If you knew how true what he says is you’d find it funnier 
Don’t confuse my lack of amusement with a lack of understanding.
I get his jokes fully but just like sienfield its a style of comedy that does not particularity appeal to me.
I do recall you saying you should just hand over your wallet. You said something like, “your money isn’t worth killing a person, so its better to hand it over”.
So you’re gambling with your life? Your willing to risk yours for the life of a thug.
@SirWarriant @TheDivineInfidel
Ok I know neither of you are into reading text walls but I implore you read the whole post. It is legitimately the greatest rebuttal I have read on a youtube comment so far.
The Video
The initial comment -
The Rebuttal -
What happened in the big bang? do you know off hand? You should since you’re quoting it as if its common knowledge, but allow me to elaborate.
The BB starts at 10(-43) (43 decimal 0’s then a 1, of a second), the then unified forces until 10(-36), at which point the the strong force separates from the electronuclear force,
At 10(-12) the weak force separates, and we have the 4 known forces, still .00000000001 second after the earliest condition we can observe.
Which by the way, should tip everyone off, if we can’t observe the initial conditions, that is because they happened before/beyond/above the BB, which is consensus, everyone accept that, but they don’t seem to accept what it implies.
Anything before/beyond/above/after the universe is what by definition? I’ll give you a hint, our universe is “natural”. So what is before/beyond/above/after it? By definition, something(s) “Supernatural” or simply “super nature”. Just want to point to our “supernatural origins” before proceeding to the actual point.
Nature is a byproduct of Super Nature, that is all but a scientific fact, and only because we cannot “directly” observe/verify. Indirectly, on the premise of what can and has been verified and accepted by scientific peer review, this is inferred and there is no “valid” contrary explanation to date.
Also I forgot to mention, between 10-36 and 10-32, we have the inflationary epoch. Where our universe increased its size by 10(26) (again that’s 26 0’s, not sure how to use proper symbols), “at least”, if not more, possibly much more, and its volume by 10 to the 78 at least. So our universe increased its volume at least;
1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times overs in much much less than 1 second, not even a fraction of a second, this all happened virtually instantly based on our perception of time.
Light dominated the universe for the first 379,000 years, light, pure energy, was so dense, it could not shine, there was no “darkness”, no absence of light, it was until it expanded, cooled, and became “diluted” that it began to form the “impure” forms of energy (those containing mass, as you likely know, light contains no mass, it is the only form of pure energy known to man). Which gradually evolved in to the universe we see today, including all forms of energy/matter, governed by “unseen forces” we call “laws of nature”.
Force/Laws of Nature, are in reality, by definition, are supernatural as well. We still have yet to directly observe dark energy/matter, black holes, even gravity, these are called “forces” because they “govern/dictate” how nature acts. Now I’m not saying all of these are for sure supernatural. But science loves to infer/assert that they are all “natural” without any evidence/verification which meets their own standards, and in fact contrary to every bit of evidence we do have on the forces because none of it even infers that these may be directly observable.
Again, there’s a fine line I’m tight roping here between what is proven, what is inferred based on what is proven, and what is simply beyond verification. I’m attempting to establish a middle grounds, as to say essentially what is most likely, or most valid, based on evidence today, it doesn’t mean its not subject to change, but I find this approach more intellectually honest, to credit what appears to be supernatural as in fact supernatural contrary to asserting that it is natural, and we just haven’t developed the technology, or obtained the knowledge, or observational methods to verify it.
That is an appeal to ignorance, until it happens, its nonsense. Equally nonsensical is me asserting it is supernatural without direct verification, however I’m simply conveying the point that it is at this point in time, more logical, valid, and consistent with accepted scientific theories than the contrary view that is often propagates in supposed “science videos”, and by scientists.
What needs to be understood and emphasized is what Science is. Science is the “natural” study of the universe, based on “natural” observations, and thus can and only will conclude “naturally”, never supernaturally, as that would contradict the scientific standard which requires empirical/tangible/physical evidence, observation and verification (natural).
