​@@broodjeworst9701Why is that? I like both of them?

he even didn't eleminate reincarnation possiblilty

Well done!

Thank you! @@u.s.navy_pete4111

You were an excellent host, Tom.

Just a suggestion: try telling Richard it was an honour in private conversation, rather than posting this on a public chat.

Thanks! I did that too!@@RalphOK

What do yellow pages mean? Sorry, if it feels a stupid question. English is my second language.

In the past they used to have telephone books for phone numbers. Also, they would have a section in the "phone books" for businesses and they used yellow paper for the business section so you could easily identify it from the residential phone numbers. And to read any section of the "phone book" is considered boring. Hope that helped.

@@stardust_memories2260 For some reason I just got notified about this comment. Thank you for answering my question. It is helpful. Best wishes!

The Miracle of the Atom The Laws of physics that exist are due to the activity within the atom, which is finely tuned in order for us to exist and as we know atoms are required for life. The main energy level occupied by an electron during orbit is dictated by its fixed distance from the nucleus of the atom. This is relative to electron and proton attraction. There are constants within the atom, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the protons relative to each other. All orbitals that have the same value “N” being the main energy level relates to the quantum number and are said to share the same shell level. Protons are subatomic particles which are charged in relation to the nucleus, electrons are attracted towards them because they have opposite electrical charges; this fine tuning keeps them in orbit around the nucleus making the development of life possible as we know it. The atom is a miracle of design not an accident waiting to happen. Everything is made up of atoms which are finely tuned for the building blocks of life and also they create the environment necessary for the existence of life. The conditions on our own earth in particular are finely tuned being described as biophilic in which life as we know it can flourish. If any of the fundamental constants like the speed of light or the strength of gravity were to change just a little, then life as we know it would cease to exist. This realization has led some physicists to argue that our universe is intelligently designed, made especially for us, no accident waiting to happen. We live in a finely tuned universe perfectly primed in order to support life. There is irreducible complexity within the atom never mine the cell as atoms make up cells and are responsible for life as we know it. Atoms are unique and their atomic number dictates what substance or chemical property they have. Carbon for instance has an atomic number of 6 positively charged protons in the nucleus. Atoms are essential building blocks of life, for example the body contains fat which is made up of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms. Carbon atoms because of their unique make-up also bond strongly to other elements such as hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen because they have branches or rings of various sizes that contain thousands of atoms, carbon is quite accommodating with other substances. These have unique atomic numbers that make life possible. Atoms suffer from irreducible complexity because all the electrons, protons and neutrons must be present at the same time in a particular number and order, for the atom to function as a designated substance. This knowledge dispenses with the idea of mutations and natural selection relating to chemical interactions. Life on the earth is based on carbon chemistry. Carbon is used in organic matter such as our bodies for instance in order to maintain life. They silently carry out important chemical reactions within our bodies and they are essential to life on the earth. Carbon atoms make up the sun, stars, comets and the atmosphere of most planets. Carbon is found in coal, oil, diamonds and natural gas deposits. The atom is clearly designed and many physicists now recognise this, but they won’t use the word God or Creator, they would sooner believe aliens were responsible, but the question is then begged who made the aliens? The term atom really means invisible unit or uncuttable, and for a long time it was thought that the atom could not be split, but when they did, it produced the atomic bomb. An infinite intelligence made the various atoms which are so small and are measured as being one tenth of a billionth of a metre across. They are so small that they cannot be seen under a powerful microscope. We are led to believe that all our sophisticated atoms are derived from an invented primordial complex soup of chemicals which then produced the first living cells. Remember each atom is unique due to its composition and arrangement of subatomic particles relative to the number of protons in the nucleus. This is no accident waiting to happen! A primordial soup is purely fictitious and based on fantasy and imagination because men do not want to retain God in their knowledge. Jesus did not lie to us concerning him being the Son of God and the Saviour of the world. He said that men shall give an account for every idle word spoken, except they repent of their sins!

