@Stevarious - I am purposely choosing not to focus on God’s punishment in the call to action here. This is because the punishment will not be applied in any measure to those who have faith in Jesus Christ alone. There are millions of people who both understand God’s punishment and have personally applied Jesus Christ’s atoning death, burial, and resurrection to him/herself to avoid eternal punishment and begin a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
@paularenas26 "I am purposely choosing not to focus on God’s punishment in the call to action here."
You are purposely ignoring pesky things like 'evidence' and 'truth' in your desperate push to make everyone believe the same way as you. You're purposely ignoring the ethical concerns of worshiping a being that tortures innocents and murders children.
The god of the bible makes Hitler look good - at least Hitler never specifically targeted children for mass murder like God supposedly did..
@paularenas26 "Jesus simply desires personal repentance and a relationship with you and everyone."
That's not what the bible says. The bible says that everyone has to believe in Jesus or they will be punished mercilessly for their evil crimes.
I've seen this tactic before, where you pretend that Jesus and Paul didn't actually mention fire and burning and torture for non-believers in the bible. What's the point? Nobody actually believes in your 'nicey nice' version of xtianity. Why should I?
she is so retarded!!!!!!! i come back to watch this video just to say to myself that someone out there is listing to her every word thinking she is a authority on skepticism,so when i feel my self feeling that way to someone i remember this retard, and know there is no certainty in human thought!!!!
@StevariousYou are not Jesus Christ. No one in a burning building would choose to remain there. An individual's salvation from sin does involve a choice. Jesus simply desires personal repentance and a relationship with you and everyone. Hell is simply a place apart from the presence of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. If someone does not want a relationship with Jesus Christ while here on Earth, then he or she can live for eternity apart from Him. It is each and everyone's own decision.
@paularenas26 He said "I wouldn't wait for them to ask nicely" not "I hope he asks before I watch him burn". Yknow what would be worse than burning for eternity? Spending eternity worshiping a God you no longer serve. Do you know how long eternity is? Are you aware that eternity isn't a length at all? I'll give the holy recollection to you - all of it, the whole Bible, trustworthy and literal. No matter how long you stayed there in heaven, you would not have even begun eternal life.
@paularenas26 "Jesus simply desires personal repentance and a relationship with you and everyone."
That's not what the bible says. The bible says that everyone has to believe in Jesus or they will be punished mercilessly for their evil crimes.
I've seen this tactic before, where you pretend that Jesus and Paul didn't actually mention fire and burning and torture for non-believers in the bible. What's the point? Nobody actually believes in your 'nicey nice' version of xtianity. Why should I?
@Stevarious - I am purposely choosing not to focus on God’s punishment in the call to action here. This is because the punishment will not be applied in any measure to those who have faith in Jesus Christ alone. There are millions of people who both understand God’s punishment and have personally applied Jesus Christ’s atoning death, burial, and resurrection to him/herself to avoid eternal punishment and begin a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
@Stevarious: Response to - "If I were Jesus I would just save everybody, I wouldn't wait for them to ask nicely. I guess that makes me more moral than Jesus. If you saw some people about to die in a burning building, would you wait till they asked you nicely before you saved them? No? Then you are more moral than Jesus too. Good thing there's actually no good reason to believe that he exists, because the idea that our universe is run by such a cruel, immoral monster is pretty horrible.
Ruin Christmas? More like how to be a feminist who hasn't matured in the mind enough to learn to turn down a guy and not drone on about possible rape. I lost all respect for her, she can go burn her bra and complain about women being unequal yet that shit has been over for 15 years. I guess being a MIDLY cute nerd chick gets you some fan boys, and suddenly your some D list douche bag internet "Celeb". Good podcast full of shit bitch off the pod cast Yet abuse some intern... Fucking little douche
@BrandonStover That's a pretty disgusting pile of misogyny you've vomited there. I'm sure people have already exhausted themselves explaining quite clearly why you're wrong, but seeing as how you're STILL talking about it here months and months after all the non-assholes have forgotten about it, I'm sure further tedious explanation would be wasted on you.
shes a total dick ,what she needs is to get stuck in an lift with six big buck black guys , and a midget that insist on going back to her room ,to get medieval on her ass , the horrible creep AMEN
@kevrs2 Are you assuming that it is highly likely that big black guys and midgets are out to rape? Or just saying that this nice thoughful woman is deserving of rape. Either way... you are a pretty hateful person. Being hateful isn't the end of the world... unless of course you are hateful of the people genuinely making the world a better place my friend. Religion tends to prevent people from genuinely making the world a better place. You should hate religion (but not the religious).
How many times to I have to keep explaining over and over that conjecture isn't evidence? How many times can I say it? You can conjecture that there was energy before the big bang. You don't have any evidence to confirm it. Evidence is an observation or a measurement (like the background radiation that confirms the big bang) or something similar that confirms an earlier hypothesis or conjecture. Why aren't you understanding this?
What's with the gross comments she makes regarding PZ Myers at the beginning? If I was there, I would seriously be wondering if she really thinks she is funny. It's sad that so many people laughed at it. It was just so weird to hear a presenter disparage someone of very well known morals with such a crude joke.
@BigDiamondCutter You sir, clearly have not watched enough of PZ Myers' lectures. He can take a joke with the best of em and he certainly can dish them out.
The context of the joke can be found in the video, "PZ Myers Skepticon 3", which can be found on my channel, tried to link but wouldn't work. PZ pulled a member of the audience up on stage and played a hand of simulated poker to illustrate the transmission of traits during the breeding of species. Give it a watch, you'll dig it.
@HamboneProductions Thanks for the information. Without it, I really found her comments weird but after watching it, I now see it in a better light. thanks!
@onefodderunit How unfortunate that you travel around YouTube representing people of faith as having a superiority complex. Is that the type of behavior that your god would condone? If it is, then quite frankly, I think I'd rather rot in Hell than have to spend an eternity surrounded by elitest snobs.
I'm not religious. Your Atheists faith is not based on science and it is dishonest and despicable of Atheists to pretend it is. It's dehumanizing, dispiriting and demoralizing to children. Life is not a pointless, unintended byproduct of whatever. Inanimate matter cannot turn itself into life.
Do Atheists look into the eyes of children and see nothing but fleshy orbs? Vacant light receptors mounted in the heads of animated meat sacks?
@Xmaggot93X wrote: "I'm not even going to bother arguing with you"
Of course not. That would put you in the position of defending Atheist faith in the ability of inanimate matter to turn itself into life, people and civilization.
It's presumed you would lie to a child, and tell them science indicates they have no soul and life is a pointless consequence of whatever.
@onefodderunit again, you understand very little about science.
I'd presume that you also believe in the stork, since you believe that life cannot rise from nonlife.
To parallel your pessimism, would you tell a child that we're put here on this earth as a slave of God, the man who at your very birth threatens you with choking, screaming, suffering, and anguish in Hell if you do not please Him?
Life is a byproduct of physics, but life is not the slightest bit pointless.
I'm not religious, and who's amusing whom, Atheist? You accuse me of being ignorant about "science", and then you post: "since you believe that life cannot rise from nonlife."
It's not a belief. It's a scientific fact. The Atheist fantasy of Abiogenesis - inanimate matter turning itself organic - was never even a scientific theory. It's pure Atheist fantasy needed to rationalize your rejection of intelligence in creation.
@onefodderunit It is true: we haven't created life. Does that mean that life cannot be created? No, it means that we haven't seen it happen yet. Amino acids have the potential to create life, but we haven't seen it.
But what is the other theory again? The theory that a magical floating man created the universe from scratch, but needed a rib to make a human? See, I've always had a little bit of trouble with that theory.
Do you write your own definitions for words, Atheist? The fact that intelligence creates is not a theoretical. You need physical evidence - look to every functional system from a bee hive to a space telescope. There is no functional system which has been a known creation of anything but intelligence.
you wrote: "Amino acids have the potential to create life"
The only way it could be 'scientific fact' is if we had somehow tried every single one of the nigh-infinite possible combinations of non-living material and confirmed that none of them cause abiogenesis. The only 'fact' here is that neither side knows for certain - but there is evidence for our side of the argument (we exist) and none for yours (no evidence god exists).
If you are going to claim that god created life, you need some evidence for a god.
Intelligence is the only 'creator' we know of, but you are begging the question when you call life a 'creation'. There is no GOOD evidence for this at all - if an intelligence created life than he was a lazy, wasteful, sloppy bastard.
The 'evolution' of elements is actually fairly well understood. First stage stars after the big bang had only simple elements - more complex elements were forged in the supernovas of the first-stage stars. It's called nucleosynthesis, not evolution.
But I suppose you're going to say that you HAVE good evidence for an intelligent creator? And don't babble at me about 'disproofs of evolution' - lets assume, at the outset, that evolution is completely disproven already (even though of course it hasn't). What's your evidence for an intelligent creator?
you wrote: "if an intelligence created life than he was a lazy, wasteful, sloppy bastard."
Sound like things haven't gone well for you. You seem bitter.
Nucleosynthesis is based on the theory that stars are energized by nuclear fusion. This along with Big Bang is being displaced by the Electric Universe model.
