Comments by "Moon Shoes" (@moonshoes11) on "NowThis Impact" channel.

  1. The problem is, her sarcasm is entirely in line with what MAGA would say.
    174
  2.  @samimas4343  No gods required.
    91
  3. Well done. Vote Blue 💙
    87
  4.  @samimas4343  Closed minded is thinking you have answers you don’t. Like assuming a god created anything.
    68
  5.  @afsah3305  Why? The Quran isn’t an authority of any kind. Judaism has holy texts, based on the god of Abraham myths. Christianity has holy texts, based on the god of Abraham myths. Islam has holy texts, based on the god of Abraham myths. Mormonism has holy texts, based on the god of Abraham myths. Jehovah’s Witnesses, also….based on god of Abraham myths. Remember, the Quran….like the Bible…is a book that makes claims about reality. They don’t demonstrate reality. Those claims need to be substantiated outside of the claims/books. That is where you will always fail, trying to demonstrate something that is unfalsifiable.
    61
  6.  @FATEH2708  Are you suggesting robots were created by gods? Yes or no? We have evidence to support the creation of robots by people. We also have evidence of things resulting from natural processes, like evolution. What we don’t have is evidence that supports the existence of any gods.
    51
  7.  @samimas4343  Or, he would be if he existed. Ask yourself, what does a god need with a gender identity?
    47
  8.  @samimas4343  This is very first level questioning. Keep asking questions, but don’t be settled on unfalsifiable answers. Step one: understand there is existence, but to label it a creation means you’re already adding an attribute to existence that is unwarranted. Poisoning the well, as it were. Can you offer an example of “nothingness”? What is “nothingness”? Was there ever a nothingness that could be measured or tested? Of course, we can’t. The problem is, even if we don’t know what caused the universe to come into existence, then the answer is “we don’t know.” That doesn’t mean anyone’s imaginary friend is responsible. God/Allah isn’t the default answer. This is known as the god of the gaps. Yes, we know you’ve become convinced of things that there isn’t evidence to support the claim. And that is the problem. You’re already convinced when it isn’t warranted.
    45
  9.  @FATEH2708  In the 1600s and before… There were people who believed demons were responsible for illness. We can demonstrate bacteria is real. All we are asking is for a good reason to conclude any gods exist. And you cannot deliver.
    38
  10. @Richard Stanley So, by your estimation… When we say “we don’t know”, we’re asserting we know? Either come with an intellectual argument or be mocked for not having the capacity to do so.
    38
  11.  @FATEH2708  Quran makes claims, gives faulty explanations.
    30
  12. @Richard Stanley But you can’t respond with an intellectual argument. Mock, mock, mock, mock, mock. You’ve been mocked.
    28
  13.  @FATEH2708  I’ve done the research. It is you who are convinced without warrant.
    24
  14.  @GwyndOwO  “There must be something appealing” doesn’t make it true, and doesn’t mean they’re educated for believing it. Most people that are religious are religious due to indoctrination, right? Part of the reason it is the fastest growing religion may be a result of what happens if you’re in a Muslim country, and you oppose the religion. This problem of the in crowd versus out crowd is common in most religions, and isn’t strictly an Islamic issue. The greatest contributions to math and science from Arab countries happened prior to Islam being popularized.
    22
  15.  @SL-lz9jr  Don’t under estimate your brain. You’re amazing too.
    20
  16.  @GwyndOwO  I wish you the best in pursuing your education and career in nursing, or whatever you choose to do. I appreciate the civil discourse. :)
    14
  17.  @GwyndOwO  But they still assign a gender, yes?
    11
  18.  @GwyndOwO  Curious if you’re going to address the believer for making an assertion about creation.
    11
  19. Well, he didn’t try to end democracy… so I would consider that a win.
    6
  20.  @devo2  When others were found to have documents, they gave them back. Trump is still refusing to give them back. There is a lawful process, and trump refuses to obey the law. Spend more than a weekend being sober. I dare you.
    5
  21.  @devo2  Sober up.
    4
  22. Perhaps this is about your expectations.
    4
  23.  @justcypher8808  Be specific. It’s good to have an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out. This is an example of why you’re wrong. You’ve concluded I am not open minded for believing things that aren’t true. You’ve concluded I am not open minded, but you can’t offer evidence to support your own beliefs. Perhaps you just have a low standard of evidence. The realty is, however, it likely isn’t evidence that makes you believe. But emotion. Now, if you’re willing and capable of having honest intellectual dialog….be specific. What am I being closed minded about? What claims are you able to make, that are supported by evidence that justifies any belief? I am not so closed minded that I can’t ask, right?
    3
  24. Give her away? Were either of their names on the title of ownership?
    3
  25.  @Dan0948  Look at how hard your try. Trying, and failing.
    3
  26.  @Dan0948  Look at how hard you’re trying now.
    3
  27.  @Dan0948  You didn’t cite sources, and you fail to understand the burden of proof is yours.
    3
  28.  @RawHeat100  Referring to “Darwinism” means you don’t have an understanding of the scientific theory of evolution. And you suggesting it is faith based means you consider faith unreliable. So, you’re half way there. You know faith is unreliable, and you want to say science is just as unreliable as your own beliefs. But…the problem is, science isn’t based on faith. It depends upon evidence, observation, and peer review. It would be better if you had an accurate understanding of science.
    2
  29. You’re referencing the Bible, which made slavery permissible by the word of god?
    2
  30.  @Dan0948  Look at how hard you’re trying, still. With a name like Tucker, you’ve got no merit. Do you even know what an oblate spheroid is?
