Al (UK) Lyrics

The world never asked for anything, taken for granted it soon gave into destruction.

And now we're rotting in the mess that you've made, this lies on you.
I was forged by the enemy, to take effect and bring a darkness in you.
You feel it now, I'm warning you, you bite the hand that feeds you,
the mind that reads you.

Blinded by the lack of faith you have in yourself.

And your eyes see what they want to see, they won't open up and start to believe in me.
You will not see potential in you on skin, you won't ever be so selfish to yourself.

Darkness, it surrounds me.
Like a sheet disguising me of reaching all i'd aim to be if I believed in who I am.
Not what I seem. It's harder for me.

I never thought I'd make a difference, to anyone or anything.
I was a shadow of your conscious state of mind.
It is not in the stars to hold our destiny.
Not is it in the sun but instead we search in ourselves.
I can believe that you don't see the truth, see me for who i really am.
Just open your eyes and follow your heart.
And your eyes see what they want to see, they won't open up and start to believe in me.
You will not see potential in you on skin, you won't ever be so selfish to yourself.

Contributed by Liliana J. Suggest a correction in the comments below.
To comment on specific lyrics, highlight them
Genre not found
Artist not found
Album not found
Song not found
Most interesting comments from YouTube:

Andrew B.

@Colin Java
1. Very true, details are very important, but the Bible does not record the exact medical details regarding Jesus's death. Rather, it records the event of Jesus's Resurrection. I have no idea how the Resurrection worked haha, but again, I think that just because one does not know how something happened does not mean that it did not happen. I think that if someone claimed to know exactly how Jesus rose from the dead, medically speaking, I would be extremely skeptical. If I may be so bold so as to speak from my limited view regarding an unlimited being's will, based on the very little information that I know, it appears that God's purpose is not for us to know how He rose from the dead, but that He did. Not only that He did, but that He did so for us.

2. In terms of Jesus' body, I'm not sure. There could be a physical dimension to Heaven, somehow? Maybe the body is transformed? No clue. I'd have to look into the arguments of theologians and philosophers. I'm actually watching a really cool debate right now between Father Gregory Pine (theist) and Ben Watkins (atheist). Ben posits (briefly, about 12 minutes after the hour mark I think?) that it is possible that Heaven has some sort of physical dimension to it. Honestly, i have no idea how that would work lol.

3. Good point in regards to His death and Resurrection! Jesus's sacrifice was being an innocent being that experienced pain and death to its fullest extent as full God and full man, so that a) humankind's debt could be repaid by one who was full human and b) so that the sacrifice was blameless and infinitely sufficient (which is why it had to be God, who has committed no sins). It's like if an innocent person willingly went to death row for a crime committed by a loved one in order to pay their debt full them. If you are interested, St. Anselm has some really insightful writings (I can recommend specific readings if you want, lemme know! I need to reread them myself). Jesus was dead in the sense that death is one passing from this life into the next, typically by one's soul leaving their physical body. So Jesus endured immense pain and suffering on our behalf, even though He had never committed a single sin, and then died. He was then Resurrected, and in doing so, I think the belief is that He demonstrated His power over death.

4. In regards to sacrifices, I do not think that sacrifice on the whole is a good thing, far from it. The practice of ancient practice of sati in India, human sacrifice performed by the Canaanites, human sacrifice performed by the Aztecs - I think that we can universally agree on that being a bad thing - well, if you believe in objective morality, that is. I think we would need to look into the specific sacrifices that you are mentioning and compare the victims of the sacrifice to the victim of the Crucifixion (Jesus). I think in every case, the Crucifixion event is far different from any other sacrifice performed.

5. In terms of Adam and Eve, I wouldn't quite put it in the category of being cow dung haha. Here is a helpful passage from a book called the Catholic Guide to the Bible by Father Oscar Lukefahr, CM: "The Catholic Church teaches that Genesis is not in conflict with modern scientific theories of creation, including those that allow a place for evolution, as long as these do not deny the existence of God and the fact that all things find their origin in God. Genesis is concerned with religious questions, the why of creation. Science is concerned with what is observable, the how of creation" (pg. 42). Now, I really have to finish reading this book because it touches on most all of the Biblical questions that you are asking, but the basic point is that Genesis teaches us religious truths: God created the Earth out of love, God is good and His creation was good but then fell as the result of some sort of turning away event. So original sin was committed, but it wasn't necessarily committed by a single man named Adam and a single woman named Eve. Rather, it was most likely committed by a group of people, or perhaps by a group of people over time.