Atheism is holding you back in 20th century Big Bang and 19th century Darwinism.
You need evidence that only intelligence creates? Do you understand that inanimate matter does not create? Atheists only wish it did so you can reject intelligence.
No functional system is a product of any other means than intelligence, whether it's a spider web, or a space telescope. There isn't a known exception.
Atheism is faith that all functional systems in the universe are a byproduct of whatever, so long as it wasn't intelligence.
Is a solar system a 'functional system'? The function of solar system formation is to make planets. What about, say, plate tectonics? That has a function - to make mountain ranges. Nuclear fusion? Galactic spin? Snowflake formation? Snowflakes are at least as complex as spider webs. Supernovas are incredibly complex and lead to the birth of new stars. Why is that a natural function but life is 'created'? Stars are born, die, reproduce, and evolve - why aren't they 'life'?
I included for you this sentence: "There isn't a known exception."
Key word: *known*
All of the functional systems in the universe are of unknown origin, except for the ones whose origins are known. All of the functional systems of known origin a creations of intelligence. This is scientific evidence supporting intelligence.
There's no scientific evidence for a chance creation of a functional system.
All scientific evidence supports intelligence, and you reject it.
What a reductionist perception. I give you a lot of examples of natural systems that we know the origins of, and you trace those back to their ultimate origin to before the big bang and declare them to be unknown.
By that logic, we can trace the origin of the systems that we humans have created back to our own ultimate origins, which are also unknown (abiogenesis). Therefore, NO origins of ANY systems are known and there is therefore no evidence of intelligent creation.
A functional system is a system which serves a function. Name one that you believe you know is a product of something other than intelligence, Atheist.
That is easily the most absurdly circular definition I've ever seen, so it's difficult to tell what you are asking me. So clarify for me. Does intelligence qualify as a functional system?
You say you find this definition absurd: "A functional system is a system which serves a function"
I can't make it any simpler for you, Atheist.
Yes, human intelligence is the most complex functional system known, and its origin is unknown. You have already acknowledged there is no scientific evidence that inanimate matter can turn itself into life.
You can't post a functional system that is *known* to be a creation of anything besides intelligence. You're in denial.
@onefodderunit A circular definition is a definition that contains the term you are defining.
Nonetheless, if intelligence is a functional system, then you yourself are proposing that an undesigned functional system is responsible for all of existence, at the same time insisting that functional systems cannot be undesigned. Either there are undesigned functional systems, in which case your 'intelligence' is not necessary, or there are not, in which case your 'intelligence' cannot exist.
The Atheist exercise in nonsense. But what else can you do? You've already acknowledged the lack of scientific evidence for your faith in an unknown creative ability of inanimate matter.
Your rejection of intelligence is gross denial of the lifetime of physical evidence you have used and observed. Only intelligence designs/creates.
You're deluding yourself and that can lead to psychosis, if it's not a symptom.
@onefodderunit You have yet to prove or even give any evidence whatsoever that the universe was designed or created. You can't resolve the glaring contradiction in your own position. You keep accusing me of 'faith' in a position I have never espoused, because I freely admit that I don't know how life began. And you don't seem to understand that an argument from ignorance is not evidence.
One of us is certainly deluded, that's for certain.
All you're doing is pointing out current unknowns in science. It does not imply that God is the answer, nor does it imply we will NEVER know. But since you are lazy enough to see something you don't understand and just throw your arms up and say "god did it," leave the actual work to scientists and keep your beliefs to yourself.
Looking back (after a good night's sleep) I realize my previous response was not correct... because now you're answer-begging here with your question. To ask what 'created' the energy baselessly insists that it was created, which would require a creator. There's no evidence for a creator, and no evidence that the big bang required a creator.
Nothing material lasts forever. Matter is finite. Energy is unlimited and always existed. It's infinite. Consciousness is energy measured in electromagnetic fields and voltage fluctuations.
The foundation of your Atheism is faith that finite, inanimate matter preceded intelligence, and ultimately turned itself into intelligence. You've acknowledged that there's no scientific evidence supporting your faith.
Only intelligence designs and creates. You reject intelligence.
Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. If matter cannot be destroyed, how could it be finite?
Are you honestly assuming that atheists share the same faith?
The only circumstance that appreciates the definition of atheism would be that the person in question is not religious. It has nothing to do with the person's theological beliefs.
I do not lay my faith in what science has said. I lay my faith in what science may say.
@onefodderunit All *militant* atheists share a common rejection of intelligence in creation of existence. An atheist is defined as someone who is not theist. If a turtle is not theistic, it is atheistic. If an occurrence is not typical, it is atypical. If a body is not symmetrical, it is asymmetrical, and so on.
Good! Suspect reincarnation. I'll suspect unconsciousness. If we were to contest our beliefs, we would weigh the credibility of your beliefs, not mine.
You're in denial of your faith that inanimate matter, not intelligence, is the origin of life, and intelligence itself. Only intelligence designs and creates. Inanimate matter gets kicked around and disintegrates.
@onefodderunit It hardly bears repeating, but I never stated that I claimed to know how life began. I claimed that no intelligent human being should believe in magic. I do not have to know the truth before being able to smell a lie. The oppositional theory states that intelligence preceded matter.
Matter cannot disintegrate.
Also, "design" and "create" are two extremely abstract words. Use them with caution. Hydrogen bonds have a design, but they are not designed.
My atheism is based on the fact that none of your claims (or any other religious claims) have sufficient evidence to confirm them. That's it.
'is faith'
I don't have faith in anything. I have reasonable expectations based on evidence. I have trust that has been earned. If you can show me something that I believe without sufficient evidence, guess what? I'll stop believing it! That's how a rational mind WORKS.
'that finite, inanimate matter preceded intelligence' I don't see how this claim is any less believable than your claim that there is an intelligence that precedes all of existence. You yourself claimed that intelligence is a complex functional system that can only be created by a creator. So what created your intelligent creator? What created your intelligent creator's intelligent creator? How is this infinite regress useful or believable in any way?
I 'reject' your claim of an intelligent creator simply because there's no evidence for it. You keep saying 'only intelligence designs and creates' - fine, demonstrate that the universe was designed and created WITHOUT resorting to an argument from ignorance. Demonstrate that life was designed and created without resorting to that same argument from ignorance. Then your claim might even graduate to a hypothesis.
That abiogenesis occurred is undeniable. At some point in the past, there was no life on earth. Later, there was. That's all abiogenesis means. You claim an intelligence was responsible, but offer no justification except an argument from ignorance. Scientists suspect that an intelligence was unnecessary, and have some evidence for of it, but have yet to come up with a working model to explain all the steps. Therefore, I will believe NEITHER until one or the other is demonstrated.
@onefodderunit '*No functional system is a known creation of anything other than intelligence.'
Would you agree, then, that the existence of a single functional system, demonstrated to arise from natural functions with no creative intelligence behind it, would invalidate your argument?
Nimbostratus clouds are a functional system. They are produced by (NOT created by) complex weather patterns brought on by the natural effects of temperature, moisture, and air pressure. Their function is to produce incredibly complex, unique ice crystals by the trillions every day, no two alike, that we call snowflakes.
There is your complex functional system born from unintelligent non-organic matter. Your argument from ignorance is even more invalid than it already was.
@onefodderunit 'Abiogenesis is the Atheist fantasy that inanimate matter turned itself into life, which you acknowledged yesterday was unscientific'
It's amazing how you can deride something so strongly when you understand it so poorly. Abiogenesis is the label applied to the unknown event that occurred between when there was no life on earth and when there was life on earth. I didn't acknowledge it to be unscientific. Just unknown.
There is a scientific hypothesis that organic chemicals came together in a repeating, replicating pattern to eventually form life. Since I don't know how this happened, I don't believe it - because there's no details to believe. Your repeated accusation that I somehow 'have faith' in it is as tedious as it is mistaken. But if you're going to continually lie to me about what I believe, as you make logical fallacy after logical fallacy, I don't see who you hope to convince here.
I suspect that the scientists are on to something, as they actually have a start on the problem and what they've come up with so far sounds promising. On the other hand, religion has been wrong about every other thing we've learned about the universe - why would it be right about this one? However, I reserve judgement until the science has been done and the facts are in. If scientists discover that an intelligence is responsible, I'll believe it - but I'm not holding my breath.
I have a lot of respect for scientists - science is responsible for discovering millions of things that improve our lives. That does NOT mean that I just believe anything comes out of the mouth of a guy in a labcoat. Science relies on evidence that can be demonstrated, repeated, and confirmed by anyone with the time and the tools to reproduce a discovery. Science does not rely on secret knowledge or subjective experiences, and that's the only reason it can be trusted at all.
Your nonsense, on the other hand, about 'unlimited' and 'always existing', 'infinite' energy is absurd, unscientific, counter-evidential religibabble. There is no evidence that anything existed before the big bang. There is no evidence that nothing existed before the big bang. There is no evidence to base any knowledge claims about 'before the big bang' on.
You. Don't. Know. Nobody knows. So why would you pretend that you do know?
@Stevarious "There is no evidence that anything existed before the big bang."
You really are an Atheist idiot.
You acknowledged more than 24 hours ago your faith that inanimate matter turned itself into life is not based on science.
