Matt Dillahunty: "I'm a skeptic" - The Atheist Experience #692

[Manguneshane]

Spaghetti vs Two moohamids

[pompousprick]

blah, blah, blah, Matt the skeptical naturalist. lol.

[Kinin4]

@pompousprick

Is there something you wanted to make of it?

[Kailoa36]

Well spoken. Personally speaking, I am not a skeptic because I am an atheist. I am an atheist because I am a skeptic. The distinction is important.

[Ni73sh4d3]

@BrcCmplfan That's funny, I was under the impression that EVERYONE'S morality was at their own whims. Which is why we have theists who go out and do immoral things in the name of their god, while some others condemn those same actions; while they both have scriptures to point to that blatantly support them. If a god gave them their morality, why would he make it so hypocritical (or so vague) that it can be used for acts that many would consider immoral, and acts that many consider moral?

[MagicActor1987]

@BrcCmplfan Funny how the religions that produce some of the most peaceful people are atheistic religions, huh?

[Devilonsteroids]

@BrcCmplfan Yup. They are at our whims. Luckily, there are other people around that keep us in check. It's the basis of morality. Anyways, go stone a disobedient son to death.

[pompousprick]

Matt the skeptical naturalist. LOL.

[TheLovesoul1]

matt is awesome and a very smart man.

[Finsolitus]

I always listen to the Atheist Experience as a podcast, so I don't actually see these guys that much. I just now realised Matt has a lot of gray in his beard, I've just never noticed that before. The passage of time is a quick and sneaky bastard.

[GOODTHOUGHTSUK]

Are you sceptical about some science? For example, palaeontology seems to be a very vague science and yet we base much of our understanding about how we came to be upon intelligent speculation.

I would also be interested in your thoughts on scientific experiments such as the double-slit experiment which contradicts rational scientific reasoning and actually forces us to consider more esoteric possibilities.

(I am not religious nor push any particular belief - I just ask questions. See my vids)

[MagicActor1987]

@GOODTHOUGHTSUK "Are you sceptical about some science?"

Science is, by definition, skeptical of itself.

"For example, palaeontology seems to be a very vague science and yet we base much of our understanding about how we came to be upon intelligent speculation."

More of our understanding of how we came to be is based on DNA. And paleontology isn't as vague as you think it is. At least, not any more. It used to be.

And the DSE doesn't contradict rationality at all, but does display duality.

[GOODTHOUGHTSUK]

@MagicActor1987 Ok so the scientists have given it a name - duality. But this doesn't explain anything or why it does and can happen. Science is good at labelling but can be very poor at explaining. They seem to stop once they can categorise things as it is much harder to explain why something happens.

And when I say stop I mean the still investigate but find it harder to get much further. For example gravities properties are known, but how it works is beyond us. There we just guess.

[MagicActor1987]

@GOODTHOUGHTSUK "And when I say stop I mean the still investigate but find it harder to get much further. For example gravities properties are known, but how it works is beyond us. There we just guess."

And this is a good example of what I mean. There are ideas out there of how gravity works, but the falsifiability of any of them requires a technology that is currently unavailable. I mean, look at the LHC! That technology was not available to Newton. Science takes time.

[GOODTHOUGHTSUK]

@MagicActor1987 Something exhibiting two behaviours, switching between them based on observations DOESN'T contradict rationality?!! Of course it does! When the scientists first found this they were at a loss to explain it. All they are doing now is redefining what they think is rational. But there is no rational phenomena that ever existed that is like this before they found this. You can't just change what "rational" means!

Spirituality is one thing that may have rationalised this before.

[MagicActor1987]

@GOODTHOUGHTSUK "Something exhibiting two behaviours, switching between them based on observations DOESN'T contradict rationality?"

No, it doesn't. Why should it? When scientists talk of it, they may say that it "is both a particle and a wave" for simplicity's sake, but they really mean "it exhibits both particle-like and wave-like properties."

"But there is no rational phenomena that ever existed that is like this before they found this."

So...a scientific discovery, then? That's normal.

