The universe created us. The universe is God. We are conscious matter made in God's image.I am God's Messenger and walked through the narrow door of time from where time does not exist.
@@garystevenson5560 silly. Preposterous. Ludicrous. Outrageous. Just how self righteous are religious people to claim that the are special? Well I say unto thee cuka ... idi ka chertu cuka blyat. As for this revelation... You don't take the drugs when you practice for a drug test. Evolution is death ! Evolution is embrace! Evolution is king!
@Pisstake I honesty don't know. Maybe it's because Christian is said in most of these. I think it's based off of words said in.the videos. But I can't confirm that.
A bit unfair methinks. What’s wrong with having a middle position as in “there might be something out there, there might not.” To me this position takes into account human limit on knowledge.
@@niceguy6152 it still means you have heard the arguments in favor of faith and have found them insufficient. Those arguments certainly weren't enough to justify changing your lifestyle to fit the whims of some possibly-imaginary deity, and they did not justify denying evidence that contradicts scripture. That's all atheists are: unconvinced. They don't make statements that are "beyond human knowledge." At least, the good ones don't. If anything, the atheists you'll find on RUclips (Holy Koolaid, Rationality Rules, etc.) are students of science, easily willing to say "I don't know" when they find themselves at the outer edges of their own knowledge and "we don't know" when they are satisfied they have studied the research that exists at the edge of human knowledge. They know what is "beyond human knowledge" better than anyone. That's their thing. Agnostics do not possess a different belief about the supernatural than atheists hold. Both are unconvinced. Rather, agnosticism is a prioritization of tact over truth. You care about getting along with zealots, and that's admirable. After all, beneath their zealotry they are human, and cannot survive without respect and understanding and peace. But it is not a middle ground between atheism and faith.
Thanks for the reply. However instead of a god maybe there is a shared consciousness or type of energy we become a part of after death. Maybe a higher being did create us but has more or less abandoned us. I think a middle position is possible. The problem with some atheists is that they cross the line into secular fundamentalism that can be just as dogmatic as religious zealots.
Nice Guy There is no middle position. Either you accept a proposition, or you do not accept it. If you do not 'accept' it, then you do 'not accept' it.
Yes but the point is there are many propositions and many possibilities/theories. Then there is the unknown - humans will always lack knowledge in certain areas. There’s belief, lack of belief and then there is keeping an open mind. I personally don’t accept any of the religions as being true but I also simultaneously accept the possibility that there could be something out there we don’t know about. That is my middle position and I can’t see why you find it unpalatable.
Evolutionary theory is the ultimate absurdity. Wave the evolutionary ward and a functioning male reproductive system magically appears, then wave the evolutionary wand again and a functioning female reproductive system magically appears. No, it is the atheists who believe in the real absurdities.
And here we go again, Another one who does not understand what the Word theory means in scientific terms. But no the jewish volcanogods fantasies are more believable.
@@KristerAndersson-nc8zo , your absurd belief in a naturalistic origin of the male and female reproductive systems almost makes children's fairy tales look believable in comparison. Typical of insecure atheists, you run for cover when confronted with the strongest arguments against atheism.
Are you embarrassed of your past? All that fear and despair greatly outweighed the good for me. As I got older I started having questions that made the religion I grew up with seem evil (like an eternity in hell for people across the world, who was born into their religion) I can tell you I am very embarrassed of what I used to think, and feel like I wasted so much energy and thought to it, and all that pain. I still have an existential crisis today, however it’s easier knowing the meaning of our reality, isn’t pure evil.
I used to work as a nurse assistant in an acute psychiatric ward - the amount of psychological problems religions cause people is almost unbelievable so yes the world would be happier and healthier without religion
If there was no religion, they would probably falls into a conspiracy theory instead. My brother is bipolar and during one of his high he started to believe in Santa
When atheism is defined properly, it is the denial of BELIEF in any gods. Here is where I present proof of that. www.aronra.com/if-you-dont-believe-in-any-god-youre-atheist/
If only his arguments were coherent or true ... Find my comment on this video explaining all the faith-based philosophies he adheres to, while denying faith is part of his worldview. I listed numerous examples of faith-based philosophies he believes in without even realizing it, and why most of them are even self-refuting and false by necessity
@@zoratatsumaki9181 "just take the L" Begging-the-question fallacy. First, you'd have to actually obtain that L coherently. You can't do that with fallacious reasoning, which your post is & Aron also uses fallacious reasoning exclusively. As a logic teacher who had no pre-existing biases in this debate as an agnostic most of my life, I reviewed a few of his debates for logical fallacies & I didn't find a single coherent argument from him. Literally not one, in any of the debates I reviewed. The problem is generally that Larry is a Scientism Fundamentalist who lacks any philosophical knowledge, and he thinks that's what "science" means. "You theists never know when you've been outperformed. It's sad really" What makes you think I'm a theist? I never claimed to be, so that's a stereotyping fallacy in which you're falsely concluding anyone who points out the objective intellectual errors a debater is making must be of the opposing stance. Why do you think non-biased third party viewers would not point out these errors just for the sake of intellectual honesty & seeking truth genuinely? Not everyone is in such a dogmatic, tribalistic "us versus them" mindset you're in... so there's no need to project that mindset onto anyone who doesn't blindly believe every word Aron says as if you're treating him like a priest of your dogmatic religion. Here's a tip: Fallacious reasoning occurs when you don't like a post so you want to attempt to create the illusion of refuting/invalidating it *without even addressing the arguments against your stance that were actually said in the first place.* if you want to refute/invalidate arguments against your stance, you must actually address them. Notice how you did not? At all? So there's no logical coherency in your response to my post, which is why it's all fallacious.
@@lightbeforethetunnel your post is vague, self congratulatory, Insipid, and obnoxious. You make many claims and a support none of them. You sound petty and a touch jealous
@pmtoner9852 You say my post is vague, self congratulatory, insipid, and obnoxious. Any other appeals to ridicule / ad hominems you'd like to throw in? Or would you like to address my arguments? Did you even bother checking what they were? I clearly stated in the first post that the specifics are listed in my post in the main comment section of the thread. In the future, I recommend either responding coherently to the substance of arguments that were actually made... or not at all. The childish ad hominem attacks just reveal the emotional dogmatic zealotry so overwhelmingly common among the atheist community. And since I made I claim there, I'll back it up. All academic research on Atheism reveals: 1. Atheists claim to be LESS dogmatic than Theists (with many claiming Atheists can't possibly be dogmatic) 2. Atheists are actually MORE dogmatic than Theists in reality. And I'll prove it. First, I'll start with words from a prominent Atheist on dogmatism, followed by academic research & studies on Atheism dogmatism proving precisely what I said above. Atheist Luke Muehlhauser wrote about atheism and dogmatism: “...I am reminded every day that we atheists are not particularly more rational than believers. Denying the gods does not allow one to escape rampant human bias... We, too, are often dogmatic. We, too, abandon reason and evidence to support opinions that just “feel right” to us. I was reminded of this a few hundred times during the week when I asked atheists to explain what was wrong with my [July 16, 2010] post. A few people gestured toward a kind of argument, but it was clear they were more interested to condemn me than they were to work through the logic of the ethical issues at play. Most of my critics made little attempt to understand what I had said. Instead, they blatantly misrepresented my stated positions so that they could smear me. Others admitted freely they didn’t care about the arguments involved, they just knew that they knew that they knew I was wrong...” Read the comments on this subject at Pharyngula for a lesson in dogmatic atheism. They demonstrate a method for showing that atheists are dogmatic: Attack an atheist’s dogma - especially about a complicated subject like morality, gender, or politics - and count the number of respondents who show a serious interest in arguments and evidence over emotion and dogma-defending. Atheism, dogmatism and Jonathon Haidt's study The abstract for the 2017 journal article Are atheists undogmatic? published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences states: "Previous theory and evidence favor the idea that religious people tend to be dogmatic to some extent whereas non-religious people are undogmatic: the former firmly hold beliefs, some of which are implausible or even contrary to the real world evidence. We conducted a further critical investigation of this idea, distinguishing three aspects of rigidity: (1) self-reported dogmatism, defined as unjustified certainty vs. not standing for any beliefs, (2) intolerance of contradiction, measured through (low) endorsement of contradictory statements, and (3) low readiness to take a different from one's own perspective, measured through the myside bias technique. Non-believers, at least in Western countries where irreligion has become normative, should be lower on the first, but higher on the other two constructs. Data collected from three countries (UK, France, and Spain, total N = 788) and comparisons between Christians, atheists, and agnostics confirmed the expectations, with agnostics being overall similar to atheists."[2] Jagiellonian University study on atheism and dogmatism Next, this is an excerpt from the abstract for the journal article Many faces of dogmatism: Prejudice as a way of protecting certainty against value violators among dogmatic believers and atheists which was published in the British Journal of Psychology states: “In this article, we suggest that dogmatic beliefs, manifested as strong beliefs that there is no God (i.e., dogmatic atheism) as well as strong beliefs in God (i.e., religious orthodoxy), can serve as a cognitive response to uncertainty. Moreover, we claim that people who dogmatically do not believe in religion and those who dogmatically believe in religion are equally prone to intolerance and prejudice towards groups that violate their important values. That is because prejudice towards these groups may be an efficient strategy to protect the certainty that strong beliefs provide. We tested these assumptions in two studies. In Study 1 and Study 2, we demonstrated that dogmatic beliefs mediate the relationship between intolerance to uncertainty and both, religious orthodoxy and dogmatic atheism. In addition, in Study 2 we showed that both the religiously orthodox and dogmatic atheists become prejudiced towards groups that violate their values and that these effects are especially strong under experimentally induced uncertainty.[14]” The research was done by the Institute of Psychology, Jagiellonian University by the researchers Małgorzata Kossowska, Aneta Czernatowicz‐Kukuczka and Maciej Sekerdej. Commenting on Jonathon Haidt's work the article New Study Exposes Atheist Dogma states: “A new study released by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt compared Atheists with popular conservative pundits like Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Anne Coulter. Here’s why Dr. Haidt did the study, “When I was doing the research for The Righteous Mind, I read the New Atheist books carefully, and I noticed that several of them sounded angry. I also noticed that they used rhetorical structures suggesting certainty far more often than I was used to in scientific writing, words such as ‘always’ and ‘never,’ as well as phrases such as ‘there is no doubt that’ and ‘clearly we must’.” Because of this change in presentation Dr. Haidt compared the writings of the new atheists to people like Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck who are known for their dogmatic positions. The study analyzed the entire text of each of their newest books for words and phrases that denote dogmatic opinions. Phrases like: “always” “never,” “certainly,” “every,” and “undeniable.” and in atheist Sam Harris’s book these dogmatic phrases represented over 2.5% of every word in the book. That’s five dogmatic words for every 200 words in the book! By looking at this graph you can see how every one of these new atheists, including Richard Dawkins, were more extreme in their presentations than even Glenn Beck. In essence, this study proved the opposite of what atheists claim. The new atheists aren’t scientists trying to present every side of the truth and allow their audience to come to their own conclusions but rather they are pushing people to believe a predetermined conclusion. Psychology Today indicates: “Dogmatism has usually been related to low levels of openness to experience, the latter being an indicator of one's interest in new and non-traditional ideas. Dogmatism has mostly been studied in relation to religious beliefs but some recent research has looked at dogmatism among non-religious people. One surprising finding was that among self-identified atheists, higher levels of openness to experience were actually associated with greater dogmatism, contrary to the usual pattern. This suggests that the personality dimension openness to experience might not be a marker of open-mindedness as such but more of a preference for unconventional and complex ideas. Perhaps there needs to be a distinction made between humble versus arrogant forms of openness to experience.” The journalist Marjorie Steele states: “I’m not so much saying atheists as individuals are dogmatic, as I am that atheism is, as an ideology. Atheism takes a firmly negative stance on anything supernatural, asserting it does not exist, which is very different from asserting that it’s unknown. That premise alone makes atheism as dogmatic as religion.” I'll add my two cents at the end here: While I used to assume Atheists / Agnostics can't be dogmatic or indoctrinated when I was one myself, it soon becomes clear the reality is the polar opposite when you step outside that group and see it from the outside. Not only are Atheists dogmatic, but they're MORE dogmatic. The reason for this is: Since Atheists often falsely believe only everyone else can possibly be dogmatic, they never recognize their own dogmatic zealotry no matter how severe it becomes. With other religions, at least they're aware their own dogmatism can be a problem. Self-awareness = self-control, to an extent. When there's no self-awareness of even the potential one can be dogmatic with the finger always pointed at anyone who disagrees with you (which is a dogmatism fallacy itself), this allows the dogmatism of an Atheist to become outrageously severe without any hope of self-recognition.
