The Christian asking the atheist to bear the burden of proof sounds like a child demanding the parent prove no monster lurks under the bed. Grow up already!
@freebeing6952
7 жыл бұрын
+Largesse1000 aww. you're cute.
@TjamVideoMan
5 жыл бұрын
Especially an INVISIBLE monster!!
@guyjosephs5654
3 жыл бұрын
@Daniel Kolbin how so
@HughJaxident67
3 жыл бұрын
@Daniel Kolbin *Atheists are more irrational* Utter nonsense, it is, by definition, rational to reject a claim that is unsupported by any evidence it's remotely true.
@HughJaxident67
3 жыл бұрын
@Daniel Kolbin *"rational to reject a claim that is unsupported" that's what i'm saying, rejecting a belief of nonsense: atheism* Oh dear... Atheism doesn't make any claim pal, indeed, it is the rejection of the theistic claim any god exists because no theist has ever met their burden of proof. As you appear to be a little unclear on the subject, I'll present an analogy; George claims he has an invisible fire breathing dragon living in his garage which is undetectable by any instrumentation. His friend Brian asks him for any evidence to demonstrate his claim George cannot present any such evidence Therefore, Brian states he doesn't believe George's claim. This is analogous to the claims theists make about gods, rationality, by definition, is to believe and accept those propositions that comport with reality, that can actually be demonstrated with evidence in the real world. Brian is being rational by rejecting George's claim just as atheists are being rational in rejecting theistic claims.
@Steven-wv3qm
8 жыл бұрын
In Santa Claus we trust.
@miguelbranquinho7235
2 жыл бұрын
Santa Claus is a better God than any we can read of in the Bible.
@MRayner59
10 жыл бұрын
A better name for this program would be _The Silly Question_.
@Sparten7F4
10 жыл бұрын
Why?
@MRayner59
10 жыл бұрын
Sparten7F4 Well, perhaps I can answer _your_ question by slightly re-phrasing the premise of this particular episode: *_Is it more rational to believe in Thor?_*
@Sparten7F4
10 жыл бұрын
***** Just wanted to see you articulate your sentence and understanding for others reading
@TheClaudius07
10 жыл бұрын
***** If I went to a country of 100 million people and they all believed in Thor, then your question would actually be a very good question, "Is it more rational to believe in Thor?" .... There have been Billions of people who believe in God or gods over the centuries, so I conclude that the question is actually very relevant and well put. Just because you have answered this question for yourself, does not mean others aren't continuing their search, and for those people this question is actually not silly... Its strange because I have always been under the impression that the scientific minds, the intellectual minded, the rational ones are the people who are understanding and open minded and very scientific in their approach, but the more I read comments from atheists , I see there is more emotion, dogma , and vitriol then any of that other "stuff" I have been told about.
@MRayner59
10 жыл бұрын
TheClaudius07 As the old expression goes, it's good to be open-minded, but not so much that one's brains fall out. By your "logic" the fact that billions of people over the millennia believed (and a certain percentage continue to do so) that the sun revolves around the earth, means I should therefore be "understanding" and respectful of such idiotic views. To that, I say, poppycock!
@dewinthemorning
10 жыл бұрын
I watched this programme yesterday. Thank you for uploading it! It was really interesting.
@jimjim
10 жыл бұрын
A conundrum of religion is that as long as it remains vague in its description it may seem a viable explanation of the world but as soon as it tries to explain something it then falls apart.
@repticage
10 жыл бұрын
God does not threaten us with hell, He is perfect, sin is not. Phenomena can not live around sin so hell is the absence of God. So if you don't choose God you choose sin and sin produced hell
@MrKit9
5 жыл бұрын
Your fucking god creates original sin then say love me cause you're a sinner and if you don't you'll burn forever. that isn't love. That is a Mob Boss with a gun to your head. You are so freakin' delusional and don't know your Bible at all.
@bradhuish11
10 жыл бұрын
No it's not, how can it be more rational to believe in god then be a atheist when there is no evidence to support the existence of god. If someone was speaking into their hair dryer speaking to god and saying god was speaking to them through the hair dryer you would say they were mentally insane, take the hair dryer away and it's called praying and a person of god. WHY GIVE RELIGION THIS PRIVILEGE WHEN IT IS HOLDING MAN KIND BACK
@kevinjohnanand
7 жыл бұрын
Largesse1000 atheism has existed as long as religion has existed. stop spewing bs
@nathanmckenzie904
6 жыл бұрын
I'm going to believe in an all powerful, all knowing infinite being that lives outside of time and space. Right after I give up believing in Tinker Bell
@pkdino
6 жыл бұрын
It's all about looking for a "father". As we age and lose our father, we feel the deep need for the approval of a father figure; it is built in our social adaptation to the "pack".
@tedgrant2
3 жыл бұрын
I'd rather look for a girlfriend
@iwrotethis4712
6 жыл бұрын
Let's ask ourselves whether its rational to believe in a nonexistent
@charles-mr4oz
3 жыл бұрын
Which god
@priyanthawijayatunga624
6 жыл бұрын
You guys define rationality in scientific sense. Then you try to compare atheism and theism. This is unfair because your judgement rule is biased towards evidence-based science. This is a simple mistake. According to your discussion, it seems that scientific rationality is the best one can ever imagine
@MrKit9
5 жыл бұрын
You base you faith on absolutely nothing. You don't care about truth. You care about warm fuzzies and will never have the guts to follow truth.
@aaronmichaelwilkie9593
3 жыл бұрын
The scientific method has led to you being able to share your inane idiocy with an international audience. Science isn't perfect, but it's the best means we have of understanding the world around us for now. The beauty is that science adapts to new information. Religion is stagnant.
@garryl6594
3 жыл бұрын
It’s inconceivable that the earth was just there or that it popped into existence one day, but perfectly rational that god was there all along or popped into existence one day and then decided to create the earth. 🤪
@ratneshshrivastava6444
4 жыл бұрын
It is rational and moral to believe that our moral sense is a great gift to save not just mankind but all life. Life or living cells have a life force wanting to survive As a group humans have a moral sense wanting all humans to survive. Whether this moral sense is divine we dont know but it is moral to believe it is divine. This means that in every other individual goodness - a result of that divinity resides. If you beleive there is God inside us then you would not hate or harm the other would you? Therefore it is rational and moral, the moral angle being as important as rational.But it is also rational because moral sense or instinct prevails in us and in most of us it fights with our selfish instincts.
@owenteamtraceur
3 жыл бұрын
Either a God did it or universe popped into existence or the universe is infinite… Yep… they are the only options 🙄 the arrogance to think we have the capacity to understand any of the options. I can’t work it out… therefore God 🙄
@dirtymikentheboys5817
6 жыл бұрын
YES!!
