Re: Kirk Cameron gets Owned. Evolution is a myth!

[kingbushwickthe33rd]

Dude!!WTF???

[peacelf]

@kingbushwickthe33rd Well, that's just what I think abut the whole argument! LOL

Honestly, I don't know what happened, and I don't know how to delete it.

peace

[Tlevids]

This is what creationists hear when sophisticated biology professors attempt to explain evolution to them.

[peacelf]

@Tlevids yeah, it somehow got erased. sorry.

peace

[DragonsREpic]

@peacelf wtf vid is this? is there somthing wrong with my computer

[SanRafaelSwell]

Okay so this video is nothing but static audio and fast forward video. Odd. Evolution (the natural process by which new species arise) is an observed fact, end of story.

[peacelf]

@SanRafaelSwell. People like Kirk Cameron scare me. I don't know what happened to my video, but I agree on evolution. I believe in evolution. I've studied the evidence, first hand, as a university science student. However, as I explain in this incoherent video, science can explain HOW things work, but not WHY things work the way they do. That mystery, until solved, is "God" the creator. Does that make sense?

[SanRafaelSwell]

@peacelf

Makes sense. I suppose though I can't follow the rational used. I see no use what so ever in having faith in something unknown and non-existant. I happen to be an atheist. Theism is an archaic paradigm that needs to be gotten rid of. It holds our species back from our true potential. I wonderful historical example of this is the Dark Ages, brought on by christian superstition. They lasted for 900 years. If it weren't for religion we would be 900 years ahead of where we are now.

[peacelf]

I would argue that ignorance, not Theism, holds back human intellectual evolution. The problem with religions is the perpetuation of ignorance through biblical literalism, dogma and wealth and power. The wealthy benefit by keeping a segment of the population ignorant and frightened. Atheists latch onto the current wave of ignorance as proof that there's no mystery in the universe, because of the arrogant ignorance the fundamentalists. There are enlightened Christians, Muslims, Buddhists.

[SanRafaelSwell]

@peacelf

Agreed, religion promotes willful ignorance. I never claimed there was no mystery in the universe and most atheist wouldn't. There is plenty of mystery out there without us having to invent more with religion. We don't know what causes gravity. The atheists' answer is to investigate. The theists' answer is "god did it." Such answers staunch free inquiry (Dark Ages). 

[peacelf]

You have to admit that so far the Big Bang theory of the creation of the universe doesn't explain what or who set it off. God fills the vacuum of mystery for those who lack the knowledge or understanding to fill that void. To not believe in God as a creator is to believe in "nothing" or something equally inscrutable as a creator of the universe, so why is it so difficult for atheists to allow a Creator/God, a supreme being. Right now at a CERN lab in Switzerland, a mini big bang is tested...

[SanRafaelSwell]

@peacelf

First you have to show there was a what. Then you can attempt to show there was a who. It is difficult for rational people to accept things that lack evidence. There is NO evidence for a creator of any sort and thus believing in one when there is NO evidence is irrational. No, creation of a "big bang" at LHC would NOT support the creation of the universe by a god. I would ONLY support the current Big Bang model.  (cont).

[peacelf]

cont. So, if CERN physicists are successful in pulling off a big bang, and create a mini universe, then that makes our creation plausible, does it not? I agree that the current fundamentalists' interpretations of "God" has spawned the modern atheist movement, because fundies seem so ridiculous. As a former educator, I never blame people for their ignorance, nor do I discount everything the so-called ignorant say or believe. This is not about "faith" in God. It's embracing mystery as God.

[SanRafaelSwell]

@peacelf

Embracing mystery as god? So are you going to worship mystery? That seems even more over board than your regular run of the mill theism to me. Filling the gaps of our knowledge with supernatural things is just plain stupid. Its no better than blaming Zeus for lightning. It is the EXACT same thing.

[peacelf]

I just gave you more evidence than physicists had for black holes long before they had "evidence." I'm no fool. I'm not talking about a god that intervenes in everyday affairs, or an old man with a white beard sitting in heaven, etc. I'm saying just as scientists at CERN want to simulate the big bang and black holes, something may have created our universe. The "proof" is that the universe is less likely to have started from nothing. We know where lightning comes from.

[SanRafaelSwell]

@peacelf

And this idea of a god will die just like the idea of Zeus. What you basically just said is that if certain experiments with the LHC pan out it will disprove god. I agree. Of course something created our universe. According to M Theory it was to branes smashing into each other. What evidence did you give me?

[SanRafaelSwell]

@peacelf

As an aside, Buddhism is "supposed" to be atheistic. Siddhārtha Gautama, the founder of Buddhism, said that clinging to a belief in a god/s is childish and something adult shouldn't do. He said it was another attachment that prevented one from attaining enlightenment.

[Secundinius]

Wow... i've been owned.

Carol Anne - listen to me. Do NOT go into the light. Stop where you are. Turn away from it. Don't even look at it.

Just felt like quoting The Poltergeist after watching 1:38 of static and some old mans face bobbing around the screen.