Totally agree and welcome to your new family. Now you can .."forget all Gods, their promises and threats, to feel within your veins life's joyous stream and hear the martial music, the rhythmic beating of your fearless heart. And then to rouse yourself to do all useful things, to reach with thought and deed the ideal in your brain, to give your fancies wing, that they, like chemist bees, may find art's nectar in the weeds of common things, to look with trained and steady eyes for facts, to find the subtle threads that join the distant with the now, to increase knowledge, to take burdens from the weak, to develop the brain, to defend the right, to make a palace for the soul. This is real religion. This is real worship" - Robert Green Ingersoll
"No history class should confuse students with a movie that has Mel Gibson's name in the credits" you sir just gained the utmost respect from all historians breathing on the planet ! :p
@@OdintheGermanShepherd I never saw a movie that is 100% accurate. That being said, I'm ok with "accurate in what it focuses on". Master and commander Comes to mind, Tora! Tora! Tora!, The old "Waterloo", A night to remember (about the Titanic)... The thing that will put most people off tho is that it's mostly "old" movies (I may love them but even I need the right Time to watch them). What I would recommend is googling a specific subject you are interested in to see if there's a movie about it then have a look at specialised forums to see what people tell about the accuracy
It could be worse. You could have attempted to reason with an atheist creationist who believes aliens planted us here on Earth and planted every species because they didn’t think evolution was an objectively verifiable fact.
@@broKen73484No, I am not convinced that the is a God. It's similar to being convinced that the suspect did the crime, not being convinced doesn't mean I'm convinced the suspect is innocent. I just like to make fun of the arguments, because these exact same arguments are used by Muslims to prove Allah exists, and these religious groups, while using the exact same thing, don't seem to realise that if their argument was correct, it would prove any and every God, how can they be oblivious to this is beyond me. To give an analogy again: Religious groups are saying this: - There has been a crime, so there must be a suspect. - me: What crime? Where? - them: Humans existing is the crime. - me: uh that's not a crime, but okay, who is this suspect? - them: It's Jesus, no it's Allah, no it's Krishna, no it's Zeus, no it's... - me: You guys realise you have no idea what you're talking about? - them: We do, it's the others who don't.
"The Bible has already been proven wrong in every testable claim that it makes so that not even God could resurrect those falsified fables" ZING! Nice one!
Anyone have any of these "proofs" they'd like to share. I'd love to debate them "scientifically". Biginfidelis, merely stating something isn't an argument, but nice try.
BigInfidelis; Okay, so you go for the the flood. Most arguments against the flood are illogical. Aron Ra argues that some of the bigger cats can eat ten pounds of food a day, there wouldn't be enough food for all the animals. Okay, assuming that God refused to help in any way, maybe that theory is correct. However, isn't there an account of Jesus feed the masses of four thousand and five thousand with a few loaves of bread and fish? The issue with arguing against one part of the Bible is that you have to argue against the entire Bible. You can't separate one account from the rest. People who say they can "prove the flood didn't happen would logically be forced to "prove" subsequent arguments created. So, Moses never parted the Red Sea, Daniel never entered the lion's den, Jesus never walked in the fire with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego., Lazarus was never raised from the dead, etc. To try to disprove all of these accounts isn't even feasible, let alone possible, unless you have a time machine lying around somewhere.
I didn't say it was true by default, that was you're addition. I said you have no way to prove your claim. All you can do is say, "based on the evidence of today...", we have to assume it wasn't possible. You can only say, "Nothing like that has occurred in recent years so, I guess it didn't happen back then either. That isn't science, it's an opinion.
1 + 1 = 3 Y U aRe LIVING proof this is my WORD the GOSPEL of Jesus Christ $20.00 AT universal-spirit.org Med Rec Holy Ind = MR HI 50,000 Uses&Benefits & Counting 4 CANNABIS PLANT'S Male&Female RELATED SITES 420+ sh AIRING re-legalize REINSTATE Compulsory Mandatory GROW laws SEE wit EAR'S use Ur EYE'S 4 NOTES at ruclips.net/video/-zeeO-yna1I/видео.html SEND 2 ALL PUBLIC SERVANTS, ALLEGED SAVANTS in need of REEDUCATION'S with REDUNDANCIES read hemp123.org Click Links shh AIR INFO beyond AFOREMENTIONED unmentioned DEA FDA CDC WHO USDA EPA FEMA NSA FBI CIA due PARDON the REDUNDANCIES sh AIR 2 ALL PUBLIC SERVANTS alleged SAVANTS Go 2 hempabcdeals.biz SIGN petition if APP.'S EDIT petition 420+ AT your location ruclips.net/user/yahwaya2z SCROLL TITLES sh AIR related INFO ruclips.net/user/budlight32164 Hemp vs.Marijuana ruclips.net/user/francishatin eckcancar.org Click HU? fhu.com VISIT universal-spirit.org yahweh.com NEWSLETTER available ASK for FREE BOOK at Y N K P O Box 12949 Prescott AZ 86304 WEBSITE under RECONSTRUCTION yahwehsnewkingdom.com Y N K = Yahweh's New Kingdom IF U wish to WRITE it OUT
+Arrakiz666 I've been watching Arona videos and lectures for some years and his statements have become much more refined, not that they weren't bad in the first place but they are much more precise and to the point. taking on knuckleheaded apologetics probably helped.
+Arrakiz666 That's why I prefer his different stuff. A lot of atheism just rehashes the same stuff over and over. But... Give The Devil His Due had some cool stuff, Flintstones Archaeology, Evolution of Morality. He's much more interesting when he's criticizing pseudo-science. It's still dense and structured, but not quite as much.
Khaine's Lair I have to agree; the entire book of Revelation, Ezekiel, and the "lost"/omitted Book of Enoch (also a prophet), is very "trippy". Especially if you read it from the psychonaut's point-of-view, it's extremely "out-there". I'm pretty sure that's why the latter was taken out of the Bible completely. Enoch was a madman, even by today's standards..heck, especially by today's standards! There is another way of looking at it, albeit a more boring & dry point-of-view, but a valid one all the same, and it has to do with time. We know that at the time of the writing of those books--which *I'm guessing* was sometime between 50 and 700 AD--there was so little understanding of the world. People had no knowledge of what we now know as basic scientific concepts (ones even Christians believe), and were still EXTREMELY superstitious. So if we take that into account; some guy with a big imagination and nothing better to do (except scare people), one can easily see how a books like "Revelations", "Ezekiel", and "Enoch" could've come to be without drugs. All the same, men like Ezekiel, John, and Enoch may all have been using drugs. It's perfectly conceivable, and since it wasn't a social taboo back then for "learned men" to experiment with "drugs", *they all could've been trippin' balls when they wrote their prophecies!*
Ray Comfort: What would convince you that there's a god"? Me: Pray to it and ask what fruit I'm thinking of. If it tells you and your first guess is correct, it'll be a starting point".
@@A_Stereotypical_Heretic This post was 2 years ago. I've thought of fruit on and off since. Have you asked god what fruit that was? (Hint: Ray Comfort).
I disagree. If life did indeed begin from non-living matter, then all it would take is for scientist to recreate the conditions that existed at the time of abiogenesis. They are working on recreating those conditions, which is certainly within the realm of the possible. On your second point, so what? Was there a time limit implied? It may take hundreds or thousands of years, but why does that matter? Duration is not a factor that by default proves the corollary.
All you've really done there is demonstrate that you do not understand what science is. So let's say that tomorrow a new story comes out reporting that multiple teams of scientists from around the globe have been working independently, strictly following the scientific method, and have been able to recreate the conditions and create life from known elements, as has been hypothesized. Irrefutable proof that we have an answer to the question of how life on Earth began. You think that would be futile? Is it just because the findings would negate your worldview? People like you do tend to ignore things you don't like after all, no matter how factual they are.
Ahhh, insults. You win the moral high ground, congrats! I do need help though, so I guess you're right about that. I'm sorry, you're just wrong. Scientific experiments that could create organisms from non-living material would indeed prove the hypothesis (or at least tip the scales away from creationism in a massive way) of life's origin without supernatural interaction. BTW I never claimed facts in my "imaginary scenario", I was offering a thought experiment. You can try all you want to elevate your ideas over mine, but your sheepskin will not help with that. I have one too, so what? Believe what you want, insult people all you want, claim self-righteousness all you want... none of that makes you right.
Wow! Bold claims my friend. Bold claims indeed. I'm always intrigued by people that know me better than i know myself, particularly those using the comments section as the basis of the relationship, while bloviating about credentials. Analyze away, doctor. What would it take to make me a chicken (never said i wasn't one), or a Christian (never said I wasn't one)?
I don't think that's a particularly strong argument against any gods' existences. For example, if a god doesn't care what a human believes or even what they particularly do, they wouldn't have any reason to give man an innate knowledge of them.
@Memer Dreamer no, that's just pathetic arrogance. Good luck trying to debate any apologetist more knowledgeable than Kent Hovind with such attitude, lel
@Memer Dreamer you gotta be real careful with how you word things or you end up shifting the burden of proof onto yourself. Your statement is a truth claim, now. Can you prove your claim?
@Memer Dreamer you are making an assertion of a definite negative. I'm not trying to be a jerk. Just saying you have to be careful of how you word an argument so that you don't shift the burden of proof back on yourself. You made an assertion that there is no magic, in a debate it would be fair for someone to then ask you for proof of that assertion. Especially since deity isn't necessarily 'magical', it could simply be something that exists outside of our current scope for observation that follows a set of rules within this instantiation of our known space time.
Dear Aron, this is a great video! I do thank you so much for giving hope to people. For many years I lived in an Islamic seminary studying to become a Muslim theologian. For much of that time, I felt I was happy, as I felt life had meaning/purpose, all the while a wedge was unknowingly growing between my non-Muslim family members and I. Fast-forward several years -- and gloss over numerous intellectual, inter-personal, and spiritual crises -- and I was quietly removed from the school (with prejudice) and evicted from my student housing. Consequently, I spent the following two years living out of my car as a community untouchable (even though occurring in Australia) whilst my hope of divine assistance, at least spiritually (as I was hastily losing faith), was ungracefully waning. As such, any hope I beheld for life's meaning, religiously and spiritually, perished also. Until I heard your wonderful words (at 11:40, '... if you want your life to mean something, try making someone else’s life meaningful.'), I did not know what to do with my existence. Now I am committed to helping my mum have the best life possible, full of love and happiness, since she would be otherwise alone and cannot believe in god(s) either. Thank you Aron!
My life has so much more meaning and is so much more precious ever since I shed my superstitious belief in the cannibal mythology of Catholicism. We are all born atheist. I have returned to the purity of atheism. May we all achieve maximum happiness and minimum suffering. Thank you :)
I believe he thinks we are born with the knowledge and acceptance of god. The "god-shaped hole" in our minds or souls or whatever. He doesn't understand evolution or tabula rasa...we are born with a lot of physical things, some instincts, etc., and an ability to be quite gullible for a while, but that's not a "god module." It means that we can easily integrate with whatever culture we're born into.
Christian: "God is so great he exist beyond reality" Atheist: "so your saying that he exist outside of reality?" Christian: "exactly" Atheist: "So... he is unrealistic then?" Christian: "uhh.... your going to hell!"
With all do respect, I became a Christian bc of paranormal activity and sending bad spirits to hell. I just want to hear ur opinion on it bc once upon a time I was like you 🖤
You have just proved that an atheist can be respectful and polite in the face of repetitive, half-baked questions. A lesser man would have either laughed or told the questioner not to be so stupid. Well done sir. If i had a hat i would doff it in your direction.
Excellent - you nailed it at question 1 - atheism is "without theism"....that's it ..game over. - E.g. "You assert that you believe that my cat is really an alien spy - I don't believe that my cat is an alien spy - there's no evidence that she is - so why do I need to answer 30 more questions, in order to explain to you how my life works, without believing an unsubstantiated proposition that the cat IS an alien spy?" After the great simple definition you gave to question 1, Slick's other questions are exposed as irrelevant nonsense . It's like asking someone if they believe in purple dragons - and when they say "no," shifting the burden of proof and asking them to justify their non-belief - and then asking 30 further useless questions, which require them to define how a world (and their lives) could possibly function WITHOUT purple dragons (when it's obvious that their lives [and the world] DO function perfectly well without such large colo(u)rful fire-breathing reptiles) You did a great job of just "batting away " those stupid questions with pure logic, tho' - great work
It seems to me that the only theists Who ask honest questions to atheists and actually want to hear the answers are those who are already teetering at the edge of nonbelief. Every other theist seems to ask questions intentionally worded to trip atheists up so they can quote mine and try and play this little gotcha game. Such duplicitous framing shows just how ignoble they are, and how fragile their position is.
Stephen k. That is where I am at and if anyone could completely convince me that Christianity is false, basically disproving the historical accounts of Jesus, then I would become Atheist. I have journeyed closer to Atheism after doing a lot of study on the Bible. I accept Evolution, I understand the first five books of the Bible are not history, and I dont take the Bible literally most of the time. But I am on the edge between Theism and Atheism. If Aron Ra could help that would be great This video somewhat helps
DarkX, I recommend that you find here on RUclips, Christopher Hitchens' audio book "God is not Great". He is a wonderfully eloquent author. Also investigating the numerous debates on Atheism vs Theism may be hugely useful to you. My favourite speakers are Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Sam Harris and of course the late Christopher Hitchens. Another info source would be the many recorded interviews with the late Carl Sagan, along with his "Cosmos" series. I hope you find these helpful.
