God, Evolution, and Our Place in the Cosmos (Collaboration Video)

[Keiranforreal]

20:55 Exactly, last time I checked Jesus came to save people from the chains of the OT. I don't see all these 'Creationists' or Christians or even Jews and Muslims for that matter sacrificing goats at the local temple these days. What's so hard for them to accept that what's in Genesis is a metaphorical story? I remember when I was 7 I wanted to be a paleontologist. Just because I know evolution is fact doesn't mean I can't find truth in holy books. I just don't use them for literal history.

[Squee505]

Fantastic.

[DannySinfield]

Einstein was between atheist and agnostic and thought idea of personal god and bible myths ridiculous

[DannySinfield]

'Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind' - Albert Einstien (Did you get this from a christian site?)

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one" ~ Albert Einstein

[DannySinfield]

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Letter to an atheist (1954) as quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side (1981)

[ShinigamiKonata]

Good information but could you have at least evened the audio channels a little bit. It went from a really quiet speaker to someone really loud. Killer on my eardrums. :(

[themanofearth]

Why is it that theists never put up the rest of that Einstein quote? "During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods."

[swilson3d]

If you people believe in evolution, then the Genesis story is false. Does this mean there were no Adam and Eve?

If Adam and Eve are fictional characters then the genealogy that says Moses, Noah, Jesus were descended from Adam is false. Fictional characters can only beget other fictional characters.

[BusinessIDBAI]

@ElProximo

LOL!!! You're describing trust. I'm also self employed, I don't rely on pay checks from others, I work out of the house, no faith required.

And okay theist. You're saying my "faith" in the mundane, and evidencially supported objects and activities around me is your faith in your god, eh? Okay, show me the evidence for your god, and verify that your faith is the same as my "faith".

If you can't, congratulations, what a vacuous argument this was. LOL!!!!

[BusinessIDBAI]

@ElProximo

No it isn't, and no I didn't. I'm actually a programmer and I know how these things work. I have 8 extra keyboards lying in my closet in case this one didn't work. And it is you stating that your definition is how its going to be.

You didn't even define the word, just the tense it applied to. So, by your "definition", you have "faith" in your god that is yet to be seen and is based on what has been seen, touched or experienced. Sounds pretty ridiculous.

[botato2]

Quote fail. Einstein told people to stop using his words like this yet the religious just can't stop from doing it.

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." A. Einstein

[FractalMachine]

i see that the participants take a stance in which genesis should not be understood literally.

but how can you determine which parts to take literally and which ones require interpretation?

and what IS the lesson that genesis has to teach? (with it's undoubtedly unscientific notions)

it's true that science doesn't contradict the existence of a creator,but it does point out many many discrepancies throughout the entire bible,including the exodus.

should that not be taken literally as well?

[MaxxPower101]

And yet you'll still maintain the creator of the entirety of existence itself came down to Earth in the Middle East to shimmy about and get nailed to a cross in some bizarre attempt to rectify a problem in It's own creation by self-sacrifice.

I really don't mind if you accept evolution. That's nice and all, but you're all still bloody dippy.

[adrenacrumb]

You can't use science to prove or disprove God, Now let's talk about how the Kalam Cosmological argument proves God's existence.

[SonofDust777]

has the second guest published? even if the hypothesis is false it should be published.

[Ninjaculation]

The moral zeitgeist of the world changes and religions have to keep up, or they fall into disuse. I guess you could say that your particular brand of Christianity is not in conflict with science, but all that really proves is that you are giving science the right of way. You live in scientific times, and this is the latest concession that religion has had to make. My question is: Of what use is religion in an age such as this?

[Ninjaculation]

I smell Tf00t getting closer to making a pwn video.

[AGNOSTICEXTREME]

1:50 Evolution disproves the Bible, not a deistic god.

[AGNOSTICEXTREME]

1:40 How is there an us if there is no context, like, for instance, a them?

[BusinessIDBAI]

I disagree, it depends on the definition of the god in question. If the definition of god is a literal interpretation of the god of the bible, then it does disprove that god, which states it made humans out of mud/clay/dirt, and women from the rib of a man.

