evolution only opposes the genesis account because it shows that not all life was created in its present form but has changed forms over millions of years. so now god cant be the creator of species but thats as far as evolution goes. other scientific theories like abiogenesis and big bang theory are the ones that show that no creator is needed.
First of all, thx for the link of TAA's vid. I didn't know he thinks that way.
The catholic church accepts evolution as a tool of god, all protestant churches ( at least here in Europe) too...and why fucking not? I'm no christian, or other theist, I'm agnostic and of course ET and god are compatible. An allknowing god could preserve the right circumstances to let the evolution lead to mankind.
Furthermore, one HAVE to implement evolution in ones religious beliefs, because ET is an proven fact!
I think you are putting up a bit of a straw man here. I don't know of any atheists who would state evolution and god are mutually exclusive. Atheists may not believe there is a god, but I have never head any of them use evolution as an argument against god. It may be used as argument against a literal interpretation of the bible or other "sacred text" but I don't think atheists typically make the argument you are trying to say they are.
@carrots001 of course...If you don't know of any atheist who say that, then of course none can exist, right? I gave you an example in the video itself by flashing a picture of TJ-TAA, and if he thinks that way (which he verifiably does)...you can be sure that he has influenced atleast a tenth of his followers, no? that would be 14,000 youtube peeps right there, no? sorry, but reality doesn't pay attention to the boundaries that you set, does it?
@istheretruth First of all, I did not say they do not exist. Why do you have to be so obnoxious when someone is commenting on your videos? My point was, you seem to be portraying this as a common argument from atheists, which it is not. I know you will probably say something like "Where did I say it was common" but fine, that is how you debate. Also, how about referring to a specific video of TJ, TAA or do you want me to wade through them all looking for an obscure reference?
@carrots001 one of us would have to wade through them, to point at a specific video. It won't be me, but I guarantee that I viewed the video, and that this is his stance. and you're right. I didn't claim that this was common, I also didn't claim that it was uncommon. I didn't claim to know the exact numbers. I can tell you that I have run into it pretty regularly. Don't like my debate style? Then don't fuckin' comment on my vids.
@istheretruth Well, since you said that is his stance, I guess we have to accept it as fact as well as the "fact" that at least 14,000 of his "followers" believe it. Why should you have to offer any evidence, right? As a matter of fact, I have noticed you never really offer anything, you just like to stir things up and wait for others to make conclusions from you videos and then jump on them for doing so. You obviously do not care to debate. What you do is argue. Very mature, I must say.
@carrots001 doodle. I already tried to tell you that if you don't like how I do it, then don't comment. That was obviously too nice, because here you are still running your dicksucker about how I do things. Anyone who wants to find out how TAA feels about god and evolution, you can go and scan through his videos and find the mother fucker. If you don't want to do that, then don't come here and act as if the burden of proof is on me. What he said is public-youtube record..Now b gone dipshit!
@istheretruth Oh, and I can just as easily claim that no atheists have this view as you can claim they do if we are not obligated to offer any evidence. So I can say absolutely that no atheist has ever, ever held the position that evolution proves god does not exist.
@carrots001 somehow I knew that the flapping of your dicksucker was not complete here. | watch?v=J_JatbIaY4w | now you see how easily you could have done the same thing that I just did......but you were more interested in running your fuckin' mouth.
@istheretruth So nice to see you raising the level of discourse. Yes, using terms like "dicksuckek" and "fuckin' mouth certainly makes your point more valid. By the way, where does he say in the video that evolution disproves god? He does say that you do not need god when you have evolution as an explanation, but he does not say one disproves the other. Why don't you go back and watch it again and really listen instead of stretching what it says to try to prove your point?
@carrots001 he says clearly that the 2 things co-existing are not possible. god being the creator of the universe and everything in it, is not needed? that is a declaration of those two ideas being exclusively mutual. stop spinning the real detail here. and AGAIN...If you don't like how I do things and the language that I use, then stop fuckin' commenting...This is your last warning before I flush you.
@istheretruth He says no such thing. He is ridiculing the belief because he does not believe it but no where does he say evolution disproves god. You seem to be letting your emotions get in the way of logic. I'm not sure why you are getting so angry, why don't you just admit this is not a good example of the point you are trying to make? If you want to point out another example, I'll be happy to look at it. In the meantime, I think I am safe in saying atheists do not make that claim.
@carrots001 NO this example is going to be good enough. he says that the two both being true is absurd..... I'm flushing you now, that's what I always do with a festering turd like yourself.
@istheretruth I saw your video on M theory, I read the comments then i went to your channel, subscribed to you so that i don't loose you, watched a couple of more of your videos and frankly, I think you are only trying to portray an Image of yourself as someone who is open to all rational ideas however, reading many of your comments in many of your videos, i see that you start fiesty arguements with dogmatic opinions with use of profanity and sarcasm... Continued..
@vegeteriancannibal However, i'd still like to be subscribed to you as I like some of the questions you have put up and am eager to hear from all sides, after that, I'll leave you alone. Thank you!
@vegeteriancannibal I'm very dogmatic about the reality that I live with, my perception..... I do not know that a god exists, but I hope that some sort of higher order does exist. I do not claim to know what limitations others have in regards to this subject. HOWEVER, I'm quiet positive that no person can possibly know what doesn't exist...knowing what does exist is going to be possible, knowing what doesn't exist is simply impossible! -continued-
@vegeteriancannibal -continued- I can get pretty nasty in a discussion if the person assumes to much about my views and starts heaving absurdity at me.....I can be respectful when I am not stereotyped into a box and the person takes the time to hear me out and understand my view!
@istheretruth You know, I believe the same thing, i too believe that there must be a higher order of some sort or else existance of anything would be irrational, the M theory verily disproves many religious beliefs however, God is no ones monopoly and therefore the M theory has not in any way dented the possibility of a higer order. Instead, the possibility of infinite number of multiverses that has their own laws of physics only adds more questions... continued
@vegeteriancannibal I believe that discarding anything that has rationality but no evidence (e.g. possibility of a higher order) is not science, if it was then the 5 string theory and the 11th dimension of the supergravity theory would have never sustained long enough for M theory to have emerged, same as the Big Bang Theory or the Theory of Evolution or the Theory of Relativity and so on.
People have called nature god. There's a definition out there about god being a supreme being. Because you are using the word "god" in this video, it only seems fair that you should provide a definition. Otherwise, nobody can know what idea you're talking about to answer your question.
it does not disprove god just many of the man made god there could be one but wouldnt it be more thoughtful to not let us no do it in a natural way and judge us only on our actions and morals after all if god wants us to have faith like many man made do it would not have gave us a book that would be fucking stupid
@istheretruth It depends on what informs the definition of god, of course.
If someone describes a god of a 7 day creation of the universe, with a declared lineage that makes the universe 6,000 years old that can't be questioned, then of course they are mutually exclusive. Otherwise maybe not.
However, if you say that god is some omniscient creator of the universe, why is evolution necessary? Why didn't he get it right immediately?
@istheretruth Pay attention! ..........If evolution is the work of a god, then it is a sign that the first draft is constantly in need of an updating. Surely an omniscient, omnipotent creator would have got it perfect with the prototype? Or is he bored with stasis?