DarkX If you want youtube sources there is Alley43 who showed that Jesus is more likely a legend than a literal historical figure. Just search "Evolution of Jesus". And if you want intelligent content, I would recommend The Thinking Atheist, TheraminTrees and QualiaSoup. If you want comedic with a hint of sensical arguements, I would suggest Nonstampcollector and Darkmatter 2525.
+DarkX Stephen k. "if anyone could completely convince me that Christianity is false, basically disproving the historical accounts of Jesus" That is where the Terror aspect of the deception comes into play. What genuinely loving, caring god would ever conceive of introducing the concept of burning in Hell forever, to children? That alone should be enough to make you back away very quickly. I was lucky, my parents were intelligent, god was never part of my life. But even at a very early age I recognised that there was something very wrong with the tales I heard.
Black Ice - my favorite statement of his may be the one at the start of this video, where he says that agnostics are people who don’t know that they are atheists. 😆
Shaun Sharted - Right, agnostics don’t claim that there are no gods. Atheists don’t make claims that there are no gods either. Both agnostics and atheists simply reject the bold assertion that any mythology is necessarily true. Atheists lack belief, the same as agnostics. Honestly, if one doesn’t know (agnostic), then one doesn’t believe either (atheist), AND VISE VERSA. If you think about it, they are practically the same thing.
Any informed person could shred Aron Ra to ribbons. Evolutionary theory is the ultimate absurdity. Wave the evolutionary wand and a functioning male reproductive system magically appears, then wave the evolutionary wand again and a functioning female reproductive system magically appears. Evolutionists always run for cover from arguments such as this.
@Kenneth John Kelly Go to RUclips channel "SpaceX", you can watch monthly video's of rockets going into outer space and filming the whole thing from launch to landing.
I just found your account and find it absolutely wonderful but one thing. As a third generation rancher in the mountains of Northern California I can assure you of one thing, the North American Sasquatch is indeed a flesh and blood creature. Other than that one near meaningless detail I applaud you sir.
I let out a loud "HAHA!" a few times during this vid. I love Aron's matter-of-fact deadpan delivery of logical and critical thinking at its best. My fav is "...so an agnostic is someone who does not know that they are really an atheist." Ambrose Bierce couldn't have defined it better! Thanks Aron for the intelligent retorts to tired and dumb theist questions.
If someone would ask me: "Why are you an atheist?", I would send them this video. It perfectly sums up some of the major questions surrounding atheism and theism, answered incredibly well with the right amount of logic, wit and honesty. Definitely my favourite video of yours, don't know why I just came across this now after years of watching you, but I am glad I did. Thanks Aron!
Can I just say... There is no such thing as an "evolutionist"... This would imply that evolution is some kind of belief, which it is not.. Accepting facts, is not a belief system..
@@jomc20 Myself and my buddies have a drinking game.. Whenever the night starts slowing down a bit.. We go through science video comment sections on Youtude, and take a shot every time we see "Its just a theory".. How none of us have died of alcohol poisoning, is a "miracle"..
He has had a lot of practice. He has thought and spoken and debated this subject for quite some time and is currently the president of the Atheist Alliance of America. He has refined his points over time to be more concordant with reality, while theists often have to use mental gymnastics that are often self contradictory, not concordant with reality and banal.
The "how can you be sure..." line of reasoning is an attempt for an intellectually honest person to say "I'm not, only 99.99%" which is true. "How can you be sure about stating that's true?" I can almost hear Sye Ten Brugwhogivesafuck and idiots like him ask. To use honesty as a weapon is ridiculous and cowardly. It's mostly petulant.
If you're not 100% sure, they are 1000% sure since 1000 is a bigger number so you lose and just forget about that evidence business since by you answering you have agreed that "sureness" is a standard of proof. Those questions all assume Slick's view is true and atheists are wrong. Their idea of debate starts with "resolved: I am right, now let's hear your bullshit." whereas the atheist says "I think I'm right, let's hear your bullshit"! They presup themselves to be right (a unilateral watch-it-unfold given) and are ignorant towards and about any other view. When they ask questions that start from that position don't let them get away with it, ask "the what?" about everything asserted unproven in the supposed question before making any answer. It takes the wheels off their clown car when they can't slip their own "given's" in.
which is exactly why when Sye attempts a TAG debate he fails instantly. the "Argument" in TAG is supposed to be: Argument: a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory (the idea being that when said reason is used and demolished, you simply never use it again as you've been educated and the "argument" is over) what Sye uses: Argument: an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one (the intention being that nothing needs to be conceded ever, honesty and truth aren't needed)
This is how you know someone is educated in their field. When they can talk about a subject freely and all encompassing with anecdotes, examples, and definitions without even skipping a beat.
Well played for being here mate, Mr Ra has a very unique way kg explaining himself - one that is very close to my own position but much much better explained 😂
If the god of the bible had been portrayed as a king instead of a god, he would be remembered as the most evil, mass murdering, tyrannical dictator of all time! Christians give the bible god a free pass because, they say, he is god the creator. I don't see the difference whether man or god. If his actions were evil or immoral, as the bible states, then he'd be just as guilty of being evil as any human committing the same deeds.
+Cootabux Exceptional insight, well said. I have not heard that angle before, yet now you have said it, it's so obvious. Just like a great argument should.
This is such a good point! On a similar note, I was raised in Mormonism & they always said “Heavenly Father”. & since I’ve left Mormonism I’ve realized that even if he existed he wouldn’t be deserving of the prefix “Heavenly”. If any parent did the things that he has done to his children, he would go to prison. At least in the US & most other countries. So yeah, it bugs me a lot that he gets that free pass that you mentioned.
2consider, your point fails because it stands on a false comparison. If we credit the Bible as true, than God has already done horrible actions in it (killed millions, tortured and toyed with men simply because He could, gave immoral orders for others to carry on, etc). Your argument is that God "must know what He's doing", therefore we should look the other way and give His actions a free pass. Then you compare it to a time traveller who went back in time and killed a young Hitler (saving mankind's future), just to be punished by society because no one else had the insight he had and couldn't understand the importance of what he did. The problem is in comparing a MAN to an omniscient DEITY. A time traveller would be limited by his humans options; arresting or isolate Hitler from society wouldn't be easy, and to change the person he was inside would be impossible, therefore all he could do was really just kill him. A being which has no limitations could (and should) solve ANY PROBLEM without involving death, torture and immorality in order to do it. Unless you're saying that some scenarios beat God's omnipotence and leave Him with no other choice but to take the violent road. That's a paradox, either He's not omnipotent or He doesn't care about the pain He causes along the way. Pick either, and still your argument fails...
"So Jimmy, should i take this to mean you believe in God, just don't like him? If you don't believe in the god of the bible, complaining about anything god does is, for lack of a better word, insane." - How you jumped from my comment to that assumption is beyond me, since all i did was engaging in a "what if" situation for the sake of argumentation. You do understand that we, humans, can use such "what ifs" while having a discussion, right? In short, what i said was that IF God existed (and no, i don't believe in any myths) and the Bible represented Him correctly, then i wouldn't like Him. Aknowledging existence and like Him are different things. "You make a lot of assumptions, for example, you assume that God couldn't have good reason for what he does, even though he's omniscient, odd. Another assumption you make is the decisions god made were the worst possible decisions." - i'm sorry if logic gets in the way of your beliefs, but that's how it works. It's very simple. A final goal can be moral and good, sure, and to achieve it it's possible that some harm must first be done, but it will ALWAYS be preferable that such goal is achieved without any harm done. An omnipotent, all-loving God would NEVER use a harmful road to achieve an end (no matter how good that end is) because He's supposed to be able to achieve it WITHOUT the harm. Is this so hard to get? "Of course, none of this matters because you've already determined the bible is false and there is no god." - Nice projection work there. Nope, that's actually religion's way, where things are pre-determined and dogma can't be changed. I, on the other hand, don't work with absolutes. I work with the available data. That means that if you bring me evidence for God's existence, you could change my view. But without it, you have nothing. So, instead of desperate and debunked to shreds apologetics, get me some REAL evidence and i promise you you'll change my beliefs! Deal?
***** So how do you know your definitions of nature, scope or meaning are correct? What I'm trying to say is: Once you start challenging definitions, you can't discuss at all. Because when we talk about existence, we can only talk about our definition of existence. When we talk about truth, we can only talk about our definition of it.
Religion fulfills the definition of a delusion perfectly: A false belief held despite and often against all prove to the contrary. The only real difference between "I am Napoleon" and "There's a god and he made the world" from a rational point of view is the number of afflicted.
_"[A]n agnostic is someone who does not know that they are really an atheist."_ I'm gonna use that one, Aron. :-) Question 2 shows a complete lack of understanding of atheists. Although some christians seem to take whatever version of a god they believe in into consideration when making some decisions, there's no atheist equivalent. Atheists don't say, "Well, since there are no gods, I think I'll [fill in the blank]." Aron, I disagree with you about the legal system and the assumption that free will exists. If a person is harming others and/or others' property, and can't or won't stop, that's a good enough reason to separate that person from the general public, whether "free will" exists, or not.
YY Please don't confuse the freedom to do as we please using free will with the necessity to pay a price for it. Free will seems to me to be about the ability to do something. There are many things we have the ability to do that we choose to not do. This too is free will. If free will worked as you lay it out, it seems you'd included the circumstance of doing things without a responce from others. as if free will to do something also includes 'getting away with it'. There is nothing that can physically stop me from killing my rival. l am free to burn their house with them in it, or poison them, or shoot them, or any number of ways to take their life. Nothing keeps me from doing these things if it is my will to do them. lf l do not care about the penalty l will do so. Caring about the effect of my actions is called morality/ethics. Consequences of actions may limit the free will, but it does not negate it.
I think you confuse Biblical free will with apparent free will. My personal belief, since I will not put words into Aron's mouth, is that we do NOT have free will. We have programming and conditioning. Programming is evolutionary while conditioning is societal. The judiciary must act as if we have free will, not because the says we do, but because there is no other way to proceed. If the Afulenza defense is claimed, that is to say, a person didn't know any better because they are too rich to have been taught better, then we accept a lack of common programming or of societal conditioning and therefore should blame the parents. I'm kinda okay with this, actually.
John H Of course, just because vegan does not know he is eating me does not mean he is no longer vegan. Not all vegetable soups for examples are truly suitable for vegans.
8:41 - "Do you believe that faith in a God or gods is a mental disorder?" My answer would be: If only a few people believe in imaginary being(s), it's "disorder". If a great many people believe in imaginary being(s), it's "religion".
Way too many redundant questions. 90% of these questions can be answered simply as: atheism is not a belief system or an ideology, it's a rejection of a claim, nothing more.
Atheism is also an ideology. It is a naturalistic way of thinking, and there are atheist groups and conventions, and atheists try to convert people to atheism, and they push for the eradication of acknowledgement of God from government, schools and public areas.
@@anthonypuccetti8779 What bs. Football is an ideology, because fans go to conventions, collect/trade cards, create football groups, try to show other people that their group is better and push for the complete eradication of other - in their mind obviously inferior - football organizations. Atheism is not an ideology, antitheism is. Get your facts together. Also I and many people find it offensive that religion takes credit for inventing social activities. Churches weren't first, stop telling otherwise.
@@nati0598 Atheists also have organizations, conventions, try to show they are intellectually and morally superior, and push for the eradication of religion. Atheism is a conscious, absolute rejection of belief in God or any god. That way of thinking doesn't come naturally through reason. It is ideological. And modern atheists base their atheism upon belief in scientific theories of the origins of things. This is a materialistic mentality that pretends that the only way to know or prove that something exists is if there is evidence that can be tested by science.
I have to disagree. Not necessarily for people no longer following religion, but were the gods forgotten, then thousands of years of cultural tradition would be lost, and our literature, poetry, traditions, architecture, and heritage would suffer for it. Few people believe any more in the Egyptian gods, but the human would be so much poorer without the heritage remaining from that culture, a lot of which has to do with gods. World literature gains so much from a mythic tradition and would lose so much without it.
Aron: I think that it would be extremely useful to post these responses in text form, so that people could consider each point fully before going on to the next. There may be some minor details to be argued and clarified, before the viewer is swept on to the next question.
+Laughing Stock Yes: I know. However, there is some difference between pausing a video (a temporary pause in an ongoing narrative) and consulting a text, which can be examined at leisure. The former requires one to compare their thoughts against a not-entirely-reliable memory: the latter displays the original statement for reference.
Great episode, as per usual! Question: Who in the movement is addressing questions such as these from the perspective of psychology? For example, the 2nd last question is trying to formulate a scenario where a god-like being might be capable of existing, and is desperately trying to bring the gap between conceivable future scenarios and some semblance of what they were conditioned to accept. My impression is that what the inquisitor is really in search of is not so much some stranger’s opinion on an abstract, untestable hypothetical, but rather is yearning for approval and permission to retain some form of their foundational belief without completely losing face and respect, essentially seeking to maintain serotonin flow in the brain while retaining their irrational output from their cognitive dissonance. The question was a bartering tactic, although the questioner likely didn’t realize that. I hope that Aron and the gang can bring in a psychologist to answer questions from this point of view, so that the asker can better understand why they themselves are even asking such questions. It might help such people to start asking better questions, rather than stumbling through the same old apologist justifications and rationalizations, phrased in question form to make it appear that they are seeking knowledge.