You will often hear things like “We don’t fully understand this phenomena “yet”” which implies, one day we will, scientifically, naturally, ect, which may be true, or it may not be. And it is often used to propagate a material world view in contrast to religion/spirituality, but the two are not mutually exclusive, they’re in fact separate jurisdictions.
Supernatural evidence can’t be obtained (direct evidence), however it is more than a fallacy, to suggest that because of our “natural” inabilities, and subjective perception of “reality”, that there is no such thing as “supernatural” based on lack of evidence.
So what you’re seeing here is a couple of fallacies (invalid logic). Namely, circularly reasoning, the universe is “natural” therefor its natural, comparable to the “god of the gaps” argument used by some theists to claim God is real because He is God.
Appealing to ignorance, and appealing to authority.
Ignorance: Is when we postulate certainty, or even suggest or infer more validity here than there, based on lack of knowledge or lack of evidence, or simply, not knowing, and/or being beyond the possibility of knowing, i.e. “supernatural”.
Authority: Is when we claim that because a or multiple scientists or scholars “believe” something, like “God isn’t real”, that it makes it more valid, or more likely.
These fallacies are not logically valid, yet they’re thrown around the scientific community because many scientists, including world renown scientists are atheists, so active anti-theists who directly attack and mock religion. It is imposed with a sort of school-yard bully mentality to tell people they’re stupid if they have a difference of opinion/belief.
When in reality, if these so called “authorities” had any evidence that indicated there was no God, or that origins could be explained alternatively, it would be world news and everyone would know.
Instead what we have, are equally supernatural speculations, regarding what is beyond the universe, based on direct evidence, because it cannot be had, which violate scientific principals such as Occam’s Razor which states essentially “don’t over complicate the solution beyond what is required to solve”, which is more relevant than every considered origins are supernatural.
Occam’s Razor is a way to predetermine logical validity of a hypothesis, and when it comes to origins of the universe, hypotheses is all we have past the initially 10-43 as explained in the BB Theory. Anything beyond that cannot be directly observed/measured/verified which is required by scientific standard, and thus cannot be established as valid scientific theory, ever.Understand that when playing into concepts like a multi-verse / infinite infinite universes all happening in infinite possible ways at once in various dimensions ect. And also theories like “something from nothing”, propagated by a well known anti-theist Lawrence Krauss, who is intellectually dishonest to say the least, in his definition of “nothing”.
Science has never observed “nothing”, and believes there isn’t even “empty space”, which technically still wouldn’t be “nothing”, every tiny scale pocket of space has particles in it, there is something. Nothing is a theoretical concepts which describes what exists beyond “everything”, which is the only way to define it, in relation to all that is, because it isn’t a thing.
By definition, it cannot interact with, let alone create/cause and/or a/effect something, or it demonstrates itself not to be nothing, and must be something, as it can then be described in relation to other things, which is how we measure/define things in the first place.
And its been well established since BC times that “from nothing, comes nothing”, its an illogical paradox to suggest nothing can influence something. It’s also an illogical paradox to say the universe created itself, it’s either eternal, thus requiring no “Creator”, as the Greeks proposed 2500 years, accepted unanimously up until about 100 years ago with the discoveries of the BB, Relativity, and Thermodynamics, as well as related discoveries such as background radiation you mention, which led us to conclude the universe is not eternal, it is in fact expanding.
Every piece of evidence in the universe is presumably evidence of cause/effect, every effect has a cause, there has never been a causeless effect, everything was created by something, everything which begins, by definition was created, and we know our universe began 13.8-9 bil years ago.Back to the main point before I rant on forever.
Light separated and formed the universe as we know it.
Doesn’t that sound an awful lot like…
“God said ‘Let there be light’ and it was so…”.
"God separated the light from the darkness"
just before he
"Created the heavens and all of their hosts"
Which eventually leads to the creation of Earth.So here you are claiming that a theory is contrary to the Bible, when in fact, the contrary theory already has been used as a counter to religion for 2500 years and everyone believed it, then we proved it wrong, verified what the Bible had been saying all along, there was a beginning, the universe was “created” (by definition anything which begins, was created, it doesn’t have to imply consciousness) and even down to specifics with light prefixing space/time prefixing the Earth, all verified to be written long before (2500+ years) any science, or technology, or knowledge was able to observe and verify these claims directly.