I know exactly what you are saying....but you are viewing things with limitation I would argue....1st draft? that's a projection.. what drives evolution? did animals need improving or did they conform to the changes in the environment. It seems that you are wanting to limit gods abilities, if you'll think about it....it will come to you. I know you're likely thinking "all powerful" based on xtian writings...and that's fine... -continued-
but you then look at how it unfolds, and say that it would have been different with an omnipotent creator...not realizing that when you say it should have been this....you are actually imposing a limitation, at the same time as saying "hey, isn't this god suppose to be omnipresent, omniscient" and then you create an arbitration of "perfection" in which could never be determined exactly what the word perfect would actually mean. -continued-
I paid attention to all of your posts.....you're caught in a paradigm, and I can see around the foolishness....that's all
not really a theist at all, and claim no knowledge of gods existence...Do a little less suspecting about me and a little more of the actual reality that surrounds us my boy...and that's going to be very beneficial for you. ; - )
@istheretruth If you want any more responses from me, on any of your threads, you're going to have to start understanding exactly what I say, and addressing it accordingly, rather than what you would want me to have said.
this video was about god and evolution being mutually exclusive / or reconcilable...you brought up the biblical god...and I say that from our understanding or lack there of.... the biblical god is not really opposes to evolution. AN open mind and a quick read over genesis 1 would not really find much opposition...the day thing could be a problem though, but the biblical narrative offers ways around that, no?
@istheretruth Again, you didn't pay attention to my initial reply!!! I gave a direct and honest answer which I precluded with:-
" It depends on what informs the definition of god, of course". ...
I suggested the YEC version and said they are mutually exclusive, Then I said:
." Otherwise maybe not".
Then I offered a flippant suggestion as to why ANY general traditional definition might also by contradictory. If you want to define a less omnipotent god, I'll comment on it.
you haven't done anything to an omnipotent god, have you? no need to move on....by the definition....you are never going to be able to damage this concept, by trying to impose limitations... this should have been different, this wasn't necessary....it's all meaningless ....you are imposing limits and boundaries...think about it, it'll come to you.
@istheretruth I HAVE thought about it. God only exists anywhere as an abstract idea, with nothing to distinguish it from fantasy till someone defines it, and demonstrates evidence for it's existence. Have you got a better discription that demonstrates god as even a logical possibility?
@istheretruth Try to understand - to the best of human understanding "god" only exists as a concept. In order to ask an atheist about him you need to define what you mean by "god" . Every "God" that's offered is a logical fallacy. The concepts "omnipotent", omniscience, and infinite are also.
just declaring logical fallacy isn't going to get you anywhere, is it? Are you giving me some cliched argument that you have just accepted as true, without really understanding it....or can you demonstrate the logical fallacy?
why not just use the one that you already used and failed with? You defined very well a god with consciousness, and no limitations, and then tried to debunk that god by using proposed limitations. I suspect that somewhere underneath all of that arrogant ignorance, you know what I say is true.
@istheretruth I can't use that one. you, dishonestly, said it wasn't the one you mean. I notice you're still not willing to define one - Quelle surprise!!
Give me your definition of god and I'll show you the logical fallacy. _ I can't define one, I don't believe in them!!
again..... You already defined god, and I'm not opposing the use of that god. God can be defined in numerous ways, but that won't do us any good. I'm open minded, I'm game..Now go ahead with the definition that you already proposed. You have my permission. So we now have a definition or do I need to copy and paste your definition, to refresh your memory. I'm game. "I can't define one, I don't believe in them!!" You already defined one using the biblical god. quit ducking and spinning here.
No - I didn't define that god...... I don't believe in any gods! The writers and believers of the bible define several conflicting versions of one god , from the bible, which actually seem to be many gods.
The rule is hard and fast - You want me to explain my non belief in a god - you need to describe what you mean by god?
@istheretruth However, I suggest that you look at genesis 5 and other chapters wher Adam's lineage is listed, along with other historical markers. You'll understand why the creationists insist so hard that the universe is little more than 6,000 years old or so! Which of course is contradictory , not only to evolution but several other compelling scientific theories.
I can shred this argument so fast it will make your head spin. It doesn't really interest me though as I'm not really fervent on defending the bible. You want to get into this?
@Tobytrim It's not a theory. It's an answer to YOUR question.
If you want to posit god as , by definition, The perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, purposeful creator of the universe, It's perfectly feasible of me to say that further adaptation on his work should not be necessary. I you want to say that he's less than that fine. I really don't care how you define god -I don't see any reason to believe one exists.
you're contradicting yourself, but I doubt that you even realize it. necessary / unnecessary are restrictions...and you are suggesting these restrictions to be imposed on a being that you also suggest is omnipotent. it doesn't work.... a being that can do anything, may not conform to your whims. anything that you propose this being should have done differently is worthless, and you are doing just as I said...your imposing limits, and at the same time saying hey...isn't this god limitless
@istheretruth Indeed, it is my OBJECTIVE right to find a reason to believe that one exists either. I'm making no claims whatsoever So obviously, I don't need to define anything.
let's get back to this word perfect that you keep throwing around......I'm going to show you why you are not thinking this through. let's talk about perfect....Define the word.....so that we can apply it to the biblical god. You've used it twice here. So it must mean something to you. I'm interested in what it can be said to mean objectively. I look forward to your thoughts.
I'm saying that the biblical god is not necessarily in conflict. The things that you pointed out failed, and showed you why...... no slant here...just another fail on your part as far as I'm concerned.
"I don't suggest ANYTHING is "perfect"" this suggests that you still have a major misunderstanding here. You indeed used perfect as a blow against the biblical god creating the universe, and you still refuse to define it. I think you likely know that I'm going to shred the whole concept ; - )
If you're asking about the god of the bible, yes, they're opposites. Because the bible says that god created the universe 6,000 years ago, and research has shown and proven, for example, the existence of four legged creatures that lived more than 300,000,000 years ago. The point is you either believe in a book that says the Earth is 6,000 years old, or you believe the observed evidence that says it's much older. You can't pick both because they contradict each other.
Evolution and God (or Christianity, Psycnosis) are not mutually exclusive. The Catholic Church accepts evolution. Kind of a boring question to build a video around.
Then in all fairness, shouldn't the question be directed more towards the theists? I think fundamentalists are more likely to claim that evolution is not true than say, someone who accepts evolution is to claim that it excludes any possibility of God (Ken Miller springs to mind)
Hmm you really shouldn't take the talking points from TAA or Geerup. For your question though, I would say that it depends on your take on it. One can argue that scripture regarding creation was metaphorical and evolution was just the process of god's making. On the other hand, one could counter argue that if you can't take one part of the bible literally than you can't take any of the bible literally.
imo, the god of the bible is inconsistant with evolution, since we have proof for evolution and not for the claims of the bible its a pretty eassy choice, choose evolution rather than the god of the bible. beyond the bible its hard to say, most christians these days dont realy take the bible too seriously, and without the limitations of it i dont think there is a contradiction between god and evolutions. i do however find the idea of a god to be silly for other reasons, no room hwere for them :<
The world needs both Faith and Science. No Science, and we'll still be primates sitting in caves trying to make fire. No Faith, and we'll have no idea what "love" is.
before abandoning religion I was raised in a catholic school. There they were teaching evolution. The first time I began to read atheist materials in English and to watch videos I was puzzled and surprised to see evolutionism as an argument against religion. Personally I think evolutionism matches particularly well with gnosticism and similar ideas or interpretations seeing the world as radically corrupted. Hence from my point of view evolution doesn't necessarily clash with God's idea.
