Occam's Razor

[gr8vibes2]

occum to the rescue, works most of the time

[iminaDAFUNK]

You over analyze this too much. First, Christmas is a Christian holiday therefore not everyone Celebrates it. That cuts off a couple billion people. But other than that I guess you did fine...

[OccamKant]

@iminaDAFUNK I used Christmas as an explanation and demonstration of how to apply Occam's Razor, so you kind of missed the point.

Also - Christmas is a hijack'd holiday. It was originally a pagan winter solstice celebration called Yule, but those greedy Christians couldn't allow the pagans to have a holiday, so they barged in on it and stole it for themselves.

[TheLaunchingPad]

Here's is where you Fail miserably... by assuming that no being in the universe could ever be smarter than Man. Do you really believe that, with so many writings of men seeing flying Gods? And modern military pilots chasing flying orbs or all the strange "happy accidents" or the numerous claims of people seeing dead loved ones, need I go on? You are saying that everyone in the world is a liar - that's a bold claim. God is not Bigfoot dude. Men refuse the idea of God - so why so many witnesses?

[OccamKant]

@TheLaunchingPad "Here's is where you Fail miserably... by assuming that no being in the universe could ever be smarter than Man."

What the FUCK are you talking about? HOW do I assume that? "The simplest explanation is probably the truth". Do you understand what words mean?

I'm not saying everyone's a liar - but I will say that there are a lot of deluded, crazy people out there. Take yourself for example.

[TheLaunchingPad]

So Moses was a mountain-size ventriloquist who could make rivers come out of rocks and manifest clouds with fire in them that talked? The priests never came out of the Holy place and said, "It's BS - they got a light behind the smoke." Or where is the priest who blew the whistle on the ark of the covenant? This is old Testament and it is proof of God-contact. Now let's talk about the only prophet who was killed by Jews and rose from death - only telling his friends and then left Earth. False?

[OccamKant]

@TheLaunchingPad "So Moses was a mountain-size ventriloquist who could make rivers come out of rocks and manifest clouds with fire in them that talked? "

What the fuck are you talking about? When did I say Moses was a ventriloquist?

[Atheist603]

this guy is canadian,..the way he's say "about" lol

[bonajab]

Ooooh, I see! The universe popped into existence from nothing. Atoms accidentally came together to form the first cell that could metabolize and reproduce. Atoms can be arranged so that matter becomes self aware. It's so simple! Obvious! Suddenly I feel that anyone who disagrees with me is stupid. I think I just became an atheist.

[OccamKant]

@bonajab If you're going to criticize major fields of science (biology and cosmology in this case), you really should learn what the sciences actually say.

You'll look less of an ignorant douchebag.

[bonajab]

@OccamKant Hi, am I criticizing major fields of science? I have no problem with science. It's just that there are more than one interpretation of observations. Some people think it's perfectly OK to believe our fine tuned universe popped into existence out of nothing and that anybody who disagrees with them is a douchebag. The origin of life and self awareness are two more examples.

[OccamKant]

@bonajab No - you're being a douchebag for how you misrepresent what science actually says about the origins of life and the universe.

If you have a legitimate beef with current theory, let's hear it. But make sure you're talking about ACTUAL theory, not the made up crap you were using here.

[bonajab]

@OccamKant In my summary of how scientists believe life originated I said that atoms accidentally arranged themselves into the first living cell. Your response: that's not what scientists think. So, are you saying that scientists don't think that the first cell was an accident? If not, then by definiiton a designer was involved? Do you still think I got it wrong? If so, please let me dance in the light of your infinite knowledge.

[OccamKant]

@bonajab No scientist says that atoms arranged themselves into the first living cell.

That would be statistically impossible.

It started out with what is called "autocatalytic sets" and self-reproducing molecules.

Crystals aren't random - they grow according to their atomic and molecular structure. Something similar to this is what would have gotten the first self reproducing molecules started.

There is plenty of info on this. Study, don't remain ignorant.

[bonajab]

@OccamKant This is one hypothesis (denomination). It allows the evolution of the first cell from molecules that reproduced themselves. It is an attempt to get to a cell by steps, each step more probable than going from nothing to a functioning cell. The problem is that the probability is still Prohibitive. It's approximately a combinitorial with unknown factors in the denominator. No chemical pathway to life has been proposed, just the idea.

[OccamKant]

@bonajab First off - where do you get any idea of the probability at all? From a biologist, or a creationist?

