@Zeikid I've heard it quite a few times myself. Google Image search "Anti-Atheist Propaganda" and enjoy all the love advertisements that were created by a people exposing "freedom of expression" and "tolerance".
@MajMatye I googled. There weren't many and most of them were of American origin. But I'm not wrong if I say that the USA pops up in mind when mentioning Christian hatred, am I? Signs and everything. I simply got the feeling that this video only puts Christians in a bad position generally, which sucks, because that's not who we are, at least that's not who we strive to be and also, there are many Christian sects. But in the end I can find comfort in the Word of God since it will never change.
@MrImmoli What I meant is that there has been done much cruelty in the name of God, but luckily it does not change either the Word of God or the existence of God for that matter. Question is whether or not God or His Word changes if what he has put into existence such as the Mosaic laws are only temporary. At least within Christian theology it is acknowledged that all throughout the Old Testament you can see the preparation for Jesus and the prophecy of His coming.
Atheism to me has nothing to do with belief or faith. Its more of a living life without the added factor of religions. If i had to believe in anything it is something along the lines of things within my realm of control. Anything not in my realm of control is just the odds of randomness of everyday life. I do not feel the need to follow or accept what cannot be Proven by scientific means even in principle. In essence there isn't a need for a challenge cuz there was no faith to begin with.
Instead, I believe in not only educating myself in others' beliefs, but accepting that they are free to choose whatever they want to believe and not to judge or criticize because of their beliefs. It hurts me in no way knowing that others do not believe in God so it does not matter to me. I soon hope that people on both sides of the argument will realize that it is futile to condemn or bash someone because of what they believe.
I am a believer in God, and I actually agree with this video. There truly is no physical evidence of the existence of God or of his influence within people's lives. The choice of believing in God is completely one's own decision and trying to force others who don't believe in God to believe will not yield the correct response. But the same can be said for an atheist trying to convince a theist of the opposite.
You are asserting that a concept has to be validated through empirical testing, quantification and perception. How poor your logic is! Don't you understand that that very claim ITSELF fails according to your own criteria? You're making all sorts of assumptions (e.g. about the nature of God, such as your simplistic analysis of the concept of "change"), and yet you have not critically analysed the epistemology of your presumably naturalistic philosophy, which relies on self-refuting empiricism.
Naturalism is not backed by naturalism itself. That would be circular. It is instead backed by the observation that naturalism works, and the products of it also work. Your computer monitor is not going to suddenly emit antimatter swans into your living room, and leprechauns are not going to fold your underwear. Empiricism is not self-refuting, it is observably correct.
@rkyeun A very common error: confusing the empirical method with the epistemological theory of empiricism. Of course naturalism works: methodological naturalism, that is. But I am talking about philosophical or metaphysical naturalism, which depends on the epistemological theory of empiricism: "all knowledge derives from sense perception". This is most definitely self-refuting, as I have shown. As a Christian I believe in the empirical method. It works. But it is not "the whole story".
« that very claim ITSELF fails according to your own criteria? »
Not quite. It is consistent with all our findings so far. Of course methodological naturalism works - but philosophical naturalism *also* works: all (verifiable) experience we have supports this. But let's drop the terms 'methodological naturalism' and 'philosophical naturalism' for now, and simply ask: what other means than our senses do we have at our disposal to test claims about the world around us against?
@MrGralgrathor "the world around us" or "reality"? They are not the same, because reality includes the inner world, such as consciousness (if this isn't real, then we're all stuffed, aren't we?). You ask: What other means do we have? What about logic itself? In fact, if all we have are our senses, then we would have no knowledge at all. That is my point, since there are non-empirical concepts on which knowledge depends.
If something has an effect on observable reality (or: the world around us), then I define it as being part of observable reality. Any thing that exists but has no effect on observable reality is irrelevant to us anyway, and could not be known - and would per definition be part of observable reality if it could be known, since such knowledge implies it has an effect on observable reality.
« reality includes the inner world, such as consciousness »
I reject the claim that such occurrences as consciousness and emotion are outside the realm of physical reality. I'd argue that they are firmly embedded in physical reality. However, such arguments will take up lots of space, so let's reserve such second order emergent effects for later.
Either logic in itself tells us nothing about the world around us if we do not apply it *to* the world around us, *OR* logic is a product *OF* the world around us, and not something separate from it.
Right, I don't waste time going too deeply into the bullshit of philosophy, Christianity, or metaphysicality. I'm not stuck in Plato's Cave and don't need a road map back to the objective observable reality.
I've less "raised the white flag" and more "looked outside to see ten thousand clowns making common diversionary PRATTs and refused to open the gate to let them in". Your argument is invalid from its inception, and retreating into solipsism isn't going to help anything.
@rkyeun The claim that all ideas need to be validated by empirical testing cannot itself be validated by that method. This is an assumption brought to empirical data, not derived from or validated by that data. There is no scientific experiment or observation that shows us that "empiricism is the basis of knowledge" or that "science is the only method of discovering truth". Knowledge begins with non-empirical ideas, that have to remain non-empirical.
« The claim that all ideas need to be validated by empirical testing cannot itself be validated by that method »
But the claim that only ideas validated through emperical testing lead to a workable understanding of the world around us *is* validated through that method.
@XGralgrathor That depends how you define the phrase "workable understanding". Workable, of course, involves work, which is undertaken for a purpose, which then brings in the problem of ends (teleology) with the necessity of "oughts" that cannot be derived from the "is" of the mere observation of nature (the naturalistic fallacy). So there is an assumption behind your reasoning, which lies outside the scope of empiricism.
An understanding that more or less consistently leads to results that can be applied with some success.
Mind you: I am not arguing that all of our scientific knowledge has applications in every day life. I *am* arguing that all of the ideas pertaining to the physical world we inhabit and that we do apply successfully in every day life can be verified scientifically.
I wonder what rats in science labs think of the 'nature of the universe'. Do you think they realize they're in an experiment being directed by a higher intelligence? And don't researchers have to be careful not to get too attached?
There's no reason to think we're not rats in a giant experiment and what we might experience as 'favor from god' is just a research assistant playing with us when he's supposed to be working.
Okay, I am just thinking. My pastor, I've SEEN him heal people before. it's happened right in front of me. People that have been in wheelchairs for years just getting up, and walking away. How do you explain that? I know they aren't faking it or anything like that. Trust me.
@TheJakeRockz You don't "know" they aren't faking it, you belief they aren't. They may belief they'll healed too, doesn't mean they actually are. If pastors could actually heal people, then why have doctors or hospitals? Isn't it interesting that pastors tend to only "heal" conditions that are capable of getting better on there own. For example, you will NEVER see a legless man grow his legs back, which would be a true miracle. Also, this has nothing to with rather or not there's a god(s).
@MrMoon360 I'm sorry...do you mean to imply that a legless man could grow his legs back? With stem cells, maybe. A pastor could no more heal your body with faith than fly to the moon. Anything he did could be accomplished with the application of mental power.
the heliopause is not inside the cube, because the cube is INSIDE THE BUILDING :|. a heliopause COULD exist outside our universe, because there is no reason that things outside it work the same way they work on the inside :)
the most unbelievable thing just happened, i have a 450m2 block of land. yesterday i got all the building materials delivered there, it was pretty windy, so i left it there over night. to my amazement when i came back the next day the house was built and fully furnished with food in the fridge. the random wind sure did a great job.
Evolution has no substantial evidence. Based on logic, it is ridiculously impossible and contradicting of itself.
Natural Selection over millions of years? Birds evolved from what, and how long did it take them to sprout wings and fly away from predators?- A stump on their body where a wing was to come over millions of years, would have given them a DISADVANTAGE before they even had a wing.
Creation theory is substantiated. Call it bunk if you like, but it is fact.
@MrMoon360 Yes so this must mean that an all powerful creator "from the bible of course" Created all existence, even defied logic a few times, then hid all observable, testable evidence for his existence.
This comment must either be satire or was made out of complete disregard and ignorance from the substantial amount of evidence there is for evolution. Not to mention Physical evidence such as fossil records, something the creation theory can not seem to produce.
@FreedomAndEducation Fossil records that prove evolution? Now that is ignorance.
