Darwin's Stance on Christianity? A Damnable Doctrine

[@3VOLution3NO]

I believe Life is full of suffering because we are here for a purpose. that purpose is to learn to LOVE, to understand, and to learn to FORGIVE.

[@bl4ze1t38]

It’s tragic, his understanding of Christianity, what he thought it is, is not what Christianity is.

[@Lawrence_Talbot]

Religion wasn’t that bad until Christianity came around, then the holy wars and mass genocides started.

[@Sidsahu5996]

😂

[@Pfsif]

Buddah says life is a pile of shit and occasionally something good happens.

[@halogen5580]

true we hear more about good than bad because people around you want you to be good so they dont show the bad stuff

[@TheGodlessGuitarist]

@TheRationalHatter "There are plenty of religous people who accept the evidence for evolution. They just aren't quite as vocal as the knuckle draggers" So true

[@BonesBroken]

Darwin was a pioneer in biology and made tremendous strides in that field, just like Einstein was an incredible intellect and visionary in his field, YET both of them married their cousins?? Odd and weird....

[@chuckscott-cy7iq]

Which only happened because their female-cousins Allowed it.

[@Jeculet]

“...Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers... for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality... But I had gradually come by this time, i.e., 1836 to 1839, to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow at sign, &c., &c., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian. ...By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported, (and that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become), that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost uncomprehensible by us, that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events, that they differ in many important details, far too important, as it seemed to me, to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eyewitnesses; by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many false religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wild-fire had some weight with me. Beautiful as is the morality of the New Testament, it can be hardly denied that its perfection depends in part on the interpretation which we now put on metaphors and allegories. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief... Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all of my friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.” ― Charles Darwin, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1809-82

[@bl4ze1t38]

A tragic man

[@Nexus-jg7ev]

@@bl4ze1t38 Early Church fathers in some of their letters and works written in refutation of their pagan critics like Celsus, Lucian, Porphyry and others talk about Christianity as a project intended for the 'transformation of the human race'. They also confess that the concept of eternal punishment is necessary towards this end (Origen, Contra Celsus) and that fear is the most powerful tool for conversion to the new religion. I have studied Christianity (as an outsider- a former Muslim) thoroughly for about a year now. Is it true? No. Was it useful. Incredibly so! It is undeniable that it stopped many barbaric practices and was foundational for the development of Western civilization. It played an important role in worldwide development too. It is not difficult to see why people in pre-modern societies outside Europe wanted Christianity to be true. If they could convert their peoples, they could more easily spread progressive values and western-modelled modernization. Well, we have seen that Christianisarion has not been necessary for modernization in regions like East Asia (and even other western values such as democracyhave not been that necessary there to this end), although many of the progressive reformers have been Christians. In theological terms, a sane and compassionate person would not want it to be true, for that would mean the eternal damnation of people who for various (and very legitimate) reasons are not believers. It is quite to reconcile the good effects of religion (although there were certainly many bad ones too) with the fact that it is based on falsehood. We have to differentiate between validity and utility. You believe for validity and use for utility. We ought not believe in Christianity, for it is not true. But we ought to preserve it (for the most part), for it is damn useful. The question is whether people need to actually believe it in order to adhere to its values? Or is this even desirable? Many of its values are outdated. Perhaps we need a new belief system... I do believe that Christianity is more progressive than other religions. But we can do even better. In the end, the truth about religion is what the Stoic philosopher Seneca said: 'Religion is true for the masses, false for the intellectuals and useful for the politicians'.

[@hangguy209]

@shjoed Nothing to do with god? To force or kill those who isn't willing to convert to catholicism has nothing to do with god?

[@ryanhunt7264]

Over 3k religions in this world. Who are any of us to say, that our religion of choice is correct?

[@SuperFantasticFox]

@shjoed Thank you. I now hate religion a little bit more, and it's all your doing.

[@MrMonkeyInk]

In Job 1:12 you will find that God gave Satan a free hand to lay upon Job, "all that he hath is in thy power." Thereby, in the story, God bears some/all moral responsibility for Job's torments.

