I listen to Carl Sagan with an open mind, but I believe a supreme being created everything. Gases coming out of nowhere to create the big bang doesn't make sense to me, but neither does a creator that has always existed. But I choose to believe in the latter.
I feel clever for realizing this thing about star light reaching the earth taking far longer than 6000 years all on my own before reading Sagan. But I don't think I'd ever have thought in the direction this takes without him.
The Quran also identifies the period of "direct" creation -- that is, the portion of the process in which God was directly involved (not the ancillary things that happened BECAUSE OF actions he took) to be six "days." And, much like the Christian Bible it later goes on to define the notion that God does not measure "days" in the same manner as man. He is not WRONG in any practical sense whatsoever...
Man does not know what Light is, and can never measure light without using light.
The only light we know of is the inside of our atmosphere. How fast does light go, if your testing light from space?
Don't put all your faith in philosophy religion.
Evolution and Darwinism is the focus of Carl's philosophy. He is welcome to believe in these things. I would not base my understanding to measure with eternity and say life is a cosmic burp.
@Yaylin2 That's the stupidest thing I've read, beating even DrMadolite!
Go to your local library and pick up a book on physics you know-nothing pinhead.
We KNOW what light is, we've measured it on earth AND IN SPACE.
The famous Einstein proof on light bending during an eclipse is just one of THOUSANDS of verifiable experiments. Are you functionally illiterate, or just willfully fucking stupid?
My god, (figuratively speaking) where the hell do you idiots come from?
If life were a 'cosmic burp,' pinheads like you would be the result of a cosmic fart.
See, DrMadolite, THIS is what I'm talking about. When idiot 'abstract ideas' fill lesser minds, they don't have time to learn basic science.
It's 2012, we're on the 'net, and this fool makes a statement so amazingly stupid, it reveals not only that he has never paid attention even in grade school, his parents were probably brother and sister.
i hope there is an afterlife so I can meet Carl. Something along the lines of What Dreams May Come of course, not a theological take that requires mental submission and suppresses reason.
Adam was created as a fully grown and capable human. Why not the entire universe?
Why no mention of absurdities in science such as the Big Bang and the singularity as a natural occurrence? Should I believe that it is in nature's (without God) power to squeeze the entire massive universe into a small pinpoint?
@orlandofriend gravity my friend, gravity wich we dont complitely understand. but if science doesnt explain everything clearly just yeat, it doesnt mean that you should belive in supernatural creatures, wich "explains" everything without any shred of evidence.
@orlandofriend Just because you do not understand science doesn't mean that it is absurd. It only means that your education was embarrassingly poor. What surprises me are that those who know nothing about science advertise it here, like orlandofriend.
@orlandofriend You need to stop thinking of science as one blob of information that you either believe or disbelieve. Science is a major field consisting of a multitude of theories, both the ones that are overwhelmingly verifiable as well as those that are mere theories. Believing in some doesn't mean that you have to believe in others.
Science is simply asking yourself what is actually out there, by looking at what you can actually experience rather than what you're told by others before you.
@orlandofriend The Big Bang, for instance, is an unprovable, hugely extrapolated theory. But whereas the Big Bang assumes there's nothing unknown out there affecting the traveling light, the parent theories of electro-magnetism is far more concrete and directly measurable. How light travels through vacuum, whta redshift and blueshift is, what is visible light versus heat, radio-waves and more. The invention of the TV, the Radio and the Microwave being a testament - in fact a gospel - to this.
I tried explaining this to my creationist grandfather and his response was that the speed of light fluctuates therefore we don't know how old these distant stars/quasars actually are......... /facepalm.
This man has certainly shown far less imagination in the first minute of this video than for example C. Darwin did when he wrote his fantastical "On the Origin of Species".
Scientific thinkers have successfully overcome far more difficult problems than having to reconcile a young Earth with very large distances that it now takes light longer than the age of the universe to travel. These people simply have no desire to even attempt to reconcile these things.
@copperload Please explain to the eager audience how Hubble is able to see proto galaxies 6 billion light years away? If light traveled millions of times faster like the inept creationist asserts, the universe would not function like it does. Scientist believe that the only time light MIGHT have traveled faster was within the first millionths of a second after big bang. The great Sagan doesn't need imagination to supersede evidence like creationists.
No-one knows. Most scientists are operating within a fixed paradigm which doesn't lead them into every area or every possibility. Their minds are closed. Their explanations may appeal to you but they don't appeal to me and as for proof of the things they say they now know to be true; well if you keep repeating the same lie again and again and again people will come round to the idea.
@copperload You are the one making the typical creationist assertions, so it's you I'm awaiting the answers from. We have a pretty damn good idea how the universe works and to say otherwise means that you feel yourself smarter than Einstein and Hawking. How dare you smear their work over dogmatic ignorance. You're using the god of the gaps thinking that is nothing more than a logical fallacy. Close-minded? No. Science doesn't use god as Spackle to fill in the gaps of understanding.
@CaptainAwesomeoh13 captain, we dont have slightest idea how universe works, but we are gaining data all the time. but it doenst matter how good proofs we have that there is no gods. ppl will make new religions wich gain more members. choose your side best scientist on earth, or religious nuts who claim that their space daddy created us all :D
@valtonen77 I predict that in the next couple of hundred years, there will be the Church of Chuck Norris: there is ample literature about him and his legendary awesomeness that will be unearthed and interpreted at face value. As for the universe: what I meant is that there are a lot of very good theories floating around that best explain how it works. We would be a lot further in the study if dogma wasn't around to slow down progress.
@CaptainAwesomeoh13 well yeah. Some humans are so stupid and pathetic that when they cant explain everything, they make up silly stories. and some fear death, so they have to live in delusion that there will be paradise in some afterlife. and i know that there are we good theorys and a lot of good evidence but you see, religious ppl doesnt even want to let go of their belifs, because that makes their life meaningless, and some cant live with that. even tho its true.
@valtonen77 But you need to separate religious people from real theologians, too. There's nothing in science that dispoves Paradise, and even if it did you have to ask what type of paradise we're talking about - a largely personalized concept that ranges from the Paradise of afterlife with angels swirming around your head, to the mental state of Mushin or Nirvana which can actually be verified indirectly through use of science.
@DrMadolite beliving in paradise in afterlife (heaven) is like beliving in unicorns, just because there was story in book. Religious people have nothing but faith, and thats not evidence for their claims..
@valtonen77 Actually, believing in Paradise in afterlife is nothing like believing in unicorns, because we can say with absolute certainty that Unicorns only exist in our imagination. "Paradise", on the other hand, cannot be debunked scientifically.
For instance, if there exists a separate plane of particles in which our consciousness resides and our space-time corpus is merely a tool to be directed, then our consciousness may very well live on once our body dies. Scientific reason.
@DrMadolite Science (or rather "scientism") is not just about what you can prove or not, that's just applied science. It's also about theory and reasoning, regardless of whether it can be applied or not. It's merely when you take the step from theory to application that the given science needs to be proven as a verifiable fact.
@DrMadolite and wheres your proof? Where do you get your idea about paradise? why do you asume that there is afterlife? And how can you know that theres no unicorns? there are plenty other lifeforms in universe which we dont know.
@valtonen77 But on planet Earth it's much less likely for Unicorns to exist than it is for our consciousness to be found as part of the sub-atomic structure of the universe. Also, my evidence lies in the fact that we don't yet know what our consciousness is or where specifically in the brain (if even there) it is located.
Also, where's the proof of a Big Bang? there is none, there is only evidence. Does that mean that the Big Bang is a fairy tale as well, not worthy of science?
@DrMadolite "Also, my evidence lies in the fact that we don't yet know what our consciousness is or where specifically in the brain (if even there) it is located." this is what is wrong with you people. when theres gap in science, you fill it with fairy tales.
and about big bang. There is plenty of evidence, which makes scientist come to conclusion that there was big bang, not some fairy tale god, creating earth in 6 days. unlike big bang, your side of story has no single evidence
@DrMadolite and shouldnt you belive scientists who dedicate their whole lifes to investigate stuff like that? rather than some old book, wich tells that "everything this hapend and all evidence points to other direction". bible was created when they didnt have the tecnology we have nowadays, so they made their best conclusions back then and that was false information. IF you would think rationally, you wouldnt belive in crap like that
@valtonen77 Yes we should, and I do. What makes you think that I take anything that is written in the Bible as truth? Paradise has nothing to do with the Bible. Just because something is mentioned in a book, doesn't mean that it's within the confines of that one book. God, Paradise etc aren't products of the Bible, it's the Bible that is a human product of people's notions of these things.
@DrMadolite i still dont understand how ppl can be so stupid, belive that something exists, even tho theres no any shred of evidence. dont you understand that beliving in something, that havent been proven and never will be proven, is stupid? And why you need to belive in afterlife and paradise?
@valtonen77 But how can you know whether something can be proven or not, if you don't already know about it? Personally, I think stupidity lies with anyone who thinks that today's science is set in stone.
Also, why do I need to believe in afterlife and paradise? I don't need to believe in it, I simply do because it makes perfect sense to me. All energy is constant. As such, it's perfectly valid to ask what happens to your consciousness after you die. Plus, It's all about perception.
@valtonen77 Assuming that I'm even a religious person and you're being the reasonable one. Two very big ifs, and of course you'd think you're the reasonable one. But isn't that the very problem with those religious people? The crowd that thinks that their own view is the only rational view and that anything they don't understand, cannot be understood by anyone because it's just stupid or irrational?
Tbh, I don't see much difference betwen certain atheist and theists.
@DrMadolite You cant reason with deluded and brainwashed humans..... it doesnt matter how many facts & proof you give to them. And i dont know if you are religious, but you are still stupid. only stupid person would asume something to exists without any evidence or even any reasonable theory. you just got this imaginary land after death, for no reason in your deluded little head.
@valtonen77 Well I agree that some people have simply gone beyond that point in life where they've become robotic programs to a Vatican or similar operating system.
But instead of concluding that I'm stupid, maybe you should instead do as Bertrand Russel and simply suspend your judgement? Just a thought.
Also, I don't like ignoring my actual experiences in life just because I fail to explain them scientifically to another person, especially if science cannot yet explain it either.