Did you completely ignore the proof from the video link? The foundation rocks of this Earth had to have been formed instantly in order for polonium halos to exist. They cannot be accounted for in any other way. This evidence has not been refuted to this day. It is ignored and pushed aside by the science community. Hence, that video is old, firm news.
@MrMoon360 Alright, What field of science intentionally tries to disprove the "god theory". The reason they may think it's a not valid is because it lacks any sort of testable observable evidence. So you're going to take a sketchy science claim from about 25 to 35 years ago use it as the entire demise of the evolution theory which doesn't make sense and I will be telling you why in a Pm. The part I'm stuck on is where is the evidence for god? Which you have yet to show me.
@MrMoon360 Proof form the video link, you mean the one that has the title Evolution Theory Proven False by Scientific Observation - Science and Evidence For Creation, You're sticking to this single idea that this one claim will disprove all of evolution. You seem to be very ready to insult science and then use it in your defense. Using established work and hoping it will some intellectual stain on your claim. It's been debunked many times.
@FreedomAndEducation "Debunked many times." What a vague statement. Can you give me a link to even one credible debunk of polonium halos NOT proving the foundation rocks are young? I'm not "sticking to this ONE claim", I'm using it simply because I can as proof. Every Evolution video I've watched just keeps giving the run around, looking at things the way they are and implying that they had to come this way. Where is evidence? Proof? Science demands these things or it becomes religion. Faith.
@MrMoon360 I see how the burden of evidence seems frustrating for someone who believes faith is valid for scientific discovery, but understanding doesn't come with what we want to be true. You think science is all about disproving religion, when that isn't the case at all. Infact, if evidence that god was the reason for existence, then scientists would be all over that claim. The person who finds that out would be probably one of the most famous minds ever.
@FreedomAndEducation I said it only seems that way. The only thing scientific about evolution are the statistics of the fools that believe it is blatant fact. Jokes aside, due to lack of evidence, faith is all that remains to fill in the blank for 'substantiating' evolution. Because Christianity doesn't depend on scientific evidence, there is no shame in stating I believe the Earth was created with my faith in God's ability. Proof isn't for those whom DO believe in God, but for those who don't.
I hope you don't mind me cutting in at this point, but I have examined every single atom in this universe and know for a fact that there is no god of any kind. Naturally, you believing in a god means you won't ask me to quantify my claim, give any evidence of having done that, or even doubt me.
This is the flaw in your argument. You can't say that religious people don't seen proof. That's insulting to other people of your faith - you're calling them naive and thoughtless.
@EnglishDoom Please, where ever you came from, butting in, go back.
You clearly don't understand Christianity. We believe by faith, not by sight. The Bible is the word of God. That is what we believe. For that reason, no proof needs to be presented for us to believe in God's word.
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
So do you follow every single passage from the Bible? Do you stone people to death for working on the Sabbath? Do you believe you have the right to enslave other nations and races? If not, you're throwing doubt on some of your god's words.
I do understand Christianity, what I'm saying is that if I wrote another Bible with different meanings would you believe it? No? Why not?
@MrMoon360 said "We believe by faith, not by sight." First of all, you are not a "we". If in fact you have been elected as the official spokesperson for all Christians then please present your credentials... otherwise I'll reject your claim and address you as a "you", not as a "we". Secondly, if it were not for "sight" lending you the ability to read the Bible then you would have no "faith". So it is by sight that has lead you to faith. It's just that you believe what you read... w/o proof.
@whanethewhip Wow. You're an idiot. How literal did you take that metaphorical statement? And since when did a person need credentials to describe what a group of people (in which they are a part of) believe? Believing by faith is a basic principle that I doubt any Christian or even a denomination (such as Catholic) would argue about.
@MrMoon360 Said "You're an idiot.".Ah yes, the personal attack, the refuge of dick Christians everywhere. No debate is required, you've come out of the box swinging your dick around and nothing else you said after that matters. Thank you for reinforcing my views regarding dick Christians like you. By all means, continue to believe that you get to speak for all Christians, that way I get to judge all of them based on your behavior alone.
@whanethewhip Quote: "...that way I get to judge all [Christians] based on your behavior alone." That says a lot about you. You made a statement that adds up to no sense at all, making no point to this discussion. That is why I called you an idiot. I stand behind 'my' action to insult you. I mean, your opinion on judging folks speaks for itself. Not trying to be a dick, trying to be honest with ya. Sorry.
@MrMoon360 And I stand my behind my opinion that you are a dick that thinks you get to be the spokesperson for all Christians. You don't get to speak for all Christians and have my opinion only apply to you ... dick. If you don't like discussions like this then maybe you should not be a *dick* and open with "you're an idiot" when replying to a post.. you dick.
@MrMoon360 puked "If anyone comprehended what you were saying, they would agree with me." Ah, so you have elevated your status. Now, you speak for everyone, not just Christians. I'm sure it has never occurred to you to simply speak on your own behalf, to give your *own* opinion, without pretending that it is the also the opinion of all other Christians, or or "anyone" on the face of the planet, it certainly does not support any of your claims to pretend to be Earths spokesperson.
@whanethewhip You're taking your stupidity to a whole new level. Please, anyone read this guys comments. If you are mentally ill, I would feel extremely hurt and sorry though.
@MrMoon360 Indeed proof is for those who don't believe in god, for we need something to let you support your claim, before discarding it as rubbish. Putting your faith into a millennium old book that will save you after you die is like waiting in the desert on the brink of dying and putting your faith into a magical zombie unicorn to come feed you rainbows. It's fallacious and it's quite stupid if you think of it.
@quaquitthefith There is something I have experienced in particular that leaves no question in my mind God exists. The people that were inspired to write the bible have a history. Even Jesus is proven to have lived. The point I'm trying to make is; there is no definitive proof on evolution. Like religion, a certain amount of 'faith' must be given in order for it to be believable. It is a theory commonly seen as fact. That should not be since science is imperatively based on evidence.
@MrMoon360 So tell me Mr.moon what evidence for creationism could you possibly have that has eluded some of the greatest minds of science over the past 100 years?
@FreedomAndEducation Its not the evidence that eludes. It is the minds that are willing to accept. Science seems to have become nothing more than trying to disprove the God theory and not about discovering facts.
i took the time to watch the video, and it is interesting. are you aware of "The geology of 'Gentry’s Tiny Mystery" by J. Richard Wakefield (CSU Northridge/1988 Issue of the Journal of Geological Education)?
@MrMoon360 No a bird with a stump probably would have died, while one with wings would have a better chance of surviving. And I'm sure it wasn't just one mutation that gave birds wings, haven't you heard of flightless birds?
@bchplse Good point. But then do you have an idea what the bird with wings evolved from? Obviously they had to evolve from something 'flightless'[if that statement isn't true, tell me why]. Remember to consider that they had predators at any given time over the millions of years. I'm sure they weren't given time to evolve in peace.
@Liono6959 "forget everything you've ever been told." lmao! In other words, "pretend you don't know anything, and you'll believe anything." works like a charm, huh?
I'm an Asatruar and will remain so because it works FOR ME. We dont proselytise because we know that our pathway isn't for the entire world. People are entitled to their beliefs until they attempt to force it on others. Good video.
First of all, excellent video. However, just watching this video over again, isn't it a bit of a problem to say that outside of this universe, time, and space, logically impossible beings don't exist, but then go on to say that there may be time/space outside of our universe? isn't that sort of saying "well, here are the infinite number of things that can't logically exist, even outside of cause and effect, time, and space" How would anyone know if logic still applied in that realm?
I believe in God, I can honestly say I know he exists. There is no way for me to prove it to anybody, however, I can provide you with the evidence that lead me to him. Read The Book of Mormon, and just for 30 min, forget everything you've ever been told about anything, read the book, and sincerely pray about wither it is true or not, you won't be disappointed I assure you. Trying to disprove religion using worldly facts is futile by the way.