[@jacob-fc5cz]

allowing things to happen and causing things to happen just simply aren’t the same thing. if you read the full book, God is so confident in Job’s righteousness (and Satan was so afraid of it) that God knew Job would stay faithful despite his suffering. and, in the end of the book, Job receives everything ten fold.

[@sidneyshaw9814]

@@jacob-fc5cz I think it was double the original amount, but correct.

[@fanuluiciorannr1xd212]

His family is still dead tough. And it was unecesary since God already knew Job would not deny his belives.

[@fanuluiciorannr1xd212]

What is this supossed to mean?

[@sidneyshaw9814]

@@fanuluiciorannr1xd212 God knew it, but we Humans did not. The Book of Job is a lesson for us Humans, not God. Treat it as such.

[@steinarrexfaroensis]

@shjoed I find it funny that you a) say i have no morals b) say I'm a satanist and c) use an alistair crowley quote. Talk about speculation... I'm an atheist. And I have morals. I believe I answer to myself and my fellow human beings, and not the god who tells you to beat your children when they misbehave, and the god who allows millions of people so suffer. I'm not a satanist. I have no idea where you got that from. I do not believe in any writings of Alistair Crowley.

[@MrMonkeyInk]

@SmileyGarrish [The audience members at the back of the crowd are having trouble hearing the Sermon on the Mount.] Man: I think it was, "Blessed are the cheesemakers"! Gregory's wife: What's so special about the cheesemakers? Gregory: Well, obviously it's not meant to be taken literally. It refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.

[@MrMonkeyInk]

@Shia Muslim Yeah. You?

[@joeyacmilan]

Suffering breeds greatness

[@garith21]

@ITheProfessorI 1) I actually never said that, I merely pointed out that it was known the earth was spherical long before the Koran with geometry. 2) Sure they are different versions if they're different translations, many things read very different dependent upon the translation 3) you never answered the question of visiting apologetic sites to verify the fact that you're using the exact same rationalization

[@hangguy209]

@shjoed Geeks who couldn't get laid? That's harsh for you as a christian. What happen to thou shall not commit adultery? Well they may not have a cure for cancer, yet. However they made so many discovery and you can't argue with that. Our generation should be thankful to science. Just because they haven't find out how to cure cancer yet doesn't you should reject science. If it wasn't for great minds of science, you wouldn't even be on youtube replying to me at all. And no hard feelings.

[@rhondah1587]

After clicking on the link for the entire talk and listening for a few minutes, I highly regret giving this video a thumbs up. This guy is a concessionist and I disagree with him and his stance. He certainly has a right to his stance, but it is not one I hold for myself.

[@ArchNME]

@Uaz31 "Only God can give faith" Why would he not give it to me then?

[@Golems_victory]

@Muqi Bhai i am the ATHIEST ALLIANCE WILL WIN! AND WE WILL RESTORE OUR SECULAR GOVERNMENT! ALL FORCE'S ARE COMING TO DESTROY RELIGIOUS BULLSHIT AND DELUSIONS!

[@dwayneab1]

Shane Name something more moral than Love? & name something more just than bringing forth life with free will? Name anyone from mankinds history who willingly died for the people that were against him, even though he didn’t need to. the individual has to be an evil person from history because according to you God is evil.

[@ernestotostado4164]

This came from the fall of men, the disobedience of God and the onset of the evil one and evil. It was the enemy who planted the bad weeds in the good harvest. It wasn't like this before Adam and Eve sinned and Sayan knew that was his way in to destroy us and all that is good.

[@Nexus-jg7ev]

But why did God create Satan if God knew that he would rebel and bring evil? The existence of evil really cannot be reconciled with the existence of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God. You may say that suffering is for a greater good. But if God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, he could certainly achieve the greater good without evil and suffering. You may also argue that evil comes as punishment for sin. But then how do you explain why wicked people prosper while good people suffer? Lastly, one may argue that evil and suffering are caused by free will. Evil, then, is the price that God pays for giving people the great good of freedom. People misuse their freedom to do evil to each other. The first problem with the free will justification is that it does not account for all suffering in the world at all. People suffer from many things for no fault of their own - diseases, natural disasters, etc. The 2nd problem is that the argument can be turned against theism. God might actually be an evil God and there might be good in the world because God has given us free will and we choose to disobey him by doing good. Thus, free will can prove that there is an evil God despite the existence of good. So would you believe in an evil God? No? Then why believe in a good God either? Finally, one may concede that God might not be omnipotent or omnibenevolent, but why call him God then?