@geoffcrumblin7505
2 жыл бұрын
All hail the holy Flying Spaghetti Monster (pasta be his name)
@brianlaudrupchannel
9 жыл бұрын
The concept of God makes no sense to me at all
@drrsundarraj
8 жыл бұрын
. +billyblackburn87 To understand god we have to lead a life with automatic / involuntary force. An Atheist converts the involuntary force into voluntary / manual force, which he uses for executing actions. This is the analogy of a person taking and giving money through cheques (Theist) and another person taking and giving money as cash (Atheist). For a person who always transacts in cash, a cheque is just a useless piece of paper.
@brianlaudrupchannel
7 жыл бұрын
***** a magical being that no one can see. ye okay lol
@drrsundarraj
7 жыл бұрын
billyblackburn87 God is a mechanism based on isometric contraction. Isometric contraction can be felt and can't be seen. God need not be magical. Normally, god will have the same properties as that of god. According to Hinduism, 'I am the supreme god'. However, god in this mode is absolutely reliable and can be understood completely. The other reason for the ability to understand god in this mode is that in this mode we can use both the automatic and the manual forces simultaneously and therefore, we can observe with the manual force what the automatic force does. When we use god for amplifying our power then god does become supernatural. This is the god of the Theist. We can't understand god in this mode because it is not very reliable. In this mode we will have just the automatic force and will lack the manual force necessary for observing what the automatic force does. This enables Non believers to easily disprove god in this mode. They never dare to write about god in normal mode.
@brianlaudrupchannel
7 жыл бұрын
Rangaswamy Sundar raj evidence.....
@drrsundarraj
7 жыл бұрын
billyblackburn87 All the Non believers take the literal meanings of verses of scriptures to prove that a god based on the literal meanings of verses of scriptures can't exist and can't be understood. The 320 pairs of muscles in our body can isometrically unify into a single muscle. The unified muscle converts an idea into an action in seven stages. All verses of scriptures are about this seven stage conversion of an idea into an action. Purusha Sukta (Rig Veda 10.90) is actually about the properties of the isometrically synchronized and unified muscle. If we take the literal meaning of the 10.90-1 it would mean that Purusha / unified muscle has thousand heads, thousand eyes and thousand feet. Definitely we can't take its literal meaning. The actual meaning is that we think with the unified muscle, feel with the unified muscle and execute movements with the unified muscle. Any one can unify the 320 pairs of muscles in his body and understand the properties of the unified muscle and also how verses of scriptures are written. Non believers don't want this they want to SEE the proof. They can't be convinced that isometric contraction can't be seen and yet it can control movements. What all they want is to prove by hook or crook that god doesn't exists.
@rmcd823
6 жыл бұрын
Exactly. It is rational to believe in God. Absolutely.
@MrKit9
5 жыл бұрын
Only someone with a serious mental illness would say that.
@Paul-ts5qw
3 жыл бұрын
Brainwashed.
@gratefulapostate3123
9 жыл бұрын
Sure. Why not. I don't think that people should require evidence to believe in anything, which is why I believe everything people tell me. Although I am a little disappointed in the tooth fairy and the easter bunny. They seem to have lost my address since I turned thirty.
@TjamVideoMan
5 жыл бұрын
Actually, I’ve heard goddites say exactly that!
@roybradshaw4252
5 жыл бұрын
when we are faced with death we turn to god why perhaps we dont want to die some soldiers cry out for thier mother they want to feel love so is god love
@TjamVideoMan
5 жыл бұрын
ROY BRADSHAW . LOVE is love...
@tedgrant2
3 жыл бұрын
Very funny. Keep up the good work.
@valroniclehre193
3 жыл бұрын
@@roybradshaw4252 Why do believers spend so little time proof reading? I ask because clearly you are the authority. Also everything you said was wrong.
@RichD2024
6 жыл бұрын
While I understand someone wanting to believe that there is order or purpose to the universe, and I understand having that curiosity, I don't understand how that can translate into accepting ideas that were clearly created by primitive, superstitious, ignorant, misogynist men. When I hear the religious apologist speak on shows like these, they act as if those two things are one in the same. I've read the Bible and the Qu'ran, and how anyone can read those text and deduce that they could only have been written and inspired by the creator of the universe is absurd to me. Those text reflect the very ideas I would expect from men living in those era: heavy emphasis on tribalism, illnesses and plagues are "curses" or "divine punishment", superstition and belief in cursed objects, heavy emphasis on ritual, women are second-class citizens whose main purpose in life is child bearing, etc. None of those are remotely close to anything I would imagine an advanced intelligence would concern itself with, much less a being intelligent enough to create all of existence. The idea that those men, with their superstition, and lack of anything that resembles a scientific process, those men had the ear of the creator of the universe, in a time where there was no process for falsifying claims, there was no process for searching for evidence, but now that we have science, reason, philosophy, God doesn't bother showing his face... how utterly convenient for religion don't you think? If you think there may be purpose to existence, why not use the tools of reason, and science to try to get close to answering those profound questions, and leave those "holy books" and their ideas where they belong, in the historical fiction section of the library.
@MaccaLives
7 жыл бұрын
I love how theists will say it's impossible for the universe to be eternal, yet they have no quarrels with the idea of an eternal deity. If one can exist without beginning or end, then why can't the other?
@tedgrant2
3 жыл бұрын
Perhaps they haven't joined the dots.
@jasonbyrne8487
2 жыл бұрын
Irritating, isn't it, this is why I will openly and relentlessly mock and ridicule anyone who mentions their god or religion to me...
@PantheraTK
2 жыл бұрын
Because God is eternal and uncreated.
@tiffsaver
Жыл бұрын
EXCELLENT question, ML. I enjoy answers that are probing, that challenge the mind, as does yours.
@jeggerjackkuchiki6792
Жыл бұрын
first of all the scientists admitted that our universe is on a constant expantion ,it it all begun from one dot that started to expend endlessly also known as the big bang . big bang which is also mentionned in the holy books btw as the" black hole" . and the reason what makes me believe in god is because randomness doesn't give any organisation about anything and randomness alone can't spawn life from micro organisms . if that's the case why aren't we seeing more life spawning ? why aren't we seeing more dinosaures and megalodons coming to life ? and more importantly why randomness made males and females ? does randomness has the intelligence to think about reproduction ? and soon as all the species were able to reproduce ,life stopped from spawning by itself. what are the odds of all this happening by pure luck ? the whole humanity actually have more chances to win the lottery than all these phenomenons to happen close to each others and the reason why i believe in religions it's because of the dates 2023,1440 .nobody came up with theories about these ,they were always known as the births of prophets jesus and mohammed . but i also believe that they were edited by humans so am simply a deist a believer of god .