Which brings us back to the point that these things a propagated as mutually exclusive options, when in fact, that’s just an ignorant, narrow minded, and likely bias assumption/assertion. All God had to create was the initially conditions, everything else could be natural through His design.
And in fact, a good example of this is evolution/abiogenesis, also used as a contrary to God creating life. Yet the Bible tells us “The sea brought forth”, and “The earth brought forth” the living respectively. Whom reproduced “in their (own) likeness” bringing "new kinds"
That is abiogenesis and evolution in a nutshell. And it gets deeper but this is already too long. Just pointing out that if you read literally, the first page of the Bible (OBJECTIVELY), you would see that concepts you have for what must be true or not true in order to prove God created vs naturally created are likely wrong, based only in ignorance, and a predisposition/bias to assert “God is not real”, regardless of any evidence.
And its been demonstrated by nearly if not every atheist I’ve ever talked with, they all either openly admit bias, or demonstrate it without realizing it by what they say. They dismiss any/all evidence/logic that disagrees with their bias predisposition, and accept any/all evidence which agrees with their opinion/belief, with little to no concern for what is actually true, with all emphasis being on convincing themselves they’re logically justified in a “faith” (belief without proof/evidence), which contradicts the very premise of their beliefs.And, the universe could not have been naturally created, that is “self-created”, the universe is natural, anything beyond it is supernatural, if it was naturally created, and has natural origins, that would be it created itself without any outside influence which is an illogical paradox.
Just one more logical reason to agree the universe has “supernatural origins”, regardless of what “supernatural” is, whether its God or not, it is definitely supernatural, or we’d be able to observe it, just as we observe 10-43.A few more notes:
Bible states God expands the heavens constantly/consistently, only recently did we discover “dark energy” which we find is perpetuating the expansion of space/time, before which we speculated a “Big Crunch” which the universe would eventually cool, and slow expansion to a point where it would recombine and collapse and cycle.
It names the heavens to be “like a curtain/fabric”, today scientists all call the heavens "the fabric of space/time"
The singularity is described (based on recent discoveries) as being "much more liquid-like than previously imagined). And its well established that it is a chaotic state. The Bible tells us The spirit/breath of God, hovered/breathed over the sur/face of the “primordial watery chaos” before saying ‘Let there be light’.
A good portion of history is based on the Bible as the only/original source, many people/events/places were doubted by historians initially, and since have been verified historically/scientifically beyond a reasonable doubt, such as the existence of Jesus, Pontius Pilate, King Nebechadnezzar /II, Sodom & Gomorah, and much much more. Many places/names are so because of what the Bible refers to them as 3000 +/- years ago, originally were not accepted and thought to be fictional, until archaelogical data verified biblical claims.One religion & science. Almost all major scientific theories that are attributed to the technology, knowledge, and general state of society today, came from theists, mostly Christians over the last 2000 years. I find it ironic that the type of thinking that led to Science, is not being criticized by ignorant people just because God “doesn’t make sense to them”, which is another fallacy.
Science describes who/what/where/when and if we’re lucky, and if its local enough to make consistent observations and test until we understand a great deal, we might get a little insight as to “how”, but “why” is only inferred by the conscious mind, which is subjectively interpreted and opinionated.
It’s another fallacy to assert that because science can describe who/what/when/where, that how/why doesn’t matter and/or isn’t needed, which is essentially what is being said.Do you believe in purpose? Do you believe that any 1 thing happens for a reason? If so, you believe in God, because a universe that was created “naturally”, is so by “chance”, without any design, thought, or purpose, it means everything which is a byproduct of it, is meaningless, there is no reason for it, it simply is what it is, where it is, when it is, who it is, and how it is,. there is no such thing as why, its a man made construct of our imagination.