[@MrMonkeyInk]

@shjoed You write, "Darwin's daughter dying at 10 was a blessing," then tell me to think before making a comment! I suggest you take your own advice. Furthermore, you wrote it was a blessing because she was brought into Heaven. How do you know? Apart from being completely ridiculous, doesn't such an assertion fly in the face of your own beliefs? I thought only God made such judgements, or is He delegating that role to you now? You say that all suffering is temporary. What about the Lake of Fire?

[@afternoon8928]

Long words, no likes

[@jgz33]

All children go heaven it says so in scripture

[@MrMonkeyInk]

@@jgz33 Where?

[@lwmaynard5180]

He believed in the survival of the fittest his poor daughter wasn't medically fit his children were medically unfit he admits this. Marrying his cousin was a risk it would have affected his conscience he was an alcoholic mentioned by peiter cullis a PhD. In biochemistry in his book. About four of children died at earlier age he was bipolar suffering from deep depression.

[@alphasuperior100]

He's bloody correct I have read most of The Bible and it ain't a page turner suffering in the animal kingdom but who cares what about the human kingdom there's suffering there too.

[@garith21]

@CrackerJackLee 1) There's no "practicing" in atheism. 2) I want people to prove the existence of something they claim to exist because that's the burden of proof we put on everything else to determine whether or not it's believable. 3) Prove any other deity you don't believe in doesn't exist, prove unicorns, leprechauns or faeries don't exist, all you can do is indicate there's no evidence that they do exist so it's not reasonable to believe that they do.

[@TimothyPatrick]

Not that this has anything to do with evil or suffering but a little known fact that has recently surfaced is that Darwin married and has all his children with his first cousin. Hence the illness and the death of his 10 year old daughter.

[@fcdog555]

@WellIAMScottish If a pedo rapes a child because he wants to please his sexual desire, that can in no way be considered nonevil by the doctrines of Christianity. Thus, you are refuted.

[@SuperFantasticFox]

@shjoed Yeah, that's it exactly. Darwin's daughter died, and my life sucks. Ergo, there's no god. Thank you for figuring that out. You're a genius. I also love how you declare that you're not bitter in a bitter tone of voice. Please continue to rant, as you're making my day.

[@SuperFantasticFox]

@shjoed Then you should have written that in your initial comment instead of phrasing it so vaguely.

[@garith21]

@3VOLution3NO You believe this for what reason? Second if we assumed god does exist how come their power doesn't seem to extend to innate love and forgiveness? Third in anticipation of your likely response of devaluing it if it's innate most theists say that God gave us our innate morality despite some not having the same morality and much of it changing over time from ancient dogma, does this not devalue morality even if it was the case?

[@SuperFantasticFox]

@shjoed I don't get the semantics of that comment.

[@lanceawatt]

@CrackerJackLee I used to be a Catholic alter boy. Then I became an atheist. If I were to call my past self mislead, wrong, delusional... I'm not hating anything I'm just saying it how it is! How can I possibly take offence? But if religious people become offended by something so trivial - like a pork chops or a drawing of the prophet mohammed - than they need to stop wallowing in self pity and get a grip! There is no hate. It's expressing what we think is true and its 100% civil!

[@thescorpionking2020]

darwin was right christianity is horrible

[@Love_maui_2017]

David_the_Goliath right, religion is the problem.

[@aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa420]

Religion is **TOTALLY** the problem. Not the wicked people who twist things and blame their own religion. That would be crazy.

[@RigobertoMartinez07]

Its only a problem if it’s true.