Prof. Dawkins shares Matt Walsh's view/questions on "gender". It's why he used that synonymous phrase. To him, "female" is a biological female of a species having sexual dimorphism. To him, female is only defined by sex.

Does it follow that you are a decent human being and those who are convinced of karma consequences are indecent human beings? Karma says aspects of personality are carried forward and that so long as one has the faintest trace of personality, one's actions have consequences. Do people not act in defiance of clear consequences? They do. But otherwise their actions anticipate results. Karma is logical, not didactic. Consequences are inevitable: You act according to your nature, or in accordance with your goals free from attachment to the results.

⁠@@thrinethran2885 he never implied that but answered an often repeated nonsense about the need for religion and an excuse to bully and discriminate atheists.

... or we cannot simply cover the head as easily as feet or torso because so much sensors have been installed in the head. That said, younger generation, especially males, seem to be wearing beanies everywhere so the hair in your head may become meaningless in a single generation already.

Thank you

And Rogen. Laughed my ass off on that one

Well, to a point…

​@@ihatespam2 he leaves the door open to the possibility of rebirth, different body. i often think about that. because we came from nothingness. it can't be just one time.

@@altankaracelik you don’t no we came from nothingness, you have no method whereby we may be reborn.and you state, “we can’t be just one time” when obviously, yes, we could possibly be just one time. Why is that so hard to fathom. Only our egos resist our mortality, none of our facts do. Check out Ernest Beckers Denial of Death if you’re interested.

Or you could answer the question.

I take the position that the question Is life inevitable or accidental? is a meaningless question. Life, as we know it, exists. 'Inevitable' and 'accidental' are words that have meaning on a human, everyday scale of inquiry. My thinking is that they lose their meaning when applied to the cosmic level. To think that it is a serious question is to be fooled by by the fact that it's stated in a way that is grammatically correct and sounds like the hundreds of times you heard those words used meaningfully.

The opposite of inevitable is evitable 😊

@@stevefromsaskatoon830 'Evitable'; it will happen. To ask of something that is, whether it is inevitable seems to me to be a quite empty and risible inquiry.

If life results in effects which are required or necessary for the whole of nature, it is inevitable in that sense only. If the effects of life are not required by the whole of nature AND life arose by chance, then either the whole of nature will succumb to life or life will be cut off from nature. As unlikely as it seems that nature as a whole should be overcome, as it were, by life -- there is one condition where that is plausible. Namely, where the whole of nature is itself alive. The question then becomes -- is this life inevitable? To whom?

With the "God-made-everything-for-us" belief, some could argue that the universe was made so huge so that humans could go forth and colonise it. Never mind that a lot of the other planets are completely uninhabitable.

Not at all. Religious people cherry pick whatever they want from their religion to excuse any behaviour.