All functional systems of *known origin* are products of intelligence. You keep listing things in nature, but nature is of unknown origin, which was explained for you yesterday.
Only intelligence designs/creates. Your rejection of it is right for you.
@onefodderunit 'You acknowledged more than 24 hours ago your faith that inanimate matter turned itself into life is not based on science.'
No I didn't, and the fact that you feel you have to lie about what I said to try and discredit me, instead of rebutting what I actually say, truly demonstrates how untenable your position is. I just described to you a functional system that arises from natural processes to create a complex, unique product.
@onefodderunit Everything comes from nature, including humans, and by extension everything that humans produce. Therefore your argument boils down to 'we don't know what caused the origin of the universe.' And since we don't know what caused ANYTHING, you can't say that everything comes from intelligence, because we don't know where anything comes from at all!
@onefodderunit You are correct in saying that only intelligence designs and creates. But, as I have explained a dozen times, you have never demonstrated in any way that the universe or the earth or life is created or designed. You are making a claim. You have to provide evidence. Instead you keep repeating your argument from ignorance, over and over and over. 'We don't know, therefore god.' It's completely irrational, and I'm tired of explaining this to you over and over.
...Aaaand I just checked your channel and discovered you actually are completely insane, and I'm wasting my time arguing with you.
(Ad hominem in 3...2..1...)
Enjoy your numerology and your holocaust denials and your 9/11 conspiracies, and watch out for those evil Zionists! They gonna getcha! Booga booga booga!
There's no scientific evidence supporting the Atheist faith that existence simply popped into existence. It's irrational and gullible to believe it did.
Every functional system of known origin, - a spider web, a bee hive, a radio - is a creation of intelligence. Each is physical scientific evidence that intelligence is required to create functional systems.
You're arguing that the origin of existence, and all of these functional systems, is not intelligence, but chance.
But assuming that you can't see your own circular, question begging, god-of-the-gaps argument from ignorance for what it is, I will give you an answer anyway - if you can define for me what you mean by 'function'. Do you mean 'a purpose for which a thing is designed' or 'a role that a thing performs'?
You've arbitrarily defined 'functional system' as this set of things that we already know are created by living beings, ignoring all the incredibly complex systems out there that we know are not created.
You need to give me evidence that life is a creation instead of a natural process, instead of throwing an argument from ignorance at me.
Atheism is not 'faith'. Atheism is the null hypothesis. You want me to believe in an intelligence? Prove it exists. Demonstrate it.
@onefodderunit "inanimate matter turning itself organic - was never even a scientific theory"
While the phenomenon you were originally arguing - life from non-life - has never been proven, this has actually been demonstrated. The Miller-Urey experiment showed unequivocally that organic compounds can arise from inorganic compounds. In 1952. So this statement is almost 60 years wrong. Of course, that's not what you meant, is it?
This hag should just fuck off and stop using atheism to push her personal agenda.
She is responsible for undermining and diminishing the long and hard fought-for effort to finally make a fist against religious insanity because of over the top manhating feminismcrap.
Accusing men of rape for just asking a question? Why does there always have to be some insider diverting attention away from the cause because of petty grievances?
@sonykroket she never accussed anyone of rape, she simply said that approaching someone when they are in a vunerable position they cannot escape with the intent of sexual intercourse is creepy, aka the fear of rape is very real.
...back in '71 a peculiar film was released. Called, "Deep Throat". A porn-flick. All "moral" hell broke lose. Even as the protests & heated controversy over the "morality" of the war in 'Nam filled the news venues of the era. This, ~'innocuous' film by todays' standards had raced into the US Federal Court. SCOTUS & US Court of Appeals Whole law libraries are devoted to this. 'Nam didn't -even though 100's of thousands had died by then! Porn&war, like your ? are "too subjective" for definition.
...you have not even a foggy idea of who I am. Nor do you understand -or even are able to define, "morality"."People" are a physical condition of existence. Consciousness is a physical state of the brain & the subsequent actions of the brain/mind -including thinking and ones' personality. From what the Testament defines as the main tenant in the body of the tome is..."Spiritual": having no form or physical references whatsoever. Your perceptions are confused, Medieval and literal. What is moral?
@SittingMooseShaman If something that is spiritual has no form or physical references, how exactly do you go about distinguishing it from something that is nonexistant?
And I gave you a definition of morality. I'm (almost) sorry that it's not good enough for you, but amusingly enough, you can't even offer an opinion on the morality of allowing people to burn to death in a fire. For what possible reason would I assume that you are even capable of having a more nuanced discussion about morality?
@Stevarious ...sorry(perhaps?...yeah, I Am.) for the story-arch in-continuity w/missing the, "reply" box -um, 14 hrs ago -morphine's one, "...hell of a drug!" -Lois Griffin[Family Guy] One 'passes-out' in inconvenient frequency -recovery comes quickly enough. Though at times -elsewhere. & if I'm sick enough(e're now'n'then)...'Elsewhere!' For you see, I look at life rather empirically. At my age, it's a benefit of time & experience(s). Knowing, "Spirit"(uality) is exactly as knowing, "in love"!
@SittingMooseShaman Oooookay... Why don't you try that again some time when you're not high? Morphine is pretty powerful stuff and I will politely assume that it's the reason why your last two comments were nothing short of incoherent.
@Stevarious ...not incoherent, son... just honest. I'm dying: Then either I'm outta here or either it's...nuthin'. So I'm playin' the cards I've been dealt. The morf's 'cause "science" can do nothing except care for the pain...which never ceases. It is sad that you lack any compassion towards just one ill, dying old man; So you chose: Mockery!?! & yet, you have the audacity to set yourself up as this altruistic, 'god' who'll, "...save everybody"! Those are some big #'s to forgive unconditionally
@SittingMooseShaman I was not attempting to mock you. I was merely stating in the politest way I could find that your previous two comments were completely unreadable. I read them over several times and the only portions I could make heads or tails of were completely irrelevant to the conversation.
@SittingMooseShaman At any rate, I don't set myself up as anything. All I say is that if I had the power to prevent harm, I would. It's a classic - if god is both all-powerful and all-good, why does he allow suffering? You can make all kinds of arguments for living people, but there is no justification for eternal torment except that god, for whatever reason, actively desires the vast majority of humans to suffer in the worst way possible, forever. And that's not 'good' in any sense of the word.
@Stevarious ...be wary, our pedestals always crack & fall. Yours is quite like my own once was, central argument & all. I don't like it, either. I know pain all too well- every second of consciousness & sleep. That's nature. Father is an Energy. Energy which contains life, death, Good & evil. This, 'universe' & countless others. The, "why" of it all is yet to be revealed. How would it be understood? The human brain in all of its' evolving processes has never been exposed to these dimensions!
@SittingMooseShaman If "The human brain in all of its' evolving processes has never been exposed to these dimensions!" then how do you know about them?
@Stevarious ...knowing, "about" something is far from actually, "knowing" what that something actually is. Which is why allegory, parables & hyperbolic narrative is used throughout the biblical compendium. More of a mental/spiritual proposition of, "if you respond to my, 'call' I'll reveal, 'hidden' knowledge to you." Then it all becomes personal. If one is not, 'in'. How may one understand? What's fractal-quantum theory to me? I like the graphics & I have an idea about it. However, the science!
@SittingMooseShaman The bible is consistently wrong about everything we've been able to discover about the universe - it wasn't created in 7 days, the earth isn't flat, there was no flood, disease isn't caused by demons, and praying to jesus for miracles doesn't actually work. Why would anyone assume that the bible is right about anything we CAN'T discover? And if it's ALL allegory, but we don't know that it's allegory until after science proves it wrong, what good is it?
@Stevarious ...first, the early believers had no bible. Everything is,"Spiritual". I suppose the phrase, "other dimensional" could fit. However, the mind cannot conceive this as it is a physical element. Literal interpretations go nowhere. And it was the Vatican who claimed, "world 'flatness" The Testament claimed it, "The circle of the earth." Many 'Christian' isms deny biblical contexts.Science, has 'proven' nothing "wrong" within the Testament! Archaeology has always confirmed the text...
@Stevarious ...and indeed they are! This is the point. What is, "blue" to one who is blind for all life? The, "..circle of-" Language/transposition of. The original poetic language(s) indicate a sphere, & alluding to complex civilisations affected therein. However, this is all stupidity: Until one commits to the Spirit and disciplines of meditation and study. "A year to Father(the Lord) is as a thousand years..." This means: Billions+! These were desert languages, Cananite, Egyptian, Hebrew....
@SittingMooseShaman 'However, this is all stupidity: Until one commits to the Spirit and disciplines of meditation and study'
So until one commits to believing in unprovable nonsense, one cannot believe unprovable nonsense. I agree completely. The problem is, you can believe anything that way. Do you have any evidence that your particular brand of unprovable nonsense is any better or more likely to be true than any of the thousands of other brands out there, besides disproven bible myths?
