Dan Barker tore him to shreds. Met Dan a few years ago here in town at an event, very nice man. His book "Godless" and "God The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction" are excellent.
@@mikerodgers7620 You might want to read The Bible Dilemma and The God Virus, or the other books just to see if you might just be wrong. Guilt and fear are 2 main drivers of religion. I don't believe what you believe. Maybe Islam is the real thing--infidel. lol
Just a couple of comments: 1) Ignorance or personal incredulity fallacy 2) Special Pleading fallacy 3) God of the gaps fallacy. Yes, Dr. Mcintosh: you presented ZERO evidence for your position and miserably failed. Preaching did not help either. Speaking louder, inciting fear was even worse.
The funny thing is how all these fallacies are being used as if they ever were law. These "fallacies" don't always apply such as the slippery slope "fallacy". Time and time again the slippery slope has been proven correct. Such as with the lgbt movement which is closer and closer to a pedo movement. Let me tell you something, people made up these "fallacies". Although I agree with most such as the strawman, you lot just chuck them out with no real context now.
A note about special pleading. It's not always a fallacy. Many a doctor has harmed me by thinking what I to!d them was a lie, special pleading. My kids too. So special l!heading isn't special pleading when it comes to certain things, but try and tell a new PCP that, or a new surgeon, and they think you're a wing but bc they don't bother reading the MRs you had to send to see them...they don't even read them. Special pleading is necessary so.etimes. I'm human they say, but what helps you wou!d cause me to come apart, what helps me wou!d hurt you in a lot of cases.
dan barker is disappointingly weak in the Q&A segment. for example, when asked: - how did the universe come in2 existence?? or: - how did the 1st atom come in2 existence?? he should have answered by the ultimate question: how did god come in2 existence??, which he didn't. dan, you should always insist on this question.
There were some things that I was afraid Dan wasn't going to address that I knew he could address. I'm glad he made the points he needed to in his conclusion.
I've watched many of these debates. So many times the theist starts ranting, raving, talking fast and loud. And they all like to ignore the despicable things it says in the bible. Theists aren't doing their cause any favors with these debates. I hope they keep doing them.
Google 'Cognitive Biases' and prepare to weep in despair, the heavily indoctrinated and well groomed theists come away from every debate thinking that they were on top of it, just read the comment section of any debate on here and you will see it for yourself.
In Jamaica slaves and a few scholars suggested the slaves were humans. They were cut in 4 quarters and distributed to the villages. Truth has some bearing on what we come to believe. Time, proximity, existing beliefs, and geography are more influential.
Dan actually was a Christian for more than 10 years. I don't know the exact number but he actually cared whether or not his beliefs were true. You sir, Mr. McIntosh, do not care about the truthfulness of your beliefs. You just like your beliefs because it brings you comfort in death. This is what I sense in all religions. These people are so petrified of death that they would rather still cling to these ridiculous fairy tales.
@@boogiman14 What are you angry and sad about then? I'm angry this apologist gets paid to make excuses and that makes me sad, by the way.(that way you don't ask me)
I don't know how many do, what does seem likely is those that do, aren't much different than the apologist's in these debated where they end up preaching as that have no training in debating. Only talking to other cultist's pretending make-believe is real.
Whenever a theist becomes blatantly dishonest in the furtherance of his position, it only confirms the lack of an “objective morality” proscribed by any “creator”.
Andy McIntosh is preaching to his congregation. He is not presenting shreds of evidence or arguments towards the issue of the debate. He has no idea what is a formal debate is, He is completely out of topic. He is talking nonsense. Thank you.
Of course, then he'd not be a believer. "I have evidence", then production of this isn't the initial beginning. Because they have zero good evidence, only vapid arguments without support.
