@@TheDiddyDiaries Not sure why you had to look this up. lol Obviously one would be led to research the meaning of the verb “to educate”. I’ve encountered this situation previously on numerous occasions.
Props to this caller and ANYONE wanting to learn about things like this so openly. As well as, for Forrest and Seth for being accepting and patient. Willing to teach and have a conversation instead of arguing.
He did say that he grew up a Mormon and is just emerging from that faith. So, yeah, sheltered in that faith community and is now meeting the wider world. Particularly in Australia, as Mormonism surely isn't a massive thing in Oz - it's an American faith, really - so I can imagine that Australian Mormonism is like a very small and tight-knit community. Because it has to be, to survive outside of the original explicitly American context of that faith. It adds up.
Aussie here too. Thanks for explaining the fried chicken thing. I often see it in movies but never understood why it's insulting to black people but then I see other movies or shows and black people are eating fried chicken so I was confused.
@youtubestudiosucks978 it is specifically an african-american stereotype based in united states history. If you listened to the clip the history was explained. Australia is multicultural and even if they know a black person that person is not necessarily (depending the context, likely not) from the USA.
Dehumanize: to deprive (someone or something) of human qualities, personality, or dignity: such as. a. : to subject (someone, such as a prisoner) to inhuman or degrading conditions or treatment To dehumanize doesn't mean claiming that people literally aren't human. It means treating people poorly, usually around taking away, or efforts to take away, their human rights, dignity, worth, etc.
@nevitt2236 That word doesn’t mean someone’s saying they aren’t human. It means treating someone as if they’re somehow less than their fellow men and women.
@carpevinum8645 yeah, so the people doing those have to say to themselves at the very least these people are not people so they don't get human rights, why else take away rights from a human or treat a human like not a human without saying to themselves that organism isn't human? Like how racist people thought black people were more closely related to monkeys so they were denied human rights. I guess I'm still confused. What you wrote sounds like you're saying the same thing as me but with different words, well to me at least. My thoughts occur as an inter narrative so for me to think to treat someone any less than human I'd have to say to myself they aren't human or hear myself say that in my inner narrative.
I am struggling to put my thoughts into words. But i think race and gender are more compatible than that. Parts are tied to our genes and parts are pretty much made up for both. I think the main difference might be that biological sex is a result on how we develop. Like, with my Caucasian genes i was never going to develop looking like an Asian person. But with my male genes it IS possible to develop differently. Forrest's "let's talk about sex" video does a great job of explaining how complex human sexual development is at the genetic level and I'm sure that's only the tip of the iceberg with how complex development is. We've identified lots of ways inner sex can show up, but what about all the ways we haven't figured out yet? I think I've heard Forrest say before that there are physical difference in the brain from typical males and females and most of the time the brains of trans people resemble the brain structure of the gender they transition to
Drag goes back thousands of years. In ancient Greek theatre, only men acted on stage. So when a character in a play was a woman, it was a man in drag playing the part. This continued into Shakespearean times, and men playing women had to learn to properly "drag" their skirts. Which is where the term comes from. Someone please feel free to correct me if any of this is inaccurate. I'm just going from memory.
@BlackTomorrowMusic So not making fun of women, but they are celebrating men who gatekept women? So they are misogynists or maybe just celebrating misogynists? Still not cool.
3:40 Forrest those are not the only reasons, they should be uninformed. There's no need to get do heated when people are trying to understand something.
So, I'm a bit unclear then on Forest's position on.. trans racism..? He sounded like he was against it at first, but every difference he listed between gender and other social constructs are things that are the same with race, and he even grouped the two together at 4:44. I'm thinking that he was saying that it isn't enough that they are both social constructs per se, but it doesn't tell me anything about Forest's actual position on people identifying as trans racial. He said that the question/argument is "common among the science denying community," but didn't talk at all about science or say what exactly applies to one and not the other, scientifically or otherwise. It's not something that's been on my radar, and the only other time I thought about it before was after watching a _different_ clip of Forest talking about it a few months ago. I'll admit I did no research, but independently thought up (and posted a comment asking about) something along the lines of the social construct line of reasoning that Forest was arguing against here, though I went a bit deeper than just that one aspect. But like I said, I've done no research, and I've got no arguments for or against, other than what I came up with myself. I'm not even sure what I would Google for because the (to me) obvious search term, trans racism, sounds like a shoe belonging to a completely different foot. If someone does have arguments for or against it, could they please elucidate me?
@@GreatCollapsingHrung Transracial doesn’t seem to be an actual thing. The only individuals I’ve ever heard of claiming to be transracial have been transphobes trying to be clever, so they weren’t serious about what they claimed.
There is both scientific evidence that transgenderism is an actual physiological state that is not something that people choose or influence (just like being gay), and there is a developmental model of exactly how this condition occurs _in utero._ There is neither for any other type of claimed "trans" condition.
