Re: Disproving Evolution is easy

[iwsos]

You can't reason, with humor or otherwise, with someone who can believe in things like christianity. Don't argue with them. It's a waste of time.

[freddakiko]

@iwsos i just get a nice feeling when i trick my religion teacher (i go to a catholic school) into proving god is either evil or nonexistent without anyone even noticing her inconsistencies.

[ChesapeakeBeach]

preposterous, asinine, absurd

[MKMcHenry]

@ChesapeakeBeach a word+ a word+ a word doesn't = a position. Are you referring to the video or the comments? Please explain. BTW FYI: The Woody character in the video is actually quoting a Fundamentalist of my acquaintance. The comments include a debate I was having with a viewer who thinks ethics are variable. I strongly disagree, but the point of the video is that our cosmology needs to be open to changes brought by scientific discoveries.

[ChesapeakeBeach]

@MKMcHenry A word (preposterous) + a word (asinine) + a word (absurd) = my position, stated as an opinion on the subject of religion in all its forms.

[robotalikehott]

@ChesapeakeBeach you forgot  "accurate".

[254fds]

same thing goes for atheists and their atheist propaganda

im atheist by the way

... i just hate 90% of atheists

[hcnuup]

Yep. Just because someone isn't brainwashed doesn't mean he is smarter. Everyone is equally retarded.

[254fds]

hahahaha

exactly

good show sir

[MKMcHenry]

Personally, I didn't say there's no God. I just said we should stay open-minded, especially if God is revealing Himself (or Itself) through the unfolding of scientific discoveries, in lieu of ancient texts. Paramahansa Yogananda - I had to look up his name - said, "It has often occurred to me that God sleeps in the rocks, dreams in the flowers, awakens in the animals, and in us realizes He is awake." I think that life is intensely meaningful in its mere preciousness, variety, and elegance.

[alone810]

so now that we know theres no god then we can all rest easy knowing our exsistance is meaningless. i think we should all stop bagging on the christians because it doesn't matter our lives our meaningless who cares? after we die we wont feel anything we just wont exsist its over so stop bitching that creationists are unreasonable it doesn't matter nothing matters when youre an athiest

[CHUNDERTHUNDER99]

@alone810 just because you dont know what a fact is

[mjthomas43]

@alone810 "so now that we know theres no god then we can all rest easy knowing our exsistance is meaningless" God = meaning? Nothing matters if there's no god? Well, that certainly doesn't follow. Unless you tie meaning into a spiritual concept, but then it's circular, so therefore... meaningless.

[bungalah]

good point

[zlateh000]

The person you are responding to was using sarcasm. He was pointing out how stupid creationists are.

[McHenryDesigns1]

I don't know if I'd go as far as calling creationists stupid. I think there is something to be said for "intelligent design". The Cosmos is very elegant, after all. I just assert that you can't rail against scientific evidence when it conflicts with a worldview that simply doesn't have any room to grow. You can't bury your head in the sand or up your own...you know. When we get cold, & get goose bumps, the hairs on our arms stand up, trying to fluff the old fur. It's a clue in our own skin.

[supergeniusman1]

Quixotic, is better euphemism for summing up creationists

[NERVExxxDEATH]

very nice sir... and the guy that you made this video about has to be retarded.

[ltwild3]

Making decisions to believe in what you want to is called thinking for yourselves. You are being indoctronated into ideas at school, is that thinking for yourself?

[MKMcHenry]

In a film called "Insignificance", Albert Einstein says, "When you begin to believe, you stop thinking. It is only by continuing to turn over the possibilities in your mind that you can begin to approach something like the truth."

In other words, when you believe one thing, you close off your mind to every other possibility. Therefore, choosing what to believe is exercising free will, but not free thought.Truth is a thoughtful journey without destination; belief is a dead-end of thought.

[MKMcHenry]

To clarify, your worldview should be informed by science, which is constantly being revised. Ethics are different; the Golden Rule has no wiggle room. Any situation with victimizers and victims is wrong. No gray area there. At near 50, I was born into a world where Pluto was a planet, only Saturn had rings, and plate tectonics weren't understood. What the fossil record implies about evolution is something we need to roll with, too. How we conduct ourselves ethically is a different issue.

[shiva369]

Very good points- well put, and cute video too.