[GOODTHOUGHTSUK]

@MagicActor1987 So is god then just a scientific discovery yet to be found?!

Do not scientist observe a phenomenon and then seek an explanation?

I observe the vast majority of the world having spiritual beliefs. I may theorise it is because of some primal need for belonging, or a need for an answer, but I do not have any evidence for this. So do I just give up and actively denounce these people, or do I investigate it further?

I've started to explore.

[MagicActor1987]

@GOODTHOUGHTSUK "So is god then just a scientific discovery yet to be found?!"

Possibly. Atheism isn't necessarily a stance that there IS no God. Just that there's no evidence to BELIEVE there's no God.

"I may theorise it is because of some primal need for belonging, or a need for an answer, but I do not have any evidence for this."

There is some evidence to this effect. Look up Cargo Cults. And Mormonism, to a lesser extent. They're interesting "case studies."

[GOODTHOUGHTSUK]

@MagicActor1987 I looked briefly at Cargo Cults in Wiki and it seemed to have nothing to do with religion. Perhaps it mirrors some aspects but it looks more like something that is small and new enough to be analysable. Please provide a link of ANY evidence to support the religious phenomena, and I don't mean theories or from small statistical samplings. Please be very careful before you use the word "evidence" and be ready to back it up.

(Did you confuse my meaning of belonging for belongings?)

[MagicActor1987]

@GOODTHOUGHTSUK Cargo Cults are religions that came about in less technologically advanced societies that worship...well, technology.

It originates from a religion that was founded when a group of natives noticed military men fly in from the sky and take things out (hence the "cargo" in "cargo cults"). They worshiped it and prayed and danced for their cargo (like praying for a deed). They hold John Frum as a god, and that he will one day return with the Cargo.

[MagicActor1987]

@GOODTHOUGHTSUK One group even has an oracle--a woman connected to a wire who speaks the words of John Frum--and she's set up LIKE A TRANSISTOR RADIO (YouTube really needs italics).

These groups, upon coming across things they could not explain (answers, from your post, not the belonging part, spawned this), attached magic, rituals, and religion to it, and it's all things we know about--I mean, heck, we made it.

[GOODTHOUGHTSUK]

@MagicActor1987 Something exhibiting two previously separate properties together not contradicting rational understanding. It did. We had to change our understanding of our rational world, but we are still only beginning to explore the ramifications of this. Some say the world is created by the power of our own mind and that this proves it. I'm sure there are also many other theories. Rational understanding HAD to change to accommodate this. It's like saying rock can be water at the same time!

[MagicActor1987]

@GOODTHOUGHTSUK "Rational understanding HAD to change to accommodate this. It's like saying rock can be water at the same time!"

No, not really. It's the same rational understanding as before, it just had new information added to it. Electrons are the same way, too. Particle-wave duality.

I have my own idea of why this happens, but I have no way to test it. So it's just an idea, nothing more. Not even a hypothesis, really.

[GOODTHOUGHTSUK]

@MagicActor1987 If the "new information" contradicts or doesn't fit with you previous "rational" understanding then something has to give.

The point is, what we believe to be rational or "logical" as described by scientific study could also be corrected by the same mechanism. Even when we try our best to be precise and correct we may still be completely wrong. Science and scientists often forget this and are blinded by their "faith" in the process.

Note the use of the word "faith"

[MagicActor1987]

@GOODTHOUGHTSUK I think you're confusing the words "rational understanding" with "previous conclusions." Saying that it clashed with previous conclusions is one thing, but saying that it overturned rationality is quite another.

And it's not that we have "faith" in the process--it's flawed in some ways, and we know it. But it's the best method we have so far, and it's proven to be very useful. It has produced significant results, and so it will continue to be used unless something better comes.

[GOODTHOUGHTSUK]

@MagicActor1987 Don't fear the word "faith" - it can be used for more than just religious beliefs. You have faith in scientists and wise thinkers that they speak the truth and are honourable people. You may base this on their perceived practices of rigorously testing each other, but there could still be some comradery between then that may taint the results. The "cult" of science may result in an insular system that may feedback errors into the group.

...

