1. 

   spiderpig85
   May 17th, 2010 - 11:28

   @Cavin21 Well let’s be honest, Christianity originated from sun worship, and everything else is a misinterpretation. It is the old day versus night and good versus evil. All the hangups and additions added just confuse things. The whole idea is made up as a way to try and explain nature and science before we understood them.
2. 

   spiderpig85
   May 17th, 2010 - 12:17

   @Cavin21 Well to define deities let’s keep it to the Judea Christian God. And as a definition, let’s use the bible’s version. So what facts do we have? Well, God is a He, who looks like man, as we are in his image. Therefor a physical form must exist, or why would we be in his image? So where is he? It is a basic question, but try to get an answer from and theist…
3. 

   rysw19
   May 17th, 2010 - 12:47

   oxygen in h2o is NOT a molecule. h2o itself is the molecule. the oxygen molecules he’s referring to are o2 (gaseous oxygen) and o3 (o-zone).

   also, how in fucking hell can you conclude that because something is finite, there must be something infinite beyond it, and furthermore you know that that infinite being happens to be an all-powerful, all-knowing god who loves and cares about each one of us? what kind of crackpot solution to a problem is that?
4. 

   Cavin21
   May 17th, 2010 - 13:11

   @spiderpig85
   I don’t believe in any religion, I just think they have brought us a theistic view point which we can question and put into a generalist perspective. I know deities isn’t something that can be proven to man, but you really have to define what you mean by God or Gods, despite that there are some questions that aren’t easy to ignore.
5. 

   spiderpig85
   May 17th, 2010 - 13:36

   @Cavin21 I would like to agree with you, but really just cannot. The spread of backwards and dangerous ideals, especially in the developing world, that are directly from religion can speak for themselves. The good acts religious people do, are not because of religion, as good people do good things, bad people bad things.

   The existence or lack thereof of deities is something that cannot be proven, without getting into theoretical sciences, which are not exactly my specialty…
6. 

   x86freak
   May 17th, 2010 - 14:24

   Nucleotides enemy is oxygen…
   What’s water made up of? Hydrogen and oxygen. (Hence water is enemy of nucleotides). Basic chemistry FAIL right there…
7. 

   Cavin21
   May 17th, 2010 - 15:18

   @spiderpig85
   Religion can sound very ridiculous, but I wouldn’t eliminate the possibility of deities just yet. There are still some really big questions about religion, I think the problem is all the misinterpretations caused by man.
8. 

   Cavin21
   May 17th, 2010 - 16:15

   Arguing on the existence of God is no different than arguing about the existence of ghosts, some claim they have experienced supernaturals and some don’t believe in it, of course there isn’t sufficient evidence and scientific proof yet. But,.” string theory” is working on the problem, and if string theory is right then it should give us some evidence of supernaturals, hopefully. Despite that, being conclusively arrogant about something isn’t worth it, we must be humble and work on the issues!
9. 

   prebenso
   May 17th, 2010 - 17:02

   why the fuck would you
10. 

    spikeman23
    May 17th, 2010 - 17:50

    @patujito How about you learn english.
11. 

    spiderpig85
    May 17th, 2010 - 18:43

    @EatsYouUp Well exactly. This idea of a loving caring god, and we are his children is ridiculous. Why is there amputees? Why is there war? How can someone believe in a loving christian god and then take a look at Africa’s problems? It is a losing argument from any standpoint…
12. 

    Ghostwarrior213
    May 17th, 2010 - 18:54

    4:49
    Living things cannot come from nonliving things, are we back in the 1600s?
13. 

    EatsYouUp
    May 17th, 2010 - 19:42

    @EatsYouUp the issues is not just the labels, but also the knowledge and belief. You don’t know what exists outside our reality if there is even such a thing as outside our reality. We don’t know if we are inside another universe or if we are battered up against another universe. We don’t know if we had our universe initiated by cruel mentally psychopathic aliens . The truth is we must be humble and not arrogant. We must be skeptics and admit our lack of knowledge.
14. 