@DrMadolite In other words, I will hold onto my theory of the conscious afterlife until the day it is debunked by superior reasoning, upon which I will gladly accept the new standard. But currently, the idea that consciousness is merely a constant (manifesting itself sub-atomically) that simply inhabits physical life in order to learn more about itself, is more compelling. Mostly because of the proven fact that the Earth's biosphere does indeed evolve, it doesn't just randomize.
@DrMadolite i dont deny that i there could be some afterlife (nothing religious tho) but there has to be even some evidence, or im just as bad as religious person, blidly beliving in something
@valtonen77 I completely agree, but I think it's important to differentiate between personal evidence (experience) and collective evidence (measured data communicated between people) - the main reason why even scientist are know to have faith (without it being contradictory to science, even in the least).
Two people can experience the same thing, and still end up at different places. But it's when people start imposing their beliefs on others, that the demand for data is needed.
@DrMadolite Also, in our modern world, a lot of the terminologies of old have been corrupted because of how modern people define and redefine them. Chi, for instance, is something that can be explained with great scientific detail, but only if you agree that it's a human concept of how body tension and motion work together through the orders given by a human brain, and NOT some magical substance that you can shoot out of your hands or otherwise use to break natural laws.
@valtonen77 Interesting video, but it doesn't really adress my point. The two guys here assumes that consciousness is a product of our bodily functions. If so, then it's obvious that our consciousness is gone once we die.
But imagine, for a second, that the body functions similarly to a radio. The source of the sounds are not the radio itself, it's merely a medium of expressing it.
@valtonen77 Because I like to wonder about whether there's any meaning to what I do in life or not. And based on that conclusion, one decides whether to waste one's life on bothering to achieve anything at all (because there's a valid reason for doing so), or just rot away into meaningless oblivion and let the human species just cave in on itself.
I like to think there's a reason behind us being the culmination of billions of years of evolution - that it's not all been a waste.
@valtonen77 Well, I guess it's just me having a hard time being surprised by anything anymore, maybe. In either case, it's an interesting notion - to eagerly seek out the things that may surprise you and provide further existential illumination.
You see, THIS is where you show that it is YOU and not the atheist who has no love of life. Without your imaginary friend, you would do nothing but rot away, because you have NO LOVE OF LIFE.
Not a single day goes by in my life where I do not simply shiver in delight at the beauty of it all. The tiniest leaf to the greatest star engages and delights me and all I want to do is learn more and more and more about them all.
And yet you, seeing EXACTLY the same thing, can only despair of the uselessness of your own existence and so from your horrible, self-loathing nihilism you create a sick, twisted, and very perverted fantasy to justify your own life.
That's all religion is: a filthy fantasy to give those who hate themselves and life itself a reason not to just die.
And BTW: the human animal is NOT the "culmination... of evolution."
At least learn it before you try to discuss it, doofus.
It is this nihilism that is so repulsive to real thinkers. You possess so little imagination, so little insight, so little ability to observe the world around you that you seek only the death-cult of religion.
The staggering size and beauty of the universe is so awe inspiring that to shut ourselves up into a tiny, dirty, make believe box of self-loathing and life hating perversions is just not an option.
@Krocotto Have you ever heard the expression "presumption is the mother of all fuckups"? You might wanna consider that before you start firing off your salvos of completely redundant nonsense.
And maybe you should spend some minimum of time studying some basic outside-of-youtube theology, then you might see that the God concept doesn't always equate to a magical make-believe character from the monopolized interpretation of the Bible that rapes all other views on what God refers to.
@Krocotto You're never called upon to prove an abstract thought. It's a subjective concept inside one's head, used to draw a picture of what actually is.
The word "God" exists in the english language, so necessarily people will try to figure out the only thing it can accurately refer to, for it to make scientific sense. IMO, the only thing God could refer to, that is acceptable by me, is "that which is" - in other words, that which is scientifically verifiable.
@DrMadolite I'm not talking about proving God's existence, I'm talking about analysing the thing that the characters in the bible were ACTUALLY referring to when they spoke about God - as opposed to what modern day christians are referring to.
No wonder you don't believe in God, seeing how modern day people describe him as a conscious old grump with magical unicorn powers. But the bible can be read in more than one way.
@DrMadolite And WHICH characters would that be: the lie of Adam, the lie of Eve, the lie of Moses, etc. Which MADE UP character and what he/she LIES about do you wish to "analyze?"
If you REALLY want analysis, look up Dr. Robert M. Price and his astoundingly beautiful and SCHOLARLY (you know, the OPPOSITE of the pathetic shit you're vomiting up, here) treatment of one of the main characters of the bibles in "Deconstructing Jesus."
Read, buckwheat, learn, and then you will have a reason to live.
What you are talking about is ... get ready.... hold your breath.... BULLSHIT!
And no, buffalo breath, I'm not talking about xianity. Animism is the first faith, and it's ... get ready... hold your breath... BULLSHIT!
"The origin of faith" is another way of saying: butt ignorant shitheads trying to understand the world around them by anthropomorphizing everything they saw around them.
It evolved, finally, to monotheism, more butt-ignorant shit.
@Krocotto So how exactly am I anthropomorphizism something I believe that God ISN'T an anthropomorph? You have absolutely no idea of wtf I'm talking about.
Ok, how about this. PROVE to me that when you see the color red, you see the exact same thing as I am seeing. Or better yet, PROVE to me that you're ac conscious individual being and not just an internet bot.
Oh crap you can't prove either? OH GEEZ, that must mean that the color red and your consciuosness is both BULLSHIT! Cool.
@DrMadolite Ah, the last refuge of the truly ignorant. Knowing that your pseudo-intellectual, "I'm really just talking about an abstract idea because it's sounds so, you know, smart," you resort to the tired chestnut of the teenager just exposed to philosophy:
YOU can't prove ANYTHING, really!
Your 'abstract' idea of god is the refuge of the slimiest of apologists. As humanity's knowledge has increased, 'god' has gotten more and more ephemeral, until he has become 'an abstract idea.'
@Krocotto You're still not getting anything that I'm telling you.
Ok let's try this:
The Bible was written centuries ago and it's purpose was, as I understand it, you know ME and how I read into it (because that's what rational people do when they try to understand something, personally), to teach superstitious people about that which actually is, e.g. God: "I am that I am". Well, why not just call it science? BECAUSE THAT WOULD GET YOU FUCKING STONED TO DEATH!
@Krocotto Also, you're saying that any abstract ideas about God is the refuge of the slimiest of apologetics? I mean, fuck me, are you for fucking real?!! I thought atheists' favorite question was "But what to YOU think about it?", I guess I was wrong, because here you are saying that I'm not allowed to have a personal opinion about God because there's already the established dogma and that's the only correct one.
@Krocotto@Krocotto I was explaining to you what my subjective, abstract idea about God was. Because, you know, my subjective abstract idea about something that cannot be scientifically verified, is the only acceptable idea. The alternative would be to believe the bullshit of other religious people.
But, yeah, I can see why this might irritate a person of psychosis.
@DrMadolite And I am responding to the fact that you stated you felt you NEEDED that 'abstract idea' in order to feel that anything was worth doing, indeed, that life was worth living.
Your 'abstract idea' is idiocy, and it's a copout.
If you really, truly think that, then yours is an inferior mind. With all the beauty in the universe to see and learn about, if you really need an 'abstract idea' of such astonishing stupidity to justify breathing, that's just ... really pathetically sad.
@Krocotto Yes, as with any other sane person on this planet I need to get a personal idea of what things are truly like, in order to feel like I can subscribe to it. Has nothing to do with what specific conclusions I come up with. Science is the same, you wouldn't believe in science if it made zero sense to YOU, personally. So you try to understand what science refers to BEFORE you decide whether that theory is worth subscribing to. But I guess that's just being a slimy apologetic...
@Krocotto I don't suppose/believe there is a God, I suppose that there is a universe that I'm living in, because that is scientifically verifiable. I've already told you as such.
When I've talked about God, I've talked about the biblical stories of God and what the bible is REFERRING to when it's mentioning God. Not what people who have read the bible are referring to, but what the BIBLE itself is referring to, through the eyes of ME, the reader.
@DrMadolite But see, they're not referring to anything. The bible is a cobbled together pile of the most bald-faced plagiarisms in history. The books were put together over time to subdue the people to the will of the ruling class and the priests.
It's really just crap, actually.
The original forms of the stories, from older Mesopotamian texts are far better, clearer, and interesting to study.
@Krocotto Of course, but you gotta start somewhere, right? And the best way to identify the bible as such a messed up piece of plagiarism, is to actually read it and see it for yourself. Eventually you move on, because nowadays we no longer need books like the Bible. It's a nice fiction, as we don't criticize Lord of the Rings for being full of shit, so the book itself is harmless.
What we need is to get rid of that association of the Bible being literally real.
@DrMadolite Now you're trying to come off as being some sort of impartial scholar. Again, I repeat, why the statement that you would like to think there is a reason behind what you see?
From there you went to how you study the ancient texts, etc.
It reminds me of a person driving a car from one point to the next suddenly asking themselves, "Why am I driving?" It's a pointless question. If your LIVING your life, asking 'why?' is superfluous.
@Krocotto You sure that I'm trying to come off as such, of that I'm just coming off as such, to you? ;)
But to answer: I would like to think that there is a reason because I associate reason with purpose. And if there's no purpose to living, then why bother? Why bother being active in anything you ever do in life? Why not just lie down and rot away?
Thankfully, I've since realized that purpose isn't limited to some future plan, but also to the present moment. So I have my answer.
@DrMadolite The main reason why I brought it up is because that's what my life has been about. I've had severe traumas in life that have both directly and indirectly affected my very function as a human being. And when that happens, people tend to ask those bigger questions more frequently, because nothing makes any sense. It feels like you're trapped in a world like in The Matrix or in Jacob's Ladder, and you're trying to make sense of it.
@DrMadolite I, too. Started my search at age 8 and very soon found nothing but lies. Used to that from adults, I kept on searching for 'the truth.'
Found that the 'bigger questions' are themselves a form of lies bandied about by hucksters and the greedy.
As I said, if you're LIVING life, no questions are needed. It is a matter of will. I create the purpose for my life by my LIVING it. And the REASON I'm here is simple: my parents had sex.
@DrMadolite The greatest joy I've had in my search is that none of the questions I or any of the 'erudite' of the times were asking were new. Clear back to the wonderful Epic of Gilgamesh, these questions, these thoughts are eternal for humanity.