Why would God, if he's beyond the restraints of the physical, natural universe, make the machinery of life so immensely complex? The complexity seems right in line with an unguided system that had billions of years to evolve operating on the first forms of life that had enough variations from which natural selection could then operate on. Why should there be a 'why' we are here beyond what meaning you give it for yourself. The physical universe doesn't owe us a 'meaning'. If it's just is a physical process that happened, there's no obligation to provide us 'meaning'. Morality is perfectly understandable in terms of the selective advantage it would have provided a social species as we evolved. We depend on each other to survive & have empathic abilities to understand that treating each other well, & cooperating, is an advantageous strategy for a social species living in a cruelly hostile physical world.
Because pretending make-believe is real is the sooth he sells himself which keeps him from actually being driven to investigate things, ideas or concepts that would lead to actual discoveries.
McIntosh debate is Ad hominem after Ad hominem after Ad hominem. He argues the Hebrew Bible which rejected Jesus as the messiah. He even tripped on his own statements. Face palm!
You are absolutely correct. It other words, it is psychotic to believe in a deity or god. If one believes in a invisible being, it's delusional which is psychotic! (I stole this idea from Sam Harris lol).
2019 and we’re still debating the existence of an invisible man in the sky floating on a cloud...??? Why don’t we debate the existence of the sun...??? Oh, that’s right - the sun actually exists...!!!
Cleo Fierro Jesus loves you. Not me, though. Cause apparently he’ll be sending me to hell just because he’s so goddamn good at playing at hide and seek that I can’t believe his story. All he’d have to do is show me that he exists and I would believe, but he won’t. Tell you what. Figure out your favorite argument for god, then look up a few refutations to that argument. Then think about both arguments HONESTLY. I know thinking honestly is a problem for a lot of religious people, and I understand why. I used to be the same way. I used to be a Christian wholeheartedly, but it just never made any logical sense to me, even as a child. But I was too afraid to question anything. So I just prayed harder. But eventually, after seeing that prayer wasn’t helping at all, I questioned. And then all I could see was how nonsensical it all was. All the cliches and platitudes that religious people give are just meaningless, vague fluff that only serves to make people feel better about already believing.
Cleo Fierro you’re right, there are Christians that don’t believe in hell. So what? Most do. No two believers agree on every subject. So does that mean atheists can’t criticize ANY part of Christianity because there’s probably a Christian out there that doesn’t believe that part? Give me a fucking break. I think the fact that you believers don’t agree says a lot about your supposed holy book. If it was the word of god then he’s a terrible author if there’s this many contradicting interpretations.
5 Beliefs Christianity wants you to believe but can’t provide one shred of proof: 1. An Invisible God who looks like humans. 2. A man made from clay and a woman made from his rib. 3. Talking animals like Donkeys and Snakes. 4. A man who walked on water, raised the dead, and who’s dead body awoke and ascended to the Heavens. 5. A wonderful afterlife where our Fantastical Human Dream of Living FOREVER Comes True! Absolutely Incredible how people will automatically believe these things just because they read it in an Ancient Book🤦♂️.
Complexity is not the hallmark of design, simplicity is. If you think intelligent design is a feasible explanation for the diversity of life on earth you simply haven’t looked at the evidence or your theology has prevented you from thinking critically.
Well, nice try at logic but that would mean the space shuttle is simple...buildings are simple...vehicles are simple... Have you ever built a space shuttle, building, or vehicle? Just working on a new vehicle requires years of training...working successfully requires constant upgrading. How is that simple?
@@peli_candude554 Nice try at thinking, but you really should try thinking waaay harder. The complete statement is: [given the function], simplicity is the hallmark of design. May the force of IQ>80 be with you. Hopefully.
@@Conserpov Nice try at oneupmanship but I was responding to the statement above. Thank you for offering your services but I have enough IQ for both of us. I''m sure you will find something useful for your low IQ brain. Wal-Mart is always looking for doorstops.
@@Conserpov I'm sure that even with your limited IQ even you can see how one post is responded to. If the full statement had been posted as you say it should have been then I may have responded differently. But, then again...maybe not!
