The relative conduct of xians and atheists has not relevance to whether there is a god or not. It is highly relevant to examining xians claim to be more moral than atheists. Some xians say "xians are not perfect, just forgiven" which implies that christians are no more moral, but they "get away with it".
You want some great irony? My viewing of this video was preceeded by a commercial for the Morman church--a group of people who were often killed and persecuted by other Christians for what they believed.
Red Rock It's true. Some time in the 1800's a group of Mormons were gathered and gunned down by the army I think. I don't remember the details but you can read about it if you want. Yeah it's weird. A lot of atheist videos on YT are sponsored by religious commercials. I get it all the time.
Paul L Thanks for that Paul, but they weren't attacked by a Christian group The Mountain Meadows massacre was a series of attacks on the Baker-Fancher emigrant wagon train at Mountain Meadows in southern Utah. The attacks culminated on September 11, 1857, with the mass slaughter of most in the emigrant party by members of the Utah Territorial Militia from the Iron County district, together with some Paiute Indians
Paul L No you didn't, in fact you mentioned army. My original post though was to question the claim at the start of this discussion when someone mentioned that the Mormons " were a group of people who were often killed and persecuted by other Christians for what they believed"
Genesis 19:30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters. 31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth: 32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. 33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. 34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. 35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. 36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. And it's read to children on Sundays.
(cont) Not to mention suggesting that complex things can not just occur and then inserting a thing that must be more complex is not only an argument from ignorance it's a downright contradiction.
Thus the gumball analogy he used in that video. "I believe the number of gumballs is even" (theism) and an atheist would say "I don't believe the gumballs are even" but also doesn't claim they are odd.
@somethingdiffereable Hoped as much, I'm glad you responded and cleared it up. Always happy to see satirical examinations, as long as i know its satirical. (sarcasm is lost in text)
you confuse terms I did not say secularism is a religion. sec·u·lar (sky-lr) ADJECTIVE: Worldly rather than spiritual. Again when did I use the term secularism?
I used to have the same ideas about atheism when I didn't know much about it. And many atheists still do have misconceptions. Which is why I try to clear them up, because it is so common.
I think religious belief is relevant in this case because the guy who went into the church to kill those people may have also believed he had god on his side to do it. As for the other case, the paedophile and psychopath who was raping his own daughters and then murdered his wife. The guy who was also a Christian preacher, these types don't really love god or people at all, but they like to be popular and are often charming. You would be surprised to learn there are 1 in 100 psychopaths in the US- double that of England. Plus it is rising in the US and these are the types that do the most damage to society, they are responsible for most violent crimes. If that weren't scary enough psychopaths also rise to the tops of all our systems so these people are church leaders, CEOs, politicians, other officials, or leaders. These are exactly the types you don't want to have any power over any other person or any living thing for that matter. They have no empathy or compassion.
Actually, we do have a good reason for it: It has never been any evidence to believe it is necessary.Until you can prove or at least indicate that, you've got nothing to stand on.
I read constantly and actually had a neighbour laugh at me because I was reading a book while walking the dog. I was responding sarcastically to a commenter who was belittling others who'd told him to read a book.
Though I used "god" in my argument, I'm not assuming anything. You can insert "alien race", "computer program" or "simulation" in place of god - it's irrelevant to the argument. You're asserting that something can't come from nothing, yet you seemingly have no problem with accepting a creator, program, etc. without questioning its origins.
p.s i dont mind people believing in religion, its there right to believe what they want. My dads family are Catholics my mums family are protestants , i have friends who are deeply religious who went to catholic schools and taught by nuns. not once do we argue over whos right and whos wrong, we just accept each other. its when your forcing it upon people in public schools when there are plenty of religious schools to send your kids too.
They aren't the same, though. Matt even talks about it in one of the episodes, though damned if I can recall which one. Saying that "I do not accept your assertion that X exists" does not say "I do not believe in X," that is a separate claim.
"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. " Leviticus 25:44-46
For belief, I just stick with three labels. Anti-theist - Has faith there is no such thing as god. Atheist - Does not accept claims either direction due to insufficient evidence. The Null or Neutral category. Theist - Has faith that their god does exist. I don't put agnostics in the same group as those because agnosticism is not faith or belief based but knowledge based. So everyone is agnostic.
To be fully honest with you, people today are still debating what was Hitler's beliefs and such but we do have evidence that Hitler suggests that his "master race" was made by a creator and we do have account that he proclaimed to be raised Roman Catholic and will die one as well. I'm not really mad you for stating your previous comment at all, some arguments are so common they become like familiar jingles and you can't help but sing along when they come up. Another thing is, even IF Hitler was
You are missing a major point here. These things don't act, they react to their circumstances according to the properties they have. No mind is involved. Just blind naturalistic forces. Read the "Blind Watchmaker" to get some idea what I am talking about. Appearing designed doesn't mean it is designed. You are either using an argument from incredulity or ignorance, and you should do something about it.
Define what gravity IS? It would be odd if you could, because even the physicists have not defined it. They can "describe" the "effects" but no one has been able to say specifically what gravity IS nor has anyone been able to define it.
Agnoticism/Gnosticism relates to knowledge claims, Theism/Atheism relates to beliefs. You can be an Agnostic Atheist or an Agnostic Theist and so forth.
Actually he was inspired by Martin Luther's "On the Jews and Their Lies" and started focusing on eradicating the Jews who he believed were responsible for the death of Christ.
Think of this as well, protons are positively charged, and should not bind together in the middle of the atom, but they do, electrons spin around the protons in a precise distance from one another. The bond of the protons is a billion, billion, billion times stronger than gravity, the path of the protons around the electrons have to be perfect, if any of these are off by the most minute amount, our body's would disintegrate instantly. I do not believe this could be possible by "chance".
Lynette. anyone who gives themselves over to addictive substances are prone to addiction, the difference is that Christians by and large avoid all of that and refuse to endulge in them. Talk to Christians about their life experiences and you'll find that a lot of them were, but were set free by the power of God, including myself.
And I asked "What is your justification for asserting that they require a designer". I've seen nothing about that yet, other than a false comparison. Nature is just matter and energy that act according to the laws of chemistry and physics. Once the matter is in place(Big Bang), it takes care of itself. And even the Big Bang is no longer a refuge for the "Designer" to hide, thanks to Krauss. We don't need to put a designer in place for it to work, which invalidates your entire position on this.