[@getroasted3796]

@@aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa420 wicked people created some parts of religion. It is true that they twist things, but some of those things were twisted to begin with. Edit: sometimes they use their believe system as a crutch

[@garith21]

@ITheProfessorI 1) Except their own scripture doesn't contradict it since a disk is not the same thing as a sphere, it's the same special pleading as any moderate christian claims when being associated with a creationist. 2) right you just don't believe the statement

[@MassLiberal1]

God is a meaningless concept so long as people view God as a person-like being w/ super powers. But if we view 'God' (or whatever term you want) as a metaphor for the mystery of the universe and for ultimate reality, then spirituality still has a place in the world. Religious naturalism seems like a way to bridge the gap between religious liberals and agnostics/atheists. Religious conservatives however will be left out in the cold so long as they hold on to primitive, anti-science beliefs.

[@garith21]

@ITheProfessorI So you admit the Koran is the same then you say they're different because the focus of worship is different, nice.

[@ArchNME]

@Uaz31 Actually that doesn't make any sense at all and no one has ever found any evidence that something like that happened.

[@Aaberg123]

@ralcock If absence = love, then your god is all-loving.

[@jgz33]

You really think us sinners are worthy of even being in the presence of God, it was because of his love that he came down in the first place as Jesus to save us from our sins. But if you think your clean and pure enough to look at his face then...

[@qzh00k]

Religious Authority, what does that even mean. Shallow presentation to help cling to an idea.

[@jursamaj]

@CrackerJackLee Look in a dictionary. Look up "cult" and "religion". The *only* difference is that cults are generally smaller and not considered "mainstream". Generally, that distinction is made by the big, powerful religions. In fact *every* religion started as a cult. Once they had enough converts, they demanded the "respect" of the title "religion".

[@ananiasacts]

@CrackerJackLee, No, that's a misrepresentation of what's going on as well. We do not adapt at all. We're stuck just as we are. Our imperfect process of making copies of our genes, and the selective effect of being tested for fitness by nature is the basis of all adaptation. To say "evolution is a means to an end" is simply false. There is no goal of any sort. Evolution is not trying to make creatures that are robust and wonderful. They just do better, and that's why they exist at all.

[@garith21]

@CrackerJackLee Cracker, Atheism is merely the lack of belief that a deity or deities exist, you're right about religion having nothing to do with god because there are various religions that are atheistic as they posit no god, like forms of buddhism, shamanism, raliens and the like. However atheism isn't an ism, it's merely the lack of belief in a deity Theism = belief that a deity or deities exist Atheism = the lack of belief a deity or deities exist, nothing more.

[@TheCurmudgen]

@Uaz31 You are so very wrong on evolution. It's not full of flaws, it's pretty much air tight. It is very much a science, it's part of biology which is a science. As for it being a religion, that's a very tired saying that has been hashed around the internet for years. Could I suggest that instead of arguing with atheists about biology you should ask questions to qualified professors, teachers and scientists? They can explain it to you best.

[@garith21]

@CrackerJackLee To be an atheist you don't follow any doctrine, has no prophets or leaders, you don't even have to accept scientific explanations to be an atheist, you don't have to assert "there is no god" all you have to do is either be ignorant of any proposed god or reject the belief of any proposed god.

[@garith21]

@ITheProfessorI "In Greek societies it was lost" Right, if you want to claim that how come with the continuation of the Koran it didn't stay or instantly become revealed again since you know, if it says what you claim it says then it shouldn't be so ambiguous as to not be misunderstood till long after it's discovered by other people.

[@jursamaj]

@CrackerJackLee No false analogy was involved here. *You* said "it is improper and rude to debase other people's beliefs". Then *you* debased atheism by claiming atheists don't believe in anything. And I'm sure you would not respect the sample belief I mentioned, nor a great many others, such as the actual Mayam/Aztec belief in sacrificing people to appease their gods. How about the belief that we didn't send men to the moon? Or that the world is flat? Respect those?

[@GnosticAtheist]

@CrackerJackLee I agree that no belief is "weird" considering the human brain. However, the lack of logic behind the belief in a creator God is of interest. It is not possible to say "the universe had to have a start" then say "but the creator God does not" without any evidence supporting such a claim. Thus the belief in creation does not function to answer the question, it only changes burden. The belief in eternal existence of energy on the other hand has no such problem.