Which ironically I believe is enough to infer purpose, the fact that we have consciousness in which we create purpose. And we observe purpose all the time, the entire universe is symbiotically related to the entire universe, from tiny micro scales, to the entire collective universe and the forces which govern it, its all working together, all with unique individual and collective purpose, which all adds up to 1 collective purpose, which takes it back to the supernatural source of all that purpose, which infers design, which infers consciousness.Also, what is hard to believe about God? Is it that He wasn’t created / always existed? That is easy, He is eternal, as anything supernatural is because its beyond space/“TIME”. That is the null hypothesis of anything supernatural, based on relativity, time is relative to space, and space is with in and/or is the universe, it requires multiple assertions to place time beyond the universe.
You must assert either space is also beyond space, or time beyond space isn’t relative to space but some other thing we can’t observe or measure ect. Indirectly, we have about all the verification we’re ever going to have on the subject, and it infers that beyond space there is no time.
Which also infers beyond space there is no cause/effect, because C/A is a byproduct of space/time. Without time, there cannot be cause/effect, which creates another paradox for “natural origins” which it cannot solve without making “supernatural assertions” beyond what is observable and verifiable via scientific methods.
Or maybe its because He is infinite? What is time? A measurement, duration, of which, what is eternity? =Infinite. They’re essentially one and the same, and eternity is just saying “infinite duration”, having no beginning or end. Thus, requiring no “Creator”, no “Cause” is required for something which is eternal, because it did not “begin”.
Our universe however, did, and thus, requires a Creator, thus implies a Creator of supernatural origins. Again, this doesn’t have to be “God”, but it aligns with God, w/e it is must have all of Gods qualities/attributes/abilities in order to be capable of creating the universe outside of space/time.
It must be conscious and choose to create, because there is no “natural cause/effect”, outside of nature, outside of time.
It must be eternal/infinite by null hypothesis, because there is no space/time.
Which tells us there need only be and even may infer there only can be 1 source, one “supernatural” thing which is literally “everything”, all encompassing entity.
Or in other words, it must be “Absolute”, we know there must be absolute origins, otherwise we have infinite regress, which is an illogical paradox. And Absolute again parallels and agrees with the preceding concepts of eternal/infinite, I believe they all go hand in hand and must be one and the same.
Which agrees with the hierarchy structure of the universe, earth inside a solar system, inside a galaxy, inside a universe full of 100bil-500bil+ galaxies, some of which contain over 100 trillion stars, and thus potential solar systems, which means the numbers of planets is likely a multiple of that number with in them.
It is likely with in another structure, possibly many, but back to Occam’s Razor, as well as my previous points, we only need 1 absolute source, it only needs to be 1 step above, any inference beyond that violates Occam’s Razor which determines the logical validity of a hypothesis in the absence of empirical evidence.
It also must be omni potent/present/scient, again backed by the previous premises. omnipotence (power/energy) is a given, it must equal, or more likely exceed the universe in power/energy which is also information mind you, which gives us omnipresence and omniscience, it knows everything the universe “knows” and then some, which infers its presence, because without direct observation, as we know via scientific standard, you can’t “know” anything.
But that doesn’t infer human like consciousness, or necessarily anything we’re capable of imagining. Also it is the source of all of it, so that’s all basically a given as “illogical” as it mind sound to you if you’re unable to imagine it rationally and/or if you have a bias predisposition to disagree regardless.
All of these qualities are required for anything capable of creating a universe, whether its “natural” or not.
In reality, it is truly, “absolutely” natural, we are a by product of it, and thus “lesser natural”, it is only from with in our subjective perception, with in our subjective reality, which is our “nature” that we classify our nature as standard, and anything beyond as super nature/al.
And that about covers it I believe, I may have skipped a few things, but you get the point, it doesn’t have to be “God”, but it has to be exactly like Him, which gives a lit of weight to the idea that it is Him.In conclusion, your concept of silencing/destroying religion/spirituality is based only in ignorance and/or bias. It stems from a material “world” (universe) view. In a universe, which we know, was born, from non-material. Think about it…
You’re essentially asserting that our reality > the reality which is responsible for us, “actual reality” or “actuality” or “absolute reality”.
Now I agree to the extent that the material world, and thus science, is more pertaining to our material world interests, and we’re all confined with in reality, its all we know, where as super nature is beyond our ability to know, so more emphasis on what can be proven, less on what cannot, I agree with in some ways.