Secondly, It doesn't matter if the probability against this is high, since there would have been billions of operations happening simultaneously. If the entire world was flooded with the base chemicals, then you have an unimaginable number of operations happening simultaneously.

I understand that protein foundations have already been created in the lab, so the theory has evidence.

[bonajab]

@OccamKant I would never take at face value a calculation done by a creationist, expecially "Young Earth" because even I believed it, nobody else would. I disagree. If the odds against are large enough, even billions of experiments won't do the job. I wasa refering to some calculations done by a chaos theorist. I forgot his name. He was not a christian. Maybe I can find it. What amazes me is the lack of interest what mathematics says about evolution.

[OccamKant]

@bonajab Remember that abiogenesis (life from non life) is a completely different subject from Evolution (proliferation of species through mutation and natural selection).

I'm interested in abiogenesis, sure - but we're still experimenting to try to develop the hypotheses better. We don't have a solid theory yet, so it's somewhat educated speculation at this point, with some confirming experimentation.

Evolution, on the other hand, is completely solid and verified.

[OccamKant]

@bonajab As for how many "operations" would be perfomed - imagine the surface of the world covered in the base chemicals. There would be billions of interactions every few centimeters, and there are a lot of square centimeters on the surface of the planet.

So much so, that something as unlikely as a trillion to one would happen a billion times a second.

This is completely pulled out of thin air - but I'm confident about the scale we're talking about. Seems completely plausible.

[OccamKant]

@bonajab Also - remember that there is nothing magical about "life" - it is simply the operation of cellular machinery.

So we're basically looking for some way to go from a static molecule to a molecular mechanism.

The fact that we haven't found it *yet* means nothing. We'll just keep looking until we do.

[OccamKant]

@bonajab And stop being such an arrogant and ignorant douchebag. The light of my infinite knowledge? Fuck you.

Talk to me like a normal person and I'll be civil back.

Be a dipshit, and get nothing but scorn and ridicule for your ignorance.

[bonajab]

@OccamKant OK, does that mean you will (for the first time since we've been talking) stop calling me a douchebag? I think, if you look back at our posts, that it is yours that have been rude and condescending. I was only sarcastic.

[OccamKant]

@bonajab Yes, I will stop calling you names if you stop being sarcastic, particularly about things you are misrepresenting.

If you can portray what scientists actually say and be sarcastic about it, that's one thing. But being sarcastic about a strawman just gets my goat.

If you have issues with science or atheists, just say what your issues are without the emotional extras.

[OccamKant]

@bonajab Just FYI - No one says that the universe "popped out of nothing", so stop saying that.

Scientists say that "we don't know". That's NOT the same as "popped out of nothing".

As for "finely tuned"? Well, can you demonstrate that the physical principles could actually be any other way? Maybe it's like a square - all squares have 4 sides and 4 right angles. It's the only way a square COULD be. Maybe that's the same for universal laws -- it's the only way they COULD be.

[OccamKant]

@bonajab "Atoms accidentally came together to form the first cell that could metabolize and reproduce."

See - that is the statement of an ignorant douchebag. You are attempting to be sarcastic, but you fail because this isn't at all what biologists are saying about abiogenesis.

So again - if you want to criticize the current theory of abiogenesis, first LEARN what it says, THEN pick it apart. Don't just make shit up.

[truthteller656]

bible was tainted god gives you a life of experience when he would not interfer otherwise this would mess up the experience you are here to build and look after gods work and look after each other putting eachother first.

[jromevts420]

the answer is... if you can verify that truth,..

the big bang, was came up with by one or two guys in the same time period ... way easier logical and makes sense just bout every bit

[jromevts420]

The difference is God has always been here. He is infinite.

And I just want to propose a question for you:

If you read a book, that contains research that another man, or several men did, would you take for what they wrote as the truth?

exactly..

thats why i dont believe, take that logic and apply it to the bible...sciences08 fagget bitch

[jromevts420]

i love this video..

your a very smart man..

keep up the good work

[krankenshaft]

Has one of your friends ever found a razor on your bathroom floor and asked someone who's it is and he/she replied, "that's Occams razor"?

[TheOriginalPugals]

you bastard! you ruined christmas for me. lol

[VirginAthenA]

Good video. There are many ways to debunk christianity. This is one of them. Good job.

[marathon007]

I have a question for you, why are you still here?