How did the first cause get created? No matter how you try to justify it, to say everything has to have a cause is to say that there cannot be a "first" cause. It is actually illogical to think complexity indicates creation. The wheel was created, but the wheel is not complex. There is no instance for comparison in nature for the "first" of anything being complex. Complexity arises out of simplicity. A block must be imagined LONG before a palace. No "designer" was observed when we took...
Gravity is also a theory. Your post would lead one to believe that you don't know what the word "theory" means with regards to science. While in everyday use the word "theory" is synonymous with "guess" or "conjecture", in scientific terms, it is used to refer to a "well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." Both the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution fit here.
Yeah, here's the thing though, protons don't bind together. They bind to neutrons via the strong nuclear force - which is the strongest of all four forces. As for the behavior of electrons... have you ever opened an actual science textbook? Why don't you hit up Wikipedia and search for "atomic orbital model" or "wave-particle duality". I think you'll find it enlightening.
All events seem entirely loose and separate. One event follows another; but we never can observe any tie between them. They seemed conjoined, but never connected. And as we can have no idea of any thing which never appeared to our outward sense or inward sentiment, the necessary conclusion seems to be that we have no idea of connexion or force at all, and that these words are absolutely without meaning, when employed either in philosophical reasonings or common life. (David Hume, 1737)
Complexity isn't a good answer for creationism. The simplest counter-argument would be to say that species evolve over time. DNA points to this easily.
I NEVER claimed "God" exists. I only point to the intelligent systems that build our brain, and everything around us. Intelligent systems and information, would logically point towards a designer. When you look at a computer program or a book, do you say "must of created itself over a long period of time"...no, you think "I wonder who created this, or designed this. Why should intelligent systems of the universe be any different. It is logical and very valid to ponder these questions.
"Atheist Experience" is an interesting title, considering the kinds of experiences atheists are prone to,such as Christopher Hithens recent descent into hell, but then again, all atheists are prone to that experience.
"Adolf Hitler was raised by a sceptic father and a devout Catholic mother; he ceased to participate in the sacraments after childhood. Contradictory accounts exist about Adolf Hitler's religious views, including his ties to Christianity and the Catholic church. According to Hitler's chief architect, Albert Speer, Hitler made harsh pronouncements against the church to his political associates, but remained a formal member of the Catholic church until his death."
Humans do not like uncertainty. Strong humans are willing to put up with it, until they can find certainty. Weak humans just want the uncertainty to go away. Faith is not a virtue, and neither is doubt. But at least one can clear doubt away to create wisdom, which is a virtue.
In the very center of the Atom there is a photon of light that blinks in and out of existence. It's true, look it up, the kicker is, they do not know where this light goes, but it does return. Some say another dimension possibly, or "we don't know". Everything is made out of the same thing. A plant, steel, wood, our skin, it is all the same thing when looked at on the micro level of atoms and electrons. We are all just basically just a program of atoms put together in an exact order.
Yes, it is something that pulls towards itself from every point. This is a fact, it can be demonstrated by dropping a pencil, what causes it is a theory.
OK, so you agree that you can't prove abiogenesis. But you're still claiming you can prove a universal chain of cause and effect which you call a "process" of evolution that extends regressively back to some point of abiogenesis? I'm not getting your argument here?
No logic in that statement. The fact we are typing personal messages back and forth debunks random chance. It is our decision to type these messages on a "designed" computer, using our personal opinions.
This intrigues me, but I have certain reservations. Could you possibly post or message me a link to a source on this topic. It can be a lay source (not from a super-technical journal). Just wherever you got your information from.
Why not random chance? You start with an expansion and condensation into a single element, hydrogen. Gravity compresses it until it condenses further into more and more elements. Localized areas of negative entropy further cook and complicate the forms until you have a sufficiently complex form that it self-replicates. We call it life but what is it really? Just another emergent characteristic, one in which we just happen to see significance. Not me. Sorry, it's just more stuff.
wait, why would god allow satan to take things away from job to see if he would remain faithful? are you saying god is not all-knowing, and had to see to know? wouldn't he know already? if he did know job would remain faithful, would it not be mean and cruel to let job suffer to proveto satan taht job would remain faithful. it seems to be contradictory: either god knows all, or he needs to find out if job will remain faithful. both can't be true, right?
This, legless, is because they are taught of a god of love, who cares deeply for them. They are introduced to a concept of god, this concept is linked to a certain religion and the person is more inclined to listen to all the nice things than he is to sit down and read the bible critically.
I think that you should take a good look at human psychology - specifically confirmation bias, and the psychology of belief. Hitler held certain beliefs, any new information that he aquired would be interpreted/accepted/rejected in a way that confirmed his beliefs. It is almost impssible to view things objectively because we all have biases. Darwin's theory explains the diversity of life on Earth, the phrase "survival of the fittest" relates to an organism's ability to adapt (continued)
(cont) if there is a group of rabbits and some of them head north to colder climates with snow while others head south to warmer climates certain traits are going to benefit the survival of certain rabbits in each environment that might not in other areas. Ie fatter larger rabbits with white fur would have an advantage in the snowy environment both for concealment from predators and to fight the cold whilst neither of these traits would be beneficial to the rabbits in the warmer area (cont)
I didn't say that at all. And if you really want to call someone stupid, just say it outright. By the way, mental is normally used to imply that someone is insane, not stupid. So if you're going to call me stupid, do it right.
They choose churches? I don't know what they choose. They may choose mosques or temples. How do you know they don't? How do you know they don't choose to just have a ceremony in some other non-religious building? Why are you making assumptions and then asking me questions that are predicated on those assumptions?
So how do you study science if you don't read? I thought the oral tradition was out of fashion. Do you find your feelings a more reliable metric of truth than say, history?
Things do not create themselves. That is a basic fundamental fact. Do you think all of a sudden something magically pops into existence? This has to be your theory otherwise, before anything could evolve, grow, think, anything in fact, you need it to exist first. How can something "think" on it's own, if it, or the materials did not get created first.
It's not an anomaly that neutrons stay together, it's a result of the Strong Nuclear Force, the STRONG force, as in the STRONGEST . . . As for the photon that blinks in and out of existence in the center of the core of the atom, I've never heard of that, but if this actually happens and scientists don't know where this photon is going, that means they've never detected it, which means they've never observed it, which means it's theoretical, which means they damn right do understand it . . . -_-
Tell me please ...if the Unitarian assembly is not considered Christian, what form of eternal life after physical death do they have if any!?! The human spirit leaves the body at death to one of 2 "spiritual realms" one of which is the realm of the God of Abraham and His angels, OR the satanic realm and his demons for unrepentant sin and rejection of God. And does he Unitarian belief use any part of the bible!?!
