I initially disagreed with him characterizing the word "atheist" as meaning more than "lack of belief in gods", but then he said it was a "loaded word", which is quite true. Words have multiple meanings, and sometimes the dictionary definition differs from actual usage of the word. The word atheist means "without belief in gods", but in it's USAGE, it refers to skeptical freethinkers who care about truth. Which can, unfortunately, create confusion and enable equivocation.
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
@ericarose1979 no a realist says that. a man who is honest with himself. he walks down a path where he looks to improve his own life and make the lives of all those around him better. he knows what is there and what isn't.
@ericarose1979 I think you are probably just trolling, but I'm open to dialogue. While it is written in a book that "A fool saith in his heart 'there is no god'", an actual FOOL is one who believes something based on it being written in a book, while ignoring the entire body of literally millions of hours of study by thousands of scientists in virtually every country in the world that show the evidence to the contrary.
at 19:40 he's right you know. I never thought of it that way but yeah. Even though I always say (and I mean it) I became an atheist because at some point in my life the only alternative was being an intellectual coward I never connected it to atheism being more then this.
Although I respect PZ Meyers, his definition sounds like it would eliminate a lot of people who converted from Atheism to religion which sounds like playing No True Scotsman. Unless he's willing to call Kirk Cameron a liar when he says he was once an atheist, I think he's mixing atheist with skeptic. Then again, he's smarter than I so take what I say with a grain of salt.
@DarkEmergence I think that what he's trying to say is that in this world it more often than not takes certain prerequisites to be an atheist. People who are willing to shut up and watch the universe unfold are much more likely to be atheists then those who aren't.
Lol scientists running after 900ft Jesus w/ biopsy needle, "MUST GET SAMPLE!!"
"Atheists just sit around not believing"- This is a funny quote because i'm in my school's Secular Student Association and although we all agree that there is no evidence for God's existence, we argue HARDCORE about EVERYTHING else. Morality, animal rights, sentience, free will, psychology--it's tiring.
If you all come to some kind of conclusion you guys can negotiate to a universal social law than you have a philosophy that works. The key is negotiating till you find a way to meat in the middle on an an issue you both disagree on.
How can you criticize theists for not providing a proper definition of "god", and immediately go on to ignore the clear cut definition we have for "atheism"? Meyers' argument that positive values inform a person's atheism may have been relevant if those values are the same for all atheists, but I very much doubt that that's the case.
How many scientologists do you think are in that audience? He's speaking about a specific subset of nonbelievers.
He was saying that theists do provide a definition but under scrutiny, against known reality, they keep redefining it. This is also called "the death of 1000 qualifications" in philosophy.
Yes, we do have a clear definition for atheism. We don't believe in a god that intervenes ( theology ). That actually is the same for all atheists.
The theists PZ is talking about begin with a theological god and step by step qualify it into a deistic god.
I agree with his "positive values" as well. Every atheists I've met has valued truth over comfort. Past that there are differing characteristics... most prefer long term goals over short term benefits. Humility in intellectual honesty.as a method of organization and cooperation is also highly prized.
Why do the values need to be the same for all atheists? I think one common value would be enough... The core value of truth seems to stand out to me personally.
A lovely example of beating a weak sister (creationists) & bragging you've beaten the whole family. Evolution is accepted by the largest Christian denomination (Catholics). So, it is not a case against Christianity, let alone theism. How does it support atheism? On the contrary, evolution confirms every falsifiable claim Aristotle made for teleology. Peace, Dennis
@Reggis420 What did I miss that you think is important? I did ask for permission to use excerpts from this video to prepare a video response, and received no reply. So the poster apparently thinks it cannot withstand analysis. Peace, Dennis
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
GOD, HEAVEN, AND SEX: Internet article examines the Biblical possibility of sex in heaven. Human sexuality isn't just for reproduction. There are reasons the Bible requires marriage for sex on earth, but those reasons won't exist in heaven. Scripture teaches, in heaven, we'll be like the angels only in one sense - no marriage, but we won't be like angels in every other way (i.e. Bible says we'll enjoy food and drink). Psalm 16:11 says there will be great spiritual joy and pleasures in heaven.
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
WHAT ABOUT THE STARS? Gravity explains how the order found in the precise courses of trillions of stars is maintained, but gravity can't explain the origin of that order! Did all the trillions stars agree to get out of each others way? C'mon! Disorder in the universe is because of chance, but the order is because of design. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or living cell works, but it's irrational to believe that undirected natural laws can bring about an airplane or a living cell. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read my popular Internet articles: ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM, ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE!
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument for a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed in design or useless.
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select" from variations produced having survival value. It doesn't produce variations. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of transitional forms and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discusses mixed species in fossils (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum conveniently ignored by evolutionists).
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
NOT ALL EVOLUTIONISTS even agree on the fossils used to support and reconstruct human evolution. The bones are incomplete. There's no certainty of the bones belonging to the same creature. They can reconstruct whatever they want from these bones, and they have. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creature. Read my article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Fascinating to see another atheist fundamentalist. Modern western science developed in Christian culture. I can appreciate so many Americans resisting the Christian fundamentalists and their absurd rejection of evolution, but outside of such protestant fundamentalism, Christianity has always been very comfortable with her bright child, modern science. To pretend otherwise manifests simply a cultural illiteracy. Fr. Mendel was the fellow who founded modern genetics.
what a great lecture, very informative and inspiring. the narrowing down of grand questions down to specifics (okham's razor...), elegantly enlightening. thanks for posting.
Are atheists that unaccustomed to seeing attractive women? Yes, she's attractive, but there's countless attractive women (and young men) atheists that attend meetings, conferences, and seminars.
do you just detest any atheist concept? dawkins is certainly not devoid of morality, he hates the persecution of women, the discrimination against homosexuals... , but then what i think is moral (human rights) might be immoral to you.
@TAXtheAtheist The opposite. To embrace god is to embrace ignorance. Atheists are the ones asking questions, who want to know why, who want to see proof. Theists are the ones who accept 'god did it' as the only answer and don't care to know or ask anything else.
@TAXtheAtheist What type of ignorant bullshit do you believe, and why? You dare attempt to exalt your idiotic, bronze age, constantly debunked, faith based, fact ignoring, mental illness with sound scientific method. You need an analyist. The bible, and all other "holy books" and bunk; violent, oppressive, abusive, ignorant, antiquated lies and incorrect guesses. You, as a believer, are clinging to a series of fairy tales perpetrated by other ignorant, unaware, untruthful, suckers. Grow up!!
@TheSultan03 So you 'think' secularism has the market cornered on science? Sorry to burst your bubble, but no. One example is Noah's Ark, it's size is not known, but the dimensions are that used in today's superpower naval forces, it is the most stable. Not bad for bronze aged tech that your tax dollars are going for...
@TAXtheAtheist Oh, Noahs Ark. I didn't realize you were a blithering idiot. Thanks for clearing that up. And your bible gives the size of the fictious ark, dufus. But, the real point is that if you believe it to be literal you are a moron. Have a nice life. You deserve no more of my attention.
@TAXtheAtheist You are a fascist, bigoted, arrogant, ignorant, self-deceptive, lying, uneducated, fool. And moral ethos is a redundant statement. You just show how unequipped you are to think like an adult at every turn. Go pray to your nonexistent god. At least you can pretend that he likes you.
I’d just like to point out that atheism is just the lack of belief in gods. It says so in dictionaries. Either dictionaries are right, or they are wrong and we need to change them.
I think Myers is stretching to say that being an Atheist person is more than being "without religious belief"... That isn't a SMALL thing at all... Being without religious belief is a HUGE thing, and it deserves it's own word.