"The science that we know", as McIntosh like to blurt out, only shows how complex certain things are. It doesn't in any way prove that there is a god responsible for it. There is no scientific evidence FOR god, and pointing out the complexity of molecules, biological organisms and other aspects of reality, is and will always be a god-of-the-gaps-argument.
It is not possible to prove God using science unless we are proving a created god. God is higher than us human. Science is good to discover the magnificent creation from God. Science gives evidence of God existence through examine the properties and law that govern His creation. If biological organisms are formed through what Darwin's theory say by random selection, then a cell should act this way now and another way later depend on the condition rather then in a consistent way. History and some early culture and civilization also show evidence especially in the Chinese characters which tell the story of Genesis.
"It is not possible to prove God using science unless we are proving a created god." Science is all we have. Science is the method by which we examine reality in all possible aspects. There is nothing else. If we would stumble upon a better or more refined method to gain knowledge, it would automatically become part of science. So science can't examine or prove god(s)? Fine, than nothing can and there isn't any reason to believe in a god.
John Anonymous _it would automatically become part of science._ Exactly...science is a culmination of human knowledge...which is exactly why we cannot find God with science...lol _So science can't examine or prove god(s)?_ Sure it can...but then it would automatically become part of science so you will never be able to find God with science because God IS science. You are looking at the forest and cannot see it for the trees. _Fine, than nothing can and there isn't any reason to believe in a god._ One of the most important reasons for believing in God is to keep us humble and always searching for God in the gaps of human wisdom. When humans become proud and boastful the next step required to keep them there is to demonstrate power over others and that is where they always fail because the demonstrations result in deaths or human suffering. When we remain humble and seek God with that humility we do not become boastful and our pride doesn't lead us to killing those we think we have power over. There...I just gave you 7.x billion reasons to believe in God.
"...science is a culmination of human knowledge...which is exactly why we cannot find God with science..." I'd figure that if god exists and can be known, god will be part of 'human knowledge', by definition. "So science can't examine or prove god(s)? Sure it can...but then it would automatically become part of science so you will never be able to find God with science because God IS science." Get your concepts and definitions straight. You are using mixing up two different meanings of science here. First the method and second the culminated body of knowledge. These are not the same and not interchangeable. "You are looking at the forest and cannot see it for the trees." You should put that one on a tile. And the rest of what you're saying is just totally irrelevant to the subject at hand.
One thing I always love to do when arguing for Christians is to put up a fake argument for Hinduism. Lord Brahma is the creator god of Hinduism and its always funny to hear their response when I ask why its implausible for Brahma to be behind the insane complexity of the universe instead of the Christian god.
"Can you explain how the very first atom came?" Why can´t people understand that both answers are equal. "I don´t know" "It was God" And how do we know they are exactly the same? By asking how. Let's see: "Can you explain how the very first atom came?" - I don´t know. - But do you know how it was made?"- No, I don´t. "Can you explain how the very first atom came?". It was God. - But do you know how he made it?" - No. I don´t. The logic is: saying that you know WHO made it is the same as knowing NOTHING made it, since you can´t take anything out of it. This should be logic to everyone. And unfortunately it isn´t.
Not really. 'I don't know' says I don't have information, and does not communicate a position. 'It was God' says I know what it was, and I take the position that it was specifically a consciousness I call God.
I'm always surprised that lightweights like McIntosh, Craig, and especially Desouza have the confidence to occupy a stage to argue against atheists, even relatively average atheists. They always revert to the same accusations, ad hominem attacks, claims that their opponent just "doesn't understand", etc., and in the case of this McIntosh character launching into a Sunday-school level sermon. They all end up pathetic losers, clearly demonstrating only their lack of credible arguments. It's like Christianity is caught in a bear trap, and slowly and painfully bleeding to death.
As for the comfort of prayer, how comforting is it to believe your loved one, who never asked Jesus into his heart, is forever suffering in eternal torment?