[MagicActor1987]

@GOODTHOUGHTSUK "Don't fear the word "faith" - it can be used for more than just religious beliefs."

But is it faith when clear and positive results of the processes are known? It's not faith, anymore. Just like if a deity did prove him/her/itself to be real, belief wouldn't be faith, it would be knowledge.

"But ultimately we have to put trust in things"

But the trust put into things has a basis in experience--I'm not going to trust somebody who hasn't shown themselves to be trustworthy.

[GOODTHOUGHTSUK]

@MagicActor1987 There are few things in this world that aren't subject to conjecture. Even in the scientific world you get conflicting opinions. Most things aren't proven absolutely so the remaining leap is an act of faith. Yes it is governed by logic and reasoning, but only to a point. Your faith or trust takes you over the line.

Have you always checked someone is trustworthy before you listen to them? How many scientist have you "checked"?

[MagicActor1987]

@GOODTHOUGHTSUK In science, nothing is ever considered as a 100% truth. Conclusions are always and only viewed as "the best conclusion based on the available data." So there is no act of faith there, just an acknowledgment of probability.

I usually do check credentials before I listen to an argument (and by listen, I mean accept). If I find myself ready to repeat them in a conversation, do more research on it before I spread it. So I check things before I say them, too.

[GOODTHOUGHTSUK]

@MagicActor1987 ... But ultimately we have to put trust in things, ideas and people and this is no more tangible than faith. This is probably one of the reasons religions thrive as well as science - they both rely on this same mechanic. It is a human mechanism and we couldn't function without it.

[MagicActor1987]

@GOODTHOUGHTSUK "It is a human mechanism and we couldn't function without it."

Studies have shown that less religious countries tend to fare much better in pretty much all areas, including crime rates. We could easily function without religion, if you ask me. If anything, religion is merely a hindrance that some people are too afraid to separate from.

As far as psychology, it's not what's known as a "hard science," meaning that it's based largely on interpretation rather than logical review.

[GOODTHOUGHTSUK]

@MagicActor1987 I was not talking about religion, but about faith. They are not the same. Faith and trust is a social mechanism we all use and helps bind us into our successful social groups. Cooperation would not be possible without the ability to trust someone even if you can't be absolutely sure you can trust them.

[MagicActor1987]

@GOODTHOUGHTSUK As a SOCIAL mechanism, trust is fine, but I still don't think "faith" is. But in a scientific context, there's almost no place for faith or trust. Question everything. The only times it's understandable is in the hopes that peer review was managed properly, otherwise money would have to be spent to do every experiment from the ground up. Science is largely determined by available funds, but the system in place does its best to eliminate faith.

[GOODTHOUGHTSUK]

@MagicActor1987 At this time if someone said they could have out of body experiences and do remote viewing you would probably say this is not rational. If a new phenomena is found later that proves that this is indeed possible, you have to change your definition of rational because what was once irrational now has a rational explanation.

Your "rational" world is not fixed.

(Note I say "your" rational world, not "the" rational world.)

[MagicActor1987]

@GOODTHOUGHTSUK Out-of-body experiences have been largely figured out. It's a stimulation to a part of the brain that produces the feeling of "lift," combined with stress-induced dreaming. You can actually recreate them by subjecting someone to (I think it's) 9 G's, and the accounts are the same (floating by or behind your body, seeing "current" events, etc). OOB experiences are just seemingly-realistic dreams.

And remote viewing, in all valid tests, has proven to be fraudulent.

[GOODTHOUGHTSUK]

@MagicActor1987 Sorry, but you missed the point there. OOBE was just an example of something that has conflicting opinions. Focus on the point I was making about the need to change your description of rational. The point I was making was that this can and does get changed with each surprising scientific discovery.

[MagicActor1987]

@GOODTHOUGHTSUK But my point is that "conflicting opinions" are only truly conflicting if it's the same group of people in conflict. For example, almost every biologist on Earth takes evolution as a fact of life, but religious groups in the U.S. constantly fight to have evolution thrown out of science curricula because they have "conflicting opinions," but as people who don't actively study the science, their "opinions" aren't INFORMED opinions.