6. I think that we are trying to prove God's existence, but it's better to start at philosophical conversations of God's existence and then, once it is established that there may be a higher power behind the creation of the universe, or at least once beliefs that there is no way God could be real are called into question, then it is time to move into who/what exactly this higher power is (in my belief, this higher power being the Christian God, and it is during this stage that comparison of evidence for/against different religious worldviews makes sense)

Colin Java

@Andrew B. The details are important though, and don't forget the bible has been copied and translated god knows how many times.

How does the ressurrection work anyway?

Where is Jesus's body, it was made of atoms, so where are they now?

Makes no sense to me, he died, then came back to life (so where's the sacrifice), but was still sort of dead as he was in "heaven"

The sacrifice thing is found in earlier religions from India, China, Japan, so what an amazing coincidence it is that your God that created 2,000,000,000,000+ galaxies was also a fan of sacrifices (which are a petty human invention - just to be clear).

Then there's the Adam and Eve thing which you acknowledge is bullshit, so man didn't really sin, so no need to be saved by god of a punishment that he created for us.

Then you say god could do anything he wanted such as letting those dead bodies crawl out of their graves/tombs.

But your conditions are that god exists and he is the Christian god, and he became Jesus.

I guess that's true, but that's some very heavy conditions there you have to assume, it's circular really as we are trying to prove god, but you assume god so you can get the weird stuff like the zombies which you use to make god look more likely, it's all circular.

Colin Java

@Andrew B. yeah you can truly investigate science, history, philosophy and come to the wrong conclusion, people are flawed.

So you think around 2000 years ago a load of dead bodies came back to life and dug themselves out of their graves and went for a nice walk.

So how did that happen, even if they were only buried a couple of days earlier, then A), they would be in a coffin, so how would they get out? Or B) not in a coffin, so just buried with zero air, how would they get out?

And it's unlikely they were just recently buried anyway, so even if they came back to life, a half rotted body is gonna be unable to dig it's way out.

I even struggle to get out of bed in the morning and I'm not half rotted away.

If that's what you believe, then I think you have lost your mind, or maybe you just accepted it without thinking it through.

Tell me if you still believe it after my analysis above.

Andrew B.

@Colin Java I would agree with you then, using faith to justify a belief with insufficient reason to believe such a thing is credulity, and that is blindly following. However, using faith in the way that you refer to when you talk about believing in something within the context of reason and evidence is something I agree with; its quite similar to the true faith of religion. Now, believing in God has huge implications, so even if the decision to follow God is made within the context of reason and evidence, the gravity of the decision and its implications can be a bit intimidating. But I believe that it can be done within the context of reason, because in the end, Faith is "putting your faith in someone", that someone being God.

Faith-based decisions made after reasoning has occurred is the way that truth is found, I would say. Even if there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution (which I and most Catholics agree with), you still were not there at the beginning of time, and so you are putting faith in your ability to reason and the scientists' logic, however solid it may seem. The same is true for putting one's faith in God; if you truly investigate history, religion, philosophy, science, and so on with an open mind, you can make the decision within a context of reason to conclude that there is a God and to attempt to enter a relationship with Him.

I would say that you are making a generalization when saying that no person has provided any good reasons for believing in God. There are plenty of people who believe in God with a credulity and lack of rationale for doing so; this is not what God calls us to do. He calls us to learn about Him, pursue the Truth, and come to know Him as best we can. There, however, are many people who have solid reasons for believing in God, and they may be underrepresented (this is because many people use strawmen arguments that they can easily cast aside; this is done both by Christians and atheists). I would also agree with St. Thomas Aquinas in saying that if a decision to believe is made out of fear, then it is blind opinion, not faith. If a decision is made in the context of reason, then it is true faith.

Regarding the person of Jesus, we briefly talked about Him, but I don't think we even scratched the surface regarding arguments for and against His historicity. In order to do that, you and I would both need to continue to pursue the truth by listening to/reading the arguments of reputable scholars and historians.