Love your stuff! This is so informative and helpful. What’s up with your mic occasionally being out of phase or occasionally panned to one side? I see this is from 2015. Here in 2019 I hope you’ve found an easy correction for this. Keep it up, you def gained a fan!
God is beyond time and space but he takes 6 days to complete his creation. Days are time. So God needs time to do creation. We call a single revolution of earth as a day. And how God created Earth on the 6th day when there was no measure of days before earth. A single sentence in religious books has some 10 contradictions and stupidity.
hmmm... as you mention, day are time. 6 days not literally mean by a the earth 6th completed rotation. its refer to time. for the truth seeker, you need to understand the ancient time, such as the way of they writing before make a your own conclusion. be a smart atheist... not blindly follow. at the end, even atheist will be the same as religions people. in term of attitude.
nazhammerheart Atheism is popular because you do not need to ‘blindly follow’ it. It presents facts tenfold compared to any religion. Now you say Earth’s “6th Day” wasn’t literally 6 earth rotations. However, it is described as a day, and makes no mention of this ancient time you speak of. This is you bending the story to explain your faulty beliefs. Your grammar and sentence structure goes to show your intellectuality is not on par with Aaron Ra’s.
@@211pirate6 Ancient or modern, time is time. Time is within physical reality. When time comes in, the space comes with it. God taking some time, even if it's one mega zillionth of a second, its still within physical reality, which means God is also taking some space. Space and time is bound by physical laws which can be observed and measured by Scientific methods. Anything that science can explain cannot be God. So your god is not GOD.
@@211pirate6 friend.. you mistaken something.... I'm not a christian nor a atheism.. how could you compare my grammar to Mr Aaron... mine just elementary school standard and english not even my main language. i enjoy reading/listening to a good mind... (including Aaron Ra's) just saying.. we should see it through them point of view... don't force it trough our own point of view (that is the truth seeker)... it be like orthodox beliefs... only them are right... (sorry for my grammar again )
You are stupid. The way you approached this is 10,9,8,7,6 and 6+5 = 11 I have 11 fingers!😂 Messing with chronology destroys the integrity of the event. I am no fan of any religion. Just pointing out your mistake.
+Steven Baumann "My cats are my overlords" Cats are a waste of space, they are only bested in the Least Hospital stakes by the Tasmanian Devil... The most heinous mammal ever to exist. But it is a close run thing.
You ..;.how dare you to say such things of our masters, the cat overlords!? I shall sacrifice your money to my lords as a punishment and buy CATNIP FOR THEM!
Wow. I am so impressed with your answer to the question of whether religious belief is a mental illness. You've managed to distinguish among all the different aspects of mental functioning and show how religion affects them. You are sharp as a tack, or should I say, a scalpel. Nicely done!
yeah screw them Tibetan monks that can control their bodies with meditation which is the same form of prayer that religious people also do... haa Aron is a moron or more off
Lee Brown They do in one why or another..... Amish have increadable immune system I could go on and on if you want Spirituality May Help People Live Longer www.webmd.com/balance/features/spirituality-may-help-people-live-longer?page=2
Lee Brown Problem is not God. AronRa has a problem with Faith what is the meaning of Faith faith noun \ˈfāth\ Simple Definition of faith *: strong belief or trust in someone or something* : belief in the existence of God : strong religious feelings or beliefs : a system of religious beliefs Source: Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary The Amish based their life on way of living which causes adaptation this is because of their faith this adaptation happened which know Doctor who have study them my cure Asama and Autism I did watch the video and like always AronRa does not fact check or tells half truths We humans are nothing more than swirling vortex of particle energy with a higher awareness than germ, plants and animals so if we humans exist then it is possible if not probable that God exist......
Lee Brown Adaptation happens in humans many time in your life... Look up and read Epigenetics I totally understand Evolution and it is based on opinion.... I am not a Catholic I am Aramaic Christian we don't believe in hell as that was a mistranslated by the Greeks and Romans like the evolution of language so did faith as all the faiths all around the world stem from one source which is Noah which the world flooded around 13,000 bc hmmm God didn't want a robot so he gave us free will Adam and Eve made a choice did matter if they eat the forbidden fruit or not. We humans are the only creature that can predict our own future by the choices we make... God is the greatest Scientist in the Universes in my opinion and we are his lab rats.... we have all the info to solve the maze of life but the choice of which path we take is ours alone to make.....
Lee Brown Give me fact of evolution? Here is two facts on fossils 1st Something lived and died. Yes we tell a lot from fossils like ribs tell growth patterns of a creature. 2nd That creatures get smaller or stay the same look at human cells they have a 99.99% copy correct plus they proof check after and before the cell divides if their is a error the cell self destructs.... I could go into the problem of Lucy having the same number of ribs of chimps and the arm length of a chimp same feet hands and build of a chimp. Humans have shorter arms and less ribs than chimp but please don't tell me about cervical rib (neck ribs) as they don't count as ribs yet people with Rh- blood typically have an extra rib. They usually have red or blond hair and green eyes! Some even have extra vertebrae or ribs which is a odd number Humans and orangutans have 12 set of ribs Chimpanzees and gorillas (both male and female) have 13 rib pairs. Or penis bone, which is present in other primates and many other mammals, but not in humans. I have not even gotten into the how acidic primates blood is verse humans and many other factors I guess 13,000 BC the ocean level didn't rise over 100 feet in a single year and over 500 feet in the following years so much for facts about science then.... I do understand science and biology my passion is Biophysics I don't believe in a skydaddy I believe in a being with vast knowledge and the ability to create Synthetic life forms and give that life form Artificial knowledge and the ability to pass that knowledge on plus reproduce
It's a good thing my decisions are determined entirely by the chemical processes of my brain, because I AM the chemical processes of my brain. If my actions weren't determined by physics, it would not be me determining them.
Yep, that is my neighbor, FAITH!!!!! JUST KEEP BELIEVING!!!!!! Brainwashed himself for 70 years. I've cornered him so bad he once remarked, "well I'll have to pray a little harder" Hummm, even if you could get all 7 billion people to pray, IT STILL WON'T WORK. What is wrong with humans????????????? Thanks Aron, I'm behind you 100%
Развлечения
Man created God and saw that it was profitable.
Yes
God: makes man
Man: reproduces
God: jack off in the corner
The universe created us. The universe is God. We are conscious matter made in God's image.I am God's Messenger and walked through the narrow door of time from where time does not exist.
@@garystevenson5560 evidence?
@@garystevenson5560 silly. Preposterous. Ludicrous. Outrageous. Just how self righteous are religious people to claim that the are special? Well I say unto thee cuka ... idi ka chertu cuka blyat. As for this revelation... You don't take the drugs when you practice for a drug test. Evolution is death ! Evolution is embrace! Evolution is king!
*Sapient Wisdom:* “I don't want to believe. I want to know.”
― Carl Sagan
Yeah ... but he didn't.
@@douglassmiller9460 "Didn't" what?
BeachsideHank: That is so true, and I also want to know where to obtain these gorgeous backgrounds.
Well said. You cannot just make believe. You must accept the facts presented to you even if they make you feel uncomfortable.
Best quote of that decade!!! Rest in peace Carl S.
I love how RUclips puts Christian advertising on before Aron Ra videos. Hilarious
Not just Aron its all Athiest RUclipsrs.
@Pisstake I honesty don't know. Maybe it's because Christian is said in most of these. I think it's based off of words said in.the videos. But I can't confirm that.
they really know their demographic huh?
The christians actually pay extra to be placed on atheist content, believe it or not.
@@MultiCappie :O
"an agnostic is someone who does not know... that they are really an atheist" is definitely a clever line.
A bit unfair methinks. What’s wrong with having a middle position as in “there might be something out there, there might not.” To me this position takes into account human limit on knowledge.
@@niceguy6152 it still means you have heard the arguments in favor of faith and have found them insufficient. Those arguments certainly weren't enough to justify changing your lifestyle to fit the whims of some possibly-imaginary deity, and they did not justify denying evidence that contradicts scripture.
That's all atheists are: unconvinced. They don't make statements that are "beyond human knowledge." At least, the good ones don't. If anything, the atheists you'll find on RUclips (Holy Koolaid, Rationality Rules, etc.) are students of science, easily willing to say "I don't know" when they find themselves at the outer edges of their own knowledge and "we don't know" when they are satisfied they have studied the research that exists at the edge of human knowledge. They know what is "beyond human knowledge" better than anyone. That's their thing.
Agnostics do not possess a different belief about the supernatural than atheists hold. Both are unconvinced. Rather, agnosticism is a prioritization of tact over truth. You care about getting along with zealots, and that's admirable. After all, beneath their zealotry they are human, and cannot survive without respect and understanding and peace. But it is not a middle ground between atheism and faith.
Thanks for the reply. However instead of a god maybe there is a shared consciousness or type of energy we become a part of after death. Maybe a higher being did create us but has more or less abandoned us. I think a middle position is possible. The problem with some atheists is that they cross the line into secular fundamentalism that can be just as dogmatic as religious zealots.
Nice Guy There is no middle position. Either you accept a proposition, or you do not accept it. If you do not 'accept' it, then you do 'not accept' it.
Yes but the point is there are many propositions and many possibilities/theories. Then there is the unknown - humans will always lack knowledge in certain areas. There’s belief, lack of belief and then there is keeping an open mind. I personally don’t accept any of the religions as being true but I also simultaneously accept the possibility that there could be something out there we don’t know about. That is my middle position and I can’t see why you find it unpalatable.
"Isn't that the same question?"
"Yeah."
I got a kick out of that.
I imagine that kid probably will be an atheist eventually. He can already see bullshit for what it is.
"Those who believe in absurdities will commit atrocities." ~Voltaire.
Evolutionary theory is the ultimate absurdity. Wave the evolutionary ward and a functioning male reproductive system magically appears, then wave the evolutionary wand again and a functioning female reproductive system magically appears. No, it is the atheists who believe in the real absurdities.
And here we go again, Another one who does not understand what the Word theory means in scientific terms. But no the jewish volcanogods fantasies are more believable.
About what?
@@KristerAndersson-nc8zo , your absurd belief in a naturalistic origin of the male and female reproductive systems almost makes children's fairy tales look believable in comparison. Typical of insecure atheists, you run for cover when confronted with the strongest arguments against atheism.
So you do not Believe in nature, fair enough pray tell me what you Believe in.
Thank you for making these videos. I was christian for 32 years and it’s so nice to see I don’t have to be afraid anymore.
Are you embarrassed of your past? All that fear and despair greatly outweighed the good for me. As I got older I started having questions that made the religion I grew up with seem evil (like an eternity in hell for people across the world, who was born into their religion) I can tell you I am very embarrassed of what I used to think, and feel like I wasted so much energy and thought to it, and all that pain. I still have an existential crisis today, however it’s easier knowing the meaning of our reality, isn’t pure evil.
I used to work as a nurse assistant in an acute psychiatric ward - the amount of psychological problems religions cause people is almost unbelievable so yes the world would be happier and healthier without religion
I currently work at a mental health hospital and for 8 years worked for arkansas state hospital and can agree 💯 with this
If there was no religion, they would probably falls into a conspiracy theory instead.
My brother is bipolar and during one of his high he started to believe in Santa
>Claims to be rational sceptic
>Uses personal experience as evidence for "the world"
lmao
@@missk1697 Religious psychosis is highly frequent and universal
When atheism is defined properly, it is the denial of BELIEF in any gods. Here is where I present proof of that.
www.aronra.com/if-you-dont-believe-in-any-god-youre-atheist/
I love how articulate Aron Ra is at presenting his arguments.
If only his arguments were coherent or true ...
Find my comment on this video explaining all the faith-based philosophies he adheres to, while denying faith is part of his worldview. I listed numerous examples of faith-based philosophies he believes in without even realizing it, and why most of them are even self-refuting and false by necessity
@@lightbeforethetunnel just take the L. you theists never know when you've been outperformed. It's sad really.
@@zoratatsumaki9181 "just take the L"
Begging-the-question fallacy. First, you'd have to actually obtain that L coherently. You can't do that with fallacious reasoning, which your post is & Aron also uses fallacious reasoning exclusively. As a logic teacher who had no pre-existing biases in this debate as an agnostic most of my life, I reviewed a few of his debates for logical fallacies & I didn't find a single coherent argument from him. Literally not one, in any of the debates I reviewed. The problem is generally that Larry is a Scientism Fundamentalist who lacks any philosophical knowledge, and he thinks that's what "science" means.
"You theists never know when you've been outperformed. It's sad really"
What makes you think I'm a theist? I never claimed to be, so that's a stereotyping fallacy in which you're falsely concluding anyone who points out the objective intellectual errors a debater is making must be of the opposing stance. Why do you think non-biased third party viewers would not point out these errors just for the sake of intellectual honesty & seeking truth genuinely? Not everyone is in such a dogmatic, tribalistic "us versus them" mindset you're in... so there's no need to project that mindset onto anyone who doesn't blindly believe every word Aron says as if you're treating him like a priest of your dogmatic religion.