Or let's think to Advaita Vedanta or some other ideas about godhead. Here the absolute takes both benign and destructive forms (The Atman is Brahaman and Visnu, the destroyer, at the same time). Hence there creation is both creation and destruction recursively occuring. Even this religious idea is very compatible with evolution. The only ones having problem with it are those religions supporting a literal interpretation of their books written by ancient ignorant goatfuckers.
There are many ways by which religion can bypass the contraddiction between the literal stories in holy books and scientific knowledge. For instance for catholics the truth comes from the curch's interpretation of the bible and NOT from the bible itself. Hence modern catholics usually say it's all metaphorical stuff to interpret and not real reports of what happened. Their problem with evolution is different. Imo the problem with christianity is how God used a so mercyless process like evolution
The problem is that evolution hinges on the fact that weak /unfit animals and their genes are wiped out from existence, often among terrible sufferings. At the same time stronger and good genes carriers prosper and multiply. Nature is ruthless and merciless. Why did God choose such a process to create ? Was it the only possible ? If it was the only possible one God would be condemned by a low superior to himself to create evil. The true problem is a moral one. And only some religions have it.
Those are great thoughts. Thanks for sharing them. I call myself an Atheist because I am adamantly opposed to the Abrahamic religion's interpretation of god.
We may very well discover that a superior being had a hand in planting the seed that gave birth to the cosmos. Maybe in that sense I'm Agnostic. I am sure however it was not Yahweh.
The texts that brought us today's "all mighty god" are sickening attempts by early man explain his own existence.
Yes, Meloco, we can't take any more judeo-christian religions because we live in our countries. And indeed some other far religions' ideas seem interesting. However we have never to underestimate the harm of supersitions and religions. For instance I was talking of the Hindu one. Few minutes ago I read an article. You can find it on google news putting in the form search this string:
"Indian girl beheaded by neighbour to 'help conception"
I think evolution and God could both be true, but it's fairly unlikely.
Firstly, the creation - according to the bible took 7 days, which is not a sufficient time frame for evolution to occur. Even if "days" mean thousands of years, it would still be far from possible according to our current understanding of evolution. Secondly, the Bible states that man was born in his current state, which conflicts with evolution theory. Thirdly, the fossil records would be completely different if...cont
creationism were true, in that we should find dinosaurs next to modern day species. Essentially, God can exist along with the theory of evolution, but it then brings into question the accuracy of religious scripture.
all scripture was written by antiquity, so it's probably only going to be as solid as the world views of those who wrote it. Still the creation story in genesis has some interesting detail. While the literal days do not work under the scrutiny of modern scientific paradigm, the creation account does have some goodies. The original hebrew was very vague because of the limitations of primitive language- -continued-
but it does however tell us that god allows the sea, and the land to bring forth life in abundance. This is an odd way of putting it. Very odd!!!! and yes it does say that god formed man and all other life from the dust of the ground... the elements that makes us up do happen to be composed of star dust. in a verse that reads, god formed man from the dust of the ground can be a shortened version of creation of life to man, -continued-
and it would technically be true. It is the breathing of life into man to become a living soul that seems to differ from the rest of the creation narrative. Still, back to god allowing the sea, and the land to bring forth life. That's an interesting concept...what would it look like if it happened?
In reading your reply to Laurence, I have to say, that you are really stretching that verse. Life from the sea and from land was a reference to animal and plant life being abundant, and that god is the reason for that. It is really stretching it to say that it jives with evolution somehow.
As for man being made of dirt, again quite a stretch. The Iron in our blood was created in the heart of a supernova. We are made of stars, not dirt. god would know this, but bronze age man would not.
LMAO...I'm not here to defend the bible as being the inerrant word of god, so you can drop all of that defensive posturing. the text says that man comes from the dust of the ground (which comes from the elements formed in stars =star dust) This is exactly what I am talking about....It's as if you fear admitting any truth in this text...and for this reason you can't be impartial while reading it. Me, I don't give a shit one way or the other if this god turns out to be for real or not.
I'm agnostic in regards to what I know...just as any honest person should be...and from there, my beliefs are aimed toward a deistic version of god (atleast in regards to the universe running by its own set up laws)
"according to the bible took 7 days, which is not a sufficient time frame for evolution to occur. " - you are talking about 2 different things. creation says god created everything as it is and created life. evolution does not say anything about how life began and it shows that there are many diverse species of organisms many of which are exinct now. they are not compatible.
why don't you suck the little curly hairs above my brown eye, you silly igmo fuck!!!!!! one more meaningless comment from you, and you will be flushed like the turd that you are..DO YOU DIG?
NO, the misinterpretation and dogma of the various religions does that.
the creator of the universe would HAVE to be the source of order in that system, the origin of all the methods and processes in it.
it would be just as impossible for me to imagine a creator deity that was forbidden from using "natural" processes to fulfill its purposes as it would a diety immune to them.
however its this exact thing that lets science worshippers attempt to explain away various concepts of god.
Ladies and Gentlemen, please let me introduce, the greatest apologist of all times .. :
Don't play hide the deity with me, it's a cheap trick and I'm wise to it.
In the end you still believe in Yahweh. If I miss my mark and I'm wrong, you don't have any more proof than the run-of-the-mill creationist, although I still suspect you are one.
The genesis creation story has stuff that if it is said that they must be literally true, then yes it is provably false within' the scope of modern scientific paradigm. While I didn't single out the creation story of genesis here, it does seem to be where everyone seems to be going with this. I wonder, could you actually read the genesis 1 with an open mind, realizing that it was written by antiquity, but still not assuming the god nonexistent:? I hate to think that you lack this ability.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I DO lack the ability to read fiction and take it for fact. I also can't eat sauerkraut and make myself imagine that it's ice cream.
When I read the bible, I am continually struck by how obvious it is that the drivel was written by man.
Man created in God in his own image, not the other way around :-/
I know it's a hard pill to swallow, but just because we want something to be true, doesn't make it so. Examine The Facts.