But again, it all depends on how you want to define the god hypothesis.

[ImpiousGalilean]

beautiful.

[beechgrovejoe]

Science and religion are NEVER in conflict with each other. Any conflict only exists in the minds of theists or anti-theists which have an ajenda to show their position is correct. Lack of evidence does not suddenly become evidence. Any statement made based on a lack of evidence is by definition not a scientific statement. Claiming a lack of evidence as justification for not believing something is simply believing some idea is wrong without any evidence. In other words a religious idea.

[BusinessIDBAI]

@beechgrovejoe

Wait, what?

"Claiming a lack of evidence as justification for not believing something is simply believing some idea is wrong without any evidence."

Strawman much? Lack of evidence doesn't mean its wrong, lack of evidence means its unsupported, and therefore shouldn't be accepted. Evidence to the contrary would demonstrate something is wrong, such as a literal interpretation of the Bible.

(continued)

[beechgrovejoe]

@BusinessIDBAI So you are claiming lack of evidence is evidence that it is not supported. You have a belief that is based on a lack of evidence. You are pretending your religion is based in science when it cannot be because you have no evidence. You also show a belief that it shouldn't be accepted because you belief it's not supported. So you have a unfounded belief based on a belief without any evidence. The strawman is that science has ANYTHING to say about a religious idea.

[BusinessIDBAI]

@beechgrovejoe

I don't have a religion sir. Atheism is the position on a single belief, not a system.

Towards many god hypothesis such as the Abrahamic gods, my belief isn't based on lack of evidence, but evidence to the contrary.

Does your definition of your god mean that it can have actions that manifest in the natural world? If it does, you can throw the non-overlapping magisteria right out the window. Anything that manifests in the physical world is measurable by science.

[beechgrovejoe]

@BusinessIDBAI I call bull shit. You have a religion. You believe a god doesn't exist without any evidence. Like most anti-theists, you call yourself an atheist to pretend you are better than a theist. You are no different than a theist that claims their pet flavor of theism is the only correct view. The fact that you say you have evidence to the contrary only proves my point. My views on the existance of a god is irrelevent. You are simply trying to claim I am wrong.

[BusinessIDBAI]

@beechgrovejoe

At what point have I said I'm better than a theist? I call bullshit here with your projection. I do not believe in any of the god concepts I have been presented with as they all are either unsupported or completely useless redefinitions of words. My first post to you was to state I disagree, not to state you're wrong.

The evidence to the contrary is versus the God model of the Bible, the order of creation, the biblical flood, evidence against exodus, garden of Eden, etc.

[beechgrovejoe]

@BusinessIDBAI So why are you trying to assert that some belief needs to be supported by evidence? Beliefs are by definition never supported by evidence. Asking me about my god while you claim to have no beliefs is a typical "You don't believe in the correct things" type of argument.

Wake up, even if everything in the bible was absolutely proven wrong, that would still have no bearing on the existance of a god. It would just be a reason for different theists to argue they are correct.

[BusinessIDBAI]

@beechgrovejoe

Because that is the position I personally take. Did I ask you about your god at all? No, I didn't. I stated my position on a concept of a god, I'm not telling you that you should or shouldn't believe anything at all. Beliefs are supported by evidence, the definition of faith is that it isn't supported by evidence. I accept and "believe" in evolution because of evidence.

And if the Bible was falsified completely, it would prove the CHRISTIAN god wrong, but no others.

[BusinessIDBAI]

@beechgrovejoe

No, faith is belief without or in the face of supporting evidence. You can redefine terms all you want, but if that's how its going to be, we might as well roll our faces on the key board and pretend to be communicating. And please, tell me, if I BELIEVE evolution is true, what is this whole series of things I believe in? You are just as bad at making bold assertions as the creationists.

[beechgrovejoe]

@BusinessIDBAI So you attempt to narrowly define faith and belief so you can continue believe whatever you want while slamming others for beliefing what they want. What you consider evidence is not evidence to others unless they accept it. Or are you just pushing your belief that your evidence is sufficient?