[@garith21]

@ITheProfessorI "And as for the Qur'an, not only is there Science in it that was only recently discovered by non-Muslims" Except it doesn't, if was really ever "revealed" shouldn't it have been discovered by Muslims in the first place? There's nothing "revealed" about something you rationalize after it's been discovered. Right, and you were earlier defining Christianity by those evangelicals, should I be defining you by yours?

[@MrMonkeyInk]

@RayWilliamJohansen Job? Yeah. He's that existential character in the Bible.

[@fourbabies1]

@ulispointofview it's not that there is no evidence for evolution, the problem is you have not looked for evidence cause (i assume) you have a faith and that could not possibly be wrong so what's the point in looking into anything else (commonly called ignorance).

[@Phelan666]

Wow the quality of the vid in the beginning is phuhk't.

[@lanceawatt]

@CrackerJackLee moral philosophy without God obtainable through placing value on the following 3 factors; - freedom, liberties and support of the individual - assuring the interests for humanity - valuing other bioligical, conscious life Thereby we can balance the interests of all 3 factors and establish a framework by which we can figure the "best" moral codes reflect the current global situation. Vigourus reflection of these codes necessary, nothing infallible. Neccesity of God, redundant.

[@jursamaj]

@CrackerJackLee I didn't claim belief in a god was weird. In fact, it seems to be an instinct created by evolution. Believing there was a global flood when all evidence is that there wasn't: weird. Believing God/Jesus answers all prayers when it's demonstrable they don't: weird. Believing a benevolent god allows all manner of evil in the world: weird. etc. Freedom of belief is fine, until it starts injuring others...

[@ananiasacts]

@CrackerJackLee, You're misrepresenting my concern again. I have no beef with what adults choose to believe. I have a problem abusing children, and forcing them to incorporate such a loathsome an inane ideology before they have the cognitive maturity, intellectual capacity, and actual interest in the topic, is a clear form of abuse. It is the theft of their opportunity to develop an ontology more naturally--acquiring knowledge of the sort they are capable of evaluating at the time of discovery.

[@MrMonkeyInk]

@RayWilliamJohansen You're aware that Job is a fictional character, right? If Job were real, however, he had sufficient evidence from personal experience for his belief in God. God and he actually spoke. His experiences, anectodal evidence at best, wouldn't be sufficient for anyone else to believe. Job's capricious God torments him just to make a point with Satan. This God is a malevolent bully and gambler. A universe in which such a God existed would be horrifyingly ugly.

[@welchce]

". A universe in which such a God existed would be horrifyingly ugly." as opposed to our universe? Our universe isn't horrifyingly ugly?

[@garith21]

@ITheProfessorI 1) Even if I assumed it was the case as stated before how is it evidence that any god exists? 2) Even if I arbitrarily assumed there was only 1 version despite there being different versions again so what? 3) no, I see you as using the exact same apologetics as christian apologists, judging by you phrasing up above you haven't actually ever examined christian apologetics. 4) yet the same thing applies to many versions of the bible, not all but many.

[@jursamaj]

@CrackerJackLee God is claimed to be omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent. Evil exists in the world. Such a being would do something about such evil. Evil still exists in the world. Ergo, such a being does not exist. Either your God is purely a myth, or it lacks one or more of the 3 characteristics ascribed (in which case, why call it a god?).

[@SuperFantasticFox]

@shjoed I'm glad to see your Christian love displayed with the spewing of vitriol. I'm now very much inclined to believing. And no, I don't think that a child dying is a blessing, since I don't believe in heaven. Had you written in your initial comment that it was good that her suffering ended, I would have partially agreed with you. Since you can't formulate yourself clearly, I did not agree with you.

[@garith21]

@ITheProfessorI Can I seriously call poe's law yet? Seriously though you're using the same tactics that any christian apologetic uses and then you claim yours is special and different, frankly I don't see the difference. You admit your book has been edited just as any bible then still claim it was revealed knowledge. Should everyone read every holy book from cover to cover including the many different versions and "translations" of it?

[@garith21]

@ITheProfessorI of course more popular atheists dissect popular scriptures, because that is the particular god that's claimed to exist. Frankly speaking there's as many gods as there are for people to believe so they tackle the more popular ones that people say they believe exists. An atheist can't reject a belief if there is no claim of a defined god. You should read "50 reasons people give for believing in a god" for the vague kinds.

