Show us your favorite emoji!
Question of the Day, sometimes you just piss me off.
Ask @ArmouredSkeptic
Previous
Do you watch the AngryJoeShow?
Sure do!
only his reviews though
only his reviews though
Liked by:
rien dempsey
Noah lavine
I've heard (hardcore) theists argue that using methodological naturalism to observe the world is a circular argument--it confirms itself because we only use naturalistic means to test it. Thoughts?
Well, science can't really follow any other stand-point and still remain unbiased.
Methodological naturalism isn't a statement that nothing but the natural exists, it's just an acknowledgement that we can't study anything BUT the natural. It's basically impossible to follow any other line of thinking because it's impossible to test the intangible things that theism posits exist.
Also, it should be pointed out that every time we look for a cause for something in science, it has turned out to be a natural cause. That's not really science's fault.
Methodological naturalism isn't a statement that nothing but the natural exists, it's just an acknowledgement that we can't study anything BUT the natural. It's basically impossible to follow any other line of thinking because it's impossible to test the intangible things that theism posits exist.
Also, it should be pointed out that every time we look for a cause for something in science, it has turned out to be a natural cause. That's not really science's fault.
Liked by:
Noah lavine
Rickard Karlsson
Claret Rimli
Grey Hat
Related users
If you could have a personal hangout/conversation with Josh Feuerstein, how long do you think it would last before the conversation is no longer tangible?
I think a conversation about religion and atheism would last maybe 3 minutes before he rage-quit or before my brain imploded.
Which sciences confirm the theory of evolution?
Lots of them. To name a few:
Geology
Paleontology
Biology
Genetics
Geology
Paleontology
Biology
Genetics
Liked by:
Noah lavine
Rickard Karlsson
Claret Rimli
BEHOLD! The 30-odd minute long video debunking the "magical spinning ball of gravity and bullshit"....sorry if this video leaves you hot under helmet. My brain hurts sooo much https://youtu.be/b0nHCP_yVEI
Wow, this is great stuff, thanks!
Liked by:
Ocazzar
Dominic Griffin
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)your videos make me very moist.( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Liked by:
Emilia
Paul
Aidan Simpson
Claret Rimli
do you feel like what happend with josh duggar & how the christian community is deffending him do you think they would still defend him if he was an athiest ?
Obviously not.
"You and Shoe have mutual crushes on each other. How cute. Oh my... It feels like grade 7 all over again." Aren't you married?
Yes...
Which is why I equated it to grade-school rumours.
Still, cute though.
Which is why I equated it to grade-school rumours.
Still, cute though.
If you had to trade your Canadian citizenship for either British or American citizenship which would you pick and why?
Oh, hard to say... both are great...
Probably USA because there is a lot more freedom there.
Probably USA because there is a lot more freedom there.
Liked by:
Noah lavine
if someone who is anti-gay marriage says "I believe in traditional marriage because it's the right way" does that count as a non-sequitur argument?
Not really... A non-sequitur is an argument where the conclusion does not follow the premise. If the premise is really just a belief statement than it isn't really a non-sequitur.
A non-sequitur starts with an observation that leads to a conclusion that doesn't follow.
For example: "She is wearing red Shoes. Red Shoes must be her favorite kind of Shoe."
A non-sequitur starts with an observation that leads to a conclusion that doesn't follow.
For example: "She is wearing red Shoes. Red Shoes must be her favorite kind of Shoe."
Liked by:
Noah lavine
Claret Rimli
If you had one wish what would it be?
To rule the world as a dictator...
Or to own a farm. Yeah. I want to own a farm.
Or to own a farm. Yeah. I want to own a farm.
Liked by:
Marina Swanson
Shinigami
You and Shoe have mutual crushes on each other. How cute.
Oh my... It feels like grade 7 all over again.
Why do Christians cling to Leviticus 18:22 but don't follow any of the other ridiculous rules that are also in that book?
Purely an emotional response. It's the corner-stone of cherry-picking.
Liked by:
Emilia
Claret Rimli
Mike The Kike Slayer
What is your opinion about the locks and keys analogy used as an argument to why it's okay to call women who have sex with other men sluts? I, myself, want to headdesk every single one of those who use it. It's like their only argument and it's not even a good one.