REVIVAL NOW OR BUST ...are you busted for eternity!?! they allow people with a wide variety of beliefs in. do you not know how to google? from the UU website: @282067: The inherent worth and dignity of every person;@282069: Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;@282074: Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;@282073: A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;@282072: The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;@282071: The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;@282070: Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part. I don't see the bible or any mention of an afterlife.
Rembrandt972 ...Thank you for your comment, I thought right ...there's no bible nor mention of after life. While wonderful works of men are indeed mentioned in the bible "as good works" but in this context of Quote of Christ: "...that by good works of men a l o n e will not qualify one for eternal life." K J., This is serious friend, ... May I ask for what purpose is "spiritual growth" in a limited and temporary human life with no eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of all sin which results in "eternal death:, to qualify for eternal salvation after physical death "if a congregation is considered as you say a responsible search for truth and meaning!?!
REVIVAL NOW OR BUST ...are you busted for eternity!?! you have no idea what Christ might or might not have said, or even if such a person ever existed. there is no evidence of any kind of an afterlife, certainly no historical evidence of jesus, and life after death is a clear contradiction in terms. I never said they had a 'responsible search' for anything. I simply copied their information in response to your question. many people do not wish to participate in an impossible Christian afterlife, and the whole concept of vicarious redemption is morally reprehensible. Christianity is an evil death cult founded on a ritual act of human sacrifice that probably never even took place. if such a event even occurred, it is a fact that it was nothing like it is described in the bible. it is, quite simply, a lie. you really should be ashamed of going to atheist sites and threatening people with torture who never did you any harm. have you no human decency? oh, that's right, you don't, your evil death cult has convinced you that compassion for people unlike yourself is unacceptable. why don't you take that poison to a Christian site? i'm sure plenty of lying little douchetards like yourself would be happy to hear your lies.
If you do not know either way, why would you claim to be an Atheist? An Atheist believes there is No God. If you are unsure, and it could go either way, then you are an agnostic. Neil Degrass Tyson explains this very well in an interview. He considers himself an agnostic
You're right about us not being able, at least not currently, to properly comprehend what was before the universe or before that, but that doesn't prove that there has to be a creator. Only a cause. Once again, see "Something from Nothing". And what evidence? That life exists in a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a % of a galaxy among a billion galaxies, doomed to extinction when the brief window that allows life is closed, on a rock that is largely inhospitable to life in itself?
I am not making up any "ridiculous" "claims". You have obviously not studied this subject very well if you think I am making any of this up. I am being truthful. We are most certainly made up of photons. Go do your research before ridiculing somebody, just because something something sounds false does not mean it is. Provide proof someone is wrong, don't just call them names, that is the disingenuous to do in a debate or discussion. And distracts form the issue. Everyone deserves respect.
(cont) in fact larger rabbits would overheat and tire faster while those with white fur would be easier to pick out by predators. So now we have two traits that are likely to be bred in the northern environment but not the southern. Continue these mutations and these animals eventually become so different they can no longer breed, THIS is evolution in action. If you want evidence (which I'm sure you'll just shirk) look up the Italian wall lizard.
"We must recognize the fundamental rights of man. There can be no true national life in our democracy unless we give unqualified recognition to freedom of religious worship and freedom of education." -- letter to the Calvert Associates, 1937 - Franklin D. Roosevelt. Franklin D. Roosevelt was a Anglican/Episcopalian. The president can decide when we go to war during some occasions but most of the time they need the approval of congress. Not believing in god dosen't mean you hate anyone.
I disagree, every time I mention "first cause" in all these debates on youtube, that is what they always say "it was always here". Obviously not you, and that is smart of you. So since you agree the universe did not create itself, doesn't that point towards an intelligent creator? How can you not deduct that thought process? How do you know "God" (your calling it that, I just say a higher power, because we do not know) is immaterial? How can we expect to understand the creator? Unlikely
I'd put that one at about 75% insult, 15% self adoration, and 10% "God exists, deal with it". Fact of the matter is you're just blowing hot air though, which is odd because I'm fairly certain that part of the whole christian thing is humility, kindness, and brotherhood. Things you conspicuously lack.
You have made my point for me. When you said that you don't walk up to someone and say "HI I DONT BELIEVE IN GOD". That is my point too, atheists walk side by side with Christians without ever knowing what those Christians truly believe. So now my question to you is why attribute such horrible actions done in the past to those humans you guys live side by side without being persecuted without being killed? Why didn't what happen in Germany happen here in the states UK Australia Mexico etc?
Let's put it this way. I do not beleive the universe, or anything creates "itself" Everything needs a begining at some point in time. Science does not prove creation, it only studies that said creation.
Due to the lack of Scientific tools and knowledge needed, in general, for a basic understanding of the many concepts central to the subject, and the inestimable number of articles you likely missed, I wanted to try to simplify the key point of my last comment. I was addressing the glaring issue of "nothing", a concept that is considered nonexistant AND impossible, suddenly making the insanely long journey from "hypothesis to law". I'm not patient enough to try to strike down a fable with a fact.
I do not automatically call it "God". Why would I? I have no Idea if it is a God or not. "God" is a blanket statment. First cause is the start of a new creation. If I want to build a shelf, I need to think of it first. That is the shelf's "first cause". My intellegent thoughts in my brain thinking of how I will build it. Then I create the blueprint, then I build it. If we don't know who or what created us. How are we supposed to know where they came from?
No, it doesn't need to be my theory otherwise. I already told you to go see Lauren Krauss' lecture on "Something from Nothing" on how the universe as we know it started. He has some interesting things to say on the topic. Also, you have to apply your standard to any creator you might propose to retain the slightest resemblance of intellectual honesty. Who created them/him/her/it? Or if they don't need to be created, why does the universe and whatever came before it have to?
Who created the creator, yea, I know, but just because we don't understand that, does not mean we were not created. Something on that level of existence, that created the universe, and all the rules nature has to follow, would be something we could not even comprehend. I'm saying the evidence is clear and overwhelming that nature has a purpose, and is full of complex information and systems, that is created by intelligence. Lets figure out what created all of this first.
Thank you for saying that. I come here because the posters here are so intelligent. I learn things here from both sides (mostly Atheists) and I get tired of the automatic insult throwers. You can't beat your beliefs into someone.