@grahamash-porter7795
10 жыл бұрын
Pascals wager is a total fail, because if you worship the wrong god, you're still bound for hell!
@TheClaudius07
10 жыл бұрын
1/10 chances ... is better then 0 /10 .. id say ...
@Sparten7F4
10 жыл бұрын
TheClaudius07 And yet the BS Pascal's wager is till BS because any deity would know you only pretend to believe to save your own ass
@TheClaudius07
10 жыл бұрын
Sparten7F4 yea, nevertheless , that doesn't mean the Deity won't let you in heaven. You might not get the best seat, but its a better seat then if you didn't believe at all and were blasphemous your entire life. And plus, all the good works and all that count too, right? i still think pascal's wager is statistically sound.
@Sparten7F4
10 жыл бұрын
TheClaudius07 Then me having saved 35 people from committing suicide shoud make me fuckin' equal to any Christian.
@jayd4ever
10 жыл бұрын
well that depends what you believe in
@tjazzmcneil5514
8 жыл бұрын
Wow, I've never felt so smart. How can theists use these ridiculous arguments to support their faith?
@tjazzmcneil5514
7 жыл бұрын
***** It's not arrogant to recognize something.
@hahmed6209
2 жыл бұрын
Theists are soft in the head,
@biggregg5
9 жыл бұрын
If someone thinks it is more rational to believe in a god, then they have no concept of what being rational is.
@biggregg5
Жыл бұрын
@Kool_Kat Yep....they were growing out of the extreme nonsense of theism. Maybe you should too. I've missed you, moron. Where have you been?
@cmdmd
9 жыл бұрын
It's an oxymoron to try to reconcile reason and logic with religion and theistic beliefs. Those beliefs require a suspension of reason, logic and critical thinking.
@akilbryan8937
6 жыл бұрын
Theism itself relies on claims that no-one can prove intellectually. What concerns me is that people try to intellectually argue against Science but dismiss Science intellectually disproving superstition. Noone in this day and age in their right mind would dismiss the germ theory and microbiology to say that demons and witchcraft cause diseases, yet the development of superbugs, such as MRSA, prove natural selection, a cornerstone of evolutionary biology.
@havenbastion
3 жыл бұрын
Theism is attempting to explain the impossible in terms of the improbable.
@matthewmayhem9213
5 жыл бұрын
Here's a question: is it more rational to love a fictional character over your own living flesh and blood child? My mother told me just yesterday during an argument that, "God is more important to me than you are, and I gave up on you 2 years ago." Is that rational?
@vladimirputin8285
2 жыл бұрын
No not in any way. But I think that was only anger. Your mom must be loving you a lot.
@incredibleXMan
10 жыл бұрын
I can't believe this is up for debate.
@stephanwilliams8082
8 жыл бұрын
It is childish to believe in fictional beings.
@Mendokusai99
10 жыл бұрын
Is it rational to believe in any of the other supernatural things that humans have envisioned over time?
@tiffsaver
9 жыл бұрын
Rationality and Religion are mutually exclusive.
@nathanmckenzie904
4 жыл бұрын
Mostly but not entirely
@Freethinkingtheist77
4 жыл бұрын
A blunt statement is not the same as an argument.
@tiffsaver
4 жыл бұрын
@@Freethinkingtheist77 Spoken like a true religious fanatic...
@Freethinkingtheist77
4 жыл бұрын
@@tiffsaver Lots of needless insulting and still no argument. Its a shame. Still, I don't engage with name calling so will simply wish you a good day.
@tiffsaver
4 жыл бұрын
@@Freethinkingtheist77 Since when is the term "religious fanatic" insulting, when the term is not only not obscene, but totally accurate?? You're so transparently, obviously a hardcore Christian, that it's palpable. If I'm wrong on this, just let me know, and I'll turn your comments into the "argument" you so dearly want. I'll be waiting...
@Tr3Vel0cita
10 жыл бұрын
Part 2/4: Is it more rational to believe in God? (2/4)
@smith6907
3 жыл бұрын
which of the 3000 gods should i believe in then?
@Paul-ts5qw
3 жыл бұрын
There's alot more than that lol just pick your favourite. I like Thor because he has a big hammer. I like hammers. May Thor be with you.
@JohnGibarian
5 жыл бұрын
rationale is reason manifest, religion is ignorance manifest. We just have better answers based on stoic philosophy and scientific proof which provides the logic for those answers. We're so much better than religion these days, I'm a humanist and I help out my fellow man because I want to help our species thrive in the universe beyond my years.
@tedgrant2
3 жыл бұрын
I really hope I get to see Jesus when I go to Heaven. But I don't expect to spend much time talking to him. Behind me will be millions of people waiting to see him too. "Oy vey ist mir ! Hurry up already !" says a Hebrew, a long way back in the queue.
@freebeing6952
8 жыл бұрын
Christians put me in mind of ventriloquists who believe their puppets are real.
@nektekket852
3 жыл бұрын
Short answer, no. Long answer, noooooooooooooooo.
@TjamVideoMan
5 жыл бұрын
9:59 - She is basically saying “rational” is based on culture... That is NORMAL not rational! Rational should be based on evidence and logic regardless of culture - but of course some do base their “rational” thinking on what around them consider to be NORMAL! . But SCIENCE is the exact same entity regardless of culture because it is based on EVIDENCE and LOGIC! A car works the same way regardless of what someone like her would call “rational”. An airplane too only does flight successfully because of EVIDENCE and LOGIC, regardless of the culture of the people who made it. And regardless of what people think is normal...
@evidencebased1
8 жыл бұрын
Atheism is the rejection of believe in the existence in deities. I wish that the moderators in debates would get the distinction and not keep bringing up agnostic. Agnostic is just an adjective that says that the atheist does not claim absolute knowledge. You could call yourself an agnostic atheist, but it would be fine to just drop the agnostic adjective since it does not really add much to the description. Any gnostic atheists out there? I don't know any. ;)
@drrsundarraj
8 жыл бұрын
+evidencebased1 Atheism is undefined way of life based on manual / voluntary force. It is a way of survival outside the society. It has not role to play in the society. According to Atheism a god based on literal meaning of god can't exist. According to Agnostics a god based on the literal meaning of verses of scriptures can't be understood. Under ideal conditions we don't need a god. Atheism is based on the assumption that the conversion is true i.e. if we don't don't use a god then life becomes idea!
@picitnew
6 жыл бұрын
+ Rangaswamy Sundar raj *_"It is a way of survival outside the society. It has not role to play in the society. "_* In my country most people are atheist so your word salad doesn't make any sense. *_"According to Atheism a god based on literal meaning of god can't exist."_* Which God? Sorry, but your are not making any sense at all.