Here's a tip: Fallacious reasoning occurs when you don't like a post so you want to attempt to create the illusion of refuting/invalidating it *without even addressing the arguments against your stance that were actually said in the first place.* if you want to refute/invalidate arguments against your stance, you must actually address them. Notice how you did not? At all?
So there's no logical coherency in your response to my post, which is why it's all fallacious.
@@lightbeforethetunnel your post is vague, self congratulatory, Insipid, and obnoxious. You make many claims and a support none of them. You sound petty and a touch jealous
@pmtoner9852 You say my post is vague, self congratulatory, insipid, and obnoxious.
Any other appeals to ridicule / ad hominems you'd like to throw in?
Or would you like to address my arguments? Did you even bother checking what they were? I clearly stated in the first post that the specifics are listed in my post in the main comment section of the thread.
In the future, I recommend either responding coherently to the substance of arguments that were actually made... or not at all.
The childish ad hominem attacks just reveal the emotional dogmatic zealotry so overwhelmingly common among the atheist community.
And since I made I claim there, I'll back it up.
All academic research on Atheism reveals:
1. Atheists claim to be LESS dogmatic than Theists (with many claiming Atheists can't possibly be dogmatic)
2. Atheists are actually MORE dogmatic than Theists in reality.
And I'll prove it. First, I'll start with words from a prominent Atheist on dogmatism, followed by academic research & studies on Atheism dogmatism proving precisely what I said above.
Atheist Luke Muehlhauser wrote about atheism and dogmatism:
“...I am reminded every day that we atheists are not particularly more rational than believers. Denying the gods does not allow one to escape rampant human bias... We, too, are often dogmatic. We, too, abandon reason and evidence to support opinions that just “feel right” to us. I was reminded of this a few hundred times during the week when I asked atheists to explain what was wrong with my [July 16, 2010] post. A few people gestured toward a kind of argument, but it was clear they were more interested to condemn me than they were to work through the logic of the ethical issues at play. Most of my critics made little attempt to understand what I had said. Instead, they blatantly misrepresented my stated positions so that they could smear me. Others admitted freely they didn’t care about the arguments involved, they just knew that they knew that they knew I was wrong...”
Read the comments on this subject at Pharyngula for a lesson in dogmatic atheism. They demonstrate a method for showing that atheists are dogmatic: Attack an atheist’s dogma - especially about a complicated subject like morality, gender, or politics - and count the number of respondents who show a serious interest in arguments and evidence over emotion and dogma-defending.
Atheism, dogmatism and Jonathon Haidt's study
The abstract for the 2017 journal article Are atheists undogmatic? published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences states:
"Previous theory and evidence favor the idea that religious people tend to be dogmatic to some extent whereas non-religious people are undogmatic: the former firmly hold beliefs, some of which are implausible or even contrary to the real world evidence. We conducted a further critical investigation of this idea, distinguishing three aspects of rigidity: (1) self-reported dogmatism, defined as unjustified certainty vs. not standing for any beliefs, (2) intolerance of contradiction, measured through (low) endorsement of contradictory statements, and (3) low readiness to take a different from one's own perspective, measured through the myside bias technique. Non-believers, at least in Western countries where irreligion has become normative, should be lower on the first, but higher on the other two constructs. Data collected from three countries (UK, France, and Spain, total N = 788) and comparisons between Christians, atheists, and agnostics confirmed the expectations, with agnostics being overall similar to atheists."[2]
Jagiellonian University study on atheism and dogmatism
Next, this is an excerpt from the abstract for the journal article Many faces of dogmatism: Prejudice as a way of protecting certainty against value violators among dogmatic believers and atheists which was published in the British Journal of Psychology states:
“In this article, we suggest that dogmatic beliefs, manifested as strong beliefs that there is no God (i.e., dogmatic atheism) as well as strong beliefs in God (i.e., religious orthodoxy), can serve as a cognitive response to uncertainty. Moreover, we claim that people who dogmatically do not believe in religion and those who dogmatically believe in religion are equally prone to intolerance and prejudice towards groups that violate their important values. That is because prejudice towards these groups may be an efficient strategy to protect the certainty that strong beliefs provide. We tested these assumptions in two studies. In Study 1 and Study 2, we demonstrated that dogmatic beliefs mediate the relationship between intolerance to uncertainty and both, religious orthodoxy and dogmatic atheism. In addition, in Study 2 we showed that both the religiously orthodox and dogmatic atheists become prejudiced towards groups that violate their values and that these effects are especially strong under experimentally induced uncertainty.[14]”
The research was done by the Institute of Psychology, Jagiellonian University by the researchers Małgorzata Kossowska, Aneta Czernatowicz‐Kukuczka and Maciej Sekerdej.
Commenting on Jonathon Haidt's work the article New Study Exposes Atheist Dogma states:
“A new study released by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt compared Atheists with popular conservative pundits like Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Anne Coulter. Here’s why Dr. Haidt did the study, “When I was doing the research for The Righteous Mind, I read the New Atheist books carefully, and I noticed that several of them sounded angry. I also noticed that they used rhetorical structures suggesting certainty far more often than I was used to in scientific writing, words such as ‘always’ and ‘never,’ as well as phrases such as ‘there is no doubt that’ and ‘clearly we must’.”
Because of this change in presentation Dr. Haidt compared the writings of the new atheists to people like Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck who are known for their dogmatic positions. The study analyzed the entire text of each of their newest books for words and phrases that denote dogmatic opinions. Phrases like: “always” “never,” “certainly,” “every,” and “undeniable.” and in atheist Sam Harris’s book these dogmatic phrases represented over 2.5% of every word in the book. That’s five dogmatic words for every 200 words in the book!
By looking at this graph you can see how every one of these new atheists, including Richard Dawkins, were more extreme in their presentations than even Glenn Beck.
In essence, this study proved the opposite of what atheists claim. The new atheists aren’t scientists trying to present every side of the truth and allow their audience to come to their own conclusions but rather they are pushing people to believe a predetermined conclusion.
Psychology Today indicates:
“Dogmatism has usually been related to low levels of openness to experience, the latter being an indicator of one's interest in new and non-traditional ideas. Dogmatism has mostly been studied in relation to religious beliefs but some recent research has looked at dogmatism among non-religious people. One surprising finding was that among self-identified atheists, higher levels of openness to experience were actually associated with greater dogmatism, contrary to the usual pattern. This suggests that the personality dimension openness to experience might not be a marker of open-mindedness as such but more of a preference for unconventional and complex ideas. Perhaps there needs to be a distinction made between humble versus arrogant forms of openness to experience.”
The journalist Marjorie Steele states:
“I’m not so much saying atheists as individuals are dogmatic, as I am that atheism is, as an ideology. Atheism takes a firmly negative stance on anything supernatural, asserting it does not exist, which is very different from asserting that it’s unknown. That premise alone makes atheism as dogmatic as religion.”
I'll add my two cents at the end here: While I used to assume Atheists / Agnostics can't be dogmatic or indoctrinated when I was one myself, it soon becomes clear the reality is the polar opposite when you step outside that group and see it from the outside. Not only are Atheists dogmatic, but they're MORE dogmatic. The reason for this is: Since Atheists often falsely believe only everyone else can possibly be dogmatic, they never recognize their own dogmatic zealotry no matter how severe it becomes.
With other religions, at least they're aware their own dogmatism can be a problem. Self-awareness = self-control, to an extent. When there's no self-awareness of even the potential one can be dogmatic with the finger always pointed at anyone who disagrees with you (which is a dogmatism fallacy itself), this allows the dogmatism of an Atheist to become outrageously severe without any hope of self-recognition.
There have somewhere around 5000 gods in the history of mankind, but yours is the true god don't worry.
Of course it is how dare you doubt Lord Cthulhu
Don’t doubt my bagel god
Of course, I never doubted Amaterasu, the Japanese sun goddess who created the earth.
Do you mean religions? Because the Hindu have millions of gods
Yeah, the omnipotent uncreated creator of all things is definitely the true God, so I'm not worried.
dang if only i had seen this 30 years ago. could have saved me a lot of time.
... and money! Those tithes went right straight to their pockets.
Always better late than never! :)
It wasn't available until nearly 7 years ago.
Another great one. I’m new to atheism. And so much happier, I feel free.
💖💖💖
Welcome
Totally agree and welcome to your new family. Now you can
.."forget all Gods, their promises and threats, to feel within your veins life's joyous stream and hear the martial music, the rhythmic beating of your fearless heart.
And then to rouse yourself to do all useful things, to reach with thought and deed the ideal in your brain, to give your fancies wing, that they, like chemist bees, may find art's nectar in the weeds of common things, to look with trained and steady eyes for facts, to find the subtle threads that join the distant with the now, to increase knowledge, to take burdens from the weak, to develop the brain, to defend the right, to make a palace for the soul. This is real religion. This is real worship"
- Robert Green Ingersoll
@@adropofgoldensun27 That's an amazing quote.Thank you for sharing
Welcome to the free side
"No history class should confuse students with a movie that has Mel Gibson's name in the credits" you sir just gained the utmost respect from all historians breathing on the planet ! :p
I laughed at that.
They are still entertaining movies
Gibson's Apocalypto has got to be the most historically accurate movie ever about pre-Columbian mesoamerica.
KV could you suggest any Historically accurate yet entertaining Movies??
@@OdintheGermanShepherd I never saw a movie that is 100% accurate. That being said, I'm ok with "accurate in what it focuses on". Master and commander Comes to mind, Tora! Tora! Tora!, The old "Waterloo", A night to remember (about the Titanic)... The thing that will put most people off tho is that it's mostly "old" movies (I may love them but even I need the right Time to watch them). What I would recommend is googling a specific subject you are interested in to see if there's a movie about it then have a look at specialised forums to see what people tell about the accuracy
" 1 + 1 = 3, I know because I have faith".
And that pretty much sums (...) up faith.
ha ha soo true :))))))
1+1=3 is Chemistry
@Chuck-U Farly why do I need to explain? If you have one chemical and add another it's now a different chemical all together. 1+1=3 get it now?
@Nathan El how and when did an animal take it's first breath of oxygen?
@Chuck-U Farly yes, I do dumass!. I own a company that makes up new formulas in Chemistry. Guess what it is for?
The way that he just stares at the camera like “I can’t believe you really asked this question” before jumping into the answer
He radiates disappointed dad energy
Christian: *Same old boring argument for a god*
Me: "Ok you convinced me That Krishna, Zeus, fairies and Giant unshaved alien phalluses exist"
It could be worse. You could have attempted to reason with an atheist creationist who believes aliens planted us here on Earth and planted every species because they didn’t think evolution was an objectively verifiable fact.
I cannot disprove them. Therefore, they could very well exist.
There. See how easy that is. It didn’t even leave a boo boo. 🤷♂️
I'll vouch for the giant unshaved alien phalluses. Talk about heaven.
@@broKen73484No, I am not convinced that the is a God. It's similar to being convinced that the suspect did the crime, not being convinced doesn't mean I'm convinced the suspect is innocent.
I just like to make fun of the arguments, because these exact same arguments are used by Muslims to prove Allah exists, and these religious groups, while using the exact same thing, don't seem to realise that if their argument was correct, it would prove any and every God, how can they be oblivious to this is beyond me.
To give an analogy again: Religious groups are saying this:
- There has been a crime, so there must be a suspect.
- me: What crime? Where?
- them: Humans existing is the crime.
- me: uh that's not a crime, but okay, who is this suspect?
- them: It's Jesus, no it's Allah, no it's Krishna, no it's Zeus, no it's...
- me: You guys realise you have no idea what you're talking about?
- them: We do, it's the others who don't.
"The Bible has already been proven wrong in every testable claim that it makes so that not even God could resurrect those falsified fables"
ZING! Nice one!
WTBGold It's impossible to prove the Bible wrong.
mrtadreamer
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...........
Anyone have any of these "proofs" they'd like to share. I'd love to debate them "scientifically".
Biginfidelis, merely stating something isn't an argument, but nice try.
BigInfidelis;
Okay, so you go for the the flood. Most arguments against the flood are illogical. Aron Ra argues that some of the bigger cats can eat ten pounds of food a day, there wouldn't be enough food for all the animals. Okay, assuming that God refused to help in any way, maybe that theory is correct. However, isn't there an account of Jesus feed the masses of four thousand and five thousand with a few loaves of bread and fish? The issue with arguing against one part of the Bible is that you have to argue against the entire Bible. You can't separate one account from the rest. People who say they can "prove the flood didn't happen would logically be forced to "prove" subsequent arguments created. So, Moses never parted the Red Sea, Daniel never entered the lion's den, Jesus never walked in the fire with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego., Lazarus was never raised from the dead, etc. To try to disprove all of these accounts isn't even feasible, let alone possible, unless you have a time machine lying around somewhere.
I didn't say it was true by default, that was you're addition. I said you have no way to prove your claim. All you can do is say, "based on the evidence of today...", we have to assume it wasn't possible. You can only say, "Nothing like that has occurred in recent years so, I guess it didn't happen back then either. That isn't science, it's an opinion.
6:44
We do not deny his existence
...we accept his non existence.
Awesome statement.