Thank God for the possibility of being Trans ❤❤❤ As Gods own son transitioned from spirit to man and back again. Thank God also for the possibility of atheism ✝️🙏✝️ Peace Love Empathy From Australia 🤠
No it's not stupid! The main argument is that gender is a social construct and thus i can identify as what ever i want.. right? So if race is a social construct, who are you to decide for me what i am? I can decide for my self! Why are you denying my existence? Sound awfully bigoted to me..
@@Beacon80 why would I present something I already know you're not willing to accept. Prove me wrong. What type of evidence would you find acceptable AS PROOF of spiritual claims other than physical? Not the specific evidence only the type. Physical is not applicable.
@@Beacon80 when did I State I have evidence? Once again I stated. Atheism is a lie. It's a strawman fallacy. It's constructed on a cornerstone of the false expectation of non-applicable evidence. Sorry 🤷🏼♂️🤦🏼♂️. If you'd like to discuss the fallacy of atheism. I'm here 😁
Christ gave his life to free us from every kind of sin, to cleanse us, and to make us his very own people, totally committed to doing good deeds. You must teach these things and encourage the believers to do them. You have the authority to correct them when necessary, so don’t let anyone disregard what you say.
You are sinless, because sin isn't real. Stop grovelling before an imaginary being, get off your knees, stop feeling guilty for crimes you didn''t commit, remember that being in a cult isn't, of itself, a good deed in any way.
If you are going to waste your only life that we know of, on a gh0d, that's just stupid. This road seems right to you, but it leads to hatred, ignorance and corruption.
And the question still remains: “Do we have any scientific models or patterns that substantiate inanimate substances purportedly produced living, conscious, intelligent beings???” NOPE!!! Not even close! The Truth Remains Undefeated! 🥊💪💯👍🥊
@@FLORIDA-MMA-FIGHT-TEAMsince truth matters, Please provide just one (1) valid scientific source that proves that an immaterial, invisible, Sky Wizard created living, conscious, intelligent beings.
For the grace of God has been revealed, bringing salvation to all people. And we are instructed to turn from godless living and sinful pleasures. We should live in this evil world with wisdom, righteousness, and devotion to God!
I Bet You Never Considered This Question: How did abiotic, inanimate, & or inorganic substances result in living, breathing, conscious, intelligent beings?? ??
I don't fucking know, but coming up with an answer with no bearing is worse than having no answer. And no, abiogenesis does not have no bearing. Anyways, the whole conscious part is still a mystery that we're working out. Claiming you already have all the answers is uninsightful. Trying to find the answers is how you actually gain insight. Anyways, you took a 6 month break and just came back. Why was that? Why'd you leave in the first place? Does it have something to do with the fact that this account only a month old?
@TheOne-d3t You DO KNOW, but reject the TRUTH & SCIENTIFIC FACT that... - Life ONLY comes from pre-existing Life - Intelligence from Intelligence - Consciousness from Consciousness - Morality from Morality - Emotion from Emotion - Freewill from Freewill Thanx 4 learning 👍
"I Bet You Never Considered This Question:" You're right... I haven't... because: 1... It's got nothing to do with atheism... 2... I'm not a biologist, physicist nor chemist... 3... I don't care....
Please provide an honest, logical, & or a scientific rebuttal for the following: -- Life from Life -- Intelligence from Intelligence -- Consciousness from Consciousness -- Emotion from Emotion -- Morality from Morality -- Sociability from Sociability -- Freewill from Freewill All sincere & respectful attempts are welcome...
Since those are vague bare assertions without an ounce of evidence, and doesn't even reach the level of hypothesis, there's no need for rebuttal as it's equivalent to the babbling of someone who can't form complete thoughts.
We know life did not always exist, so, logical speaking, life must have come from non-life at some point in the past. I'll cover the rest after you demonstrate that you'll acknowledge a sincere response.
You understand how those statements are paradoxical right? You're basically pointing at a Zeno's Paradox while tying it into the Watchmaker argument as a presupposition for creationism (and likely a specific kind of creationism rather then any possible theological version of creation humans have suggested in various religions, or even a kind we've never thought of before). Because if life must come from life, where did that life get life? You're asking a question that cannot be answered to any final degree because it can not be tested and proven or disproven, this is why most conversations around topics that involve infinity end up sounding so theological. It is also why it is near impossible to have totally honest, logical, and scientific debate over; logical functions and the sciences in practice go back to the drawing board when their solution invokes infinity because it means there are missing variables to the problem than originally thought. If you want a much better and technical explanation of this I would recommend reading or watch Max Tegmark's work with concepts like Infinity as a Physical concept. But the broad strokes are in a Universe like our own (one which appears to have infinite space time with seemingly finite amounts of matter and energy) there are a limited number of patterns that can be assembled. Over vast distances and time these patterns will inevitably repeat, and in a system as large as the entire Universe if you "look far enough away" in spacetime even very complex patterns such as a person's existence and entire life can repeat exactly as it did elsewhere in spacetime (the same is true for slight and drastic variations but I won't get too deep into it or this will be LONG). With the general attitude that this makes you and existence no more or less significant then you already perceive it. Since it is something we have no control over and have no way of proving or even directly observing on such a massive scale infinity as a reality of existence will always remain subjectively in the personal biases of eyes of beholder (like how a theist and an atheist could would debate in circles over how DNA proves their specific evidence for or against creationism or god/gods without getting anywhere even with buttloads of physical evidence once the the debate hits a difference in philosophical ideals. Likewise when invoking infinity, you eventually leave the very few physical arguments we currently have and move into the philosophical arguments with no proofs beyond "because I accept it as...")