The sophistication and complexity of the building blocks of life could be an argument against an intelligent all powerful designer....one would think an all powerful creator would simply create life with less complicated process... heck, even the Christian bible would disagree with process. If my memory serves me correctly, apparently the creator created life (particularly mankind) simply breathing into dirt...
@ Tony Vega... right, and I love when creationists keep repeating the false claim that science says we came from a rock... they need to actually read that bible they love to thump
dirt is actually quite complex. take a shovel, go out into the backyard, poke it into the ground and turn over as much as the shovel will allow. contained therein are more micro-organisms than human beings that have ever walked the earth. complexity or simplicity demonstrate nothing divine or otherwise. the heavy lift is still to be done.
What strikes me the most in Christians, or believers in general, is that huge leap from position, "some diety must have had created all this atoms" to "it was Jesus Christ with his father and Mary the virgin". It's bigger jump than any of the missing links of Darwin's theory.
Science doesn't have answers to everything and on the other hand, religion claims to know all the answers and is prideful in it which makes it even more disturbing. What's more honest? To say I don't know where life came from or making up some character, Mr. Magic Man, created it.
Andy McIntosh is so very frustrating to listen too. As for the question about the creation of the first atom, Dan could have asked who created the creator.
Respect the PROCESS. Do not disturb the PROCESS. These debaters understand the PROCESS. Do not disrespect the PROCESS. Yawwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
Christian apologists are pretentious, lying assholes. They pretend to be superior because they defends the rights of a fetus. But when it comes to the millions of children raped by Christian clergymen, they have nothing to say except, "don't go to the police."
Early on, McIntosh openly admits that he's not going to take any arguments against himself seriously; but he will treat them "tongue in cheek". For example around 10:30. Foolish and misguided man. 'Belief' can be a terrible thing.
Typical. To say scientists or atheists aren't taking this issue seriously is offensively dismissive and typical of the judginess these people often demonstrate.
Things that are designed are made with simplicity to keep from using up a lot of energy, (Well a smart designer would make it with that in mind) not with complexity which would make whatever it is being disgned more problematic
So really, when it gets down to it, we have offended a Hebrew deity (largely by some sort of monkeying about with alcohol or sex) and as a result we are in need of a supernatural rescue, all of which shows up in the equations one might study in a graduate program in thermodynamics at any well regarded university. Now, I can go make a sandwich and enjoy the remainder of my evening.
dan barker is disappointingly weak in the Q&A segment. for example, when asked: - how did the universe come in2 existence?? or: - how did the 1st atom come in2 existence?? he should have answered by the ultimate question: how did god come in2 existence??, which he didn't. dan, you should always insist on this question.
@@soriya011 But you already answered it...he didn't...God is, was, and always will be...God. The Bible says so... Atheists claiming you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible are using the Bible to disprove the Bible...which is also not allowed. Prove that life came into being without God or that it is not designed. So far all I've heard is speculation based on...opinion and special pleading that there is no God in the gaps because humans have all the answers or expect to some time...some time .... Some time...
You do realize that the world, thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics and everything else was there before humans were, right? We didn't make any of it, we can only study it and most of it we are so out of understanding that we still don't know most of it. We can go and make a sandwich is about it. So when the creator of the universe tries to tell us something we screw it up and do the opposite of the recommended course of action. It takes a very patient and powerful God to not simply wipe us our and try again...maybe what happened to the Dinosaurs too...
An atheist doesn't assert life can come from non-life. That right there is associating two completely different things and is a fallacy. There are no requirements for an atheist to accept science. There are no requirements for humans to understand where life came from. If we don't know, then we don't know. It's dishonest to plug a god in there and pretend like you know where life came from.
Something is either true or it isn't. I am astonished that there are still so many supposedly rational adults that buy into these pernicious fairy tales. Time for humanity to grow up.
don't forget "the good people are going to heaven for all eternity, so what's so bad about a few years/months/weeks of dying of cancer?" or something like that.