@Stevarious ...it's not my brand. It's, Dads'. Apparently, Father set some rules based upon His experiences- However those, 'experiences' are manifest. I've an 'idea' of what went on there -tho', it;ll seem silly as any other. I'm just a 'grain of sand' on an endless beach (ex. of, Bible-esque hyperbole). Yet, the relationship w/"Us"(Father, Son & Holy Spirit(Moms) is familial & proven to each individual- Their work is within the "heart"- Heb./Gr. translates literally: understanding, thinking.
@SittingMooseShaman 'proven to each individual- Their work is within the "heart"'
How exactly is that different from people just deluding themselves? I know a guy that really, truly believes that he was Napoleon in a past life. How can you judge him wrong if the only evidence you're going by is a feeling in your 'heart'?
You have recognized that only intelligence designs and creates. Why do you reject intelligence for your Atheist fantasy that existence just popped into existence?
Because there is no evidence that existence was designed or created. That's something you actually have to demonstrate, instead of just asserting over and over and over.
And you didn't answer my previous question - what is your evidence that spider webs are the product of intelligence?
@onefodderunit 'You can't make a spider web, Atheist. Are you dumber than a spider?'
Ah, so now you're saying that intelligence CAN'T make a spiderweb, only dumb spiders can. Interesting that you've now started making my arguments for me now. You're much better at them then you are making your own arguments. Maybe it has something to do with the arguments themselves?
@onefodderunit No, I don't, because the proposition is circular and contains an infinite regress. If intelligence requires an intelligent creator, then who created the intelligent creator, which, possessing intelligence, must have been created? Who created the creator's creator? Who created the creator's creator's creator? Etc etc ad nauseam.
You are proposing a solution to the problem that actually solves nothing, because it recreates the original problem. This is not reasonable.
We were talking about functional systems and I'm not being dishonest in the slightest, Atheist. I recognize I have a soul.
Energy is infinite. Consciousness is energy. Source consciousness, God, needs no creator.
You have admitted you know that only intelligence designs and creates. But you reject intelligence for the Atheist faith that it played no role in the design creation of our existence.
You have decided that you believe that you have a soul.
'Energy is infinite'
Baseless assertion - you have no evidence of this at all.
'Consciousness is energy.'
Baseless assertion.
'Source consciousness, God, needs no creator.'
Baseless assertion that contradicts your earlier statements.
You have no evidence whatsoever for any of these claims. Why would I believe any of them? Why would YOU believe any of them? There's no reason to accept these claims.
wake up and smell the coffee
shut the fuck up Rebecca Watson
mariosumo 1 week ago
@Stevarious - I am purposely choosing not to focus on God’s punishment in the call to action here. This is because the punishment will not be applied in any measure to those who have faith in Jesus Christ alone. There are millions of people who both understand God’s punishment and have personally applied Jesus Christ’s atoning death, burial, and resurrection to him/herself to avoid eternal punishment and begin a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
paularenas26 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@paularenas26 "I am purposely choosing not to focus on God’s punishment in the call to action here."
You are purposely ignoring pesky things like 'evidence' and 'truth' in your desperate push to make everyone believe the same way as you. You're purposely ignoring the ethical concerns of worshiping a being that tortures innocents and murders children.
The god of the bible makes Hitler look good - at least Hitler never specifically targeted children for mass murder like God supposedly did..
Stevarious 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
huwrj 1 week ago
@paularenas26 "Jesus simply desires personal repentance and a relationship with you and everyone."
That's not what the bible says. The bible says that everyone has to believe in Jesus or they will be punished mercilessly for their evil crimes.
I've seen this tactic before, where you pretend that Jesus and Paul didn't actually mention fire and burning and torture for non-believers in the bible. What's the point? Nobody actually believes in your 'nicey nice' version of xtianity. Why should I?
paularenas26 2 weeks ago
such a waste of time. Seriously , why do they get her to talk there ?
gryzman 3 weeks ago
That's not a good dress.
PlutoPowered 1 month ago 2
she is so retarded!!!!!!! i come back to watch this video just to say to myself that someone out there is listing to her every word thinking she is a authority on skepticism,so when i feel my self feeling that way to someone i remember this retard, and know there is no certainty in human thought!!!!
waspsoul95 1 month ago
So, what do you think about dating men in an elevator?
JohnLavos 1 month ago
OMG I just FO SO RA'ed passed Rebecka's boring nonsense to the important part of this place.. DONT SUE ME PLEZ BECKKA SUXS
FartyFace 1 month ago
Uh... sorry Skept-chick but you are ugly as fuck and no real man would have sex with you.
FartyFace 1 month ago
Iz u ladybird? Coz u iz sexy. Meet me in a lift?
dave28lax 1 month ago in playlist More videos from HamboneProductions
figuring out santa was fake is how i learned not to believe everything you hear
coltsrule5150 1 month ago
"Halloween with a Capital H"
Now there's a movie I want to see.
lazyperfectionist1 1 month ago
"I'll just leave it on for a while."
That's no good to us if the camera is pointed elsewhere.
lazyperfectionist1 1 month ago
A rainbow gun?
lazyperfectionist1 1 month ago
"Vegetarian Cashew Chicken." Huh. Cashew Chicken, hold the meat. Easy. Cashews.
lazyperfectionist1 1 month ago
Somebody was hitting on her?
linuxisbetter0 1 month ago
@linuxisbetter0 That's what I was thinking. You'd think she'd be grateful for the attention.
OneEyedJack1970 1 month ago
They might have grown.... but GEEZ!!! Look at those teeth of hers! What could possibly have the appearance of growth relative to those chompers!!
jorgekluney 1 month ago
So boring; and not funny.
skyzthelimi7 1 month ago 3
@skyzthelimi7 Couldn't say it any better.
KnightXXI 1 month ago
@skyzthelimi7 she's just an insignificant ugly bitch! Ignore her and her stupid opinions and live your own life in peace.
fomiz 1 month ago
@StevariousYou are not Jesus Christ. No one in a burning building would choose to remain there. An individual's salvation from sin does involve a choice. Jesus simply desires personal repentance and a relationship with you and everyone. Hell is simply a place apart from the presence of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. If someone does not want a relationship with Jesus Christ while here on Earth, then he or she can live for eternity apart from Him. It is each and everyone's own decision.
paularenas26 1 month ago
@paularenas26 He said "I wouldn't wait for them to ask nicely" not "I hope he asks before I watch him burn". Yknow what would be worse than burning for eternity? Spending eternity worshiping a God you no longer serve. Do you know how long eternity is? Are you aware that eternity isn't a length at all? I'll give the holy recollection to you - all of it, the whole Bible, trustworthy and literal. No matter how long you stayed there in heaven, you would not have even begun eternal life.
pythor2 1 month ago
@paularenas26 "Jesus simply desires personal repentance and a relationship with you and everyone."
That's not what the bible says. The bible says that everyone has to believe in Jesus or they will be punished mercilessly for their evil crimes.
I've seen this tactic before, where you pretend that Jesus and Paul didn't actually mention fire and burning and torture for non-believers in the bible. What's the point? Nobody actually believes in your 'nicey nice' version of xtianity. Why should I?
Stevarious 1 month ago
@Stevarious - I am purposely choosing not to focus on God’s punishment in the call to action here. This is because the punishment will not be applied in any measure to those who have faith in Jesus Christ alone. There are millions of people who both understand God’s punishment and have personally applied Jesus Christ’s atoning death, burial, and resurrection to him/herself to avoid eternal punishment and begin a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
paularenas26 2 weeks ago
@Stevarious: Response to - "If I were Jesus I would just save everybody, I wouldn't wait for them to ask nicely. I guess that makes me more moral than Jesus. If you saw some people about to die in a burning building, would you wait till they asked you nicely before you saved them? No? Then you are more moral than Jesus too. Good thing there's actually no good reason to believe that he exists, because the idea that our universe is run by such a cruel, immoral monster is pretty horrible.
paularenas26 1 month ago
Rebecca Watson is the most over-rated under-qualified amateurish pseudo-intellectual time-waster in skepticism.
huwrj 2 months ago 24
@huwrj She's an entertainer, what's the problem?
feuchster 1 month ago
@huwrj and the ego !
gryzman 3 weeks ago
And she hates coffee, apparently.
BunrakukenIII 1 week ago
She makes some good points. But she seems like a mean person. She really can't criticize other people for being offensive.
stperkin 2 months ago
What a nitwit. Who cares about this woman?
wereaux 2 months ago
What a disgusting human being.
loqiloqi 2 months ago
Ruin Christmas? More like how to be a feminist who hasn't matured in the mind enough to learn to turn down a guy and not drone on about possible rape. I lost all respect for her, she can go burn her bra and complain about women being unequal yet that shit has been over for 15 years. I guess being a MIDLY cute nerd chick gets you some fan boys, and suddenly your some D list douche bag internet "Celeb". Good podcast full of shit bitch off the pod cast Yet abuse some intern... Fucking little douche
BrandonStover 2 months ago
@BrandonStover you be trollin
justthisstupid 2 months ago
@BrandonStover That's a pretty disgusting pile of misogyny you've vomited there. I'm sure people have already exhausted themselves explaining quite clearly why you're wrong, but seeing as how you're STILL talking about it here months and months after all the non-assholes have forgotten about it, I'm sure further tedious explanation would be wasted on you.
Get a life, you little troll turd.