@Liono6959 If you forget about everything you know you would be so ignorant that you will believe everything doesnt matter how stupid or illogical it is, If I tell a kid that the world is flat and was created by cats he will believe in what I told him ( If he was uneducated and know nothing )
I personally think that religion is behind our time and barbaric in so many ways. The idea of it sounds absolutely crazy, but atheism only makes a bit more sense. I personally don't believe that with our current technology and such little experience off of our planet we're in any position to say whether or not spiritual / god-like entities exist. For this reason (although I'm leaning toward the atheist side) I'm agnostic. Amazing video though. I hope some of the borderline extremists in my
@JimboGee1234 The bible has not predicted anything whatsoever. What you're doing is taking an excerpt out of context and applying it to a vague description of what little you know about science. The bible is nothing more than an ancient rule book solely designed to teach primitive society how to lead a "good life" in the eyes of their peers. If you take it more seriously than that, you have the mental capacity of an apple.
@richienrg And just to finish the only argument for gods existence that any religion has is "prove that he doesn't exist." If you understood the video you would see this is a logical fallacy and isn't a valid argument at all.
huhh?? you know something about stadistics, what they are and how they work? First it is NOT like predicting the lottery numbers, and THAT is exactly my point. The Bible and any other book like it is just nonse. Put enough nonsense in a book and you might wind up with SOME lines that make SOME sense, and some stuff might even seem premonitory of the times we live in, but that's just the odds -and maybe even some common sense doing its thing, nothing supernatural.
I also understand that after all the books had been published, a person could come across the whole set, and could read them any order available.
I also understand that regardless of any of this, it's still a contradiction, still inaccurate, and still has nothing whatsoever indicating that one of them is truth and the other metaphorical.
@JimboGee1234 I didn't claim that to be a contradiction. The pillars and hanging thing is a contradiction. Please don't strawman.
Oh and by the way, Saddam Hussein was rebuilding the city of Babylon before the second gulf war. Then, American forces built a military base on the ruins as well.
These both sound like constructing things on top of it to me.
@JimboGee1234 It didn't even remotely inform the reader that it was metaphorical either, so it remains a completely unsubstantiated contradiction in a supposedly scientific, perfectly-accurate, divinely inspired book.
@JimboGee1234 If you were a barely-literate person 1500 years ago and you read the pillars one first, why would you think the nothing one is correct?
You wouldn't. The earth is clearly flat as far as you can see, why would you think it was hanging around in nothingness? Clearly it must sit on something.
Without knowing that the earth is in space and not sitting on something, how would you determine which one is metaphor?
You couldn't. Because the bible didn't tell you jack squat.
How do you distinguish the so-called "metaphors" from the so-called "facts" granted to us through the bible?
By finding it out yourself and then noticing it said it there?
In that case, it wasn't the bible expanding human knowledge, it was science.
What the bible did there is basically give 2 completely different answers to the same question on a test and then expect to be given credit when one of them is right, even though the other is wrong.
@JimboGee1234 lucky guess or 3, someone just wished that thing would come to pass and it did. First apply Occam's razor: Which is more likely? I think the guess thing is. People do sometimes correctly guess things, but there's no proof that anyone has been able to look into the future. So we don't really need to look any further than that for an explanation.
@JimboGee1234 Yeah, what about him? The lucky guess thing isn't really a theory, it's just that the other explanations are too incredible. For any unexplained phenomenon, you do two things. One, Occam's Razor (the simplest, most likely explanation is usually the correct one). Two, deduction of all the possibilities. Whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. In this case, there are at least two possibilities. The main ones are 1, someone could see into the future. 2, someone made a
@JimboGee1234 No, I'm saying that the seeing into the future thing is least likely, therefore least likely to be true. We don't know that the people who wrote it were fishermen, we only have the Bible's word for that. And it's word isn't reliable.
@JimboGee1234 That could be a lucky guess as well? For things like this, you really have to use Occam's Razor; the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Is it more likely that someone could see into the future or is it more likely that someone just made a guess or indulged in some wishful thinking which happened to turn out to be true? Also, have you heard of the phenomenon of self-fulfilling prophecy?
@JimboGee1234 First point; Evolution is not the study of how life began. It is the study of how life developed after it began. The study of how life began is Abiogenesis.
Second point; Basing your beliefs / life around a book of 2000 year old mythology written by people who didn't understand the mechanics of the world they lived in is absolutely ridiculous. It is an insult to human intelligence.
The bible and hundreds other books like it make thousands, hundred thousands of claims. Is Just a matter of stadistics that *some* of those claims will end up to be at least partially true. This argument is silly and nonsensical at best. If you *really* read the bible and not just *Cherry pick* lines from it, you'll see just how silly and idiotic it is to think that there's any value in it or any other religious book when it comes to interpreting the cosmos and the natural world.
You repeat cases already answered. While avoiding to mention that the church was burning people who were saying earth wasn't flat and in the center of the solar system/universe. It's that, this ability you all have to disregards some facts . You are intellectually dishonest my friend. You god wouldn't like that.
"It explains where we came"
No, it tells a story, that not one single evidence supports.
I expect nothing ground breaking from a 2000 years old books that's been around, interpreted, re-interpreted, edited in many ways
What I can tell you though, is that if you study enough, YOU will be able to make an A-Bomb , yes, you.
Awesome or creepy, or both , you decide.
Also, if you were talking about pig diseases, it's simple observation: eating porks under hot climates is risky. No need for god to tell us, we're smart enough to figure it out., just like our ancestors did.
You seem to think that our ancestors were brainless morons so any scientific knowledge should have come from "higher up".... they were as smart as us and they had time to observe and understand some things troughout the millenias .
Also "hanging upon nothing is totally wrong:
the earth isn't hanging. The earth isn't surrounded by nothing .
You only express your lack of scientifical knowledge, you're confusing several very different concepts
You pointed to a book who CLAIMS to knows it all( without explaining a real, usable in the reality, thing)
Were telephone, computers, vaccines, prosthetics, headeache medicaments, planes, cars etc etc etc invented thanks to the bible?
Seriously, it knows nothing and gives you no solutions to discover and invent things. It's a load of myths, that serves as an archaic civil code, nothing more.
There's a lot of things we didn't know 1000 years ago. But this was 1000 year ago. Since you're a solipsist, you DEMAND that everything being known during YOUR lifetime, sorry human sibling, that's not how it works.
innaccessible other realm ? they can tell you that a being is there because HE said so in THEIR heart/soul etc , the fact that science couldn't explain that isn't an end all answer, since science *might* progress in the future and tells us that wich was being inaccessible earlier isn't anymore.
You can't debunk the supernatural.You can't debunk faith. You can't debunk our brain's ability to create abstracts.
I've never made chain-emails, or propogated them, but I have a real urge to send these videos out to everyone I know and then some. Great video and narration! ;}
@impermanentpk The fact that you think God and immortal exist is outside of logic. Your entire argument is based on a wet dream that lives only in your imagination.
It should take any dumbass <10 seconds to deduce that you can't prove the existence of god with logic and that our accepted logic derived from our realm says that he does not exist. I don't really see the point in a ten minute video about this. However each is obviously entitled to their own personal beliefs, logical or not, and imo challenging someone for saying grace is just as bad as saying grace in the first place. Perhaps worse b/c you are trying to impose your personal beliefs directly.
@MrGlacierNova There is logical and empirical evidence to disprove the existence of specific gods based on the traits that are attributed to them. The idea of an all-powerful all-loving god is absurd and logically contradictory.
"challenging someone for saying grace is just as bad as saying grace in the first place"
I agree, right up until that person has a position in government and can force their beliefs on me or tries to get their mythology taught in science class, as is the case in America.
@killerkerara I have no experience with mythology being taught in science class. In any case that situation with a person with significant power (government etc.) seems so specific that what i said would hold true for the vast majority of things. I don't see the point in the first part of your comment, I already said i agreed that our logic disproves these things. In the usa i don't see how anything forces beliefs onto you to the point that it changes you, unless you're over sensitive.
the whole thing about the man turning into a lion is a good example of the whole argument for evolution.complete with the clever computer generated cartoon comment.hilarious.
what this whole thing doesn't mention is; who will be the enforcer in all this,who will protect from the bullies.who will guarantee that everyone agrees.what is ironic is that if one understands the meaning of free will,all this nonsense melts away.too many people confuse religion with truth.
