the one making the atheist claim, it's your burden of proof. I've never argued God exists. You assume that simply because I challenge you. I don't claim God exists, I however, don't deny God as a "possibility". Hence, why I'm agnostic. When will you understand that? And as I've already said, Einstein did not believe in personal Gods. CLEARLY, you do not understand what that means if you think your belief is similar to Einsteins.
IIXVXII 1 year ago
@IIXVXII Einstein didn't believe in any Gods, he thought it was childish just like I do. Words actually have meanings, the actually describe real things and ideas, I don't understand how you don't see that God itself is not even a concept? To say Creator of the Universe tells us absolutely nothing about anything, zero value. It is not on the Athiests to prove that Floating abstractions exist or don't exist, we know that until their is a definition, it is impossible to say anything about it.
MyITRcom 1 year ago
@MyITRcom I can know what a non-concept is.. it is an undefined floating abstraction. The fact that you can't see your flawed logic is far from my problem. The one making the extrodinary claim has the burden of proof, I am just still wondering what your claim even is? You won't define it, even though you say you do? I am still waiting? So your calling laws God? Your the one with the need to say it may be God, I am only asking how will you know it is a God?
MyITRcom 1 year ago
@MyITRcom Unless your willing to define your terms, the burden of proof is still on you. I can't prove to you something your unwilling to define.
MyITRcom 1 year ago
@IIXVXII Words have meanings... You are simply describing the Universe a word that we know what it is. So just stick with the term Universe and lose all the baggage that comes with the term God. To try an redefine God just to suit you only creates confusion. You are describing what we know as the Universe. Energy can neither be created or destroyed... Hence no need for a creator is there?
MyITRcom 1 year ago
@IIXVXII Why don't you make the harder step and prove to me that the order of the universe and physical laws were not just random chance? That we exist because of the millions of possiblities that were tried, with millions of universes and billions of planets and trillions of possibilities? Why your need to make more out of it then what it is? WhY? So you can deny gays marriage?
MyITRcom 1 year ago
@MyITRcom Gay marriage? Wow dude, you're a total loser, this ends this conversation. How many times do I have to beat through your neutrino blocking skull that I'm not religious. You paint people as how you want to see them and then NOTHING can change that perception. I can't even convince you I'm not religious. I might as well go beat my head against this wall and see if my dripping blood will believe me. I'd probably have a better chance then talking with an atheist zealot.
IIXVXII 1 year ago
@IIXVXII
"was not the intent of a higher consciousness." prove it was.
yours is the positive position, you have the burden of proof.
pyr666 1 year ago
Part 8: First, if God is omnipotent, then the assumption that freewill is necessary for happiness is false. If God could make it a rule that only beings with freewill may experience happiness, then he could just as easily have made it a rule that only robots may experience happiness. The latter option is clearly superior, since perfect robots will never make decisions which could render them or their creator unhappy, whereas beings with freewill could.
MyITRcom 1 year ago
Part 7: They say that a being must have freewill to be happy. The omnibenevolent God did not wish to create robots, so he gave humans freewill to enable them to experience love and happiness. But the humans used this freewill to choose evil, and introduced imperfection into God's originally perfect universe. God had no control over this decision, so the blame for our imperfect universe is on the humans, not God. Here is why the argument is weak....
MyITRcom 1 year ago
Part 6: and yet this "perfect" God created a "perfect" universe which was rendered imperfect by the "perfect" humans. The ultimate source of imperfection is God. What is perfect cannot become imperfect, so humans must have been created imperfect. What is perfect cannot create anything imperfect, so God must be imperfect to have created these imperfect humans. A perfect God who creates imperfect humans is impossible. The Christians' objection to this argument involves freewill.
MyITRcom 1 year ago
Part 5: But, for the sake of argument, let's continue. Let us suppose that this perfect God did create the universe. Humans were the crown of his creation, since they were created in God's image and have the ability to make decisions. However, these humans spoiled the original perfection by choosing to disobey God. What!? If something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it and yet this "perfect" God created a "perfect" universe which was rendered imperfect by the "perfect" humans.
MyITRcom 1 year ago
Part 4: What did God do during that eternity before he created everything? If God was all that existed back then, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium and compelled him to create? Was he bored? Was he lonely? God is supposed to be perfect. If something is perfect, it is complete--it needs nothing else. We humans engage in activities because we are pursuing that elusive perfection, because there is disequilibrium caused by a difference between what we are and what we want to be,so why is God?
MyITRcom 1 year ago