LMAO yet again..... I don't care if its true or not, but it is obvious that you are petrified, of any possibility that it's true. You guys start ranting and raving like someone has just shot your mother, for merely suggesting that there could be some truth in the text. No offense, but people like you make me laugh, when it comes to biblical discussion. ; - ) I do not share your fear/disdain:::sorry I just don't identify.
you are becoming just another igmo to me Meloco...Sorry, but you misunderstand my comment to begin with. I would certainly solve the riddle of our existence if I could....If I could obtain the truth that god didn't exist, I would do so. BUT I don't hate the biblical god because I have enough depth to my thinking to know that its existence is not tied to writings by antiquity. -continued-
Just as writings about me, true or false would not be connected to the possibility of my existence. The hell shit scares you!! I get that, and I have to agree. I will tell you the obvious, but I doubt it will help your psychosis about the biblical god...... If everything written in the bible must be absolutely true, for some version of this god to exist, then this god obviously doesn't exist. -continued-
I'm sorry that you lack the mental depth to discuss this as an adult. It's as if you think that admitting any truth in biblical narrative will result in God springing out of the ground and biting your head off. I feel for you bro, confining yourself to a box, because that is no way to live your life. Try not to comment on things that you hold so emotional in the future. thank you in advance for your cooperation. ; - )
I can assure you the "igmo" feeling is mutual, and as soon as I finish this comment I'll unsubscribe from your channel. I really thought you were above throwing insults around because of your lack of material substance.
I have no deep seated fear of your god, your god does not exist, that frightens you far more than me. I'm sure. You could at some point pull your head out of your ass and ask yourself what proof there is for your god other than your sill philosophy, the answer is none.
"I have no deep seated fear of your god" this is a good display of your emotional baggage here. I haven't even said that the god exists..... You're making yourself look like a fool. "your god does not exist, that frightens you far more than me. I'm sure." not at all. The Bible is a narrative written by antiquity. LMAO Thank You for proving my point. - continued-
This is good stuff. Proof positive that you igmo's can't even carry on a conversation about the biblical god unless it's done in shared hostility. You can't even be objective about the different parts of the text, you guys are scared shittless....and the funny thing is, the god probably doesn't even exist.....and if it does exist, it probably doesn't conform exactly to the narrative. " -continued-
I really thought you were above throwing insults around because of your lack of material substance." You actually started the insults after I called your mom a whore (LMAO) Oh that's right, I didn't actually call your mom a whore, but instead I just put out a video called (evolution -vs- god) and from there you said I had no objective truth,
contradicted yourself by saying that I ask "good questions but with obvious answers"
and then you said that I wasn't interested in truth...subtle insults ehhhhhhh
All of this set up by your own projection, -istheretruth believes in the bully god of the bible- and so you watch my words, and by golly... -continued-
'm not hostile toward the narrative, so it must be true. This is laughable bullshit. You can find truth in nearly anything...... error is pretty common as well.... You're what I would call an Anti-Religious Nut. Have a nice life!
There is nothing at all about you or your moronic proposal that scares me in the slightest. Your whole argument in the comment text is nothing but smoke and mirrors.
"duh, sure most parts of the bible are false.. duh.. but other parts might be true, duh.."
"There is nothing at all about you or your moronic proposal that scares me in the slightest" again, as you seem a bit to thick to even follow what I said...... Obviously my proposals aren't what scares you..It's the xtian/judeo god that does that, my ideas anger you because they are not hostile toward your projected bully god.
Here's a summary for you. I put out a video that offended you, because you projected god to be the biblical god...you started dialogue on that subject....and got more offended, that I had an open mind. This led to you saying that I had no objective truth at all (which is bullshit) The fact that I did not share your view and hostility toward the xtian god angered you, and you started acting like an anti-religious douche..THE END!!
Don't waste my time with anymore of your nonsense!!
Science Logic
Nothing created everything is impossible
dontrockkid 7 months ago
evolution only opposes the genesis account because it shows that not all life was created in its present form but has changed forms over millions of years. so now god cant be the creator of species but thats as far as evolution goes. other scientific theories like abiogenesis and big bang theory are the ones that show that no creator is needed.
ihmen 1 year ago
"Creationism was created. Evolution evolves" John Nicholson
arizonaviking 1 year ago 2
um genisis?
linkforever92 1 year ago
First of all, thx for the link of TAA's vid. I didn't know he thinks that way.
The catholic church accepts evolution as a tool of god, all protestant churches ( at least here in Europe) too...and why fucking not? I'm no christian, or other theist, I'm agnostic and of course ET and god are compatible. An allknowing god could preserve the right circumstances to let the evolution lead to mankind.
Furthermore, one HAVE to implement evolution in ones religious beliefs, because ET is an proven fact!
WardancerHB 1 year ago
I think you are putting up a bit of a straw man here. I don't know of any atheists who would state evolution and god are mutually exclusive. Atheists may not believe there is a god, but I have never head any of them use evolution as an argument against god. It may be used as argument against a literal interpretation of the bible or other "sacred text" but I don't think atheists typically make the argument you are trying to say they are.
carrots001 1 year ago
@carrots001 of course...If you don't know of any atheist who say that, then of course none can exist, right? I gave you an example in the video itself by flashing a picture of TJ-TAA, and if he thinks that way (which he verifiably does)...you can be sure that he has influenced atleast a tenth of his followers, no? that would be 14,000 youtube peeps right there, no? sorry, but reality doesn't pay attention to the boundaries that you set, does it?
istheretruth 1 year ago
@istheretruth First of all, I did not say they do not exist. Why do you have to be so obnoxious when someone is commenting on your videos? My point was, you seem to be portraying this as a common argument from atheists, which it is not. I know you will probably say something like "Where did I say it was common" but fine, that is how you debate. Also, how about referring to a specific video of TJ, TAA or do you want me to wade through them all looking for an obscure reference?
carrots001 1 year ago
@carrots001 one of us would have to wade through them, to point at a specific video. It won't be me, but I guarantee that I viewed the video, and that this is his stance. and you're right. I didn't claim that this was common, I also didn't claim that it was uncommon. I didn't claim to know the exact numbers. I can tell you that I have run into it pretty regularly. Don't like my debate style? Then don't fuckin' comment on my vids.
istheretruth 1 year ago
@istheretruth Well, since you said that is his stance, I guess we have to accept it as fact as well as the "fact" that at least 14,000 of his "followers" believe it. Why should you have to offer any evidence, right? As a matter of fact, I have noticed you never really offer anything, you just like to stir things up and wait for others to make conclusions from you videos and then jump on them for doing so. You obviously do not care to debate. What you do is argue. Very mature, I must say.
carrots001 1 year ago
@carrots001 doodle. I already tried to tell you that if you don't like how I do it, then don't comment. That was obviously too nice, because here you are still running your dicksucker about how I do things. Anyone who wants to find out how TAA feels about god and evolution, you can go and scan through his videos and find the mother fucker. If you don't want to do that, then don't come here and act as if the burden of proof is on me. What he said is public-youtube record..Now b gone dipshit!
istheretruth 1 year ago
@istheretruth Oh, and I can just as easily claim that no atheists have this view as you can claim they do if we are not obligated to offer any evidence. So I can say absolutely that no atheist has ever, ever held the position that evolution proves god does not exist.
carrots001 1 year ago
@carrots001 somehow I knew that the flapping of your dicksucker was not complete here. | watch?v=J_JatbIaY4w | now you see how easily you could have done the same thing that I just did......but you were more interested in running your fuckin' mouth.