@jonfromtheuk467
6 жыл бұрын
Its painfully simple. Atheism is simply the response to a single claim i.e. that god or gods do exist. The atheist says he/she is unconvinced . Gnosticism and agnosticism are derived from Gnosis the Greek for knowledge . Thus gnosticism deals with what you know and Theism deals with what you believe. So its fine to be an agnostic theist - someone who doesnt claim to know a god exists, but believes they so.
@akilbryan8937
6 жыл бұрын
Atheists go one God further than monotheists. Monotheists reject the massive pantheon of gods developed throughout history in favour of one God. One cannot say "prove the scientific interpretation of nature" and then retreat to the line "my holy book tells me" when the counterargument is offered. It's like playing chess but moving the king 16 spaces in one move. It's a non sequitur.
@doncriddik7773
7 жыл бұрын
Is it Rational to believe in God? How is this even a question? There is absolutely NOTHING rational about believing in something without evidence. It is the most irrational thing possible.
@jeffgibons1540
6 жыл бұрын
Its not more rational because it is just an unprovable story
@crazyprayingmantis5596
7 жыл бұрын
Is it more rational to believe in fairies?
@iainhartshorne9001
3 жыл бұрын
Religion does not lead the way on matters of morality, sustainability or political stability. It trails behind and has done for thousands of years. Everytime a seismic shift towards a better world occurs it happens because some trailblazer makes it happen, usually to the displeasure of various religions. What after all is the Christian church doing about climate change? The pope could say something like "go forth and insulate your home's and invest in green energy" which would have a greater impact than the current COP summit but he never will, at least not until it's 500 years too late. Therefore I would say no, it is not more rational to believe in God.
@billmcdonald4335
3 жыл бұрын
Reply to ol' Blaise: what if I'm play-acting at worshipping the wrong god, smart guy? Until that lot can agree what the heck the very _concept_ of god is, it's hardly worth taking seriously, now is it?
@Dai-koku
2 жыл бұрын
Believe in God because you do not loose anything if he exists, have nothing to do with rational. This is pure conformity.
@richardmorley7439
3 жыл бұрын
God is perfect so why does he watch young children die there's a name for that and its not perfect 1000 gods you pick one
@zapkvr
2 жыл бұрын
Its not about wagering. That's not how it works. You need to look at the evidence
@nigelbowsin6029
10 жыл бұрын
if this "god" does exist why do people think its so great :S
@tommym321
Жыл бұрын
4:10 I began as an atheist..” no. No you didn’t and if you did, you didn’t understand it
@theyatter
2 жыл бұрын
Goodness, Dr McGrath - That entire word salad and not one crouton of substance
@jimvanlint8043
Жыл бұрын
No wonder confidence tricksters are still able to make a good living
@bellywood7688
Жыл бұрын
Who believes that you can CHOOSE what to believe?
@gavrilopricip11
5 жыл бұрын
And gremlins,hobbits,unicorns,ogres,dragons,lochness, live Elvis ...
@nathanmckenzie904
5 жыл бұрын
I saw elvis in las vegas last week. checkmate atheists
@gavrilopricip11
5 жыл бұрын
nathan mckenzie was he on Celin Dions pet rainbow unicorn?
@gavrilopricip11
5 жыл бұрын
nathan mckenzie didn’t have my glasses I read :you saw evil in vegans !!(witch makes a lot of sense!)
@nathanmckenzie904
5 жыл бұрын
@@gavrilopricip11 LOL..
@anton1949
5 жыл бұрын
Belief is not a choice, one cannot to choose to believe in God no more than you can choose to love someone. Its something inside of you.
@matthewtenney2898
5 жыл бұрын
It is inside, i.e. in the unconscious mind, but it can become known. We unconsciously form our beliefs to support our goals in life. Beliefs flow naturally from our desire to reach a goal that we think will make us happy. If we honestly ask ourselves what we are seeking in life, we'll come to know and understand our beliefs.
@anton1949
5 жыл бұрын
@@matthewtenney2898 No, beliefs cannot become known. I don't believe I'm typing this on a keyboard I know I am.
@tedgrant2
3 жыл бұрын
You are right. But we can choose to investigate. Did you know that Olive Oyl has a cousin named Caster Oyl ? Did you know that Popeye was created AFTER Olive Oyl ?
@PBMS123
5 жыл бұрын
Pascals wager whilst it looks good for christians when you extend it properly, comes out that being an atheist gives the least bad result. Because you can't just apply pascals wage to christianity and atheism. It applies to all religions. And I would argue also that surely a person who believes in god when there is no god does lose a significant portion of their life and choices through their belief, and on top of that, should they be wrong about their choice of religion, then they would also lose quite a lot as well, as if there are gods as equally narcissistic as the christian one, then surely if they believe in the christian god, but it is the Muslim god, or another god that does not like you believing in any other god, would surely send you to hell.
@huepix
3 жыл бұрын
More rational than what? Believing in leprechauns? Believing in political promises? Believing in gravity? And still, no one defines what god is
@profdadzie4388
5 жыл бұрын
There is a God in heaven. The Holy Spirit of God is still with us on earth. If you seek Him (The Holy Spirit), He will come into your heart and then you will know that God exists. You people should be very careful about this thing. God almighty exists.
@stevecoley8365
6 жыл бұрын
Is it more rational to believe in love (god). Light and warmth that makes life grow and "creates" free clean energy called "joy". Or is it more rational to worship "greed" (absence of love) which transforms joy, beauty and harmony into misery, ugliness and conflict. Love is the "truth". Greed is light years beyond really super stupid. It is "ignorant".
@jimjim
10 жыл бұрын
First, what particular belief are we talking about? What do you mean by 'god'? There have been 1,000's of gods defined in all sorts of ways throughout history that to ask or try to answer a question such as do you believe in a god is meaningless. What if I believe in the god of the Muslims but when I die I have to explain myself to the god of the Persians?
@AllHailDiskordia
10 жыл бұрын
Simple answer: No.
@flor06221
5 жыл бұрын
You dont need to be rational to believe science, you just have to accept what they say. Unless you yourself is the scientist making rational conclusions of your studies. All religions must be rational, believers must be rational not fanatical or superstitious on their beliefs. Faith seeking understanding, should be the aim of every believer. Fanatics in religious belief and fanatics to science, that is accepting doctrines or theories without understanding, is lacking in rationality and even inhuman.
@rationalsceptic7634
4 жыл бұрын
Vitale is wrong: He is conflating Authenticity with Credibility! Why does the miraculous have to be divine??
@Rico-Suave_
2 жыл бұрын
watched all of it
@jayd4ever
10 жыл бұрын
I wouldn't say it is fully rational but I wouldn't say it is bad either if you follow it in the right now depending on what religion it is
@KenMerrell
5 жыл бұрын
Something that can't be defined can't be rational. The word "God" is so operationally meaningless.