Saying god does, does not exist. Being agnostic and in between is maybe the most truth based reality you can find until now. It is honest. Yet someone withnessing a god alone does not mean he or she isn't right. In fact if their wouldn't be any pioniers without prove to start with, science wouldn't exist. Therefore you can state that God in any form, and non existence of god is still hypothesized. In the meanwhile I'll stay in the middle, knowing both will be hard to prove at this moment.
The only thing that remains if reality is confirmed / fact based transparance, is how to live a life in which we can make up a reality in which we can live. To a certrain digree of purpose of the human brain. If this is a fact, religion, science, even being agnostic is all based on non factual reality. They can only be more true in a human based reality, in which you can wonder if the more human based reality is more purposeful then a less human based reality.
science is also a human religion/ human reality. How can you prove science is real and the measurement of science isn't controlled by the human brain and conformation biased human measurement. Therefore you don't know what isn't in the box, the whole universe could be in the box.Saying a box is a box is typical human, to see it apart from other objects. Any claim by humans might be false in the reality of another species. Therefore there is possibly only human science / reality / gods.
LOL RELIGION
myshiftedreality 3 days ago
Bravo, this is a sledge hammer of cogent logic brought to a subject definitely in need of it...
vivadescalzo 4 days ago
"Non-believers are human garbage".. Is that what we say?
Zeikid 5 days ago
@Zeikid I've heard it quite a few times myself. Google Image search "Anti-Atheist Propaganda" and enjoy all the love advertisements that were created by a people exposing "freedom of expression" and "tolerance".
MajMatye 5 days ago
@MajMatye I googled. There weren't many and most of them were of American origin. But I'm not wrong if I say that the USA pops up in mind when mentioning Christian hatred, am I? Signs and everything. I simply got the feeling that this video only puts Christians in a bad position generally, which sucks, because that's not who we are, at least that's not who we strive to be and also, there are many Christian sects. But in the end I can find comfort in the Word of God since it will never change.
Zeikid 4 days ago
@Zeikid
Those parts of the video were more aimed at the Christians who act like that, not all of them.
Anyway, more interested in "But in the end I can find comfort in the Word of God since it will never change."
Are the Old Testament laws still in affect?
MrImmoli 3 days ago
@MrImmoli What I meant is that there has been done much cruelty in the name of God, but luckily it does not change either the Word of God or the existence of God for that matter. Question is whether or not God or His Word changes if what he has put into existence such as the Mosaic laws are only temporary. At least within Christian theology it is acknowledged that all throughout the Old Testament you can see the preparation for Jesus and the prophecy of His coming.
Zeikid 3 days ago
Well produced.
kokopelli314 6 days ago
"cats made from airport" made me crack up.
clancym1 1 week ago
Atheism to me has nothing to do with belief or faith. Its more of a living life without the added factor of religions. If i had to believe in anything it is something along the lines of things within my realm of control. Anything not in my realm of control is just the odds of randomness of everyday life. I do not feel the need to follow or accept what cannot be Proven by scientific means even in principle. In essence there isn't a need for a challenge cuz there was no faith to begin with.
wenladam 1 week ago
Instead, I believe in not only educating myself in others' beliefs, but accepting that they are free to choose whatever they want to believe and not to judge or criticize because of their beliefs. It hurts me in no way knowing that others do not believe in God so it does not matter to me. I soon hope that people on both sides of the argument will realize that it is futile to condemn or bash someone because of what they believe.
octotenor00 1 week ago
I am a believer in God, and I actually agree with this video. There truly is no physical evidence of the existence of God or of his influence within people's lives. The choice of believing in God is completely one's own decision and trying to force others who don't believe in God to believe will not yield the correct response. But the same can be said for an atheist trying to convince a theist of the opposite.
octotenor00 1 week ago
You are asserting that a concept has to be validated through empirical testing, quantification and perception. How poor your logic is! Don't you understand that that very claim ITSELF fails according to your own criteria? You're making all sorts of assumptions (e.g. about the nature of God, such as your simplistic analysis of the concept of "change"), and yet you have not critically analysed the epistemology of your presumably naturalistic philosophy, which relies on self-refuting empiricism.
The1066Al 2 weeks ago
@The1066Al
Naturalism is not backed by naturalism itself. That would be circular. It is instead backed by the observation that naturalism works, and the products of it also work. Your computer monitor is not going to suddenly emit antimatter swans into your living room, and leprechauns are not going to fold your underwear. Empiricism is not self-refuting, it is observably correct.
rkyeun 2 weeks ago
@rkyeun A very common error: confusing the empirical method with the epistemological theory of empiricism. Of course naturalism works: methodological naturalism, that is. But I am talking about philosophical or metaphysical naturalism, which depends on the epistemological theory of empiricism: "all knowledge derives from sense perception". This is most definitely self-refuting, as I have shown. As a Christian I believe in the empirical method. It works. But it is not "the whole story".
The1066Al 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@The1066Al
« that very claim ITSELF fails according to your own criteria? »
Not quite. It is consistent with all our findings so far. Of course methodological naturalism works - but philosophical naturalism *also* works: all (verifiable) experience we have supports this. But let's drop the terms 'methodological naturalism' and 'philosophical naturalism' for now, and simply ask: what other means than our senses do we have at our disposal to test claims about the world around us against?
MrGralgrathor 2 weeks ago
@MrGralgrathor "the world around us" or "reality"? They are not the same, because reality includes the inner world, such as consciousness (if this isn't real, then we're all stuffed, aren't we?). You ask: What other means do we have? What about logic itself? In fact, if all we have are our senses, then we would have no knowledge at all. That is my point, since there are non-empirical concepts on which knowledge depends.
The1066Al 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@The1066Al
« "the world around us" or "reality"? »
If something has an effect on observable reality (or: the world around us), then I define it as being part of observable reality. Any thing that exists but has no effect on observable reality is irrelevant to us anyway, and could not be known - and would per definition be part of observable reality if it could be known, since such knowledge implies it has an effect on observable reality.
XGralgrathor 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@The1066Al
« reality includes the inner world, such as consciousness »
I reject the claim that such occurrences as consciousness and emotion are outside the realm of physical reality. I'd argue that they are firmly embedded in physical reality. However, such arguments will take up lots of space, so let's reserve such second order emergent effects for later.
XGralgrathor 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@The1066Al
« What about logic itself? »
Either logic in itself tells us nothing about the world around us if we do not apply it *to* the world around us, *OR* logic is a product *OF* the world around us, and not something separate from it.
XGralgrathor 2 weeks ago
@MrGralgrathor In my last post: by "non-empirical", I mean "not verifiable empirically".
The1066Al 2 weeks ago
@The1066Al
Right, I don't waste time going too deeply into the bullshit of philosophy, Christianity, or metaphysicality. I'm not stuck in Plato's Cave and don't need a road map back to the objective observable reality.
rkyeun 2 weeks ago
@rkyeun OK, you've raised the white flag. I understand. Have a nice day, "critical thinker"...
The1066Al 2 weeks ago
@The1066Al
I've less "raised the white flag" and more "looked outside to see ten thousand clowns making common diversionary PRATTs and refused to open the gate to let them in". Your argument is invalid from its inception, and retreating into solipsism isn't going to help anything.
rkyeun 2 weeks ago
@rkyeun "Your argument is invalid from its inception, and retreating into solipsism isn't going to help anything." - If you say so.
The1066Al 2 weeks ago
@rkyeun The claim that all ideas need to be validated by empirical testing cannot itself be validated by that method. This is an assumption brought to empirical data, not derived from or validated by that data. There is no scientific experiment or observation that shows us that "empiricism is the basis of knowledge" or that "science is the only method of discovering truth". Knowledge begins with non-empirical ideas, that have to remain non-empirical.
The1066Al 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@The1066Al
« The claim that all ideas need to be validated by empirical testing cannot itself be validated by that method »
But the claim that only ideas validated through emperical testing lead to a workable understanding of the world around us *is* validated through that method.
XGralgrathor 2 weeks ago
@XGralgrathor That depends how you define the phrase "workable understanding". Workable, of course, involves work, which is undertaken for a purpose, which then brings in the problem of ends (teleology) with the necessity of "oughts" that cannot be derived from the "is" of the mere observation of nature (the naturalistic fallacy). So there is an assumption behind your reasoning, which lies outside the scope of empiricism.