And still, after thousands and thousands of years of learning and advances, there has NEVER been a better answer than that given to Gilgamesh.
If you haven't, look it up, it's simply beauty in print form, whether alphabetic or cuneiform.
@DrMadolite And please, DON"T speak of TLOTR and the bible in the same breath. One book was beautifully written and was in internally consistent. The other was a conglomeration of crappy hate-filled bullshit.
@DrMadolite Ooookay, then, why did you say: "Because I like to wonder about whether there's any meaning to what I do in life or not." ... "I like to think there's a reason behind us being the culmination of billions of years of evolution - that it's not all been a waste."
These are not the statements of an objective scholar interested in exegesis, but in finding reasons for things in the 'abstract idea' of god.
@DrMadolite If you REALLY wish to understand, you must first divest yourself of the very belief that there is a god to study.
Once you make that simple, but basic step, you will be able to see that the very word, the very concept, the very 'abstract idea' of god is just fiction, a completely made up concept.
And then you will see that there is no evidence of anything even remotely 'godlike' in the universe and you will be free to pursue the path of learning about the universe in which you live.
@Krocotto I don't think there's a God to study, I believe that there is a Bible, a Quran, a Tao te Ching, a whole school of SCIENCE, The Art of War, and the sum of all fiction, to study. "God" is just the product of the Bible, and if you're studying the bible you necessarily study the usage of the word "God" inside the bible, as well.
Has nothing to do with belief or whather you think the Bible recounts actual history or not.
@DrMadolite Secondly, the fact that your own existence is such an utter waste to you that you cannot find meaning unless you play "let's pretend" is the point of Sagan's dissertation.
Life itself is reason enough to live for those of us with the minds to live it. For the pathetic and hate-filled self-loathers like yourself, religion gives you reason and hope and purpose.
The problem is that's self-defeating bullshit destined only for death.
@DrMadolite The computer you're using was not invented by people who felt the only reason for living was to worship some other fool's fantasy.
It is the thinkers of the world who enjoy life and accomplish things as opposed to blubbering that without god, their lives are pointless.
Perhaps your is.
But Sagan's wasn't. It wasn't because he sought to know. All religions, everywhere, through all time, have sought only to obfuscate any real knowledge about anything.
@Krocotto I agree, it's not worth bragging about at all. Thankfully, I'm not religious. Just a pity that you haven't got the faintest idea of what I'm talking about. Else you might've realized a thing or two about the origin of faith and, subsequently, religion.
@DrMadolite You see, dummy, there are far finer minds than yours that have dealt with the questions you pose. Actually, they've been dealing with them since the first lying piece of shit made up the first filthy lie about whatever god they needed to invent to fuck over the sheeple.
And it's sheeple like you who think you're so clever because you ask the same questions .... thousands of years after they've been answered!
@Krocotto Are you high or anything? It's like you're not even reading my replies, it's rather hilarious to watch you reply to things that has nothing to do with me. Carl Sagan would roll over in his grave. Well, you have fun living your life on Youtube.
I'll be focusing on the actual real world, personally. Oh and you might want to pick up actual books out there in the world if you want to accuse me of the opposite, instead of basing all your bullshit on Youtube flame wars.
@DrMadolite I've been reading your responses, I've been actually QUOTING you. But that would be too tough to address, wouldn't it? You claimed to want to 'analyze' the bible in order to figure out what the characters say about god.
I nailed you to the wall over that, and you won't respond. Instead, you act the eternal victim.
It stops. No longer do fools like you get excused. You make a statement, you get challenged.
@Krocotto "You claimed to want to 'analyze' the bible in order to figure out what the characters say about god."
Yes, the bible is a book, like Lord of the Rings and any other book of either fact or fiction and in order to make any sense of a book, I like to figure out what the story is actually referring to. Not just literally (although that is the most important part), but also whether the book is telling a different story through its use of metaphors and whatnot.
@Krocotto "I nailed you to the wall over that, and you won't respond. Instead, you act the eternal victim."
I believe I have responded in a bunch of replies, it's not my problem that you don't perceive it as a valid response. Maybe you should trust yourself a bit more and stop being so fucking needy of how everyone replies to your messages, but instead just take replies for what they are.
The answer that you want to hear, may not be the truth. Ever considered that?
@Krocotto "It stops. No longer do fools like you get excused. You make a statement, you get challenged."
You really felt you needed to point that out for me? Yes, welcome to Youtube, where your threads and replies will be met with other people's replies and people can try to understand eachothers reasonings in jolly debate.
I apologize. I meant in the broader sense of the public sphere. Politics, for example. Uneducated boobs trying to legislate women's very uteri in the name of an 'abstract idea' is really just wrong.
Of course, throughout history, the slimy priests have done exactly that for fun and massive, unimaginable profit.
@Krocotto The only thing you can ever share with people, truthfully, is fact. But the ultimate conclusion is subjective, even though it's necessarily similar or identical to others' conclusions, when dealing with actual fact.
And I completely agree, people who would impose and monopolize their conclusion onto other people, needs to be taken down.
@valtonen77 Like imagine a world in the old days when nobody had the technology to detect the world as being round. Well, how would you assume that that technology would even be invented to begin with, if not for the imaginations of brilliant minds in that time that led to the great discoveries that we take for granted today?
Science is a balance between data and theory, it's not just about putting blind faith in the data that has already been acquired by scientists before you.
@DrMadolite and invisible unicorns, wich doesnt have any effect on matter or anything else in our universe, cannot be disproven. first you must have some evidence, if you claim that something exists. ( and i dont have any proof about life somwhere else in the universe, but universe is fucking huge place, so its VERY unlikely that there isnt any other species).
@valtonen77 of course invisible unicorns cannot be disproven, but unicorns aren't exactly defined by their invisibility now are they? You're debating something that is completely meaningless, you could essentially say that time travel is pure fantasy as well. And yet serious scientists believe it can be done. Why? because it doesn't go completely against the make-up of science. Neither does the afterlife of consciousness. But invisible horses with alicorn foreheads do.
According to the scientifically challenged creationist, they say that light traveled faster 6000 years ago. They also think that any form of radio dating is not accurate because idiots like the convicted "Dr." Hovindt spreads lies to his gullible followers. He boldly displays his level of scientific ignorance in every one of his videos Of course they make these claims without basing it on any actual experimentation or peer review.
Where is the successful experimental proof for vertical evolution. Not to include within species variations but proof that an amoeba really can, given time turn it's progeny into elephants, dinosaurs, birds, worms even? Belief in this type of evolution is just that; a belief. The point I want to make is that those who adhere to this explanation for the existence of life and it's variety, mostly refuse to accept it is merely a belief.
@copperload There are countless transitional fossils and DNA evidence to support evolution. That's why it is accepted. Creationists are the ones waging war against science because evidence proves contrary to their dogma. Scientists have to play their game. If a space wizard did magically poof us into existence, all living things on the planet would be unique, not share common genes with one another. dinosaurs did evolve into birds. This has been tested in the labs. No faith required.
@copperload You, sir, need to read something other than a bible. Simply go to a museum to see all of the evidence creationist adamantly deny. That's not being brainwashed, it means I'm educated. Did you know that geneticists can turn on junk DNA in bird embryos to actually make a dinosaur? It's creepy yet cool. Stop waging a fail war against science and let society progress.
Yes, in order for one to believe in creationism, one must believe God is deceptive. Richard Dawkins also explained how if you look at animals in today's world, and compare their DNA, you get an almost perfect family tree. So, God must be trying to deceive us with Evolution too. Oh, God, you jokester!
LOL and u people think earth time is the same as the rest of th universe? do u morons who call urselves scientists have any idea of the SIZE of the universe? and that time is a PLAUSIBLE, TANGIBLE thing that is has different qualities INSIDE of our own solar system, let ALONE beyond our own galaxy? (shaking my head)
Um this is easy for a christian to answer .. it says God made the light before he made the stars. yall seem to think the God we believe in used the laws he created to create the universe. that is silly. he could have easily put the light in place then put the stars in place at those vast distances not just because but because they need to be that far away. if they were closer their gravitational pull would affect one another and we wouldnt survive. Thats what I think
Note how he does not say anything against religion in general, just the literalist or fundamentalist interpretation of scriptures that contravene science.
@SpockCanYouSaveme well yeah. aint it obvious that god doesnt exists? there is only shitty book about christians god. if bible is word of god, it seems like god doesnt know his own universe age. bibble is full of shit wich can be disproven, there for, god doesnt exist
@SpockCanYouSaveme That's because God has nothing whatsoever to do with Creationism. Whereas God is a dynamic meta-concept spanning across all known religions and the scientific world, Creationism is a specific, close-minded human interpretation of one particular book that can be debunked by both a multitude of verifiable, perceivable proof as well as the core logos of interpreting language and story written by authors who are personal and fallible.
@polypride34 Having common sense and using it are different things. I have heard of christians doing normal jobs that require common sense, just like other people. And you obviously are familiar with the internet. I have heard of christians taking other religions apart with _reasonable_ arguments. Reason is a powerful tool, indeed - but a true christian refuses to apply it to his or hers own religious faith. (excuse me, if my english is hardly understandable, I am German.)
@isthattrue no its ok. and that is true humanistic logic and reason will never lead you to God but its not suppose to. logic relies on what we can see and understand we can neither see nor understand God. and i am all about logic. when i debate people i speak from a logic or making sense stand point not science because im not a scientist and only know what i am told. so yes logically evolution is the only answer outside of God. but what if it only looks that way. and not actually is. (cont)
@isthattrue the bible made an illogical statement. it said light came before the source. logically this is impossible the dumbest person could debunk this. but for some reason they believed it. they could light some wood and see that the source comes first. but what made them Go against human logic, observation, and science and believe this? they obviously were not stupid because of the claims they made in Job.
@polypride34 "logic and reason will never lead you to God but its not suppose to".
Who knows, why not? If someday there was hard evidence (just like for every discovery), every reasonable person would know he exists. Wouldn't all religious people triumph and say: "There is the proof, he/she exists!"? And wouldn't they be right?
The rest of your two comments contains too much factual errors and no real arguments.