    PaulFace
    May 17th, 2010 - 20:14

    @EatsYouUp
    So the issue is not with belief, knowledge or definitions, but labels for different positions?
    I see your point, but for the sake of convenience I’ll stick with the labels.
15. 

    froger48
    May 17th, 2010 - 21:11

    I love when retards try to sound smart on this show.
16. 

    EatsYouUp
    May 17th, 2010 - 21:29

    @PaulFace there you are categorizing me. I’m a skeptic, and I don’t particulary think labelling people as agnostics/atheists is the way to go. I find the labels are confusing since everyone has their own definition of atheism (some atheists actively reject gods while others simple ignore and don’t believe in them). Some agnostics are retards who are very open minded to stupid ideas, so I dont even like agnostic word that much either (although it is closer to the SKEPTIC position)
17. 

    hoboboxerjoe
    May 17th, 2010 - 21:46

    @EatsYouUp, you did come off a bit patronizing, I wouldn’t say extremely like PaulFace. I don’t even think it was intentional, so…
    Anyway, you do have somewhat of a point though. My only problem with that is it could lead to over-diplomatic viewpoints on dealing with religion, and too much comrpomises in the face of unyeilding fanatacism. Religion should be targeted along with everything else, but it is having one of the largest effects on humanity as a whole right now.
18. 

    PaulFace
    May 17th, 2010 - 22:37

    @EatsYouUp
    So you make a distinction between the abstract philosophical concept of god/s and the specific god/s of religions?
    Because god/s are a construct of man we know exactly what each one means.
    You sound like an agnostic deist to me.
    By the way you sound extremely patronizing.
19. 

    EatsYouUp
    May 17th, 2010 - 23:12

    @hoboboxerjoe i would argue all atheists are skeptical and there is no need for the term Atheism – we need to focus on skepticism of everything, including homeopathy, 911 truth nuts, and religion. This is sam harris and michael shermer position. They are smart men. If you JUST target and focus on religion, you are setting yourself up to be rejected. If you target everything, you are just a reasonable skeptic without a dogmatic “shoot down religion only” person.
20. 

    EatsYouUp
    May 17th, 2010 - 23:43

    @PaulFace there is no way to “not believe in gods”. I don’t know what you are talking about so how can I not believe in something that is indescribable. That’s the agnostic stance, and it takes a bit of intellect to get it, to finally get it. There may be no God and there likely isn’t, but we don’t even know what God actually means, so how can you say you don’t believe in it if we don’t have any knowledge on the subject. Actually is a bit of a recursive puzzle for you to figure out.
21. 

    MrCreamyT2
    May 18th, 2010 - 00:13

    Nucleotides are comprised of, in part, by oxygen.
22. 

    hoboboxerjoe
    May 18th, 2010 - 01:02

    @EatsYouUp, you are being quite presumptious about the “atheist stance.” Which seems to agree at least in part with your own. For one, most atheists I know do not believe “something came from nothing.” Also, most are skeptics themselves.
23. 

    FOIIAD
    May 18th, 2010 - 01:18

    dumb, dumb, dumb
    seriously why is it that the majority of scientists are atheist or agnostics and
    does he really believe the scientist elite is so misguided on the subject of god.
    this is like saying you can prove that jedis exist through astronomy
24. 

    fob199
    May 18th, 2010 - 01:25

    Hearing this man talk is like hearing one of my middle school speeches: using as many complicated words as possible out of context
25. 

    PaulFace
    May 18th, 2010 - 01:31

    @EatsYouUp
    Hey, I’m a little confused by your position, you seem to not believe in god/s but say that atheism is a ludicrous position.
    I agree that we will probably never know 100% either way, but if you don’t believe in god/s you are still an atheist, even if you are an agnostic atheist.
    I guess my point is that knowledge and belief should be regarded as separate.

Leave a comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

( Cancel )

CAPTCHA Code *