The1066Al 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@The1066Al
« That depends how you define the phrase »
An understanding that more or less consistently leads to results that can be applied with some success.
Mind you: I am not arguing that all of our scientific knowledge has applications in every day life. I *am* arguing that all of the ideas pertaining to the physical world we inhabit and that we do apply successfully in every day life can be verified scientifically.
XGralgrathor 2 weeks ago
@The1066Al
Your projection doesn't interest me.
rkyeun 2 weeks ago
@rkyeun And it doesn't interest me either. At least we agree on something!
The1066Al 2 weeks ago
I wonder what rats in science labs think of the 'nature of the universe'. Do you think they realize they're in an experiment being directed by a higher intelligence? And don't researchers have to be careful not to get too attached?
There's no reason to think we're not rats in a giant experiment and what we might experience as 'favor from god' is just a research assistant playing with us when he's supposed to be working.
zEropoint68 2 weeks ago
This is such a great video! I wish everyone could watch this and understand it!
politicoochie09 2 weeks ago
перевод в студию
grandteamclub 2 weeks ago
Irony: People forcing their beliefs on others in the comments section of a video that directly contradicts the logic of doing so.
skatehard21 2 weeks ago
Okay, I am just thinking. My pastor, I've SEEN him heal people before. it's happened right in front of me. People that have been in wheelchairs for years just getting up, and walking away. How do you explain that? I know they aren't faking it or anything like that. Trust me.
TheJakeRockz 3 weeks ago
@TheJakeRockz You don't "know" they aren't faking it, you belief they aren't. They may belief they'll healed too, doesn't mean they actually are. If pastors could actually heal people, then why have doctors or hospitals? Isn't it interesting that pastors tend to only "heal" conditions that are capable of getting better on there own. For example, you will NEVER see a legless man grow his legs back, which would be a true miracle. Also, this has nothing to with rather or not there's a god(s).
PeacefulAtheist1 3 weeks ago
@PeacefulAtheist1 "You will Never see a legless man grow his legs back.." And thats what YOU believe.
MrMoon360 3 weeks ago
@MrMoon360 I'm sorry...do you mean to imply that a legless man could grow his legs back? With stem cells, maybe. A pastor could no more heal your body with faith than fly to the moon. Anything he did could be accomplished with the application of mental power.
Snakepliskinist 3 weeks ago
@MrMoon360 The burden of proof is yours. Better get to work.
Phainein 2 weeks ago
@MrMoon360 Yea?? One time i even seen a guy pull a rabbit from a hat...and before there was no rabbit in the hat so there!
deanjdk 2 weeks ago
@PeacefulAtheist1 I've researched this further, and I agree with everything you say, You should really check out this video
watch?v=jYjgeayfYPI
It's about exposing the "Faith-Healing" Industry. Really helped me with this issue I was having.
TheJakeRockz 2 weeks ago
@TheJakeRockz And I've seen people insist for years they couldn't possibly quit smoking. Until they did. But they didn't say God did it.
Phainein 2 weeks ago
the heliopause is not inside the cube, because the cube is INSIDE THE BUILDING :|. a heliopause COULD exist outside our universe, because there is no reason that things outside it work the same way they work on the inside :)
andreirocks1992 4 weeks ago
the most unbelievable thing just happened, i have a 450m2 block of land. yesterday i got all the building materials delivered there, it was pretty windy, so i left it there over night. to my amazement when i came back the next day the house was built and fully furnished with food in the fridge. the random wind sure did a great job.
JEMOMER 1 month ago
read the twenty third flash of the risale i nur.
JEMOMER 1 month ago
It's getting late, I need to go into my bed made of sleep.
Goldbloodeddragon 1 month ago
But we have not found any evidence like that. That is why Faith does not have a place when making scientific discoveries.
FreedomAndEducation 1 month ago
Those looking for "the missing link" are like those looking for a bullet in mid-shot to prove a murder scene...
There just aren't enough photos/fossils
Lienmor 1 month ago
@Lienmor That doesn't disprove evolution. If you looked in somebody's fridge and didn't see a certain food that doesn't mean they don't eat anything.
bchplse 3 weeks ago
@bchplse I'm not trying to disprove evolution, I totally support it as fact, I just hate how people try to find "the missing link".
Lienmor 3 weeks ago
The box contains an Armadyl Godsword. Really
tkdkadir 1 month ago
Don't mind me I'm just laughing my arse off at what the cube does not contain, "the colour of up?"
chairbluepen 1 month ago
flame, troll, and sound like a douchebag, fill in the blank.
TheJayLud 1 month ago
Finally, an agnostic anti-religion video.
Pandafix175 1 month ago
Comment removed
Pandafix175 1 month ago
Evolution has no substantial evidence. Based on logic, it is ridiculously impossible and contradicting of itself.
Natural Selection over millions of years? Birds evolved from what, and how long did it take them to sprout wings and fly away from predators?- A stump on their body where a wing was to come over millions of years, would have given them a DISADVANTAGE before they even had a wing.
Creation theory is substantiated. Call it bunk if you like, but it is fact.
/watch?v=VDRGp-VcBJI
MrMoon360 1 month ago
@MrMoon360 Yes so this must mean that an all powerful creator "from the bible of course" Created all existence, even defied logic a few times, then hid all observable, testable evidence for his existence.
This comment must either be satire or was made out of complete disregard and ignorance from the substantial amount of evidence there is for evolution. Not to mention Physical evidence such as fossil records, something the creation theory can not seem to produce.
FreedomAndEducation 1 month ago
@FreedomAndEducation Fossil records that prove evolution? Now that is ignorance.
Did you completely ignore the proof from the video link? The foundation rocks of this Earth had to have been formed instantly in order for polonium halos to exist. They cannot be accounted for in any other way. This evidence has not been refuted to this day. It is ignored and pushed aside by the science community. Hence, that video is old, firm news.
MrMoon360 1 month ago
@MrMoon360 Alright, What field of science intentionally tries to disprove the "god theory". The reason they may think it's a not valid is because it lacks any sort of testable observable evidence. So you're going to take a sketchy science claim from about 25 to 35 years ago use it as the entire demise of the evolution theory which doesn't make sense and I will be telling you why in a Pm. The part I'm stuck on is where is the evidence for god? Which you have yet to show me.
FreedomAndEducation 1 month ago
@MrMoon360 Proof form the video link, you mean the one that has the title Evolution Theory Proven False by Scientific Observation - Science and Evidence For Creation, You're sticking to this single idea that this one claim will disprove all of evolution. You seem to be very ready to insult science and then use it in your defense. Using established work and hoping it will some intellectual stain on your claim. It's been debunked many times.
FreedomAndEducation 1 month ago
@FreedomAndEducation "Debunked many times." What a vague statement. Can you give me a link to even one credible debunk of polonium halos NOT proving the foundation rocks are young? I'm not "sticking to this ONE claim", I'm using it simply because I can as proof. Every Evolution video I've watched just keeps giving the run around, looking at things the way they are and implying that they had to come this way. Where is evidence? Proof? Science demands these things or it becomes religion. Faith.
MrMoon360 1 month ago
@MrMoon360 I see how the burden of evidence seems frustrating for someone who believes faith is valid for scientific discovery, but understanding doesn't come with what we want to be true. You think science is all about disproving religion, when that isn't the case at all. Infact, if evidence that god was the reason for existence, then scientists would be all over that claim. The person who finds that out would be probably one of the most famous minds ever.
FreedomAndEducation 1 month ago
@FreedomAndEducation I said it only seems that way. The only thing scientific about evolution are the statistics of the fools that believe it is blatant fact. Jokes aside, due to lack of evidence, faith is all that remains to fill in the blank for 'substantiating' evolution. Because Christianity doesn't depend on scientific evidence, there is no shame in stating I believe the Earth was created with my faith in God's ability. Proof isn't for those whom DO believe in God, but for those who don't.
MrMoon360 1 month ago
@MrMoon360
I hope you don't mind me cutting in at this point, but I have examined every single atom in this universe and know for a fact that there is no god of any kind. Naturally, you believing in a god means you won't ask me to quantify my claim, give any evidence of having done that, or even doubt me.