[peacelf]

You should see my videos on Jesus and God on my youtube channel. I would appreciate any comments you have.

peace

[AnnymsVoice]

Great insight....I have seen what the bleep do we know very good stuff.

[urantivirus]

Religious faith does absolutely nothing good for you. There's no reason to look for god in our questions. Religion only brings discrimination and burden on modern science. And allows people to remain ignorant. Why would a scientist look to anything but logic? If we try and answer a question with god, we'll never progress. Religion is a very old life style. I honestly can't believe that people in this day and age still buy into that crap. Education should fix that for the most part.

[peacelf]

uran, I don't know how you can say that religious faith does nothing good for you when you don't know me at all. If you want to generalize all people of faith based on fundamentalism, then I can see your point, but you must realize that most religious people are not fundamentalists and they have brains and think for themselves.This may need some revisions, since I change my mind about things as soon as I learn better or different. cont.

[peacelf]

cont. However, the basic premise, that science offers as few answers as religion is still valid. And, since humans are still looking for answers to "why are we here?" I will defend spiritual searching as well as science. I defend both. I don't discount scientific discoveries like Most Christians, so I believe in evolution, the big bang theory and that the earth is 4-5 billion years old in a 13 billion year old universe. What I call "God" is more moral conscience, than supreme being.

[patrickledford420]

@peacelf um, science offers as few answers as religion? no, that is just wrong, religion has NO answers just assumptions.

[peacelf]

@patrickledford420 science can tell us HOW some things work, but it cannot explain WHY these laws exist, or the creation of those laws. I would not say "religion" but spirituality satisfies many people because they learn to embrace mystery. Many organized religions try to answer questions in some very ancient, and therefore immature ways, so atheists tend to get their underwear in a bunch over some of the "crazy" ideas evangelicals and fundamentalist Christians espouse. I agree with crazy.

[patrickledford420]

@peacelf well, spirituality doesnt give you the whys and you dont need it to embrace the whys. i dont mind people being "spiritual", i dont know exactly what you mean by that but it doesnt bother me, just the religions do. also its not just the christians, its almost all religions that cause problems

[gordonr99999]

Read anything by Norman Geisler.

[Medhiv83]

listening to both arguments is what got us into the mee in the first place ... scientists are most likely to agree that we, as of yet, don't know everything 100%, creationist on the other hand use this as a weakness to discredit all of science ...

some part of me wishes that creationist would win, only to see how they's cope with the new dark ages they have brought upon themself ... creationist are the apex of human (willfull9 ignorance and/or stupidity

[peacelf]

There's room for both.

peace

[cameron0]

Why is this movie called "Evolution is a myth"?

[peacelf]

This is originally a response to a video called Evolution is a myth.

[assblaster17]

WACK WACKA WACKA!!!!!!!!!!!!

[assblaster17]

"Why" is an irrelelivant

who cares

there is no god

[peacelf]

ass, I didn't say there was a "god," but "Why" still matters to most people, including you. You're just afraid to ask an unanswerable question.

peace

[assblaster17]

Justice is blind, but I trust you

Dare devil!

[TheFallibleFiend]

The opposite of creationist is not atheist. Many religious people, including Christians, are evolutionists.

Physicists don't necessarily try to figure out why we're here. Evolution does not rely on atheism.

Einstein did not explain the Big Bang.

I agree science doesn't try to explain why we're here. Science doesn't address the subject of god at all.

[peacelf]

fallible, Thoreau wrote "Even atheism may be popular with God." The point is, God is the unanswerable mystery of the universe; God is imagination and creativity. God is those values we should all hold sacred, like Love, compassion, justice and hope.

peace

[k9lionheart]

I disagree that physicists are trying to find out "why" we are here. Individual physicists may have personal opinions on that issue but its outside their scientific practice. They are trying to figure out more of how things came about, not why.

[peacelf]

k9, I point out that the 'how things work' question is more important, but doesn't it ultimately lead to 'why are we here'?

My point is simply that both scientists and religious or spiritual people want the same answers from different perspectives.

[k9lionheart]

I personally think when one starts on the question of "why" they have left the realm of science and are now going into the arena of philosophy and theology.

[peacelf]

science is not all their is, my friend.

peace

[k9lionheart]

I never said it was

[damdarch]

Also, you say "at the quantum level, stuff happens for which there is no explanation." Only about 60 - 80 years ago we said the same thing about the molecular level. But now we know much more. Just because we do not have scientific explanations for something doesn't mean they don't exist.

[peacelf]

damdarch, you are absolutely correct about what can happen 80-90 years from now, and I suspect religion will change too. What I don't see in many criticisms of religion is a specification of fundamentalism as the culprit of denying science. Most Christians believe in evolution, quantum theory (what little they understand)> Your beef is with fundies or evangelicals who deny scientific evidence. I do not deny any of it, and I have more than a superficial knowledge. cont.

[damdarch]

I don't understand what you mean by "scientists can say how things work but not why." Science can tell us how things work ('evolution is change in gene frequencies in a population') and why ('which can occur due to selection, or drift etc'). Are you referring to moral or ethical reasons for why things work as they do? If so, you are correct: science does not treat moral or ethical questions. That is the realm of religion and philosophy which is where this design controversey should be taught.