Stevarious 2 months ago
shes a total dick ,what she needs is to get stuck in an lift with six big buck black guys , and a midget that insist on going back to her room ,to get medieval on her ass , the horrible creep AMEN
kevrs2 2 months ago
@kevrs2 Are you assuming that it is highly likely that big black guys and midgets are out to rape? Or just saying that this nice thoughful woman is deserving of rape. Either way... you are a pretty hateful person. Being hateful isn't the end of the world... unless of course you are hateful of the people genuinely making the world a better place my friend. Religion tends to prevent people from genuinely making the world a better place. You should hate religion (but not the religious).
elbowbiter1 2 months ago
@elbowbiter1 where do i start with you ?
kevrs2 2 months ago
@kevrs2 best not, you've been thoroughly pwned already. Why dig yourself any deeper.
elbowbiter1 2 months ago
@elbowbiter1 we will see !
kevrs2 2 months ago
@kevrs2 I'm sure we already have.
elbowbiter1 2 months ago
@onefodderunit
How many times to I have to keep explaining over and over that conjecture isn't evidence? How many times can I say it? You can conjecture that there was energy before the big bang. You don't have any evidence to confirm it. Evidence is an observation or a measurement (like the background radiation that confirms the big bang) or something similar that confirms an earlier hypothesis or conjecture. Why aren't you understanding this?
Stevarious 2 months ago 5
A feminist man hating cunt that explains her lezzie leanings by this occasional bullshit.
madisonelectronic 2 months ago
The whole Santa thing helped make me more skeptical overall, and arguably led to me becoming an atheist.
Slacktoo 2 months ago
by the way I am going to download this video and reupload it just to FUCK WITH hambone productions TRY AND STOP ME, NERDS
MYPOSTINGCAREERcom 2 months ago
wow this is so awkward and nerdy...her shaky reedy voice and ugly, chubby looks scream years of social isolation
MYPOSTINGCAREERcom 2 months ago 2
What's with the gross comments she makes regarding PZ Myers at the beginning? If I was there, I would seriously be wondering if she really thinks she is funny. It's sad that so many people laughed at it. It was just so weird to hear a presenter disparage someone of very well known morals with such a crude joke.
BigDiamondCutter 2 months ago 2
@BigDiamondCutter You sir, clearly have not watched enough of PZ Myers' lectures. He can take a joke with the best of em and he certainly can dish them out.
The context of the joke can be found in the video, "PZ Myers Skepticon 3", which can be found on my channel, tried to link but wouldn't work. PZ pulled a member of the audience up on stage and played a hand of simulated poker to illustrate the transmission of traits during the breeding of species. Give it a watch, you'll dig it.
HamboneProductions 2 months ago
@HamboneProductions Thanks for the information. Without it, I really found her comments weird but after watching it, I now see it in a better light. thanks!
BigDiamondCutter 2 months ago
@HamboneProductions To my great relief, you were right. I'm so glad I was wrong in my comment before. Thanks for the clarity.
BigDiamondCutter 2 months ago
How unfortunate that this person travels around representing Americans as Godless drunks.
onefodderunit 2 months ago
@onefodderunit How unfortunate that you travel around YouTube representing people of faith as having a superiority complex. Is that the type of behavior that your god would condone? If it is, then quite frankly, I think I'd rather rot in Hell than have to spend an eternity surrounded by elitest snobs.
Xmaggot93X 2 months ago
@Xmaggot93X
I'm not religious. Your Atheists faith is not based on science and it is dishonest and despicable of Atheists to pretend it is. It's dehumanizing, dispiriting and demoralizing to children. Life is not a pointless, unintended byproduct of whatever. Inanimate matter cannot turn itself into life.
Do Atheists look into the eyes of children and see nothing but fleshy orbs? Vacant light receptors mounted in the heads of animated meat sacks?
Is that really what you see?
onefodderunit 2 months ago
@onefodderunit I just shit myself laughing at you.
You have an extremely minimal understanding of both atheism and science.
I'm not even going to bother arguing with you. But, in the spirit of debate, here's something for you to digest:
"...[A]nimated meat sacks?"
What do you see when you look at a person? A cat? A turtle?
Cats and turtles are atheists.
Good luck.
Xmaggot93X 2 months ago
@Xmaggot93X wrote: "I'm not even going to bother arguing with you"
Of course not. That would put you in the position of defending Atheist faith in the ability of inanimate matter to turn itself into life, people and civilization.
It's presumed you would lie to a child, and tell them science indicates they have no soul and life is a pointless consequence of whatever.
onefodderunit 2 months ago
@onefodderunit again, you understand very little about science.
I'd presume that you also believe in the stork, since you believe that life cannot rise from nonlife.
To parallel your pessimism, would you tell a child that we're put here on this earth as a slave of God, the man who at your very birth threatens you with choking, screaming, suffering, and anguish in Hell if you do not please Him?
Life is a byproduct of physics, but life is not the slightest bit pointless.
Xmaggot93X 2 months ago
@Xmaggot93X
I'm not religious, and who's amusing whom, Atheist? You accuse me of being ignorant about "science", and then you post: "since you believe that life cannot rise from nonlife."
It's not a belief. It's a scientific fact. The Atheist fantasy of Abiogenesis - inanimate matter turning itself organic - was never even a scientific theory. It's pure Atheist fantasy needed to rationalize your rejection of intelligence in creation.
onefodderunit 2 months ago
@onefodderunit It is true: we haven't created life. Does that mean that life cannot be created? No, it means that we haven't seen it happen yet. Amino acids have the potential to create life, but we haven't seen it.
But what is the other theory again? The theory that a magical floating man created the universe from scratch, but needed a rib to make a human? See, I've always had a little bit of trouble with that theory.
Xmaggot93X 2 months ago
@onefodderunit Also, an atheist isn't someone who denies the existence of gods. Try again.
Xmaggot93X 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Xmaggot93X
Do you write your own definitions for words, Atheist? The fact that intelligence creates is not a theoretical. You need physical evidence - look to every functional system from a bee hive to a space telescope. There is no functional system which has been a known creation of anything but intelligence.
you wrote: "Amino acids have the potential to create life"
That's crazy talk. Source?
onefodderunit 2 months ago
@onefodderunit "It's a scientific fact."
The only way it could be 'scientific fact' is if we had somehow tried every single one of the nigh-infinite possible combinations of non-living material and confirmed that none of them cause abiogenesis. The only 'fact' here is that neither side knows for certain - but there is evidence for our side of the argument (we exist) and none for yours (no evidence god exists).
If you are going to claim that god created life, you need some evidence for a god.
Stevarious 2 months ago
@Stevarious
All evidence supports intelligence. It's the only creator. Your Atheist rejection of intelligence is abject denial.
You hold out faith that if you combine the right chemical elements, they will eventually turn themselves into a living cell. OK
Speaking of the elements: Do you believe they also evolved?
onefodderunit 2 months ago
@onefodderunit
Intelligence is the only 'creator' we know of, but you are begging the question when you call life a 'creation'. There is no GOOD evidence for this at all - if an intelligence created life than he was a lazy, wasteful, sloppy bastard.
The 'evolution' of elements is actually fairly well understood. First stage stars after the big bang had only simple elements - more complex elements were forged in the supernovas of the first-stage stars. It's called nucleosynthesis, not evolution.
Stevarious 2 months ago
@onefodderunit
But I suppose you're going to say that you HAVE good evidence for an intelligent creator? And don't babble at me about 'disproofs of evolution' - lets assume, at the outset, that evolution is completely disproven already (even though of course it hasn't). What's your evidence for an intelligent creator?
Stevarious 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Stevarious
you wrote: "if an intelligence created life than he was a lazy, wasteful, sloppy bastard."
Sound like things haven't gone well for you. You seem bitter.
Nucleosynthesis is based on the theory that stars are energized by nuclear fusion. This along with Big Bang is being displaced by the Electric Universe model.
Atheism is holding you back in 20th century Big Bang and 19th century Darwinism.
onefodderunit 2 months ago
@Stevarious
You need evidence that only intelligence creates? Do you understand that inanimate matter does not create? Atheists only wish it did so you can reject intelligence.
No functional system is a product of any other means than intelligence, whether it's a spider web, or a space telescope. There isn't a known exception.
Atheism is faith that all functional systems in the universe are a byproduct of whatever, so long as it wasn't intelligence.
onefodderunit 2 months ago
@onefodderunit
Is a solar system a 'functional system'? The function of solar system formation is to make planets. What about, say, plate tectonics? That has a function - to make mountain ranges. Nuclear fusion? Galactic spin? Snowflake formation? Snowflakes are at least as complex as spider webs. Supernovas are incredibly complex and lead to the birth of new stars. Why is that a natural function but life is 'created'? Stars are born, die, reproduce, and evolve - why aren't they 'life'?
Stevarious 2 months ago
@Stevarious
I included for you this sentence: "There isn't a known exception."
Key word: *known*
All of the functional systems in the universe are of unknown origin, except for the ones whose origins are known. All of the functional systems of known origin a creations of intelligence. This is scientific evidence supporting intelligence.
There's no scientific evidence for a chance creation of a functional system.