To be Atheist COMES from rationalism and a propensity for an interest in scientific inquiry and deductive reasoning... But the Atheist itself ONLY relates to one aspect of who you are... and it's simply to describe something HUGELY damaging that you *don't* have. ;)
Great Talk. Show me any god and tell him to speak to me and then come and have a cup of ea with me then I will agree there is a god. .Only want a christain godas any other god will nt due,so tell them to stay away.I believe those who believe in any gods ae just those who can be easily fooled.
Great Talk. Show me any god and tell him to speak to me and then come and have a cup of ea with me then I will agree there is a god. .Only want a christain godas any other god will nt due,so tell them to stay away.I believe those who believe in any gods ae just those who can be eaily fooled.
@18:30 For instance, would anyone want to attach a philosophy to add weight to why they don’t believe in ghosts, goblins, sea monsters or little green men to feel proud? No! Why should we have to link positives and over inflate things or meanings of words, when a good old “No that is bullshit because” is more than sufficient?
My atheism isn't a qualification. Its simply a label to differentiate myself from the mythical claims of theists. I don’t base my life around atheism. It is not the first thing I think about when I get up in the morning, or when I have fun, fall in love or learn something new. It is because of my curiosity for science and to know the world around me that allows me to shake off false claims made without any evidence. It is science that means so much more and carries more weight. Not my atheism.
I like PZ and I agree with some of the things he says, but I have issue with his comments on "dictionary atheists" defining atheism as just the non belief in Gods. I don't see why we have to attach positives to a negative position against someone else's spooky positive claim! It just muddles the rest of the argument leaving the conversation wide open for theists to attach their messed up views on what atheism "means" to them: you've all heard them many times before... atheism = Hitler, Stalin..
at 50:50 he says there's no historical evidence for Jesus. I can think of a lot of atheists who disagree with him who write books about who the historical Jesus really was.
@Jugglable Like who? And are they writing about a historical person who might have existed from which the myths were made (like king arthur)? That's not hard to believe.
The supernatural stuff has no historical evidence.
@dlandon2000 Gerd Ludemann is one that comes to mind. Bart Ehrman also writes books against Christianity but talks about how the "historical Jesus" was really an apocalyptic prophet who never claimed to be God. I don't think there's one historian at an accredited university who denies the existence of Jesus. What's interesting, though, is that the same texts that atheists use to talk about Jesus talk about miracles. Their objection to the miraculous is philosophical, not historical.
@Jugglable No it's no philosophical it's epistemology. How do you know what is true? And a book says so, can NEVER be sufficient evidence for the existence of a god or son of god, or for miracles or supernatural events.
It's far from certain that anyone like jesus even existed, denying he existed would be equally difficult to prove. However the person making the claim ALWAYS bears the burden of evidence.
@dlandon2000 "And a book says so, can NEVER be sufficient evidence for the existence of a god" I'd agree. But a book "saying so" is what we have for a lot of what's considered reliable ancient history. With the methods of ancient historiography we apply to any other sources it is very confidently concluded that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, for example. Because the texts say so...and there are other criteria to be applied. To object to miracles a priori is philosophy.
@Jugglable No it isn't. If you ask a historian why they think something is true and they say "because a book said so" they are a BAD historian. Or the history you are asking about is very trivial.
Real history is established through MANY sources which can include literature. Contemporary literature especially. But for major events you also expect to find other evidence like archeology.
A good example is troy. A book (iliad) said it was true but there was little other reason to think (cont..)
@Jugglable it was true. Then the city was discovered, so NOW we have a good reason to think it was based in some fact. That is VERY different than assuming the book is 100% correct. We still have NO REASON to think zues or hera are real.
With the bible we have no contemporary literature, and we have no archeological evidence.
Also extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to warrant belief. It not very extraordinary to claim a warlord invaded his neighbor (alexander the great) cont..
@Jugglable and thus we don't need extraordinary evidence to conclude that Alex was a real person. Does that mean we know exactly what he did every day of his life? Of course not. We can be reasonable certain of the general outline of his life.
With jesus there are extraordinary claims with no evidence, and in this case you NEED to know if the specifics are true for it to mean anything.
It all adds up to a total lack of evidence and no reason to believe it's true.
@dlandon2000 I think people apply unreasonable skepticism to the gospels. Many thought Pontius Pilate was a literary invention until an excavation in 1961 found an inscription with his name, dated to the first half of the first century. The origin of the Christian faith against great predisposition to the contrary is evidence of the resurrection. I suggest you look at the books "The Resurrection of the Son of God" or "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses" for rigorous Christian history.
@Jugglable Actually people drop rational criticism to religious texts (only their own of course). The point is it's entirely possible that someone named jesus was crucified for stuff he said or did. That's not even remotely a radical claim, lots of people have been killed because they angered some church or state. Even there the evidence is pretty weak but I consider it plausible.
However the claim that he is god is a radical claim with no evidence. You don't accept the iliad as evidence ...
@dlandon2000 "Even there the evidence is pretty weak but I consider it plausible." I think you have an unfair double-standard here. It's a very well established fact of ancient history that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified.
Furthermore, we know very reliably what the original New Testament manuscripts said. That's what the field of textual criticism is for. It's the best-attested text of the ancient world, even Bart Ehrman says so.
@Jugglable that achillies was in invincable (almost) warrior because he was dipped in the river styx do you? Even though we've discovered the city of troy and mount olympus is real and the trojan war was real etc... Of course not.
The only reason you believe one and not the other is because of preconceived notions and personal bias.
The evidence for jesus is all hearsay from copies of translated copies.
You should be just as skeptical of your religion as you are of others.
@dlandon2000 I am indeed skeptical. I used to be an atheist, but when I read arguments for the resurrection I found I couldn't help but believe. Even secular historians will say Jesus' tomb was found empty, and that his followers truly believed he was raised from the dead and were willing to die for that despite great predisposition to the contrary. Even Paul converted after killing Christians and gave his own life. How do you explain that?
@Jugglable How can you claim you are skeptical when you believe it from a 3thousanth person account which as been translated a dozen times.
Secular historians don't agree the tomb was found empty; Rational historians agree you can't confirm any of it even happened.
What evidence do you have that any of it even happened? The bible itself is not sufficient. If it were then you'd have to believe in islam, and hinduism and zues etc... They are have equal amounts of "evidence"
@dlandon2000 First of all, I believe, based on the field of textual criticism, and the writings of a number of ATHEISTS, that we know what the original manuscripts said with great confidence. "Secular historians don't agree the tomb was found empty" Well, Bart Ehrman and Gerd Ludemann come to mind. They both write against Christianity, and also write about how using the methods of ancient historiography, the empty tomb is a well-established historical datum.
@Jugglable You also seem to be making classic logical fallacies, like appeal to authority. You keep saying "Person X believes Y, therefore it is real." It doesn't matter how many people choose to believe a thing if the evidence isn't there.
Even if a dead guy was put in a tomb and later it was found empty to think that then justifies a belief in god makes numerous logical fallacies at the same time.
@dlandon2000 "You also seem to be making classic logical fallacies, like appeal to authority" Oh, boy, I'm losing my patience. Not all appeals to authority are fallacious. It's only a fallacious appeal to authority if you appeal to an authority outside the relevant field, like if you appeal to a dentist on an issue regarding astrophysics.
@Jugglable Actually when you believe something just because someone else does it's always an appeal to authority and a logical fallacy.
What is not a fallacy is if you consider the consensus opinion of the whole field of experts. To pick one dentist and say colgate is best because he says so a logical fallacy. To say flouride toothpaste is good for you teeth because 99.9% of dentist who have reviewed the evidence agree with it is NOT a logical fallacy.
@Jugglable So now if we consider historians and the historicity of jesus we see there is no consensus. I could easily have trotted out many historians who don't think it's reliable but it would have been equally irrelevant.
If you think Ehrmann or Ludemann have compelling evidence then list the evidence, don't just list the people you agree with. Evidence speaks for itself and that's what I base my beliefs on.