@Rico-Suave_
2 жыл бұрын
amazing show
@christentum2088
3 жыл бұрын
It's NOT! Period.
@RealLife-dp9dd
4 жыл бұрын
Is it me or is it true that after you listen to Hitchens you just simply cannot agree with any thiest i dont want to sound rude but it hs like going in circles
@goattm2
3 жыл бұрын
How come there are never any miracles in the modern age? Why are they all from centuries ago before science became a thing?
@anton1949
4 жыл бұрын
You cant say I believe starting right now, you either believe or you don't, its not a choice.
@skumarnarzary402
4 жыл бұрын
Nothing is as irrational as belief in God. God and religion are the handiwork of the cunning persons.
@TalkSteer
6 жыл бұрын
i wonder what the dinosaurs did to piss god off that he erased em just like that to make a race of creatures who are waaaaay worse than what they were
@TjamVideoMan
5 жыл бұрын
Rational and Reasonable are two words NOT found in the Buy-bull!
@bensintes3745
9 жыл бұрын
In this day and age one can believe in anything, its the one true get out of jail card....
@jpgduff
4 жыл бұрын
No. No it is not.
@Freethinkingtheist77
4 жыл бұрын
Julian Baggini is a very eloquent and reasonable atheist - as a Christian I love to listen to him. In his opening comments however, when he is describing an objective observer of the universe with no prior influences, the history of humankind shows that he is wrong - people will infer something supernatural because they have! I think what he is doing is unintentionally providing the objective observer with the glasses of modern day materialism to look through. This is a lesson that none of us (and I include myself as a Christian) will ever look at things purely objectively. Edit: Just read down the comment section below - its filled with people who think that name-calling and insults are somehow valuable arguments. Ignorance mixed with self-congratulation is the reason I normally avoid online discussions.
@HughJaxident67
3 жыл бұрын
How anyone with any intellect, a half decent grasp of morality and logic can believe the god of the OT exists is beyond ridiculous.
@repticage
10 жыл бұрын
God** not phenomena lol and you may not think your choosing sin even tho you deny God. I'm saying your choosing the world and worldly things, but a lot of the worldly things are sinful. I'm not saying im perfect, but I am saved and believed Jesus died on the cross for our sins and he conquered hell for us so we would not have to spend an eternity in hell. Because Jesus died for us we can ask Him for forgiveness and He will forgive you. You just have to ask :)
@MrKit9
5 жыл бұрын
Jesus sucks donkey dick and your think nor-existent gods rule the universe. What a fucking loser.
@michaeljameson6468
2 жыл бұрын
No
@stonehengemaca
3 жыл бұрын
No
@shinobi-no-bueno
3 жыл бұрын
Magic Man is *NEVER* the more rational position lolol
@joelm6780
5 жыл бұрын
No. Next question
@침돌이-m9p
7 жыл бұрын
High quiality debates...
@zatoichiable
6 жыл бұрын
Allah is worshipped by freedom. Denying Him is worshipping Him.
@nathanmckenzie904
6 жыл бұрын
Your entire sentence is nonsensical, Islam is based on submission to Allah's will.
@MrKit9
5 жыл бұрын
Islam is the most primitive, barbaric, violent religion on the planet. It should be stomped out.
@Paul-ts5qw
3 жыл бұрын
Islam isn't even original. Your religion copied christianity. Both are as ridiculous as each other.
@MisterDoctorE
10 жыл бұрын
No!
@Iamrightyouarewrong
5 жыл бұрын
No.
@generouspeasant
6 жыл бұрын
No
@cBearTV-
5 жыл бұрын
So more crime where there's more religion...yep makes sense it would be more socially acceptable to say Jesus forgives you and also others around you encouraged to forgive sinner's!!!
@anton1949
5 жыл бұрын
Being Agnostic is the "rational" answer, because no one knows for sure if there is a God.
@nathanmckenzie904
5 жыл бұрын
agnosticism is a different question
@anton1949
5 жыл бұрын
@@nathanmckenzie904 "believe" is the keyword in the sentence. That's why I said being agnostic is the rational choice. Just like everyone on the planet you don't know. Believing and knowing are two very different things.
@nathanmckenzie904
5 жыл бұрын
@@anton1949 neither are mutually exclusive. You can both know and believe..or not
@Trampflick
10 жыл бұрын
A very intriguing debate. I found the Agnostic's point interesting, I have not heard that point of view before. Part 1/4...does that mean this programs back to an hour long?
@vfta7906
4 жыл бұрын
They constantly forget about Occams Razor.
@GebreMMII
3 жыл бұрын
If Occam’s razor were true, you wouldn’t object to God being the answer for everything
@vfta7906
3 жыл бұрын
@@GebreMMII no that’s not right at all, Occams razor is about using the fewest assumptions to answer a question, what has more assumptions than God did it?
@GebreMMII
3 жыл бұрын
@@vfta7906 no offense, but i think you answered your own question. if i read it correctly. respectfully.
@vfta7906
3 жыл бұрын
@@GebreMMII respectfully you didn’t. God did it makes far more assumptions than anything else.
@GebreMMII
3 жыл бұрын
@@vfta7906 can you explain how? im honestly curious.
@alishaukat9174
3 жыл бұрын
If there is no God and religion, then how will we defend morality some of which is universal?
@HughJaxident67
3 жыл бұрын
*If there is no God and religion, then how will we defend morality some of which is universal?* Why do universal concepts of morality mean any god is involved exactly?