To answer your question, I do believe that the passage in Matthew holds truth, and that it is possible that if Jesus was Resurrected, which I firmly believe, then other bodies could have been resurrected by His power, too. However, I have not studied the intent of the author, the historical/cultural context, or the linguistics of the passage enough to come to a conclusion regarding the exact intent behind that passage.

In terms of the Resurrection of Jesus, there is plenty of evidence for it, which I will not be able to present as well as the historian Gary Habermas does. NT Wright also makes a good case for the Resurrection. In order to truly challenge your current notion regarding the Resurrection, I recommend you watch their content; they will argue it far better than I will.

I appreciate your concern, but I feel that it would be intellectually dishonest if I turned away from pursuing the truth, which I believe leads to God. Experience and reason have led me to firmly believe in Him after having doubted His existence for the past two years. I think it's awesome that you're asking these questions, and again, it's apparent that you have a critical mind. I invite you to keep asking these questions, but not to sit with them; pursue the truth openly and I truly believe it will eventually lead you to God.

Thank you for the conversation! I really enjoyed it. I will research your early argument for determinism, in addition to your arguments against the Bible and the historicity of Jesus with an open mind. I would love to know of any authors/scholars you recommend! Again, I would invite you to do the same for some of the topics that I have brought up; it is certainly up to you, but I believe the question of God is far too important not to look into for the duration of our short lives.

Realest Realist


For the record I don't know that any deity exists; I don't claim to know that any deity exists; and I don't know that it is even possible to know that any deity exists; however, that's neither here nor there. This particular discussion is about whether or not free will exists. There are multiple perspectives of what free will is (etymologically, theologically, historically, colloquially, and philosophically), so let's explore them.

Etymologically, fee will is defined as follows.

Collins Dictionary: " Freedom of decision or of choice between alternatives."

Macmillan Dictionary: "The idea that people can choose what to do and are responsible for their own actions."

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary: "Voluntary choice or decision."

Oxford Dictionary : "The power to make your own decisions without being controlled by God or fate."

Etymological free will, as defined, exists.

Whether or not our options are limited by causality or probability is irrelevant, as neither of these is addressed by any of the definitions of free will. Whether or not our decisions are prompted by an external source is also irrelevant because this is likewise unaddressed by the definitions; therefore, indeterminism is not required for etymological free will.  The decision made is made by a biochemical process as a reaction to external stimulus; however, said process is ultimately an internal mechanism, which means that it satisfies the definitions of the term.

Theological free will exists.

Theologically, free will is the ability of the individual to act without his or her actions being compelled by some divine presence. If it is assumed that no deity exists, it follows that one's actions cannot be compelled by a nonexistent entity. Alternatively, even if a deity does exist, which is all that the propositions of theism and gnosticism suggest, such an existence is not mutually exclusive to the existence of free will. Indeed, even if an omniscient and omnipotent deity, as asserted by the Abrahamic faiths, for example, exists, the fact that a deity possessing those attributes could compel our actions through manipulation of circumstances beyond our control does not imply that said deity has done so. For example, a Deistic interpretation of a god could still possess those attributes while not having any active role in our lives.

Colloquial free will exists.

Based on the article regarding two studies conducted by psychologists Adam E. Monroe, Ph.D. of Appalachian State University and Bertram Malle, Ph.D. of Brown University, the folk concept of free will is defined by the capacity to choose based on one’s desires (Malle & Monroe, 2009). The origin of those desires is not relevant because just as in the etymological variant, the folk concept doesn't address the source of desire. Any deterministic or probabilistic elements are also irrelevant as the folk concept of free will already accounts for them.

Historical free will exists.

The concept of free will has remained the same for some 1500 years. Epicurus said, "some things happen of necessity, others by chance, others through our own agency," (Epicurus, n.d.) which shows just as in the case with the modern concept, but causality and probability were established to be compatible with the concept of free will, as it was asserted to exist. Free will demonstrably has never required indeterminism or a complete absence of prior causes.