[peacelf]

My point in the "how" v. "why" question is why do planets follow a trajectory? Why do quarks appear and disappear? Why does energy appear only when one looks in that direction?  In other words, how is the order created? Or is it just there? Religion and philosophy push us onward as the source of inspiration to find answers to our existence. Science itself is neutral without someone seeking answers.

I made this video early in my thought processes. I may have changed my mind since; )

[peacelf]

cont 3. Moreover, I am a philosopher who greatly appreciates religious truths, or better yet, I am a Christian who follows the neo-traditional teachings of Jesus, but I'm not a fool. Science is in it's infancy, along with humanity. Darwin and bloodletting are not that old.

peace

[tristambeow]

the so-called war against christianity is a total sham. christianity is a moral, philosophical and cultural phenomenon practiced primarily by the west, and in that respect, is similiar to the other religions of the world that, in turn, reflect their own culture. it's no more true or untrue than any other religion but...it's ours (the west's). i will admit that christianity should play less of a role in our society and be relegated to the likes of say...Japanese Shintoism ie, ceremonial only.

[peacelf]

As a moral or philosophical agnecy, religions can/should influence the character of a nantion by criticizing certain behavior. However, when religion gets out of hand, someone needs to criticize it, and that's where I come in. I am also criticizing science because it acts as if it's amoral, but it bulds bombs and weapons and kills thousands of people a year all in the name of what?

(Not) peace

[prede89]

"Einstine and I would take his word for it..." LOL nice quote there man! Another good quote is "WoW that's soem heavey shit!" lol!! I have allways believed in both God and sceince. AND the science of today, can be proven wrong tomorrow. Also I don't fundamentalist christians very much. They are a group of crazy people...lol. But that's all fundamentalist I sapose.

[peacelf]

Cornell West says there are two kinds of Christians: Constantinian and prophetic Chrsitians. The Constantinians are imperialist Christians. They were the Christians who used the Bible to justify all kinds of bad things like slavery and war. The prophetic Christians are those who see it as our responsibility to criticize imperialism, to challenge evil at the political level, since that is where mass corruption, greed and wealth and power reside. Guess which one I am?

[prede89]

I would have to go with the second one of course :P, lol. Anyone who uses the bible to justify anything "bad", is not understanding what the main point of the bible is. They should read it again. Oh and for the record I'm catholic.

[peacelf]

prede, I've stood side by side with many wonderful Catholic peace activists, several of them Nuns and preists. It baffles me to think that too many other so called Christians COULD see war and violence as part of God's divine pan. History is always written by the rich and powerful. Jesus' message was usurped by rich people. I want it back!!!

[macman13]

"Scientists' faith is conditional, based on the truth."

In other words, it isn't faith.

[peacelf]

"truth" is serial, it changes over time. My point in that statement is that faith is and should be conditional, based on truth as it changes, and faith is imagination. Without imagining something different, something MORE, we would not evolve as a species. So, yes, it's faith.

peace

[macman13]

"My point in that statement is that faith is and should be conditional, based on truth as it changes"

Also known as, NOT faith. Faith is belief without and often in contradiction to evidence. If faith is contingent on evidence, it is NOT faith.

[peacelf]

macman, faith is not based on lack of evidence. It's just based on experiences of individuals and others. Science puts their "faith" through rigorous testing and research. Christians don't usually test their notions. But, again, you are basing your arguments on fundamentalist Christians, not liberal Christians who may believe in evolution and scientific theory. Our belief in God, creator of all things, is not mythology, but trying to grasp our existence spiritually.

[macman13]

"faith is not based on lack of evidence."

Faith - trong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension RATHER THAN PROOF.

[peacelf]

Are scientists (physicists) not searching for a "theory of everything" like string theory? They are looking for a single unifying theory of reality.  That's fine for the physical world, but there are more esoteric, metaphysical questions that science doesn't answer. What about imagination? Scientists work with their imagination, too. They imagine a universe, a physical characteristic, then try to describe it, like string theory--it's faith.

[macman13]

"That's fine for the physical world, but there are more esoteric, metaphysical questions that science doesn't answer."

Yes, SCIENCE IS NOT FAITH AND FAITH IS NOT SCIENCE. YOU were arguing that scientists base what they conclude on faith, you now seem to be changing that idea.

"They imagine a universe, a physical characteristic, then try to describe it, like string theory--it's faith."

No, it's math.

[peacelf]

mac, You mean to tell me that scientists don't have "faith" in their math? I have faith in their math, otherwise I wouldn't believe the stuff they tell me, since I cannot see it or touch it. And, unless you're an astrophysicist or understand all that math, I'd have to assume you take their word for it too.?

I think you assume I don't believe in science. I do, AND I believe in GOD. I'll let you mull that over.

[macman13]

"mac, You mean to tell me that scientists don't have "faith" in their math?"

Yes, because you can PROVE math.