istheretruth 1 year ago
@istheretruth So nice to see you raising the level of discourse. Yes, using terms like "dicksuckek" and "fuckin' mouth certainly makes your point more valid. By the way, where does he say in the video that evolution disproves god? He does say that you do not need god when you have evolution as an explanation, but he does not say one disproves the other. Why don't you go back and watch it again and really listen instead of stretching what it says to try to prove your point?
carrots001 1 year ago
@carrots001 he says clearly that the 2 things co-existing are not possible. god being the creator of the universe and everything in it, is not needed? that is a declaration of those two ideas being exclusively mutual. stop spinning the real detail here. and AGAIN...If you don't like how I do things and the language that I use, then stop fuckin' commenting...This is your last warning before I flush you.
istheretruth 1 year ago
@istheretruth He says no such thing. He is ridiculing the belief because he does not believe it but no where does he say evolution disproves god. You seem to be letting your emotions get in the way of logic. I'm not sure why you are getting so angry, why don't you just admit this is not a good example of the point you are trying to make? If you want to point out another example, I'll be happy to look at it. In the meantime, I think I am safe in saying atheists do not make that claim.
carrots001 1 year ago
@carrots001 NO this example is going to be good enough. he says that the two both being true is absurd..... I'm flushing you now, that's what I always do with a festering turd like yourself.
istheretruth 1 year ago
@istheretruth I saw your video on M theory, I read the comments then i went to your channel, subscribed to you so that i don't loose you, watched a couple of more of your videos and frankly, I think you are only trying to portray an Image of yourself as someone who is open to all rational ideas however, reading many of your comments in many of your videos, i see that you start fiesty arguements with dogmatic opinions with use of profanity and sarcasm... Continued..
vegeteriancannibal 11 months ago
@vegeteriancannibal However, i'd still like to be subscribed to you as I like some of the questions you have put up and am eager to hear from all sides, after that, I'll leave you alone. Thank you!
vegeteriancannibal 11 months ago
@vegeteriancannibal I'm very dogmatic about the reality that I live with, my perception..... I do not know that a god exists, but I hope that some sort of higher order does exist. I do not claim to know what limitations others have in regards to this subject. HOWEVER, I'm quiet positive that no person can possibly know what doesn't exist...knowing what does exist is going to be possible, knowing what doesn't exist is simply impossible! -continued-
istheretruth 11 months ago
@vegeteriancannibal -continued- I can get pretty nasty in a discussion if the person assumes to much about my views and starts heaving absurdity at me.....I can be respectful when I am not stereotyped into a box and the person takes the time to hear me out and understand my view!
istheretruth 11 months ago
@istheretruth You know, I believe the same thing, i too believe that there must be a higher order of some sort or else existance of anything would be irrational, the M theory verily disproves many religious beliefs however, God is no ones monopoly and therefore the M theory has not in any way dented the possibility of a higer order. Instead, the possibility of infinite number of multiverses that has their own laws of physics only adds more questions... continued
vegeteriancannibal 11 months ago
@vegeteriancannibal I believe that discarding anything that has rationality but no evidence (e.g. possibility of a higher order) is not science, if it was then the 5 string theory and the 11th dimension of the supergravity theory would have never sustained long enough for M theory to have emerged, same as the Big Bang Theory or the Theory of Evolution or the Theory of Relativity and so on.
vegeteriancannibal 11 months ago
Comment removed
carrots001 1 year ago
People have called nature god. There's a definition out there about god being a supreme being. Because you are using the word "god" in this video, it only seems fair that you should provide a definition. Otherwise, nobody can know what idea you're talking about to answer your question.
streetmagicstyle 1 year ago
it does not disprove god just many of the man made god there could be one but wouldnt it be more thoughtful to not let us no do it in a natural way and judge us only on our actions and morals after all if god wants us to have faith like many man made do it would not have gave us a book that would be fucking stupid
patrickledford420 2 years ago
@istheretruth
Why did you quit making videos Utopia Johnson? Too many offline concerns or obligations?
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
I got commandeered by the CIA to pick poppy seeds in Afghanistan, and of course that takes most of my time ; -)
istheretruth 2 years ago
@istheretruth It depends on what informs the definition of god, of course.
If someone describes a god of a 7 day creation of the universe, with a declared lineage that makes the universe 6,000 years old that can't be questioned, then of course they are mutually exclusive. Otherwise maybe not.
However, if you say that god is some omniscient creator of the universe, why is evolution necessary? Why didn't he get it right immediately?
Tobytrim 2 years ago
"Why didn't he get it right immediately? " now this is interesting.....but I would say, How do you know that he didn't get it right immediately?
istheretruth 2 years ago
@istheretruth Pay attention! ..........If evolution is the work of a god, then it is a sign that the first draft is constantly in need of an updating. Surely an omniscient, omnipotent creator would have got it perfect with the prototype? Or is he bored with stasis?
Tobytrim 2 years ago
I know exactly what you are saying....but you are viewing things with limitation I would argue....1st draft? that's a projection.. what drives evolution? did animals need improving or did they conform to the changes in the environment. It seems that you are wanting to limit gods abilities, if you'll think about it....it will come to you. I know you're likely thinking "all powerful" based on xtian writings...and that's fine... -continued-
istheretruth 2 years ago
but you then look at how it unfolds, and say that it would have been different with an omnipotent creator...not realizing that when you say it should have been this....you are actually imposing a limitation, at the same time as saying "hey, isn't this god suppose to be omnipresent, omniscient" and then you create an arbitration of "perfection" in which could never be determined exactly what the word perfect would actually mean. -continued-
istheretruth 2 years ago
Your theory is a mess I tell you. Sometimes you've got to try to think a little deeper
istheretruth 2 years ago
@istheretruth Also, if you paid attention to my first response, you'd had noted that I said it depends on how "god" is defined.
You seem to be too busy preaching to take in what the other guy is saying
. I suspect you are more of a faith reliant theist that you're owning up to??!!
Tobytrim 2 years ago
I paid attention to all of your posts.....you're caught in a paradigm, and I can see around the foolishness....that's all
not really a theist at all, and claim no knowledge of gods existence...Do a little less suspecting about me and a little more of the actual reality that surrounds us my boy...and that's going to be very beneficial for you. ; - )
istheretruth 2 years ago
@istheretruth If you want any more responses from me, on any of your threads, you're going to have to start understanding exactly what I say, and addressing it accordingly, rather than what you would want me to have said.
Pay attention!!
Tobytrim 2 years ago
paid attention, saw nothing worthy of consideration to this point. don't really need your responses, so why would I worry about that?
istheretruth 2 years ago
@istheretruth In the case of this question , I was being flippant in any case
.God requires faith, evolution is a well formed and compellingly evidenced scientific theory.
There is no serious way that they should be considered together.
Tobytrim 2 years ago
this video was about god and evolution being mutually exclusive / or reconcilable...you brought up the biblical god...and I say that from our understanding or lack there of.... the biblical god is not really opposes to evolution. AN open mind and a quick read over genesis 1 would not really find much opposition...the day thing could be a problem though, but the biblical narrative offers ways around that, no?
istheretruth 2 years ago
@istheretruth Again, you didn't pay attention to my initial reply!!! I gave a direct and honest answer which I precluded with:-
" It depends on what informs the definition of god, of course". ...
