Why is every youtube channel that preachers religion always based on assumption and conjecture rather than evidence? [Spirituality & Religion]

@PikachuTrainer It was you who brought people into the mix,not me. A scientist is someone like Krauss. A devoted atheist,devoted scientist. Religion is all over the place,people live by it every day(the calendar for example). A chef is just as devoted to science through his job as he is to religion because he has no choice. Scientist get up every morning,go to work because they want to be there and they are devoted. A christian gets up and goes to church because they want to be there and they are devoted. It’s not that confusing.

@Bagalamaga yesd but not everything is a religion, Atheist for instance is not a religion, in fact it is the opposite to a religion, were as Scientology is. Same goes for a Chef, his job does not make him a Scientist. Yes the lines when it comes the definition of words does quite blurry, but that is the English language for you.

@PikachuTrainer look i agree on the religious teachings being extremely outdated and we know enough not to take them for granted anymore. Im just saying there’s little difference between being devoted to religion and being devoted to science as far as mindsets go. I am with science on this one but I can’t exclude the possibility of a “god” until there’s actual proof of it’s non existence. I know they are working on it,but it’s way to early to jump to conclusions

@PikachuTrainer [quote]1. If God created Science then prove it, prove he existed as well.[quote]

God doesn't have to prove anything to you. The worst kind of blindness dwells with those who will not see. The worst kind of deaf dwells with those who will not hear. The heavens and the earth are God's handiwork and evidence that He lives.

[quote]2. Confirmation Bias is not proof, so no, me living is not proof of anything.[/quote]

He created you like He created the rest of us, and, those before us and those coming after us.

[quote]3. It is quite reliable when it comes to dating Rocks, fossils on the other hand is a different story. Also if the word of God is truthful, trustworthy and most reliable, then why does it contradict itself from page to page? Doesn't seem to be Truthful, trustworthy or reliable now does it?[/quote]

There is no contradiction in the Word of God, only your interpretation of it is contradictory. Without the Spirit of God, no one can interpret His Word accurately.

[quote]4. Right, and zoologists are not reliable sources for disproving Unicorns and Dragons.[/quote]

[quote]4. Right, and zoologists are not reliable sources for disproving Unicorns and Dragons.[/quote]

Unicorns and dragons are created in man's imagination, not God's. Dinosaurs and other extinct animals were once thought of as dragons or unicorns. Dinosaurs didn't die out quickly as some scientists thought, they died out slowly throughout the early years of man's history.

[quote]5. No they do not, most of the historical references were written 100 years after Jesus was supposedly around, that include the "word of God".[/quote]

That's your privilege to believe that but it wouldn't be the truth. Take Care.

@GodSpeed63
We have two completely contradictory nativity stories in the Gospels

@GodSpeed63 1 & 2. Then prove it, prove he actually created us, prove he existed in the first place. Spoiler alert - He didn't.
3. Actually there is, and quite a staggering amount of contradictions, such as whether Earth does or does not have a Foundation, and the 2 different versions of Genesis, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. So yes it does contradict itself.
4. So was God, he too was created in Man's imagination. And wrong, you are correct with dragons and Dinosaurs, but Unicorns came around because of sightings of the Rhinoceros. And no one says that Dinosaurs died quickly, in fact we have enough evidence to suggest they did die slowly, long before the Asteroid impacted into the Gulf of Mexico, and a short time after, the Asteroid itself did not wipe out the dinosaurs, but rather quickened their demise.
5. It is true, in fact it has been proven as well, the words of God are not factual in any sense, and the all of the stories of Jesus were written after Jesus walked the Earth.

@PikachuTrainer I was once like you. Believe me :-)

I used to think that anyone who believes in good or anything remotely religious or spiritual was weak and needed a crutch named god to get by.

I always thought logic and reason is the only way but then I experienced things that changed the foundation of my being. I am glad I experienced what I did... problem is, I understand where you are coming from but you don't Know where I am coming from...yet :-)

@Unlearn I do not think that at all, I do not see people as weak, I do not think that people believe in God because they need a crutch, I see them as misguided.

Logic and reason have never been the only way, even the most ill logical idea has crafted some of the most impressive inventions.

@PikachuTrainer this discussion will go no where...best of luck.

@SteelHands I never asked if you were Wikipedia, and same goes for your bible, if someone writes it down it doesn't make it fact.

@PikachuTrainer You brought up wikipedia. Not me. Of you can't even debate without internet help you're just another brainwashed person and you know it.

That's true. Just because it's written it would be better to read 50 books before you shoot your carbon copy load on here like any other of the parrots.


Ya know. I observe this among those that parrot the same old shit I used to. The one thing it seems to me is that younger people these days don't do much reading. In truth not that much on either side of a issue that can't be known. Not unless it agrees with their indoctrinations, adds whole chalkboard filled with numbers and symbols that almost nobody can read, backed up with claims about things that you need million dollar microscopes to maybe, just maybe, see a glimmer of related data that supports a theoretical framework of proportional plausibility and a truckload of verbosity.

What else ya got, pink.

@SteelHands actually it is called providing a source, I don't need the internet for help, though it does come in handy.

Isn't that exactly what people like you do? Shoot off carbon copy arguments then when a source is provided quickly complain about it?

Again that is exactly what you do, parrot the same old crappy argument that suits your agenda. Sure I maybe young, and I do a lot of reading, such as history. What it isn't, is indoctrination, because at the end of the day I can still make agreements and disagreements with something, however if there is valid scientific data, I mean sure I'm not intelligent enough to decipher the math they use, but they can normally prove their math works with practical applications, such as getting to the moon or making an Aircraft fly. Just because you don't understand the math doesn't mean it is all bollocks.

In fact, the computer and internet server you are using are all built up, principly, on mathematics to certain degree.

@Unlearn Science is not a religion. Science encompases a wide range of subjects, such as Military and Social Science for instance.

@ABCDEF7 actually giving evidence would be better than what evidence they should be talking about.

@PikachuTrainer like what? What evidence they're talking about?

I just read that recently. I can’t remember where. I’ll have to get back to you. I read a lot of non fiction books so there’s more than one source. But why can’t you just accept that? Why is that hard? @PikachuTrainer

@Spoiledbrat because in order to validate your claim you need to provide a source.

Like I said I’ll have to get back to you. The books I read are written by doctors and highly educated individuals. @PikachuTrainer