[underclassdamnriot]

great video!!!

please create more videos

religion is a sign of ignorance, religion causes war!!! atheists are more peaceful!!!

[sciences8]

Ok, please respond.

Why purposely reject a religion? Everyone should believe in something. The definition of an Atheist is a human being who purposely rejects God, and all the Christianity beliefs. Why REJECT, Atheists purposely try and destroy a religion. I believe in God. I do not reject people who believe in Buddhism, Judaism, etc. I believe that people have free will to believe, not reject.

[OccamKant]

No. An atheist is one who has no belief in god or gods. That's it. I believe what there is evidence to believe.

What's good about religion? Really? Are you only good because you hope for an eternal reward? Or want to avoid eternal punishment? You're after the cosmic carrot, or to avoid the cosmic stick?

Wouldn't you say a good atheist is a better person, since they expect no reward, nor fear no punishment?

[sciences8]

But the message is, WHY NOT believe in something. It's better to be safe than sorry.

Also, "atheism- Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god."

According to the Oxford English Dictionary.

Atheism is directed towards Christianity.

[OccamKant]

You're reading it wrong. A-thesim. The oposite of theism. No god. I don't believe in ANY gods. Not yours. Not islam's. Not hindu's. Etc etc etc.

Get it? NO GODS.

Better safe than sorry? Go look up "Pascal's Wager" and see how false it is.

I believe in myself and my fellow men. The one life we have is the only one we KNOW we have. So why waste it being a slave to a bronze age myth?

[sciences8]

It doesn't take much to believe in something. Just faith.

[OccamKant]

In the case of God, it takes an abandonment of your rational mind. I like my mind, and I'd like to keep it, thanks.

[sciences8]

watch?v=PL-uL2M3xvM

[baconeater]

You said a mouthful. You can be completely mindless and have faith.

Oh, and I am an atheist. I state that there is no evidence for God, the same is true when it comes to Leprechauns. I don't consider Leprechauns to be real, do you?

[baconeater]

Maybe you should believe in the Islamic God. According to Muslims, that is the only way to ensure you go to heaven. So WHY NOT become a Muslim to cover your bases? What if they are right and the Christians are wrong? 1.3 Billion people believe the Islamic God is the way to go.

[VirginAthenA]

@ baconeater hahahaha funny

[baconeater]

Do you not reject the Buddhist beliefs? Do you not reject Sun God beliefs? Do you not reject Scientology? Do you not reject Islam? Or do you believe in them all?

An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in any of the above Gods as well as other Gods.

You believe in the Christian God, but you reject the other Gods. You are an atheist to all but the Christian God. I don't buy any of them.

[sciences8]

No, I believe in one God. God could be anyone, he could be more like Buddha, Allah, or the Lord. It doesn't matter how you portray him. All these beliefs consider God to be intelligent, powerful, and eternal, which is exactly what he is.

[OccamKant]

So you're a deist. Do you have some holy book that you hold as "true"?

Why do you believe in a god?

[sciences8]

I'd say a partial deist, because I believe that God could be anything, we just don't know. And I hold the Bible as my holy book.

Why? Because I don't believe that space and all the planets/moons, etc. created itself. God had to create something. The Big Bang could exist, but God would have started it.

Same goes for you, why are you Atheist?

[OccamKant]

I'm atheist because I see no reason to believe otherwise.

Read up on cosmology, and you'll understand how the planets formed simply via gravity, and the interactions of the strong/weak nuclear forces, and even magnetism.

Don't forget the tremendous timescales we're talking about. The universe is 14 billion years old. The earth is only about 4 billion. Which means it took about 10 billion years for enough dust to accumulate into chunks to START forming planets.

[sciences8]

Well, let's see it this way, what was there 15 billion years ago?

[OccamKant]

I don't know. No-one does. You certainly don't.

You can't say it was god, because the bible says god made everything 6000 years ago, which we know is bullshit.

Why are christians so terrified of simply saying "Don't know - not enough information"?

[OccamKant]

But how is that even an argument? We KNOW the universe is about 14 billion years old, from all the observations and measurements we can make. Arguing that is like looking at a broken vase on the floor and arguing "where was it before? I don't believe it can be broken on the floor because I don't know where it was before".

[sciences8]

Yes but God is eternal, meaning he has been here for an infinite amount of time. There WAS nothing before, and God created it.

[OccamKant]

Sorry, but that's harder for me to believe than the big bang (for which we have evidence).