"I have faith in their math, otherwise I wouldn't believe the stuff they tell me, since I cannot see it or touch it. "

I don't know about you, but I can see math.

[peacelf]

Has not mathematicians made mistakes before, not just in their calculations, but in their theoretical designs. String theory is one of those theories, as I understand it, that there's debate about it's "proof."

I am not backtracking on anything. I made an assertion about faith and I'm having a dialectical debate with you to learn if my theory is correct. Honestly, everyone has faith in something. If they don't, why live?

[peacelf]

cont 2. Faith is hope and God/Jesus provides hope for Christians. How does science and math provide hope for scientists? Do they not want answers? Just because they ahve the intellectual tools to find scientific answers doesn't mean those of us who are less knowledgable in math and physics take what we can get and God fills that void. Should we all just have faith in scientists who brought us bombs and destruction?

Math is just numbers on a blackboard to me; )

[brucemcgoose]

I do agree with the moral ideas in The Bible (new testament of course).

But then almost all of the major religions share the same moral ideas..

I still struggle to see Christianity as more than a fairy tale :/

Same with Hinduism and Islam..

I do accept that there might be a God, I doubt one that interacts with people.. but as of yet I just don't think it's been found.

[brucemcgoose]

Firstly, scientists create theories, and _then_ try to disprove it.

Particles don't "Bend to human will" :O

At a quantum level, things get pretty crazy, but because there isn't an explanation doesn't mean there won't be. So many things that have baffled people, have enentually been explained by scientists. It's safe to assume that eventually, quantum physics will be explained too.

Question, why from atheism, did you go to Christianity, and not any of the other major religions?

[peacelf]

bruce, I understand and believe everything you pointed out. I was a science major in college for three years before switching to Lit. Funny, I found more truth in fiction than I did in science. Indeed, I went the rounds of religion and philosophy. I was particularly enamoured with Buddhism for years. Buddhism is less a religion than a search for truth. I returned to Christianity because of the message, which has been corrupted by fundamentalist and political forces. How do I know? cont.

[CultureWar77]

Peacelf-

Do you believe that the Resurrection did in fact occur, in the exact manner that is explained in the New Testament?

[peacelf]

That is difficult to answer because that would suggest I know the true intentions of the authors of the NT. However, since I am trained in literature, I would say that the ressurection was not to be taken literally, that it's a metaphor, a parable of How Jesus' message lives long after he was killed by Roman Imperial authority. Imperialists can kill the messenger but they can't kill the message.

[CultureWar77]

Then how are you able to call yourself a Christian, without believing the things that Jesus said about himself? Because he can't be a good and wise teacher, if he was making insane claims about Himself, you know, like saying He's the son of God and all. He's either who He says he was, or He's a nut. Take your pick.

[peacelf]

I'm not saying any of those things. Jesus was a mystic, and his relationship with God was real. I understand it and I wish I could connect with God as he did. Moreover, Jesus never called himself the "son of God": he called himself the Son of Man. The authors of the NT probably gave him the title Son of God. As the Son of Man, Jesus was simply calling himself human, in the "I am a part of humanity, human."

[peacelf]

You do know that the authors of the NT wrote their narratives 30-70 years after Jesus death. Mark is the oldest synoptic gospel. Matthew and Luke used Mark and two other texts to write their Gospels. The gospel authors, with Paul's lead, are the ones who gave Jesus his divinity.  Yes, I am a Christian, that is, a follower of Jesus. Have you seen my video Jesus:The lost message?

[peacelf]

cont 2, If you were literary, you'd understand that the bible is history and parable. It's a ancient people trying to make sense of the universe and God.

Some people are repelled by the violence of the bible. I'm not. I see it as an honest history. More fascinating though, is the parable. A parable is a story that teaches the reader. There are great mystic truths contained in parables. cont. 3

[peacelf]

cont 3. That fundies and rational enlightened realists miss the point of parables is both humorous and troubling, because the political ramifications of fundie political influence is disasterous to free thought and human evolution. Look how fundies' interpretations have limited rational thinkers' ability to see the beauty of the bible and parables. What's beautiful? cont. 4

[peacelf]

cont 3. The problem is fundies have driven the "accepted" interpretations of the bible for the past 150 years. This has become a political problem lately, since fundies influence politics. I find that disturbing, because it limits free thought, including rationalists who only see in the bible what fundies tell them to see. cont. 4

[peacelf]

cont 4. What is beautiful is the truth of humankind, the solution ot our plaguing problems of violence, war, corruption and, well...evil. Love your neighbor as yourself. It's so simple and so pure a statement that its power is sacred. Of course, that's not a parable in the traditional sense, but its a maxim that could create a lot of dialogue, if one were so inclined to talk about it. cont 5

[peacelf]

cont 5. as for the violence, it's history. It's a people trying to make sense of God. That is why they wrote God destroyed this or that. They had their reasons for resorting to violence. However, today we see violence of a more abhorant type, but still done in the name of God. In my opinion, that's not the God Jesus experienced. Mostly, imperialists use God to justify their evil. I look forward to your queries.