@@tankbuggeru Remember: suffering makes you stronger!!! Offer up your suffering to our Heavenly Father who sent His Only Son to earth to suffer and die to forgive our sins!!!
Pay attention from1:04:50 up till 1:07:37 and hear who is crying in the background and see what the topic is about in that moment... then pause at 1:07:54 and see if you catch how GOD works in subtleties. "GOD looks down from heaven on the entire human race; HE looks to see if anyone is truly wise, if anyone seeks GOD." Psalm 53:2
The thing is, no one can "prove God" just like no one can "disprove" God. God is FAR above our finite brains and His Ways are higher than ours. We can't "figure out" God. All of our measly "logical thinking" and arguments can't even scratch the surface of God. God has provided more than enough evidence through His creation, through science, through history and through morality. It's just that some people are too stubborn to acknowledge it as God and are willfully ignorant. Atheists just don't like to accept the truth and don't like the idea of a just and moral God that will one day hold them accountable for their actions. Instead, they like to come up with their own ways of "explaining" the big questions in life. Such as "Why do we exist"? "What is the origin of life?" "Where did the first singularity and particle of matter come from?" "Where did energy come from?" Science can't even explain what caused its own "big bang" theory to happen in the first place. Evolution may be able to explain what happens when you HAVE life, but it can't explain how life actually BEGAN in the first place. Being an Atheist DOES requires faith. There are so many big questions left unanswered by science. Science, as wonderful and powerful as it is, simply cannot and will never be able to fully explain everything. You're expecting God to reveal Himself to YOU? Not gonna happen. It doesn't work that way. You seek after HIM. That's how it works. God is not obligated to reveal Himself to anyone. But there is a promise. If you truly seek Him with a sincere, honest and pure heart, He WILL reveal Himself to you. See, true Christians aren't Christians because of blind faith or intellectual belief. True Christians are Christians because they sought after God with all of their heart. Wanting to love Him. To know Him. To serve Him. To submit everything to Him 100%. That's why we have a relationship with Him. Because He revealed Himself to us. I think the issue with most Atheists (not all but most) isn't a "lack of evidence" thing. I think the main issue is because they don't WANT God to exist. They simply don't WANT to submit to God if He is real. That would mean they would have to give up a lot of the things they are doing that is wrong. Let me ask you a question, if Christianity was true, would you be a Christian? If God were to appear to you in front of your face in a dramatic bolt of lighting and said "I'm God. I exist. Here I am." What would you do with that intellectual belief? Would you sincerely be willing to give up your sins and your way of living for God's Ways? To serve Him and love Him for the rest of your life? Or would your attitude be like "Wow. I was wrong. You really do exist God." Then just go on with your life and operate as if He doesn't exist? If your response would be the second option, then by no means is God going to reveal Himself to you. He doesn't care about someone's intellectual belief. He wants your HEART. He wants a RELATIONSHIP.
@@joeturner9219 “The thing is, no one can "prove God" just like no one can "disprove" God. God is FAR above our finite brains and His Ways are higher than ours” There’s no way you can justify or back up this statement. Anyone who speaks on the behalf of a supposed supreme being is supremely arrogant
The really crowning point of his failure (McIntosh's) was (2:16:47) when he complains that nobody has ever seen a star form, which by extension goes on into "nobody observed the Big Bang." So he his saying that Science is just wrong because unless you observe it, you can't claim it happened. Which is hilarious, because he doesn't demand the same burden of proof for God's Creation of the Universe. Was McIntosh actually present to observe God creating the Universe in seven days? Was he present when Jesus was crucified? Was he present when Jesus rose from the dead? (Which incidentally puts the lie to Jesus's sacrifice by God, since God can't sacrifice anything if he can just bring it back 3 days later.) But the Observer argument works both ways. Fortunately (not so much for Religion), we have lots of people who have been trained to be able to deduce how things work from observation. Religion can only make claims based on 2,000 year old writings by unknown authors. Maybe if the Bible got updates every few years or decades, we might have a better chain of evidence for the things written in it.