[GOODTHOUGHTSUK]

@MagicActor1987 There are many conflicting opinions within the scientific community. We don't need to bring in religion here. It's too easy a target. Lets just stick with using science as the target for a change?!

Its always healthy to retest your own beliefs every once in a while in case new evidence alters them.

[MagicActor1987]

@GOODTHOUGHTSUK I only brought up the religious group because it was a good example of conflicting opinions that are not equally-valid. Just because one group doesn't like something, they claim it false, regardless of evidence. It wasn't about religion, it was merely an example to show that "conflicting opinions" does not necessarily mean "conflicting substantiated opinions."

[MagicActor1987]

@GOODTHOUGHTSUK But note that the investigation into remote viewing claims may someday yield positive (and testable and repeatable) results. Is it likely? No, I don't think so. It's still possible. And science ALWAYS works as probability, with nothing ever being certain. But those things that have been applied to great success in many applications (evolution for vaccines, quantum mechanics for computers, etc.) can be conditionally assumed to be correct or very nearly so.

[MagicActor1987]

@GOODTHOUGHTSUK And, yes, I commit myself to the universe being a logical one. Yes, I say we have free will.

But as far as your yes-no scenario, why does that mean their outlook is negative? That's a complete non-sequitur. Also, to a yes-no-person, they would NOT agree that they choose what they have for breakfast. They would argue that choice is just an illusion.

I'll address your yes-yes scenario in the next post.

[GOODTHOUGHTSUK]

@MagicActor1987 My fear is that someone feels that they have free will, but believes in statements given to them that seemingly prove to the contrary. You are left with a person who cannot trust their own mind. If you get to that stage you might almost give up on life as you can no longer trust your own feelings. I think this would be a very negative and detrimental outlook to not trust your own mind.

Perhaps these are the depressed people of the world?

[MagicActor1987]

@GOODTHOUGHTSUK I'm afraid that I don't understand what you were trying to get at with the post about someone feeling they have free will then believing a contrary statement. I'm not understanding the connection you're drawing, or perhaps it's the scenario.

[GOODTHOUGHTSUK]

@MagicActor1987 I think you do dislike the word "faith". I think that you really fear it because it is used in religion. Faith is just another form of trust. Is it fine to say you have faith in the scientific process?

Why is science important? Is there a logical reason for your answer to this or is it more emotional or based on an unprovable ideas? You may say to better mankind or help him to develop. But what if science is making mankind unhappy? Is it now still a worthy goal?

[MagicActor1987]

@GOODTHOUGHTSUK I dislike the word "faith" because it implies an undue amount of trust. That's the distinction I make with the definitions. Trust is something earned, faith is not. You may not agree with that, but hopefully this provides more context to what I'm saying.

Science is important because it has a measurable effect on the quality of human life. It's due to science that we've had the average life span go up from mid-20s to 80s. Science has earned the trust it's given.

[GOODTHOUGHTSUK]

@MagicActor1987 "a measure on the quality of human life". How do you measure that? I am sure there are many people that had a lifetimes experiences before they died at 30 compared to a depressed, reclusive loaner that lived until they were 90. That number is a measure, but not of quality.

What qualities mark a worthwhile life? How much you earned? How many friends you had? How many lives you saved? How happy you were?

Life is not just about progress an numbers.

[MagicActor1987]

@GOODTHOUGHTSUK An overall quality of life. We're not talking about individuals, here. And no, not "quality of A life," but "quality of LIFE."

Longer life span. Greater health (i.e. not succumbing to every slight disease). Greater knowledge.  More humans able to partake in available goods (both in population and in non-homeless senses). Ability to communicate across farther distances. Ability to GO farther distances.

GENERAL words to encompass this: greater freedom and time to enjoy it.

[GOODTHOUGHTSUK]

@MagicActor1987 In my opinion, none of those things mean anything to me with regard the quality of my life. I also make no separation from me and everyone as I believe we all want the same basic things. They describe the comfortableness of life. I can own every gadget, have a thousand doctorates, but still be unhappy.