Repent Repent Repent Jesus said, “I am the light of the world. If you follow Me, you won’t have to walk in darkness, because you will have the light that leads to life.” john 8:12 may God bless u all
Dude, Prove your Jesus or grow the f**k up... Bible quotes just prove you're either a stupid troll or a stupid theist... No normal person would expect atheists who reject the bible to even give a rat's ass about bible quotes...
Both a personal relationship with God and gender identity offer no physical evidence. In fact some people would agree physical/biological evidence actually contradicts the claim of gender identity. But it would be absolutely hypocritical to accept one claim lacking physical evidence yet not another. Both present no physical evidence
@@ChallengeYourBeliefsno of course I do we all do. Gender dysphoria and gender identity exist. Much like a personal relationship with God. It would be hypocritical to accept one claim lacking physical evidence yet not the other. Extremely, right?
@@Megamentsh So you say gender identity exists. But you accept that it exists just based on faith... despite you saying that we all have gender identity. Can you be a bit more coherent?
With the one, one should expect physical evidence of some external being who affects the universe resulting in supposed effects. With the other, much like a person preferring a favorite color, the evidence, if at all possible, could only be achieved by reading their mind.
False. God doesn't exist so can't love anyone. Heaven, also non-existent. Sounds nice though, wouldn't it great if ... [reads bible] wtf, they worship this psycho? I know it's out of fear but wow.
@@FLORIDA-MMA-FIGHT-TEAM A fragmant of a book collated to engender nationalism, unify a tribe and centralise power over them is proof of nothing. You know that you can't use the bible as proof of the bible's claims, no one ever falls for that, why do you keep trying? Do you think you are buying your way into paradise with these bible quotes? Can you prove with 100% certainty that the angel never spoke to Mohamed? Can you prove with 100% certainty that you won't be reborn as an animal for the karmic crime of eating meat? Why didn't Jesus mention quantum chromodynamics? How many magic underpants fit on the head of Saraswati's sitar? Is childhood leukaemia proof of your god's infinite love?
@@zenayurvedic Wrong! I just gave you Psalm 19:1-4 - the clear, OBSERVALBE EVIDENCE is irrefutable, undeniable, & unquestionable! There is zero (0) ZERO % chance that so-called "natural processes" produced the following: - MILLIONS of different living species - DNA - consciousness - intelligence - emotion - morality - freewill - variety - adaptability - male & female You already OBSERVE the DAILY scientific model & pattern of: - life from life - consciousness from consciousness - intelligence from intelligence - emotion from emotion - morality from morality - freewill from freewill P R O C R E A T I O N Amen!
@@FLORIDA-MMA-FIGHT-TEAM It's not irrefutable, it's just a story. Your zero chance claim is just you saying zero chance, you can't show it. Look, you want to be convinced of your god and your crucified guy and your story book that's fine, that's your right, it's up to you. If, however, you think using your book as proof of anything will convince anyone outside your cult, then you have a problem, and the problem is that you are wasting your time.