This is the flaw in your argument. You can't say that religious people don't seen proof. That's insulting to other people of your faith - you're calling them naive and thoughtless.
EnglishDoom 1 month ago
@EnglishDoom Please, where ever you came from, butting in, go back.
You clearly don't understand Christianity. We believe by faith, not by sight. The Bible is the word of God. That is what we believe. For that reason, no proof needs to be presented for us to believe in God's word.
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
MrMoon360 1 month ago
@MrMoon360
So do you follow every single passage from the Bible? Do you stone people to death for working on the Sabbath? Do you believe you have the right to enslave other nations and races? If not, you're throwing doubt on some of your god's words.
I do understand Christianity, what I'm saying is that if I wrote another Bible with different meanings would you believe it? No? Why not?
EnglishDoom 1 month ago
@MrMoon360 said "We believe by faith, not by sight." First of all, you are not a "we". If in fact you have been elected as the official spokesperson for all Christians then please present your credentials... otherwise I'll reject your claim and address you as a "you", not as a "we". Secondly, if it were not for "sight" lending you the ability to read the Bible then you would have no "faith". So it is by sight that has lead you to faith. It's just that you believe what you read... w/o proof.
whanethewhip 3 weeks ago
@whanethewhip Wow. You're an idiot. How literal did you take that metaphorical statement? And since when did a person need credentials to describe what a group of people (in which they are a part of) believe? Believing by faith is a basic principle that I doubt any Christian or even a denomination (such as Catholic) would argue about.
MrMoon360 3 weeks ago
@MrMoon360 Said "You're an idiot.".Ah yes, the personal attack, the refuge of dick Christians everywhere. No debate is required, you've come out of the box swinging your dick around and nothing else you said after that matters. Thank you for reinforcing my views regarding dick Christians like you. By all means, continue to believe that you get to speak for all Christians, that way I get to judge all of them based on your behavior alone.
whanethewhip 3 weeks ago
@whanethewhip Quote: "...that way I get to judge all [Christians] based on your behavior alone." That says a lot about you. You made a statement that adds up to no sense at all, making no point to this discussion. That is why I called you an idiot. I stand behind 'my' action to insult you. I mean, your opinion on judging folks speaks for itself. Not trying to be a dick, trying to be honest with ya. Sorry.
MrMoon360 3 weeks ago
@MrMoon360 And I stand my behind my opinion that you are a dick that thinks you get to be the spokesperson for all Christians. You don't get to speak for all Christians and have my opinion only apply to you ... dick. If you don't like discussions like this then maybe you should not be a *dick* and open with "you're an idiot" when replying to a post.. you dick.
whanethewhip 3 weeks ago
@whanethewhip Are you the spokesperson for idiots? You certainly qualify.
MrMoon360 3 weeks ago
@MrMoon360 So.. anytime someone says something that is above your comprehension level you refer to them as an idiot. You must be proud.
whanethewhip 3 weeks ago
@whanethewhip If anyone comprehended what you were saying, they would agree with me.
Your point amounts to: I need to 'credentials' to say, "We as Christians", who believe in virtually the same basic principles. That's just ludicrous..
But for the sake of not being scrutinized again for using "We", I'll use "I, as a Christian". -shrugs-
MrMoon360 3 weeks ago
@MrMoon360 puked "If anyone comprehended what you were saying, they would agree with me." Ah, so you have elevated your status. Now, you speak for everyone, not just Christians. I'm sure it has never occurred to you to simply speak on your own behalf, to give your *own* opinion, without pretending that it is the also the opinion of all other Christians, or or "anyone" on the face of the planet, it certainly does not support any of your claims to pretend to be Earths spokesperson.
whanethewhip 3 weeks ago
@whanethewhip You're taking your stupidity to a whole new level. Please, anyone read this guys comments. If you are mentally ill, I would feel extremely hurt and sorry though.
MrMoon360 3 weeks ago
@MrMoon360 There you go again, silly Christian, thinking that calling me stupid somehow makes you right. Please don't have kids.
whanethewhip 3 weeks ago
@MrMoon360 Indeed proof is for those who don't believe in god, for we need something to let you support your claim, before discarding it as rubbish. Putting your faith into a millennium old book that will save you after you die is like waiting in the desert on the brink of dying and putting your faith into a magical zombie unicorn to come feed you rainbows. It's fallacious and it's quite stupid if you think of it.
quaquitthefith 1 month ago
@quaquitthefith There is something I have experienced in particular that leaves no question in my mind God exists. The people that were inspired to write the bible have a history. Even Jesus is proven to have lived. The point I'm trying to make is; there is no definitive proof on evolution. Like religion, a certain amount of 'faith' must be given in order for it to be believable. It is a theory commonly seen as fact. That should not be since science is imperatively based on evidence.
MrMoon360 4 weeks ago
@MrMoon360 "Even Jesus is proven to have lived."
Really? Who proved it? What is their proof? I'm assuming you have the good sense not to use the bible as proof. I'm all ears.
kossmikham 4 weeks ago
@kossmikham Lol. Read a history book.
Or just type in history of Jesus in google.
MrMoon360 3 weeks ago
@MrMoon360 May I ask this, why do you think me as a person should believe in god?
FreedomAndEducation 1 month ago
@MrMoon360 So tell me Mr.moon what evidence for creationism could you possibly have that has eluded some of the greatest minds of science over the past 100 years?
FreedomAndEducation 1 month ago
@FreedomAndEducation Its not the evidence that eludes. It is the minds that are willing to accept. Science seems to have become nothing more than trying to disprove the God theory and not about discovering facts.
MrMoon360 1 month ago
@MrMoon360
i took the time to watch the video, and it is interesting. are you aware of "The geology of 'Gentry’s Tiny Mystery" by J. Richard Wakefield (CSU Northridge/1988 Issue of the Journal of Geological Education)?
castelgandalf 1 month ago
@MrMoon360 No a bird with a stump probably would have died, while one with wings would have a better chance of surviving. And I'm sure it wasn't just one mutation that gave birds wings, haven't you heard of flightless birds?
bchplse 3 weeks ago
@bchplse Good point. But then do you have an idea what the bird with wings evolved from? Obviously they had to evolve from something 'flightless'[if that statement isn't true, tell me why]. Remember to consider that they had predators at any given time over the millions of years. I'm sure they weren't given time to evolve in peace.
MrMoon360 3 weeks ago
Red HERRINGS. nicely spotted. rhetorically effective reasoning.
iSOisoleucine 1 month ago
faith by definition is to believe without evidence
but when there is evidence to be learned and you chose not to accept it
then faith becomes ignorance
religion has a war on science because science destroys religions with evidence
coltsrule5150 1 month ago
@Liono6959 "forget everything you've ever been told." lmao! In other words, "pretend you don't know anything, and you'll believe anything." works like a charm, huh?
coreywitane 1 month ago
lovely sense. Thanx for that. Oh if only.....
greygalah 1 month ago
I want a cat made of airport
Necrosis527 1 month ago
@Necrosis527 me too
R0WMaC 1 month ago
nice! i only think that a religious person would be unable to understand this kind of reasoning..
nhopez 1 month ago
@nhopez That's an unwarranted assumption. I'm fairly religious and I thought this video was great.
joker52mlb 1 month ago
This old Heathen lady likes this video. Subscribed!
LyubaAllenovna 1 month ago
I'm an Asatruar and will remain so because it works FOR ME. We dont proselytise because we know that our pathway isn't for the entire world. People are entitled to their beliefs until they attempt to force it on others. Good video.
LyubaAllenovna 1 month ago
First of all, excellent video. However, just watching this video over again, isn't it a bit of a problem to say that outside of this universe, time, and space, logically impossible beings don't exist, but then go on to say that there may be time/space outside of our universe? isn't that sort of saying "well, here are the infinite number of things that can't logically exist, even outside of cause and effect, time, and space" How would anyone know if logic still applied in that realm?
