Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Is Ben Carson A Creationist?" video.

  1. +No Way Ben Carson is saying that what himself, and others see in life is dependent on god. If god intended for him to be raised muslim then god would have done it that way. He would have grown up with a different belief but as of now he believes what he does because god is making him see life that way. That is the overall point. Religion is faith based, it doesn't require supporting evidence. That is how faith works. No different than someone who doesn't believe in god. There is no evidence for that, or evidence for any religion. "The truly dangerous thing is that there is no way for a faith belief to gain primacy without violence" That can be said about anything. Violence is human nature. It would exist with or without religion. Irrational, emotional people resort to violence. People can be religious and be non-violent. When someone points towards violence and religion I see that individual as being very weak minded.
    2
  2. +No Way You clearly did not listen to what Ben said.
    1
  3. +No Way Faith doesn't require much evidence if any at all. Atheist have a faith in no god, or a lack of a belief in god. Where is the evidence of no god? So no, it isn't a problem. You totally did not get what I was saying when I said "That can be said about anything". I said that after this quote "The truly dangerous thing is that there is no way for a faith belief to gain primacy without violence" You need to re-read my comment.
    1
  4. +Illya Van Hoof That is wrong. Nothing in science is factual. When you study science for a living like I do you will understand.
    1
  5. +No Way You don't have to commit violence in religion. It isn't a problem in having no evidence. In reality with faith you can make evidence. Why does one exist? Because of god. There, simple.
    1
  6. +Albin Lundholm No it isn't. You can't sell me something that easily.
    1
  7. +No Way Wow, you have a very myopic view in life in general.
    1
  8. +Illya Van Hoof Nope, I just understand science. That tends to happen when you study something for a living.
    1
  9. +Illya Van Hoof It isn't, it is a theory. It gives predictions and has supporting evidence, but it isn't factual. If you ever study evolution (which is almost a grad. level course and isn't easy) you will see there is a lot of uncertainty to it.
    1
  10. +No Way Uh no you don't. You feel that the only way someone can accept other people's different ideas is by force. We can apply that to anyone. Example 1. Tom Brady is better than Manning 2. No he isn't 3. Oh yeah.......Brady fan beats up Manning fan All you have shown is your complete ignorance on the topic. People can have different faith and people can accept that and for the most part do. People act violently for several reasons.
    1
  11. +No Way Uh no. People have different beliefs for different reasons. There are several, and they are the majority, that have different beliefs and don't try to prove who's belief is right through violence. As I said you are being myopic and ignorant. It is like this 1. Jesus is bettter than Mohammed 2. No he isn't 3. Ok, I diasgree.......moves on.....no violence I have this feeling that you feel violence is used because you yourself are very violent. You need to get that looked at.
    1
  12. +No Way Violence is in human's nature. When someone is irrational they will act accordingly. No different then when two rival gangs kill each other. "Quite the opposite.  The farthest thing from a gun toting conservative.  " Liberals are pretty violent as well, look at Occupy Wall Street for one example off of the top of my head.
    1
  13. +Illya Van Hoof Because nothing in science is factual. It is clear to me that you have never studied evolution beyond a general biology class.
    1
  14. +No Way Ed Wilson and Richard Dawkins are two people. There are plenty of atheist that have done violent things. Take Joseph Stalin or Alfred Kinsey for example. Some of the most ruthless leaders of WWII were atheist, like Pol Pot for example. In the 20th century most war was not because of religion and some involved atheists. It was in the soviet union that christians were persecuted and to force atheism on the people. Occupy Wall Street blocked off road ways preventing workers from doing their jobs, even emergency vehicles. It pre-occupied cops to prevent them from doing their job. The vandalized private property as well.
    1
  15. +No Way Without religion there is still violence. This has been proven throughout the 19th and 20th century. People commit violent acts without motivation of religion. People commit violent acts due to the natural tendency of wanting to be dominate. It involves survival of the fittest and being the strongest species. That is a part of evolution......you know, science. Funny how people don't point towards science when it doesn't suit their agenda. No, I am saying that there people on the left that act violent as well. I can dig up even worse cases than that. ISIS is a terrorist group, and "christian right-wing" are a radical group as well. Does that reflect the entire group? No.
    1
  16. +No Way That is where you are wrong again. The majority of religious people are not violent. Human nature causes violence. This is shown that during the 19th and 20th century wars were not religiously motivated. There is a role for religion. You saying that we will be better off without it shows your violent nature yourself. Assuming you were raised in a semi-intelligent family I bet if you were raised in a family of lower income, or little intelligence then you will be acting out in violence as well. Religion does not encourage what you just said. As I showed you, some of the most violent world leaders were atheist. You are now comparing Mike Huckabee and Kim Davis to ISIS. That right there shows your ignorance. I guess I can compare Obama and Nancy Pelosi to Hitler and Himmler. Pelosi was involved in "intensive interrogation" with terrorist. You dig and shift for a handful of people and compared them to ISIS. As I said before, you are very myopic.
    1
  17. +No Way So if you were to take a religious person and put him next to another person who is religious then a fight will break out? How come we don't have more fights then. Do you really see what you are typing. I swear, I have seen more intelligent writing out of Pat Robertson, and he is a fool. Why are people OK with ISIS? They are a terrorist group. The Nazis? Poor economic times. Nothing to do with religion. Religion is not used against climate science except by the few radicals, like your buddy Pat Robertson which I feel you have the same intelligence as. Plus what I am saying with atheist leaders and violence is to show that violence comes from wanting power. Without religion violence will still exist. Once again you are comparing Huckabee and Davis to a terrorist group. But considering you have the intelligence of Pat Robertson I am not surprise. Like Pat Robertson you are a radical, just on the other side. You are so strung up on your belief that you feel others' are bad. And given the opportunity you will have no problem removing religion with force like Joseph Stalin did.
    1
  18. +No Way Ah no, a fight won't break out. Again you have a very myopic view on people......like Pat Robertson I am actually not on Pat Robertson's team. I am not religious. A lot of religious people won't associate themselves with Pat Robertson. He is a radical just like you. You are comparing people to terrorist group. You feel that all violence is from religion. You feel that if we were to put two religious groups together an all out brawl will break out which wont' happen. And if given power you will use it to end religion. As I said, you are just as asinine and myopic and Pat Robertson. Just like Pat Robertson and his handful of idiot followers will make fun of you hoping you will go away, you can do the same to him. Intelligent people like me will just see you as foolish.
    1
  19. +No Way I have never defended Pat Robertson once. I compared you to him because you and him think on the same level. The very fact that you can't even comprehend that shows you are not intelligent enough to be taken seriously.
    1
  20. +No Way No, he is a radical like you. I am not defending him, I am putting you on the same level as him. Radicals are dangerous as I shown you with world leaders who were atheist and destructive.
    1
  21. +No Way And someone who is radical has nothing to do with them being religious. You have to let it go both ways. It doesn't matter if someone is religious or not, a radical is radical.
    1
  22. I actually agree with that answer. Really nobody knows how old the earth. What Ben is saying is that if there is a god (which he believes that is, which doesn't make him stupid), then god can determine how we see things. God can determine the age of the earth. Yes we have carbon dating and what not, but that is only because god made it that way. That is what Ben is saying. I guarantee you Carson knows why scientist say how old the earth and universe is. What he is saying, and he said this before, is that if there is a god it is up to him in how we determine how old the earth is. Kyle, you are dumb for not understanding something so simple.
    1