God is eternal? Where did he come from? If you're willing to accept that, why not accept that the universe is just here, and the big bang (and then the big crash at the end) is just a cycle it goes through, forever?

What's the difference, really?

[sciences8]

The difference is God has always been here. He is infinite.

And I just want to propose a question for you:

If you read a book, that contains research that another man, or several men did, would you take for what they wrote as the truth?

[OccamKant]

Sorry, but this is getting really boring. If you want to ignore the evidence all around you that science knows what it's doing (is that a computer you're using (science) or a magic tablet?) go right ahead.

Please don't bother me any more with this though.

[VirginAthenA]

@ OccamKant You know about duality? Like nothing-something black-white dark-light

If there is a creative force there must also be a destructive force. In that case you might be right. Never tought about it that way.

[VirginAthenA]

sciences8, I don't know if god was here always. ( define always ) The abrahamic god is here about 2800 years but you know this god is evil and twisted.

[eveningcoconut76]

I believe that science's answer to your questions is "We don't yet know." A theists' answer would be, "God did it, next question." I believe that science's answer is logical.

[OccamKant]

Yes, that's exactly what they would say, without even realizing the non-answer it is.

They seem to fill any gap in our understanding with God rather than wait until we discover what the evidence tells us.

If these guys were on CSI teams, investigating murders, the first thing out of their mouths would be "God did it".

[VirginAthenA]

@ baconeater Not true. You can be perfectly atheist and buddhist. Because buddha was an atheist him self

[klaron0]

Hi OccamKant. I liked this video, but it was one thing that disturbed me a tiny bit. You are refuting the biblical god Yahweh/Jehova. We can indeed show that this god does not exist. However you said "there is no god", but i assume that you meant with that that Jehova doesn't exist. There could however be an unknown god out there that is passive/not doing anything or did exist but is no more. I guess my point with this is that I'd prefer if atheists really specify Jehova when they mean Jehova.

[OccamKant]

I guess a "more correct" way to put it is:

The laws of nature, as discovered via scientific means, describe the universe adequately enough that we don't need a supernatural entity to explain anything.

Hence, "no god", not just "no yaweh".

[TheRealDom]

That looks exactly like the Miami skyline...

[antipelagian]

Interesting that after you show how logic and Occam's Razor debunks Santa...then follow that up with a psychological criticism of Christianity.

You're also assuming there is something inherently evil about suffering and child molestation...how much "bull shit" does an atheist have to make up in order for that assumption to make sense given his worldview?

[antipelagian]

Lastly, your critique of Santa wasn't a great analogy.

Atheists love abusing Occam's Razor when it comes to metaphysical questions...a better analogy for atheism wouldn't be you telling the kids their parents gave them the presents...you'd say: "The presents have always been there".

[neveruse513]

using santa is actually very useful. on many apologetics groups, i play a game called "fundie santa" where i use ad hoc rationalizations and appeals to mircales similar to those used to explain away various christian myths.

guess what, no one can ever disprove santa. want to play?

[antipelagian]

I'm not interested in fundamentalist atheist games.

An insistance upon equivocating between belief in the Triune God with belief in Santa is a tired old trick.

The fact of the matter is that you and I won't agree on what constitutes proof, and your worldview cannot make sense of logic or inductive inference...so proof is meaningless in your worldview...I guess theists get Santa, your leap of faith simply involves your ability to reason despite the fact your worldview precludes it.

[OccamKant]

Fundamentalist atheist? You really don't understand what words mean, do you?

There is one, and ONLY one, "fundamental" to being an atheist - a lack of belief in a god. That's it.

Santa is useful because it's accurate. It's just as disbelievable, has just as much bogus "supporting evidence" and requires just as much self-spun bullshit as "god".

Just because you resist seeing the plain truth doesn't make it any less true.

Santa = God = Fairy Tale

[neveruse513]

antipelagian,

it's not that we don't agree on what is proof, it's that you don't understand what proof actually is. you are so far outside the scientific community that you are irrelevant to any formal discourse.

[antipelagian]

I wouldn't be so sure neveruse513...please share with me what constitutes "proof" for you.

[OccamKant]

No. Because the parents giving the gifts is the truth. Atheism isn't about lying. In fact, atheism shouldn't even be an ism, because it's not about anything.

It's simply the state of not believing in fairy tales. Believing in the truth, in other words.

Exactly how are atheists abusing Occam's Razor when debunking religious bullshit?