@HughJaxident67
Жыл бұрын
@Kool_Kat *Without God morality becomes just another subjective aspect of culture liable to change* Ignoring the fact there is absolutely zero objective evidence any god has ever existed, you theists are relying on the opinion of this god of yours with respect to morality which necessarily makes your position equally subjective. And if one simply observes the supposed behaviour of this god according to the Bible, then your concept of morality necessarily accepts that genocide, infanticide, conquest rape and slavery is acceptable. Morality is subjective and through the study of anthropology and behavioural sciences. we understand why moral systems developed and guess what? It had nothing to do with any deity! *His point is that morality will become flexible without God* False. We are beings that possess empathy and a universal understanding of well being. We can define well being via fundamental tenets such as 'life being preferable to death', health preferable to sickness', pleasure preferable to pain' etc. We can then make assessment on actions with these tenets as the benchmarks to establish if said action is moral, immoral or amoral. It is the basis of a moral system and one that has been evolving for millennia. *You have no objective reason to say that rape, murder, theft, is immoral without God* False, I have a qualified reason to state these actions are immoral as they all negatively impact the well being of an individual - again, no requirement for any god. *This is all in the TAG argument btw* I know and it fails for several reasons. Refer to the site 'useofreason' and the article 'The limitations of Transcendental Arguments'
@HughJaxident67
Жыл бұрын
@Kool_Kat "Ignoring the fact there is absolutely zero objective evidence any god has ever existed" *No, there may be little to no physical evidence God exists, but that's not the same as saying objective* I repeat, there is not 'little' evidence a god exists, there is ZERO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE any god has ever existed. Objective evidence can be tested and verified - there has never been any such test that has confirmed any god has existed. Indeed, this god of yours is indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist. "relying on the opinion of this god of yours with respect to morality which necessarily makes your position equally subjective" *You don't seem to grasp what I'm saying* I'd argue it's you not grasping what's being said. *The "rule book" of every religion is a set of unchangeable rules given by a divine source which presents itself as objective/universal* Which is irrelevant! It is still subjective to what this divine source asserts and is therefore, subjective by definition. You can claim it's some kind of ultimate moral position but that's only because your religions claims this is the case. Moreover, you've cited this is 'rule book' of every religion all of which claim their deity/deities represent the objective and universal position on morality - can you see the issues here? *You can claim that someone is using subjective feeling to believe in a certain moral code, but the moral code is still universal, they believe that everyone should adhere to the rules* No, I am claiming that the morality you claim is universal and objective remains a subjective opinion of the god you worship. *In leaving the belief of God you leave universal morality behind* False. I've never required any god to be a moral agent and I've already explained why this is the case. All you're doing here is making a baseless claim. *The only morality you would have would be the morality of your culture, which is subject to change, or your individual morals which are incredibly subject to change* Did you fail to read my reply as this sentence above would indicate you paid zero attention to what I posted! I presented the framework for an evolved and evolving moral systems based on well being which, by definition, is NOT 'incredibly subject to change'. *Everyone is free to determine what they think is good/evil* You appear to still think that unless you believe in god, the individual's concept of morality is completely random. To repeat, I have already explained this is not the case. We are social mammals, we need to cooperate in our social contracts with one another. We are also beings with empathy and a shared view of what well being entails. This provides us with UNIVERSAL building blocks to develop moral systems (which is precisely what we've done through our development over the millennia). Finally, the concept of 'evil' is a religious construct with its associated supernatural baggage, so is a term I do not recognise. There are only moral, immoral and amoral actions. "And if one simply observes the supposed behaviour of this god according to the Bible, then your concept of morality necessarily accepts that genocide, infanticide, conquest rape and slavery is acceptable. " *Yes, but I would add the caveat of the inherent limited understanding of God* Oh, that's a very convenient excuse isn't it! I thought you said that a belief in god allows us to understand what is a moral action? If we fail to understand god then you're in no position to make any claim associated with said god with any certitude are you? (And that includes moral assessments). *I'm also not sure how many of those are circumstantial vs universal, for example God saying that the "genocide, infanticide, conquest rape and slavery" of a specific person or group of people does not mean that they are universally accepted* Some were universal and enshrined in Mosaic law, some were simply specific instructions given by god to his chosen tribe. *For instance, if God condemned a criminal to be killed, you could through your vague phrasing present it as "murder is acceptable"* That's nothing but a straw man. Please note the specific examples I provided. Genocide - god murdered the entire planet except for one family he deemed 'righteous'. Infanticide - see the aforementioned genocide and add to this the murder of all Egypt's first born because the Pharaoh irked him (how very moral....), Conquest rape - god gave his tribe instructions to kill everyone in the cities they conquered but that the men could keep all the women who were virgins and finally, slavery is regulated and codified in Mosaic law. None of this is 'vague' is it! "We can define well being via fundamental tenets such as 'life being preferable to death', health preferable to sickness', pleasure preferable to pain' etc." *No one kills to advance their aims? No one poisons an enemy? No one wants to inflict pain on others?* And guess what? Using the universal definitions of well being, all your examples above conflict with the concept of well being and are therefore IMMORAL actions! That's the very point!!!! *On what basis do you make any of these claims, life is good, heath is good, pleasure is good?* I didn't say this did I? I actually said 'life being preferable to death', health preferable to sickness', pleasure preferable to pain'. Are you contesting that these three tenets are not the accepted norms? Are you suggesting that sickness is preferable to health? Or that death is preferable to life? I make these claims/assessment because they are universally agreed upon by 99.99% of people in the world aren't they!! *Define what a fundamental tenet is and you prove how subjective your morality really is because it will be your words and your justification* I've already defined what a fundamental tenet is and I've qualified why such tenets are universally accepted. And when we all subjectively agree on such tenets, then we have an OBJECTIVE basis to evaluate actions! "False, I have a qualified reason to state these actions are immoral as they all negatively impact the well being of an individual - again, no requirement for any god." *What made you qualified? Who defines what negative/bad impact is from a positive/good impact?* The qualification relates to universally accepted tenets as I have repeatedly explained now. And we ALL define well being for what it is as we all share the same reality with the same capacity to feel pain and suffer from sickness. And for the most part, we are all beings with empathy. None of these things require any god or any appeal to any deity.