@Theozzie11 well thats your opinion and science says your opinion without proof or evidence means nothing, or are just ignorant of the definition of common sense? To say someone you don't know has no common sense is in itself a very bias and unscientific statement. so in that 8 word sentence you just gave away all of your credibility.
@winterstellar uh, yeah, I know....I agree. The "2-4 billion" thing I said was because there have been different ranges over the years in the estimations. The lowest estimation for a while by some was a minimum of "2 billion years". But lately the "4.5 billion year" figure seems to be the most common or accepted. I have no problem with it.
Sagan only refuted YOUNG EARTH Creationism. NOT true Biblical Creation. The Bible does NOT teach a "6000 year" EARTH. Or Universe. Not in the Hebrew or anywhere else in Genesis. Sloppy reading. The Bible teaches that MAN is young. But NOT the earth or universe. Sagan was sloppy and wrong about what he thinks the "Jewish Calendar" says. The Jewish Calendar deals with the creation of MAN...not necessarily the creation of earth. The Earth is old (2-4 billion years). Universe about 10-15 billion.
@sweetmikser I take it that you do not believe in the "days" of Genesis being literal. Or do you believe that there is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 2?
@Sakayoshi95 Sagan was not an Atheist, Despite his criticism of religion, Sagan denied that he was an atheist, saying "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid."
@Cybertronic72388 That depends on how you define atheism. Wikipedia(the most reliable source on the internet, haha), says that atheism is the BELIEF that there are no deities. If your implied definiton is correct, then I agree with the implication that the word "atheist" is used much too lightly, and I see your point. However, I never said that Carl Sagan was an atheist, I said that he did not believe in God. He didn't "know" that there wasn't one. No one does. But he didn't believe in one.
@Sakayoshi95 touche, I see what you mean. it is a very fine line between believing and knowing. I could see how that can easily be misconstrued. Btw you are the first person on youtube that has replied to me without raging I applaud you. :) I agree he appears not to have believed in a god.
@Cybertronic72388 Same to you, this is one of the most civilized encounters I've had on Youtube.Everyone gets so angry on here. It's ridiculous. If everyone just listened to what others had to say and respected their opinions, it would be so much more effective. You're one of the few I've seen who actually dose these things. Thank you :)
This man was exceedingly intelligent. He voices what I believe perfectly. The world needs more Carl Sagan's. Well educated and contemplative human beings who are observant and daring enough to utilize the facts and conclude that no God exists. Beings with knowledge and evidence that overpower fear and idealism. This is what the world needs, rather than assumption, fear based beliefs, and blind acceptance of unproven concepts.
@ichabod9181 I'm not quite sure where you stand on this, but from what I can observe, it seems that you are an Atheist as well. I don't think I said or implied this in my comment.Could you please expound on what you're asking?I essentially said that observation and contemplation of well established facts should lead to the conclusion that there is no God in any genuinely intelligent human being, who does not believe things simply because they want them to be true.That's what I believe at least.
@Superflamer99 First of all, this is not a matter of truth. It is one of opinion. If we were dealing strictly with truth and facts, I would stick to what must has been proven as true. Obviously, I'm presenting my opinion, and you cannot say that what I say is wrong as a fact, only as your opinion. Secondly, I am not aware of what you're speaking of.
@Sakayoshi95 My comment really was for those who say that science has nothing to do with disproving God, and then they spend all their time trying to use it to disprove God. My belief in God is not blind; it is evidence-based. There are people on both sides of this issue--atheists and theists--who have blind faith. Let's not pretend it's merely on the side of the theists. I am curious: why did you conclude that I am an atheist?
@ichabod9181 To argue that atheists rely on blind faith simply demonstrates that you have no understanding of what atheism is. I am an atheist because I have never heard a half-way convincing argument to support the existence of god. I apply to the question the same mental process that I would apply to any other question. If you assert that purple unicorns exist my response is prove it. It is not my place to disprove their existence.
@ichabod9181 Science- the process of explaining the observable world, has nothing to do with gods/devils/ghosts or anything else that has not been observed in the natural world. It is only a process of asking questions in the most objective way as a person can. To have faith, you must believe. If you do not believe, you do not have faith. You are an athiest to billions of other people, yet you do not have faith in your atheism. You have faith in your religion. I do not have faith.
Also, my question to you would be how you align your belief in an (obviously) unknowable first cause with anthropic, and dogmatic religious doctrine, based on myth and make-believe stories?
@dujl If there were no beginning or point of departure for the world, all the existing atoms would have dissolved and been transformed into energy an infinite number of years ago. In the course of a very long past, the heat of the world would have come to an end, for matter, in the course of its successive and continuous transformation, is transformed into perishable energies. It is *not* possible for all the energy dispersed to be transformed a new into matter and mass .
In accordance with the principle just mentioned, once usable energy is exhausted, chemical action and reaction can *no* longer take place. But given that chemical action and reaction do take place that life is possible on the earth, and that a huge body like the sun is divisible each day and night into three hundred thousand million tons, it is clear that the world has *originated* in time.
@1tabligh Mass with properties occupies space. Before the big bang, there was no time or space - in essence a fixed state. What we need to understand is that there was a singularity, and it did exist before space and time. We realize that the laws of physics are special, so making a case of relativity is not just illogical, but meaningless.
I listen to Carl Sagan with an open mind, but I believe a supreme being created everything. Gases coming out of nowhere to create the big bang doesn't make sense to me, but neither does a creator that has always existed. But I choose to believe in the latter.
SmokesdaGanja 1 day ago
@SmokesdaGanja Check out Lawrence Krauss' "A Universe From Nothing" video. It may make a bit more sense watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
jattymoans 1 day ago
@SmokesdaGanja I encourage you to keep searching. There is no right or wrong just a staple for individual happiness.
JFri4321 1 day ago
I feel clever for realizing this thing about star light reaching the earth taking far longer than 6000 years all on my own before reading Sagan. But I don't think I'd ever have thought in the direction this takes without him.
evilyig 2 days ago
Creationism is just an excuse for not going to school. And not having to teach, in the case of teachers.
saguhh00 3 days ago
"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist
In delusion, However satisfying
and reassuring it may be."
- Carl Sagan
forgottenmemories63 3 days ago 2
9 creationists will burn in the 6,000 years old "eternal" flames of HELL!!!!!
Ouh, wait...no, they won´t.
sietechingadas 4 days ago
9 Creationist hate the fact that they got UBER PWNED!
deeppurple28 5 days ago
Actually he's wrong about the Muslim belief in regards to the age of the Earth. You'd think his stuff would be more researched...
BasementHaxxProd 1 week ago
@BasementHaxxProd Addendum: Then again he never claims to have studied Theology so I'd cut him some slack.
BasementHaxxProd 1 week ago
@BasementHaxxProd
The Quran also identifies the period of "direct" creation -- that is, the portion of the process in which God was directly involved (not the ancillary things that happened BECAUSE OF actions he took) to be six "days." And, much like the Christian Bible it later goes on to define the notion that God does not measure "days" in the same manner as man. He is not WRONG in any practical sense whatsoever...
KerrinScott 3 days ago
Great stuff!
ToisanWC 1 week ago
Eckhart Tolle unscrambled:
Taker To Hell
Yaylin2 2 weeks ago
I can insert music in this response.
Man does not know what Light is, and can never measure light without using light.
The only light we know of is the inside of our atmosphere. How fast does light go, if your testing light from space?
Don't put all your faith in philosophy religion.
Evolution and Darwinism is the focus of Carl's philosophy. He is welcome to believe in these things. I would not base my understanding to measure with eternity and say life is a cosmic burp.
Yaylin2 2 weeks ago
@Yaylin2 That's the stupidest thing I've read, beating even DrMadolite!
Go to your local library and pick up a book on physics you know-nothing pinhead.
We KNOW what light is, we've measured it on earth AND IN SPACE.
The famous Einstein proof on light bending during an eclipse is just one of THOUSANDS of verifiable experiments. Are you functionally illiterate, or just willfully fucking stupid?
My god, (figuratively speaking) where the hell do you idiots come from?
Krocotto 2 weeks ago
@Yaylin2 And don't flatter yourself, you moron.
If life were a 'cosmic burp,' pinheads like you would be the result of a cosmic fart.
See, DrMadolite, THIS is what I'm talking about. When idiot 'abstract ideas' fill lesser minds, they don't have time to learn basic science.
It's 2012, we're on the 'net, and this fool makes a statement so amazingly stupid, it reveals not only that he has never paid attention even in grade school, his parents were probably brother and sister.
Krocotto 2 weeks ago
Nice, but the music is too loud.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 weeks ago
Great little tidbit there from Carl Sagan. This is a good video. I don't know if the music is from the original audio book but it is distracting.
Bear5177 3 weeks ago
i hope there is an afterlife so I can meet Carl. Something along the lines of What Dreams May Come of course, not a theological take that requires mental submission and suppresses reason.
isisdron 3 weeks ago
NEVER WAS ANYTHING TO DEBUNK!!!!!! wtf
ElHasZardo 1 month ago
The song is too high, I can't hear the audio on the back...
aldenty 1 month ago
@aldenty You can hear it a bit better if you masturbate during the video.
hitlarspenis 3 weeks ago
My inner dialogue sounds like Carl Sagan...
WiseMosquito 1 month ago
Adam was created as a fully grown and capable human. Why not the entire universe?
Why no mention of absurdities in science such as the Big Bang and the singularity as a natural occurrence? Should I believe that it is in nature's (without God) power to squeeze the entire massive universe into a small pinpoint?
orlandofriend 1 month ago
@orlandofriend gravity my friend, gravity wich we dont complitely understand. but if science doesnt explain everything clearly just yeat, it doesnt mean that you should belive in supernatural creatures, wich "explains" everything without any shred of evidence.
valtonen77 1 month ago 2
@orlandofriend Just because you do not understand science doesn't mean that it is absurd. It only means that your education was embarrassingly poor. What surprises me are that those who know nothing about science advertise it here, like orlandofriend.
coolgreyoneabby 1 month ago
@orlandofriend You need to stop thinking of science as one blob of information that you either believe or disbelieve. Science is a major field consisting of a multitude of theories, both the ones that are overwhelmingly verifiable as well as those that are mere theories. Believing in some doesn't mean that you have to believe in others.
Science is simply asking yourself what is actually out there, by looking at what you can actually experience rather than what you're told by others before you.