Surely the simplest question you should be asking yourself about your life is "Am I happy?"

What is more important than that?

Answer:

"Are you happy?"

[MagicActor1987]

@GOODTHOUGHTSUK The very first thing I said was that we're not talking about the life of an individual, we're talking about life as a whole, as a group.

And being able to enjoy life longer means nothing to you? Not getting sick over every little thing means nothing to you? The products of knowledge mean nothing to you? Communication means nothing to you? For some reason, I think you're lying.

Again, it's the "quality of life," not the "quality of A life."

And, yes, I'm happy.

[GOODTHOUGHTSUK]

@MagicActor1987 I've realised that long life, money and a good education are useless if you are not happy. I'm not saying they are not important but consider the choice: A rich unhappy life or a poor happy one? If I had to choose between money, security, long life or happiness I would pick happiness every time. We don't have to just have one, but often pick another in preference to what we really want. The choice is not so easy.

Try Dan Gilberts TED talk "Why are we happy?"

[MagicActor1987]

@GOODTHOUGHTSUK I'd suggest that quality of life is not a summation of terms, but an average of averages. The averages of wealth, longevity, etc., are averaged to provide a lump value. An individual makes his mark, but the whole is what makes the value.

But consider the other side of the coin--long life, money, and education are great if you ARE happy. So if you take the option of being happy, the quality of a life is improved by having a good quality of life. Access to more and better things.

[UkPolyboyYT]

@MagicActor1987 Is does sound counter intuitive but we have it wrong (as the TED talk illustrated). If we are happy then money and all the other things are not important. If we are happy then they can come and go and it would make no difference. If you think you need something, when it's not there you will become unhappy. To be really happy you need to realise that it comes from within you. Happy rich or happy poor makes no difference.

If you're happy - you're happy!

[MagicActor1987]

@UkPolyboyYT Yes, but again, if you are happy, your quality of life can make it even better.

There are a bunch of kids on the poorest parts of Africa that are happy--but you can't tell me that they wouldn't also enjoy some of the finer parts of life that other parts of the world enjoy. It makes the happy happier.

[UkPolyboyYT]

@MagicActor1987 There are a bunch of millionaires around the world who aren't really happy.

"finer parts of life" - This is an illusion. It is just marketing making you think your life would be better if you had these things, but in reality they make no difference.

If you are happy you a happy. You won't be more happy if you have anything else. The happiest person is someone who wants for nothing.

There is a very important difference between pleasure and happiness.

[MagicActor1987]

@UkPolyboyYT "It is just marketing making you think your life would be better if you had these things, but in reality they make no difference."

Marketing? No. It's reality. You want so badly to think that there's some transcendent property to human nature, that we can all dance in flower fields and be happy little hippie ponies with rainbows. Sorry, reality ISN'T like that.

"The happiest person is someone who wants for nothing."

You realize that saying means "has everything," right?

[MagicActor1987]

@UkPolyboyYT "There are a bunch of millionaires around the world who aren't really happy."

And there are a bunch who are. Your point?

You can be happy without things. But you can be happier with things, too.

Would your life be better or more miserable if you had to poop in a hole and wipe with corncobs (as used to be the procedure) rather than going in a toilet and using silky soft paper?

If you say there's no difference, you're lying to yourself.

[happyhappy85]

@MagicActor1987 You can also be happier without things. Happiness is not contingent on what you own or have, it's more to do with your surroundings and peers. I doubt there's any direct correlation between owning a toilet and happiness. You think people in England are happier than tribes in Africa? Probably not. It'smore to do with what the people around you have. If everyone had a toilet except you then you'd probably be pissed off about it, but if everyone was using corncobs you wouldn't care.

[GOODTHOUGHTSUK]

@MagicActor1987 Can you also explain your distinction between the quality of life and quality of A life? If you refer to a collective quality then surely this is a sum of the individuals and so analysing one is also valid. You can't have a collectively higher quality of life in a group if it isn't present in the singulars that make it up.