"Even if a dead guy was put in a tomb and later it was found empty to think that then justifies a belief in god makes numerous logical fallacies at the same time." I'd like to congratulate you on the biggest straw man I've ever seen.
@dlandon2000 If you are going to hand-wavingly dismiss this as "three-thousandth" person account, or if you don't recognize the fundamental differences in genre between the Koran, ancient Greek mytholgoy, and the Gospels, I can only recommend the most basic book of hermeneutics or ancient history.
@Jugglable We don't have any originals of the gospels, they contradict each other, some parts are almost certainly forgeries and some parts don't agree with extra-biblical accounts. There are many translation errors, copying errors etc...
It is ONLY your preconceived bias that makes the gospels appear different than other holy books or texts to you.
@dlandon2000 Based on the fact that you sound like you're writing out of the handbook of atheist clichés, I don't think you are skeptical. You haven't questioned your views against Christianity much, or thought about ancient history much. How much serious theology have you read? Have you read any books, like, say, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses or The Resurrection of the Son of God? I have read a lot of atheism and know where you're coming from. If you compare Jesus to Zeus, you have no clue.
@Jugglable "If you compare Jesus to Zeus, you have no clue."
That just betrays you bias, they are both claims and should be evaluated with the same rigor and skepticism. Ready more books that have the same opinion you do is NOT EVIDENCE!! I read Lee Strobel and other books like that when I was a christian and they convinced me until I realized they were all built on a pile of logical fallacies.
@dlandon2000 Jesus is not comparable to Zeus. There are even atheist historians who talk about Jesus as an historical figure and what he "really" taught during his ministry. There are also very concrete figures in the early church--people like Peter, James, John --- who said they knew Jesus personally. Can anybody say anything remotely similar about Zeus?
@Jugglable "There are even atheist historians who talk about Jesus" Irrelevant, as I said there could have been a guy who taught stuff, that doesn't mean he was a god.
" who said they knew Jesus personally," if that works for you then, I know Zues personally he loves bud light and football. There now you have an eyewitness account of zues. It's third person, and even eyewitness testimony is the worst kind of evidence.
@Jugglable "I have read a lot of atheism and know where you're coming from" Obviously not since you don't understand my points.
And yes us atheist use "cliche's" like "you need evidence to warrant belief."
"You haven't questioned your views against Christianity" This is VERY telling of your bias, you seem to be thinking belief in christianity is the default and I have views against it. That's inaccurate and totally backwards.
@dlandon2000 "you seem to be thinking belief in christianity is the default and I have views against it." If you say that atheism is the only rational position, yes, you have views against Christianity.
@Jugglable Atheism the ONLY rational and logical default position when dealing with any god claim.
Those making the claim bear the burden of evidence, until then belief should be withheld.
The is much more historical evidence for mohamed (mostly since he was more recent) than for jesus and their copies of books are more consistant (far fewer languages and fewer times copied) by your own criteria you should be a muslim.
@Jugglable And LOTS of people have died for what they think is true. 9/11 being a horrific example, I used to be a christian does that mean my new or old positions are more or less likely to be true? No, neither my nor your nor Paul's beliefs before or after any supposed event makes ANY difference to whether that belief is actually TRUE!
Judge it based on objective evidence and withhold belief until there is sufficient evidence to warrant belief. That is the ONLY rational position to take.
@dlandon2000 The difference between the 9/11 hijackers and you and me is that the early Christians were in a position to know definitively whether what they were saying was true. Many people die for mistaken beliefs, but it's hard to get an entire group of people to die for a lie, without exception, with nobody renouncing their faith, under threat of crucifixion.
@kalorak1 yeah, again, so what? Does that make the earth a closed system? No. Does it violate the second law of thermodynamics? apparently not. Does it disproof evolution? Not even slightly. So, what's your point?
"Fluctuation driven transport and models of molecular motors and pumps"
Abstract
Non-equilibrium fluctuations can drive vectorial transport along an anisotropic structure in an isothermal medium by biasing the effect of thermal noise (k B T). Mechanisms based on this principle are often called Brownian ratchets and have been invoked as a possible explanation for the operation of biomolecular motors and pumps. ....
@kalorak1 What for? What am I supposed to show? What YOU need to prof is - for the second-law-of-thermodynamics-argument to work - that a.) life is miraculously able to develop in a closed system and b.) the earth is a closed system. You definitely fail at b, and I can predict that you'll fail at a just as well.
Schraupe, devise an experiment where you enclose living organism in a "closed system" and prove that closing the system caused life process to stop. Bury some seeds under ground to cut off Sun's influence and see what happens. Visit deep sea vents and see influence of Sun radiation on life down there.
Burying seeds under ground is NOT creating a closed system, neither is visiting deep sea vents. Seriously, if you want to continue going down that path, just look up what a closed system actually IS.
PZ Myers fails to see, that we CREATE GOD with our BRAINS. 11:04
if he only would understand Bizarre False Beliefs are created in the BRAIN. When ACCEPTING them as TRUE, this is sign of SCHIZOTYPAL disorder, iow, NEUROLOGICAL DISORDER. The CRAZY beliefs of the religious are NO DIFFERENT to those of the schizophrenics..He doesn't get it....
people that see zombie Jesus as TRUE are ChristPsychotics..they see 2+2 as equal to ANYTHING but 4.
Neurology proves the BRAIN creates GodBelief when is SICK
Just like his Guru and Messiah P Z Meyers, Schraupe falls for the same trap claiming that Earth is not closed system instead of trying to educate himself on the subject at hand.
Google this article published at "Nature":
A molecular information ratchet
Viviana Serreli1, Chin-Fa Lee1, Euan R. Kay1 & David A. Leigh1
1.School of Chemistry, University of Edinburgh, The King’s Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JJ, UK....
Some religious people claim that "miracle of life on planet Earth in violation of 2nd law of thermodynamics" is the evidence for existence of God. Therefore ignorant and arrogant atheists with limited knowlege of modern physics and modern biology unable to offer alternative explanation for existence of life on planet Earth (brownian ratchet) claim that "no - life does not violate 2nd law of thermodynamics". How scientific is it to deny reality?
@waksibra To be precise, PZ is using the scientific method, which is based on time- and place-independent, verifiable experimentation and observation, to argue that we can't rely on our senses and common sense alone. That's not self detonating. Maybe you should listen to what he actually says instead of picking certain phrases and ignoring the context.
Biology itself is not pseudo science but PZ Meyers is definitely leading pseudo scientist out there. According to "scientist" and "professor of biology" PZ Meyers, existence of life on planet Earth does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. How ignorant of mdern science is that?
@kalorak1 It does NOT violate the second law of thermodynamics, because the earth is NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM. If you haven't noticed, there's this huge ball of flaming gas that is constantly throwing incredible amounts of energy at us - it's called THE SUN. Maybe you've heard of it.
Anyway, you clearly have no idea of physics, so don't try to argue with it's principles.
His comments on Papal infallibility show PZ making a mistake subsequent to accepting a popular straw-man rather than studying Church history. Papal infallibility does not mean everything the pope says is true. It means that the office of the papacy has the same authority to rule on Church doctrine as a council. But in general, I agree that the complexities of theology are irrelevant to establishing the existence or otherwise of god, and I'm trained in the history of patristic theology.
Just watch the video and cout how many times PZ Meyers repeats his magic phrase (atheist incantation of sorts) "scientific method". Also count how many times he refers to the fact that HE is a professor of sorts and the fact that HIS students listen to HIM like pigs listening to the thunderstorm.
@kalorak1 So what? He mentions the scientific methods dozens of times. That's no surprise, seeing the TOPIC of his talk. He refers to him being a professor because he IS a professor of biology, which is science - again, no suprise, seeing that his whole talk is ABOUT the interrelationship of science and atheism.