But to go as extreme as to say that it is the reason for our progression halting, is laughable and baseless. Theists, mostly Christians, are responsible for the science in the first place. Atheists didn’t think this stuff up, those thinking about God, keeping God in mind constantly, are the ones who had “open eyes” and were able to see the world through a different view.
And in reality, spirituality/religion is associated with morality, something which science lacks and needs, as we have witnessed the effects of science and technology and the immorality behind much of it.
We create via science, and we don’t always have moral accountability or ethics attached to ensure not only human safety, but world safety. Our technology has been used with such a disregard for its a/effects on the Earth, that we’ve destroyed much of it, put a hole in our ozone layer, a barrier keeping us alive, protecting us from the dangerous radiation from the sun. We’ve chopped down 97-98% of the worlds rain forests, we pollute on a daily basis, in China its so bad you can’t see 15 feet in front of you. There is so much immorality and in turn, negative/harmful effects of science/technology/knowledge, that it demonstrates it needs some kind of spirituality, in the least logical morality and accountability.Even then, what can of accountability could there be? Nuclear power plants mess up and the entire world is radiated. I don’t mean if someone does something bad they should be punished accountability, I mean we need to restrict people from doing bad before it happens.
Which touches on the corruption of wealth and businesses. Businesses are designed to make money, the system out lives and even evolves beyond its designer(s), and grows perpetually more evil over time. All that matters in the end is $$$ signs.
And you’re suggesting that we need to get rid of the one thing that occasionally forces us to remember morality, and focus purely on technology/science, in a monetary system which rewards the cheaters and liars who can profit the most regardless of what that does to people and the environment.
And I realize I may come off derogatory, but understand this is out of love, I want to help you evolve your beliefs in logically consistent ways, and be more objective and open to see things from more than your single narrow subjective perception and opinions.Hopefully I was able to sway your opinion, and open up your perspective to a broader view/range, as well as anyone else leaning that direction who reads this. Arguing over unfalsifiable/verifiable premise such as whether God exists or not is fruitless, there are common grounds between theists and atheists.
And Christianity (I can’t speak for other religions) boils down to belief in “Truth”, “Righteousness”, and “Love”, which it proclaims is “God” “Absolutely”, “Supernaturally”, “Eternally”, “Infinitely”, “Before/Above/Beyond/After” the Universe (heavens) and the Earth.
You essentially disagree with that being “God”, but as far as the rest goes, I think we could agree, pursue truth/love/morality (righteousness is the extreme which is likely unobtainable by “man”). And like it or not, if you believe in those things, and put priority on those things over the material reality, you’re essentially following the Christian “Truth”. You believe the same things, your just caught up on the “God” part where I’m not, only difference.
From biblical perspective, focusing on those things, is focusing on God, keeping Him in mind, which leads to moral accountability internally, which leads to shame/guilt from immoral action, which leads to repentance (changing your mind/state/actions) accordingly to correct your admitted flaws on a moral basis.
And I believe anyone with a little bit of life experience can reflect on where “karma” got the best of them, where their immoral actions perpetuated into their reality and eventually came full circle whether a moment later or years later. Which is evidence of the purpose I mentioned, and the “Absolute Truth” which is “Righteousness” which is “Love” (unconditionally/absolutely) which is “God” (In my humble opinion =)Oh and the point I was making with monetary system, business, economy, and the application of knowledge/science/tech, was that if anything is responsible for slowing us down, its that, and its not just slowing us down, its bound to collapse our economy, and thus our society, if we don’t change. And/or we’re continue to use unethical/immoral business practices to avoid that, but at the cost of the Earth, humans, and things which simply aren’t worth the price tag.
BTW there are to more posts equally about the same here but I figured you can seek them out if you are interested.
2 Likes
I read most of that but i got the gist of it. Science can very much be used as an agenda, things like evolution are forcefully taught in schools as cold hard fact. Even though aside from smaller adaptations, large scale evolution has never been observed or proved. Just a bit of irony when they claim they believe only what they can see.
I want to ask most people, have you seen these experiments or reactions for yourself? Or are you just blinding following a text book , or going off someone else’s word.