This leaves only philosophical free will, the literal kind that Sam Harris and others address. There are two ways to consider this perspective. As Harris mentions, everything is part of the same causal system. He even explains that everything that we feel, know, and think comes from external stimuli.  This means that, if one argues that to have free will would require one to be able to make decisions separate from any external stimuli or prior causes, one could not have a will at all because without any such external stimuli, not only would there never be any impetus to act, one would have neither experience nor knowledge with which to act or to even form desires. Alternatively, if one argues that we do have a will, then because the existence of a will requires external stimuli and prior causes, then this presupposes the very same thing that every other concept of free will already presupposes.

At any rate, if one prefers the former option, this is, as stated previously, a definist's fallacy because the kind of free will that Harris refutes demonstrably (via the citations provided) isn't the what those who believe in free will assert--whether it be the etymological version based on its preexisting definitions, the theological version without divine compulsion, the modern folk concept, or the historical concept. Sam Harris effectively disproves something that believers haven't asserted. The only legitimate argument that one can levy at free will based on what it is asserted to be is that (because it admittedly is not literally free) the term is misleading due to prefix "free" being attached to the term "will," the existence of which has heretofore been presumed. In short, if we have a will at all, then it is free to the degree that it has ever been claimed to be my most. The only variant that does not exist is libertarian free will which is self-refuting.

Epicurus. (n.d.). Letter to Menoeceus. Translated by Robert Drew Hicks. MIT.

Malle, B. & Monroe, A. (2009). From uncaused will to conscious choice: the need to study, not speculate about people’s folk concept of free will. Review of Philosophy and Psychology. pp 211-224

Nova Vee Valentine

Dear David ....

here is an analogy

in order for me to talk to you about the color Red you need to understand that you have to have eyes to see ,and that you are not color blind ,and that you see the color red like i do without any distortion

your issue is that your God never saw the color red ..not only that he never even KNEW that there was a color like the color Red in fact we called it Red after finding it thanks to Dr Redrick which the color red was named after

now i dont mind if he didnt know but your god is omni omni omni omni .translation . he is every where at all times knows every thing and planned for every thing while he created every thing.. INCLUDING THE FUCKING COLOR RED THAT HE NEVER SAW OR KNEW OF ITS EXISTENCE!!!

either we are all crazy or God is

if you cant comprehend what i just said then you should not be the internet trying to talk to anyone

you made a claim that god god god god and god there for when i say i dont believe you are the one facing some thing called bourbon of truth look that up
what is worse is that when i say i dont believe you then PROVE YOU WRONG BY POINT OUT WHERE WHY AND HOW
do not use god's omni omni omni omni omni as an answer..... that's called circular reasoning

omni this omni that....

go back to school

kaizen ryan

As a Christian whenever I pray to God I feel good, and prayers really work,God really hears prayers and does what we ask him,if the thing we're asking is okay for him or if it is according to his will.
My small testimony:
I'm a 14 year old kid and I have a little bit fat and shorter than many people in my class and there are also fit and tall people in my class,but still I was able to win a lot of silver and one gold medal in running race by praying to God for help.
One of my friends also asked how I run that fast with that unfit body
I'm really not lying.

And BTW you don't have to pray 10 times about the same thing for hours
God will hear your prayer even if you pray for 2min,if you pray with full faith and if you trust him with your whole heart.
My God did a lot of good things to me,and helped me a ton
God is great,kind and good for sure my brother

Anyway have a good day

All comments from YouTube:

Matt Harding

I used to pray to god every night for a new bike, but i realised he doesn't work that way so i stole one and prayed for forgiveness instead...

Benny 91

this great idea my friend.



Matt Harding

@zina salem Nonsense, there clearly is no god, give it up

zina salem

one day you will pay for it, judgment day
we are at a test right now and if you cheated you will be punished , you have to be patient and work hard.



52 More Replies...

Carlos Sanchez

“The function of prayer is not to influence God, but rather to change the nature of the one who prays.” - Soren Kierkegaard

Youra Beyta

@SnooPINGAS Usual I see Can you use the scientific method to prove this?

2l84 me

Then you don’t need to pray for that.

Dave Lomabao meyn

First define the word prayer

And if we know it, then we will realize that this is not for changing the nature of the one who prays
It is for requesting something

More Comments

More Videos