[akaso405]

I would also argue that even though many Christians and members other faiths purport to have unconditional faith/belief in their creator, they too set up tests for god. For example, "i feel a sense of spiritual calm after prayer, so god must exist.", or, "reading the scriptures gives me an intense spiritual feeling, so they must have been inspired by a higher power." I.e., they accept god because they get a good feeling out of doing so. They believe in belief...

[peacelf]

There are mystical powers in the universe that the human mind can't wrap itself around anymore. I think civilization killed something in us that gave us the power to imagine. Rationalists, are quite frankly, no fun.

peace

[garfield6275]

"Mystical powers"? Like what? What do these "Mystical Powers" do?

You sound like you're compromising, and with Evolution and Creationism, you can't compromise. They're two radically different beliefs. And this "Creationist Evolution" or whatever they're calling it, where God started evolution and left, makes no sense at all. Why would God set something like that in motion, then leave? It'd be like you turning on the oven, sticking a roast in, then leaving. It doesn't make sense...

[garfield6275]

I am a Christian, and I believe in God. Go to Answers In Genesis's website for the other side's argument.

[peacelf]

cont. 2 You cannot necessarily take what people believed 2000-8000 years ago about creation, etc. and apply it to today. It doesn't make sense. The earth is not flat nor the center of the universe. Truth changes over time, knowledge grows.

The mystical connection Jesus had with God is not a hands-off relationship. We all have the ability to connect with God when we think with love, peace, justice, compassion. Mysticism is connecting with God.

[peacelf]

I grew up in a fundamentalist Baptist church, southern Christian, the most conservative churches in the country, and also the most backwards people one can meet; backwards in the sense that they plan their ignorance around biblical scriptures. The Bible is full of wisdom, but wisdom is principles, not facts. cont.

[garfield6275]

I am a Christian, and I believe in God. Go to Answers In Genesis's website for the other side's argument.

[akaso405]

I also object to the assertion that atheists lack imagination/idealism. We do lack faith. But science stops dead in its tracks without imagination. and if atheists held no ideals they would have no hope, no dreams for their own lives or the world. This can't be true. I refuse to accept that it is necessary to depart from rational discourse to gain insight into our interconnectedness...

[akaso405]

I am well aware of the difference between your conception of god and the god of fundamentalist Christianity. The former is frankly a disgusting bully who watches us constantly, tortures, is jealous, wrathful, and vengeful, and yet asks us to love him unconditionally. The later is a benign god of sorts who dwells in the areas of the world we can't understand and gets smaller and smaller. I find both of them equally irrelevant...

[akaso405]

I agree that there is plenty that science still doesn't know. But I don't see any reason to speculate that a higher power had anything to do with it. Einstein agreed. He was an admirer of Spinoza and generally refused to make statements about god except that if he existed he didn't interfere with human affairs at all...

[peacelf]

akaso, I didn't say atheists lack imagination. I said they don't appreciate nor understand the its creative powers.

Imagine a better world and it will be. Imagine a new way to slice bread, then make it happen. Imagine the way the universe works, then set out to prove it. Imagine there is a God, and bingo.

[es3000]

Thank you !!! Some intellegence in this battle between radical baffoons !!! Lets all just keep digging for the truth. Im also so glad you talked about quantum physics. That knowledge is going to usher in a new paradigm of how people view themselves and the universe I think!

[theprophecy11]

Thank GOD!!!Thumbs up!

[ChurBr0]

Peacelf,

Well done on producing an informative and well ballanced video. Good clear points forming a good clear message.

Indeed; kudos to you Sir.

[stevegrobles]

kudos my friend kudos

[Rockoperafan]

I like your open minded views. I began as a literal Christian, but found atheism was a more logical road. However, I am not 100% closed to the idea of creation through evolution; I would just need to see some concrete proof beforehand. (P.s. I saw the debate and I think it was shameful on both sides)

[peacelf]

Rock, thanks for your understanding comments. I was an atheist for 8 years, but always kept an open mind about certain spiriitual matters. I went back to believing in God because, and I don't know how to say this succinctly, Jesus was inspired by something that made him like Gandhi, Dr. King, unstoppable in their drive for love, peace and justice. I think we all can use some of that.

[peacelf]

Rock, cont. And, yes, I think the debate was shameful on both sides. The two arguing for "rational atheisim" were like a couple of teenagers who thought they just learned something new from a book they read. Honestly, I feel sorry for fundamentalists, but their "primitive" connection to something eternal, all encompassing in the universe is real. Why some people let it go, I don't know.

[GreatGig1]

We don't know, and EVERYTHING is possible. I have this sense that scientists, artists, writers, etc., through searching, just might be standing in some "divine flow of energy" and THAT is where the ideas come from to research or express the ideas. Everything is truly possible! :-)

[peacelf]

Yes, and that is why I place imagination high on my list of the God-given gifts. First, it must be imagined before it can be created; that is the divine.

Mostly, though, I believe God is the sacred. Love, compassion, justice, hope, and I would also include, art or aesthetics, creativity, imagination and truth.