I'm not the one asserting that something is wrong with religion.

[BusinessIDBAI]

@beechgrovejoe

Of the two of us, you're the one doing the most slamming here, and you started first, chill on your projection.

I've said I don't believe in any gods, and I know that a literal interpretation of the Bible is wrong, as it is not supported, and there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Can you define faith for me? And, remember, if you're going to define it in the mundane, day to day tasks that can be independently verified by everyone, then prepare to do the same for your god.

[beechgrovejoe]

@BusinessIDBAI Are you really that dense? Pretending you are a psychologist doesn't help your case. But your statement that I am projecting does make my point of how you are declaring others wrong.

Nobody gives a rat's ass what you believe. For that matter what verse of the bible says that it should be interpeted literaly? Just because some theists are wrong doesn't make all theists wrong.

Why should I bother to define things for you? All you are interested in is pushing your beliefs.

[BusinessIDBAI]

@beechgrovejoe

"Nobody gives a rat's ass what you believe."

Same for you then buddy, if you can't have a discussion, fuck yourself.

[beechgrovejoe]

@BusinessIDBAI Getting a little overly emotional I see. So you are just pushing your beliefs on others and if they don't agree you get pissed off. Are your beliefs really that weak?

[BusinessIDBAI]

@beechgrovejoe

And last thing, did I say all theists are wrong, or did I say that the literal interpretation? Your'e too dense to get this shit. You're projecting your attacks onto me. I haven't even began to discuss your god. But either way, you're a dishonest prick, so, my statement before, of you fucking yourself, will still apply.

[beechgrovejoe]

@BusinessIDBAI Like an insult from an anti-theist douche bag is going do anything other than make me laugh. It would be even funnier to hear you talk about my god. I have been an atheist longer than you have been alive. What you don't seem to get is that your "their wrong" attitude seems to be exactly the same as the WBC. If people want to choose to believe something you consider wrong, that's their right. You just look like another self apointed member of the thought police.

[BusinessIDBAI]

@beechgrovejoe

Totally not reading any more garbage from you. Dishonest, insulting, condescending and arguing past the person your talking to. Want to make assumptions about people, fine, but I'll treat you with the same level of respect.

I didn't read your last post, I won't be reading any of your future posts, nothing you have to say is of any merit. Enjoy talking to yourself, it seems to be your specialty.

[beechgrovejoe]

@BusinessIDBAI Then why are you responding to it? You can classify me any way you want. I got over the childish high school mentality of needing acceptance from others more than 30 years ago. You need to grow up and realize that just because someone else is incorrect doesn't mean that you are right. Furthermore there is nothing wrong with people being incorrect. Life is not a school classroom where you as the teacher get to declare others wrong.

[BusinessIDBAI]

@beechgrovejoe

Say what? Still not reading the bile you write.

[beechgrovejoe]

@BusinessIDBAI So you are so brain dead that you write responses to things you don't even read. Sure seems like you are just a butt hurt little kiddie that is pissed that somebody didn't agree with you.

[BusinessIDBAI]

@beechgrovejoe

LoL, keep trying, I'm really not reading anything you say. Next time you have a discussion, don't start raging so early and things like this wouldn't happen. In short, don't be such a moronic child next time.

[beechgrovejoe]

@BusinessIDBAI Things like what? Having a 26 yr old kiddie throw a temper trantrum because they didn't get their way.

[BusinessIDBAI]

@beechgrovejoe

Damn dude, you're still trying this hard to simply not have anything you take the time to write read? Nice work! I'm impressed by your determination to have your hard work ignored. I see its getting shorter and shorter though, so I guess you're starting to recognize no one cares what you have to say.

[beechgrovejoe]

@BusinessIDBAI You seem to care quite a bit. It doesn't take a lot of time to irritate you.  The fact that you stopped responding for more than 24 hrs and then started again tends to indicate you are still quite butt hurt. But what should we expect from a shit head that calls themself a transhumanist?