DrMadolite 1 month ago
@orlandofriend The Big Bang, for instance, is an unprovable, hugely extrapolated theory. But whereas the Big Bang assumes there's nothing unknown out there affecting the traveling light, the parent theories of electro-magnetism is far more concrete and directly measurable. How light travels through vacuum, whta redshift and blueshift is, what is visible light versus heat, radio-waves and more. The invention of the TV, the Radio and the Microwave being a testament - in fact a gospel - to this.
DrMadolite 1 month ago
And that is why I hate violins...
MultiHalohalo 1 month ago
I tried explaining this to my creationist grandfather and his response was that the speed of light fluctuates therefore we don't know how old these distant stars/quasars actually are......... /facepalm.
Jpear5000 1 month ago
This man has certainly shown far less imagination in the first minute of this video than for example C. Darwin did when he wrote his fantastical "On the Origin of Species".
Scientific thinkers have successfully overcome far more difficult problems than having to reconcile a young Earth with very large distances that it now takes light longer than the age of the universe to travel. These people simply have no desire to even attempt to reconcile these things.
copperload 1 month ago in playlist Science
@copperload Please explain to the eager audience how Hubble is able to see proto galaxies 6 billion light years away? If light traveled millions of times faster like the inept creationist asserts, the universe would not function like it does. Scientist believe that the only time light MIGHT have traveled faster was within the first millionths of a second after big bang. The great Sagan doesn't need imagination to supersede evidence like creationists.
CaptainAwesomeoh13 1 month ago
@CaptainAwesomeoh13
And how does the universe function?
No-one knows. Most scientists are operating within a fixed paradigm which doesn't lead them into every area or every possibility. Their minds are closed. Their explanations may appeal to you but they don't appeal to me and as for proof of the things they say they now know to be true; well if you keep repeating the same lie again and again and again people will come round to the idea.
copperload 1 month ago
@copperload You are the one making the typical creationist assertions, so it's you I'm awaiting the answers from. We have a pretty damn good idea how the universe works and to say otherwise means that you feel yourself smarter than Einstein and Hawking. How dare you smear their work over dogmatic ignorance. You're using the god of the gaps thinking that is nothing more than a logical fallacy. Close-minded? No. Science doesn't use god as Spackle to fill in the gaps of understanding.
CaptainAwesomeoh13 1 month ago
@CaptainAwesomeoh13 captain, we dont have slightest idea how universe works, but we are gaining data all the time. but it doenst matter how good proofs we have that there is no gods. ppl will make new religions wich gain more members. choose your side best scientist on earth, or religious nuts who claim that their space daddy created us all :D
valtonen77 1 month ago
@valtonen77 I predict that in the next couple of hundred years, there will be the Church of Chuck Norris: there is ample literature about him and his legendary awesomeness that will be unearthed and interpreted at face value. As for the universe: what I meant is that there are a lot of very good theories floating around that best explain how it works. We would be a lot further in the study if dogma wasn't around to slow down progress.
CaptainAwesomeoh13 1 month ago
@CaptainAwesomeoh13 well yeah. Some humans are so stupid and pathetic that when they cant explain everything, they make up silly stories. and some fear death, so they have to live in delusion that there will be paradise in some afterlife. and i know that there are we good theorys and a lot of good evidence but you see, religious ppl doesnt even want to let go of their belifs, because that makes their life meaningless, and some cant live with that. even tho its true.
valtonen77 1 month ago
@valtonen77 But you need to separate religious people from real theologians, too. There's nothing in science that dispoves Paradise, and even if it did you have to ask what type of paradise we're talking about - a largely personalized concept that ranges from the Paradise of afterlife with angels swirming around your head, to the mental state of Mushin or Nirvana which can actually be verified indirectly through use of science.
Like God, Paradise is an imparticular concept.
DrMadolite 1 month ago
@DrMadolite beliving in paradise in afterlife (heaven) is like beliving in unicorns, just because there was story in book. Religious people have nothing but faith, and thats not evidence for their claims..
valtonen77 1 month ago
@valtonen77 Actually, believing in Paradise in afterlife is nothing like believing in unicorns, because we can say with absolute certainty that Unicorns only exist in our imagination. "Paradise", on the other hand, cannot be debunked scientifically.
For instance, if there exists a separate plane of particles in which our consciousness resides and our space-time corpus is merely a tool to be directed, then our consciousness may very well live on once our body dies. Scientific reason.
DrMadolite 1 month ago
@DrMadolite Science (or rather "scientism") is not just about what you can prove or not, that's just applied science. It's also about theory and reasoning, regardless of whether it can be applied or not. It's merely when you take the step from theory to application that the given science needs to be proven as a verifiable fact.
DrMadolite 1 month ago
@DrMadolite and wheres your proof? Where do you get your idea about paradise? why do you asume that there is afterlife? And how can you know that theres no unicorns? there are plenty other lifeforms in universe which we dont know.
valtonen77 1 month ago
@valtonen77 But on planet Earth it's much less likely for Unicorns to exist than it is for our consciousness to be found as part of the sub-atomic structure of the universe. Also, my evidence lies in the fact that we don't yet know what our consciousness is or where specifically in the brain (if even there) it is located.
Also, where's the proof of a Big Bang? there is none, there is only evidence. Does that mean that the Big Bang is a fairy tale as well, not worthy of science?
DrMadolite 1 month ago
@DrMadolite "Also, my evidence lies in the fact that we don't yet know what our consciousness is or where specifically in the brain (if even there) it is located." this is what is wrong with you people. when theres gap in science, you fill it with fairy tales.
and about big bang. There is plenty of evidence, which makes scientist come to conclusion that there was big bang, not some fairy tale god, creating earth in 6 days. unlike big bang, your side of story has no single evidence
valtonen77 1 month ago
@DrMadolite and shouldnt you belive scientists who dedicate their whole lifes to investigate stuff like that? rather than some old book, wich tells that "everything this hapend and all evidence points to other direction". bible was created when they didnt have the tecnology we have nowadays, so they made their best conclusions back then and that was false information. IF you would think rationally, you wouldnt belive in crap like that
valtonen77 1 month ago
@valtonen77 Yes we should, and I do. What makes you think that I take anything that is written in the Bible as truth? Paradise has nothing to do with the Bible. Just because something is mentioned in a book, doesn't mean that it's within the confines of that one book. God, Paradise etc aren't products of the Bible, it's the Bible that is a human product of people's notions of these things.
DrMadolite 1 month ago
@DrMadolite i still dont understand how ppl can be so stupid, belive that something exists, even tho theres no any shred of evidence. dont you understand that beliving in something, that havent been proven and never will be proven, is stupid? And why you need to belive in afterlife and paradise?
valtonen77 1 month ago
@valtonen77 But how can you know whether something can be proven or not, if you don't already know about it? Personally, I think stupidity lies with anyone who thinks that today's science is set in stone.
Also, why do I need to believe in afterlife and paradise? I don't need to believe in it, I simply do because it makes perfect sense to me. All energy is constant. As such, it's perfectly valid to ask what happens to your consciousness after you die. Plus, It's all about perception.
DrMadolite 1 month ago
@DrMadolite yeah. nvm you cant reason with religious ppl.
valtonen77 1 month ago
@valtonen77 Assuming that I'm even a religious person and you're being the reasonable one. Two very big ifs, and of course you'd think you're the reasonable one. But isn't that the very problem with those religious people? The crowd that thinks that their own view is the only rational view and that anything they don't understand, cannot be understood by anyone because it's just stupid or irrational?
Tbh, I don't see much difference betwen certain atheist and theists.
DrMadolite 1 month ago
@DrMadolite You cant reason with deluded and brainwashed humans..... it doesnt matter how many facts & proof you give to them. And i dont know if you are religious, but you are still stupid. only stupid person would asume something to exists without any evidence or even any reasonable theory. you just got this imaginary land after death, for no reason in your deluded little head.
valtonen77 1 month ago
@valtonen77 Well I agree that some people have simply gone beyond that point in life where they've become robotic programs to a Vatican or similar operating system.
But instead of concluding that I'm stupid, maybe you should instead do as Bertrand Russel and simply suspend your judgement? Just a thought.
Also, I don't like ignoring my actual experiences in life just because I fail to explain them scientifically to another person, especially if science cannot yet explain it either.
DrMadolite 1 month ago
@DrMadolite In other words, I will hold onto my theory of the conscious afterlife until the day it is debunked by superior reasoning, upon which I will gladly accept the new standard. But currently, the idea that consciousness is merely a constant (manifesting itself sub-atomically) that simply inhabits physical life in order to learn more about itself, is more compelling. Mostly because of the proven fact that the Earth's biosphere does indeed evolve, it doesn't just randomize.
DrMadolite 1 month ago
@DrMadolite i dont deny that i there could be some afterlife (nothing religious tho) but there has to be even some evidence, or im just as bad as religious person, blidly beliving in something
valtonen77 1 month ago
@valtonen77 I completely agree, but I think it's important to differentiate between personal evidence (experience) and collective evidence (measured data communicated between people) - the main reason why even scientist are know to have faith (without it being contradictory to science, even in the least).
Two people can experience the same thing, and still end up at different places. But it's when people start imposing their beliefs on others, that the demand for data is needed.
DrMadolite 1 month ago
@DrMadolite Also, in our modern world, a lot of the terminologies of old have been corrupted because of how modern people define and redefine them. Chi, for instance, is something that can be explained with great scientific detail, but only if you agree that it's a human concept of how body tension and motion work together through the orders given by a human brain, and NOT some magical substance that you can shoot out of your hands or otherwise use to break natural laws.
DrMadolite 1 month ago
@DrMadolite watch watch?v=V6dgozJxj34&feature=related (contains conversation about afterlife thingy)
valtonen77 1 month ago
@valtonen77 Interesting video, but it doesn't really adress my point. The two guys here assumes that consciousness is a product of our bodily functions. If so, then it's obvious that our consciousness is gone once we die.
But imagine, for a second, that the body functions similarly to a radio. The source of the sounds are not the radio itself, it's merely a medium of expressing it.
DrMadolite 1 month ago
@DrMadolite why do you have problem with that? theres no need for afterlife so why to belive that there is afterlife?
valtonen77 1 month ago
@valtonen77 Because I like to wonder about whether there's any meaning to what I do in life or not. And based on that conclusion, one decides whether to waste one's life on bothering to achieve anything at all (because there's a valid reason for doing so), or just rot away into meaningless oblivion and let the human species just cave in on itself.