All scientific evidence supports intelligence, and you reject it.
onefodderunit 2 months ago
@onefodderunit
What a reductionist perception. I give you a lot of examples of natural systems that we know the origins of, and you trace those back to their ultimate origin to before the big bang and declare them to be unknown.
By that logic, we can trace the origin of the systems that we humans have created back to our own ultimate origins, which are also unknown (abiogenesis). Therefore, NO origins of ANY systems are known and there is therefore no evidence of intelligent creation.
Stevarious 2 months ago
@Stevarious
A functional system is a system which serves a function. Name one that you believe you know is a product of something other than intelligence, Atheist.
onefodderunit 2 months ago
@onefodderunit
That is easily the most absurdly circular definition I've ever seen, so it's difficult to tell what you are asking me. So clarify for me. Does intelligence qualify as a functional system?
Stevarious 2 months ago
@Stevarious
You say you find this definition absurd: "A functional system is a system which serves a function"
I can't make it any simpler for you, Atheist.
Yes, human intelligence is the most complex functional system known, and its origin is unknown. You have already acknowledged there is no scientific evidence that inanimate matter can turn itself into life.
You can't post a functional system that is *known* to be a creation of anything besides intelligence. You're in denial.
onefodderunit 2 months ago
@onefodderunit A circular definition is a definition that contains the term you are defining.
Nonetheless, if intelligence is a functional system, then you yourself are proposing that an undesigned functional system is responsible for all of existence, at the same time insisting that functional systems cannot be undesigned. Either there are undesigned functional systems, in which case your 'intelligence' is not necessary, or there are not, in which case your 'intelligence' cannot exist.
Stevarious 2 months ago
@Stevarious
The Atheist exercise in nonsense. But what else can you do? You've already acknowledged the lack of scientific evidence for your faith in an unknown creative ability of inanimate matter.
Your rejection of intelligence is gross denial of the lifetime of physical evidence you have used and observed. Only intelligence designs/creates.
You're deluding yourself and that can lead to psychosis, if it's not a symptom.
onefodderunit 2 months ago
@onefodderunit You have yet to prove or even give any evidence whatsoever that the universe was designed or created. You can't resolve the glaring contradiction in your own position. You keep accusing me of 'faith' in a position I have never espoused, because I freely admit that I don't know how life began. And you don't seem to understand that an argument from ignorance is not evidence.
One of us is certainly deluded, that's for certain.
Stevarious 2 months ago
@Stevarious
What created the energy for a theoretical Big Bang?
onefodderunit 2 months ago
Comment removed
Stevarious 2 months ago
@onefodderunit
All you're doing is pointing out current unknowns in science. It does not imply that God is the answer, nor does it imply we will NEVER know. But since you are lazy enough to see something you don't understand and just throw your arms up and say "god did it," leave the actual work to scientists and keep your beliefs to yourself.
segmentationfault 2 months ago
@onefodderunit
Looking back (after a good night's sleep) I realize my previous response was not correct... because now you're answer-begging here with your question. To ask what 'created' the energy baselessly insists that it was created, which would require a creator. There's no evidence for a creator, and no evidence that the big bang required a creator.
So instead, I will pretend that you asked:
"What produced the energy for a Big Bang?"
and respond:
"I don't know. Do you? And if so, how?"
Stevarious 2 months ago
@Stevarious
Nothing material lasts forever. Matter is finite. Energy is unlimited and always existed. It's infinite. Consciousness is energy measured in electromagnetic fields and voltage fluctuations.
The foundation of your Atheism is faith that finite, inanimate matter preceded intelligence, and ultimately turned itself into intelligence. You've acknowledged that there's no scientific evidence supporting your faith.
Only intelligence designs and creates. You reject intelligence.
onefodderunit 2 months ago
@onefodderunit Hi. Miss me?
Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. If matter cannot be destroyed, how could it be finite?
Are you honestly assuming that atheists share the same faith?
The only circumstance that appreciates the definition of atheism would be that the person in question is not religious. It has nothing to do with the person's theological beliefs.
I do not lay my faith in what science has said. I lay my faith in what science may say.
Xmaggot93X 2 months ago
@Xmaggot93X
When matter is converted into energy, it's no longer matter. Nothing lasts forever in the material world.
All Atheists share a common rejection of intelligence in creation of existence.
I suspect reincarnation of our soul occurs, but that's not based on religion. It's unreasonable to hold any belief which conflicts with reason.
onefodderunit 2 months ago
@onefodderunit All *militant* atheists share a common rejection of intelligence in creation of existence. An atheist is defined as someone who is not theist. If a turtle is not theistic, it is atheistic. If an occurrence is not typical, it is atypical. If a body is not symmetrical, it is asymmetrical, and so on.
Good! Suspect reincarnation. I'll suspect unconsciousness. If we were to contest our beliefs, we would weigh the credibility of your beliefs, not mine.
Xmaggot93X 2 months ago
@Xmaggot93X
You're in denial of your faith that inanimate matter, not intelligence, is the origin of life, and intelligence itself. Only intelligence designs and creates. Inanimate matter gets kicked around and disintegrates.
onefodderunit 2 months ago
@onefodderunit It hardly bears repeating, but I never stated that I claimed to know how life began. I claimed that no intelligent human being should believe in magic. I do not have to know the truth before being able to smell a lie. The oppositional theory states that intelligence preceded matter.
Matter cannot disintegrate.
Also, "design" and "create" are two extremely abstract words. Use them with caution. Hydrogen bonds have a design, but they are not designed.
Xmaggot93X 2 months ago
@Xmaggot93X
Accidentally posted the wrong reply to you and deleted it.
you wrote: "Hydrogen bonds have a design, but they are not designed."
The elements are of unknown origin.
You reject intelligence, which is the only designer-creator, for your very existence, and equate intelligence in creation of existence to "magic".
Magic would be existence popping into existence.
you wrote: Matter cannot disintegrate.
If you say so.
onefodderunit 2 months ago
@onefodderunit
'The foundation of your atheism'
My atheism is based on the fact that none of your claims (or any other religious claims) have sufficient evidence to confirm them. That's it.
'is faith'
I don't have faith in anything. I have reasonable expectations based on evidence. I have trust that has been earned. If you can show me something that I believe without sufficient evidence, guess what? I'll stop believing it! That's how a rational mind WORKS.
Stevarious 2 months ago
@onefodderunit
'that finite, inanimate matter preceded intelligence' I don't see how this claim is any less believable than your claim that there is an intelligence that precedes all of existence. You yourself claimed that intelligence is a complex functional system that can only be created by a creator. So what created your intelligent creator? What created your intelligent creator's intelligent creator? How is this infinite regress useful or believable in any way?
Stevarious 2 months ago
@onefodderunit
I 'reject' your claim of an intelligent creator simply because there's no evidence for it. You keep saying 'only intelligence designs and creates' - fine, demonstrate that the universe was designed and created WITHOUT resorting to an argument from ignorance. Demonstrate that life was designed and created without resorting to that same argument from ignorance. Then your claim might even graduate to a hypothesis.
Stevarious 2 months ago
@onefodderunit
That abiogenesis occurred is undeniable. At some point in the past, there was no life on earth. Later, there was. That's all abiogenesis means. You claim an intelligence was responsible, but offer no justification except an argument from ignorance. Scientists suspect that an intelligence was unnecessary, and have some evidence for of it, but have yet to come up with a working model to explain all the steps. Therefore, I will believe NEITHER until one or the other is demonstrated.
Stevarious 2 months ago
@Stevarious "That abiogenesis occurred is undeniable."
Abiogenesis is the Atheist fantasy that inanimate matter turned itself into life, which you acknowledged yesterday was unscientific
You're not honest Atheist, All scientific evidence* supports intelligence in creation. Intelligence is the only designer/creator.
*No functional system is a known creation of anything other than intelligence.
onefodderunit 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@onefodderunit '*No functional system is a known creation of anything other than intelligence.'
Would you agree, then, that the existence of a single functional system, demonstrated to arise from natural functions with no creative intelligence behind it, would invalidate your argument?
Stevarious 2 months ago
@onefodderunit
Nimbostratus clouds are a functional system. They are produced by (NOT created by) complex weather patterns brought on by the natural effects of temperature, moisture, and air pressure. Their function is to produce incredibly complex, unique ice crystals by the trillions every day, no two alike, that we call snowflakes.
There is your complex functional system born from unintelligent non-organic matter. Your argument from ignorance is even more invalid than it already was.
Stevarious 2 months ago
@onefodderunit 'Abiogenesis is the Atheist fantasy that inanimate matter turned itself into life, which you acknowledged yesterday was unscientific'
It's amazing how you can deride something so strongly when you understand it so poorly. Abiogenesis is the label applied to the unknown event that occurred between when there was no life on earth and when there was life on earth. I didn't acknowledge it to be unscientific. Just unknown.
Stevarious 2 months ago
@onefodderunit
There is a scientific hypothesis that organic chemicals came together in a repeating, replicating pattern to eventually form life. Since I don't know how this happened, I don't believe it - because there's no details to believe. Your repeated accusation that I somehow 'have faith' in it is as tedious as it is mistaken. But if you're going to continually lie to me about what I believe, as you make logical fallacy after logical fallacy, I don't see who you hope to convince here.