ItsEasyIfYouThink 1 month ago
I believe in God, I can honestly say I know he exists. There is no way for me to prove it to anybody, however, I can provide you with the evidence that lead me to him. Read The Book of Mormon, and just for 30 min, forget everything you've ever been told about anything, read the book, and sincerely pray about wither it is true or not, you won't be disappointed I assure you. Trying to disprove religion using worldly facts is futile by the way.
PEACE and MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL!!! ♥
Liono6959 1 month ago
@Liono6959 No. You don't know for sure. Deep down in your heart, you know that you're not sure.
Theowest 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
@Theowest Like I said, there's absolutely no way I can prove it to you, you just have to trust me :) Merry Christmas sir
Liono6959 1 month ago
@Liono6959 I don't trust you. Because you're lying. Merry Chistmas to you to sir.
Theowest 1 month ago
@Liono6959 If you forget about everything you know you would be so ignorant that you will believe everything doesnt matter how stupid or illogical it is, If I tell a kid that the world is flat and was created by cats he will believe in what I told him ( If he was uneducated and know nothing )
TheWesmaister 1 month ago
@Liono6959 You're lying to yourself.
bchplse 3 weeks ago
Every theist in the world MUST see this video.
HolyEggRollys 1 month ago
If a mind was "changeless" that would mean it could never acquire any new knowledge because that would change it?
lewisner 1 month ago
@lewisner Exactly but you cant use that against theist because god knows *everything* since he created everything.
TheWesmaister 1 month ago
@TheWesmaister except he couldnt find adam after they ate the forbidden fruit... so he knows most everything
JusBenLawyered 1 month ago
@JusBenLawyered Ohh I didnt thought about that, Since the god of the bible is omnipotent and omnipresent that is a contradiction to the bible.
TheWesmaister 1 month ago
This is why atheists always win religious arguments.
MrAzzhloe 1 month ago
"Omne ignotum pro magnifico." Translation: The unknown always passes for the marvelous.
ImTheWiseGuy 1 month ago
*Amazing video though. I hope some of the borderline extremists in my town see it and tone down their psychopathic harassment of the public. xD
NEOPETSAREREAL 1 month ago
I personally think that religion is behind our time and barbaric in so many ways. The idea of it sounds absolutely crazy, but atheism only makes a bit more sense. I personally don't believe that with our current technology and such little experience off of our planet we're in any position to say whether or not spiritual / god-like entities exist. For this reason (although I'm leaning toward the atheist side) I'm agnostic. Amazing video though. I hope some of the borderline extremists in my
NEOPETSAREREAL 1 month ago
@NEOPETSAREREAL I am sorry, but atheist does not make the claim that no gods exist.
Atheist means. Atheist (n): one without a belief in, or one who lacks belief in, the existence of god or gods.
Atheist and theists are claims of believe. Not about knowledge.
So the questions is with your current knowledge, do you believe that god(s) exist.
NathanWubs 1 month ago
i have found evidence of a greater intelligence :D! the guy/girl who made this video ^^b
ninetailsfox99 1 month ago
Omnia dicta fortiora si dicta Latina
Norwification 1 month ago
Brilliant! I'm eager to hear from those who dislike this.
beautyinbreakdowns2 1 month ago
I can't hit the like button enough.
Mosan13 1 month ago
lol, fuck religion.
c9ollie 1 month ago
@JimboGee1234 The bible has not predicted anything whatsoever. What you're doing is taking an excerpt out of context and applying it to a vague description of what little you know about science. The bible is nothing more than an ancient rule book solely designed to teach primitive society how to lead a "good life" in the eyes of their peers. If you take it more seriously than that, you have the mental capacity of an apple.
richienrg 1 month ago
@richienrg And just to finish the only argument for gods existence that any religion has is "prove that he doesn't exist." If you understood the video you would see this is a logical fallacy and isn't a valid argument at all.
richienrg 1 month ago
I really like how you explain these types of situations using metaphors, these are awesome and mind blowing!
tomRstincts 1 month ago
LOL @ people trying to defend the bible!
Deadfunkhardcore 1 month ago
To @JimboGee1234;
huhh?? you know something about stadistics, what they are and how they work? First it is NOT like predicting the lottery numbers, and THAT is exactly my point. The Bible and any other book like it is just nonse. Put enough nonsense in a book and you might wind up with SOME lines that make SOME sense, and some stuff might even seem premonitory of the times we live in, but that's just the odds -and maybe even some common sense doing its thing, nothing supernatural.
DrErkencho 1 month ago
@JimboGee1234 You seem to be under the mistaken belief that someone not having an answer makes your invented answer correct.
Also it's a complete non sequitur from your original point.
But, to answer your ambiguous question, which I assume means "beginning of the universe", my answer: we don't know.
As before, this does not mean your imaginary answer is correct. It means we don't know.
gimmethegepgun 1 month ago
@JimboGee1234 Yes, I understand that.
I also understand that after all the books had been published, a person could come across the whole set, and could read them any order available.
I also understand that regardless of any of this, it's still a contradiction, still inaccurate, and still has nothing whatsoever indicating that one of them is truth and the other metaphorical.
gimmethegepgun 1 month ago
@JimboGee1234 I didn't claim that to be a contradiction. The pillars and hanging thing is a contradiction. Please don't strawman.
Oh and by the way, Saddam Hussein was rebuilding the city of Babylon before the second gulf war. Then, American forces built a military base on the ruins as well.
These both sound like constructing things on top of it to me.
gimmethegepgun 1 month ago
@JimboGee1234 It didn't even remotely inform the reader that it was metaphorical either, so it remains a completely unsubstantiated contradiction in a supposedly scientific, perfectly-accurate, divinely inspired book.
gimmethegepgun 1 month ago
@JimboGee1234 If you were a barely-literate person 1500 years ago and you read the pillars one first, why would you think the nothing one is correct?
You wouldn't. The earth is clearly flat as far as you can see, why would you think it was hanging around in nothingness? Clearly it must sit on something.
Without knowing that the earth is in space and not sitting on something, how would you determine which one is metaphor?
You couldn't. Because the bible didn't tell you jack squat.
gimmethegepgun 1 month ago
@JimboGee1234 Point. Proven.
How do you distinguish the so-called "metaphors" from the so-called "facts" granted to us through the bible?
By finding it out yourself and then noticing it said it there?
In that case, it wasn't the bible expanding human knowledge, it was science.
What the bible did there is basically give 2 completely different answers to the same question on a test and then expect to be given credit when one of them is right, even though the other is wrong.
gimmethegepgun 1 month ago
@JimboGee1234 Why does the bible ALSO say that the earth sits on pillars?
Which is it?
Or will you just claim the pillars one is metaphorical, and the nothingness one is truth?
Okay, how do you distinguish them?
Based on what we find out ourselves? Okay, how is the "knowledge" granted to us of any use then?
gimmethegepgun 1 month ago
@JimboGee1234 lucky guess or 3, someone just wished that thing would come to pass and it did. First apply Occam's razor: Which is more likely? I think the guess thing is. People do sometimes correctly guess things, but there's no proof that anyone has been able to look into the future. So we don't really need to look any further than that for an explanation.
blackmichael75 1 month ago
@JimboGee1234 Yeah, what about him? The lucky guess thing isn't really a theory, it's just that the other explanations are too incredible. For any unexplained phenomenon, you do two things. One, Occam's Razor (the simplest, most likely explanation is usually the correct one). Two, deduction of all the possibilities. Whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. In this case, there are at least two possibilities. The main ones are 1, someone could see into the future. 2, someone made a
blackmichael75 1 month ago
@JimboGee1234 No, I'm saying that the seeing into the future thing is least likely, therefore least likely to be true. We don't know that the people who wrote it were fishermen, we only have the Bible's word for that. And it's word isn't reliable.
blackmichael75 1 month ago
@JimboGee1234 That could be a lucky guess as well? For things like this, you really have to use Occam's Razor; the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Is it more likely that someone could see into the future or is it more likely that someone just made a guess or indulged in some wishful thinking which happened to turn out to be true? Also, have you heard of the phenomenon of self-fulfilling prophecy?
blackmichael75 1 month ago
@JimboGee1234 Maybe it was just a lucky guess, or a bit of wishful thinking that turned out to be true. Re: Babylon falling.
blackmichael75 1 month ago
6:40 - The moon speaks the truth!