What's your point? Counting how often he uses certain words is not an argument (wow, who thought I'd ever have to explain that to someone ^^)
Canadian Atheists once led by blood thirsty abortionist, and pseudo-medical fraud, with only three years of medical school to his name, Henry Morgentaler have recently discovered new leader and a prophet PZ Meyers. Meyers is promising Canadian Atheists that he will dress atheism in fine cloth of pseudo-science and make it look like legitimate religion in eyes of Canadian society.
@kalorak1 kolorak1, some guy on youtube lacking any scientific training, has recently discovered a professor of biology and atheist and, deeply confused by what he has to say, thinks it is a legitimate style of arguing against him by simply referencing some asshole who happened to be an atheist as well, throwing around ad-hominems and accusing him - an expert scientist - of pseudo-science, instead of - you know - saying anything useful or informative or (god forbid) giving actual arguments.
@kalorak1 pseudo science?? Biology is ps? Physics is ps? Chemistry is ps? Boy I gotta tell ya..the concoction of ignorance, stupidity, fear and desperation being brewed by those refusing to accept the validity of evolution and save their faith from drowning in a sea of indisputable evidence is really beginning to stink to high heaven...no pun intended.
If PZ Mayers wants to preserve any credibilty he should stop making public presentations. His "video" is lagging his "audio" showing clearly that he cannot walk and chew gum at the same time - clear evidence that he suffers from narcisistic personality disorder and uses only half of his brain to generate his audio and his video.
It's not easy being a PZed. What I think though is that the "dictionary atheist" argument is very important and valid in many cases, because you have theists equating atheism with liberalism, socialism etc - there ARE certain fundamental values all honest atheists will exhibit, but with the amount of junk that is thrown on our heads, one has to make sure the base position for an argument is "I'm an atheist I don't believe in gods - ask me about the rest".
Cool! PZ Myers hates me! 18:28 He hates guys like me who say atheism is just the lack of belief in gods. Then he goes on to explain the other baggage that he has latched on to atheism. This "positive explanation of the world" veers more into secular humanism. I'm an absurdist. I don't accept all that as part & parcel to atheism. They're good ideas, but being atheist doesn't automatically mean I hold all the same values that PZMyers does. In that little aside, he's wrong.
@ZachsMind His point was that just by being an atheist, you are someone who rejects mythical claims where the only evidence is "this magic book says so" or "this magic wizard did it", unless provided with evidence. He's saying there are logical conclusions associated with atheism which mean it is self-contradictory to hold certain views as an atheist (trusting anecdotal evidence, requiring only emotional response not experiment) Also - the "hate" he mentions is PZ's warm fuzzy way of disagreeing
@ZachsMind he never suggested that all atheists have the same values. he just points out that the emotional and philosophical baggage that comes with atheism defies the dictionary defenition of it
@ZachsMind Saying you;re an Atheist because you're absurdist is quite meaningless. PZ rightly points out that he logical/scientific process that leads to support for atheism is whats important. Now you can go back to jerking off.
9:12 Would you honestly expect her at such a convetion? I wouldn't. But I am glad she showed up. And the guy(must have been a guy) who edited the video obviously shares my view :)
Evolution, be it of organism or of mind, of subatomic matter or of the cosmos as a whole, reflects the pervasive role of process which is central both to the nature of our world and to the terms in which it must be understood. Change pervades nature.The passage of time leaves neither individuals nor types (species) of things statically invariant.
DId anyone else get an ad for "The Doomsday Preppers" at the start of this video? Seems rather odd to me.
DSoverPSP 1 week ago
Comment removed
zgregw1217 3 weeks ago
I initially disagreed with him characterizing the word "atheist" as meaning more than "lack of belief in gods", but then he said it was a "loaded word", which is quite true. Words have multiple meanings, and sometimes the dictionary definition differs from actual usage of the word. The word atheist means "without belief in gods", but in it's USAGE, it refers to skeptical freethinkers who care about truth. Which can, unfortunately, create confusion and enable equivocation.
Flyborg 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
GET READY FOR THE GREAT WARNING NOW!!!
thewarningsecondcoming . com
JezusSlave 1 month ago
I would suck P Z's cock, he is hot.
martyaus2905 2 months ago
@martyaus2905 hah ..... you would suck a crocoduck's cock ...
helperthrope 2 weeks ago
@helperthrope I sure would.
martyaus2905 2 weeks ago
@martyaus2905 :-D
helperthrope 2 weeks ago
A fool saith in his heart 'there is no god'. Once again he's walking down a candy sprinkled road of self delusion.
ericarose1979 2 months ago
@ericarose1979 no a realist says that. a man who is honest with himself. he walks down a path where he looks to improve his own life and make the lives of all those around him better. he knows what is there and what isn't.
incaugnito37 2 months ago
@ericarose1979 Religion is master of psychological projection.
saguhh00 2 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@ericarose1979 I think you are probably just trolling, but I'm open to dialogue. While it is written in a book that "A fool saith in his heart 'there is no god'", an actual FOOL is one who believes something based on it being written in a book, while ignoring the entire body of literally millions of hours of study by thousands of scientists in virtually every country in the world that show the evidence to the contrary.
stopt1me 1 month ago
I must get that crocaduck tie
courtlandmcdaniel 2 months ago 3
at 19:40 he's right you know. I never thought of it that way but yeah. Even though I always say (and I mean it) I became an atheist because at some point in my life the only alternative was being an intellectual coward I never connected it to atheism being more then this.
ForYeensSake 2 months ago
Although I respect PZ Meyers, his definition sounds like it would eliminate a lot of people who converted from Atheism to religion which sounds like playing No True Scotsman. Unless he's willing to call Kirk Cameron a liar when he says he was once an atheist, I think he's mixing atheist with skeptic. Then again, he's smarter than I so take what I say with a grain of salt.
DarkEmergence 2 months ago
@DarkEmergence I think that what he's trying to say is that in this world it more often than not takes certain prerequisites to be an atheist. People who are willing to shut up and watch the universe unfold are much more likely to be atheists then those who aren't.
ForYeensSake 2 months ago
Lol scientists running after 900ft Jesus w/ biopsy needle, "MUST GET SAMPLE!!"
"Atheists just sit around not believing"- This is a funny quote because i'm in my school's Secular Student Association and although we all agree that there is no evidence for God's existence, we argue HARDCORE about EVERYTHING else. Morality, animal rights, sentience, free will, psychology--it's tiring.
proprodigySD 3 months ago
@proprodigySD
If you all come to some kind of conclusion you guys can negotiate to a universal social law than you have a philosophy that works. The key is negotiating till you find a way to meat in the middle on an an issue you both disagree on.
TheMrgoku1985 3 months ago
Lol i remember watching this on tv
DanMichaelSoul 4 months ago
How can you criticize theists for not providing a proper definition of "god", and immediately go on to ignore the clear cut definition we have for "atheism"? Meyers' argument that positive values inform a person's atheism may have been relevant if those values are the same for all atheists, but I very much doubt that that's the case.
How many scientologists do you think are in that audience? He's speaking about a specific subset of nonbelievers.
1280295 4 months ago
Comment removed
Callirgos1 4 months ago
@1280295
He was saying that theists do provide a definition but under scrutiny, against known reality, they keep redefining it. This is also called "the death of 1000 qualifications" in philosophy.
Yes, we do have a clear definition for atheism. We don't believe in a god that intervenes ( theology ). That actually is the same for all atheists.
The theists PZ is talking about begin with a theological god and step by step qualify it into a deistic god.
Callirgos1 4 months ago
@1280295
I agree with his "positive values" as well. Every atheists I've met has valued truth over comfort. Past that there are differing characteristics... most prefer long term goals over short term benefits. Humility in intellectual honesty.as a method of organization and cooperation is also highly prized.
Why do the values need to be the same for all atheists? I think one common value would be enough... The core value of truth seems to stand out to me personally.
Callirgos1 4 months ago
Creationist quote miners; @ 3:12 he gave you a major bone. If you're dishonest go ahead and quote mine there.