Stevarious 2 months ago
@onefodderunit
I suspect that the scientists are on to something, as they actually have a start on the problem and what they've come up with so far sounds promising. On the other hand, religion has been wrong about every other thing we've learned about the universe - why would it be right about this one? However, I reserve judgement until the science has been done and the facts are in. If scientists discover that an intelligence is responsible, I'll believe it - but I'm not holding my breath.
Stevarious 2 months ago
@onefodderunit
I have a lot of respect for scientists - science is responsible for discovering millions of things that improve our lives. That does NOT mean that I just believe anything comes out of the mouth of a guy in a labcoat. Science relies on evidence that can be demonstrated, repeated, and confirmed by anyone with the time and the tools to reproduce a discovery. Science does not rely on secret knowledge or subjective experiences, and that's the only reason it can be trusted at all.
Stevarious 2 months ago
@onefodderunit
Your nonsense, on the other hand, about 'unlimited' and 'always existing', 'infinite' energy is absurd, unscientific, counter-evidential religibabble. There is no evidence that anything existed before the big bang. There is no evidence that nothing existed before the big bang. There is no evidence to base any knowledge claims about 'before the big bang' on.
You. Don't. Know. Nobody knows. So why would you pretend that you do know?
Stevarious 2 months ago
@Stevarious wrote: "Your nonsense, on the other hand . . . "
This coming from someone who believes it's smart to reject intelligence for an unkown creative power of inanimate matter.
You're arrogant in your idiocy.
onefodderunit 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@onefodderunit 'This coming from someone who believes it's smart to reject intelligence for an unkown creative power of inanimate matter.'
I believe it's smart to reject any claim based on ignorance. Which I do. Including yours.
'If energy didn't always exist, Atheist, how do you imagine it was created?'
I imagine lots of things. But imagination is not knowledge. You imagine an unknown intelligence did it. You don't know.
Stevarious 2 months ago
@Stevarious
If energy didn't always exist, Atheist, how do you imagine it was created?
onefodderunit 2 months ago
@Stevarious wrote: "There is no evidence that anything existed before the big bang."
You're an Atheist idiot. Really.
onefodderunit 2 months ago
@Stevarious "There is no evidence that anything existed before the big bang."
You really are an Atheist idiot.
You acknowledged more than 24 hours ago your faith that inanimate matter turned itself into life is not based on science.
All functional systems of *known origin* are products of intelligence. You keep listing things in nature, but nature is of unknown origin, which was explained for you yesterday.
Only intelligence designs/creates. Your rejection of it is right for you.
onefodderunit 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@onefodderunit 'You acknowledged more than 24 hours ago your faith that inanimate matter turned itself into life is not based on science.'
No I didn't, and the fact that you feel you have to lie about what I said to try and discredit me, instead of rebutting what I actually say, truly demonstrates how untenable your position is. I just described to you a functional system that arises from natural processes to create a complex, unique product.
Stevarious 2 months ago
@onefodderunit Everything comes from nature, including humans, and by extension everything that humans produce. Therefore your argument boils down to 'we don't know what caused the origin of the universe.' And since we don't know what caused ANYTHING, you can't say that everything comes from intelligence, because we don't know where anything comes from at all!
Stevarious 2 months ago
@onefodderunit You are correct in saying that only intelligence designs and creates. But, as I have explained a dozen times, you have never demonstrated in any way that the universe or the earth or life is created or designed. You are making a claim. You have to provide evidence. Instead you keep repeating your argument from ignorance, over and over and over. 'We don't know, therefore god.' It's completely irrational, and I'm tired of explaining this to you over and over.
Stevarious 2 months ago
Comment removed
Stevarious 2 months ago
@onefodderunit
...Aaaand I just checked your channel and discovered you actually are completely insane, and I'm wasting my time arguing with you.
(Ad hominem in 3...2..1...)
Enjoy your numerology and your holocaust denials and your 9/11 conspiracies, and watch out for those evil Zionists! They gonna getcha! Booga booga booga!
Stevarious 2 months ago
Comment removed
onefodderunit 2 months ago
@Stevarious
There's no scientific evidence supporting the Atheist faith that existence simply popped into existence. It's irrational and gullible to believe it did.
Every functional system of known origin, - a spider web, a bee hive, a radio - is a creation of intelligence. Each is physical scientific evidence that intelligence is required to create functional systems.
You're arguing that the origin of existence, and all of these functional systems, is not intelligence, but chance.
onefodderunit 2 months ago
@onefodderunit A spider web is a creation of intelligence? What's your evidence for that? I didn't think that spiders were all that intelligent.
Stevarious 2 months ago
@onefodderunit This is my continued statement.
I'm feeling generous today. I think I'll help you out.
Atheism = lack of belief.
Atheism =/= disbelief.
Xmaggot93X 2 months ago
@onefodderunit
But assuming that you can't see your own circular, question begging, god-of-the-gaps argument from ignorance for what it is, I will give you an answer anyway - if you can define for me what you mean by 'function'. Do you mean 'a purpose for which a thing is designed' or 'a role that a thing performs'?
Stevarious 2 months ago
@onefodderunit
You've arbitrarily defined 'functional system' as this set of things that we already know are created by living beings, ignoring all the incredibly complex systems out there that we know are not created.
You need to give me evidence that life is a creation instead of a natural process, instead of throwing an argument from ignorance at me.
Atheism is not 'faith'. Atheism is the null hypothesis. You want me to believe in an intelligence? Prove it exists. Demonstrate it.
Stevarious 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@onefodderunit "inanimate matter turning itself organic - was never even a scientific theory"
While the phenomenon you were originally arguing - life from non-life - has never been proven, this has actually been demonstrated. The Miller-Urey experiment showed unequivocally that organic compounds can arise from inorganic compounds. In 1952. So this statement is almost 60 years wrong. Of course, that's not what you meant, is it?
Stevarious 2 months ago
@onefodderunit And once again,
/watch?v=lQIXprHpo5Y
Xmaggot93X 2 months ago
@Xmaggot93X
Only intelligence creates. Your faith has put you in denial.
onefodderunit 2 months ago
@onefodderunit Also, since we're on the topic of demoralizing to children:
/watch?v=lQIXprHpo5Y
Xmaggot93X 2 months ago
I love that the most intelligent comments on youtube are on atheist videos.
Chocopuppet 2 months ago
What's all this misogynistic bullshit doing on my beautiful Internet?
argebarse 2 months ago
I've been watching this for ten minutes, and she hasn't said anything yet.
It's like watching a creationist video.
KapStuf 2 months ago 2
Do people pay to listen to this inane rambling? What has scepticism become?
truthersRdumb 2 months ago
This hag should just fuck off and stop using atheism to push her personal agenda.
She is responsible for undermining and diminishing the long and hard fought-for effort to finally make a fist against religious insanity because of over the top manhating feminismcrap.
Accusing men of rape for just asking a question? Why does there always have to be some insider diverting attention away from the cause because of petty grievances?
I see it everywhere, attentionwhores
sonykroket 2 months ago
@sonykroket she never accussed anyone of rape, she simply said that approaching someone when they are in a vunerable position they cannot escape with the intent of sexual intercourse is creepy, aka the fear of rape is very real.
fredslipknot9 2 months ago
@fredslipknot9
She is blowing shit out of proportion and tries to smear people. Policor hysteria is not the same as equal rights or feminism.
And i don't like people with a personal agenda trying to speak on my behalf
sonykroket 2 months ago
...back in '71 a peculiar film was released. Called, "Deep Throat". A porn-flick. All "moral" hell broke lose. Even as the protests & heated controversy over the "morality" of the war in 'Nam filled the news venues of the era. This, ~'innocuous' film by todays' standards had raced into the US Federal Court. SCOTUS & US Court of Appeals Whole law libraries are devoted to this. 'Nam didn't -even though 100's of thousands had died by then! Porn&war, like your ? are "too subjective" for definition.
SittingMooseShaman 2 months ago
utter garbage!
amstellori 2 months ago
I can't like this talk enough.
GreemReathe 2 months ago
Bullshit mommy. Best line ever.
GreemReathe 2 months ago
Christmas has always been about family to me.
That never changed for me as I became more aware of my atheism.
FrankLightheart 2 months ago
BOOOORRRIIINNG.
Batou667 2 months ago
I'm a host and I fucking hate clients like that. Oh how hilarious to make my job a nightmare. Good for you I hope it's funny.
markjamesnelson 2 months ago
...you have not even a foggy idea of who I am. Nor do you understand -or even are able to define, "morality"."People" are a physical condition of existence. Consciousness is a physical state of the brain & the subsequent actions of the brain/mind -including thinking and ones' personality. From what the Testament defines as the main tenant in the body of the tome is..."Spiritual": having no form or physical references whatsoever. Your perceptions are confused, Medieval and literal. What is moral?
SittingMooseShaman 2 months ago
@SittingMooseShaman If something that is spiritual has no form or physical references, how exactly do you go about distinguishing it from something that is nonexistant?
And I gave you a definition of morality. I'm (almost) sorry that it's not good enough for you, but amusingly enough, you can't even offer an opinion on the morality of allowing people to burn to death in a fire. For what possible reason would I assume that you are even capable of having a more nuanced discussion about morality?