[MagicActor1987]

@GOODTHOUGHTSUK The photograph scenario is problematic on two levels: 1) it requires knowledge of the events that happened. People will make the same choices, but they will still be choices, nonetheless. The people are still going about THEIR lives making THEIR choices, but unless they know their choices in advance, why would they change on an iteration?

[MagicActor1987]

@GOODTHOUGHTSUK 2) You're stretching a definition of "choice" farther back than it should logically applied. You're suggesting that choice is not a product of anything but a consciousness.

But you can say we have choice AND that our choices are determined by external and internal factors. You say that it's "choice" or "controlled by our brain." But, dude, we ARE our brain. We're not "controlled" by it, it is WHO WE ARE. Those pulses ARE our "choices."

It's essentially a false dichotomy.

[GOODTHOUGHTSUK]

@MagicActor1987 I believe there is a fundamental difference between making a decision from know factors and fixed experiential history and free will. It is the difference between a computer making a decision and a human. If you ask me the same question 20 seconds later I could have a different answer for no good reason. I may pick eggs one second, and cereal the next. There is no logical reasoning - it is my free will.

If it is just based on facts then there will always be one answer.

[MagicActor1987]

@GOODTHOUGHTSUK The problem with your eggs and cereal scenario is that it's the same question but at different times. In your example of rewinding time and doing it over again, you have the same inputs each time, so the brain (aka you) will consider the same information every time, so there's no reason to HAVE a different choice. The question is whether or not someone KNOWING what their choice would be would then choose differently. Rewinding, but with knowledge of an original iteration.

[GOODTHOUGHTSUK]

@MagicActor1987 The one thing that science really struggles to comprehend is US.

WE are a huge part of this world.

Why is the human element almost ignored from the search for understanding about our universe?

[MagicActor1987]

@GOODTHOUGHTSUK But what don't we comprehend about us that we're not trying to figure out?

Our impact on Earth is studied by environmental scientists.

Our ability to manipulate is studied by chemists and engineers.

Our ability to understand is studied by physicists.

How we work and how we got here is studied by biologists.

I think the human element argument is little more than a hope for purpose or meaning, when there is no reason to expect one.

[GOODTHOUGHTSUK]

@MagicActor1987 We try to comprehend lots of things but some far more than others. I'm mainly talking about the field of psychology that, as far as research goes, is a minuscule part of the worlds research investment and yet it affects ALL of us.

Slowly we are investigating things like "Why aren't I happy", or "Why do I want to die if my wife leaves me?", or "What happens when you fall in love?", or "What makes a song special?" or even "Why did that ant go left instead of right there?"

[MagicActor1987]

@GOODTHOUGHTSUK But psychology doesn't offer ANSWERS to life's minuscule problems, it offers, like all science, explanations.

We know what the feeling of love is caused by--it's a chemical that (oddly enough) also has to do with kidney function. We know that happiness can be related to dopamine levels. The thing is, the more we look into things, the more nature-based the answers become, and the LESS people want to know the answers because they think it makes them less "special."

[GOODTHOUGHTSUK]

@MagicActor1987 Which question do you think people would most want an answer for:

"How can I mend my broken heart?" or "What happened a millisecond after the big bang?"

So why aren't we investing millions into making ourselves happier?

[MagicActor1987]

@GOODTHOUGHTSUK I would want an answer for the Big Bang, because with greater understanding comes greater quality of life. Not to mention that "mending a broken heart" isn't a scientific question unless you suggest that we should have pills for everything. Plus, using science as a crutch in ways such as that would probably prove detrimental to the species. Nobody would grow as people.

[MagicActor1987]

@GOODTHOUGHTSUK Also, I tip my hat to you: Most theists I've encountered on here can't hold a civilized conversation, opting instead to insult and cyber-shout as soon as someone says, "I disagree." I'm actually very relieved and find this to be a pleasant discussion.

[GOODTHOUGHTSUK]

@MagicActor1987 Thanks. I'm also enjoying this. I used to be sitting quite happily in the science camp - and then I had my mid-life crisis! I recommend them to everyone!