"Smitten" would actually be the correct term. The word "smite" simply means 'stuck by'. Although, in modern english, 'smitten' is usually thought to me infatuation, it still serves to imply being struck, or heavily under the influence of something. So although it doesn't work very well in modern english, "consider yourself smitten" would still be the correct grammar for a lightning bolt up the ass.
No, they made it very clear, a separation of church and state, our country was founded on secular ideals, with a secular constitution. I challenge you to find one reference to religious ideals in the constitution. "so why are u against the rights of religious americans whom are allowed to challenge ANY NEW LEGISLATION THAT COMES AROUND?" I'm not sure what you mean by this... can you elaborate?
So he's making sin a way of life? Prove it. He's religious. He says he is, so he is. By another person's opinion, you'd not be religious (if you're religious) based on their opinionated assessment of your life.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is 'What Begins to Exist, Has to have Cause.' God didn't 'begin' to exist, according to theological arguments, therefore no cause. Let's say that God doesn't answer the ultimate question (although He was invoked for precisely the reason that there logically has to be a terminus), it's still a one step better explanation for the universe than logical impossibilities of Nature Only. And the question is where did the universe come from, not bits and pieces of it.
cont. Anyway, which particular Civil Rights period are you referring to? You are still generalizing. Hospitals were in existence before Christianity ..and besides you didn't address any of my questions. The problem solving that you credit to religion was actually brought about by religion in the first place. See we both give each other 'facts' depending on which school of thought one follows. Wiki is incorrect in its musical history and not to hot on the real reasons for anything
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her." -Deuteronomy 22:23-24
Yes, WE "designed" the computer using OUR "intelligence", which EVOLVED as a result of random variation and natural selection, only a portion of which is random. The variation portion of the process is random. The selection portion is not. It is also not intelligently designed and has no requirement to be. Evolution works. It has been used to produce results in engineering that could not be similarly produced by a design process.
Because you are attempting to assert that a set of information is blatantly the same as a computer program and, undoubtedly, are then going to move onto the tired and incredibly flawed argument from association of "therefor there had to be a code writer" which is simply wrong.
Because we know that things do not create themselves. Do I really have to explain this one? It's a basic thought. If we want to invent something, we have to think of it first, using intelligence. Draw up a blueprint, then get the materials, and plan it out, then build it. Things do not create themselves. When was the last time you saw a tree turn into a table on it's own? Or computer construct itself? Impossible. I have no idea what created the universe or the materials in it? Why is that bad?
You were the one that posted the comment that seemed angry. I don't know what any of this has to do with hypotheticals. Please, I am a moron, explain to me.
A theory is not absolute "fact". It is a hypothesis, an idea that could explain a problem, but is still not discovered to be an absolute "fact". Water evaporates, that is a "fact"...not a "theory". Just like when someone says "in theory" this should work, but they know it is not fact yet. Go look up the official meaning of the word if you still think a theory is a fact.
It's OK. It's actually really common misunderstanding, really. I used to think the same. But Matt Dilahunty is very good at clearing things up. It also makes sense. A lot of people think atheism is this arrogant claim of no gods. Which is funny because it's theism that is arrogant. Atheism is quite often the unsure category. Although, a lot of atheists actually believe there aren't any. And they are more anti-theist, or strong atheist. But all these labels are confusing.
It is not hypocritical at all how I think about DNA. I do not think it is "supernatural". It is a complex coded information. Information does not form on it's own, how could it? If we discover information, especially complex, coded information such as DNA, what created this information? Same with laws of nature, where did the laws come from? Same with our emotions. Why does guilt eat away at us? Why do we "hate" or "love"? Information requires a creator and a receiver of that information.
First off where are you getting this "it was deciphered by WW2 code breakers", it was deciphered by geneticists, not code breakers. Secondly the reason they called it a code is because it was a set of complex information much like a code. Do you understand what a metaphor is? If I say he was a large bear of a man it does not mean the person I'm talking about is literally a bear.
Not really according to the dictionary. The point being while codes do indeed have information, they are not "just that" instead they are purposely hidden or concealed information by an intelligence, thus dna is only called a code by the loosest of senses, not as a literal description.
Well attacking spelling on youtube is among the most petty thing anybody can do. First of all, we are limited to five hundred characters and you would b surprised how many periods commas etc are needed for proper language not to mention, when I get to the end of my characters to fit in a word I sacrifice periods and commas first. That's why I do not take the time and effort into having the perfect comment with perfect grammar. Spelling does not take away from the point someone makes.
But how does the first cause mean something like a god? You've done nothing to support that there has to be a mind, except assert it based on arguments from ignorance. So, where do the "first cause" prove that the "first cause" has to be a creator?
You are thinking of it based on what "you" would do. If we find out the answer to who or what created all of this, how would we ever expect to understand why they do what they do. You are speculating on what the designer of the universe would or "should" do. We have NO idea what the creator is or would do, and I'm assuming we would not even be able to understand it anyway.
So something changing form is the cause of intelligence? Then when water drips from a caves ceiling and the minerals it caries solidify over a long period of time creating stalactites/stalagmites... this makes the water intelligent? When sunlight causes a fire to erupt in a dry field, the sun is intelligent? No one is claiming things don't have a cause, what I disagree with is your baseless assertion that this cause MUST be intelligent which is simply false and an argument from ignorance.
The relative conduct of xians and atheists has not relevance to whether there is a god or not. It is highly relevant to examining xians claim to be more moral than atheists. Some xians say "xians are not perfect, just forgiven" which implies that christians are no more moral, but they "get away with it".
You want some great irony? My viewing of this video was preceeded by a commercial for the Morman church--a group of people who were often killed and persecuted by other Christians for what they believed.
When in hell did the Christians kill and persecute the Mormons. The Mormons consider themselves to be christian.
Red Rock It's true. Some time in the 1800's a group of Mormons were gathered and gunned down by the army I think. I don't remember the details but you can read about it if you want. Yeah it's weird. A lot of atheist videos on YT are sponsored by religious commercials. I get it all the time.
Paul L
Thanks for that Paul, but they weren't attacked by a Christian group
The Mountain Meadows massacre was a series of attacks on the Baker-Fancher emigrant wagon train at Mountain Meadows in southern Utah. The attacks culminated on September 11, 1857, with the mass slaughter of most in the emigrant party by members of the Utah Territorial Militia from the Iron County district, together with some Paiute Indians
Red Rock I never said they were killed by a Christian group.
Paul L
No you didn't, in fact you mentioned army. My original post though was to question the claim at the start of this discussion when someone mentioned that the Mormons " were a group of people who were often killed and persecuted by other Christians for what they believed"
Genesis 19:30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.