[@garith21]

@ITheProfessorI 1) Why would you need to change something for a book that supposedly isn't written yet when the discovery was made before the book was written? 2) Yet many of those versions are based on the interpretations of those translations, you really haven't researched much on this have you? 3) ohhhhh, so you make junk up and you think you're original even though you're using the same tactics as those people you criticize.

[@underpantssquirrel]

@AVTPro- You're creating a strawman. Darwin wanted us to believe we decended from ancient apes because of his observations of fossils and other fields of study. He doesn't propose Evolution because of bitterness, and there is nothing in this video to indicate that. He disbelieved in christianity for many other personal reasons, but caterpillars and his daughter were just a few drops in the bucket at best.

[@Raherin]

@AVTPro Because of his bitterness? It was because of the many YEARS he spent gathering the evidence and doing the research. Are you really saying that seriously? And the very fact that he chose to believe where the evidence lead instead of believing a religion that has no evidence to support the actual claims that are made is a good thing, and what has given us the luxury of our increased lifespans, etc. Why do you think religions don't invent shit? Because they can't. The don't use evidence.

[@lanceawatt]

@CrackerJackLee no you are 100% wrong, it's NOT hate speech. The only countries see criticising religions and cults as "blasphemy" are those that support the stoning and hanging of women. I believe in propositions of knowledge and truth through the logic and reason. I am a philosopher. And I ask this: how can you say I should respect those that follow homophobic, hateful, oppressive cults and tell me it's unlawful to do otherwise? Shame! You demonstrate religious hypocrisy.

[@jursamaj]

@CrackerJackLee *You* said "it is improper and rude to debase other people's beliefs". How is that not expecting respect for beliefs? It's not hate speech. By definition, "hate speech" is about a person or group (of *real* people), not about a religion. Petrino said "Jesus = Delusion", not me. I suspect somebody named Jesus existed at that time, but it's delusional to believe he was the son of a God who clearly doesn't exist.

[@garith21]

@ITheProfessorI 1) are you kidding? there's actually more Muslim creationists than there are christian creationists, as hard as that may be to believe. There have even been Muslim "professors" on TV talking about the universe is geocentric and the earth is flat. 2) The arguments from ignorance applies to any that posit a god as an explanation to anything they don't understand.

[@TheCurmudgen]

@Uaz31 Evilution? That could explain a lot. Tell me, what proof is there that "real" science has disproven evolution? Could you provide a link or a title to a book that has this information? I would be very curious. I learned about evolution in school. It was explained to me by people who had studied it and learned about it. I didn't know about the Talk origins site until long after I had been out of school.

[@jacobh1151]

He uses the word 'damnable'. I find this quite funny, since he is quite literally acting as God in deciding whether or not something should be damned to hell. He is not God. There is only one God

[@garith21]

@CrackerJackLee 1) I didn't, I was merely responding to a point you made and in fact in our conversation I already pointed out that there's no reason to believe there would be a god even if we did assume there was some global flood. I merely pointed out there's no evidence for a global flood

[@ArchNME]

@Uaz31 How do you know he's like us since no one has ever seen him? Did it ever occur to you that god was created in the likeness of the men who made him up? Also, when something "exists" outside of time, space and matter there is name for that, it's called a figment of your imagination.

[@garith21]

@Uaz31 Faith is the belief in something with no evidence, I don't see any requirement that a god would need to exist to believe in something with no evidence.

[@multivitamin425]

how you know that is suffering if you know better? (love, calmness, all feelings that you adore), if there is only suffering in the world, it wouldnt be suffering, rather it would be called 'living' , because you don't know any better

[@BenjaminOrthodox]

He’s in Hell.

[@Sidsahu5996]

😂😂😂

[@merdufer]

Fora need to replace whoever writing these video titles. "A damnable doctrine", despite being a quote, hardly summarizes Darwin's stance on Christianity.

