I’m always impressed by the religiously zealot individuals who populate YouTube these days.
If it’s not Kristina Loves Jesus whose faith “in the Lord” is so solid she’s blocked comments on ALL of her videos, is her faith so on the edge that she cannot face criticism? Her rants, incidentally, are some of the funniest on the web. If I didn’t know better, I’d have imagined it was a spoof.
My favourite is Atheists, if Hitler was right, then Jesus is wrong. It starts out like The Blair “Jesus” project. Then sinks into one of the most spurious tenants of all religious minded people. That morality is and can only be the creation of religion.
“Because there is a moral law, there MUST be a moral law giver.” – Which is an interesting concept, brought down by an obvious flaw.
For example, the Bible talks about capturing slaves, taking slaves and how best to get rid of slaves. In our modern western world, do we still have slaves? No, and correctly people would say it would be morally objectionable to allow such practice. But this practice cannot come from the Bible, it’s PRO-slavery. So where did this moral compass come from? Well, part of it came from forward thinking philosophers, more liberal minded religious groups and by far the biggest bunch, the poor and the highly educated.
“Who said that Hitler was wrong and that helping people was right?”
Wait…. I’ve already ranted about this before…..
In this video, Hamza Tzortzi, goes to prove his complete lack of scientific knowledge.
1. The proof of science isn’t based on touching and feeling. Can we touch light? Can we feel electromagnetism?
2. We know his great, great, great (blah blah blah ) Grandmother exists due to the SCIENTIFIC PROOF of mitochondrial DNA.
3. Love how he dismissive the “creation forever” concept. As though he could actually understand the concept of a closed loop reality and then decide it’s scientifically not OK.
4. He describes the Universe as being “the cause” of the big bang. Clearly he doesn’t understand that very basic concept of Cause and Effect. The Universe is an effect of the big bang.
5. He states that nothing could have existed before the Universe…. A scientifically interesting question still being debated, then uses this as his premise as why God exists. But this is a totally false premise. Because imagine we had no “big bang” theory. Imagine a conceptual loop, with one Universe collapsing into another… What then? Would God then be the architect of this? Or how about a steady state Universe. Would God be the architect of such balance.
My point is that he’s fitting God’s actions to the basis of a current ruling scientific theory. But surely, as he states early, God isn’t in our material world. He’s outside it. So how can God fit into a such a pattern? I’d suggest to him that he’s created a paradox. But I’d imagine he’d think I was talking about jetties. 🙂 I jest.