I suggested the YEC version and said they are mutually exclusive, Then I said:
." Otherwise maybe not".
Then I offered a flippant suggestion as to why ANY general traditional definition might also by contradictory. If you want to define a less omnipotent god, I'll comment on it.
Tobytrim 2 years ago
you haven't done anything to an omnipotent god, have you? no need to move on....by the definition....you are never going to be able to damage this concept, by trying to impose limitations... this should have been different, this wasn't necessary....it's all meaningless ....you are imposing limits and boundaries...think about it, it'll come to you.
istheretruth 2 years ago
@istheretruth I HAVE thought about it. God only exists anywhere as an abstract idea, with nothing to distinguish it from fantasy till someone defines it, and demonstrates evidence for it's existence. Have you got a better discription that demonstrates god as even a logical possibility?
Tobytrim 2 years ago
you singled out the biblical god which is pretty well defined.
istheretruth 2 years ago
@istheretruth Try to understand - to the best of human understanding "god" only exists as a concept. In order to ask an atheist about him you need to define what you mean by "god" . Every "God" that's offered is a logical fallacy. The concepts "omnipotent", omniscience, and infinite are also.
Tobytrim 2 years ago
just declaring logical fallacy isn't going to get you anywhere, is it? Are you giving me some cliched argument that you have just accepted as true, without really understanding it....or can you demonstrate the logical fallacy?
istheretruth 2 years ago
@istheretruth Ok Offer me your definition of a "god" and I'll be happy too.
Otherwise, you'll just say that there infinite definitions and I picked the wrong one.
Pick a god! I'll show you the fallacy!
However , I don't expect you to have the intellectual honesty or courage to do that, so let's say we're done here too!
Tobytrim 2 years ago
why not just use the one that you already used and failed with? You defined very well a god with consciousness, and no limitations, and then tried to debunk that god by using proposed limitations. I suspect that somewhere underneath all of that arrogant ignorance, you know what I say is true.
istheretruth 2 years ago
@istheretruth A god without limitations is a contradiction in terms isn't it?
I don't believe in logical contradictions - Do you?
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@istheretruth I can't use that one. you, dishonestly, said it wasn't the one you mean. I notice you're still not willing to define one - Quelle surprise!!
Give me your definition of god and I'll show you the logical fallacy. _ I can't define one, I don't believe in them!!
You don't have the balls to try do you?
I think that has won the debate!!
Tobytrim 2 years ago
again..... You already defined god, and I'm not opposing the use of that god. God can be defined in numerous ways, but that won't do us any good. I'm open minded, I'm game..Now go ahead with the definition that you already proposed. You have my permission. So we now have a definition or do I need to copy and paste your definition, to refresh your memory. I'm game. "I can't define one, I don't believe in them!!" You already defined one using the biblical god. quit ducking and spinning here.
istheretruth 2 years ago
Do I need to go back and pull your definition here? tell me and I'll do it.
istheretruth 2 years ago
@istheretruth Yes go and pull the definition!!
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@istheretruth : - " You already defined god"
No - I didn't define that god...... I don't believe in any gods! The writers and believers of the bible define several conflicting versions of one god , from the bible, which actually seem to be many gods.
The rule is hard and fast - You want me to explain my non belief in a god - you need to describe what you mean by god?
Tobytrim 1 year ago
I've got to get some work done. I'll check back for any comments later. ; - )
istheretruth 2 years ago
@istheretruth However, I suggest that you look at genesis 5 and other chapters wher Adam's lineage is listed, along with other historical markers. You'll understand why the creationists insist so hard that the universe is little more than 6,000 years old or so! Which of course is contradictory , not only to evolution but several other compelling scientific theories.
Tobytrim 2 years ago
I can shred this argument so fast it will make your head spin. It doesn't really interest me though as I'm not really fervent on defending the bible. You want to get into this?
istheretruth 2 years ago
@Tobytrim It's not a theory. It's an answer to YOUR question.
If you want to posit god as , by definition, The perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, purposeful creator of the universe, It's perfectly feasible of me to say that further adaptation on his work should not be necessary. I you want to say that he's less than that fine. I really don't care how you define god -I don't see any reason to believe one exists.
Tobytrim 2 years ago
you're contradicting yourself, but I doubt that you even realize it. necessary / unnecessary are restrictions...and you are suggesting these restrictions to be imposed on a being that you also suggest is omnipotent. it doesn't work.... a being that can do anything, may not conform to your whims. anything that you propose this being should have done differently is worthless, and you are doing just as I said...your imposing limits, and at the same time saying hey...isn't this god limitless
istheretruth 2 years ago
Until you define perfect, we don't even need to discuss that one.
"I don't see any reason to believe one exists. " no problem....that is your subjective right, no?
istheretruth 2 years ago
@istheretruth Indeed, it is my OBJECTIVE right to find a reason to believe that one exists either. I'm making no claims whatsoever So obviously, I don't need to define anything.
Tobytrim 2 years ago
let's get back to this word perfect that you keep throwing around......I'm going to show you why you are not thinking this through. let's talk about perfect....Define the word.....so that we can apply it to the biblical god. You've used it twice here. So it must mean something to you. I'm interested in what it can be said to mean objectively. I look forward to your thoughts.
istheretruth 2 years ago
@istheretruth I was referring to the classic philosophical term necessity/contigency. By that definition necessity is non restriction.
I don't suggest ANYTHING is "perfect", "necessary", omnipotent, or anything else. I define NO GOD - I don't have any belief in a god.
You asked if "God" and evolution were mutually exclusive.
My answer was, and is, "It depends on YOUR definition"
Pay attention and stop trying to put your own slant on my replies.
Tobytrim 2 years ago
I'm saying that the biblical god is not necessarily in conflict. The things that you pointed out failed, and showed you why...... no slant here...just another fail on your part as far as I'm concerned.
"I don't suggest ANYTHING is "perfect"" this suggests that you still have a major misunderstanding here. You indeed used perfect as a blow against the biblical god creating the universe, and you still refuse to define it. I think you likely know that I'm going to shred the whole concept ; - )
istheretruth 2 years ago
again....what does perfect mean? what does it mean in terms of the biblical god?
istheretruth 2 years ago
If you're asking about the god of the bible, yes, they're opposites. Because the bible says that god created the universe 6,000 years ago, and research has shown and proven, for example, the existence of four legged creatures that lived more than 300,000,000 years ago. The point is you either believe in a book that says the Earth is 6,000 years old, or you believe the observed evidence that says it's much older. You can't pick both because they contradict each other.
dioseolo 2 years ago
Evolution and God (or Christianity, Psycnosis) are not mutually exclusive. The Catholic Church accepts evolution. Kind of a boring question to build a video around.
carrots001 2 years ago
this question was directed more at the atheists who claim the exact opposite as you say.
istheretruth 2 years ago
Then in all fairness, shouldn't the question be directed more towards the theists? I think fundamentalists are more likely to claim that evolution is not true than say, someone who accepts evolution is to claim that it excludes any possibility of God (Ken Miller springs to mind)
carrots001 2 years ago
Hmm you really shouldn't take the talking points from TAA or Geerup. For your question though, I would say that it depends on your take on it. One can argue that scripture regarding creation was metaphorical and evolution was just the process of god's making. On the other hand, one could counter argue that if you can't take one part of the bible literally than you can't take any of the bible literally.
killzone999 2 years ago
evolution and god is not mutually exclusive... evolution and christianity is though.