Martín Varela HE NEVER SAID THAT
@@kathykaura7219 it was what Martin said. It is Martin's answer and a damn good one at that. Why be obtuse?
nice one ha.made my day :))))
Thankyou
"An agnostic is someone who just doesn't know...that they're an atheist."
Yup
sorta? most Christians take things on faith so they are technically agnostic thiests.
Atheism is a religion that believes god doesn't exist.
@@paullangford8179 ahhh no that's, incorrect
1 + 1 = 3 Y U aRe LIVING proof this is my WORD the GOSPEL of Jesus Christ $20.00 AT universal-spirit.org Med Rec Holy Ind = MR HI 50,000 Uses&Benefits & Counting 4 CANNABIS PLANT'S Male&Female RELATED SITES 420+ sh AIRING re-legalize REINSTATE Compulsory Mandatory GROW laws SEE wit EAR'S use Ur EYE'S 4 NOTES at ruclips.net/video/-zeeO-yna1I/видео.html SEND 2 ALL PUBLIC SERVANTS, ALLEGED SAVANTS in need of REEDUCATION'S with REDUNDANCIES read hemp123.org Click Links shh AIR INFO beyond AFOREMENTIONED unmentioned DEA FDA CDC WHO USDA EPA FEMA NSA FBI CIA due PARDON the REDUNDANCIES sh AIR 2 ALL PUBLIC SERVANTS alleged SAVANTS Go 2 hempabcdeals.biz SIGN petition if APP.'S EDIT petition 420+ AT your location ruclips.net/user/yahwaya2z SCROLL TITLES sh AIR related INFO ruclips.net/user/budlight32164 Hemp vs.Marijuana ruclips.net/user/francishatin eckcancar.org Click HU? fhu.com VISIT universal-spirit.org yahweh.com NEWSLETTER available ASK for FREE BOOK at Y N K P O Box 12949 Prescott AZ 86304 WEBSITE under RECONSTRUCTION yahwehsnewkingdom.com Y N K = Yahweh's New Kingdom IF U wish to WRITE it OUT
When you have to lie to get people to join your club...what does that say about your club?
Evolutionists should know.
@@MH-oh8rn how is that
@@MH-oh8rn I, like JUJU, would really like to know how evolutionists "should" know this?
@@MH-oh8rn evolutionists aren't a thing. Evolution isn't a religion.
@@MH-oh8rn Your that stupid are you?
This guy has such a structured way of explaining humself and what he says is so true :)
+Jabba Ding He's been using the same arguments for years. It comes off as structured because at this point it's like reciting a mantra for Aron.
+Arrakiz666 because when something is true, it has a tendency to not suddenly and completely change.
+Arrakiz666 very true.
+Arrakiz666 I've been watching Arona videos and lectures for some years and his statements have become much more refined, not that they weren't bad in the first place but they are much more precise and to the point. taking on knuckleheaded apologetics probably helped.
+Arrakiz666 That's why I prefer his different stuff. A lot of atheism just rehashes the same stuff over and over. But... Give The Devil His Due had some cool stuff, Flintstones Archaeology, Evolution of Morality. He's much more interesting when he's criticizing pseudo-science. It's still dense and structured, but not quite as much.
Canyon Creek Christian Academy - "..*stresses the Word of God as the only source of truth in the world*."
That genuinely scares me.
Khaine's Lair Haha too true. The ol' "good book" sure is one sleeper of a tale isn't it?!
Khaine's Lair I have to agree; the entire book of Revelation, Ezekiel, and the "lost"/omitted Book of Enoch (also a prophet), is very "trippy". Especially if you read it from the psychonaut's point-of-view, it's extremely "out-there". I'm pretty sure that's why the latter was taken out of the Bible completely. Enoch was a madman, even by today's standards..heck, especially by today's standards!
There is another way of looking at it, albeit a more boring & dry point-of-view, but a valid one all the same, and it has to do with time. We know that at the time of the writing of those books--which *I'm guessing* was sometime between 50 and 700 AD--there was so little understanding of the world. People had no knowledge of what we now know as basic scientific concepts (ones even Christians believe), and were still EXTREMELY superstitious. So if we take that into account; some guy with a big imagination and nothing better to do (except scare people), one can easily see how a books like "Revelations", "Ezekiel", and "Enoch" could've come to be without drugs.
All the same, men like Ezekiel, John, and Enoch may all have been using drugs. It's perfectly conceivable, and since it wasn't a social taboo back then for "learned men" to experiment with "drugs", *they all could've been trippin' balls when they wrote their prophecies!*
actually your probably right😁 it was John of Patmos and the Island was covered with psycadelic mushrooms lol
The Lutheran school I go to says pretty much the same thing
The Bible is true because it says so in the Bible! Hur hur hur!
Ray Comfort: What would convince you that there's a god"?
Me: Pray to it and ask what fruit I'm thinking of. If it tells you and your first guess is correct, it'll be a starting point".
@@A_Stereotypical_Heretic This post was 2 years ago. I've thought of fruit on and off since. Have you asked god what fruit that was? (Hint: Ray Comfort).
Aron, your biggest hurdle to worldwide fame is the fact that you are too darn correct. No one can compete with you.
Consider the gauntlet cast down……if Ra is man enough to retrieve it. 🤷♂️
I was abused by the church for years, I appreciate your work!!
Has Aran Ra ended any abuse?
Ofc you were🙄
"If you can't show it, then you don't know it"
TRUTH!
Scientists are working on it, and once they find out, what would that mean for creationism?
I disagree. If life did indeed begin from non-living matter, then all it would take is for scientist to recreate the conditions that existed at the time of abiogenesis. They are working on recreating those conditions, which is certainly within the realm of the possible. On your second point, so what? Was there a time limit implied? It may take hundreds or thousands of years, but why does that matter? Duration is not a factor that by default proves the corollary.
All you've really done there is demonstrate that you do not understand what science is.
So let's say that tomorrow a new story comes out reporting that multiple teams of scientists from around the globe have been working independently, strictly following the scientific method, and have been able to recreate the conditions and create life from known elements, as has been hypothesized. Irrefutable proof that we have an answer to the question of how life on Earth began. You think that would be futile? Is it just because the findings would negate your worldview? People like you do tend to ignore things you don't like after all, no matter how factual they are.
Ahhh, insults. You win the moral high ground, congrats! I do need help though, so I guess you're right about that.
I'm sorry, you're just wrong. Scientific experiments that could create organisms from non-living material would indeed prove the hypothesis (or at least tip the scales away from creationism in a massive way) of life's origin without supernatural interaction.
BTW I never claimed facts in my "imaginary scenario", I was offering a thought experiment. You can try all you want to elevate your ideas over mine, but your sheepskin will not help with that. I have one too, so what?
Believe what you want, insult people all you want, claim self-righteousness all you want... none of that makes you right.
Wow! Bold claims my friend. Bold claims indeed. I'm always intrigued by people that know me better than i know myself, particularly those using the comments section as the basis of the relationship, while bloviating about credentials. Analyze away, doctor. What would it take to make me a chicken (never said i wasn't one), or a Christian (never said I wasn't one)?
If some god actually existed surely we would born knowing it rather than having to be brainwashed into believing it?
I don't think that's a particularly strong argument against any gods' existences. For example, if a god doesn't care what a human believes or even what they particularly do, they wouldn't have any reason to give man an innate knowledge of them.
@Memer Dreamer no, that's just pathetic arrogance. Good luck trying to debate any apologetist more knowledgeable than Kent Hovind with such attitude, lel
@Memer Dreamer you gotta be real careful with how you word things or you end up shifting the burden of proof onto yourself. Your statement is a truth claim, now. Can you prove your claim?
@Memer Dreamer you are making an assertion of a definite negative. I'm not trying to be a jerk. Just saying you have to be careful of how you word an argument so that you don't shift the burden of proof back on yourself. You made an assertion that there is no magic, in a debate it would be fair for someone to then ask you for proof of that assertion. Especially since deity isn't necessarily 'magical', it could simply be something that exists outside of our current scope for observation that follows a set of rules within this instantiation of our known space time.
@Memer Dreamer that's why most atheist debaters hold the I don't know so you must prove stance.
Dear Aron, this is a great video! I do thank you so much for giving hope to people. For many years I lived in an Islamic seminary studying to become a Muslim theologian. For much of that time, I felt I was happy, as I felt life had meaning/purpose, all the while a wedge was unknowingly growing between my non-Muslim family members and I. Fast-forward several years -- and gloss over numerous intellectual, inter-personal, and spiritual crises -- and I was quietly removed from the school (with prejudice) and evicted from my student housing. Consequently, I spent the following two years living out of my car as a community untouchable (even though occurring in Australia) whilst my hope of divine assistance, at least spiritually (as I was hastily losing faith), was ungracefully waning. As such, any hope I beheld for life's meaning, religiously and spiritually, perished also. Until I heard your wonderful words (at 11:40, '... if you want your life to mean something, try making someone else’s life meaningful.'), I did not know what to do with my existence. Now I am committed to helping my mum have the best life possible, full of love and happiness, since she would be otherwise alone and cannot believe in god(s) either. Thank you Aron!
My life has so much more meaning and is so much more precious ever since I shed my superstitious belief in the cannibal mythology of Catholicism. We are all born atheist. I have returned to the purity of atheism. May we all achieve maximum happiness and minimum suffering. Thank you :)
"We are all born atheist"
God module.
@To Serve Man I don't understand what you are getting at.
I believe he thinks we are born with the knowledge and acceptance of god. The "god-shaped hole" in our minds or souls or whatever. He doesn't understand evolution or tabula rasa...we are born with a lot of physical things, some instincts, etc., and an ability to be quite gullible for a while, but that's not a "god module." It means that we can easily integrate with whatever culture we're born into.
Andrew : Don't forget vampiric as well.." take , drink ..for this this is the cup of my blood."
Atheist live 6 years less than theist and homosexuals have less sex. Have fun with all that 😂😂😂
This guy is amazing! Keep it up AronRa. "religion poisons everything" --Christopher Hitchen
Yeah
How we miss the Hitch😔
athiesm posions everything, stay mad redditor
Aron: “Not even god could resurrect those testable faiths.”
Damn, with that line you ran them over then backed up to hit them again
Christian: "God is so great he exist beyond reality"
Atheist: "so your saying that he exist outside of reality?"
Christian: "exactly"
Atheist: "So... he is unrealistic then?"
Christian: "uhh.... your going to hell!"
Brandon woodyard-----SPOT ON
Uhum...
*puts on Monokel*
"you're"
~ Uhum...
puts on monocle
"Monocle"
~ It's "you're."
With all do respect, I became a Christian bc of paranormal activity and sending bad spirits to hell. I just want to hear ur opinion on it bc once upon a time I was like you 🖤
You have just proved that an atheist can be respectful and polite in the face of repetitive, half-baked questions. A lesser man would have either laughed or told the questioner not to be so stupid. Well done sir. If i had a hat i would doff it in your direction.
Excellent - you nailed it at question 1 - atheism is "without theism"....that's it ..game over. -
E.g. "You assert that you believe that my cat is really an alien spy - I don't believe that my cat is an alien spy - there's no evidence that she is - so why do I need to answer 30 more questions, in order to explain to you how my life works, without believing an unsubstantiated proposition that the cat IS an alien spy?"
After the great simple definition you gave to question 1, Slick's other questions are exposed as irrelevant nonsense . It's like asking someone if they believe in purple dragons - and when they say "no," shifting the burden of proof and asking them to justify their non-belief - and then asking 30 further useless questions, which require them to define how a world (and their lives) could possibly function WITHOUT purple dragons (when it's obvious that their lives [and the world] DO function perfectly well without such large colo(u)rful fire-breathing reptiles)
You did a great job of just "batting away " those stupid questions with pure logic, tho' - great work
There are not thirty questions. There are like five of them, asked and re-asked in different forms.
I believe your cat IS an alien spy. Prove me wrong. Checkmate, A-cat-alien-spyist!
"What would it take for you to believe in God?"
-Aaron: "probably blunt force trauma-"
Evangelicals: WRITE THAT DOWN, WRITE THAT DOWN!
Thank you, Aron, for using the subjunctive case! It is refreshing to hear its usage!
"How sure are you that your atheism is correct?... Isn't that the same question?"
I LOLed super hard.
It seems to me that the only theists Who ask honest questions to atheists and actually want to hear the answers are those who are already teetering at the edge of nonbelief. Every other theist seems to ask questions intentionally worded to trip atheists up so they can quote mine and try and play this little gotcha game. Such duplicitous framing shows just how ignoble they are, and how fragile their position is.
Stephen k. That is where I am at and if anyone could completely convince me that Christianity is false, basically disproving the historical accounts of Jesus, then I would become Atheist. I have journeyed closer to Atheism after doing a lot of study on the Bible. I accept Evolution, I understand the first five books of the Bible are not history, and I dont take the Bible literally most of the time. But I am on the edge between Theism and Atheism. If Aron Ra could help that would be great This video somewhat helps
DarkX, I recommend that you find here on RUclips, Christopher Hitchens' audio book "God is not Great". He is a wonderfully eloquent author. Also investigating the numerous debates on Atheism vs Theism may be hugely useful to you. My favourite speakers are Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Sam Harris and of course the late Christopher Hitchens. Another info source would be the many recorded interviews with the late Carl Sagan, along with his "Cosmos" series. I hope you find these helpful.