31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
And it's read to children on Sundays.
lol... at least they are keeping it in the family.
I'm pretty sure it is also impossible because alcohol causes vaso dilation and Lot was old and asleep....
PonzooonTheGreat
It was a miracle! If god can open a woman's womb, he can give some guy a hard-on.
Paula Catlover That's the true miracles, helping out the old guys so they can have sex with their family.
Paula Catlover We had lost the ability to control erections until the blue pill came again, kinda like losing the ability to resurrect.
(cont) Not to mention suggesting that complex things can not just occur and then inserting a thing that must be more complex is not only an argument from ignorance it's a downright contradiction.
Would it have been OK if he had gone to a theater to kill? Or maybe a school? Why is it somehow worse being in a church?
I vote #4
maybe God was golfing.
Thus the gumball analogy he used in that video. "I believe the number of gumballs is even" (theism) and an atheist would say "I don't believe the gumballs are even" but also doesn't claim they are odd.
Lions are atheist I think.
lolwat
Yeah, 'cause their eyes are open.
"who has need of gods and devils when man will fill their roles so readily with an unmatched fervor and brilliance?"
"Talking heads?" Try three feet lower!
that´s pretty good, congratulations.
@somethingdiffereable Hoped as much, I'm glad you responded and cleared it up. Always happy to see satirical examinations, as long as i know its satirical. (sarcasm is lost in text)
"I have been smitten" is correct, Martin.
I'm sure everyone was dying to know that.
you confuse terms I did not say secularism is a religion.
sec·u·lar (sky-lr) ADJECTIVE: Worldly rather than spiritual.
Again when did I use the term secularism?
I used to have the same ideas about atheism when I didn't know much about it. And many atheists still do have misconceptions. Which is why I try to clear them up, because it is so common.
I think religious belief is relevant in this case because the guy who went into the church to kill those people may have also believed he had god on his side to do it.
As for the other case, the paedophile and psychopath who was raping his own daughters and then murdered his wife. The guy who was also a Christian preacher, these types don't really love god or people at all, but they like to be popular and are often charming. You would be surprised to learn there are 1 in 100 psychopaths in the US- double that of England. Plus it is rising in the US and these are the types that do the most damage to society, they are responsible for most violent crimes.
If that weren't scary enough psychopaths also rise to the tops of all our systems so these people are church leaders, CEOs, politicians, other officials, or leaders. These are exactly the types you don't want to have any power over any other person or any living thing for that matter. They have no empathy or compassion.
When your position is inherently dishonest, it is easy to have a win, win, win situation.
Actually, we do have a good reason for it: It has never been any evidence to believe it is necessary.Until you can prove or at least indicate that, you've got nothing to stand on.
I read constantly and actually had a neighbour laugh at me because I was reading a book while walking the dog. I was responding sarcastically to a commenter who was belittling others who'd told him to read a book.
Though I used "god" in my argument, I'm not assuming anything. You can insert "alien race", "computer program" or "simulation" in place of god - it's irrelevant to the argument. You're asserting that something can't come from nothing, yet you seemingly have no problem with accepting a creator, program, etc. without questioning its origins.
p.s i dont mind people believing in religion, its there right to believe what they want. My dads family are Catholics my mums family are protestants , i have friends who are deeply religious who went to catholic schools and taught by nuns. not once do we argue over whos right and whos wrong, we just accept each other.
its when your forcing it upon people in public schools when there are plenty of religious schools to send your kids too.
They aren't the same, though. Matt even talks about it in one of the episodes, though damned if I can recall which one.
Saying that "I do not accept your assertion that X exists" does not say "I do not believe in X," that is a separate claim.
"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. "
Leviticus 25:44-46
For belief, I just stick with three labels.
Anti-theist - Has faith there is no such thing as god.
Atheist - Does not accept claims either direction due to insufficient evidence. The Null or Neutral category.
Theist - Has faith that their god does exist.
I don't put agnostics in the same group as those because agnosticism is not faith or belief based but knowledge based. So everyone is agnostic.
To be fully honest with you, people today are still debating what was Hitler's beliefs and such but we do have evidence that Hitler suggests that his "master race" was made by a creator and we do have account that he proclaimed to be raised Roman Catholic and will die one as well. I'm not really mad you for stating your previous comment at all, some arguments are so common they become like familiar jingles and you can't help but sing along when they come up. Another thing is, even IF Hitler was
You are missing a major point here. These things don't act, they react to their circumstances according to the properties they have. No mind is involved. Just blind naturalistic forces.
Read the "Blind Watchmaker" to get some idea what I am talking about. Appearing designed doesn't mean it is designed. You are either using an argument from incredulity or ignorance, and you should do something about it.
Define what gravity IS? It would be odd if you could, because even the physicists have not defined it. They can "describe" the "effects" but no one has been able to say specifically what gravity IS nor has anyone been able to define it.
Agnoticism/Gnosticism relates to knowledge claims, Theism/Atheism relates to beliefs. You can be an Agnostic Atheist or an Agnostic Theist and so forth.
Actually he was inspired by Martin Luther's "On the Jews and Their Lies" and started focusing on eradicating the Jews who he believed were responsible for the death of Christ.
Think of this as well, protons are positively charged, and should not bind together in the middle of the atom, but they do, electrons spin around the protons in a precise distance from one another. The bond of the protons is a billion, billion, billion times stronger than gravity, the path of the protons around the electrons have to be perfect, if any of these are off by the most minute amount, our body's would disintegrate instantly. I do not believe this could be possible by "chance".
Lynette. anyone who gives themselves over to addictive substances are prone to addiction, the difference is that Christians by and large avoid all of that and refuse to endulge in them. Talk to Christians about their life experiences and you'll find that a lot of them were, but were set free by the power of God, including myself.
Also the person that "was arguing intelligent design" was the person I was responding to, habitualstudios.
And I asked "What is your justification for asserting that they require a designer". I've seen nothing about that yet, other than a false comparison. Nature is just matter and energy that act according to the laws of chemistry and physics. Once the matter is in place(Big Bang), it takes care of itself. And even the Big Bang is no longer a refuge for the "Designer" to hide, thanks to Krauss. We don't need to put a designer in place for it to work, which invalidates your entire position on this.