    2
  31. Vote Blue 💙
    2
  32.  @macxfairley279  You have no idea what you’re talking about. Provide evidence.
    1
  33.  @bluetreats1321  If you have something you want to ask me, ask me directly. Otherwise, don’t “attack my beliefs”. I’m the one being called a fool, and I’m simply asking question. Your beliefs may not require you to be honest, but I’d prefer it you were.
    1
  34.  @FDE-fw1hd  Part of the scientific method is peer review. And the point of that is to show where science is wrong, not right. This means when science dis wrong, it self corrects. However, you’re correct that science doesn’t make truth claims, and findings are considered provisional based on best available evidence. What is in play is the null hypothesis. When a claim is made, it isn’t a matter of two options, reject or accept. Null is the default until the claim can be demonstrated. The problem is, god claims don’t come with evidence to warrant moving from null the acceptance. I hope this helps.
    1
  35.  @eclectic2327  Concepts of gods are created all the time.
    1
  36.  @sm0key0u31  Atheists aren’t claiming anything came from nothing. Can you offer a demonstration of “nothing”? Can “nothing” be tested? Did you god come from nothing? Or do,you need special pleading to say something can’t come from nothing, expect your god?
    1
  37.  @RawHeat100  Someone has been lying to you. Maybe you need a better understanding of what science say, what it is, and how it works.
    1
  38.  @bluetreats1321  By the way, the KKK is a religious group. How do you feel about their beliefs?
    1
  39.  @bluetreats1321  dear Kitten, please don’t pretend like you get to decide how I act or when I can ask questions. The beliefs you’re attacking is my beliefs on how to handle myself in the comments section. If you’re not familiar with the KKK, I’d suggest you google it. The point is religious beliefs don’t get a pass just because they’re religious beliefs. Religion demonstrably causes a lot of harm. Religious doctrine promotes poor methods of reasoning as if they are virtuous, and promote harmful actions, as if they are a moral standard. If you’re interested in honest, intellectual dialog, I’m willing to engage.
    1
  40.  @bluetreats1321  It doesn’t matter whether a guy is Muslim, or Christian, if the guy is making fallacious claims they can be called out.
    1
  41.  @RawHeat100  I don’t utilize faith of any kind. The facts that support the scientific theory of evolution are based upon observable evidence. You can’t offer anything close to what science offers.
    1
  42.  @RawHeat100  I’m aware who Darwin is. The point is, Darwin’s original concept has matured. But your insistence that evolution is “only a theory” reveals that you’re not even scientifically literate to understand that a scientific theory is the highest level a scientific inquiry can reach, and it is dependent upon facts. It is a model based on the best available evidence. It isn’t just some guess. And it isn’t based on faith whatsoever. The problem here is that you’re putting your beliefs before even your own understanding. This is why religion is harmful. You’re dead set against believing facts. And only,to,preserve another belief which you can’t demonstrate is true, and for which you cannot provide evidence to warrant belief. So, you’re,relying on faith,..which you openly admit is faulty and inferior, and you’re trying to saddle science with using an unreliable method. But again, science doesn’t depend on faith,
    1
  43.  @sm0key0u31  I’m willing to address your misconceptions if you’re willing to have honest intellectual dialog. Faith isn’t required to reject your unsubstantiated claims. Atheists aren’t asserting anything came from nothing. The current best understanding based on evidence is that the universe resulted from an expansion of what is referred to as a singularity. This singularity isn’t considered nothing. So you have a fundamental misunderstanding, which…with honest interest, could be resolved for you. Did your god come from nothing? Can you demonstrate any gods exist?
    1
  44.  @eclectic2327  What bearing does what have?
    1
  45.  @hiffahyphae6707  Make yourself familiar with the null hypothesis, for a better understanding. I’m not asserting there aren’t gods. I’m asserting there isn’t evidence to conclude any gods exist. Understanding the nuance is important. Also, learn to ask better questions.
    1
  46.  @eclectic2327  Is your argument that the god you imagine to be real is actually real? Can you offer any demonstration that any god is real? The only thing that matters when you make claims about the existence of any god or gods, is whether or not you can demonstrate those claims. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
    1
  47.  @JROCK100ification  Please stop pretending you understand science, especially when you don’t understand science. You can’t possibly know there was a world wide flood. You one and only source is a book that doesn’t depend on facts and doesn’t comport with reality.
    1
  48.  @eclectic2327  This is similar to the Kalam cosmological argument. You’re giving the name of the cause “God”l,then aren’t you applying attributes to this cause that aren’t warranted by your argument alone? If your “God” exists, and didn’t require a cause, then you’re using special pleading. Now, do yourself a favor and stop using this as an argument. It isn’t why you believe a god exists anyway.
    1
  49.  @eclectic2327  You apparently don’t know how philosophy works when you’re using a readily debunked argument, like the Kalam. At least be intellectually honest. Is this an admission that you don’t have evidence for your conclusion?
    1
  50.  @eclectic2327  We don’t know the universe was created. That is false. We understand the current presentation of our universe expanded from a singularity. We don’t know what caused the expansion. And again, you’re applying attributes to this cause that are not warranted by your argument. One problem you have here is that the universe came into existence. To suggest it was created means it was intended by a creator. You can’t demonstrate a creator, so calling it creation instead of existence is poisoning the well. And of course, you’re still using special pleading. These are level one, readily debunked arguments. So stop pretending you understand philosophy, and have honest dialog. Or do you believe so deeply that you cannot be honest?
    1