GallusSapien 5 months ago
A lovely example of beating a weak sister (creationists) & bragging you've beaten the whole family. Evolution is accepted by the largest Christian denomination (Catholics). So, it is not a case against Christianity, let alone theism. How does it support atheism? On the contrary, evolution confirms every falsifiable claim Aristotle made for teleology. Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 5 months ago
@dfpolis You apparently didn't watch the whole thing.
Reggis420 5 months ago
@Reggis420 What did I miss that you think is important? I did ask for permission to use excerpts from this video to prepare a video response, and received no reply. So the poster apparently thinks it cannot withstand analysis. Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 5 months ago
I must get that crocoduck tie.
yesimsandw1ch 5 months ago 15
@yesimsandw1ch it's a pharyngula
incaugnito37 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GOD, HEAVEN, AND SEX: Internet article examines the Biblical possibility of sex in heaven. Human sexuality isn't just for reproduction. There are reasons the Bible requires marriage for sex on earth, but those reasons won't exist in heaven. Scripture teaches, in heaven, we'll be like the angels only in one sense - no marriage, but we won't be like angels in every other way (i.e. Bible says we'll enjoy food and drink). Psalm 16:11 says there will be great spiritual joy and pleasures in heaven.
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT ABOUT THE STARS? Gravity explains how the order found in the precise courses of trillions of stars is maintained, but gravity can't explain the origin of that order! Did all the trillions stars agree to get out of each others way? C'mon! Disorder in the universe is because of chance, but the order is because of design. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or living cell works, but it's irrational to believe that undirected natural laws can bring about an airplane or a living cell. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read my popular Internet articles: ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM, ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE!
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument for a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed in design or useless.
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select" from variations produced having survival value. It doesn't produce variations. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of transitional forms and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discusses mixed species in fossils (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum conveniently ignored by evolutionists).
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NOT ALL EVOLUTIONISTS even agree on the fossils used to support and reconstruct human evolution. The bones are incomplete. There's no certainty of the bones belonging to the same creature. They can reconstruct whatever they want from these bones, and they have. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creature. Read my article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 6 months ago
9:14 --- wow!
rysw19 6 months ago
Fascinating to see another atheist fundamentalist. Modern western science developed in Christian culture. I can appreciate so many Americans resisting the Christian fundamentalists and their absurd rejection of evolution, but outside of such protestant fundamentalism, Christianity has always been very comfortable with her bright child, modern science. To pretend otherwise manifests simply a cultural illiteracy. Fr. Mendel was the fellow who founded modern genetics.
Youdamana 6 months ago
PZ Meyers was smote shortly afterward.
jamiller077 6 months ago
Guys, obvious troll is obvious
PascalsFolly 6 months ago
get science plus from google plus lol
jandkas 7 months ago
Is that a Crocaduck tie?!?!? Ha, PZ is a nut! He's great!
TheSultan03 7 months ago
what a great lecture, very informative and inspiring. the narrowing down of grand questions down to specifics (okham's razor...), elegantly enlightening. thanks for posting.
saitamme 7 months ago
Are atheists that unaccustomed to seeing attractive women? Yes, she's attractive, but there's countless attractive women (and young men) atheists that attend meetings, conferences, and seminars.
Kome1 7 months ago
PZ Meyers is a cook.
TAXtheAtheist 7 months ago
@TAXtheAtheist
I'll take a pizza, please, with pepperoni. PZ doesn't usually mention his kitchen skills!
fredmounts 7 months ago
@TAXtheAtheist
You ignorant bigot, atheists already pay taxes 'cause paying taxes is a default. Religion is the over privileged one!
ExamineTheHorizon 7 months ago 21
@ExamineTheHorizon The atheist is devoid of moral ethos. Richard Dawins is a certified nut.
TAXtheAtheist 7 months ago
do you just detest any atheist concept? dawkins is certainly not devoid of morality, he hates the persecution of women, the discrimination against homosexuals... , but then what i think is moral (human rights) might be immoral to you.
saitamme 7 months ago
Yay Atheism!
2007regis 7 months ago
@2007regis To embrace atheism, is to embrace ignorance.
TAXtheAtheist 7 months ago
@TAXtheAtheist The opposite. To embrace god is to embrace ignorance. Atheists are the ones asking questions, who want to know why, who want to see proof. Theists are the ones who accept 'god did it' as the only answer and don't care to know or ask anything else.
sogghartha 7 months ago
@TAXtheAtheist What type of ignorant bullshit do you believe, and why? You dare attempt to exalt your idiotic, bronze age, constantly debunked, faith based, fact ignoring, mental illness with sound scientific method. You need an analyist. The bible, and all other "holy books" and bunk; violent, oppressive, abusive, ignorant, antiquated lies and incorrect guesses. You, as a believer, are clinging to a series of fairy tales perpetrated by other ignorant, unaware, untruthful, suckers. Grow up!!
TheSultan03 7 months ago
@TheSultan03 So you 'think' secularism has the market cornered on science? Sorry to burst your bubble, but no. One example is Noah's Ark, it's size is not known, but the dimensions are that used in today's superpower naval forces, it is the most stable. Not bad for bronze aged tech that your tax dollars are going for...
TAXtheAtheist 7 months ago
@TAXtheAtheist Oh, Noahs Ark. I didn't realize you were a blithering idiot. Thanks for clearing that up. And your bible gives the size of the fictious ark, dufus. But, the real point is that if you believe it to be literal you are a moron. Have a nice life. You deserve no more of my attention.
TheSultan03 7 months ago
@TheSultan03 You are a total moron full of hate & ignorance. The athiest is devoid of moral ethos, like I said..
TAXtheAtheist 7 months ago
@TAXtheAtheist You are a fascist, bigoted, arrogant, ignorant, self-deceptive, lying, uneducated, fool. And moral ethos is a redundant statement. You just show how unequipped you are to think like an adult at every turn. Go pray to your nonexistent god. At least you can pretend that he likes you.
TheSultan03 7 months ago
@TAXtheAtheist where do you get your morals from?
MrKGatl 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TAXtheAtheist "The athiest is devoid of moral ethos, like I said.." You appear not to venture out much. :)
MzHellinahandbasket 6 months ago
I’d just like to point out that atheism is just the lack of belief in gods. It says so in dictionaries. Either dictionaries are right, or they are wrong and we need to change them.
Timnea1 7 months ago 2
Missing the Q&A! :(
Vortex42 8 months ago
I think Myers is stretching to say that being an Atheist person is more than being "without religious belief"... That isn't a SMALL thing at all... Being without religious belief is a HUGE thing, and it deserves it's own word.
To be Atheist COMES from rationalism and a propensity for an interest in scientific inquiry and deductive reasoning... But the Atheist itself ONLY relates to one aspect of who you are... and it's simply to describe something HUGELY damaging that you *don't* have. ;)
Vortex42 8 months ago
I'm an Atheist who is a dick. And I don't care. ;)
Vortex42 8 months ago
@09:13 - Oh my goodness - HELLO! :D
Vortex42 8 months ago
Good speech, but I cringed a little when he started to talk about Beck..
Hirnlego999 9 months ago
9:13 wowaweewa
merlord 9 months ago 3
@merlord Yes, yes indeed.
no2religions 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Great Talk. Show me any god and tell him to speak to me and then come and have a cup of ea with me then I will agree there is a god. .Only want a christain godas any other god will nt due,so tell them to stay away.I believe those who believe in any gods ae just those who can be easily fooled.
fulfilled123 9 months ago
Great Talk. Show me any god and tell him to speak to me and then come and have a cup of ea with me then I will agree there is a god. .Only want a christain godas any other god will nt due,so tell them to stay away.I believe those who believe in any gods ae just those who can be eaily fooled.
fulfilled123 9 months ago
@18:30 For instance, would anyone want to attach a philosophy to add weight to why they don’t believe in ghosts, goblins, sea monsters or little green men to feel proud? No! Why should we have to link positives and over inflate things or meanings of words, when a good old “No that is bullshit because” is more than sufficient?