Psycnosis 2 years ago
imo, the god of the bible is inconsistant with evolution, since we have proof for evolution and not for the claims of the bible its a pretty eassy choice, choose evolution rather than the god of the bible. beyond the bible its hard to say, most christians these days dont realy take the bible too seriously, and without the limitations of it i dont think there is a contradiction between god and evolutions. i do however find the idea of a god to be silly for other reasons, no room hwere for them :<
pimpwacker 2 years ago
The world needs both Faith and Science. No Science, and we'll still be primates sitting in caves trying to make fire. No Faith, and we'll have no idea what "love" is.
Of course, too much of anything is bad for you.
Idude893 2 years ago
what a retarded statement........ I dont have faith but I LOVE cheesecake!
xxzmikezxx 2 years ago
I'll pray to that.
thethreeheadedmonkey 2 years ago
I think that the assertion that God could not create the universe / life if it was done through a process is misleading.
That is analogous to claiming that a baker didn't make the bread, the yeast and ingredients made the bread.
dlucas90 2 years ago
before abandoning religion I was raised in a catholic school. There they were teaching evolution. The first time I began to read atheist materials in English and to watch videos I was puzzled and surprised to see evolutionism as an argument against religion. Personally I think evolutionism matches particularly well with gnosticism and similar ideas or interpretations seeing the world as radically corrupted. Hence from my point of view evolution doesn't necessarily clash with God's idea.
italianchappy 2 years ago
Or let's think to Advaita Vedanta or some other ideas about godhead. Here the absolute takes both benign and destructive forms (The Atman is Brahaman and Visnu, the destroyer, at the same time). Hence there creation is both creation and destruction recursively occuring. Even this religious idea is very compatible with evolution. The only ones having problem with it are those religions supporting a literal interpretation of their books written by ancient ignorant goatfuckers.
italianchappy 2 years ago
There are many ways by which religion can bypass the contraddiction between the literal stories in holy books and scientific knowledge. For instance for catholics the truth comes from the curch's interpretation of the bible and NOT from the bible itself. Hence modern catholics usually say it's all metaphorical stuff to interpret and not real reports of what happened. Their problem with evolution is different. Imo the problem with christianity is how God used a so mercyless process like evolution
italianchappy 2 years ago
The problem is that evolution hinges on the fact that weak /unfit animals and their genes are wiped out from existence, often among terrible sufferings. At the same time stronger and good genes carriers prosper and multiply. Nature is ruthless and merciless. Why did God choose such a process to create ? Was it the only possible ? If it was the only possible one God would be condemned by a low superior to himself to create evil. The true problem is a moral one. And only some religions have it.
italianchappy 2 years ago
> by a low superior to himself
by a law, sorry.
The problem occurs only in religions in which godhead has to be thought of as absolute good or absolute love.
Visnu, the destroyer form of God, has not such a problem at all, for instance.
Nor many other philosophical ideas of the absolute.
italianchappy 2 years ago
Those are great thoughts. Thanks for sharing them. I call myself an Atheist because I am adamantly opposed to the Abrahamic religion's interpretation of god.
We may very well discover that a superior being had a hand in planting the seed that gave birth to the cosmos. Maybe in that sense I'm Agnostic. I am sure however it was not Yahweh.
The texts that brought us today's "all mighty god" are sickening attempts by early man explain his own existence.
MeIoco 2 years ago
Yes, Meloco, we can't take any more judeo-christian religions because we live in our countries. And indeed some other far religions' ideas seem interesting. However we have never to underestimate the harm of supersitions and religions. For instance I was talking of the Hindu one. Few minutes ago I read an article. You can find it on google news putting in the form search this string:
"Indian girl beheaded by neighbour to 'help conception"
italianchappy 2 years ago
I think evolution and God could both be true, but it's fairly unlikely.
Firstly, the creation - according to the bible took 7 days, which is not a sufficient time frame for evolution to occur. Even if "days" mean thousands of years, it would still be far from possible according to our current understanding of evolution. Secondly, the Bible states that man was born in his current state, which conflicts with evolution theory. Thirdly, the fossil records would be completely different if...cont
Laurence000001 2 years ago
creationism were true, in that we should find dinosaurs next to modern day species. Essentially, God can exist along with the theory of evolution, but it then brings into question the accuracy of religious scripture.
Laurence000001 2 years ago
all scripture was written by antiquity, so it's probably only going to be as solid as the world views of those who wrote it. Still the creation story in genesis has some interesting detail. While the literal days do not work under the scrutiny of modern scientific paradigm, the creation account does have some goodies. The original hebrew was very vague because of the limitations of primitive language- -continued-
istheretruth 2 years ago
but it does however tell us that god allows the sea, and the land to bring forth life in abundance. This is an odd way of putting it. Very odd!!!! and yes it does say that god formed man and all other life from the dust of the ground... the elements that makes us up do happen to be composed of star dust. in a verse that reads, god formed man from the dust of the ground can be a shortened version of creation of life to man, -continued-
istheretruth 2 years ago
and it would technically be true. It is the breathing of life into man to become a living soul that seems to differ from the rest of the creation narrative. Still, back to god allowing the sea, and the land to bring forth life. That's an interesting concept...what would it look like if it happened?
istheretruth 2 years ago
In reading your reply to Laurence, I have to say, that you are really stretching that verse. Life from the sea and from land was a reference to animal and plant life being abundant, and that god is the reason for that. It is really stretching it to say that it jives with evolution somehow.
As for man being made of dirt, again quite a stretch. The Iron in our blood was created in the heart of a supernova. We are made of stars, not dirt. god would know this, but bronze age man would not.
MeIoco 2 years ago
LMAO...I'm not here to defend the bible as being the inerrant word of god, so you can drop all of that defensive posturing. the text says that man comes from the dust of the ground (which comes from the elements formed in stars =star dust) This is exactly what I am talking about....It's as if you fear admitting any truth in this text...and for this reason you can't be impartial while reading it. Me, I don't give a shit one way or the other if this god turns out to be for real or not.
istheretruth 2 years ago
I'm agnostic in regards to what I know...just as any honest person should be...and from there, my beliefs are aimed toward a deistic version of god (atleast in regards to the universe running by its own set up laws)
istheretruth 2 years ago
"according to the bible took 7 days, which is not a sufficient time frame for evolution to occur. " - you are talking about 2 different things. creation says god created everything as it is and created life. evolution does not say anything about how life began and it shows that there are many diverse species of organisms many of which are exinct now. they are not compatible.
errskin 2 years ago
God --vs-- a used tampon.
Evolution --vs-- your Aunt's toy chihuahua.
Used tampon --vs-- a jelly donuts laced with heroin.
Your Aunt's toy chihuahua --vs-- Mugwump jizzum ice cream cone.