[@lanceawatt]

@CrackerJackLee cut me off, by all means. But you know as well as I that the belief in a monotheistic God is created through the religious scripture - that preaches values of oppression, hatred- which only be verified through the claim that God supports the scriptures. So you see the two entities are constructed in a way that the one cannot survive without the other, and are both more deeply interlinked than you suppose. You only have a caseif the idea of God is innate in us, objectively not so.

[@GnosticAtheist]

@nota2cdtime Agreed. It is clear that the bible does not talk of eternal suffering. What it does is talk about souls being extinguished or cleansed (changed). Not that this has much point in this discussion though, as Darwin reacted to his own time.

[@Zoaguyver]

@ITheProfessorI Bullshit. The verse in Sura al-Nisa states CLEARLY "Men are a degree above women." Hadith by the prophet state many misogynistic statements but of course those luckily happen to be the hadith you call false. Don't test me. You're making stuff off the top of your head aren't you? Where is the womans role called higher exactly show me ANY verse of the sort. Message me if you don't want to continue this here. I have no issue.

[@GnosticAtheist]

@CrackerJackLee No, I dont confuse it. I have no issue at all with those that find it to believe in God. I have several friends who are deists, and a few theists as well. I only judge personal friendship opportunities by character and action, not by belief. The problem is religion, and people who want to create laws and regulations for those that do not accept their version of said belief, or their belief in a God.

[@MrNeorek]

Nothing in Nature is truly disgusting, the second we start saying one thing is bad over another we create a bias towards what we dislike. Can't do that and be a scientist. Yes it does suck for the caterpillar, but if the wasp didn't do that then it wouldn't would starve itself, an equally "horrible" thing to go through. (Now from a human point of view I agree it'd be horrible to go through, just in Nature nothing is disgusting one way or another.) I agree with the rest.

[@jursamaj]

@CrackerJackLee OK, I just asked myself (an atheist), and here are a lot of things I believe in. Gods just aren't on the list. Are you saying you *do* respect cannibals', human-sacrificers', moon-hoaxers', flat-earthers', etc., beliefs? I doubt you do. And for the same reasons you don't respect those beliefs, I don't respect theistic beliefs. Comparing "respect for beliefs" with "respect for beliefs" is *not a weak or false analogy.

[@sullyx4167]

I don't respect Atheistic beliefs, alls good

[@Sidsahu5996]

@@sullyx4167 🙂

[@ananiasacts]

@CrackerJackLee, Every single argument you've made has the exact same form: misrepresent something to make it easily seen as contemptuous and then condemn it for being so. All it really demonstrates is an intellectual carelessness and lack of understanding. You claim to believe in a god that you don't bother to define except to say that it isn't the one that any religion is advocating. You continue to misrepresent what both evolution and atheism is despite being frequently corrected.

[@garith21]

@CrackerJackLee 4) Why is 3 asinine when you're saying I should believe because I can't disprove it, I'm merely returning your statement at you for all of the supernatural claims you don't believe and you're avoiding, again.

[@GnosticAtheist]

@CrackerJackLee : I am from an atheist family with secular values in a society with secular leanings. We don't "rebel against God". Rebellious nature here is commonly towards specific traditions or common value system and structured authority, like it has always been (thus we get change between generations). A rebellion against a fictions character seems somewhat asinine. I understand it in societies or families with specific religious traditions.

[@xomiakas]

@Uaz31 God Doesn't exist. When you put this formula in whatever you say - it makes no sense.

[@garith21]

@ITheProfessorI Sorry but the arguments for gods existence are arguments from ignorance. "I don't know how it happened therefore god did it" there are many variations of said argument but that's all it boils down to is a logical fallacy of an argument from ignorance sometimes tacked on with more logical fallacies. Second of all many atheists are atheists because they actually did examine their beliefs when they were believers

[@GnosticAtheist]

@CrackerJackLee No it is not. If I say that people who believe that voting party X is retarded that is not hate speech, that is strong opinion. You have to have an opinion about someone that directly implies criminal activity or clearly creates a negative environment for a minority for it to be hate speech. That said, I seldom accept hate speech as a defense for anything unless someone is specifically named or the person has power to do what he says (if violent in nature). Freedom of speech.