@HughJaxident67
Жыл бұрын
@Kool_Kat Part 1 *Numerous logic proofs already exist* No they don't. I've already referred to a paper on why TAG fails. There are also many papers on all supposed logical arguments for gods and why they fail via fallacious reasoning. This is really simple, any logical argument has to be both valid and sound to be considered necessarily true. No logical argument for god ticks both these boxes, some are valid in structure, however, they are not 'sound' as the premises cannot be demonstrated to be true. "Which is irrelevant! It is still subjective to what this divine source asserts and is therefore, subjective by definition. You can claim it's some kind of ultimate moral position but that's only because your religion claims this is the case. Moreover, you've cited this is 'rule book' of every religion all of which claim their deity/deities represent the objective and universal position on morality - can you see the issues here?" *I even gave you wiggle room in trying to frame all religions together and you still didn't grasp it* Yes I did and please don't patronise me by projecting your issues with comprehension onto me. *The divine source presents morality in a universal manner. I already stated that a person can subjectively believe in the rule book but the rule book is still seen as objective* No, that's the claim absent of any evidence it's actually true. Moreover, you referred that all religions propose this 'universal morality' which is internally contradictory unless every single religions espouses the identical concepts of morality (which we know is false). Lastly, this 'rule book' (which is normally the holy book of said religion), was written by men claiming it contains the words of a god or inspired as such. It also claims that this god states that this same book relates his universal pronouncements on morality (which is this god's opinion and therefore remains SUBJECTIVE). You see, I do NOT consider any of these holy books to contain objective perfect moral pronouncements, indeed, many of these pronouncements are demonstrably immoral. *This really comes into play later when you try rationalizing morality by creating a rule book* Which I didn't. You see, holy books present a god's moral pronouncements, a secular morality present a moral system which can be improved and refined over time. "That's nothing but a straw man. Please note the specific examples I provided. Genocide - god murdered the entire planet except for one family he deemed 'righteous'. Infanticide - see the aforementioned genocide and add to this the murder of all Egypt's first born because the Pharaoh irked him (how very moral....), Conquest rape - god gave his tribe instructions to kill everyone in the cities they conquered but that the men could keep all the women who were virgins and finally, slavery is regulated and codified in Mosaic law. None of this is 'vague' is it! " *Very funny in the fact that you did not actually provide specific examples in your initial remark and then actually prove what I already attributed to your claim by listing off the circumstances and how they aren't universal* I'm afraid this is more of your lack of comprehension again. Mosaic law was necessarily meant to be universal laws and commandments for god's chosen tribe. It was universal BY DEFINITION! As slavery was also codified in Exodus and Leviticus, this was also a UNIVERSAL dictate. How much more specific do you need it to be? Or is this, as I suspect, nothing but obfuscation? *God commits genocide by flood, but nowhere is genocide called for or seen as good for humans to do* But god is the universal arbiter of perfect morality according to you, so any of his actions must be good. Furthermore, God specifically instructs his tribe to enact genocide. Of course, considering this god is allegedly perfectly moral, then his instruction must be necessarily good by definition too. Do you want me to provide you chapter and verse concerning example of genocide in the bible? *Infanticide for the special case of Pharaoh and the first born children of Egypt, nowhere is it saying the killing of children is good or acceptable for humans to do* So, 'do as I say, not as I do?' You see, this doesn't work either if you claim god is perfectly moral as this necessarily means his actions must be optimally moral. It's just one issue after another isn't it! Now, please explain to me how murdering children because the Pharaoh annoyed god is remotely moral? You're free to refer to the holy book you believe is objectively moral to assist you in answering the question. *Conquest rape, again circumstantial relating to specific tribes/cities, not universal* LOL How does that ever excuse it? I'm pretty sure the raped women didn't simply shrug their shoulders and say 'hey, it's circumstantial so it's ok'.
@HughJaxident67
Жыл бұрын
@Kool_Kat Part 1 *You're right that none of it is vague, but you are intentionally viewing these as universal because it seems absurd to do so* Two of the examples I provided were universal, one was a specific event and the the other a repeated instruction from this god. Codification necessarily means universal, which means slavery was a universal ruling by this god. We could also refer to the fact a raped woman was obliged to marry her assailant, that unruly children be stoned to death, that Homosexuals should be executed and that sorcerers be burnt to death. All part of Mosaic law and all horrendously immoral. *You also proved the "strawman" correct jej* No I didn't (as explained above) and a straw man can never be 'correct' as it's a fallacious argument. "Are you contesting that these three tenets are not the accepted norms?" *And right here you point out the flaw in your entire argument. All of those are accepted norms by the majority, but norms are liable to change* There is no flaw in my argument and to underline this, please tell me a time in our history when 'death was preferable to life', 'pain preferable to pleasure or lack of pain' or sickness being preferable to health? These are universally accepted tenets throughout history and there's no reason to think any of them will change is there! "I make these claims/assessment because they are universally agreed upon by 99.99% of people in the world aren't they!!" *This isn't objective in any way btw. If 99.99% of people say blue is the best color does that mean it's true? You're using an appeal to popularity for morality jej* I'm afraid it is objective as you could poll 1000 people and get an objective response and it would by pretty much every single person if not all of them (assuming they are of sound mind). Your analogy concerning blue is asinine as it's based on personal preference whereas secular morality is based on universally shared concepts of well being. So no, I am certainly not appealing to 'popularity'. "I've already defined what a fundamental tenet is and I've qualified why such tenets are universally accepted." *They aren't universally acceptable or else we wouldn't have murderers, rapists, and thieves. "I've already defined", okay what if someone else defines them differently?* They ARE universally accepted and to underline my point, please be my guest, you get a pen and paper and ask 1000 people if they prefer life over death or health over sickness and see what response you get. Moreover, we are discussing what is a genuine concept of morality, not that immoral actions happen, so why mention 'murderers, rapists, and thieves?' A secular moral system defines all of these actions as immoral because all of them compromise the well being of another person. Moving on, why would someone define them differently and on what basis? Please tell me what else (other than well being), we could construct a moral system on? *At the first disagreement on morality your system falls apart because you've made the individual the arbitrator on what is good/bad* Where would the disagreement come from on the secular moral system I have offered? We may be individuals but we share some UNIVERSAL and homogeneous traits. Empathy is one, well being is another. So, once again, this is no longer a subjective issue. As I've said before, we can make objective assessments based on these universal tenets on well being. It's not rocket science and secular moral systems have been studied and proposed for a long time in philosophy. "And when we all subjectively agree on such tenets, then we have an OBJECTIVE basis to evaluate actions!" *I think this is non sequitur* You think wrong. You see, everyone will subjectively agree to the tenets I've alluded to which as a whole then necessarily translates to an objective standard. We can then make objective assessments on any action taken. "And we ALL define well being for what it is as we all share the same reality with the same capacity to feel pain and suffer from sickness." *Again we don't "ALL define well being" the same* Yeah we do...I'm sorry you can't appear to get your head around this but you're free to propose what you think 'well being' ought to be defined as.....? *crime and the punishment of crime don't fit with your "everyone thinks the same" worldview* Which is an actual non-sequitur in relation to your previous remark. You are now talking about punishment which is a completely different topic. And once again, assuming one is of sound mind and body, then everyone will agree to the tenets I have alluded to. *Saying "for what it is" is the most baseless statement. "Morality is good because it is good" jej* Thanks for another straw man. I didn't say any such thing, ironically, it's you claiming morality is good because my god said so and he is good - about as circular as it get, but consistent with numerous theistic arguments. You simply don't get it, I'm trying to guide you through the thought process, however, it appears this is going nowhere, so best you consider what I said for some time before responding because I don't want to have to repeat the same point over and over because you can't understand it.
@drrsundarraj
8 жыл бұрын
The 320 pairs of muscles in our body isometrically unify into a single muscle. It is the unified muscle which we call god. The unified muscle converts ideas into actions in seven stages. Verses of scriptures are about the seven stage conversion of ideas into action. Reasoning is a way of abolishing feedback control from rest of the activities of life, which occurs in the unified muscle. Therefore, we can't understand god using reasoning. Those who say that god doesn't exists are ignorant and can use only a part of their mind.
@Brazbrah
8 жыл бұрын
+Rangaswamy Sundar raj What? You realised muscle has nothing to do with thought right?