I ask this same questions to Christians that claim that the bible is the whole truth.
That is to say many Christians follow blindly (preachers words not the doctrine itself) without ever experiencing any actual divine or spiritual experiences themselves and are not truly sound within their belief. Many follow out of fear of not going to heaven.
I have come to the understanding the only things I can trust is my own experiences and to except the fact that the only thing I know for certain is I don’t know anything.
Seriously though you should read the whole thing you may perceive what you consider to be the gist but the full read is valuable.
That’s the irony of it. I’m always told i’m simple minded or brainwashed for being a christian and i point out to these people that all they do is follow text books and the words of scientists when they tell me i just follow the church or the bible.
Well Just because … I’m in Croatia for 2 weeks with the missus , just as a last minute trips so please excuses ones inactivity
1 Like
Well… alright but only because you told us when and where you were going. 
1 Like
This fucker’s brother has just kidnapped 5 Czechs in Libanon.
http://zpravy.idnes.cz/foto.aspx?r=zahranicni&foto1=HRO5cab00_profimedia_0219251372.jpg
He is currently undergoing extradition proceedings to US where he’s gonna be charged for terrorism. The court had stayed the extradition because US hadn’t provided sufficient assurances that he won’t be tortured (before the kidnapping), it will be interesting to see what the authorities will do now, whether they’ll exchange him for those kidnapped.
Jesus Christ Croatian girls are out of this world . !
.#gotaconstantsemi.
Tell me about it. I spent a year in a flat with two that were studying physiotherapy in the Czech Republic. Needless to say they taught me how to massage
Well the U.S does not exchange people. We usually just send in people dressed in black to cut throats and get the hostages. That is of course unless our dumb ass president brakes are almost 200 year rule of not negotiating with terrorists again, like he did with that deserter.
(adds Croatia to my places to visit) 
Well considering that his standard are British girls, the bar is pretty low.
3 Likes
Thank you for sharing this youtube gold.
As for Christianity, main problem (as I see it) is, that it’s misinterpreted (by believers and unbelievers).
Whatever anyone believes the God is, there is one thing that does not change about Christianity. This thing is Love. As a Christian you should Love and forgive everyone without exception.
So anyone who goes into streets with sign “God hates gays” is not true Christian.
In the end it all boils up to people not hating religion, but stupid/ignorant/not thinking people.
1 Like
What the fuck is wrong with you? Bible in a very clear words orders believers to stone to death men who lay with men. How the fuck you come from reading “stone them to death” to “the right interpretation is you should love and forgive without exception”?! Are you high or something?
1 Like
and that’s why I’m engaged to a german English girls are too stuck up .
1 Like
I challenge you to find me a positive contribution religion has made too the world which wouldnt of been the case without religion .
Then think of the negative contributions it’s made to the world .
I am talking about Christianity, which is based on the New testament.
The thing you are reffering to is the Old testament.
@TheDivineInfidel
Once again I am talking about Christianity not any religion. So your challange is invalid.
With this I end my contribution to religion disscusion.
The bible also states (not necessarily related to homosexuality) he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Many parts of the bible are contradictory. It is a book that has been written and translated many times over and many fallacies and false info has arisen from this practice (usually intentional for those to use the doctrine for control).
Many scientific discoveries throughout history were by men of faith in universities funded by the church. I wouldn’t accredit this with religion however because their faith or belief in god wasn’t always tied to a set ideology or dogma.
The largest thing I felt was important about that post I shared (if you read the whole post) was the fact they were solid in there faith of their God, but displayed a comprehensive understanding of empirical law and the nature and use of science.
Its a great representation of what more people should be like “open minded” and logically discerning.
To frequently spiritualists deny the revelations and value of the scientific process, but there are just as many scientists that deny philosophy or divine experience because it can not be tested scientifically.
Personally much of my personal spiritual experiences and moments of enlightenment have been from introspectively contemplating quantum theory.
I started my spiritual evolution from a pure empirical stand point and slowly understood and approached things more philosophically. To this day I study as much religion and philosophical teachings as Medical/scientific journals I read.
1 Like