[@ananiasacts]

@CrackerJackLee, Why do you separate the notion of god with that of religion since it is only the claim of scriptures that proposes gods existence in the first place? Do you really think that if we had no notion of religion or god today that someone imagining that explanation would consider it plausible? I don't see how. They'd immediately realize it's not even an answer of any sort to any question because it only restates the problem as one of explaining gods existence and motivation.

[@ladicius]

this guy thinks caterpillars suffer?

[@JaneDoe-si7ht]

Darwin 👍 Christianity👎

[@lwmaynard5180]

It was known in scientific circles that Charles Darwin was a alcoholic and bipolar he suffered from severe depression. He was bitten by an assassin bug got a fever and resorted to alcohol as a cure while on tour over seas of course he became an alcoholic.

[@Sidsahu5996]

​@lwmaynard5180 😂😂

[@jursamaj]

@CrackerJackLee "antediluvian" is an archaic term, not needed anymore since we learned better.

[@ananiasacts]

@ananiasacts, I meant to say "... realize that IF our universe was deliberately..." but didn't type the word "if"

[@Keatrocity]

@TheSkoolNINjaz The difference is that the function of Ichneumonidae is to survive, inherent to its species to propogate their kind. There's not a more moral way to do it simply because the action of insects can not be made subject to morality more simply because they lack the necessary mental utilities to consider it. Human attrocities aren't committed with express intent to merely survive, maybe to conquer or in a twisted way thrive, but never to survive. Only the pessimist could champion

[@jursamaj]

@CrackerJackLee Grey hair does not equal wisdom. Some old people never get it, while some young get it early. Some people grey as kids, while some don't until *very* old. Nevertheless, I happen to be old enough that i've started greying. So that point is useless no matter how you look at it. Since we have no proof of *your* credentials (age or degrees) it's all silly. You scoffed at belief in God being a cult, when it is clearly accepted as religion and religions *are* cults.

[@garith21]

@CrackerJackLee organic material and the whole sperm/egg fertilization deal. didn't your parents ever have "the talk" with you? If all you're going to do is take it to the beginning of this frame of this universe till I say "I don't know" and you want to plug in god for that "I don't know" that is the exact argument from ignorance I've been talking about which isn't convincing.

[@imaginarythings]

"Explain" it away...LOL...

[@garith21]

@CrackerJackLee 7) Lets assume for the sake of argument that everything in the bible regarding natural claims is true, which apparently you'll want to believe in spite of any evidence to the contrary or despite the fact there is no evidence to support many of the claims of the bible. How does that give any more credence to the supernatural claims than if I were to write "the moon is made of cheese" in a science text book.

[@GnosticAtheist]

@CrackerJackLee I do not hint at a universe with no beginning, I clearly state that the current paradigm of thought is that energy is never created nor destroyed. It is eternal, but the forms of its existence is ever changing. I cannot assert my beliefs as I do not hold this or any other as absolute. I search for likely theories, and when I find them it is only temporary.

[@Mirror777World]

god is just another name for the order and creativity of the universe...its the unknown....a scientific god does exist

[@cypress1337]

@petrino Not all Christians are crybabies, only the American version.

[@garith21]

@CrackerJackLee 4) Actually that was the definition of faith, belief can be held without sufficient evidence or with sufficient evidence, in the case of faith it requires it be held without any objective evidence. 5) Right, and based on what? A book written by men thousands of years ago, you're believing a book claimed to be inspired by god and worshiping it as god. 6) I don't have to try when you never fulfill even the minimum requirements of scrutiny.

[@ananiasacts]

@CrackerJackLee, to say "that's the whole point of evolution" confirms you don't understand what it is. It has no point, nor purpose, nor goal of any sort. It is not a conscious process at all. Nature does not force us to evolve. We evolve because nature selects against those less able to thrive. You're putting the cart before the horse because you want there to be intentionality, not because you have any reason for assuming it. Just a prejudice.

[@garith21]

@CrackerJackLee By your logic faeries, leprechauns, or any other mythical creature exists until other people can prove otherwise, can you prove that there's not an invisible dragon in the adjacent room of yours? If you can't disprove it does that mean you must automatically believe it? Again burden of proof fallacy.