What really got under my skin the whole time (i listened to the whole thing) is McIntosh constantly used a god of the gaps fallacy. He CONSTANTLY used it. He never had an evidence based argument, and anytime Dan called him out on it, he said "no it isn't" and then used yet another fallacy. One thing he kept harping on was that the beginning of life or the beginning of the universe is a pivotal point. No it ISN'T! You don't know how it happened and neither do we, but because we don't know he wants to yet again use a God of the gaps argument. "Ha! You don't know where all this stuff came from, therefore God!" It doesn't matter if we can't explain it, it does not prove God exists simply because we can't answer a question. I cannot count the number of times he pulled that shit throughout this debate.
Ronald Stepp Have you been following the information on Quantum Physics, Quantum Biology, and Consciousness? They are exposing our ignorance on how the world works and most are claiming that we will never truly understand our world with our current way of thinking and our limited powers of observation. What they are really saying is as much an admission of really not knowing as religion says. According to the Bible God told us we will never understand how He did anything...and now the scientists are realizing that the complexities are nothing short of baffling. So where does that actually leave us? I am no genius myself but I do understand the concepts better after indulging in dozens of hours of listening to what they say. One thing that stands out in my mind is that we have the power to create our realities to suit our biology and to make ourselves happy. We create our own reality. What that tells me is that if I believe in God and that makes me happy and doesn't actually hurt anyone else directly (unless they choose to be hurt by what I believe) then there is nothing actually wrong with that way of thinking. If my way of thinking makes me a calmer and happier person and I am respecting the beliefs of others that are not trying to do anyone harm or upsetting the delicate balance we have in society then I can only see that as being in harmony with the world around me. So who then is really trying to upset the delicate balance and who is causing all the problems we have in the world today? I can only see it as those who are struggling to be the alpha humans that want to have everyone do as they think we should be doing. Those include atheists that insist we have to get rid of religion to make the world a better place. Christians want to get rid of things that kill others and enslave them. Things like abortion and human trafficking are good places to start and if we don't agree on that it might be a good "morality check" for anyone who disagrees. I'd like to see better population control but not at the expense of killing 50 million babies every year.
@@peli_candude554 Your logic is a bit flawed here Peli. You make some statements and flow from one point to another that aren't connected at all. You start with quantum etc etc and end at abortion = killing babies, which isn't true. Let's go over a few things. Religion that's about elevating yourself, and being a good person, charitable, loving, and accepting people for who they are, has never been a problem for anyone but other religious people. Muslims for example throughout history, haven't accepted people that hold to a different religion, and it's even worse for me an atheist. I'm still the least electable and least trusted group in the United States that there is. That's a fact. How many open and out atheists can you name that hold public office? There are quite a few of every other group though, except perhaps for trans people, but they're about .06% of the population, compared to an estimated 5-8% of atheists. All around the world different religious groups are killing each other right now. Hindus are even doing it, and nothing in their texts can even justify it, unlike other religions. Yes, Judaism and Christianity have had Reformations but the texts still say what they've always said. In spite of what you think about quantum mechanics, quantum theory, and the like, we are not able to create our own realities. That's a huge misunderstanding of what's been learned. It's a misinterpretation of the 'observer effect' from the Double Slit Experiment, and subsequent analogies etc that attempt to explain it. It concerns interactions, and how any interaction will determine what state the particle will "be in" once it's observed, and the probability of knowing it's properties before observation. Knowing one quality will make another quality extremely uncertain. Keep in mind this is my understanding from being a self taught individual. I do my best to not say anything that's way out of bounds though. How you end up at "abortion = killing babies" I honestly have no idea. That human life begins at conception I don't dispute. Conception is a stage in human development, yes. It's a zygote. So is an oocyte, a blastocyst, a fetus, then a baby, a toddler, a child, a teenager, adult, and old man. A zygote however is NOT a human being. At what stage of human development are you suggesting we usurp a woman's rights to her own body?