While I call myself a Christian, I am what might be called neo-traditional,i.e. I view Christianity and God, as seen through Jesus, as the way to peace and a better world. evolve!

[Muzaloth]

all creation stories are not equal, the Torah was rigorously preserved and originally written in Hebrew, the language of mathematics.. there are highly sophisticated complex mathematical formulas incorporated in the ancient glyphs.. now in recent times these equations are coming to light, it stands to reason that devine inspiration is the foundation of Tanakh.

[peacelf]

What then is your point? Are you suggesting that the early Hebrews got creation right? There are also sophisticated analyses of empires and imperialism, and I find them much more inviting than math problems.

[Muzaloth]

so it all comes down to what a person finds inviting, if your inclined to look at external evidence there's plenty for the taking to suite everyones inclinations.. I find the idea of a 6000 year old earth to misrepresent the very scriptures used to support that model, but I find atheists even as biased in their interpretation of evolutionary evidence..

[Muzaloth]

..debates can't reveal anything, they put this mystery on the level of a verbal wrestling match, an adversarial contest where facts are used to support lies, the arrogance of the human heart is altogether the enemy of understanding.

[peacelf]

I think what atheists fail to realize is the power of imagination. There's a lot going on in our minds that we don't understand. For example, we can imagine a better world, then begin building it, like Jesus did. That's what I admire about Jesus, his utopian vision.

[Muzaloth]

"peace if" I do respect your interest in fair play, and it may only be semantic gap between us, though what I see you doing is sanitizing the person called Jesus to make him acceptable to atheists.. seems to me your saying He's just another evolved being who would build a better world from our human imagination.. but it's this same imagination that's a dark theater of illusions where our ego is king over it's domain and the greater light from G-d is hardly welcome..

[Muzaloth]

..whatever credit we take claim to from our own spinning thoughts is stolen from that greater parallel dimension within, ruled by the timeless spirit of G-d, the reality above every imagination..

this sounded better before I edited it to fit U2b format, anyway, I have too much to say on this subject so I'll wish you well and maybe do a video on this excellent topic myself.

[peacelf]

Muz, I take the same humanitarian approach to life as Jesus. I'm talking about what scholars call the historical Jesus, i.e. Jesus minus all the "miracles." And, I believe in God, as seen through Jesus: God = the sacred. Finding what is sacred is how we evolve as a species.

[peacelf]

Muz cont. I wouldn't use the word "sanitizing" as much as humanizing, because that's what Jesus was: A Jewish mystic who had a direct, personal relationship with God. Jesus was a Jew, therefore he didn't believe in an after-life. He lived the Kingdom of God on earth as it is in heaven (the imagination).

[Muzaloth]

I understand your position, but with every comment you make I find myself growing farther apart.. I don't want to pick apart your words with my words, what futility.. may your heart lead you to those still waters that run deeper than worldly logic.

[peacelf]

Muz, That's okay, but I'd still be interested in knowing what you think. I'm not here to convert, as much as learn.

peace

[Muzaloth]

thank you bro, I'm here to learn as well.. you have a gift, and I admire your ability to express that on cam.. peace

[peacelf]

Muz, I didn't make this reply to the creation question except to show that both sides are subject to criticism. And, I was hoping to present another side to the argument, a re-interpretation of Jesus, God and the Bible. Some people call it new age, but new people have to make sense of old ideas and create new ideas in the process. In other words, truth is serial.

[JAMRAND]

refreshing video, I dont agree with all of it, but I totally agree with your methodology for discovering truth. Search for it with an open mind. Your analasis

shows that is exactly what your doing. God Bless and peace.

[JAMRAND]

You imply that astro physicist want to believe in creation while micro biologist want to believe in evolution. Both believe what they believe because that is where their science points. But before biology was cosmology , So for the biologist he needs cosmology to prove his believe that there isnt a creator.

[peacelf]

jam, No, I suggest that astrophysicists arer redefining "creation to fit the model of the big bang theory, based on other observations in quantum theory. Don't confuse it with Christian fundamentalists' "creationism," which is based on ancient people's search for an answer to why we're here, same as the physicists.

[JAMRAND]

We do understand how the universe began, the cosmos is telling us how we are here , cosmologist are just the first to read the statement.

[JAMRAND]

Our knowledge of the cosmos aknowledges that the genisis account is correct. The word for a day in genisis is Yom which means a 24 hour period. or another meaning for yom is a  period of time.

[smaakjeks]

Some points:

Why should we listen to BOTH scientists and the religious about the nature of reality? Why are religious scholars any better at knowing about the universe than plumbers, for example?

Who says there IS a why to existence? You cannot assert this premise without justification.

Albert Einstein was pantheistic, not theistic.

[smaakjeks]

"many physicists are starting to see a creator" is an argument from authority. You then extrapolate quantum theory into a religious interpretation. The highly controversial field of quantum mechanics is not something one should drag foofy "new age" meaning from. That's what homeopaths do.

I'm an atheist because there is no evidence for any gods. Not because any fundamentalists told me what the gods are. I live in Norway, which is practically fundy free.