[antipelagian]

I don't think you understand what I am getting at. Atheists love to fallaciously apply Occam to metaphysical claims...often citing santa clause, or SPM, unicorns, etc.

In the example of Santa, metaphysically the analogy is an explanation of "how did things come to be?" The analogy is bad, because atheists do not say "sentient being/s brought this about"...instead,the answer is "Everything just is".We'll ask: How did matter come about? Answer: "It always has been" (or exploded out of nothing).

[OccamKant]

Ahhh. You're talking about the big bang.

If the universe was only 6000 years old, I'd agree with you that it could not have come about by natural means.

It's not 6000 years old. It's about 14 billion years old. And we *know* this because we can see all the evidence.

Think of the universe as a crime scene. At this crime scene, you have a victim, a murder weapon, fingerprints, blood, etc etc. All these evidences that point to what happened.

Same goes for the world.

[antipelagian]

I don't care to talk about evolution vs creationism...there are better people than myself to discuss this.

I do know that we have never observed something coming from nothing and we've never observed a genetic mutation produce new species...evolution relies on "natural laws" that fly in the face of science.

[OccamKant]

Something coming from nothing? Are you talking about the big bang, or abiogenesis? Evolution is neither.

Speciation HAS been observed. Just google "observed speciation". Try not to be so lazy.

You need to read up on some basic science, then come back and try to make a coherent argument.

[OccamKant]

Of course, if you DO bother to get off your lazy ass and learn something about science, you won't be back, because you'll see you're wrong, and there is no argument.

[antipelagian]

I didn't say "speciation". I said a completely new species has not been observed.

I'm no science wiz, but I do know speciation is NOT the same as a *new species* emerging from a genetic mutation.

[OccamKant]

"I'm no science wiz, but I do know speciation is NOT the same as a *new species* emerging from a genetic mutation. "

Not a science wiz? Boy, that's an understatement. You're not a "thinking wiz" either.

Speciation IS EXACTLY the a new species emerging. What the fuck else do you think it means?

Are you really this much of an idiot, or are you just pretending?

[antipelagian]

Is this the only point you can hold onto in order to dismiss me? You're relying on a particular definition of "species"...something which is debated within the scientific community. Forgive me for speaking taxonomically.

Besides this, I've not called you any names nor insulted your intelligence.

[OccamKant]

You haven't called me names, no, but your line of questioning is either honestly idiotic or dishonest and insulting of my own intelligence. That's why I asked.

Species is a commonly used term by biologists. I don't know what you're trying to get at here.

What definition of species are YOU using?

[OccamKant]

If you walked into a crime scene, and there was a victim, a suspect, the weapon with the suspect's finger prints on it, the victim's blood on the suspect, security camera photographs of the suspect killing the victim, etc etc all pointing at the suspect killing the victim, would you discard all that evidence and say that "god" did it?

If not at a crime scene, why would you do it for the rest of the universe?

[OccamKant]

An atheist doesn't have to make up any bullshit for child molestation to be considered evil.

It comes back to the fact that we are a social species. Behaviours that hurt our interactions with others are therefore evil.

Why do we have to make anything up?

I'm not saying that any particular act is evil in the objective sense, because there is no such thing. Evil is alway subjective - relative to an observer.

Child molestation hurts the child, and damages social stability. Therefore, evil.

[antipelagian]

Part of your criticism of Christianity had to do with God having to "answer" for the evil in the world...rewatch your vid from about min 4-min5:10

You speak of evil as if it is objective...yet in the comment section, you say something different from the other side of your mouth.

How does it follow that child molestation is "wrong" in any meaningful sense in an atheistic worldview?

Cont...

[antipelagian]

Cont...2

You'll say "It hurts children and damages social stability"...well, hurt must also be defined subjectively. Who gets to define it? The person molesting, or the molested? Also, what is *good* about social stability? Again, you speak like an absolutist.

[OccamKant]

Yes, hurt is definitely subjective. If one man punches another man, the punch-ee is obviously hurt.

If there was no reason for that punching, then it is an injustice. Injustices lead to a collapse of the cooperative group - ie, anarchy. If everyone is fighting, and no-one is doing anything about it, you will get riots.

[antipelagian]

You call yourself a relativist...but you talk like an absolutist:

"If everyone is fighting,and no one is doing anything about it,you will get riots"

Is that bad, or something? To whom? Whomever this "Whom" is...what makes their judgement relevant?