Thank you, that does help! :)
DarkX If you want youtube sources there is Alley43 who showed that Jesus is more likely a legend than a literal historical figure. Just search "Evolution of Jesus". And if you want intelligent content, I would recommend The Thinking Atheist, TheraminTrees and QualiaSoup. If you want comedic with a hint of sensical arguements, I would suggest Nonstampcollector and Darkmatter 2525.
+DarkX Stephen k. "if anyone could completely convince me that Christianity is false, basically disproving the historical accounts of Jesus" That is where the Terror aspect of the deception comes into play. What genuinely loving, caring god would ever conceive of introducing the concept of burning in Hell forever, to children?
That alone should be enough to make you back away very quickly. I was lucky, my parents were intelligent, god was never part of my life. But even at a very early age I recognised that there was something very wrong with the tales I heard.
I shouldn't have dropped that tab before watching.
LSD is nowhere near as good as it was when Osley was making his Orange tab treats.
My favorite Aron Ra quote: God was created in man's image.
Black Ice - my favorite statement of his may be the one at the start of this video, where he says that agnostics are people who don’t know that they are atheists. 😆
Shaun Sharted - Right, agnostics don’t claim that there are no gods. Atheists don’t make claims that there are no gods either. Both agnostics and atheists simply reject the bold assertion that any mythology is necessarily true.
Atheists lack belief, the same as agnostics. Honestly, if one doesn’t know (agnostic), then one doesn’t believe either (atheist), AND VISE VERSA. If you think about it, they are practically the same thing.
Sounds like Ludwig feuerbach
That's from the Satanic Bible.
Thank God I'm an atheist
I feel like this comment is underrated.
sceptical pickle---thank god you are an atheist.....AMEN to that
Sceptical Pickle
Praise the Lord FSM! May his noodlly appendages guide you through life!
Well, if god was real why did it make me an atheist?
And the significance of that is?
Most of the questions are stupid, irrelevant and repetitive. But Aron does the perfect job to demolish them all.
And he does it respectfully ! I could not have managed that, some questions are so stupid and insulting.
I would have answer, at least half of the redundant and stupid questions, rolling my eyes while sayin really?
You can't. stop God. LOL!!!!
Any informed person could shred Aron Ra to ribbons. Evolutionary theory is the ultimate absurdity. Wave the evolutionary wand and a functioning male reproductive system magically appears, then wave the evolutionary wand again and a functioning female reproductive system magically appears. Evolutionists always run for cover from arguments such as this.
@Kenneth John Kelly Go to RUclips channel "SpaceX", you can watch monthly video's of rockets going into outer space and filming the whole thing from launch to landing.
Thanks for your consistency. It’s refreshing.
I just found your account and find it absolutely wonderful but one thing.
As a third generation rancher in the mountains of Northern California I can assure you of one thing, the North American Sasquatch is indeed a flesh and blood creature. Other than that one near meaningless detail I applaud you sir.
Love your psychedelic background, Aron!!
Yeah
It's re-iteriatively generated images: Electric Sheep.
I let out a loud "HAHA!" a few times during this vid. I love Aron's matter-of-fact deadpan delivery of logical and critical thinking at its best. My fav is "...so an agnostic is someone who does not know that they are really an atheist." Ambrose Bierce couldn't have defined it better! Thanks Aron for the intelligent retorts to tired and dumb theist questions.
If someone would ask me: "Why are you an atheist?", I would send them this video. It perfectly sums up some of the major questions surrounding atheism and theism, answered incredibly well with the right amount of logic, wit and honesty. Definitely my favourite video of yours, don't know why I just came across this now after years of watching you, but I am glad I did. Thanks Aron!
Can I just say... There is no such thing as an "evolutionist"... This would imply that evolution is some kind of belief, which it is not.. Accepting facts, is not a belief system..
True! As soon as someone uses the word 'creationist', i know they're a Creationist and/or do not understand anything about science.
@@jomc20 Myself and my buddies have a drinking game.. Whenever the night starts slowing down a bit.. We go through science video comment sections on Youtude, and take a shot every time we see "Its just a theory"..
How none of us have died of alcohol poisoning, is a "miracle"..
My goodness this guy kicks ass! Articulate and to the point!
He has had a lot of practice. He has thought and spoken and debated this subject for quite some time and is currently the president of the Atheist Alliance of America. He has refined his points over time to be more concordant with reality, while theists often have to use mental gymnastics that are often self contradictory, not concordant with reality and banal.
Charlamagnes Lip Twitch lol had to look again i thought you said my god i need glasses
No this guy is a lier, Jesus does sav lost sinners.
All i need is the Biblei it records the live of Jesus, where is the proof there is no God????
Read the Bible Go to Church!!!!
The "how can you be sure..." line of reasoning is an attempt for an intellectually honest person to say "I'm not, only 99.99%" which is true. "How can you be sure about stating that's true?" I can almost hear Sye Ten Brugwhogivesafuck and idiots like him ask. To use honesty as a weapon is ridiculous and cowardly. It's mostly petulant.
+Ryan Swanson
I think it's a sign of desperation.
+Ryan Swanson "Brugwhogivesafuck" Hahahhaaaa!... my brain reads his name as "BuggerCakes" LOL
Sye Ten Brugwhogivesafuck
LOL
If you're not 100% sure, they are 1000% sure since 1000 is a bigger number so you lose and just forget about that evidence business since by you answering you have agreed that "sureness" is a standard of proof.
Those questions all assume Slick's view is true and atheists are wrong. Their idea of debate starts with "resolved: I am right, now let's hear your bullshit." whereas the atheist says "I think I'm right, let's hear your bullshit"!
They presup themselves to be right (a unilateral watch-it-unfold given) and are ignorant towards and about any other view. When they ask questions that start from that position don't let them get away with it, ask "the what?" about everything asserted unproven in the supposed question before making any answer. It takes the wheels off their clown car when they can't slip their own "given's" in.
which is exactly why when Sye attempts a TAG debate he fails instantly.
the "Argument" in TAG is supposed to be:
Argument: a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory (the idea being that when said reason is used and demolished, you simply never use it again as you've been educated and the "argument" is over)
what Sye uses:
Argument: an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one (the intention being that nothing needs to be conceded ever, honesty and truth aren't needed)
This is how you know someone is educated in their field. When they can talk about a subject freely and all encompassing with anecdotes, examples, and definitions without even skipping a beat.
Ra is not educated. He has no degree that I can find.
@@ragingskeptic9753Ah yes because you can’t be educated without a degree 😅
@@O.Reagano Degree or not, Ra's arguments are so fallacious as to be laughable.
@@ragingskeptic9753 Okay. Then disprove one.
@@O.Reagano So that I'm not accused of cherry picking, give me your favorite argument of his. Any one you like.
Well said, AronRa! Especially your response to question #10. You're so much fun to listen to. And educational.
Very good responses Aron. Thanks for your perspective.
Religon ruins everything.
Not everything: strawberry pavlova is pretty good still.
Religion is just another reason to divide humanity and hate your neighbor for no reason. And that's the main negative of it.
Your videos are so educational and fact filled that one viewing isn't enough.
Just finding you brother. Youre a badass and I appreciate your simplistic straight answers. Keep the truth flowing!
Well played for being here mate, Mr Ra has a very unique way kg explaining himself - one that is very close to my own position but much much better explained 😂
I love this guy. He is a hero.
If the god of the bible had been portrayed as a king instead of a god, he would be remembered as the most evil, mass murdering, tyrannical dictator of all time! Christians give the bible god a free pass because, they say, he is god the creator. I don't see the difference whether man or god. If his actions were evil or immoral, as the bible states, then he'd be just as guilty of being evil as any human committing the same deeds.
+Cootabux Exceptional insight, well said. I have not heard that angle before, yet now you have said it, it's so obvious. Just like a great argument should.
This is such a good point! On a similar note, I was raised in Mormonism & they always said “Heavenly Father”. & since I’ve left Mormonism I’ve realized that even if he existed he wouldn’t be deserving of the prefix “Heavenly”. If any parent did the things that he has done to his children, he would go to prison. At least in the US & most other countries. So yeah, it bugs me a lot that he gets that free pass that you mentioned.
2consider, your point fails because it stands on a false comparison. If we credit the Bible as true, than God has already done horrible actions in it (killed millions, tortured and toyed with men simply because He could, gave immoral orders for others to carry on, etc). Your argument is that God "must know what He's doing", therefore we should look the other way and give His actions a free pass. Then you compare it to a time traveller who went back in time and killed a young Hitler (saving mankind's future), just to be punished by society because no one else had the insight he had and couldn't understand the importance of what he did. The problem is in comparing a MAN to an omniscient DEITY. A time traveller would be limited by his humans options; arresting or isolate Hitler from society wouldn't be easy, and to change the person he was inside would be impossible, therefore all he could do was really just kill him. A being which has no limitations could (and should) solve ANY PROBLEM without involving death, torture and immorality in order to do it. Unless you're saying that some scenarios beat God's omnipotence and leave Him with no other choice but to take the violent road. That's a paradox, either He's not omnipotent or He doesn't care about the pain He causes along the way. Pick either, and still your argument fails...
"So Jimmy, should i take this to mean you believe in God, just don't like him? If you don't believe in the god of the bible, complaining about anything god does is, for lack of a better word, insane."
- How you jumped from my comment to that assumption is beyond me, since all i did was engaging in a "what if" situation for the sake of argumentation. You do understand that we, humans, can use such "what ifs" while having a discussion, right? In short, what i said was that IF God existed (and no, i don't believe in any myths) and the Bible represented Him correctly, then i wouldn't like Him. Aknowledging existence and like Him are different things.
"You make a lot of assumptions, for example, you assume that God couldn't have good reason for what he does, even though he's omniscient, odd. Another assumption you make is the decisions god made were the worst possible decisions."
- i'm sorry if logic gets in the way of your beliefs, but that's how it works. It's very simple. A final goal can be moral and good, sure, and to achieve it it's possible that some harm must first be done, but it will ALWAYS be preferable that such goal is achieved without any harm done. An omnipotent, all-loving God would NEVER use a harmful road to achieve an end (no matter how good that end is) because He's supposed to be able to achieve it WITHOUT the harm. Is this so hard to get?
"Of course, none of this matters because you've already determined the bible is false and there is no god."
- Nice projection work there. Nope, that's actually religion's way, where things are pre-determined and dogma can't be changed. I, on the other hand, don't work with absolutes. I work with the available data. That means that if you bring me evidence for God's existence, you could change my view. But without it, you have nothing. So, instead of desperate and debunked to shreds apologetics, get me some REAL evidence and i promise you you'll change my beliefs! Deal?
This comment needs more thumbs up. Even religion could agree with that!
"God is impossible by definition!" Wow. That is such a good point.
***** But it means god can only exist, if our definition of existence is wrong.
***** Let me put it this way: god doesn't exist if our definition of existence is right. That's pretty significant.
***** What is within reality exists.
***** How do you define define? If you can't answer that, stop asking so stupid questions.
***** So how do you know your definitions of nature, scope or meaning are correct?
What I'm trying to say is: Once you start challenging definitions, you can't discuss at all. Because when we talk about existence, we can only talk about our definition of existence. When we talk about truth, we can only talk about our definition of it.
Love your work Aron!
Fantastic video! Thank you for being clear and concise without being smarmy and condescending.
Good stuff. Thank goodness for people like you Mr Ra. If only there were many more like you. The world could become a beautiful place.
Religion as conditioned delusion... brilliant.
insulated from inquiry. Ayn Rand was right about superstition. see "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology"
Religion fulfills the definition of a delusion perfectly: A false belief held despite and often against all prove to the contrary. The only real difference between "I am Napoleon" and "There's a god and he made the world" from a rational point of view is the number of afflicted.
We're part of the ecosystem. Keeping _that_ balanced can be the reason for our existence and give meaning to our life.
Damn that is good.
Answer 15 sums up so much. Been saying it for decades. Thank you for just coming out a saying so simply and intelligently
_"[A]n agnostic is someone who does not know that they are really an atheist."_
I'm gonna use that one, Aron. :-)
Question 2 shows a complete lack of understanding of atheists. Although some christians seem to take whatever version of a god they believe in into consideration when making some decisions, there's no atheist equivalent. Atheists don't say, "Well, since there are no gods, I think I'll [fill in the blank]."
Aron, I disagree with you about the legal system and the assumption that free will exists. If a person is harming others and/or others' property, and can't or won't stop, that's a good enough reason to separate that person from the general public, whether "free will" exists, or not.
YY
Please don't confuse the freedom to do as we please using free will with the necessity to pay a price for it.
Free will seems to me to be about the ability to do something. There are many things we have the ability to do that we choose to not do. This too is free will.
If free will worked as you lay it out, it seems you'd included the circumstance of doing things without a responce from others. as if free will to do something also includes 'getting away with it'.
There is nothing that can physically stop me from killing my rival. l am free to burn their house with them in it, or poison them, or shoot them, or any number of ways to take their life. Nothing keeps me from doing these things if it is my will to do them. lf l do not care about the penalty l will do so.