SupaShang 10 months ago
My atheism isn't a qualification. Its simply a label to differentiate myself from the mythical claims of theists. I don’t base my life around atheism. It is not the first thing I think about when I get up in the morning, or when I have fun, fall in love or learn something new. It is because of my curiosity for science and to know the world around me that allows me to shake off false claims made without any evidence. It is science that means so much more and carries more weight. Not my atheism.
SupaShang 10 months ago
I like PZ and I agree with some of the things he says, but I have issue with his comments on "dictionary atheists" defining atheism as just the non belief in Gods. I don't see why we have to attach positives to a negative position against someone else's spooky positive claim! It just muddles the rest of the argument leaving the conversation wide open for theists to attach their messed up views on what atheism "means" to them: you've all heard them many times before... atheism = Hitler, Stalin..
SupaShang 10 months ago
at 50:50 he says there's no historical evidence for Jesus. I can think of a lot of atheists who disagree with him who write books about who the historical Jesus really was.
Jugglable 10 months ago
@Jugglable Like who? And are they writing about a historical person who might have existed from which the myths were made (like king arthur)? That's not hard to believe.
The supernatural stuff has no historical evidence.
dlandon2000 10 months ago
@dlandon2000 Gerd Ludemann is one that comes to mind. Bart Ehrman also writes books against Christianity but talks about how the "historical Jesus" was really an apocalyptic prophet who never claimed to be God. I don't think there's one historian at an accredited university who denies the existence of Jesus. What's interesting, though, is that the same texts that atheists use to talk about Jesus talk about miracles. Their objection to the miraculous is philosophical, not historical.
Jugglable 10 months ago
@Jugglable No it's no philosophical it's epistemology. How do you know what is true? And a book says so, can NEVER be sufficient evidence for the existence of a god or son of god, or for miracles or supernatural events.
It's far from certain that anyone like jesus even existed, denying he existed would be equally difficult to prove. However the person making the claim ALWAYS bears the burden of evidence.
dlandon2000 10 months ago
@dlandon2000 "And a book says so, can NEVER be sufficient evidence for the existence of a god" I'd agree. But a book "saying so" is what we have for a lot of what's considered reliable ancient history. With the methods of ancient historiography we apply to any other sources it is very confidently concluded that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, for example. Because the texts say so...and there are other criteria to be applied. To object to miracles a priori is philosophy.
Jugglable 10 months ago
@Jugglable No it isn't. If you ask a historian why they think something is true and they say "because a book said so" they are a BAD historian. Or the history you are asking about is very trivial.
Real history is established through MANY sources which can include literature. Contemporary literature especially. But for major events you also expect to find other evidence like archeology.
A good example is troy. A book (iliad) said it was true but there was little other reason to think (cont..)
dlandon2000 10 months ago
@Jugglable it was true. Then the city was discovered, so NOW we have a good reason to think it was based in some fact. That is VERY different than assuming the book is 100% correct. We still have NO REASON to think zues or hera are real.
With the bible we have no contemporary literature, and we have no archeological evidence.
Also extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to warrant belief. It not very extraordinary to claim a warlord invaded his neighbor (alexander the great) cont..
dlandon2000 10 months ago
@Jugglable and thus we don't need extraordinary evidence to conclude that Alex was a real person. Does that mean we know exactly what he did every day of his life? Of course not. We can be reasonable certain of the general outline of his life.
With jesus there are extraordinary claims with no evidence, and in this case you NEED to know if the specifics are true for it to mean anything.
It all adds up to a total lack of evidence and no reason to believe it's true.
dlandon2000 10 months ago
@dlandon2000 I think people apply unreasonable skepticism to the gospels. Many thought Pontius Pilate was a literary invention until an excavation in 1961 found an inscription with his name, dated to the first half of the first century. The origin of the Christian faith against great predisposition to the contrary is evidence of the resurrection. I suggest you look at the books "The Resurrection of the Son of God" or "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses" for rigorous Christian history.
Jugglable 10 months ago
@Jugglable Actually people drop rational criticism to religious texts (only their own of course). The point is it's entirely possible that someone named jesus was crucified for stuff he said or did. That's not even remotely a radical claim, lots of people have been killed because they angered some church or state. Even there the evidence is pretty weak but I consider it plausible.
However the claim that he is god is a radical claim with no evidence. You don't accept the iliad as evidence ...
dlandon2000 10 months ago
@dlandon2000 "Even there the evidence is pretty weak but I consider it plausible." I think you have an unfair double-standard here. It's a very well established fact of ancient history that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified.
Furthermore, we know very reliably what the original New Testament manuscripts said. That's what the field of textual criticism is for. It's the best-attested text of the ancient world, even Bart Ehrman says so.
Jugglable 10 months ago
@Jugglable that achillies was in invincable (almost) warrior because he was dipped in the river styx do you? Even though we've discovered the city of troy and mount olympus is real and the trojan war was real etc... Of course not.
The only reason you believe one and not the other is because of preconceived notions and personal bias.
The evidence for jesus is all hearsay from copies of translated copies.
You should be just as skeptical of your religion as you are of others.
dlandon2000 10 months ago
@dlandon2000 I am indeed skeptical. I used to be an atheist, but when I read arguments for the resurrection I found I couldn't help but believe. Even secular historians will say Jesus' tomb was found empty, and that his followers truly believed he was raised from the dead and were willing to die for that despite great predisposition to the contrary. Even Paul converted after killing Christians and gave his own life. How do you explain that?
Jugglable 10 months ago
@Jugglable How can you claim you are skeptical when you believe it from a 3thousanth person account which as been translated a dozen times.
Secular historians don't agree the tomb was found empty; Rational historians agree you can't confirm any of it even happened.
What evidence do you have that any of it even happened? The bible itself is not sufficient. If it were then you'd have to believe in islam, and hinduism and zues etc... They are have equal amounts of "evidence"
dlandon2000 10 months ago
@dlandon2000 First of all, I believe, based on the field of textual criticism, and the writings of a number of ATHEISTS, that we know what the original manuscripts said with great confidence. "Secular historians don't agree the tomb was found empty" Well, Bart Ehrman and Gerd Ludemann come to mind. They both write against Christianity, and also write about how using the methods of ancient historiography, the empty tomb is a well-established historical datum.
Jugglable 10 months ago
@Jugglable You also seem to be making classic logical fallacies, like appeal to authority. You keep saying "Person X believes Y, therefore it is real." It doesn't matter how many people choose to believe a thing if the evidence isn't there.
Even if a dead guy was put in a tomb and later it was found empty to think that then justifies a belief in god makes numerous logical fallacies at the same time.
dlandon2000 10 months ago
@dlandon2000 "You also seem to be making classic logical fallacies, like appeal to authority" Oh, boy, I'm losing my patience. Not all appeals to authority are fallacious. It's only a fallacious appeal to authority if you appeal to an authority outside the relevant field, like if you appeal to a dentist on an issue regarding astrophysics.
Jugglable 10 months ago
@Jugglable Actually when you believe something just because someone else does it's always an appeal to authority and a logical fallacy.
What is not a fallacy is if you consider the consensus opinion of the whole field of experts. To pick one dentist and say colgate is best because he says so a logical fallacy. To say flouride toothpaste is good for you teeth because 99.9% of dentist who have reviewed the evidence agree with it is NOT a logical fallacy.
dlandon2000 10 months ago
@Jugglable So now if we consider historians and the historicity of jesus we see there is no consensus. I could easily have trotted out many historians who don't think it's reliable but it would have been equally irrelevant.