I like to think there's a reason behind us being the culmination of billions of years of evolution - that it's not all been a waste.
DrMadolite 1 month ago
@DrMadolite i think that life is worth living because it always suprises you.
valtonen77 1 month ago
@valtonen77 Well, I guess it's just me having a hard time being surprised by anything anymore, maybe. In either case, it's an interesting notion - to eagerly seek out the things that may surprise you and provide further existential illumination.
DrMadolite 1 month ago
@DrMadolite Part I
You see, THIS is where you show that it is YOU and not the atheist who has no love of life. Without your imaginary friend, you would do nothing but rot away, because you have NO LOVE OF LIFE.
Not a single day goes by in my life where I do not simply shiver in delight at the beauty of it all. The tiniest leaf to the greatest star engages and delights me and all I want to do is learn more and more and more about them all.
Krocotto 3 weeks ago
@DrMadolite Part the 2nd:
And yet you, seeing EXACTLY the same thing, can only despair of the uselessness of your own existence and so from your horrible, self-loathing nihilism you create a sick, twisted, and very perverted fantasy to justify your own life.
That's all religion is: a filthy fantasy to give those who hate themselves and life itself a reason not to just die.
And BTW: the human animal is NOT the "culmination... of evolution."
At least learn it before you try to discuss it, doofus.
Krocotto 3 weeks ago
@DrMadolite: The finale:
It is this nihilism that is so repulsive to real thinkers. You possess so little imagination, so little insight, so little ability to observe the world around you that you seek only the death-cult of religion.
The staggering size and beauty of the universe is so awe inspiring that to shut ourselves up into a tiny, dirty, make believe box of self-loathing and life hating perversions is just not an option.
Do yourself a favor: get an education.
Then you will love life.
Krocotto 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
DrMadolite 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Krocotto Have you ever heard the expression "presumption is the mother of all fuckups"? You might wanna consider that before you start firing off your salvos of completely redundant nonsense.
And maybe you should spend some minimum of time studying some basic outside-of-youtube theology, then you might see that the God concept doesn't always equate to a magical make-believe character from the monopolized interpretation of the Bible that rapes all other views on what God refers to.
DrMadolite 3 weeks ago
@DrMadolite The point, my nihilistically purposeless fool, you get no references about any god without any religion, ever.
In fact, as I've scanned your comments, you've given no evidence for anything you've said.
Which would explain why you can make such a butt-stupid comment like humanity being the "culmination... of evolution."
As for your non-xian religions, all are of the same stripe: all bullshit, all the time.
xianity is merely the creme of the filthiest.
Krocotto 3 weeks ago
@Krocotto You're never called upon to prove an abstract thought. It's a subjective concept inside one's head, used to draw a picture of what actually is.
The word "God" exists in the english language, so necessarily people will try to figure out the only thing it can accurately refer to, for it to make scientific sense. IMO, the only thing God could refer to, that is acceptable by me, is "that which is" - in other words, that which is scientifically verifiable.
DrMadolite 3 weeks ago
@DrMadolite I'm not talking about proving God's existence, I'm talking about analysing the thing that the characters in the bible were ACTUALLY referring to when they spoke about God - as opposed to what modern day christians are referring to.
No wonder you don't believe in God, seeing how modern day people describe him as a conscious old grump with magical unicorn powers. But the bible can be read in more than one way.
DrMadolite 3 weeks ago
@DrMadolite And WHICH characters would that be: the lie of Adam, the lie of Eve, the lie of Moses, etc. Which MADE UP character and what he/she LIES about do you wish to "analyze?"
If you REALLY want analysis, look up Dr. Robert M. Price and his astoundingly beautiful and SCHOLARLY (you know, the OPPOSITE of the pathetic shit you're vomiting up, here) treatment of one of the main characters of the bibles in "Deconstructing Jesus."
Read, buckwheat, learn, and then you will have a reason to live.
Krocotto 3 weeks ago
@DrMadolite Ok, verify!
What you are talking about is ... get ready.... hold your breath.... BULLSHIT!
And no, buffalo breath, I'm not talking about xianity. Animism is the first faith, and it's ... get ready... hold your breath... BULLSHIT!
"The origin of faith" is another way of saying: butt ignorant shitheads trying to understand the world around them by anthropomorphizing everything they saw around them.
It evolved, finally, to monotheism, more butt-ignorant shit.
Again, VERIFY!
Krocotto 3 weeks ago
@Krocotto So how exactly am I anthropomorphizism something I believe that God ISN'T an anthropomorph? You have absolutely no idea of wtf I'm talking about.
Ok, how about this. PROVE to me that when you see the color red, you see the exact same thing as I am seeing. Or better yet, PROVE to me that you're ac conscious individual being and not just an internet bot.
Oh crap you can't prove either? OH GEEZ, that must mean that the color red and your consciuosness is both BULLSHIT! Cool.
DrMadolite 2 weeks ago
@DrMadolite Ah, the last refuge of the truly ignorant. Knowing that your pseudo-intellectual, "I'm really just talking about an abstract idea because it's sounds so, you know, smart," you resort to the tired chestnut of the teenager just exposed to philosophy:
YOU can't prove ANYTHING, really!
Your 'abstract' idea of god is the refuge of the slimiest of apologists. As humanity's knowledge has increased, 'god' has gotten more and more ephemeral, until he has become 'an abstract idea.'
Krocotto 2 weeks ago
@Krocotto You're still not getting anything that I'm telling you.
Ok let's try this:
The Bible was written centuries ago and it's purpose was, as I understand it, you know ME and how I read into it (because that's what rational people do when they try to understand something, personally), to teach superstitious people about that which actually is, e.g. God: "I am that I am". Well, why not just call it science? BECAUSE THAT WOULD GET YOU FUCKING STONED TO DEATH!
DrMadolite 2 weeks ago
@Krocotto Also, you're saying that any abstract ideas about God is the refuge of the slimiest of apologetics? I mean, fuck me, are you for fucking real?!! I thought atheists' favorite question was "But what to YOU think about it?", I guess I was wrong, because here you are saying that I'm not allowed to have a personal opinion about God because there's already the established dogma and that's the only correct one.
Well fuck me for having a mind of my own.
DrMadolite 2 weeks ago
@DrMadolite BTW, knucklehead, you need to proofread your input, here. "You're never called upon to prove and abstract thought."
"... the only thing God could refer to, that is acceptable by my, is "that which is" - in other words, that which is scientifically verifiable."
You can't have it both ways, buckwheat, either 'god' is an abstract concept, which can't be proved, or he/she/it can be proved.
You see, it's the ignorant shit like your statements above that really irritate me.
Krocotto 3 weeks ago
@Krocotto @Krocotto I was explaining to you what my subjective, abstract idea about God was. Because, you know, my subjective abstract idea about something that cannot be scientifically verified, is the only acceptable idea. The alternative would be to believe the bullshit of other religious people.
But, yeah, I can see why this might irritate a person of psychosis.
DrMadolite 2 weeks ago
@DrMadolite And I am responding to the fact that you stated you felt you NEEDED that 'abstract idea' in order to feel that anything was worth doing, indeed, that life was worth living.
Your 'abstract idea' is idiocy, and it's a copout.
If you really, truly think that, then yours is an inferior mind. With all the beauty in the universe to see and learn about, if you really need an 'abstract idea' of such astonishing stupidity to justify breathing, that's just ... really pathetically sad.
Krocotto 2 weeks ago
@Krocotto Yes, as with any other sane person on this planet I need to get a personal idea of what things are truly like, in order to feel like I can subscribe to it. Has nothing to do with what specific conclusions I come up with. Science is the same, you wouldn't believe in science if it made zero sense to YOU, personally. So you try to understand what science refers to BEFORE you decide whether that theory is worth subscribing to. But I guess that's just being a slimy apologetic...
DrMadolite 2 weeks ago
@DrMadolite Ah, I see.
But then there is the rub that you are ALREADY supposing there IS a god.
And that's the part that's wrong.
If you really study, not just the bible, you will find far earlier texts, texts that will reveal to you that everything in the bible is plagiarized.
The farther back you go, the more you learn, and the more you realize that 'god' is nothing more than an ignorant response to unknown events.
Religion capitalizes on that for the benefit of the greedy.
Krocotto 2 weeks ago
@Krocotto I don't suppose/believe there is a God, I suppose that there is a universe that I'm living in, because that is scientifically verifiable. I've already told you as such.
When I've talked about God, I've talked about the biblical stories of God and what the bible is REFERRING to when it's mentioning God. Not what people who have read the bible are referring to, but what the BIBLE itself is referring to, through the eyes of ME, the reader.
The end. It's not that complicated.
DrMadolite 2 weeks ago
@DrMadolite But see, they're not referring to anything. The bible is a cobbled together pile of the most bald-faced plagiarisms in history. The books were put together over time to subdue the people to the will of the ruling class and the priests.
It's really just crap, actually.
The original forms of the stories, from older Mesopotamian texts are far better, clearer, and interesting to study.
Krocotto 2 weeks ago
@Krocotto Of course, but you gotta start somewhere, right? And the best way to identify the bible as such a messed up piece of plagiarism, is to actually read it and see it for yourself. Eventually you move on, because nowadays we no longer need books like the Bible. It's a nice fiction, as we don't criticize Lord of the Rings for being full of shit, so the book itself is harmless.
What we need is to get rid of that association of the Bible being literally real.
DrMadolite 2 weeks ago
@DrMadolite Now you're trying to come off as being some sort of impartial scholar. Again, I repeat, why the statement that you would like to think there is a reason behind what you see?
From there you went to how you study the ancient texts, etc.
It reminds me of a person driving a car from one point to the next suddenly asking themselves, "Why am I driving?" It's a pointless question. If your LIVING your life, asking 'why?' is superfluous.
Krocotto 2 weeks ago
@Krocotto You sure that I'm trying to come off as such, of that I'm just coming off as such, to you? ;)
But to answer: I would like to think that there is a reason because I associate reason with purpose. And if there's no purpose to living, then why bother? Why bother being active in anything you ever do in life? Why not just lie down and rot away?