[BusinessIDBAI]

@beechgrovejoe

You're still commenting to me? LoL, man, I bet its probably interesting and life changing. Eventually you'll recognize I'm really not reading any of your garbage you post. Eventually, one day, it will dawn on you.

[beechgrovejoe]

@BusinessIDBAI Kind of works both ways you idiot. I don't care if you read anything or not. I find it funny that you are admitting that all you are doing is putting you fingers in your ears and saying lalalalalala. Wonderful job of showing how poorly you thought out your argument before you started spewing your anti-theistic retoric.

[BusinessIDBAI]

@beechgrovejoe

Seriously? Still posting? You are the definition of hard headed.

[beechgrovejoe]

@BusinessIDBAI So what else new?

[BusinessIDBAI]

@beechgrovejoe

And, lack of evidence when there should be evidence, does become evidence and is grounds for falsifying a hypothesis. Absence of evidence is not ALWAYS evidence of absence, but it very often is.

[beechgrovejoe]

@BusinessIDBAI And you state a belief that there should be evidence as justification for you turning a lack of evidence into evidence. A lack of evidence has NEVER been grounds to falsify anything. We aren't talking about evidence of absence. We are talking about absence of evidence. Where there is no evidence, science says NOTHING. Prending it says something only shows you are an anti-theist trying to show you are correct.

[BusinessIDBAI]

@beechgrovejoe

If the hypotheses is falsifiable, you will be able to set up a test that would demonstrate that what your are purposing isn't present or a factor or even there at all.

You should look up the Higgs Boson, a particle that has been sought out by physicists for thirty years, however, we haven't had the instruments necessary to find it. Now with tests on going with the LHC, an instrument predicted to be able to detect the Higgs Boson, if it does not detect it ((Continued))

[beechgrovejoe]

@BusinessIDBAI But the idea of existance or non-existance of a god is NOT falsifiable and therefore not a scientific idea. The Higgs boson is one POSSIBLE way the Higgs mechanism could work. You are making the assumption that the mass of the Higgs boson is within the range of LHC and that the Higgs mechanism actually exists. Neither has been shown to exist. Given that standard model doesn't predict masses, saying the LHC is predicted to detect it is a BELIEF. Learn you particle physics.

[BusinessIDBAI]

@beechgrovejoe

That will be evidence of the absence of the particle, and go a long way towards falsifying its existence. It is expected to be, and predicted to be within the scope of our measurement. And if we do not find it, then bam, evidence of absence.

[beechgrovejoe]

@BusinessIDBAI If the particle is NOT found that will not be evidence of absence. ALL it would say that if it exists, its mass is higher than the guesses. Given what you are saying, it's quite clear you really don't have a firm understanding of the standard model yet you are trying to use it to justify your beliefs. As my first comment stated, you are trying to use science to justify your religious beliefs.

[BusinessIDBAI]

@beechgrovejoe

I don't have religious beliefs, and the particle as predicted, if not found is falsified.

[beechgrovejoe]

@BusinessIDBAI Yes you do have religious beliefs and the fact that you think a particle predicted by somebody's pet theory not being found is evidence that it doesn't exist makes my point. What you don't seem to get is the mass of particles is NEVER predicted by the standard model. Any prediction of it's mass is just a guess by some proponent of a theory. All that would be falsified is that person's guess.

[BusinessIDBAI]

@beechgrovejoe

I have religious beliefs? Can you tell me what those might be? You seem so proud and adamant in the assertion I must have missed them! Please, enlighten me then oh omniscient one! Tell me, what it is that I hold to with religious fervor! You do a lot of asserting, and not much asking.

[beechgrovejoe]

@BusinessIDBAI The best way to describe it is to ask what you think of an anarchist that claims they don't have a political view? Just the same, an atheist holds a religious view. Pretending your views are not of a religious nature begs the question "What evidence do you have to support your claims?". If you are such a fan of science as you portray, you must have some evidence that will convince everbody else. If not, you are just pushing the religion known as scientism.

[botato2]

@beechgrovejoe You can have a religion based on not believing in something? So you have a religion that says unicorns don't exist? You are part of the religious ideology that Santa Claus isn't real?