Ken Walter Thank you for the reply. Seems I almost forgot I even posted that. _You make some statements and flow from one point to another that aren't connected at all._ It may sound unconnected but the point was that as much as science and human wisdom has progressed, we still have no idea about most things to do with the human mind and spirituality. What I was responding to was the idea that as Ronald Stepp is making assumptions about how things are which are quite premature and possibly very inaccurate because we seem to be at a bit of an impasse as we delve deeper into QM research. I too am self taught and don’t claim to know anything specifically but by using the technique of consilience (meaning drawing ideas from several different unrelated areas) I started to form a picture of how we patch together our world and create our own version of reality. You can see that in other areas like religion where we have, literally, thousands of gods that all do things slightly different. My understanding of how that has come about is simply that we have a different God for every human because we all see something slightly different. 7.X billion gods. A perfect God/human Deo~biotic relationship. I’m still working through the fine points and trying to incorporate what we do know of how the brain works and by no means a completed work that anyone might pay attention to. Besides...we have millions of great minds working round the clock on these very things. _You start with quantum etc and end at abortion = killing babies, which isn't true._ You seem to somehow agree with that stance but with objections. _ Let's go over a few things. Religion that's about elevating yourself, and being a good person, charitable, loving, and accepting people for who they are, has never been a problem for anyone but other religious people._ There have always been atheists. That is why there was a “cleansing’ that many atheists consider the immorality of God in the Bible. The Flood represents such an act. Which I find somewhat funny and ironic that atheists would call God the immoral one because they are acting immorally yet they strive to eliminate religion in some countries with this exact strategy. Kill them all....end of conflict. _Muslims for example throughout history, haven't accepted people that hold to a different religion, and it's even worse for me an atheist. I'm still the least electable and least trusted group in the United States that there is. That's a fact._ Yes, I’m aware of that fact. But God knows there are those who have been elected that acted less morally than any atheist would act. _How many open and out atheists can you name that hold public office_ None. According to Christopher Hitchens we are all atheists…with just one less god to not believe in. _There are quite a few of every other group though, except perhaps for trans people, but they're about .06% of the population, compared to an estimated 5-8% of atheists._ And now Trump wants to eradicate the trans term from society. Seems he goes from one conflict to another with hardly a care... _All around the world different religious groups are killing each other right now._ Yes, religious conflicts are common. Not to mention the rumours that many are stirred up by atheists, but that’s another “story”. _Hindus are even doing it, and nothing in their texts can even justify it, unlike other religions. Yes, Judaism and Christianity have had Reformations but the texts still say what they've always said._ And atheists are banding together to fight against religions so being religious doesn’t predispose us to engaging in conflicts. Being human predisposes us to siding with those we feel comfortable with and feeling comfortable includes being around those that share the same viewpoints. Atheists are just as “religious” in that sense as anyone else. Worse in the sense that most of them are followers of science and want to use science as the tool of destruction but all science really does is lets us understand the classic world that “God created”. We are not "creators" but rather we are 'destroyers" that like to pretend we are creating. _In spite of what you think about quantum mechanics, quantum theory, and the like, we are not able to create our own realities._ True…we cannot “create” anything beyond our perceptions. But we most certainly can perceive things so different from others that we will go to war to defend our beliefs even if those beliefs are not vested in a God. _How you end up at "abortion = killing babies" I honestly have no idea._ Quite simply…that is what it is. _That human life begins at conception I don't dispute._ But that is what you proceed to do in the next statement by breaking down the phases of what constitutes a baby. The concept of God giving all life and humans not having a say in when or even how it should end is a hinge point of many discussions that have gone on for a long time. _At what stage of human development are you suggesting we usurp a woman's rights to her own body?_ The religious believe that all life has value and the non religious believe that well being is the most important concept of being human. When a human engages in sex and the result is another human life is conceived then who is the woman to make a choice that threatens the well being of a child growing inside of her?