Mugwump jizzum ice cream cone --vs-- a jelly donuts laced with heroin = 568 calories
studio7manga 2 years ago
why don't you suck the little curly hairs above my brown eye, you silly igmo fuck!!!!!! one more meaningless comment from you, and you will be flushed like the turd that you are..DO YOU DIG?
istheretruth 2 years ago
Lawl. Hillbillies.
studio7manga 2 years ago
bye bye turd......smackin' your ass around has become very boring to me!!!
istheretruth 2 years ago
The bible makes the Christian god incompatible with evolution.
The creation story in the bible is provably false.
MeIoco 2 years ago
NO, the misinterpretation and dogma of the various religions does that.
the creator of the universe would HAVE to be the source of order in that system, the origin of all the methods and processes in it.
it would be just as impossible for me to imagine a creator deity that was forbidden from using "natural" processes to fulfill its purposes as it would a diety immune to them.
however its this exact thing that lets science worshippers attempt to explain away various concepts of god.
cyberpsygen7 2 years ago
HUH??
Ladies and Gentlemen, please let me introduce, the greatest apologist of all times .. :
Don't play hide the deity with me, it's a cheap trick and I'm wise to it.
In the end you still believe in Yahweh. If I miss my mark and I'm wrong, you don't have any more proof than the run-of-the-mill creationist, although I still suspect you are one.
MeIoco 2 years ago
i dont take that as an insult, but i dont see how any of what you said has any revelance to my comment or the video.
cyberpsygen7 2 years ago
The genesis creation story has stuff that if it is said that they must be literally true, then yes it is provably false within' the scope of modern scientific paradigm. While I didn't single out the creation story of genesis here, it does seem to be where everyone seems to be going with this. I wonder, could you actually read the genesis 1 with an open mind, realizing that it was written by antiquity, but still not assuming the god nonexistent:? I hate to think that you lack this ability.
istheretruth 2 years ago
Sorry to disappoint you, but I DO lack the ability to read fiction and take it for fact. I also can't eat sauerkraut and make myself imagine that it's ice cream.
When I read the bible, I am continually struck by how obvious it is that the drivel was written by man.
Man created in God in his own image, not the other way around :-/
I know it's a hard pill to swallow, but just because we want something to be true, doesn't make it so. Examine The Facts.
MeIoco 2 years ago
LMAO yet again..... I don't care if its true or not, but it is obvious that you are petrified, of any possibility that it's true. You guys start ranting and raving like someone has just shot your mother, for merely suggesting that there could be some truth in the text. No offense, but people like you make me laugh, when it comes to biblical discussion. ; - ) I do not share your fear/disdain:::sorry I just don't identify.
istheretruth 2 years ago
"I don't care if its true or not"
That's pretty obvious right about now
I DO care if it's true
So yeah you should change your user name to "whocaresiftherestruth"
That would be much more fitting
MeIoco 2 years ago
lmao
you are becoming just another igmo to me Meloco...Sorry, but you misunderstand my comment to begin with. I would certainly solve the riddle of our existence if I could....If I could obtain the truth that god didn't exist, I would do so. BUT I don't hate the biblical god because I have enough depth to my thinking to know that its existence is not tied to writings by antiquity. -continued-
istheretruth 2 years ago
Just as writings about me, true or false would not be connected to the possibility of my existence. The hell shit scares you!! I get that, and I have to agree. I will tell you the obvious, but I doubt it will help your psychosis about the biblical god...... If everything written in the bible must be absolutely true, for some version of this god to exist, then this god obviously doesn't exist. -continued-
istheretruth 2 years ago
I'm sorry that you lack the mental depth to discuss this as an adult. It's as if you think that admitting any truth in biblical narrative will result in God springing out of the ground and biting your head off. I feel for you bro, confining yourself to a box, because that is no way to live your life. Try not to comment on things that you hold so emotional in the future. thank you in advance for your cooperation. ; - )
istheretruth 2 years ago
I can assure you the "igmo" feeling is mutual, and as soon as I finish this comment I'll unsubscribe from your channel. I really thought you were above throwing insults around because of your lack of material substance.
I have no deep seated fear of your god, your god does not exist, that frightens you far more than me. I'm sure. You could at some point pull your head out of your ass and ask yourself what proof there is for your god other than your sill philosophy, the answer is none.
MeIoco 2 years ago
"I have no deep seated fear of your god" this is a good display of your emotional baggage here. I haven't even said that the god exists..... You're making yourself look like a fool. "your god does not exist, that frightens you far more than me. I'm sure." not at all. The Bible is a narrative written by antiquity. LMAO Thank You for proving my point. - continued-
istheretruth 2 years ago
This is good stuff. Proof positive that you igmo's can't even carry on a conversation about the biblical god unless it's done in shared hostility. You can't even be objective about the different parts of the text, you guys are scared shittless....and the funny thing is, the god probably doesn't even exist.....and if it does exist, it probably doesn't conform exactly to the narrative. " -continued-
istheretruth 2 years ago
I really thought you were above throwing insults around because of your lack of material substance." You actually started the insults after I called your mom a whore (LMAO) Oh that's right, I didn't actually call your mom a whore, but instead I just put out a video called (evolution -vs- god) and from there you said I had no objective truth,
-continued-
istheretruth 2 years ago
contradicted yourself by saying that I ask "good questions but with obvious answers"
and then you said that I wasn't interested in truth...subtle insults ehhhhhhh
All of this set up by your own projection, -istheretruth believes in the bully god of the bible- and so you watch my words, and by golly... -continued-
istheretruth 2 years ago
'm not hostile toward the narrative, so it must be true. This is laughable bullshit. You can find truth in nearly anything...... error is pretty common as well.... You're what I would call an Anti-Religious Nut. Have a nice life!
istheretruth 2 years ago
There is nothing at all about you or your moronic proposal that scares me in the slightest. Your whole argument in the comment text is nothing but smoke and mirrors.
"duh, sure most parts of the bible are false.. duh.. but other parts might be true, duh.."
"duh I don't care about the truth duh.."
"duh.. you can find truth anywhere duh.."
"duh.. you scared duh.."
"duh.. you stupid duh..
MeIoco 2 years ago
"There is nothing at all about you or your moronic proposal that scares me in the slightest" again, as you seem a bit to thick to even follow what I said...... Obviously my proposals aren't what scares you..It's the xtian/judeo god that does that, my ideas anger you because they are not hostile toward your projected bully god.
istheretruth 2 years ago
The most hilarious thing about this, is that you end up accusing me of being incapable of forming a rational argument.
You started with the insults, not me.
You are the one putting forth arguments then refusing to defend them, not me.
You are also the one getting defensive, NOT ME
I still haven't called you any foul names.
MeIoco 2 years ago
Here's a summary for you. I put out a video that offended you, because you projected god to be the biblical god...you started dialogue on that subject....and got more offended, that I had an open mind. This led to you saying that I had no objective truth at all (which is bullshit) The fact that I did not share your view and hostility toward the xtian god angered you, and you started acting like an anti-religious douche..THE END!!
Don't waste my time with anymore of your nonsense!!
istheretruth 2 years ago