[beechgrovejoe]

@botato2 Well if you don't have any evidence to support your position and you assert that it is true, then that would be the definition of a religion. Furthermore, if any evidence you do have doesn't convince everybody, that evidence is not as strong as you pretend.

[botato2]

@beechgrovejoe That doesn't make it a religion, everything has evidence, I have never seen or spoken to your God so that is evidence. Your entire statement there is retarded but that is the easiest way to diffuse what you just said.

[beechgrovejoe]

@botato2 I never said there was any evidence for a god. Never said there was evidence that a god doesn't exist. I said that lack of evidence is not evidence no matter what. So why do you feel the need to diffuse what I say? Are you trying to defend your position and show that I am wrong? Why does your position need defending? Is it that weak?

[botato2]

@beechgrovejoe You are either one of the dumbest people alive or a troll. Words have definitions, the definition for religion is a systematic set of guidelines on the way we should live. Atheism does not meet that defintion. Bye

[beechgrovejoe]

@botato2 So now that you lost the argument, and claimed the conversation was over, now you are back with an ad hom attack. Normal people can see what you are doing. You are presuposing that anti-theism is not a religion and then cherry picking definitions to support your position. Kind of like Neffy and the flood.

[botato2]

@beechgrovejoe Atheism itself is not a cohesive philosophy, it doesn't say anything about how you should live.  That is why it is not a religion, it makes no statements on what or how we should do things given the situation.

[beechgrovejoe]

@botato2 Yes it does. It says that your beliefs should never be used to force someone else to do something or not do something. It labels the people that would push their beliefs on others as the douche bags they really are. You are only claiming it's not a religion to avoid labeling yourself as a religious person.

[botato2]

@beechgrovejoe So which is it does Atheism say I should kill everyone or not? A religion is a guideline on how you should live, atheism could be used as the foundation of a religion such as Buddhism but in itself says nothing about how we need to live.

[beechgrovejoe]

@botato2 Atheism doesn't tell you to kill people or not kill people. That would be pushing beliefs on others. A personal guidline yes, a guideline for other no. If you don't believe a god exists and you don't believe a god doesn't exist, what possible basis could you have to claim the theists are wrong? You are simply playing politics and justifying your position with a claim superior morality.

[botato2]

@beechgrovejoe Dear God man we are all balls deep in religious sects if that is the case. Any thought about something is a religion? If I like Cheerios is that a religion? There is a difference between philosophy and religion, look it up.

[beechgrovejoe]

@botato2 Yes, but pihilosophy doesn't claim opposing positions are wrong :-) So do you have a problem with the normal human ability to make assumptions and reason from the position that those assumptions are correct? Don't you get the from that standpoint science and religion are exactly alike? Or are you just one of the thought police that want's to punish bad thinking?

[botato2]

@beechgrovejoe That's the end of conversation, something is only a religion when it makes statements on why and how we should live our lives according to morality of the given situation. Atheism does not say God doesn't exist so we should kill everybody or not kill everybody, it is up to the individual to decide what it means but it does not give a specific value.

[BusinessIDBAI]

@beechgrovejoe

Not believing in a god is not a religious view. Please define how Atheism and Anarchism are at all comparable? Anarchism is a set of political views on their ideas about government, Atheism is a single position on a single question.

There are no tenants, no dogma, no requirements other than not believing in any gods. How is that a religious view? You're dodging the question, and blowing tons of vacuous hot air.

[beechgrovejoe]

@BusinessIDBAI The fact that word "god" is in the statement makes it a religious view. Atheism and anarchism both question the legitimateness of an authority figure.

Pure atheism has no dogma. However, if you are claiming there is something wrong with religion you most definitely have a dogma. It's rather convinent that you define atheism so narrowly that it's perfectly acceptable to believe a god doesn't exist. Otherwise you would not object to atheism being called a religion.

[owchywawa]

Nice job guys.

[FlowCell]

It will be nice when research papers finally go wiki where anybody can be critical of a paper and the common man is no longer kept out by a pay wall.