How did the first cause get created? No matter how you try to justify it, to say everything has to have a cause is to say that there cannot be a "first" cause. It is actually illogical to think complexity indicates creation. The wheel was created, but the wheel is not complex. There is no instance for comparison in nature for the "first" of anything being complex. Complexity arises out of simplicity. A block must be imagined LONG before a palace. No "designer" was observed when we took...
Gravity is also a theory. Your post would lead one to believe that you don't know what the word "theory" means with regards to science. While in everyday use the word "theory" is synonymous with "guess" or "conjecture", in scientific terms, it is used to refer to a "well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." Both the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution fit here.
Yeah, here's the thing though, protons don't bind together. They bind to neutrons via the strong nuclear force - which is the strongest of all four forces. As for the behavior of electrons... have you ever opened an actual science textbook? Why don't you hit up Wikipedia and search for "atomic orbital model" or "wave-particle duality". I think you'll find it enlightening.
All events seem entirely loose and separate. One event follows another; but we never can observe any tie between them. They seemed conjoined, but never connected. And as we can have no idea of any thing which never appeared to our outward sense or inward sentiment, the necessary conclusion seems to be that we have no idea of connexion or force at all, and that these words are absolutely without meaning, when employed either in philosophical reasonings or common life. (David Hume, 1737)
A "cause" is the main thing here. It falls in line with the need for a first cause of anything that exists.
The song at the beginning is actually called "The Enemy God Dances With The Black Spirits" by ELP.
Complexity isn't a good answer for creationism. The simplest counter-argument would be to say that species evolve over time. DNA points to this easily.
@ytmndman
I didn't change the subject. Just called out a fallacy.
I don't care if you question my stat. They are sourced and final.
I NEVER claimed "God" exists. I only point to the intelligent systems that build our brain, and everything around us. Intelligent systems and information, would logically point towards a designer. When you look at a computer program or a book, do you say "must of created itself over a long period of time"...no, you think "I wonder who created this, or designed this. Why should intelligent systems of the universe be any different. It is logical and very valid to ponder these questions.
"Atheist Experience" is an interesting title, considering the kinds of experiences atheists are prone to,such as Christopher Hithens recent descent into hell, but then again, all atheists are prone to that experience.
Indeed. They are the best labels to use. No confusion then. We just need to enlighten many people of their misconceptions.
"Adolf Hitler was raised by a sceptic father and a devout Catholic mother; he ceased to participate in the sacraments after childhood. Contradictory accounts exist about Adolf Hitler's religious views, including his ties to Christianity and the Catholic church. According to Hitler's chief architect, Albert Speer, Hitler made harsh pronouncements against the church to his political associates, but remained a formal member of the Catholic church until his death."
Humans do not like uncertainty.
Strong humans are willing to put up with it, until they can find certainty.
Weak humans just want the uncertainty to go away.
Faith is not a virtue, and neither is doubt. But at least one can clear doubt away to create wisdom, which is a virtue.
In the very center of the Atom there is a photon of light that blinks in and out of existence. It's true, look it up, the kicker is, they do not know where this light goes, but it does return. Some say another dimension possibly, or "we don't know". Everything is made out of the same thing. A plant, steel, wood, our skin, it is all the same thing when looked at on the micro level of atoms and electrons. We are all just basically just a program of atoms put together in an exact order.
Define "create themselves." Are you saying life can't come from non-life, or are you saying nothing existed before the big bang?
Yes, it is something that pulls towards itself from every point. This is a fact, it can be demonstrated by dropping a pencil, what causes it is a theory.
OK, so you agree that you can't prove abiogenesis. But you're still claiming you can prove a universal chain of cause and effect which you call a "process" of evolution that extends regressively back to some point of abiogenesis? I'm not getting your argument here?
No logic in that statement. The fact we are typing personal messages back and forth debunks random chance. It is our decision to type these messages on a "designed" computer, using our personal opinions.
This intrigues me, but I have certain reservations. Could you possibly post or message me a link to a source on this topic. It can be a lay source (not from a super-technical journal). Just wherever you got your information from.
Why not random chance? You start with an expansion and condensation into a single element, hydrogen. Gravity compresses it until it condenses further into more and more elements. Localized areas of negative entropy further cook and complicate the forms until you have a sufficiently complex form that it self-replicates. We call it life but what is it really? Just another emergent characteristic, one in which we just happen to see significance. Not me. Sorry, it's just more stuff.
wait, why would god allow satan to take things away from job to see if he would remain faithful? are you saying god is not all-knowing, and had to see to know? wouldn't he know already? if he did know job would remain faithful, would it not be mean and cruel to let job suffer to proveto satan taht job would remain faithful.
it seems to be contradictory: either god knows all, or he needs to find out if job will remain faithful. both can't be true, right?
This, legless, is because they are taught of a god of love, who cares deeply for them.
They are introduced to a concept of god, this concept is linked to a certain religion and the person is more inclined to listen to all the nice things than he is to sit down and read the bible critically.
I think that you should take a good look at human psychology - specifically confirmation bias, and the psychology of belief. Hitler held certain beliefs, any new information that he aquired would be interpreted/accepted/rejected in a way that confirmed his beliefs. It is almost impssible to view things objectively because we all have biases. Darwin's theory explains the diversity of life on Earth, the phrase "survival of the fittest" relates to an organism's ability to adapt (continued)
(cont) if there is a group of rabbits and some of them head north to colder climates with snow while others head south to warmer climates certain traits are going to benefit the survival of certain rabbits in each environment that might not in other areas. Ie fatter larger rabbits with white fur would have an advantage in the snowy environment both for concealment from predators and to fight the cold whilst neither of these traits would be beneficial to the rabbits in the warmer area (cont)
I didn't say that at all. And if you really want to call someone stupid, just say it outright. By the way, mental is normally used to imply that someone is insane, not stupid. So if you're going to call me stupid, do it right.
They choose churches? I don't know what they choose. They may choose mosques or temples. How do you know they don't? How do you know they don't choose to just have a ceremony in some other non-religious building? Why are you making assumptions and then asking me questions that are predicated on those assumptions?
So how do you study science if you don't read? I thought the oral tradition was out of fashion.
Do you find your feelings a more reliable metric of truth than say, history?
Things do not create themselves. That is a basic fundamental fact. Do you think all of a sudden something magically pops into existence? This has to be your theory otherwise, before anything could evolve, grow, think, anything in fact, you need it to exist first. How can something "think" on it's own, if it, or the materials did not get created first.