In order to preempt the problem of selective morality, religionists have definite codes of ethics, such as the Ten Commandments of Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. In a number of areas, religious formulae are actually defining for manageability what is widely undefined and unmanageable. For instance, while various, non-biblical religions accepted polytheism, producing vast pantheons of God's, inclusive of human and animal characteristics, Judaism, Christianity and Islam narrow down from countless gods to but one, monotheism, which, of course, is far more manageable and sensible. Also, the Hebrew-Christian Scriptures resort to direct anthropomorphisms of deity, and only use animal characteristics in a clearly comparative and figurative way. Thinking of only humans as directly comparable to God avoids a taxonomic nightmare of exhaustively relating every species and subspecies to God, as well as problems with predation, parasitism, microbial and fungal infections, various biological defences of animals, etcetera. However, in that regard, the concept of trinity in the Bible is gender lopsided by comparison to males, with even the son of God dying. I have proposed more than once that if the concept of divine plurality, even as anthropomorphism, relates to comparison with the human family, then quadrinity would achieve this better, with figures of father, mother, son and daughter, which would more fairly and functionally represent the biological continuation of both males and females in a family. Also, the double lack of a definitive mother figure and daughter figure in the Trinity has not prevented polygamy from flourishing from ancient times to the present, although this is a very imbalanced system of gender relationships, and is one notable factor in the generational production of "les enfants terrible." Of course, Catholic priests are not at all married to all of the single females in the church, but to God. Therefore, the biblical trinity is not one of realistically minimal human family representation, but one of divine and mathematical efficiency. So, far from being selective ethicists, religionists are compulsive reductionists, adhering to moral and ethical imperatives. However, the more reductionist the anthropomorphic representation of God is, as with the one person monotheism of Islam, and the tentatively plural divinity of Judaism in the Bible, the more openly polygamous that religion tends to be, resulting in toxic frustration and in powerful fighting. The more powerfully reductionist trinitarians are, as with Catholic philosophy and practice, the more that a potentially polygamous structure, such as celibate priests and nuns vis-a-vis non celibate congregants, is maintained notwithstanding overt distancing from polygamous practice. Dominance is a breeding ground for lopsided family relationships and a polygamously projected economy, whether this be through slavery, colonialism and apartheid, through haves and have nots, or through dysfunctional, lopsided power relationships in the Middle East, wherein the hate part of the love hate inevitably reaches critical mass and, of course, explodes. In this regard, hopefully the United Nations will assist Israel, West Bank and Gaza to live peacefully alongside one another, and perhaps take a leaf from the multi-country Kurds as indicative of a genuine future, in which Earth Territories will not be defined ethnically, but equally by lines of latitude and longitude, and in which each ethnic or cultural group can have a multi-country presence, probably with Headquarters in a favourite country. G-d bless!

It’s fifty fifty

Mars 😃

Human life will probably survive but it most definitely will change, and evolve, probably for the worse momentarily and back for the better afterward depending on what catastrophy is caused either by humans or by the cosmos

I think you missed the point. “Life as we know it” meaning could it have gone another way. With different life forms, other than humans and birds etc. or perhaps not based on carbon at all, but some other chemical combinations. And your comments about, “of course a rabbit has rabbits,” seems to ignore the truth that when you follow the lineage of rabbits back far enough, it isn’t a rabbit. Rabbit is a convenient label for the current state of rabbit like species, not the product of a mold by a creator labeled “rabbits”. That’s what evolution proves.

* evitable accident

@@stevefromsaskatoon830 why?

@@James-ll3jb because we can't prove that it wasn't evitable and so it's evitable instead of inevitable

@@stevefromsaskatoon830 Inevitability is conceptually amenable to fate, not logic.

@@stevefromsaskatoon830 You can't 'prove' thatvthe sun will rise tomorrow, either. (Bertrand Russell, "Mysticism & Logic")

The universal fine-tuning argument says different. The Physical Constants were fine-tuned from the Beginning.

@@briansmith3791 there is no "fine tuning"; if there was, life would be everywhere.

@@ahmetdogan5685 I've just told you how the universe is fine-tuned. Are you a science-denier when it doesn't suit your beliefs?

@@briansmith3791 go back to kindergarten.

@@ahmetdogan5685 Poetry of Reality, 'Aliens, God...'. (31mins) Dawkins : " ...that these Constants are very finely tuned". Dawkins gives the physicists' view of universal fine-tuning. 'Unbelievable' talk with Francis Collins. Dawkins: ( 34m 20secs) ".. either you're going to stick with the fine-tuning argument, which is a good argument" They teach great things in kindergarten nowadays :)

It's you misunderstanding my fellow ape. The egg existed way before the chicken.

It's well known and accepted human ancestry starts none human. Dawkins comments in no way undermine evolution. Obviously you don't understand the science.

Wrong. The implication of the question is that the egg is a chicken egg. Otherwise the question would be pointless, like "Is 2 + 2 =4?". You don't understand language or logic.