Well, I don't think I've ever called a woman a slut... Not really my style, but I don't know. This is a 2-part question. I'll try to stick to facts and not personal feelings.
1) The lock and key analogy is a really weak argument. I mean, I get it, there may be a point there, but it's asserting women who have lots of sex are somehow worse than men who have lots of sex and that's nonsense.
Basically, the issue is whether or not a woman is appealing based on her sexual history, and that is a personal thing. But the same goes for men and their sexual history and the "key" analogy tends to ignore that. I personally have only had 3 partners in my life... so maybe I'm the wrong person to ask.
2) "Slut" is a derogatory term, yes, but I find women use the word more than men though. Women use it to insult and belittle each-other.
Men do use it, yes, but not USUALLY with the same goal in mind. Sometimes men say it to indicate a woman is "icky" for having too many sexual partners, but sometimes men even use it as a way to indicate a woman is "easy" (but usually men just say she's easy) and sometimes it's a response to a girlfriend cheating or leaving for another man.
Anyways, I don't know. I have never used the term "slut" and I doubt I ever will. The "Lock and Key" analogy misses so many factors.
Sometimes the word is a response to an icky feeling, and I think that feeling may be an evolutionary left-over from the days that having multiple partners was an indication that a person probably has an STD, but with modern medicine that is so unlikely now.
1) The lock and key analogy is a really weak argument. I mean, I get it, there may be a point there, but it's asserting women who have lots of sex are somehow worse than men who have lots of sex and that's nonsense.
Basically, the issue is whether or not a woman is appealing based on her sexual history, and that is a personal thing. But the same goes for men and their sexual history and the "key" analogy tends to ignore that. I personally have only had 3 partners in my life... so maybe I'm the wrong person to ask.
2) "Slut" is a derogatory term, yes, but I find women use the word more than men though. Women use it to insult and belittle each-other.
Men do use it, yes, but not USUALLY with the same goal in mind. Sometimes men say it to indicate a woman is "icky" for having too many sexual partners, but sometimes men even use it as a way to indicate a woman is "easy" (but usually men just say she's easy) and sometimes it's a response to a girlfriend cheating or leaving for another man.
Anyways, I don't know. I have never used the term "slut" and I doubt I ever will. The "Lock and Key" analogy misses so many factors.
Sometimes the word is a response to an icky feeling, and I think that feeling may be an evolutionary left-over from the days that having multiple partners was an indication that a person probably has an STD, but with modern medicine that is so unlikely now.
Liked by:
Marina Swanson
Adolf
Claret Rimli
What's wrong with atheists saying "I believe there is no god". I don't agree that just because a belief is positive means you have to prove it. it's a belief. It's an ideal seemingly consistent with reality that can't be proven. If I "believe" in materialism, do I need to prove it to justify it?
No, you're right, you don't NEED to; personal belief is personal, but that's not what I was talking about. It's about the scientific process and rules of logic.
If you try to convince someone that god does not exist, you have to show proof. Those are the rules of Science and Logic.
However, because you've asserted a negative you've asserted yourself into a corner, because there is no way to argue a negative. There are just too many possibilities that are just as impossible to prove that can be used to refute your negative claim.
Like the Santa thing.
"There is no Santa..."
"But you can't know that because he's magic, he only reveals himself to people who believe in him."
The point I'm making is it's about intellectual honesty. Because I go out and argue with people about creationism, I have to be intellectually honest and follow the rules of science and logic. If you want to debate, you too will have to stick with the rules, because if you try to assert god does not exist and your opponent tries to assert that god does exist, you've reached a stale-mate that is impossible to resolve.
If you try to convince someone that god does not exist, you have to show proof. Those are the rules of Science and Logic.
However, because you've asserted a negative you've asserted yourself into a corner, because there is no way to argue a negative. There are just too many possibilities that are just as impossible to prove that can be used to refute your negative claim.
Like the Santa thing.
"There is no Santa..."
"But you can't know that because he's magic, he only reveals himself to people who believe in him."