It's not an anomaly that neutrons stay together, it's a result of the Strong Nuclear Force, the STRONG force, as in the STRONGEST . . . As for the photon that blinks in and out of existence in the center of the core of the atom, I've never heard of that, but if this actually happens and scientists don't know where this photon is going, that means they've never detected it, which means they've never observed it, which means it's theoretical, which means they damn right do understand it . . . -_-
Unitarian Universalists are not necessarily christians. I am an atheist and I attend a Unitarian Universalist congregation.
Tell me please ...if the Unitarian assembly is not considered Christian, what form of eternal life after physical death do they have if any!?! The human spirit leaves the body at death to one of 2 "spiritual realms" one of which is the realm of the God of Abraham and His angels, OR the satanic realm and his demons for unrepentant sin and rejection of God. And does he Unitarian belief use any part of the bible!?!
REVIVAL NOW OR BUST ...are you busted for eternity!?! they allow people with a wide variety of beliefs in. do you not know how to google?
from the UU website:
@282067: The inherent worth and dignity of every person;@282069: Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;@282074: Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;@282073: A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;@282072: The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;@282071: The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;@282070: Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.
I don't see the bible or any mention of an afterlife.
Rembrandt972 ...Thank you for your comment, I thought right ...there's no bible nor mention of after life. While wonderful works of men are indeed mentioned in the bible "as good works" but in this context of Quote of Christ: "...that by good works of men a l o n e will not qualify one for eternal life." K J., This is serious friend, ... May I ask for what purpose is "spiritual growth" in a limited and temporary human life with no eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of all sin which results in "eternal death:, to qualify for eternal salvation after physical death "if a congregation is considered as you say a responsible search for truth and meaning!?!
REVIVAL NOW OR BUST ...are you busted for eternity!?! you have no idea what Christ might or might not have said, or even if such a person ever existed. there is no evidence of any kind of an afterlife, certainly no historical evidence of jesus, and life after death is a clear contradiction in terms. I never said they had a 'responsible search' for anything. I simply copied their information in response to your question.
many people do not wish to participate in an impossible Christian afterlife, and the whole concept of vicarious redemption is morally reprehensible. Christianity is an evil death cult founded on a ritual act of human sacrifice that probably never even took place. if such a event even occurred, it is a fact that it was nothing like it is described in the bible. it is, quite simply, a lie.
you really should be ashamed of going to atheist sites and threatening people with torture who never did you any harm. have you no human decency? oh, that's right, you don't, your evil death cult has convinced you that compassion for people unlike yourself is unacceptable. why don't you take that poison to a Christian site? i'm sure plenty of lying little douchetards like yourself would be happy to hear your lies.
REVIVAL NOW OR BUST ...are you busted for eternity!?! and i'm not your friend.
If you do not know either way, why would you claim to be an Atheist?
An Atheist believes there is No God. If you are unsure, and it could go either way, then you are an agnostic. Neil Degrass Tyson explains this very well in an interview. He considers himself an agnostic
You're right about us not being able, at least not currently, to properly comprehend what was before the universe or before that, but that doesn't prove that there has to be a creator. Only a cause. Once again, see "Something from Nothing".
And what evidence? That life exists in a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a % of a galaxy among a billion galaxies, doomed to extinction when the brief window that allows life is closed, on a rock that is largely inhospitable to life in itself?
I am not making up any "ridiculous" "claims". You have obviously not studied this subject very well if you think I am making any of this up. I am being truthful. We are most certainly made up of photons. Go do your research before ridiculing somebody, just because something something sounds false does not mean it is. Provide proof someone is wrong, don't just call them names, that is the disingenuous to do in a debate or discussion. And distracts form the issue. Everyone deserves respect.
(cont) in fact larger rabbits would overheat and tire faster while those with white fur would be easier to pick out by predators. So now we have two traits that are likely to be bred in the northern environment but not the southern. Continue these mutations and these animals eventually become so different they can no longer breed, THIS is evolution in action.
If you want evidence (which I'm sure you'll just shirk) look up the Italian wall lizard.
"We must recognize the fundamental rights of man. There can be no true national life in our democracy unless we give unqualified recognition to freedom of religious worship and freedom of education." -- letter to the Calvert Associates, 1937 - Franklin D. Roosevelt. Franklin D. Roosevelt was a Anglican/Episcopalian. The president can decide when we go to war during some occasions but most of the time they need the approval of congress. Not believing in god dosen't mean you hate anyone.
I disagree, every time I mention "first cause" in all these debates on youtube, that is what they always say "it was always here". Obviously not you, and that is smart of you. So since you agree the universe did not create itself, doesn't that point towards an intelligent creator? How can you not deduct that thought process? How do you know "God" (your calling it that, I just say a higher power, because we do not know) is immaterial? How can we expect to understand the creator? Unlikely
I'd put that one at about 75% insult, 15% self adoration, and 10% "God exists, deal with it".
Fact of the matter is you're just blowing hot air though, which is odd because I'm fairly certain that part of the whole christian thing is humility, kindness, and brotherhood. Things you conspicuously lack.
You have made my point for me. When you said that you don't walk up to someone and say "HI I DONT BELIEVE IN GOD". That is my point too, atheists walk side by side with Christians without ever knowing what those Christians truly believe. So now my question to you is why attribute such horrible actions done in the past to those humans you guys live side by side without being persecuted without being killed? Why didn't what happen in Germany happen here in the states UK Australia Mexico etc?
Let's put it this way. I do not beleive the universe, or anything creates "itself" Everything needs a begining at some point in time. Science does not prove creation, it only studies that said creation.
Due to the lack of Scientific tools and knowledge needed, in general, for a basic understanding of the many concepts central to the subject, and the inestimable number of articles you likely missed, I wanted to try to simplify the key point of my last comment. I was addressing the glaring issue of "nothing", a concept that is considered nonexistant AND impossible, suddenly
making the insanely long journey from "hypothesis to law". I'm not patient enough to try to strike down a fable with a fact.
I do not automatically call it "God". Why would I? I have no Idea if it is a God or not. "God" is a blanket statment. First cause is the start of a new creation. If I want to build a shelf, I need to think of it first. That is the shelf's "first cause". My intellegent thoughts in my brain thinking of how I will build it. Then I create the blueprint, then I build it. If we don't know who or what created us. How are we supposed to know where they came from?
No, it doesn't need to be my theory otherwise. I already told you to go see Lauren Krauss' lecture on "Something from Nothing" on how the universe as we know it started. He has some interesting things to say on the topic.
Also, you have to apply your standard to any creator you might propose to retain the slightest resemblance of intellectual honesty. Who created them/him/her/it? Or if they don't need to be created, why does the universe and whatever came before it have to?