Thankfully, I've since realized that purpose isn't limited to some future plan, but also to the present moment. So I have my answer.
DrMadolite 2 weeks ago
@DrMadolite The main reason why I brought it up is because that's what my life has been about. I've had severe traumas in life that have both directly and indirectly affected my very function as a human being. And when that happens, people tend to ask those bigger questions more frequently, because nothing makes any sense. It feels like you're trapped in a world like in The Matrix or in Jacob's Ladder, and you're trying to make sense of it.
Then, if you're lucky, you'll find out.
DrMadolite 2 weeks ago
@DrMadolite I, too. Started my search at age 8 and very soon found nothing but lies. Used to that from adults, I kept on searching for 'the truth.'
Found that the 'bigger questions' are themselves a form of lies bandied about by hucksters and the greedy.
As I said, if you're LIVING life, no questions are needed. It is a matter of will. I create the purpose for my life by my LIVING it. And the REASON I'm here is simple: my parents had sex.
Krocotto 2 weeks ago
@DrMadolite The greatest joy I've had in my search is that none of the questions I or any of the 'erudite' of the times were asking were new. Clear back to the wonderful Epic of Gilgamesh, these questions, these thoughts are eternal for humanity.
And still, after thousands and thousands of years of learning and advances, there has NEVER been a better answer than that given to Gilgamesh.
If you haven't, look it up, it's simply beauty in print form, whether alphabetic or cuneiform.
Krocotto 2 weeks ago
@DrMadolite And please, DON"T speak of TLOTR and the bible in the same breath. One book was beautifully written and was in internally consistent. The other was a conglomeration of crappy hate-filled bullshit.
Krocotto 2 weeks ago
@DrMadolite Ooookay, then, why did you say: "Because I like to wonder about whether there's any meaning to what I do in life or not." ... "I like to think there's a reason behind us being the culmination of billions of years of evolution - that it's not all been a waste."
These are not the statements of an objective scholar interested in exegesis, but in finding reasons for things in the 'abstract idea' of god.
That's what I was reacting to.
Krocotto 2 weeks ago
@DrMadolite If you REALLY wish to understand, you must first divest yourself of the very belief that there is a god to study.
Once you make that simple, but basic step, you will be able to see that the very word, the very concept, the very 'abstract idea' of god is just fiction, a completely made up concept.
And then you will see that there is no evidence of anything even remotely 'godlike' in the universe and you will be free to pursue the path of learning about the universe in which you live.
Krocotto 2 weeks ago
@Krocotto I don't think there's a God to study, I believe that there is a Bible, a Quran, a Tao te Ching, a whole school of SCIENCE, The Art of War, and the sum of all fiction, to study. "God" is just the product of the Bible, and if you're studying the bible you necessarily study the usage of the word "God" inside the bible, as well.
Has nothing to do with belief or whather you think the Bible recounts actual history or not.
DrMadolite 2 weeks ago
@DrMadolite Secondly, the fact that your own existence is such an utter waste to you that you cannot find meaning unless you play "let's pretend" is the point of Sagan's dissertation.
Life itself is reason enough to live for those of us with the minds to live it. For the pathetic and hate-filled self-loathers like yourself, religion gives you reason and hope and purpose.
The problem is that's self-defeating bullshit destined only for death.
Krocotto 3 weeks ago
@DrMadolite The computer you're using was not invented by people who felt the only reason for living was to worship some other fool's fantasy.
It is the thinkers of the world who enjoy life and accomplish things as opposed to blubbering that without god, their lives are pointless.
Perhaps your is.
But Sagan's wasn't. It wasn't because he sought to know. All religions, everywhere, through all time, have sought only to obfuscate any real knowledge about anything.
Nothing worth bragging about, eh?
Krocotto 3 weeks ago
@Krocotto I agree, it's not worth bragging about at all. Thankfully, I'm not religious. Just a pity that you haven't got the faintest idea of what I'm talking about. Else you might've realized a thing or two about the origin of faith and, subsequently, religion.
DrMadolite 3 weeks ago
@DrMadolite You see, dummy, there are far finer minds than yours that have dealt with the questions you pose. Actually, they've been dealing with them since the first lying piece of shit made up the first filthy lie about whatever god they needed to invent to fuck over the sheeple.
And it's sheeple like you who think you're so clever because you ask the same questions .... thousands of years after they've been answered!
Because you WON'T READ AND LEARN.
No wonder you have no reason to live.
Krocotto 2 weeks ago
@Krocotto Are you high or anything? It's like you're not even reading my replies, it's rather hilarious to watch you reply to things that has nothing to do with me. Carl Sagan would roll over in his grave. Well, you have fun living your life on Youtube.
I'll be focusing on the actual real world, personally. Oh and you might want to pick up actual books out there in the world if you want to accuse me of the opposite, instead of basing all your bullshit on Youtube flame wars.
Cheers.
DrMadolite 2 weeks ago
@DrMadolite I've been reading your responses, I've been actually QUOTING you. But that would be too tough to address, wouldn't it? You claimed to want to 'analyze' the bible in order to figure out what the characters say about god.
I nailed you to the wall over that, and you won't respond. Instead, you act the eternal victim.
It stops. No longer do fools like you get excused. You make a statement, you get challenged.
Now, try to keep up.
Krocotto 2 weeks ago
@Krocotto "You claimed to want to 'analyze' the bible in order to figure out what the characters say about god."
Yes, the bible is a book, like Lord of the Rings and any other book of either fact or fiction and in order to make any sense of a book, I like to figure out what the story is actually referring to. Not just literally (although that is the most important part), but also whether the book is telling a different story through its use of metaphors and whatnot.
DrMadolite 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Krocotto "I nailed you to the wall over that, and you won't respond. Instead, you act the eternal victim."
I believe I have responded in a bunch of replies, it's not my problem that you don't perceive it as a valid response. Maybe you should trust yourself a bit more and stop being so fucking needy of how everyone replies to your messages, but instead just take replies for what they are.
The answer that you want to hear, may not be the truth. Ever considered that?
DrMadolite 2 weeks ago
@Krocotto "It stops. No longer do fools like you get excused. You make a statement, you get challenged."
You really felt you needed to point that out for me? Yes, welcome to Youtube, where your threads and replies will be met with other people's replies and people can try to understand eachothers reasonings in jolly debate.
DrMadolite 2 weeks ago
@DrMadolite Well, true enough.
I apologize. I meant in the broader sense of the public sphere. Politics, for example. Uneducated boobs trying to legislate women's very uteri in the name of an 'abstract idea' is really just wrong.
Of course, throughout history, the slimy priests have done exactly that for fun and massive, unimaginable profit.
That needs to stop.
Krocotto 2 weeks ago
@Krocotto The only thing you can ever share with people, truthfully, is fact. But the ultimate conclusion is subjective, even though it's necessarily similar or identical to others' conclusions, when dealing with actual fact.
And I completely agree, people who would impose and monopolize their conclusion onto other people, needs to be taken down.
DrMadolite 2 weeks ago
@valtonen77 Like imagine a world in the old days when nobody had the technology to detect the world as being round. Well, how would you assume that that technology would even be invented to begin with, if not for the imaginations of brilliant minds in that time that led to the great discoveries that we take for granted today?
Science is a balance between data and theory, it's not just about putting blind faith in the data that has already been acquired by scientists before you.
DrMadolite 1 month ago
@DrMadolite and invisible unicorns, wich doesnt have any effect on matter or anything else in our universe, cannot be disproven. first you must have some evidence, if you claim that something exists. ( and i dont have any proof about life somwhere else in the universe, but universe is fucking huge place, so its VERY unlikely that there isnt any other species).
valtonen77 1 month ago
@valtonen77 of course invisible unicorns cannot be disproven, but unicorns aren't exactly defined by their invisibility now are they? You're debating something that is completely meaningless, you could essentially say that time travel is pure fantasy as well. And yet serious scientists believe it can be done. Why? because it doesn't go completely against the make-up of science. Neither does the afterlife of consciousness. But invisible horses with alicorn foreheads do.
DrMadolite 1 month ago
According to the scientifically challenged creationist, they say that light traveled faster 6000 years ago. They also think that any form of radio dating is not accurate because idiots like the convicted "Dr." Hovindt spreads lies to his gullible followers. He boldly displays his level of scientific ignorance in every one of his videos Of course they make these claims without basing it on any actual experimentation or peer review.
CaptainAwesomeoh13 1 month ago
@CaptainAwesomeoh13
Where is the successful experimental proof for vertical evolution. Not to include within species variations but proof that an amoeba really can, given time turn it's progeny into elephants, dinosaurs, birds, worms even? Belief in this type of evolution is just that; a belief. The point I want to make is that those who adhere to this explanation for the existence of life and it's variety, mostly refuse to accept it is merely a belief.
copperload 1 month ago in playlist Science
@copperload There are countless transitional fossils and DNA evidence to support evolution. That's why it is accepted. Creationists are the ones waging war against science because evidence proves contrary to their dogma. Scientists have to play their game. If a space wizard did magically poof us into existence, all living things on the planet would be unique, not share common genes with one another. dinosaurs did evolve into birds. This has been tested in the labs. No faith required.
CaptainAwesomeoh13 1 month ago
@CaptainAwesomeoh13
Sir, You lie or have been brainwashed.
copperload 1 month ago
@copperload You, sir, need to read something other than a bible. Simply go to a museum to see all of the evidence creationist adamantly deny. That's not being brainwashed, it means I'm educated. Did you know that geneticists can turn on junk DNA in bird embryos to actually make a dinosaur? It's creepy yet cool. Stop waging a fail war against science and let society progress.
CaptainAwesomeoh13 1 month ago
Yes, in order for one to believe in creationism, one must believe God is deceptive. Richard Dawkins also explained how if you look at animals in today's world, and compare their DNA, you get an almost perfect family tree. So, God must be trying to deceive us with Evolution too. Oh, God, you jokester!
seanpull 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The god in the bible is an asshole. The bible is a fairy story and God is a murderer and rapist and very very sick.
kriss299 1 month ago
LOL and u people think earth time is the same as the rest of th universe? do u morons who call urselves scientists have any idea of the SIZE of the universe? and that time is a PLAUSIBLE, TANGIBLE thing that is has different qualities INSIDE of our own solar system, let ALONE beyond our own galaxy? (shaking my head)
crystalballer7983 1 month ago
Um this is easy for a christian to answer .. it says God made the light before he made the stars. yall seem to think the God we believe in used the laws he created to create the universe. that is silly. he could have easily put the light in place then put the stars in place at those vast distances not just because but because they need to be that far away. if they were closer their gravitational pull would affect one another and we wouldnt survive. Thats what I think
polypride34 2 months ago
Note how he does not say anything against religion in general, just the literalist or fundamentalist interpretation of scriptures that contravene science.