@@sirbarringtonwomblembe4098 Only in your head my fellow ape. At no point does the question imply that! The egg pre dates the chicken, you don't even need a chicken for the egg. Chickens are birds and birds are dinosaurs, the non chicken ancestor had the egg 1st. Basic evolutionary biology knowledge. Your not using logic or understanding the language as you missing the obvious point.

It is NOT a simple question. Obviously if I see a chicken I know it came from an egg, & it's parents were chickens too. It is a famous philosophical/scientific question. It is a shorthand way of asking "Were all the ancestors of chickens back to the origin of life also chickens?". Only a fundamentalist Bible muncher would say yes. As I said, it is a famous philosophy/science question which doesn't have a simple 2 word correct answer. Hence the reason it was asked.

That's too simplistic, to the point of sounding racist. If you truly wish to understand evolution, a core idea is that genes evolved everywhere using the same/identical process -- everywhere -- it adapted to each local environment (temperature, viral/bacterial pathogens, length of daylight, aridity of land, etc.). The truth is many Europeans have "darker skin" -- southern Italians, Greek, Spaniards who get less skin cancer than northern Europeans.

I see you went down an unnecessary rabbit hole to explain difference between "warm/cold" countries. History says Greece, Rome & Egypt dominated the BCE "world". They were all warm. By the 1200s northern Europe ruled others (even within Europe). They first mass-produced guns (this let them dominate others). Evolution may explain why they made more/first guns -- because Europe's cold climates are harder to survive in, so they evolved to be more competitive/aggressive (to survive) -- thus inclinations to dominate others was programmed into them, which they did. Dominant countries control money. With money, they grow faster & prevent other countries from developing.

I agree with others who say this is too simplistic, not to mention racist and false. Imagine what the civilisations of “warm” counties like India and Australia and the Phillipines would look like today had it not been for European colonisation and the devastation it caused? Plus, the engine of Europes colonisation and Industrial Revolution were not their “hard working motivated genes”, but slavery.

"One day you'll confirm" That assumes your right, it could be you'll never know you was wrong? But seen what? Life? It's everywhere around you to be seen.

You did not got the Point.

@@holgerjrgensen2166 You never had a point... life isn't eternal, it hasn't always been. With that no one can confirm because when dead it's game over.

There is NO dead in real sense, You have Never seen your Self, what You see in mirror, is Not older than 1½ year. Some have to be Seen to be Known, and some have to Known to be Seen. You have Never seen your Self. How can You deny your own existence?

@@holgerjrgensen2166 What utter gibberish! Some of my cells replace/replenish daily but it's around 7 year for a complete body. I see myself every single day. And dead is dead as no one has ever came back to say otherwise. I don't deny my own existence. I deny the existence of what's making you delusional and speak nonsense.

Booo hissss!!!!

Do you have anything to back i.d? Outside of biblical claims like an explanation for biodiversity and the fact once no life and them millions and millions of years of life growing more complex? And what is designed intelligently exactly? Surly not an living animal today including us with all are inherited defects. The only working explanation is evolution and it's backed by a working theory of fact based evidence that's the corner stone of modern biology and underpins our whole understanding of modern medicine. It's a fact accepted by most Christians and Jews and non religious.

Evolution does explan empathy, we evolved to work together as pack animals and understanding others pain etc helps inform our survive individually and as a tribe and species. All emotions can be explained by our evolution.

Evolution isn't a religion, it's science. It's the most proven theory in all science backed by all fields of science. Religion requires faith and faith is exclusive to religion it means to believe without evidence. The complete opposite to science. Science is for all regardless of beliefs or lack of.

@@jameswright... Bullshit!!! Prove it. Wait you can't. Just saying it doesn't make it true.