FiverBeyond 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JimboGee1234 First point; Evolution is not the study of how life began. It is the study of how life developed after it began. The study of how life began is Abiogenesis.
Second point; Basing your beliefs / life around a book of 2000 year old mythology written by people who didn't understand the mechanics of the world they lived in is absolutely ridiculous. It is an insult to human intelligence.
richienrg 2 months ago
Comment removed
richienrg 2 months ago
@JimboGee1234
The bible and hundreds other books like it make thousands, hundred thousands of claims. Is Just a matter of stadistics that *some* of those claims will end up to be at least partially true. This argument is silly and nonsensical at best. If you *really* read the bible and not just *Cherry pick* lines from it, you'll see just how silly and idiotic it is to think that there's any value in it or any other religious book when it comes to interpreting the cosmos and the natural world.
DrErkencho 2 months ago
@JimboGee1234
You repeat cases already answered. While avoiding to mention that the church was burning people who were saying earth wasn't flat and in the center of the solar system/universe. It's that, this ability you all have to disregards some facts . You are intellectually dishonest my friend. You god wouldn't like that.
"It explains where we came"
No, it tells a story, that not one single evidence supports.
I can tell you stories too.
chibraxial 2 months ago
@JimboGee1234
Give ONE SINGLE example of scientific breaktrough that was made possible by instructions in the bible (or any other "holy" book)
Science on the other had.... has some good successes to tis credits (well, ALL of them )
chibraxial 2 months ago
@JimboGee1234
I expect nothing ground breaking from a 2000 years old books that's been around, interpreted, re-interpreted, edited in many ways
What I can tell you though, is that if you study enough, YOU will be able to make an A-Bomb , yes, you.
Awesome or creepy, or both , you decide.
Also, if you were talking about pig diseases, it's simple observation: eating porks under hot climates is risky. No need for god to tell us, we're smart enough to figure it out., just like our ancestors did.
chibraxial 2 months ago
@JimboGee1234
"lets not forget the instructions the israelites got on hygeine."
Yes, let's not forget that. What about them, tell me.Amaze me.
chibraxial 2 months ago
@JimboGee1234
You seem to think that our ancestors were brainless morons so any scientific knowledge should have come from "higher up".... they were as smart as us and they had time to observe and understand some things troughout the millenias .
Also "hanging upon nothing is totally wrong:
the earth isn't hanging. The earth isn't surrounded by nothing .
You only express your lack of scientifical knowledge, you're confusing several very different concepts
READ MORE SCIENCE , LESS BIBLE
chibraxial 2 months ago
@JimboGee1234
You pointed to a book who CLAIMS to knows it all( without explaining a real, usable in the reality, thing)
Were telephone, computers, vaccines, prosthetics, headeache medicaments, planes, cars etc etc etc invented thanks to the bible?
Seriously, it knows nothing and gives you no solutions to discover and invent things. It's a load of myths, that serves as an archaic civil code, nothing more.
chibraxial 2 months ago
@JimboGee1234
So what?
There's a lot of things we didn't know 1000 years ago. But this was 1000 year ago. Since you're a solipsist, you DEMAND that everything being known during YOUR lifetime, sorry human sibling, that's not how it works.
chibraxial 2 months ago
This cube example demonstrates nothing.
innaccessible other realm ? they can tell you that a being is there because HE said so in THEIR heart/soul etc , the fact that science couldn't explain that isn't an end all answer, since science *might* progress in the future and tells us that wich was being inaccessible earlier isn't anymore.
You can't debunk the supernatural.You can't debunk faith. You can't debunk our brain's ability to create abstracts.
chibraxial 2 months ago
@chibraxial Faith debunks itself by simply being called Faith.
If something is real, verified, observed, experimentally proven you don't need faith to believe in it. It is a fact. A concrete and solid fact.
Faith is the belief in something with out a shred of evidence of it's existence.
richienrg 2 months ago
@JimboGee1234
No there isn't.
richienrg 2 months ago
amazing video, well done!
Tammyaway 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
question
this video repeats the argument that Gods do not exist because there is no evidence that they do
well isn't there an equal lack of evidence that they do not?
10lettername 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
I've never made chain-emails, or propogated them, but I have a real urge to send these videos out to everyone I know and then some. Great video and narration! ;}
tjstevens74 2 months ago
Awesome.
leonmsampaio 2 months ago
very good...check out Wildman Walker's blog, The Dawn of Intelligence
superwhuffo1 2 months ago
God created logic and is outside of logic. You cannot apply mortal logic to a immortal being. Your entire argument is based on a false assumption.
impermanentpk 2 months ago
@impermanentpk The fact that you think God and immortal exist is outside of logic. Your entire argument is based on a wet dream that lives only in your imagination.
hOOdilol 2 months ago
It should take any dumbass <10 seconds to deduce that you can't prove the existence of god with logic and that our accepted logic derived from our realm says that he does not exist. I don't really see the point in a ten minute video about this. However each is obviously entitled to their own personal beliefs, logical or not, and imo challenging someone for saying grace is just as bad as saying grace in the first place. Perhaps worse b/c you are trying to impose your personal beliefs directly.
MrGlacierNova 2 months ago
@MrGlacierNova There is logical and empirical evidence to disprove the existence of specific gods based on the traits that are attributed to them. The idea of an all-powerful all-loving god is absurd and logically contradictory.
"challenging someone for saying grace is just as bad as saying grace in the first place"
I agree, right up until that person has a position in government and can force their beliefs on me or tries to get their mythology taught in science class, as is the case in America.
killerkerara 2 months ago
@killerkerara I have no experience with mythology being taught in science class. In any case that situation with a person with significant power (government etc.) seems so specific that what i said would hold true for the vast majority of things. I don't see the point in the first part of your comment, I already said i agreed that our logic disproves these things. In the usa i don't see how anything forces beliefs onto you to the point that it changes you, unless you're over sensitive.
MrGlacierNova 2 months ago
@MrGlacierNova "I have no experience with mythology being taught in science class."
Then you are lucky. My biology teacher taught us that creationism is superior to evolution. Quite common in the bible belt, actually.
" In the usa i don't see how anything forces beliefs onto you to the point that it changes you, unless you're over sensitive."
I would estimate that 90% of the opposition to gay marriage is against it for religious reasons, and many members of our government hold this belief.
killerkerara 2 months ago
@killerkerara These things can go both ways, I don't think your biology teacher was adequate then.
MrGlacierNova 2 months ago
those absurd objects arehilarius
beeto45 2 months ago
the whole thing about the man turning into a lion is a good example of the whole argument for evolution.complete with the clever computer generated cartoon comment.hilarious.
what this whole thing doesn't mention is; who will be the enforcer in all this,who will protect from the bullies.who will guarantee that everyone agrees.what is ironic is that if one understands the meaning of free will,all this nonsense melts away.too many people confuse religion with truth.
Jvaughan777spider 2 months ago
Saying god does, does not exist. Being agnostic and in between is maybe the most truth based reality you can find until now. It is honest. Yet someone withnessing a god alone does not mean he or she isn't right. In fact if their wouldn't be any pioniers without prove to start with, science wouldn't exist. Therefore you can state that God in any form, and non existence of god is still hypothesized. In the meanwhile I'll stay in the middle, knowing both will be hard to prove at this moment.
spikemansss 2 months ago
The only thing that remains if reality is confirmed / fact based transparance, is how to live a life in which we can make up a reality in which we can live. To a certrain digree of purpose of the human brain. If this is a fact, religion, science, even being agnostic is all based on non factual reality. They can only be more true in a human based reality, in which you can wonder if the more human based reality is more purposeful then a less human based reality.
spikemansss 2 months ago
science is also a human religion/ human reality. How can you prove science is real and the measurement of science isn't controlled by the human brain and conformation biased human measurement. Therefore you don't know what isn't in the box, the whole universe could be in the box.Saying a box is a box is typical human, to see it apart from other objects. Any claim by humans might be false in the reality of another species. Therefore there is possibly only human science / reality / gods.
spikemansss 2 months ago
i fell asleap cuz of the british voice
brocks1564 2 months ago
What if I said Schrodinger's cat is in the box...?
MythCollector 2 months ago