URProductions 2 months ago
Oh my "god" remove the annoyingly loud music! I can't hear what he's saying.
zutnoq 2 months ago
Sagan didn't know or claim to know is God exists or doesn't.
SpockCanYouSaveme 2 months ago 8
@SpockCanYouSaveme well yeah. aint it obvious that god doesnt exists? there is only shitty book about christians god. if bible is word of god, it seems like god doesnt know his own universe age. bibble is full of shit wich can be disproven, there for, god doesnt exist
valtonen77 1 month ago
@valtonen77 im just talking to all the folks who say he is an athiest.
SpockCanYouSaveme 1 month ago
Comment removed
DrMadolite 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SpockCanYouSaveme That's because God has nothing whatsoever to do with Creationism. Whereas God is a dynamic meta-concept spanning across all known religions and the scientific world, Creationism is a specific, close-minded human interpretation of one particular book that can be debunked by both a multitude of verifiable, perceivable proof as well as the core logos of interpreting language and story written by authors who are personal and fallible.
DrMadolite 1 month ago
@SpockCanYouSaveme This is because Physicists deal in probability. However, I don't tend to apply "probability of being real" to a man made myth.
richienrg 1 month ago
@SpockCanYouSaveme And yet he made it painfully clear that he thought religion was a disease to be cured.
Atheistprimate 3 weeks ago
Sagan was not an atheist so please stop arguing over that. He just uses facts to show the earth is not 6000 years old.
SpockCanYouSaveme 2 months ago
I am an atheist because I have common sense
Theozzie11 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos 30
@Theozzie11 Atheism is the default common sense response to the question of the existence of gods.
blobvision 2 months ago
@Theozzie11 im a christian and i have common sense :)
polypride34 2 months ago
@polypride34 Having common sense and using it are different things. I have heard of christians doing normal jobs that require common sense, just like other people. And you obviously are familiar with the internet. I have heard of christians taking other religions apart with _reasonable_ arguments. Reason is a powerful tool, indeed - but a true christian refuses to apply it to his or hers own religious faith. (excuse me, if my english is hardly understandable, I am German.)
isthattrue 1 month ago
@isthattrue no its ok. and that is true humanistic logic and reason will never lead you to God but its not suppose to. logic relies on what we can see and understand we can neither see nor understand God. and i am all about logic. when i debate people i speak from a logic or making sense stand point not science because im not a scientist and only know what i am told. so yes logically evolution is the only answer outside of God. but what if it only looks that way. and not actually is. (cont)
polypride34 1 month ago
@isthattrue the bible made an illogical statement. it said light came before the source. logically this is impossible the dumbest person could debunk this. but for some reason they believed it. they could light some wood and see that the source comes first. but what made them Go against human logic, observation, and science and believe this? they obviously were not stupid because of the claims they made in Job.
polypride34 1 month ago
@polypride34 "logic and reason will never lead you to God but its not suppose to".
Who knows, why not? If someday there was hard evidence (just like for every discovery), every reasonable person would know he exists. Wouldn't all religious people triumph and say: "There is the proof, he/she exists!"? And wouldn't they be right?
The rest of your two comments contains too much factual errors and no real arguments.
isthattrue 1 month ago
@polypride34 Im sorry but I don't think you do
Theozzie11 1 month ago
@Theozzie11 well thats your opinion and science says your opinion without proof or evidence means nothing, or are just ignorant of the definition of common sense? To say someone you don't know has no common sense is in itself a very bias and unscientific statement. so in that 8 word sentence you just gave away all of your credibility.
polypride34 1 month ago
@Theozzie11 Unfortunately it's not so 'common' these days...
TheIMulligan 1 month ago
I hope carl sagan is with god... they could have a chuckle on how mind numbingly simple the blind and emotional religious view point really is!
jammapcb 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@winterstellar uh, yeah, I know....I agree. The "2-4 billion" thing I said was because there have been different ranges over the years in the estimations. The lowest estimation for a while by some was a minimum of "2 billion years". But lately the "4.5 billion year" figure seems to be the most common or accepted. I have no problem with it.
sweetmikser 2 months ago
Comment removed
sweetmikser 2 months ago
Sagan only refuted YOUNG EARTH Creationism. NOT true Biblical Creation. The Bible does NOT teach a "6000 year" EARTH. Or Universe. Not in the Hebrew or anywhere else in Genesis. Sloppy reading. The Bible teaches that MAN is young. But NOT the earth or universe. Sagan was sloppy and wrong about what he thinks the "Jewish Calendar" says. The Jewish Calendar deals with the creation of MAN...not necessarily the creation of earth. The Earth is old (2-4 billion years). Universe about 10-15 billion.
sweetmikser 2 months ago
@sweetmikser I take it that you do not believe in the "days" of Genesis being literal. Or do you believe that there is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 2?
ichabod9181 2 months ago
@sweetmikser Regardless of what he refuted, he did not believe in God.
Sakayoshi95 2 months ago
@Sakayoshi95 Sagan was not an Atheist, Despite his criticism of religion, Sagan denied that he was an atheist, saying "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid."
Cybertronic72388 2 months ago
@Cybertronic72388 That depends on how you define atheism. Wikipedia(the most reliable source on the internet, haha), says that atheism is the BELIEF that there are no deities. If your implied definiton is correct, then I agree with the implication that the word "atheist" is used much too lightly, and I see your point. However, I never said that Carl Sagan was an atheist, I said that he did not believe in God. He didn't "know" that there wasn't one. No one does. But he didn't believe in one.
Sakayoshi95 2 months ago
@Sakayoshi95 touche, I see what you mean. it is a very fine line between believing and knowing. I could see how that can easily be misconstrued. Btw you are the first person on youtube that has replied to me without raging I applaud you. :) I agree he appears not to have believed in a god.
Cybertronic72388 2 months ago
@Cybertronic72388 Same to you, this is one of the most civilized encounters I've had on Youtube.Everyone gets so angry on here. It's ridiculous. If everyone just listened to what others had to say and respected their opinions, it would be so much more effective. You're one of the few I've seen who actually dose these things. Thank you :)
Sakayoshi95 2 months ago
This man was exceedingly intelligent. He voices what I believe perfectly. The world needs more Carl Sagan's. Well educated and contemplative human beings who are observant and daring enough to utilize the facts and conclude that no God exists. Beings with knowledge and evidence that overpower fear and idealism. This is what the world needs, rather than assumption, fear based beliefs, and blind acceptance of unproven concepts.
Sakayoshi95 2 months ago
@Sakayoshi95 If science is not qualified to speak to the existence of God, then how can it disprove His existence?
ichabod9181 2 months ago
@ichabod9181 I'm not quite sure where you stand on this, but from what I can observe, it seems that you are an Atheist as well. I don't think I said or implied this in my comment.Could you please expound on what you're asking?I essentially said that observation and contemplation of well established facts should lead to the conclusion that there is no God in any genuinely intelligent human being, who does not believe things simply because they want them to be true.That's what I believe at least.
Sakayoshi95 2 months ago
@Sakayoshi95 What you say is not true. You forgot the shades of grey rule.
Superflamer99 2 months ago
@Superflamer99 First of all, this is not a matter of truth. It is one of opinion. If we were dealing strictly with truth and facts, I would stick to what must has been proven as true. Obviously, I'm presenting my opinion, and you cannot say that what I say is wrong as a fact, only as your opinion. Secondly, I am not aware of what you're speaking of.
Sakayoshi95 2 months ago
@Sakayoshi95 My comment really was for those who say that science has nothing to do with disproving God, and then they spend all their time trying to use it to disprove God. My belief in God is not blind; it is evidence-based. There are people on both sides of this issue--atheists and theists--who have blind faith. Let's not pretend it's merely on the side of the theists. I am curious: why did you conclude that I am an atheist?
ichabod9181 2 months ago
@ichabod9181 To argue that atheists rely on blind faith simply demonstrates that you have no understanding of what atheism is. I am an atheist because I have never heard a half-way convincing argument to support the existence of god. I apply to the question the same mental process that I would apply to any other question. If you assert that purple unicorns exist my response is prove it. It is not my place to disprove their existence.
mikelheron20 2 months ago
@ichabod9181 Science- the process of explaining the observable world, has nothing to do with gods/devils/ghosts or anything else that has not been observed in the natural world. It is only a process of asking questions in the most objective way as a person can. To have faith, you must believe. If you do not believe, you do not have faith. You are an athiest to billions of other people, yet you do not have faith in your atheism. You have faith in your religion. I do not have faith.
radahad000 2 months ago
I love you Carl Sagan.
soygoratsu 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Also, my question to you would be how you align your belief in an (obviously) unknowable first cause with anthropic, and dogmatic religious doctrine, based on myth and make-believe stories?
dujl 2 months ago
By the way, the singularity of the big bang was not an atom. That is an absurd statement to make, and completely ignorant of science.
dujl 2 months ago
@dujl If there were no beginning or point of departure for the world, all the existing atoms would have dissolved and been transformed into energy an infinite number of years ago. In the course of a very long past, the heat of the world would have come to an end, for matter, in the course of its successive and continuous transformation, is transformed into perishable energies. It is *not* possible for all the energy dispersed to be transformed a new into matter and mass .
1tabligh 2 months ago
comfortable to the world of being.
In accordance with the principle just mentioned, once usable energy is exhausted, chemical action and reaction can *no* longer take place. But given that chemical action and reaction do take place that life is possible on the earth, and that a huge body like the sun is divisible each day and night into three hundred thousand million tons, it is clear that the world has *originated* in time.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh Mass with properties occupies space. Before the big bang, there was no time or space - in essence a fixed state. What we need to understand is that there was a singularity, and it did exist before space and time. We realize that the laws of physics are special, so making a case of relativity is not just illogical, but meaningless.
dujl 2 months ago