@@peli_candude554 About that. I've just recently begun to get back into YT threads and forget to check how old comments are sometimes. I'm out of practice hehe. That said, I'm going to go with a single topic at a time. It makes for a better exchange imo. I make distinctions about stages of human development because that's what pregnancy physiology is based upon. The level of care changes dramatically. What the doctor expects to hear, see (in sonograms) chemical levels in the woman's blood/urine, where the zygote attaches, etc etc. It all matters. A human sperm is human obviously, but it's not a human being. Babies and children are born. Fetuses and zygotes are not, yet. I am well versed in what weeks the brain develops to point that we can call the fetus viable enough to grant it personhood, which is what this argument truly hinges on. I'm also aware of the pseudo-science trotted out in places like Texas especially. Happy to hear your thoughts.
1:58:30 Werner von Braun disigned the V1 and V2 as well, killing so many... Tell this to a family member of mine who lost her entire family when a V2 came down too soon! Or tell it to the family in London for who this V2 was intended and were temporarily spared. What brilliant design!
Religion appears to be the only area in which using a bunch of unsupported assertions to support another batch of unsupported assertions is deemed to be a valid tactic.
"Dan is refusing the science". Actually Dan mentioned that he has nobelist on his side who understands ATP mechanism far better than both of them. When Andy mentioned about his died child it was very emotional. I agree, when you lost someone close, you really want to believe it's not the end, but what strikes me in believers is their indifference for suffering and pointless existence of other spices.
McIntosh speaks mind-grinding, embarrassing, patronizing gibberish. Also, who told that woman that "beyond a shadow of a doubt" she would see her dead son Philip again? Mindblowing.
How do you enter a debate where you are asked to make your claims and you spend your entire time attempting to disprove the other side before he has even spoken? Disproving the other side doesn't automatically make your side the correct one. You must prove your point first. Then rebuttal. Quoting Scripture to prove God is meaningless. It requires that you first already believe in the Bible and the God of the Bible's divinity. Dan stayed on point. This other guy thought he was teaching Sunday School. Preaching to the choir might give you warm fuzzies, but it will never get you any converts. I didn't hear one coherent argument proving God's existence. Not one. In 40 minutes. That alone is impressive. It's clear he assumes so many things. Uses random quotes, random verses and 'I'm right you're wrong' statements as if that were evidence of some kind. Doesn't stay on point. Case study in how not to debate a topic. I'm sure he's a great man, but despite his expertise, he showed his complete lack of understanding of the natural world and discussions of anything outside of his own belief system.
Another point is if God defies logic, then how do you know he exists? Faith is the answer, right? Well faith is nothing but gullibility and wishful thinking. Sorry! All of your arguments fail. Now prove god using other methods instead of regurgitating the same old arguments.
MacIntosh is an example how delusional believes and ideas can control your mind. That such an intelligent man deceives himself (and others) with creationism is an insult to intelligence. But then, religion has little to do with how intelligent a believer may be; persistent religious believes perhaps tell more about the power of neuronal networks - once set up in early childhood- in maintaining themselves. I pity him.
Dan addresses the real life pain and disappointment experienced when the god we believed in and called out to in despair failed to appear when most needed. Our children still die, natural disasters still occur, mass shootings still happen No lofty, high minded opinion of god McIntosh proposes can heal our broken hearts or alleviate our overwhelming grief. McIntosh’s god is a failure just like every other near east god was before or since man invented YHWH. I buried my daughter and though I would love to think I will see her again some day, I know that is impossible and will not happen. I don’t believe trying to believe otherwise would bring me any comfort whatsoever. Dr. McIntosh epeatedly saying “Thelordjesuschrist” (all one word) cracks me up.
My issue is with the physical revelation of a god to men in early history. While we late arrivals must take their words and experiences by fairh as proof. Why the change?