[peacelf]

cont 3 I tested whether I wanted to believe in God or not, and I chose to believe. If I find several quantum theorists who agree in a creator, then I listen, since I am not a scientist. If I like what I hear, I accept it. It is a conscious choice, not a psychotic delusion. cont 4

[peacelf]

sma, you have no creeds, principles, dare I say morals, you live by? I trust you must and that you have higher standards for yourself than you can attain at once, so you have something to shoot for? That is God. that's what motivates you.

Do you believe in Karma? Do you believe what goes around comes aroound? I call that God, too. God is nature: nature is God.

[smaakjeks]

"sma, you have no creeds, principles, dare I say morals, you live by?"

Of course.

"so you have something to shoot for? That is God. that's what motivates you."

No, survival instinct, curiosity and sex drive are my motivators. This is what ethology is all about.

"Do you believe in Karma? Do you believe what goes around comes aroound?"

Nope.

[peacelf]

sma, cont. 2 I was a teacher for 15 years in a poor central city school. I am an activist for peace and workers' rights. And I try to stir up some dialogue on youtube when ever I can: ) It seems to work. Nonetheless, I know your country has many social programs, and i appreciate that. Soneday, we will care more for our citizens, too. After we get past this empire stage of evolution.

[smaakjeks]

"sma, cont. 2 I was a teacher for 15 years in a poor central city school. I am an activist for peace and workers' rights. And I try to stir up some dialogue on youtube when ever I can: ) It seems to work. Nonetheless, I know your country has many social programs, and i appreciate that. Soneday, we will care more for our citizens, too. After we get past this empire stage of evolution."

Kudos (no sarcasm here either).

[peacelf]

As I said, sma, I do not wish to convert you to "God." I am only explaining what I believe or came to believe after years of research on the nature of truth and the tough question of why we're here. Most if not all astrophysicists, on some level or another, want to answer that question. Honestly, why spend your life devoted to the study of the universe?

[smaakjeks]

"Most if not all astrophysicists, on some level or another, want to answer that question. Honestly, why spend your life devoted to the study of the universe?"

Because the universe is wonderous and mysterious. Magnificent and grand. Isn't that reason enough? You seem to have trouble accepting that some people just don't believe in any gods.

[peacelf]

cont 4 There's something in my primitive brain that gives me great pleasure in believing in a benevolent, loving, just, NONviolent Jesus, who said he was called by his Father in heaven to bring the kingdom of God message to the world. It's no different than if I was Socratic, American transcendentalist, or existentialist. It's just a fundamental system of beliefs to follow in life.

[smaakjeks]

"There's something in my primitive brain that gives me great pleasure in believing in a benevolent, loving, just, NONviolent Jesus"

Why Jesus? Surely quantum mechanics don't spell out that there was a virgin who gave birth to the son of the one true god?

[peacelf]

sma, Einstein surmised a "creator" that brought this order into the universe. Pantheist or not, he imagined a creator. Was he psychotic? I do not believe in heaven and hell, so I'm not your garden variety "Christian." I am a panthieist in a sense, but the "personal" relationship with God is an awareness of our place in Nature, the affects we have on others, the environment, etc. I admit people in Norway are much more liberal than the average american.

[smaakjeks]

"sma, Einstein surmised a "creator" that brought this order into the universe. Pantheist or not, he imagined a creator."

Einstein used religious language to convey his deep admiration of the universe. Many scientists do so.

"I am a panthieist in a sense, but the "personal" relationship with God is an awareness of our place in Nature, the affects we have on others, the environment, etc."

How can you be a christian pantheist?

[peacelf]

sma, I can be anything I want: ) And, I can assure you it confuses the hell out of most people, but it makes sense to me, and I can assure you I didn't come to these conclusions lightly. Are you familiar with culture? Well, my culture (poor white americans) believe in a divinity, so I chose to investigate their beliefs and mine in order to remain in solidartity with them. cont.

[smaakjeks]

"sma, I can be anything I want: ) And, I can assure you it confuses the hell out of most people, but it makes sense to me"

So are you a capitalistic communist too? One cannot both believe in a personal god and NOT believe in one at the same time.

"Are you familiar with culture?"

What is culture you speaking of? Can smaakjeks eat culture? Culture scare and confuse me! RAWRGH!

[smaakjeks]

"Well, my culture (poor white americans) believe in a divinity, so I chose to investigate their beliefs and mine in order to remain in solidartity with them"

That's why belief is so divided between cultures. But it's also a display of mental cowardize. Nothing personal.

[peacelf]

sma, "Einstein used religious language to convey his deep admiration of the universe." bingo! And, I found Jesus, the historical Jesus minus the mythology, to be he greatest human to ever have lived, like Martin Luther King Jr. was the greatest american. They Loved Jesus and changed the world. JEsus said, "I didn't come to bring peace. I came to bring fire."

[smaakjeks]

"bingo!"

Bingo? What do you mean, bingo? You just said he imagined a creator.