If you think Ehrmann or Ludemann have compelling evidence then list the evidence, don't just list the people you agree with. Evidence speaks for itself and that's what I base my beliefs on.
dlandon2000 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dlandon2000
"Even if a dead guy was put in a tomb and later it was found empty to think that then justifies a belief in god makes numerous logical fallacies at the same time." I'd like to congratulate you on the biggest straw man I've ever seen.
Jugglable 10 months ago
@dlandon2000 If you are going to hand-wavingly dismiss this as "three-thousandth" person account, or if you don't recognize the fundamental differences in genre between the Koran, ancient Greek mytholgoy, and the Gospels, I can only recommend the most basic book of hermeneutics or ancient history.
Jugglable 10 months ago
@Jugglable We don't have any originals of the gospels, they contradict each other, some parts are almost certainly forgeries and some parts don't agree with extra-biblical accounts. There are many translation errors, copying errors etc...
It is ONLY your preconceived bias that makes the gospels appear different than other holy books or texts to you.
dlandon2000 10 months ago
@dlandon2000 Based on the fact that you sound like you're writing out of the handbook of atheist clichés, I don't think you are skeptical. You haven't questioned your views against Christianity much, or thought about ancient history much. How much serious theology have you read? Have you read any books, like, say, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses or The Resurrection of the Son of God? I have read a lot of atheism and know where you're coming from. If you compare Jesus to Zeus, you have no clue.
Jugglable 10 months ago
@Jugglable "If you compare Jesus to Zeus, you have no clue."
That just betrays you bias, they are both claims and should be evaluated with the same rigor and skepticism. Ready more books that have the same opinion you do is NOT EVIDENCE!! I read Lee Strobel and other books like that when I was a christian and they convinced me until I realized they were all built on a pile of logical fallacies.
dlandon2000 10 months ago
@dlandon2000 Jesus is not comparable to Zeus. There are even atheist historians who talk about Jesus as an historical figure and what he "really" taught during his ministry. There are also very concrete figures in the early church--people like Peter, James, John --- who said they knew Jesus personally. Can anybody say anything remotely similar about Zeus?
Jugglable 10 months ago
@Jugglable "There are even atheist historians who talk about Jesus" Irrelevant, as I said there could have been a guy who taught stuff, that doesn't mean he was a god.
" who said they knew Jesus personally," if that works for you then, I know Zues personally he loves bud light and football. There now you have an eyewitness account of zues. It's third person, and even eyewitness testimony is the worst kind of evidence.
dlandon2000 10 months ago
@Jugglable "I have read a lot of atheism and know where you're coming from" Obviously not since you don't understand my points.
And yes us atheist use "cliche's" like "you need evidence to warrant belief."
"You haven't questioned your views against Christianity" This is VERY telling of your bias, you seem to be thinking belief in christianity is the default and I have views against it. That's inaccurate and totally backwards.
dlandon2000 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dlandon2000 "you seem to be thinking belief in christianity is the default and I have views against it." If you say that atheism is the only rational position, yes, you have views against Christianity.
Jugglable 10 months ago
@Jugglable Atheism the ONLY rational and logical default position when dealing with any god claim.
Those making the claim bear the burden of evidence, until then belief should be withheld.
The is much more historical evidence for mohamed (mostly since he was more recent) than for jesus and their copies of books are more consistant (far fewer languages and fewer times copied) by your own criteria you should be a muslim.
dlandon2000 10 months ago
@dlandon2000 "Those making the claim bear the burden of evidence" You have made claims in this conversation. I see no support of them.
Jugglable 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jugglable ""Those making the claim bear the burden of evidence" You have made claims in this conversation. I see no support of them."
Like what? I'll be happy to support them.
dlandon2000 10 months ago
@Jugglable And LOTS of people have died for what they think is true. 9/11 being a horrific example, I used to be a christian does that mean my new or old positions are more or less likely to be true? No, neither my nor your nor Paul's beliefs before or after any supposed event makes ANY difference to whether that belief is actually TRUE!
Judge it based on objective evidence and withhold belief until there is sufficient evidence to warrant belief. That is the ONLY rational position to take.
dlandon2000 10 months ago
@dlandon2000 The difference between the 9/11 hijackers and you and me is that the early Christians were in a position to know definitively whether what they were saying was true. Many people die for mistaken beliefs, but it's hard to get an entire group of people to die for a lie, without exception, with nobody renouncing their faith, under threat of crucifixion.
Jugglable 10 months ago
total babe at 9:14....not PZ
robertedge 1 year ago 35
@robertedge hell yes!
fredslipknot9 1 year ago
@robertedge I would have agreed if it was PZ too... xD
Gotta say, I love evolutionary biologists and their ties. Myers and Dawkins both have awesome selections of them
AcroStigma 11 months ago
@robertedge You are correct.
harveyts3 11 months ago
Schraupe, I hope that your English comprehension is up to snuff on this one.
kalorak1 1 year ago
@kalorak1 yeah, again, so what? Does that make the earth a closed system? No. Does it violate the second law of thermodynamics? apparently not. Does it disproof evolution? Not even slightly. So, what's your point?
Schraupe 1 year ago
Schraupe try this:
"Fluctuation driven transport and models of molecular motors and pumps"
Abstract
Non-equilibrium fluctuations can drive vectorial transport along an anisotropic structure in an isothermal medium by biasing the effect of thermal noise (k B T). Mechanisms based on this principle are often called Brownian ratchets and have been invoked as a possible explanation for the operation of biomolecular motors and pumps. ....
kalorak1 1 year ago
@kalorak1 And that is supposed to proof what exactly?
Schraupe 1 year ago
Schraupe, devise closed system to your own satisfaction and conduct experiment the way you see fit and than report on results you get. Good luck.
kalorak1 1 year ago
@kalorak1 What for? What am I supposed to show? What YOU need to prof is - for the second-law-of-thermodynamics-argument to work - that a.) life is miraculously able to develop in a closed system and b.) the earth is a closed system. You definitely fail at b, and I can predict that you'll fail at a just as well.
Schraupe 1 year ago
Schraupe, devise an experiment where you enclose living organism in a "closed system" and prove that closing the system caused life process to stop. Bury some seeds under ground to cut off Sun's influence and see what happens. Visit deep sea vents and see influence of Sun radiation on life down there.
kalorak1 1 year ago
@kalorak1 You just keep on failing, don't you?
Burying seeds under ground is NOT creating a closed system, neither is visiting deep sea vents. Seriously, if you want to continue going down that path, just look up what a closed system actually IS.
Schraupe 1 year ago
Religious, Political and Cultural views serve a Death Denying Function~ Becker
Pablo113 1 year ago
PZ Myers fails to see, that we CREATE GOD with our BRAINS. 11:04
if he only would understand Bizarre False Beliefs are created in the BRAIN. When ACCEPTING them as TRUE, this is sign of SCHIZOTYPAL disorder, iow, NEUROLOGICAL DISORDER. The CRAZY beliefs of the religious are NO DIFFERENT to those of the schizophrenics..He doesn't get it....
people that see zombie Jesus as TRUE are ChristPsychotics..they see 2+2 as equal to ANYTHING but 4.
Neurology proves the BRAIN creates GodBelief when is SICK
calpurnpiso 1 year ago
Just like his Guru and Messiah P Z Meyers, Schraupe falls for the same trap claiming that Earth is not closed system instead of trying to educate himself on the subject at hand.
Google this article published at "Nature":
A molecular information ratchet
Viviana Serreli1, Chin-Fa Lee1, Euan R. Kay1 & David A. Leigh1
1.School of Chemistry, University of Edinburgh, The King’s Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JJ, UK....
kalorak1 1 year ago
@kalorak1 you just accused a physics-student of not having educated himself on a principle of physics.
Epic fail.
The earth is not a closed system, therefore the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply. Deal with it.