I now consider myself to be spiritual. I believe there is more to this world than the physical. I am not religious, it's not easy to define what I am (and I don't try), but I now see fundamental problems with my old scientific assumptions. My first video "Science vs God" highlights one of the big ones.

[MagicActor1987]

@GOODTHOUGHTSUK Oh, sorry, just remembered you said you weren't religious.

Maybe that's why.

[MagicActor1987]

@GOODTHOUGHTSUK "You can't just change what "rational" means!"

I'm not. You seem to have a warped meaning of the word, though. Rational just means logical. Which science is. It used observable phenomena to understand the world. UNOBSERVED PHENOMENA like religious ideas are the very OPPOSITE of rational.

"Science is good at labelling but can be very poor at explaining."

Usually it's because of a lack of available technology at the time. Can't test certain ideas without a way to do it.

[HarrysSecret]

Don is my favourite giggler ever!

I love his inappropriate sniggers and chuckles.

[heathsawyer]

You guys got #692 and #691 mixed up on your "Show Archive" great show watch it just about every day!

[SpiritKnob]

I like the show, but the theme music has to go.

[YAMAHADIVERSION33]

@SpiritKnob

"...but the music has to go."

How do you know?

[bulletproofKevlar]

once a jedi always a jedi

[fizzingwhizbeee]

I like the theme song. Amazing how atheists think they have open minds by rejecting ideas that haven't been properly disproven. Don't forget to donate.

[BinaryCrunch]

@fizzingwhizbeee Christians use the term to depict someone who doesn't believe what they do. No one is truly an Athiest, I believe in the god of matter, energy and gravity.

[fizzingwhizbeee]

@BinaryCrunch You'd think no one should really be an atheist, since God is so weakly defined, but alas, when people define themselves as such its hard to argue.

[BinaryCrunch]

@fizzingwhizbeee But are you not refering to "God" in the Christian sense? I mean God as a creator, without Gravity there would be no planets, no nothing. So Gravity is essentially the creator of everything. When Christians use the term they are using it as an opposite to their belief. They have no real understanding of it other than that that's taught to them by other Christians. To me anyone who defines themselves as an Athiest doesn't believe anything or has a firm understanding of science.

[fizzingwhizbeee]

@BinaryCrunch Atheist doesn't believe anything? I wish. I've been arguing with atheists for weeks over why their own logic doesn't support belief in aliens. Science has got nothing to do with it. Science can disprove some claims, logic: others. But not "God" any "God". And it's honestly just as good as what they claim. "there was nothing, then it exploded" Ps, to avoid ambiguity: in the below comment, I was referring to Atheists declaring themselves, not God. Lol.

[BinaryCrunch]

@fizzingwhizbeee Athiesm spans a wide variety of people. I believe aliens could exist and I don't believe in the "big bang" as quite simply put we don't have enough technology or evidence to properly support it. So do many many people. I do not believe in a Christian God as in the explanation given in the Bible yet that does NOT make me an Athiest, many athiests think that this means they are Athiests simply because of Christians telling them that this is so. Thats wrong

[fizzingwhizbeee]

@BinaryCrunch Very very true. Just because you aren't Christian doesn't mean you must be atheist. And disbelieving the Christian God does not mean you disbelieve in all Gods. What does "God" mean anyway? Bless your heart for questioning the big bang. It amazes me how many people accept theories as being true before they even understand them.

[lautaa33]

@BinaryCrunch We do have enough technology and evidence to properly support the big bang theory. You need to search about the Cosmic microwave background radiation, I recommend you the big bang article in wikipedia, is a featured article so is very well done.

[BinaryCrunch]

@lautaa33 Cosmic background radiation supports other theories too, its totally seperate from the big bang. With dark Matter, dark energy, string theory etc and our technology being far far better than when that theory was formed its just as likely to be something else like cyclic universe theory and so on.... Just because the Big Bang is the one everyone school child knows does not make it correct.