Stevarious 2 months ago
@Stevarious ...sorry(perhaps?...yeah, I Am.) for the story-arch in-continuity w/missing the, "reply" box -um, 14 hrs ago -morphine's one, "...hell of a drug!" -Lois Griffin[Family Guy] One 'passes-out' in inconvenient frequency -recovery comes quickly enough. Though at times -elsewhere. & if I'm sick enough(e're now'n'then)...'Elsewhere!' For you see, I look at life rather empirically. At my age, it's a benefit of time & experience(s). Knowing, "Spirit"(uality) is exactly as knowing, "in love"!
SittingMooseShaman 2 months ago
@SittingMooseShaman Oooookay... Why don't you try that again some time when you're not high? Morphine is pretty powerful stuff and I will politely assume that it's the reason why your last two comments were nothing short of incoherent.
Stevarious 2 months ago
@Stevarious ...not incoherent, son... just honest. I'm dying: Then either I'm outta here or either it's...nuthin'. So I'm playin' the cards I've been dealt. The morf's 'cause "science" can do nothing except care for the pain...which never ceases. It is sad that you lack any compassion towards just one ill, dying old man; So you chose: Mockery!?! & yet, you have the audacity to set yourself up as this altruistic, 'god' who'll, "...save everybody"! Those are some big #'s to forgive unconditionally
SittingMooseShaman 2 months ago
@SittingMooseShaman I was not attempting to mock you. I was merely stating in the politest way I could find that your previous two comments were completely unreadable. I read them over several times and the only portions I could make heads or tails of were completely irrelevant to the conversation.
Stevarious 2 months ago
@SittingMooseShaman At any rate, I don't set myself up as anything. All I say is that if I had the power to prevent harm, I would. It's a classic - if god is both all-powerful and all-good, why does he allow suffering? You can make all kinds of arguments for living people, but there is no justification for eternal torment except that god, for whatever reason, actively desires the vast majority of humans to suffer in the worst way possible, forever. And that's not 'good' in any sense of the word.
Stevarious 2 months ago
@Stevarious ...be wary, our pedestals always crack & fall. Yours is quite like my own once was, central argument & all. I don't like it, either. I know pain all too well- every second of consciousness & sleep. That's nature. Father is an Energy. Energy which contains life, death, Good & evil. This, 'universe' & countless others. The, "why" of it all is yet to be revealed. How would it be understood? The human brain in all of its' evolving processes has never been exposed to these dimensions!
SittingMooseShaman 2 months ago
@SittingMooseShaman If "The human brain in all of its' evolving processes has never been exposed to these dimensions!" then how do you know about them?
Stevarious 2 months ago
@Stevarious ...knowing, "about" something is far from actually, "knowing" what that something actually is. Which is why allegory, parables & hyperbolic narrative is used throughout the biblical compendium. More of a mental/spiritual proposition of, "if you respond to my, 'call' I'll reveal, 'hidden' knowledge to you." Then it all becomes personal. If one is not, 'in'. How may one understand? What's fractal-quantum theory to me? I like the graphics & I have an idea about it. However, the science!
SittingMooseShaman 2 months ago
@SittingMooseShaman The bible is consistently wrong about everything we've been able to discover about the universe - it wasn't created in 7 days, the earth isn't flat, there was no flood, disease isn't caused by demons, and praying to jesus for miracles doesn't actually work. Why would anyone assume that the bible is right about anything we CAN'T discover? And if it's ALL allegory, but we don't know that it's allegory until after science proves it wrong, what good is it?
Stevarious 2 months ago
@Stevarious ...first, the early believers had no bible. Everything is,"Spiritual". I suppose the phrase, "other dimensional" could fit. However, the mind cannot conceive this as it is a physical element. Literal interpretations go nowhere. And it was the Vatican who claimed, "world 'flatness" The Testament claimed it, "The circle of the earth." Many 'Christian' isms deny biblical contexts.Science, has 'proven' nothing "wrong" within the Testament! Archaeology has always confirmed the text...
SittingMooseShaman 2 months ago
@SittingMooseShaman 'Everything is,"Spiritual". I suppose the phrase, "other dimensional" could fit.'
It could fit because both terms are equally meaningless.
'The Testament claimed it, "The circle of the earth.'
They didn't have a word for sphere? A circle is a flat 2 dimensional shape.
'Science has 'proven' nothing "wrong" within the Testament!'
Except all the things it did. Like 6-day creation, global flood, dragons, giants, sky oceans, all these are proven to be myths, and lots more.
Stevarious 2 months ago
@Stevarious ...and indeed they are! This is the point. What is, "blue" to one who is blind for all life? The, "..circle of-" Language/transposition of. The original poetic language(s) indicate a sphere, & alluding to complex civilisations affected therein. However, this is all stupidity: Until one commits to the Spirit and disciplines of meditation and study. "A year to Father(the Lord) is as a thousand years..." This means: Billions+! These were desert languages, Cananite, Egyptian, Hebrew....
SittingMooseShaman 2 months ago
@SittingMooseShaman 'However, this is all stupidity: Until one commits to the Spirit and disciplines of meditation and study'
So until one commits to believing in unprovable nonsense, one cannot believe unprovable nonsense. I agree completely. The problem is, you can believe anything that way. Do you have any evidence that your particular brand of unprovable nonsense is any better or more likely to be true than any of the thousands of other brands out there, besides disproven bible myths?
Stevarious 2 months ago
@Stevarious ...it's not my brand. It's, Dads'. Apparently, Father set some rules based upon His experiences- However those, 'experiences' are manifest. I've an 'idea' of what went on there -tho', it;ll seem silly as any other. I'm just a 'grain of sand' on an endless beach (ex. of, Bible-esque hyperbole). Yet, the relationship w/"Us"(Father, Son & Holy Spirit(Moms) is familial & proven to each individual- Their work is within the "heart"- Heb./Gr. translates literally: understanding, thinking.
SittingMooseShaman 2 months ago
@SittingMooseShaman 'proven to each individual- Their work is within the "heart"'
How exactly is that different from people just deluding themselves? I know a guy that really, truly believes that he was Napoleon in a past life. How can you judge him wrong if the only evidence you're going by is a feeling in your 'heart'?
Stevarious 2 months ago
@Stevarious
You have recognized that only intelligence designs and creates. Why do you reject intelligence for your Atheist fantasy that existence just popped into existence?
onefodderunit 2 months ago
@onefodderunit
Because there is no evidence that existence was designed or created. That's something you actually have to demonstrate, instead of just asserting over and over and over.
And you didn't answer my previous question - what is your evidence that spider webs are the product of intelligence?
Stevarious 2 months ago
@Stevarious
You can't make a spider web, Atheist. Are you dumber than a spider?
You have acknowledged the fact that there's no scientific evidence supporting your faith that inanimate matter turned itself into life.
You have acknowledged the fact that only intelligence can design/create.
What is your evidence that existence simply popped itself into being?
onefodderunit 2 months ago
@onefodderunit 'You can't make a spider web, Atheist. Are you dumber than a spider?'
Ah, so now you're saying that intelligence CAN'T make a spiderweb, only dumb spiders can. Interesting that you've now started making my arguments for me now. You're much better at them then you are making your own arguments. Maybe it has something to do with the arguments themselves?
Stevarious 2 months ago
@Stevarious
You can't make a spider web, Atheist, and you're calling spiders dumb.
You have admitted that you know only intelligence designs/creates.
Do you admit that it's more reasonable that existence was designed and created by intelligence, rather than it just popped itself into being?
onefodderunit 2 months ago
@onefodderunit No, I don't, because the proposition is circular and contains an infinite regress. If intelligence requires an intelligent creator, then who created the intelligent creator, which, possessing intelligence, must have been created? Who created the creator's creator? Who created the creator's creator's creator? Etc etc ad nauseam.
You are proposing a solution to the problem that actually solves nothing, because it recreates the original problem. This is not reasonable.
Stevarious 2 months ago
@Stevarious
We were talking about functional systems and I'm not being dishonest in the slightest, Atheist. I recognize I have a soul.
Energy is infinite. Consciousness is energy. Source consciousness, God, needs no creator.
You have admitted you know that only intelligence designs and creates. But you reject intelligence for the Atheist faith that it played no role in the design creation of our existence.
onefodderunit 2 months ago
@onefodderunit 'I recognize I have a soul'
You have decided that you believe that you have a soul.
'Energy is infinite'
Baseless assertion - you have no evidence of this at all.
'Consciousness is energy.'
Baseless assertion.
'Source consciousness, God, needs no creator.'
Baseless assertion that contradicts your earlier statements.
You have no evidence whatsoever for any of these claims. Why would I believe any of them? Why would YOU believe any of them? There's no reason to accept these claims.
Stevarious 2 months ago
@Stevarious
It's quite amusing that you believe you're somehow helping your Atheist faith with claims such as:
"There is no evidence that anything existed before the big bang." and,
"you have no evidence [that energy is infinite] at all."
What do you believe created energy for a 'Big Bang', and what do you believe are energy's limits?
onefodderunit 2 months ago