The point I'm making is it's about intellectual honesty. Because I go out and argue with people about creationism, I have to be intellectually honest and follow the rules of science and logic. If you want to debate, you too will have to stick with the rules, because if you try to assert god does not exist and your opponent tries to assert that god does exist, you've reached a stale-mate that is impossible to resolve.
Liked by:
Marina Swanson
Claret Rimli
How you seen the video - Atheists, Prove Abraham Lincoln Existed? It is a must watch and I would so enjoy seeing it evicerated! Wow, how the mighty have fallen. It might even be worse then presuppositional apologetics.
Hmm... maybe I will.
I've been avoiding a State of Daniel video, but he is full of nuggets of nonsense.
I've been avoiding a State of Daniel video, but he is full of nuggets of nonsense.
Liked by:
Claret Rimli
Do you like Jazz?
I like watching live Jazz, freestyle, performed live and made up as they go along.
Once you record Jazz and play the recording, it is no longer Jazz and I hate it.
Once you record Jazz and play the recording, it is no longer Jazz and I hate it.
Liked by:
Emilia
Marina Swanson
Anderson
What's the difference between not believing in God and saying there is no God?
"There is no god" is a positive statement which asserts that no gods exist.
"I don't believe in a god" is a passive statement, asserting nothing exept your personal lack of belief. You're saying God may or may not exist, but as far as you're concerned it doesn't matter because you don't have enough evidence.
"I don't believe in a god" is a passive statement, asserting nothing exept your personal lack of belief. You're saying God may or may not exist, but as far as you're concerned it doesn't matter because you don't have enough evidence.
I was planning on making a Channel Similar to yours called "The Fruit of Knowledge" as reference to my Screen Name and as the #1 enemy in the Bible "Knowledge." Now I may not know much but I've been studying Multiple Fields in Science every so often. All I'm wondering is if it's a good idea and woul
Just do what's fun to you. if it's good people will watch.
Show me once you've got a couple vids up and if I like it I'll advertise it.
Show me once you've got a couple vids up and if I like it I'll advertise it.
Liked by:
Emilia
rien dempsey
Is it possible to compare atheism to religion in the aspect that both groups try to convert people in to their respective beliefs? A friend of my Said that atheism is a religion because we try to convert everyone to our "religion". I disagree with him ofcourse
People who say that don't understand what atheism is.
It's not an organization, it doesn't have tenants, it doesn't require you to say you do or don't believe something, it doesn't require you to do or be anything, it's simply the position that one fails to believe in one thing, and that one thing is a god.
That being said though, there are people who are quite religious about their atheism. Some take it too far. Those we call "militant atheists."
It's not an organization, it doesn't have tenants, it doesn't require you to say you do or don't believe something, it doesn't require you to do or be anything, it's simply the position that one fails to believe in one thing, and that one thing is a god.
That being said though, there are people who are quite religious about their atheism. Some take it too far. Those we call "militant atheists."
Liked by:
Rickard Karlsson
If you had to chose who to have sex with out of Mercedes Carrera, Shoe0nhead, Jennie Bharaj or Lianna K which one would you chose? they're all willing in this hypothetical scenario but you can only chose one and you have to chose one.
Yes, I am very interested in one of those ladies. The rest... not even once.
As an atheist, you strive to criticize and debunk irrational beliefs but not to attack people who hold such beliefs, correct?
That's barely a question, but I'll answer anyways :p
Yeah, the individual beliefs of theists don't bother me. To be honest the debate about whether or not a god exists kind of bores me.
I'm more interested in debating the ideas they try to impress onto people.
Yeah, the individual beliefs of theists don't bother me. To be honest the debate about whether or not a god exists kind of bores me.
I'm more interested in debating the ideas they try to impress onto people.
Have you thought about doing videos going through contradictions in the bible or immorality contained within the bible's pages?
I have, but there are people who do that MUCH better than I do.
Liked by:
Marina Swanson
Would you say everything that is observable is a fact? Or is there more to it than that?
No, that is too simple. Sometimes what we observe is an illusion.
It has to be testable, repeatable and measurable.
But you can assert that something observable is a fact, as-long as there are no other logical explanations for it.
It has to be testable, repeatable and measurable.
But you can assert that something observable is a fact, as-long as there are no other logical explanations for it.
Liked by:
Claret Rimli
Next