Who created the creator, yea, I know, but just because we don't understand that, does not mean we were not created. Something on that level of existence, that created the universe, and all the rules nature has to follow, would be something we could not even comprehend. I'm saying the evidence is clear and overwhelming that nature has a purpose, and is full of complex information and systems, that is created by intelligence. Lets figure out what created all of this first.
Define what you mean by your vague term "something"? Gravity is something. Wow. I'm impressed with your definition:) You're so smart.
Thank you for saying that. I come here because the posters here are so intelligent. I learn things here from both sides (mostly Atheists) and I get tired of the automatic insult throwers. You can't beat your beliefs into someone.
"Smitten" would actually be the correct term. The word "smite" simply means 'stuck by'. Although, in modern english, 'smitten' is usually thought to me infatuation, it still serves to imply being struck, or heavily under the influence of something. So although it doesn't work very well in modern english, "consider yourself smitten" would still be the correct grammar for a lightning bolt up the ass.
No, they made it very clear, a separation of church and state, our country was founded on secular ideals, with a secular constitution. I challenge you to find one reference to religious ideals in the constitution.
"so why are u against the rights of religious americans whom are allowed to challenge ANY NEW LEGISLATION THAT COMES AROUND?" I'm not sure what you mean by this... can you elaborate?
Scientists have observed it, but do not know where it goes , it returns. So yes, it blinks in and out of existence and has been detected.
Does anyone know the name of that song in the intro?
So he's making sin a way of life? Prove it.
He's religious. He says he is, so he is. By another person's opinion, you'd not be religious (if you're religious) based on their opinionated assessment of your life.
Not really, but you guys have such a long history of helping us out no matter how stupid we are being (i.e. Vietnam, Iraq) that I had high hopes.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is 'What Begins to Exist, Has to have Cause.'
God didn't 'begin' to exist, according to theological arguments, therefore no cause.
Let's say that God doesn't answer the ultimate question (although He was invoked for precisely the reason that there logically has to be a terminus), it's still a one step better explanation for the universe than logical impossibilities of Nature Only.
And the question is where did the universe come from, not bits and pieces of it.
cont. Anyway, which particular Civil Rights period are you referring to? You are still generalizing. Hospitals were in existence before Christianity ..and besides you didn't address any of my questions. The problem solving that you credit to religion was actually brought about by religion in the first place. See we both give each other 'facts' depending on which school of thought one follows. Wiki is incorrect in its musical history and not to hot on the real reasons for anything
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."
-Deuteronomy 22:23-24
Yes, WE "designed" the computer using OUR "intelligence", which EVOLVED as a result of random variation and natural selection, only a portion of which is random. The variation portion of the process is random. The selection portion is not. It is also not intelligently designed and has no requirement to be. Evolution works. It has been used to produce results in engineering that could not be similarly produced by a design process.
Because you are attempting to assert that a set of information is blatantly the same as a computer program and, undoubtedly, are then going to move onto the tired and incredibly flawed argument from association of "therefor there had to be a code writer" which is simply wrong.
Because we know that things do not create themselves. Do I really have to explain this one? It's a basic thought. If we want to invent something, we have to think of it first, using intelligence. Draw up a blueprint, then get the materials, and plan it out, then build it. Things do not create themselves. When was the last time you saw a tree turn into a table on it's own? Or computer construct itself? Impossible. I have no idea what created the universe or the materials in it? Why is that bad?
You were the one that posted the comment that seemed angry. I don't know what any of this has to do with hypotheticals. Please, I am a moron, explain to me.
I won't need to. His divinity will strike you. Petty rights on earth can not outweigh the justice of the deepest depths of Tartarus.
A theory is not absolute "fact". It is a hypothesis, an idea that could explain a problem, but is still not discovered to be an absolute "fact". Water evaporates, that is a "fact"...not a "theory". Just like when someone says "in theory" this should work, but they know it is not fact yet. Go look up the official meaning of the word if you still think a theory is a fact.
It's OK. It's actually really common misunderstanding, really. I used to think the same. But Matt Dilahunty is very good at clearing things up. It also makes sense. A lot of people think atheism is this arrogant claim of no gods. Which is funny because it's theism that is arrogant. Atheism is quite often the unsure category. Although, a lot of atheists actually believe there aren't any. And they are more anti-theist, or strong atheist. But all these labels are confusing.
It is not hypocritical at all how I think about DNA. I do not think it is "supernatural". It is a complex coded information. Information does not form on it's own, how could it? If we discover information, especially complex, coded information such as DNA, what created this information? Same with laws of nature, where did the laws come from? Same with our emotions. Why does guilt eat away at us? Why do we "hate" or "love"? Information requires a creator and a receiver of that information.
First off where are you getting this "it was deciphered by WW2 code breakers", it was deciphered by geneticists, not code breakers. Secondly the reason they called it a code is because it was a set of complex information much like a code. Do you understand what a metaphor is? If I say he was a large bear of a man it does not mean the person I'm talking about is literally a bear.
Not really according to the dictionary. The point being while codes do indeed have information, they are not "just that" instead they are purposely hidden or concealed information by an intelligence, thus dna is only called a code by the loosest of senses, not as a literal description.
Well attacking spelling on youtube is among the most petty thing anybody can do. First of all, we are limited to five hundred characters and you would b surprised how many periods commas etc are needed for proper language not to mention, when I get to the end of my characters to fit in a word I sacrifice periods and commas first. That's why I do not take the time and effort into having the perfect comment with perfect grammar. Spelling does not take away from the point someone makes.
But how does the first cause mean something like a god? You've done nothing to support that there has to be a mind, except assert it based on arguments from ignorance.
So, where do the "first cause" prove that the "first cause" has to be a creator?
Why do you refuse/reject the invisible pink unicorn
You are thinking of it based on what "you" would do. If we find out the answer to who or what created all of this, how would we ever expect to understand why they do what they do. You are speculating on what the designer of the universe would or "should" do. We have NO idea what the creator is or would do, and I'm assuming we would not even be able to understand it anyway.
So something changing form is the cause of intelligence? Then when water drips from a caves ceiling and the minerals it caries solidify over a long period of time creating stalactites/stalagmites... this makes the water intelligent?
When sunlight causes a fire to erupt in a dry field, the sun is intelligent?
No one is claiming things don't have a cause, what I disagree with is your baseless assertion that this cause MUST be intelligent which is simply false and an argument from ignorance.