Caring about the effect of my actions is called morality/ethics. Consequences of actions may limit the free will, but it does not negate it.
I think you confuse Biblical free will with apparent free will. My personal belief, since I will not put words into Aron's mouth, is that we do NOT have free will. We have programming and conditioning. Programming is evolutionary while conditioning is societal.
The judiciary must act as if we have free will, not because the says we do, but because there is no other way to proceed. If the Afulenza defense is claimed, that is to say, a person didn't know any better because they are too rich to have been taught better, then we accept a lack of common programming or of societal conditioning and therefore should blame the parents. I'm kinda okay with this, actually.
Yeah atheist is without belief in god, while agnostic is without knowing of god. You can still believe in god even if you know that you do not know.
NetAndyCz
Using your method for defining words. I can say, using your method, that it is possible to be a meat eating vegan.
John H Of course, just because vegan does not know he is eating me does not mean he is no longer vegan. Not all vegetable soups for examples are truly suitable for vegans.
I must say your elegance is astounding
Ikr
Great answers! Also digging the electric sheep background
8:41 - "Do you believe that faith in a God or gods is a mental disorder?"
My answer would be:
If only a few people believe in imaginary being(s), it's "disorder".
If a great many people believe in imaginary being(s), it's "religion".
It'd take blunt force trauma to get me to accept a God claim, too.
Haha
Way too many redundant questions. 90% of these questions can be answered simply as: atheism is not a belief system or an ideology, it's a rejection of a claim, nothing more.
The questions came from Matt Slick, a Christian apologist. This is the reply to that. Godless Mom also answers them on her channel.
@NorthernLight Would you describe Christianity as a delusional drug for or of the masses of believers?
Atheism is also an ideology. It is a naturalistic way of thinking, and there are atheist groups and conventions, and atheists try to convert people to atheism, and they push for the eradication of acknowledgement of God from government, schools and public areas.
@@anthonypuccetti8779 What bs. Football is an ideology, because fans go to conventions, collect/trade cards, create football groups, try to show other people that their group is better and push for the complete eradication of other - in their mind obviously inferior - football organizations.
Atheism is not an ideology, antitheism is. Get your facts together.
Also I and many people find it offensive that religion takes credit for inventing social activities. Churches weren't first, stop telling otherwise.
@@nati0598 Atheists also have organizations, conventions, try to show they are intellectually and morally superior, and push for the eradication of religion. Atheism is a conscious, absolute rejection of belief in God or any god. That way of thinking doesn't come naturally through reason. It is ideological. And modern atheists base their atheism upon belief in scientific theories of the origins of things. This is a materialistic mentality that pretends that the only way to know or prove that something exists is if there is evidence that can be tested by science.
Dammit , That last bong hit got me lost in the background again . I have to rewind the video 8 min = ) Love your work Sir !
You say it so elegantly Aron, and nice trippy background.
If only all of the gods of men could be forgotten right *now*.
The Thing On The Doorstep Damn. I had forgotten the definite and inarguable damnation distributed by *that* deity.
Fuck me running...
I have to disagree. Not necessarily for people no longer following religion, but were the gods forgotten, then thousands of years of cultural tradition would be lost, and our literature, poetry, traditions, architecture, and heritage would suffer for it. Few people believe any more in the Egyptian gods, but the human would be so much poorer without the heritage remaining from that culture, a lot of which has to do with gods. World literature gains so much from a mythic tradition and would lose so much without it.
+The Thing On The Doorstep You forgot the comic where Sithrak admits that his tenets were written during his angsty years. :P
+The Thing On The Doorstep So Sithrak is the Judeo-Christain (yes, I spelled it "stain") God?
+Kaycee K You can't take Odin or Zeus away from me you fascist!
The Electric Sheep in the background are a good touch. =)
must have been an androids dream...
+David Messer II iseehwhatyoudidthere
The space-vagina was pretty cool.
These videos are fantastic, keep up the good work.
Aron, I really like how this video directly engages with theist questions.
Aron: I think that it would be extremely useful to post these responses in text form, so that people could consider each point fully before going on to the next. There may be some minor details to be argued and clarified, before the viewer is swept on to the next question.
+Lucius1958 They're on my blog. www.patheos.com/blogs/reasonadvocates/2015/11/22/anti-theist-answers-to-christian-questions/
AronRa Thanks!
+Laughing Stock Yes: I know.
However, there is some difference between pausing a video (a temporary pause in an ongoing narrative) and consulting a text, which can be examined at leisure.
The former requires one to compare their thoughts against a not-entirely-reliable memory: the latter displays the original statement for reference.
+Lucius1958 I just paused the video when appropriate, it's not a big deal. But I understand if you like it written down better than in video form.
+AronRa What? Mel Gibson wrong? Blasphemer!
THE VERY NEXT QUESTION (#2) ILLUSTRATES MY POINT. YOU CALL YOURSELF ATHEIST AND THEY ASSUME YOU'RE MAKING A CLAIM WHEN YOU'RE NOT.
Great video.
Your speaking style reminds me of Carl Sagan.
Thanks for the content!
Great episode, as per usual!
Question: Who in the movement is addressing questions such as these from the perspective of psychology?
For example, the 2nd last question is trying to formulate a scenario where a god-like being might be capable of existing, and is desperately trying to bring the gap between conceivable future scenarios and some semblance of what they were conditioned to accept.
My impression is that what the inquisitor is really in search of is not so much some stranger’s opinion on an abstract, untestable hypothetical, but rather is yearning for approval and permission to retain some form of their foundational belief without completely losing face and respect, essentially seeking to maintain serotonin flow in the brain while retaining their irrational output from their cognitive dissonance. The question was a bartering tactic, although the questioner likely didn’t realize that.
I hope that Aron and the gang can bring in a psychologist to answer questions from this point of view, so that the asker can better understand why they themselves are even asking such questions. It might help such people to start asking better questions, rather than stumbling through the same old apologist justifications and rationalizations, phrased in question form to make it appear that they are seeking knowledge.
Thank you, AronRa. You're helping. Keep up the good work.
I'm totally having a flashback watching these backgrounds... ty...🤘
I almost got married; she was agnostic, I was an atheist, but we couldn't agree which religion not to bring our children up in.
Love your stuff! This is so informative and helpful. What’s up with your mic occasionally being out of phase or occasionally panned to one side?
I see this is from 2015. Here in 2019 I hope you’ve found an easy correction for this.
Keep it up, you def gained a fan!
Been waiting for this. 😊
As always well articulated, sir. Well done!
God is beyond time and space but he takes 6 days to complete his creation. Days are time. So God needs time to do creation. We call a single revolution of earth as a day. And how God created Earth on the 6th day when there was no measure of days before earth. A single sentence in religious books has some 10 contradictions and stupidity.
hmmm... as you mention, day are time. 6 days not literally mean by a the earth 6th completed rotation. its refer to time. for the truth seeker, you need to understand the ancient time, such as the way of they writing before make a your own conclusion. be a smart atheist... not blindly follow. at the end, even atheist will be the same as religions people. in term of attitude.
nazhammerheart Atheism is popular because you do not need to ‘blindly follow’ it. It presents facts tenfold compared to any religion. Now you say Earth’s “6th Day” wasn’t literally 6 earth rotations. However, it is described as a day, and makes no mention of this ancient time you speak of. This is you bending the story to explain your faulty beliefs. Your grammar and sentence structure goes to show your intellectuality is not on par with Aaron Ra’s.
@@211pirate6
Ancient or modern, time is time. Time is within physical reality. When time comes in, the space comes with it. God taking some time, even if it's one mega zillionth of a second, its still within physical reality, which means God is also taking some space. Space and time is bound by physical laws which can be observed and measured by Scientific methods. Anything that science can explain cannot be God. So your god is not GOD.
@@211pirate6 friend.. you mistaken something.... I'm not a christian nor a atheism.. how could you compare my grammar to Mr Aaron... mine just elementary school standard and english not even my main language. i enjoy reading/listening to a good mind... (including Aaron Ra's)
just saying.. we should see it through them point of view... don't force it trough our own point of view (that is the truth seeker)... it be like orthodox beliefs... only them are right...
(sorry for my grammar again )
You are stupid.
The way you approached this is
10,9,8,7,6 and 6+5 = 11
I have 11 fingers!😂
Messing with chronology destroys the integrity of the event.
I am no fan of any religion.
Just pointing out your mistake.
I love this channel. I must admit I do have gods. My cats are my overlords.
+Steven Baumann "My cats are my overlords" Cats are a waste of space, they are only bested in the Least Hospital stakes by the Tasmanian Devil... The most heinous mammal ever to exist. But it is a close run thing.
You ..;.how dare you to say such things of our masters, the cat overlords!? I shall sacrifice your money to my lords as a punishment and buy CATNIP FOR THEM!
+2consider Another ignorant theist? Aren't you? Stop projecting yourself on people
Well, at least they demonstrably exist. That's a head-and-shoulders over all the others!
Excellent answers Christians will ignore!
Great work, again.
Riddled with woo-woo 😂
good video sir. Keep 'em coming.
Wow. I am so impressed with your answer to the question of whether religious belief is a mental illness. You've managed to distinguish among all the different aspects of mental functioning and show how religion affects them. You are sharp as a tack, or should I say, a scalpel. Nicely done!
yeah screw them Tibetan monks that can control their bodies with meditation which is the same form of prayer that religious people also do... haa Aron is a moron or more off
Lee Brown
They do in one why or another.....
Amish have increadable immune system
I could go on and on if you want
Spirituality May Help People Live Longer
www.webmd.com/balance/features/spirituality-may-help-people-live-longer?page=2
Lee Brown
Problem is not God.
AronRa has a problem with Faith what is the meaning of Faith
faith
noun \ˈfāth\
Simple Definition of faith
*: strong belief or trust in someone or something*
: belief in the existence of God : strong religious feelings or beliefs
: a system of religious beliefs
Source:
Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary
The Amish based their life on way of living which causes adaptation this is because of their faith this adaptation happened which know Doctor who have study them my cure Asama and Autism
I did watch the video and like always AronRa does not fact check or tells half truths
We humans are nothing more than swirling vortex of particle energy with a higher awareness than germ, plants and animals so if we humans exist then it is possible if not probable that God exist......
Lee Brown
Adaptation happens in humans many time in your life... Look up and read Epigenetics
I totally understand Evolution and it is based on opinion....
I am not a Catholic I am Aramaic Christian
we don't believe in hell as that was a mistranslated by the Greeks and Romans
like the evolution of language so did faith as all the faiths all around the world stem from one source which is Noah which the world flooded around 13,000 bc
hmmm God didn't want a robot so he gave us free will Adam and Eve made a choice did matter if they eat the forbidden fruit or not.
We humans are the only creature that can predict our own future by the choices we make...
God is the greatest Scientist in the Universes in my opinion and we are his lab rats....
we have all the info to solve the maze of life but the choice of which path we take is ours alone to make.....
Lee Brown
Give me fact of evolution?
Here is two facts on fossils
1st Something lived and died. Yes we tell a lot from fossils like ribs tell growth patterns of a creature.
2nd That creatures get smaller or stay the same
look at human cells they have a 99.99% copy correct plus they proof check after and before the cell divides if their is a error the cell self destructs....
I could go into the problem of Lucy having the same number of ribs of chimps and the arm length of a chimp same feet hands and build of a chimp.
Humans have shorter arms and less ribs than chimp but please don't tell me about cervical rib (neck ribs) as they don't count as ribs yet people with Rh- blood typically have an extra rib. They usually have red or blond hair and green eyes! Some even have extra vertebrae or ribs which is a odd number
Humans and orangutans have 12 set of ribs
Chimpanzees and gorillas
(both male and female) have 13 rib pairs.
Or penis bone, which is present in other primates and many other mammals, but not in humans.
I have not even gotten into the how acidic primates blood is verse humans and many other factors
I guess 13,000 BC the ocean level didn't rise over 100 feet in a single year and over 500 feet in the following years so much for facts about science then....
I do understand science and biology my passion is Biophysics
I don't believe in a skydaddy I believe in a being with vast knowledge and the ability to create Synthetic life forms and give that life form Artificial knowledge and the ability to pass that knowledge on plus reproduce
It's a good thing my decisions are determined entirely by the chemical processes of my brain, because I AM the chemical processes of my brain. If my actions weren't determined by physics, it would not be me determining them.
I like that.
AronRa I like you
Aron is so good at succinctly articulating the atheistic point of view and giving such reasoned responses to the accusations of theists.
Yep, that is my neighbor, FAITH!!!!! JUST KEEP BELIEVING!!!!!! Brainwashed himself for 70 years. I've cornered him so bad he once remarked, "well I'll have to pray a little harder" Hummm, even if you could get all 7 billion people to pray, IT STILL WON'T WORK. What is wrong with humans????????????? Thanks Aron, I'm behind you 100%
"and that was my last moment as a christian" SO LOVE THAT.
You should do books on tape too. I often watch your videos just to listen to you talk. Your voice is very soothing and pleasant.
As always Mr Ra, nicely done!
Superb. Really enjoyed that. Many thanks.