PAY C L O S E ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING: Isaiah 40:22 -- "God sits above the 'CIRCLE' of the earth" NOTE: Isaiah was written between 740-686 BC! Pythagoras first reported the earth was round sometime around 500 BC and Aristotle around the 3rd century BC. Very interesting that the Bible spoke of this BEFORE it's scientific discovery! I know, just coincidence LoL Furthermore, the Hebrew word for "circle" is "chug" meaning, "circle, circuit, compass" --Strong's Hebrew Lexicon # 2 3 2 9 QC said the Hebrew meaning for "circle" implied, or shall I say he LIED, meaning a "compact disc" LOL 🤣 Hmm, is a "COMPASS" spherical in shape, OR is it a "flat disc"??? LOL 🤣 ---I rest my case! QC busted again by a World-Recognized Authority 👉👉👉 Strong's Hebrew Lexicon! Amen! And yet another Victory for Truth! 💪💯👍
@@AXKfUN9m He's so dumb. Does he think that they had a compass in those times?🤦♂ Ancient Hebrew cosmology understood the earth as a flat plane, so they are talking about a flat circle. And flat earthers use that verse to say that the earth is flat. Here's from Strong's Hebrew Lexicon. Original Word: חוּג Part of Speech: Noun Masculine Transliteration: chuwg Pronunciation: khoog Phonetic Spelling: (khoog) Definition: Circle, circuit, compass Meaning: a circle Word Origin: Derived from the root חוּג (chug), which means to encircle or encompass. Corresponding Greek / Hebrew Entries: The Greek equivalent often used in the Septuagint for "chug" is "γῦρος" (gyros), which also means *circle* or circuit. Usage: The Hebrew word "chug" primarily denotes a *circle* or a circuit. It is used to describe the circular nature of the earth or the heavens, emphasizing the completeness and perfection of God's creation. The term can also imply the idea of a boundary or limit, as seen in its usage in the context of the earth's horizon or the heavens. Cultural and Historical Background: In ancient Near Eastern cosmology, the concept of a circular earth or heavens was common. The Hebrews, like their neighbors, *understood the world in terms of a flat disc with a dome-like sky above.* The use of "chug" in the Hebrew Bible reflects this understanding, while also highlighting the sovereignty and creative power of God, who establishes the boundaries of the earth and the heavens.
Love it when Christians admit that the truth has prevailed. Data over dogma. Those with data prevail over those with just claims and personal incredulity.
The earth is a sphere, not a circle. Doesn't the bible also say that the earth has four corners? Both those sayings in the bible were most likely metaphorical.
Drag is 100% comparable to black face because it displays a group of people as a caricature. So Forrest is 100% wrong here. This is the problem with sacred cows, of which Forrest has many
No, drag is its own thing with its own culture. Blackface is only ever done as a mockery of black people. Drag queens are only trying to look like drag queens.
saying drag is like blackface is idiotic. That's like saying black people are racist if they do blackface. People who do drag ARE the demographic in question. They aren't parodying some other group, it's THEM. And you'd know that if you didn't have your head shoved so far up your own religious ass that all you can smell is your own bullshit.
@@Rundvelt Religion. Really? Tell me what are requirements? Who is the "head" of atheism? What are the required views and dogma of atheism? What, as an atheist, am I required to do, say and behave in order to be an atheist? 🙄
@@Rundvelt "They've got a different type of religion." Pathetic. Tired old nonsense. Are you so arrogant, so vain that you can only conceive of people who believe the same bullshit as you?
It's nice to hear a caller who genuinely wants to be educated. I applaud Jayson.
ed•u•cat•ed
•adjective
def• having been educated. 😐
@@TheDiddyDiaries Not sure why you had to look this up. lol
Obviously one would be led to research the meaning of the verb “to educate”.
I’ve encountered this situation previously on numerous occasions.
@@xmillion1704 e.g. " Mrs. Hoseapple would educate her thrird grade students to go number 2 in the standard urinal."
@@xmillion1704One might just use the word "trained" instead of defining a word with the word
@@nilssonakerlund2852 Yeah, I was super apprehensive, but he genuinely seems to have come in with a desire to learn
Props to this caller and ANYONE wanting to learn about things like this so openly.
As well as, for Forrest and Seth for being accepting and patient. Willing to teach and have a conversation instead of arguing.
Blackface exists in Australia too. This person was extremely sheltered or is very young
He did say that he grew up a Mormon and is just emerging from that faith.
So, yeah, sheltered in that faith community and is now meeting the wider world.
Particularly in Australia, as Mormonism surely isn't a massive thing in Oz - it's an American faith, really - so I can imagine that Australian Mormonism is like a very small and tight-knit community. Because it has to be, to survive outside of the original explicitly American context of that faith.
It adds up.
Black guy in the US here. Thank you, Forrest and Seth. You guys fuckin rock. ❤️🤘🏾
I was raised fundy and it took a long time to understand anything LGBTQI+, let alone come out to myself. Honest discussion does wonders!
That must have been a rough journey. Kudos for having the courage to walk it!
The local trolls are certain to attack you any moment. Just ignore them. They could never be as brave as you are.
I liked this 10-min clip. Very interesting discussion. Excellent.
Aussie here too. Thanks for explaining the fried chicken thing. I often see it in movies but never understood why it's insulting to black people but then I see other movies or shows and black people are eating fried chicken so I was confused.
Couldnt you just have asked a black person? Dont they exist in australia?
@youtubestudiosucks978 it is specifically an african-american stereotype based in united states history.
If you listened to the clip the history was explained. Australia is multicultural and even if they know a black person that person is not necessarily (depending the context, likely not) from the USA.
@@carpevinum8645 so you dont do some history searching to beter understand your roots? Google exist
I learned a thing from this. Thanks, Forrest.
6:36 who is saying trans people aren't people? There are people saying trans men aren't men. That isn't saying they aren't human.