"And, I found Jesus, the historical Jesus minus the mythology, to be he greatest human to ever have lived"

If he ever did live, that is.

[ParsleyS0da]

it's true. it's not my opinions or your opinions that matter. our opinions won't change the world or stop the iraq war.  you know this to be true.

[ParsleyS0da]

it doesn't matter what your opinions are. it doesn't matter what anybody's opinions are.

[peacelf]

Said in true nihilistic fashion.

[peacelf]

Personally, I have no desire to convert atheists into believers. That's not my point in my response. If they noticed, I don't focus too much on scientists as much as I do fundamentalists. Although, I honestly think science without spirituality/God is dangerous.

[Yell0wGuy]

Actually that movie is awfully inaccurate (boring too). Dr. Emoto's "research" on the influence over water is bogus. This woman "Ramtha" is a cult leader. And so on and so forth. One guy made a critique, it's in my faves.

[peacelf]

yell, 90 % of the world believes in a higher power. Are we all just dillusional?

[oscillator]

Yep.

[Yell0wGuy]

Delusional or maybe just wrong - it's a possibility, isn't it? At one time 100% believed the Sun revolved around the Earth. I wasn't trying to make that point anyway, that movie is pseudoscientific bull even if there is a higher power out there.

[peacelf]

yellow, it's not my purpose to convert people to God, just as I don't judge anyone to hell, like most fundamentalists. Indeed, I don't worry about an after life: heaven, hell, Shoal, etc. I don't think of God as an old man in a place called heaven. I believe in the here and now God, the one who drives me (and scientists) to look for the truth in all things. Believe whatever you want, just be a caring, compassionate human.

Peace

[Yell0wGuy]

Don't get me wrong, I didn't post here to criticize your theism, although I don't think ANY belief is untouchable. My point was about the movie! I urge folks to research about it and not simply accept their version.

[peacelf]

Yellow, thanks and sorry if I seemed accusatory. I watched the movie, only after studying astro physics. I've read Einstein, Hawkings, Herrel, and watched several docs on it before I saw the movie. I was interested in their interpretation of the science. Interpretation is everything. Yes, i was searching for proof. I have my reasons, mostly political, as you can see.

[smaakjeks]

"yell, 90 % of the world believes in a higher power. Are we all just dillusional?"

Popular doesn't mean right.

"Although, I honestly think science without spirituality/God is dangerous."

What danger is this?

"Shelby, I have a feeling that atheists (...) are looking for proof. Otherwise, why challenge believers?"

Why challange flat earth believers?

[peacelf]

sma, you have a biting way with words. There is nothing superior or inferior about believing in God or not. I resent terms like homeopath, psychopath, etc applied to people, not matter who they are. I realize that my arguments for a God do not fit everyone's idea of rational thinking, but the imagination is anything bt irrational. cont.

[smaakjeks]

"sma, you have a biting way with words"

Yes, I know. I get carried away sometimes.

"I resent terms like homeopath, psychopath, etc applied to people, not matter who they are."

Homeopaths are very proud of who they are. I don't think I called you a psychopath.

[peacelf]

sma, cont 2 It's a useful aspect of the higher thinking powers we humans possess, one that "rational" scientific thinkers fail to realize, even though they used for every scientific "discovery" ever made. scientists imagined how a system works, then set out to test and prove it. Quantum theory is nothing but mathematics, and testing what you can't see. cont. 3

[smaakjeks]

"It's a useful aspect of the higher thinking powers we humans possess, one that "rational" scientific thinkers fail to realize, even though they used for every scientific "discovery" ever made. scientists imagined how a system works, then set out to test and prove it."

Yes, imagination is good. I agree. Scientist apply their current understanding of their field when imaining hypotheses that can be tested.

[peacelf]

cont, sma, calling something God is a way of naming the mystery and embracing the mystery. Rationalists are too busy trying to disprove everything, while many people embrace the mystery and name it "God." There is no harm in that. However, there is harm when those with religious beliefs impose their beliefs on others.

[smaakjeks]

"calling something God is a way of naming the mystery and embracing the mystery."

You can define anything you like as God. But it has little worth as a definition unless applied to a personal deity who concerns him/herself with us.

"Rationalists are too busy trying to disprove everything, while many people embrace the mystery and name it "God.""

Proving a neative is very very hard. The burden of proof rests on the claim. Why bring up rationalists? You had a beef with scientists.

[smaakjeks]

"while many people embrace the mystery and name it "God." There is no harm in that."

If scientists do that, they are indeed harming scientific progress. But yes, the god of the gaps to other people is perfectly harmless.

[MyNameIsShelby]

Just wanted to add that I have nothing against religion, but think that scientific and religious pursuits do not have to be mutually exclusive.

[peacelf]

Shelby, I have a feeling that atheists, or at least the people who go out of their way to deny God's existence and argue vehemently against God's existence, are looking for proof. Otherwise, why challenge believers? cont.

[MyNameIsShelby]

Good post. I'm tired of the whole "if it's too complicated then it must be God" "logic" too. It's creating a dangerous anti-intellectualism in the U.S.