Schraupe 1 year ago
Some religious people claim that "miracle of life on planet Earth in violation of 2nd law of thermodynamics" is the evidence for existence of God. Therefore ignorant and arrogant atheists with limited knowlege of modern physics and modern biology unable to offer alternative explanation for existence of life on planet Earth (brownian ratchet) claim that "no - life does not violate 2nd law of thermodynamics". How scientific is it to deny reality?
kalorak1 1 year ago
@kalorak1 You have to be a troll. HAVE to be.
iDaruma 1 year ago
PZ is using his brain to argue that we can't rely on our brain... self detonating statement
waksibra 1 year ago
@waksibra To be precise, PZ is using the scientific method, which is based on time- and place-independent, verifiable experimentation and observation, to argue that we can't rely on our senses and common sense alone. That's not self detonating. Maybe you should listen to what he actually says instead of picking certain phrases and ignoring the context.
Schraupe 1 year ago
The great Daniel Dennett in the audience! 44:10
gigisdad 1 year ago
Biology itself is not pseudo science but PZ Meyers is definitely leading pseudo scientist out there. According to "scientist" and "professor of biology" PZ Meyers, existence of life on planet Earth does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. How ignorant of mdern science is that?
kalorak1 1 year ago
@kalorak1 How is it ignorant to acknowledge that the existence of life on Earth does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
fbendz 1 year ago
@kalorak1 It does NOT violate the second law of thermodynamics, because the earth is NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM. If you haven't noticed, there's this huge ball of flaming gas that is constantly throwing incredible amounts of energy at us - it's called THE SUN. Maybe you've heard of it.
Anyway, you clearly have no idea of physics, so don't try to argue with it's principles.
Schraupe 1 year ago
His comments on Papal infallibility show PZ making a mistake subsequent to accepting a popular straw-man rather than studying Church history. Papal infallibility does not mean everything the pope says is true. It means that the office of the papacy has the same authority to rule on Church doctrine as a council. But in general, I agree that the complexities of theology are irrelevant to establishing the existence or otherwise of god, and I'm trained in the history of patristic theology.
HConstantine 1 year ago
Just watch the video and cout how many times PZ Meyers repeats his magic phrase (atheist incantation of sorts) "scientific method". Also count how many times he refers to the fact that HE is a professor of sorts and the fact that HIS students listen to HIM like pigs listening to the thunderstorm.
kalorak1 1 year ago
@kalorak1 So what? He mentions the scientific methods dozens of times. That's no surprise, seeing the TOPIC of his talk. He refers to him being a professor because he IS a professor of biology, which is science - again, no suprise, seeing that his whole talk is ABOUT the interrelationship of science and atheism.
What's your point? Counting how often he uses certain words is not an argument (wow, who thought I'd ever have to explain that to someone ^^)
Schraupe 1 year ago
Canadian Atheists once led by blood thirsty abortionist, and pseudo-medical fraud, with only three years of medical school to his name, Henry Morgentaler have recently discovered new leader and a prophet PZ Meyers. Meyers is promising Canadian Atheists that he will dress atheism in fine cloth of pseudo-science and make it look like legitimate religion in eyes of Canadian society.
kalorak1 1 year ago
@kalorak1 kolorak1, some guy on youtube lacking any scientific training, has recently discovered a professor of biology and atheist and, deeply confused by what he has to say, thinks it is a legitimate style of arguing against him by simply referencing some asshole who happened to be an atheist as well, throwing around ad-hominems and accusing him - an expert scientist - of pseudo-science, instead of - you know - saying anything useful or informative or (god forbid) giving actual arguments.
Schraupe 1 year ago
@kalorak1 pseudo science?? Biology is ps? Physics is ps? Chemistry is ps? Boy I gotta tell ya..the concoction of ignorance, stupidity, fear and desperation being brewed by those refusing to accept the validity of evolution and save their faith from drowning in a sea of indisputable evidence is really beginning to stink to high heaven...no pun intended.
gigisdad 1 year ago
900 feet Jesus: dealt with in Star Trek TNG, the Fek'lhr episode where ferengi use advanced projector tech.
The rest is dealt with in Stargate SG-1: atheism = Goa'Uld thread, anti-theism = Ori thread
:)
hrvad 1 year ago
PZ Myers is a sexy teddy bear. Let it be written.
Lupitamihita 1 year ago
If PZ Mayers wants to preserve any credibilty he should stop making public presentations. His "video" is lagging his "audio" showing clearly that he cannot walk and chew gum at the same time - clear evidence that he suffers from narcisistic personality disorder and uses only half of his brain to generate his audio and his video.
kalorak1 1 year ago
@kalorak1 lolwut?
ShiftyWeasel 1 year ago
@kalorak1 Are you kidding? This was one of his best talks that I've seen. He makes excellent points in this. What is it you think isn't credible?
As for the some video/audio lag you've noticed, and you thinking it means a personality disorder, huh???
Oh dear... just checked your page and you're a newly made sock/troll account. Figures. Never mind answering the serious question above. :)
ScentedNectar 1 year ago
It's not easy being a PZed. What I think though is that the "dictionary atheist" argument is very important and valid in many cases, because you have theists equating atheism with liberalism, socialism etc - there ARE certain fundamental values all honest atheists will exhibit, but with the amount of junk that is thrown on our heads, one has to make sure the base position for an argument is "I'm an atheist I don't believe in gods - ask me about the rest".
8DX 1 year ago
It Gods given right not to believe in him..Newton's laws of motion
bernieowen2 1 year ago
Cool! PZ Myers hates me! 18:28 He hates guys like me who say atheism is just the lack of belief in gods. Then he goes on to explain the other baggage that he has latched on to atheism. This "positive explanation of the world" veers more into secular humanism. I'm an absurdist. I don't accept all that as part & parcel to atheism. They're good ideas, but being atheist doesn't automatically mean I hold all the same values that PZMyers does. In that little aside, he's wrong.
ZachsMind 1 year ago
@ZachsMind His point was that just by being an atheist, you are someone who rejects mythical claims where the only evidence is "this magic book says so" or "this magic wizard did it", unless provided with evidence. He's saying there are logical conclusions associated with atheism which mean it is self-contradictory to hold certain views as an atheist (trusting anecdotal evidence, requiring only emotional response not experiment) Also - the "hate" he mentions is PZ's warm fuzzy way of disagreeing
8DX 1 year ago
@ZachsMind he never suggested that all atheists have the same values. he just points out that the emotional and philosophical baggage that comes with atheism defies the dictionary defenition of it
Crease05 1 year ago
@ZachsMind Saying you;re an Atheist because you're absurdist is quite meaningless. PZ rightly points out that he logical/scientific process that leads to support for atheism is whats important. Now you can go back to jerking off.
HConstantine 1 year ago
Why would you mention your sister is an alcoholic? Don't you think that's a little bit inappropriate to reveal to everyone?
alexjohnc3 1 year ago
PZ is not only very witty and intelligent but he adds a comedic side to the somewhat dry side of science and atheistic endeavors.
tegan71969 1 year ago
9:12 Would you honestly expect her at such a convetion? I wouldn't. But I am glad she showed up. And the guy(must have been a guy) who edited the video obviously shares my view :)
moglum 1 year ago 7
Evolution is an emblematic and paradigmatic.
It provides a clear model for how processual novelty and innovation comes into operation in nature's scheme of things.
qaplatlhinganmaH 1 year ago
Evolution, be it of organism or of mind, of subatomic matter or of the cosmos as a whole, reflects the pervasive role of process which is central both to the nature of our world and to the terms in which it must be understood. Change pervades nature.The passage of time leaves neither individuals nor types (species) of things statically invariant.
qaplatlhinganmaH 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This must be the worst piece of psudo-philosophy that has ever come out of an atheist convention. PZ, please stick to your science.
waksibra 1 year ago
@waksibra
Proof by assertion does not a valid critique make.
^_^
UbiquitousChe 1 year ago
@waksibra Philosophy is a completely meaningless endeavor, an ancient relic.
HConstantine 1 year ago