No one. Nowhere near your time stamp is anyone making any claim like that. ???
@@xmillion1704 6:50 is when Forrest says dehumanizing. I put in a time a bit before so there's context.
Edit: 6:48 is more accurate.
Dehumanize: to deprive (someone or something) of human qualities, personality, or dignity: such as. a. : to subject (someone, such as a prisoner) to inhuman or degrading conditions or treatment
To dehumanize doesn't mean claiming that people literally aren't human. It means treating people poorly, usually around taking away, or efforts to take away, their human rights, dignity, worth, etc.
@nevitt2236 That word doesn’t mean someone’s saying they aren’t human. It means treating someone as if they’re somehow less than their fellow men and women.
@carpevinum8645 yeah, so the people doing those have to say to themselves at the very least these people are not people so they don't get human rights, why else take away rights from a human or treat a human like not a human without saying to themselves that organism isn't human? Like how racist people thought black people were more closely related to monkeys so they were denied human rights. I guess I'm still confused. What you wrote sounds like you're saying the same thing as me but with different words, well to me at least. My thoughts occur as an inter narrative so for me to think to treat someone any less than human I'd have to say to myself they aren't human or hear myself say that in my inner narrative.
I am struggling to put my thoughts into words. But i think race and gender are more compatible than that. Parts are tied to our genes and parts are pretty much made up for both.
I think the main difference might be that biological sex is a result on how we develop. Like, with my Caucasian genes i was never going to develop looking like an Asian person. But with my male genes it IS possible to develop differently.
Forrest's "let's talk about sex" video does a great job of explaining how complex human sexual development is at the genetic level and I'm sure that's only the tip of the iceberg with how complex development is. We've identified lots of ways inner sex can show up, but what about all the ways we haven't figured out yet? I think I've heard Forrest say before that there are physical difference in the brain from typical males and females and most of the time the brains of trans people resemble the brain structure of the gender they transition to
I totally thought dudes in drag were making fun of women.
Drag goes back thousands of years. In ancient Greek theatre, only men acted on stage. So when a character in a play was a woman, it was a man in drag playing the part. This continued into Shakespearean times, and men playing women had to learn to properly "drag" their skirts. Which is where the term comes from.
Someone please feel free to correct me if any of this is inaccurate. I'm just going from memory.
@@BlackTomorrowMusic Yours is much the same as my understanding.
@BlackTomorrowMusic So not making fun of women, but they are celebrating men who gatekept women? So they are misogynists or maybe just celebrating misogynists? Still not cool.
5:15 Forrest, sometimes people do put money in their shoes...
3:40 Forrest those are not the only reasons, they should be uninformed. There's no need to get do heated when people are trying to understand something.
So, I'm a bit unclear then on Forest's position on.. trans racism..? He sounded like he was against it at first, but every difference he listed between gender and other social constructs are things that are the same with race, and he even grouped the two together at 4:44. I'm thinking that he was saying that it isn't enough that they are both social constructs per se, but it doesn't tell me anything about Forest's actual position on people identifying as trans racial. He said that the question/argument is "common among the science denying community," but didn't talk at all about science or say what exactly applies to one and not the other, scientifically or otherwise.
It's not something that's been on my radar, and the only other time I thought about it before was after watching a _different_ clip of Forest talking about it a few months ago. I'll admit I did no research, but independently thought up (and posted a comment asking about) something along the lines of the social construct line of reasoning that Forest was arguing against here, though I went a bit deeper than just that one aspect.
But like I said, I've done no research, and I've got no arguments for or against, other than what I came up with myself. I'm not even sure what I would Google for because the (to me) obvious search term, trans racism, sounds like a shoe belonging to a completely different foot. If someone does have arguments for or against it, could they please elucidate me?
@@GreatCollapsingHrung Transracial doesn’t seem to be an actual thing. The only individuals I’ve ever heard of claiming to be transracial have been transphobes trying to be clever, so they weren’t serious about what they claimed.
@@xmillion1704 the was that woman running the blackface scam, claiming to be is African American descent, but advisor as white as driven snow.
@@GreatCollapsingHrung The only folks I’ve heard of who’ve claimed to be transracial have been smart Alecs. It doesn’t seem to be a thing.
@@GreatCollapsingHrung Doesn’t seem it’s an actual thing since nobody has seriously claimed to be.
There is both scientific evidence that transgenderism is an actual physiological state that is not something that people choose or influence (just like being gay), and there is a developmental model of exactly how this condition occurs _in utero._ There is neither for any other type of claimed "trans" condition.
Thank God for the possibility of being Trans ❤❤❤
As Gods own son transitioned from spirit to man and back again.
Thank God also for the possibility of atheism ✝️🙏✝️
Peace Love Empathy From Australia 🤠
No it's not stupid!