@drrsundarraj
8 жыл бұрын
+hazdude222 The unified muscle can be made to isometrically contract towards seven levels in the body. Each level results in a distinct kind of thinking and is associated with a Hindu god. They are seven stages in which an idea is converted into an action. The seven levels are, 1. Feet - Daydreaming - Indra 2. Knees - Illusion - Shakti 3. Hip - Creativity - Brahma 4. Abdomen - Stabilization - Vishnu 5. Chest - Determination - Shiva 6. Neck - Status alteration - Shani 7. Head - Compulsion - Yama. We can select the kind of thinking we want by making the unified muscle contract towards the level mentioned in the above table. If the selection of thinking becomes automatic we would have become one with the supreme Hindu god Brahman. Thus, we think with our muscular system and not with our brain. The muscular system is the one and only system in our body that can be felt and controlled. Even thinking can be felt and controlled. We can't feel or control our brain. Therefore, we can't think with our brain. A person who can put the seven kinds of thinking into manual mode becomes immune to control by the society. It is for this reason that worship of all the seven gods is discouraged. So called thinking by brain also forbids manual thinking. Thus, the fact, whether it is desirable or not, is that we think with the muscular system and not with our brain.
@Brazbrah
8 жыл бұрын
So can you tell me where the evidence for daydreaming being linked to the feet is or any of that? Not scripture but medical evidence and scientific research (or maybe that's not possible unless we think with our elbows). Thought requires synapses, neurons and a very specific set of chemical and electric reactions that through incredibly vast and complicated neural networks and a huge amount of energy (in human body terms) are able to produce thought. This is only found in the brain and not in the feet. This is science. I can't tell if you are joking.
@drrsundarraj
8 жыл бұрын
hazdude222 When we lift a heavy weight the 320 pairs of muscles in our body would be isometrically contracted to the maximum. During sleep the tone would be the least. Usually the tone would be 50%. Thus, to the 320 pairs of muscles in our body isometrically works as a single unit. Thousands of years back the Hindus coined the term Purusha to symbolize the unified muscle. Yet, science can't accept that concept because it is not compatible with science. 1. The unified muscle processes signals that are too weak to be perceived by sense organs. Science processes signals that are strong enough to stimulate sense organs. 2. The unified muscle processes all the problems of life simultaneously. Science solves just one problem at a time. 3. The unified muscle works on both logic and reasoning. Their is a seven stage transition from logic to reasoning. Science works on Reasoning. 4. The unified muscle finds permanent solutions to problems. Science finds temporary solutions only. I have never written that we think with our feet or elbow. I have written that we think with the unified muscle. When the unified muscle is contracted towards our feet and try to convert an idea into an action we would just be daydreaming. I have studied the anatomy and physiology of the human brain. Scientists are finding it more and more mysterious. The number of neurons in it was supposed to be in millions. Now the estimation is 100 billion.
@Brazbrah
8 жыл бұрын
Lol are you serious? If the unified processes signals are so weak that sense organs can't pick them up then how did we find out about them? All we have are sense organs, that are far weaker than scientific instruments Do you also realise that there are millions of muscles in the body? Every hair follicle is a muscle, as are the blood vessel capillaries. Even going along skeletal muscles there are often defined as being 640-840 muscles so the pairs don't work. FINAL POINT: If our muscles are related to thought how on earth do people missing limbs function? As far as I'm aware people missing a leg or an arm are still very capable of living a normal live.
@benthejrporter
10 жыл бұрын
Yes- next question ;-)
@uhuru1713
6 жыл бұрын
The fool says in his heart there is no God..That's in the Bible.so sad for all the people who are spiritually dead and who will die and be separated from God forever.
@Tshepang.Nathan
6 жыл бұрын
Siobhan X exactly...its actually irritating trying to convince PEOPLE to see logic
@MrKit9
5 жыл бұрын
The FOOL believes in an invisible, ethereal, genocidal hate filled monster who despises everything that the believer does. Freakin' moron.
@Paul-ts5qw
3 жыл бұрын
"Hear and give ear; do not be haughty, for the Lord has spoken. . . . And if you say in your heart, 'Why have these things come upon me?' it is for the greatness of your iniquity that your skirts are lifted up, and you are violated . . . because you have forgotten me and trusted in lies. I myself will lift up your skirts over your face, and your shame will be seen." (Jeremiah 13:15-26 "You shall acknowledge no God but me. . . . You are destroyed, Israel. . . . The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open." (Hosea 13:4, 9, 16 Your imaginary god is such a lovely bloke.
@uhuru1713
3 жыл бұрын
@@Paul-ts5qw you are mistaken...I am nor a Christian
@uhuru1713
3 жыл бұрын
@@Paul-ts5qw I believe in one God.
@rationalsceptic7634
4 жыл бұрын
To believe in any Religion,you have to accept a catalogue of improbable events(Miracles) at a time 2000 years when there was no Scientific scrutiny!
@profdadzie4388
5 жыл бұрын
The Evolution Theory might be true but I know that God exists because of His Holy Spirit's presence in us. He gives power to those who have Him. There is more than enough evidence to prove this.
@nathanmckenzie904
5 жыл бұрын
Oh? Whats your best piece of evidence? Please don't say painters require a painter..
@MrKit9
5 жыл бұрын
There is zero evidence to support the notion that your 'feelings' prove a god. Your feelings prove that you are incapable of recognizing reality.
@aaronmichaelwilkie9593
3 жыл бұрын
🤣🤡🤣🤡
@henochparks
10 жыл бұрын
ATHEISTS BELIEVE MATTER AND ENERGY CAN PRODUCE INTELLIGENCE. THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE.
@jamesteekirk6011
10 жыл бұрын
Your brain is matter and energy. Now I can see why you wouldn't believe it couldn't produce intelligence, as it has not in your case. However, nearly every other human's brain(made of matter and energy) has.
@henochparks
10 жыл бұрын
James tee Kirk MATTER AND ENERGY DOES NOT PRODUCE INTELLIGENCE.
@jamesteekirk6011
10 жыл бұрын
What exactly is a brain made out of?
@jamesteekirk6011
10 жыл бұрын
What exactly does a human's intelligence rely on?
@henochparks
10 жыл бұрын
James tee Kirk IT RELIES ON A SPIRIT THAT RETAINS INFO.
@henochparks
10 жыл бұрын
ATHEISTS TYPICALLY BELIEVE THAT LIFE GENERATED ITSELF BY EVOLUTION. BUT LIFE CANNOT HAVE GENERATED ITSELF FROM FROM ROCKS. WHO IS THE MORE RATIONAL?
@henochparks
10 жыл бұрын
Imperial Soldier HAHAHA SO?
@timdonald4092
9 жыл бұрын
So god did it right? From dirt?
@henochparks
9 жыл бұрын
tim donald DID G-D GET IT RIGHT FROM A BONE OF A MAN TO CREATE A WOMAN? YEP, AND NOW WE HAVE A CLUE HOW IT WAS DONE.
Пікірлер: 462