[lautaa33]

@BinaryCrunch My god, you are so wrong. First of all, there is a high concense between cientists that the big bang theory is the far away the best model. The Cyclic universe (which SUPPORT the theory of the big bang) has been refuted once and again and again. The string theory, dark energy and dark matter has nothing to do with the big bang theory. Cosmic background radiation was predicted by the big bang theory, it has to do with the big bang theory, and when it was messure, it coincided (conti

[BinaryCrunch]

@lautaa33 I didn't say I believed in the Cyclic universe I was merely pointing out that background radiation can support other theories because you made out it only supported the big bang. Please, if you are going to get into a who's right and who's wrong style of arguement have it with someone else.

[lautaa33]

@BinaryCrunch lol of course you don't want to be in a who's wrong argument.

[BinaryCrunch]

@lautaa33 Your copious spelling errors, use of the phrase epic fail and lol combined with general teenage arrogance all manifested together to me indicate a lack of intellect and understanding of other people's opinions. Some one like you needs to be right all the time because you get validation from it and/or your just a teenager. So like I said, go have an arguement with someone more like yourself, they're in abundance on here.

[lautaa33]

@BinaryCrunch Freud would feel insulted if he heard you make that analysis. Do you think that a teenager is showing his friends his comments in youtube? lol again

[ajgrovery]

@BinaryCrunch EPIC FAIL THIS GUY DUSNT NO WOT HES TALKIN ABOWT, INTRNET SYCOLOGIST TRYIN TO ANALISE YOUTUBE COMENTOR BASED ON SPELING LOL

[lautaa33]

@BinaryCrunch (continuation) it coincided, point by point, with the predictions of the big bang. "As likely to be something else like cyclic universe" epic fail.

[roadkill1001]

@BinaryCrunch There is perfectly enough evidence to support the big bang theory without being classed as a lunatic. My question would be what have you read on the big bang theory? It is composed of many studies and factors, not just that things red shift as they go away from you.

I don't know all the details, which is why I looked this up myself, and here is a great website (a lot of reading)

talkoriginsDOTorg/faqs/astrono­my/bigbangDOThtml

[BinaryCrunch]

@roadkill1001 I didn't say you were a lunatic if you believe in the big bang its a perfectly valid theory and the doppler effect, thats to do with wave frequency. I am aware of background radiation etc and all the evidence that supports it, its just not totally conslusive. I mean saying "read wikipedia" is a sure sign of people who have not much of an idea what they are on about. The technology and the amount we have explored leaves us only at a guess, regardless of what the internet states.

[roadkill1001]

@BinaryCrunch I didnt say you said 'you are a lunatic if you believe in the big bang theory'....nor did I even touch wikipedia.

All science that we know currently is almost always wrong to some degree. Our theory of gravity is over simplified and has some sorts of errors, but it is a good enough model because it is accurate to a degree that is useful enough to send us to the moon and beyond. Its the same with the BBT, sure its not 100% but what is.

[BinaryCrunch]

@roadkill1001 You said "There is perfectly enough evidence to support the big bang theory without being classed as a lunatic" being that I made no reference to that, i felt it prudent to tell you that I feel the same. Some other guy told me to enhance my interllect by reading Wikipedia, I found that funny. I am in total agreement with what you put. As I have perviously stated; we don't know enough to be sure, that was my whole point to begin with.

[roadkill1001]

@BinaryCrunch Ah I see, No worries!

[hazydavey]

@OkWheresMyMonkey

It's not a contradiction. Holding a delusional belief CAN affect your belief in other areas. It doesn't mean that it has to. And it doesn't mean that holding a stupid belief means you're stupid.

Not all beliefs are the same. If I believe that this life is meaningless compared to the world to come, that may affect some major decisions I make about life. But if I believe that wearing my blue shirt will bring me good luck, that's probably not going to make much difference.

[SevenRiderAirForce]

Don't you mean "Ramen" ?

[kybernes23]

i like matt , he is intelligent.

[lagerbaer]

Thanks for the upload

[endthedisease]

These guys make me think there is hope for Texas.

[Numinous123]

@endthedisease

Too bad the intelligent people in Texas are so outnumbered by the religious retards.

[thedutchman01]

@endthedisease

As we say in my own country.

"Hope makes the crazies live in joy"

;)