The main argument is that gender is a social construct and thus i can identify as what ever i want.. right? So if race is a social construct, who are you to decide for me what i am? I can decide for my self! Why are you denying my existence?
Sound awfully bigoted to me..
Nice strawman. Need a match?
Your bad faith argument is bad and you should feel bad
I miss this place being about theism/atheism.
It's tied together
@@jasondavis2995In so much as gender is a claim believed on faith, I guess.
How are Trans issues a distraction?
@@WhitbyStuff So if you say you are a man, do I believe that you are a man based on faith? I find your lack of faith in your own gender disturbing.
Witchcraft has always been about political revolution, as it is with the modern Transcendentalist
I bet you never considered this question. If physical evidence is not applicable? Why do atheists falsely expect it for spiritual claims?
It is like you have never watched this show and are choosing to be ignorant. Those things are not comparable in any way.
If you have non-physical evidence that isn't fallacious, feel free to present it.
@@Beacon80 why would I present something I already know you're not willing to accept. Prove me wrong. What type of evidence would you find acceptable AS PROOF of spiritual claims other than physical? Not the specific evidence only the type. Physical is not applicable.
@@Ultramentsh So you admit all your evidence is fallacious?
@@Beacon80 when did I State I have evidence? Once again I stated. Atheism is a lie. It's a strawman fallacy. It's constructed on a cornerstone of the false expectation of non-applicable evidence. Sorry 🤷🏼♂️🤦🏼♂️. If you'd like to discuss the fallacy of atheism. I'm here 😁
Christ gave his life to free us from every kind of sin, to cleanse us, and to make us his very own people, totally committed to doing good deeds.
You must teach these things and encourage the believers to do them. You have the authority to correct them when necessary, so don’t let anyone disregard what you say.
You are sinless, because sin isn't real. Stop grovelling before an imaginary being, get off your knees, stop feeling guilty for crimes you didn''t commit, remember that being in a cult isn't, of itself, a good deed in any way.
God unalived his son for 48 hrs to save us from himself?
If you are going to waste your only life that we know of, on a gh0d, that's just stupid. This road seems right to you, but it leads to hatred, ignorance and corruption.
God isn't real. The desperation is pathetic.
True or False
Only in the mind of the atheist can “non-life” produce living, conscious, intelligent beings
False, it can happen in the real world, we just don't have a virgin planet and half a billion years to demonstrate it.
So, so dumb.🤦♂️
And the question still remains:
“Do we have any scientific models or patterns that substantiate inanimate substances purportedly produced living, conscious, intelligent beings???”
NOPE!!! Not even close!
The Truth Remains Undefeated!
🥊💪💯👍🥊
Misrepresenting nonbelievers won't make your beliefs true by default.--- Neal Roberts
@@FLORIDA-MMA-FIGHT-TEAMsince truth matters,
Please provide just one (1) valid scientific source that proves that an immaterial, invisible, Sky Wizard created living, conscious, intelligent beings.
For the grace of God has been revealed, bringing salvation to all people. And we are instructed to turn from godless living and sinful pleasures. We should live in this evil world with wisdom, righteousness, and devotion to God!
Demonstrate a god exists first
I Bet You Never Considered This Question:
How did abiotic, inanimate, & or inorganic substances result in living, breathing, conscious, intelligent beings?? ??
So, so dumb. 🤦♂
I don't fucking know, but coming up with an answer with no bearing is worse than having no answer. And no, abiogenesis does not have no bearing. Anyways, the whole conscious part is still a mystery that we're working out. Claiming you already have all the answers is uninsightful. Trying to find the answers is how you actually gain insight. Anyways, you took a 6 month break and just came back. Why was that? Why'd you leave in the first place? Does it have something to do with the fact that this account only a month old?
@TheOne-d3t
You DO KNOW, but reject the TRUTH & SCIENTIFIC FACT that...
- Life ONLY comes from pre-existing Life
- Intelligence from Intelligence
- Consciousness from Consciousness
- Morality from Morality
- Emotion from Emotion
- Freewill from Freewill
Thanx 4 learning 👍
"I Bet You Never Considered This Question:"
You're right... I haven't... because:
1... It's got nothing to do with atheism...
2... I'm not a biologist, physicist nor chemist...
3... I don't care....
@@t800fantasm2 wake up bud! You CAN'T & NEVER even attempted to explain or refute my OP!
Better turn to Christ, the clock is tickin'.....
Please provide an honest, logical, & or a scientific rebuttal for the following:
-- Life from Life
-- Intelligence from Intelligence
-- Consciousness from Consciousness
-- Emotion from Emotion
-- Morality from Morality
-- Sociability from Sociability
-- Freewill from Freewill
All sincere & respectful attempts are welcome...
Since those are vague bare assertions without an ounce of evidence, and doesn't even reach the level of hypothesis, there's no need for rebuttal as it's equivalent to the babbling of someone who can't form complete thoughts.