@@jeremynolan852 I'm not just saying it my fellow ape, it's called science and the evidence is out there. Your just unwilling to look to protect your biased. Are we not a social species? Pack/tribal animals? What binds tribes/packs of animals? Do you accept evolution by natral selection? Do you have a better answer you can back with evidence for our emotions? One better than the corner stone of modern biology? One you can back with evidence?

​@jeremynolan852 yes there is science to support this theory, it's been written about in many books, try reading some

The design argument isn't atheist, atheist just don't because in unproven god. Most Christians and Jews accept non design evolution. Gravity isn't designed either and effects different areas differently. Logic is my used explains this, it's non logic to reject it as its backed by evidence my fellow ape. How can a theist logically explain all life is created when we know its not?

He explains it himself in so many books, try reading one?

Like the selfish gene actually isn't selfish, but selection. When you lose logic, you lose everything.@@kjguitar87

Gibberish! Pluto is a planet. Pluto is a dwarf planet. Planet moon is a planet. However, uneducated humans just Collett a moon. Read more non-fiction. In nature, male and female are specifically for reproduction. Any deviations in biology through nature is an unintended phenomenon. What a human believes they are is irrelevant to reality. For example, a human with multiple Jenna Tallia, by definition is a hermaphrodite. Naturally males and females are specific to their gender for the sole purpose of reproduction. KZfaq only supports pseudoscience. You have to use critical thinking and read more non-fiction. Dictionary. Encyclopedia. Thesaurus.

There’s a huge difference between male and female human brains.

That’s a logical fallacy consonance requires cognitive selection

Cognitive elections *

You've said sex is genitals and chromosomes. How is it, then, that a person can feel greater "consonance" towards the opposite sex when they have never actually been the opposite sex? They have never had the genitals or chromosomes of the opposite sex, and never can have the chromosomes or genitals of the opposite sex, so how could they ever feel a greater "consonance" for them? That's like saying you prefer vanilla to chocolate when you've never even tried chocolate. It's completely illogical.

```THE `````SHADOW KNOWS ~~~~ thinjk about THAT!

Religion is mythology. Mythology is fiction. Belief is a disease. Belief is a brain virus. That causes irrational and illogical thinking. Delusion! Stop insulting your own intelligence by speaking an allegory. Your comment was not biblical. Read more non-fiction. We can hear your mental illness and your comment. Embarrassing! Read more non-fiction. Dictionary. Encyclopedia. Thesaurus. For example, we are our star. What are you breathing? Oxygen is consciousness. Don’t test nature by holding your breath. Breathe! While breathing read more non-fiction.

Time is the fabric of the universe. Time is the reason for existence. Time is not a clock. Humans use clocks to end accurately measure time. What is your age? No star no growth. We experience time through our star. The sun. Read more non-fiction.

⁠@@tyroneallen7857the network of quantum sparks of enlightenment project fractal wisdom to those who have the insight to know telling someone else what to read after spilling a load of word salad comes off a little like undeserved condescension.

How can being atheist be a logical fallacy when its based on facts. The fact is no evidence for god exists. To say definitely is the fallacy. Religion is the practice of God worship, religious books are the only reason people think blindly there's a god. If you believe in god you are religious. Your terrible non poetry is a complete fallacy.

As for the Ukraine god beliefs are helping fuel the war especially from the Russian side.

You deeply misunderstand what you are pretending to be so wise about. You have thoughts and feelings about “A God,” great! Its a cliche and no revelation that many want to discard religion and still claim a god or some spiritual reality. But it is just talk and at best literature that can invoke feelings etc. but it doesn’t really add anything to the conversation. And this idea that Atheism is a fallacy is just ignorant. Anyone who has done more than a days research will tell you Atheism is not a position held. It is a label, for those who are not convinced of the reality of any god or gods. It fallacy proof! It may be that there is a god, but that does not mean I am incorrect to claim I am not convinced of it. If you are referring to those who are 100% convinced there are no gods then you should specify that, otherwise you are not “a poet that writes prose to be better understood,” just another person acting like they have it figured out.