[mjthomas43]

@MKMcHenry "Ethics are different; the Golden Rule has no wiggle room." Ethics are behavioural guidelines, which are based on our interaction with the outside world, which is certainly based on our understanding of the outside world, which is "...your worldview [which] should be informed by science..." No ethical "rule" is perfect. The Golden Rule has to contend with the existence of sadists and masochists. Ethics change all the time: situationally, historically, in terms of scope, etc.

[MKMcHenry]

@mjthomas43 @mjthomas43 I don't think pointing out the existence of S&M does a very good job shooting down the Golden Rule. It's sort of like saying that insanity proves that reality is subjective, admittedly an interessting POV, but we need to have some sort of grounding. My video just suggests that belief shuts the door on every other possibility. The Golden Rule basically says we shouldn't victimize. It sets boundaries that set us apart from sociopaths.

[mjthomas43]

@MKMcHenry No, the Golden Rule states that we should treat others as we would have them treat us. But we all view desirable treatment in different ways. (S&M were just extremes of that difference.) What one person defines as victimization, another might desire for him/herself. It's not simple.

I agree with the basic msg of your video, just not the statement that ethics are fixed and universal. Ethics, based on worldview, should be informed by reason and science too.

[MKMcHenry]

@mjthomas43 Lawrence Kohlberg and Jonathan Haidt are very interesting reads on the subject of ethics / morals. Haidt studied the subject across cultures.

[MKMcHenry]

@mjthomas43 The Zen masters are of the opinion that not everything can be framed intellectually; you have to feel your way through some things. I have a teaser for you. You are a Dr. who fell in love with a comatose patient under your care who never met you. If s/he was completely unaware (but was physiologically responsive), you were gentle, you used a condom, and no one could discover what you did, is there any way it could be not be considered unethical?

[mjthomas43]

@MKMcHenry "is there any way it could be not be considered unethical" It's hardly arguable to consider a situation with no harm possibly done as unethical. If you are defining this situation in this way, then it would be perfectly ethical. Of course, no real world situation is perfectly free from all possibility of harm. In this example, no condom is perfect, someone could discover the act, unawareness may not be complete, etc. I would also question feelings of love for an unconscious person.

[MKMcHenry]

@mjthomas43 I absolutely intended to demonstrate a "no-harm-done" scenario that would still be considered deeply unethical by anyone not operating on a purely intellectual level. Gotcha. But it's OK. We can agree to disagree on this. I just wanted to qualify my little video by asserting that it is possible to selectively accept a few jewels of wisdom without believing the fairy tales. I don't need to throw the baby out with the bath water. It's been a pleasure sparring with you.

[mjthomas43]

@MKMcHenry "not everything can be framed intellectually; you have to feel your way" Not convinced of this but perhaps it is mere semantics. I'm not sure it's intelligible to claim the power of emotion/feelings over intellect/reason. Emotions are important but do they have problem-solving functionality without reason? They seem to me to be entirely too unstable and reactionary, and not self-correcting in any way.

[dmosier]

This is simple and effective.

A concise and powerful little video.

Well done.

[MKMcHenry]

Thanks.

[mdilip]

haa haa lmao.

[ColAbernathy]

Damn...very good point. Illustrates circular reasoning well.

[MKMcHenry]

Thanks. I grew up fighting for the right to think for myself, so I know what it looks like when someone is dogmatically programmed. I wonder if potential critics would even get the point of the video. But, then, I'd rather not hear from them anyway. That was why I made it in the 1st place, friendly advice to Theologikos not to burn himself out trying to talk sense to deaf ears.

[ColAbernathy]

That reminds me...is he REALLY taking the piss? I've already invoked Poe's law, but even I'm not sure if he's pulling the other one or not.

[MKMcHenry]

He mentioned pasta showing up in the fossil record. I think we can assume it's a parody. Also, his art-only website is called DeviantArt, hardly a moniker a true fundamentalist would use, don't you agree?

[ColAbernathy]

BTW, his accent's still sexie. ;) And I'm straight! HA HA! Bi-curious....

[MKMcHenry]

Oh yeah, I also read his bio on the Theologikos main page. He clearly has issues with the devout, especially when they make "holy war", which is, I agree, the ultimate oxyMORONIC term.

[ColAbernathy]

Well, that's a relief. I ACTUALLY took him seriously! Thanks for the update! :)