So, so dumb. 🤦♂
Psst...
Hey. Come here... I have a secret for you.
Did you know this is a live show, and you can call in? You should do that.
We know life did not always exist, so, logical speaking, life must have come from non-life at some point in the past.
I'll cover the rest after you demonstrate that you'll acknowledge a sincere response.
You understand how those statements are paradoxical right? You're basically pointing at a Zeno's Paradox while tying it into the Watchmaker argument as a presupposition for creationism (and likely a specific kind of creationism rather then any possible theological version of creation humans have suggested in various religions, or even a kind we've never thought of before). Because if life must come from life, where did that life get life? You're asking a question that cannot be answered to any final degree because it can not be tested and proven or disproven, this is why most conversations around topics that involve infinity end up sounding so theological. It is also why it is near impossible to have totally honest, logical, and scientific debate over; logical functions and the sciences in practice go back to the drawing board when their solution invokes infinity because it means there are missing variables to the problem than originally thought.
If you want a much better and technical explanation of this I would recommend reading or watch Max Tegmark's work with concepts like Infinity as a Physical concept. But the broad strokes are in a Universe like our own (one which appears to have infinite space time with seemingly finite amounts of matter and energy) there are a limited number of patterns that can be assembled. Over vast distances and time these patterns will inevitably repeat, and in a system as large as the entire Universe if you "look far enough away" in spacetime even very complex patterns such as a person's existence and entire life can repeat exactly as it did elsewhere in spacetime (the same is true for slight and drastic variations but I won't get too deep into it or this will be LONG). With the general attitude that this makes you and existence no more or less significant then you already perceive it. Since it is something we have no control over and have no way of proving or even directly observing on such a massive scale infinity as a reality of existence will always remain subjectively in the personal biases of eyes of beholder (like how a theist and an atheist could would debate in circles over how DNA proves their specific evidence for or against creationism or god/gods without getting anywhere even with buttloads of physical evidence once the the debate hits a difference in philosophical ideals. Likewise when invoking infinity, you eventually leave the very few physical arguments we currently have and move into the philosophical arguments with no proofs beyond "because I accept it as...")
Repent Repent Repent
Jesus said, “I am the light of the world. If you follow Me, you won’t have to walk in darkness, because you will have the light that leads to life.”
john 8:12
may God bless u all
Dude, Prove your Jesus or grow the f**k up...
Bible quotes just prove you're either a stupid troll or a stupid theist... No normal person would expect atheists who reject the bible to even give a rat's ass about bible quotes...
Ezekiel 23:20
Just another Jebus LIE.
@@xmillion1704My life verse!
Demonstrate a god exists
Both a personal relationship with God and gender identity offer no physical evidence. In fact some people would agree physical/biological evidence actually contradicts the claim of gender identity. But it would be absolutely hypocritical to accept one claim lacking physical evidence yet not another. Both present no physical evidence
So you don't have a gender identity? I see.
@@ChallengeYourBeliefsno of course I do we all do. Gender dysphoria and gender identity exist. Much like a personal relationship with God. It would be hypocritical to accept one claim lacking physical evidence yet not the other. Extremely, right?
@@Megamentsh So you say gender identity exists. But you accept that it exists just based on faith... despite you saying that we all have gender identity.
Can you be a bit more coherent?
With the one, one should expect physical evidence of some external being who affects the universe resulting in supposed effects.
With the other, much like a person preferring a favorite color, the evidence, if at all possible, could only be achieved by reading their mind.
@@xmillion1704what gender identity do you expect physical evidence for? Look at it from a non-biased perspective 😉👍
True for False
God loves the atheist and wants them to be in heaven
Hint: 👉👉 2 Peter 3:9 👈👈
False. God doesn't exist so can't love anyone. Heaven, also non-existent. Sounds nice though, wouldn't it great if ... [reads bible] wtf, they worship this psycho? I know it's out of fear but wow.
@@zenayurvedic
Can you prove with 100% certainty that God doesn't exist??
At least try to read Psalm 19:1-4, ...there's your "observable evidence"!
@@FLORIDA-MMA-FIGHT-TEAM A fragmant of a book collated to engender nationalism, unify a tribe and centralise power over them is proof of nothing. You know that you can't use the bible as proof of the bible's claims, no one ever falls for that, why do you keep trying? Do you think you are buying your way into paradise with these bible quotes? Can you prove with 100% certainty that the angel never spoke to Mohamed? Can you prove with 100% certainty that you won't be reborn as an animal for the karmic crime of eating meat? Why didn't Jesus mention quantum chromodynamics? How many magic underpants fit on the head of Saraswati's sitar? Is childhood leukaemia proof of your god's infinite love?
@@zenayurvedic Wrong! I just gave you Psalm 19:1-4 - the clear, OBSERVALBE EVIDENCE is irrefutable, undeniable, & unquestionable!
There is zero (0) ZERO % chance that so-called "natural processes" produced the following:
- MILLIONS of different living species
- DNA
- consciousness
- intelligence
- emotion
- morality
- freewill
- variety
- adaptability
- male & female
You already OBSERVE the DAILY scientific model & pattern of:
- life from life
- consciousness from consciousness
- intelligence from intelligence
- emotion from emotion
- morality from morality
- freewill from freewill
P R O C R E A T I O N
Amen!
@@FLORIDA-MMA-FIGHT-TEAM It's not irrefutable, it's just a story. Your zero chance claim is just you saying zero chance, you can't show it. Look, you want to be convinced of your god and your crucified guy and your story book that's fine, that's your right, it's up to you. If, however, you think using your book as proof of anything will convince anyone outside your cult, then you have a problem, and the problem is that you are wasting your time.
PAY C L O S E ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING:
Isaiah 40:22 -- "God sits above the 'CIRCLE' of the earth"
NOTE: Isaiah was written between 740-686 BC!
Pythagoras first reported the earth was round sometime around 500 BC and Aristotle around the 3rd century BC.
Very interesting that the Bible spoke of this BEFORE it's scientific discovery!
I know, just coincidence LoL
Furthermore, the Hebrew word for "circle" is "chug" meaning, "circle, circuit, compass"
--Strong's Hebrew Lexicon # 2 3 2 9
QC said the Hebrew meaning for "circle" implied, or shall I say he LIED, meaning a "compact disc" LOL 🤣
Hmm, is a "COMPASS" spherical in shape, OR is it a "flat disc"??? LOL 🤣
---I rest my case!
QC busted again by a World-Recognized Authority 👉👉👉 Strong's Hebrew Lexicon! Amen!
And yet another Victory for Truth! 💪💯👍
I knew you were dim but didn't know you were a flerfer too!
@@AXKfUN9m He's so dumb. Does he think that they had a compass in those times?🤦♂ Ancient Hebrew cosmology understood the earth as a flat plane, so they are talking about a flat circle. And flat earthers use that verse to say that the earth is flat.
Here's from Strong's Hebrew Lexicon.
Original Word: חוּג
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: chuwg
Pronunciation: khoog
Phonetic Spelling: (khoog)
Definition: Circle, circuit, compass
Meaning: a circle
Word Origin: Derived from the root חוּג (chug), which means to encircle or encompass.
Corresponding Greek / Hebrew Entries: The Greek equivalent often used in the Septuagint for "chug" is "γῦρος" (gyros), which also means *circle* or circuit.
Usage: The Hebrew word "chug" primarily denotes a *circle* or a circuit. It is used to describe the circular nature of the earth or the heavens, emphasizing the completeness and perfection of God's creation. The term can also imply the idea of a boundary or limit, as seen in its usage in the context of the earth's horizon or the heavens.
Cultural and Historical Background: In ancient Near Eastern cosmology, the concept of a circular earth or heavens was common. The Hebrews, like their neighbors, *understood the world in terms of a flat disc with a dome-like sky above.* The use of "chug" in the Hebrew Bible reflects this understanding, while also highlighting the sovereignty and creative power of God, who establishes the boundaries of the earth and the heavens.
And the Truth Prevails!
👍💯💪👍💯💪
Love it when Christians admit that the truth has prevailed. Data over dogma. Those with data prevail over those with just claims and personal incredulity.
The earth is a sphere, not a circle. Doesn't the bible also say that the earth has four corners? Both those sayings in the bible were most likely metaphorical.
Drag is 100% comparable to black face because it displays a group of people as a caricature. So Forrest is 100% wrong here.
This is the problem with sacred cows, of which Forrest has many
DRAG is an art form, well was until hijacked by the homosexuals
No, drag is its own thing with its own culture. Blackface is only ever done as a mockery of black people. Drag queens are only trying to look like drag queens.
you are full of BS 🖕
"sacred cows"
saying drag is like blackface is idiotic. That's like saying black people are racist if they do blackface. People who do drag ARE the demographic in question. They aren't parodying some other group, it's THEM. And you'd know that if you didn't have your head shoved so far up your own religious ass that all you can smell is your own bullshit.
LoL. There’s no hope for these atheists.
Exactly. They've got a different type of religion.
Don't need hope. We have facts and evidence. Things xtians never did, don't, and never will have.
100+ comments on the channel-- your life is so sad.
@@Rundvelt Religion. Really? Tell me what are requirements? Who is the "head" of atheism? What are the required views and dogma of atheism? What, as an atheist, am I required to do, say and behave in order to be an atheist? 🙄
@@Rundvelt "They've got a different type of religion." Pathetic. Tired old nonsense. Are you so arrogant, so vain that you can only conceive of people who believe the same bullshit as you?