This is why relativism ultimately rests on objective morality...you can't make sense out of what you're asserting otherwise.If morality is subjective...anything goes.You may say: "We won't progress with anarchy"

What makes progress *good*?

[OccamKant]

And I'm not an absolutist - But as a member of the human race, I'm interested in our survival. We cannot survive if we destroy ourselves.

If we act in such a way as to work against each other (including hurting others unjustly) then our society will fail.

I would rather work towards our survival and happiness than our destruction. One person wielding violence over a bunch of others would make that one person happy, but on balance it would be detrimental to the group.

[antipelagian]

"We cannot survive if we destroy ourselves"

Big deal. Is survival *good*?

"If we act in such a way as to work against each other (including hurting others unjustly) then our society will fail."

Would that be bad or something? What is this "unjust" business? And what is "fail"? Who decides what is just and what failure is?

Why shouldn't I opt to satisfy only my happiness? What *value* is there to a greater number of people being happy? Is there something *good* about that?

[OccamKant]

It's true that I'm starting from the assumption that we as a species should survive.

If you don't accept that as a starting premise, then you are suicidal and you need help.

[antipelagian]

I didn't say we as a species shouldn't survive. If I did, though...why would I need help? You write as though there is something *wrong* with thinking our species should die.

I'm simply trying to find out if it is *good* that our species survive. Is it? If so, is that relatively so? If it's neither, then why would anyone bent on destruction need psychiatric help?

I'm not trying to be condescending...I'm simply asking questions to see if atheists have to "bull shit" their way through.

[OccamKant]

All creatures, us included, have evolved a desire for survival. Those that haven't have died out. So it's in our genetic makeup that we will strive to survive.

There is no universal "good" regarding whether or not we survive. If you're asking from the point of view of other earth life, then it's probably not good if we survive. But all creatures, us included, are concerned about their own survival first.

Good or Bad have nothing to do with it.

And condescending? No, you're being stupid.

[antipelagian]

So if survival is a matter of genetics, would you have a moral issue with a suicidal mass murderer bent on destroying society before he kills himself?

This is a matter of genetics, after all...who's right? How do you know?

[OccamKant]

What the fuck are you talking about?

How is a mass murderer killing society SURVIVAL of that society?

Seriously dude, you are totally fucked up.

[antipelagian]

You seem to have a problem with rapid-fire responses. Take an extra minute and just think.

If genetics is the explanation of *how* a society survives...and there is nothing good about survival...then logically, you cannot argue against any action by any person.

Who's genes are correct? To say it's about survival is to beg the question

Genes say nothing of how we *should* act...that's morality.

Rape is something you couldn't argue against intelligibly.

[OccamKant]

I never said genetics was how society survives. Society survives through the actions of the members of the society, not through DNA.

And you're making unsupported assertions.

All living organisms strive to survive. Our survival is "good" from OUR point of view. Since our point of view is the one we're talking about here, then it's relevant.

From our point of view, our survival is good. Since our survival is good, antisocial behaviours are bad. So rape is bad.

[antipelagian]

"I never said genetics was how society survives"...

Earlier you said:

"So it's in our genetic makeup that we will strive to survive."

Further, "good", from your perspective, relies on speaking of things relative to "our point of view"...who is included in the composite of "our"?

[OccamKant]

If you're going to try to "argue intelligbly", I'd like to see you support your bible's assertions that murder, genocide, infanticide, rape, torture are all moral.

I can't wait to hear this.

[OccamKant]

Let's also not forget alcoholism, theft, cannibalism and slavery too.

Also, your bible doesn't speak out against necrophilia (or maybe I've just never heard of the passage...).

Your bible also doesn't speak out against father/daughter incest (hence Lot & his daughters).

[antipelagian]

Please stop diverting attention for a moment. Before we can get into what is good and bad, let's see if your view even makes sense.

[antipelagian]

First things first...if you can intelligibly explain normative moral standards from a relativistic perspective...we'll talk about that.

For some reason, you mistakenly think I'm on the defensive here.

[OccamKant]

What do you mean by "normative moral standards"?

[OccamKant]

You misunderstood my argument.

I'm not saying that God exists and I'm going to hold him accountable.

What I'm saying is that if YOU say God exists, then YOU must explain why he lets all the evil shit happen, yet supposedly answers people's prayers for bullshit like finding their lost keys (someone actually claimed that to me).

The premise of God existing leads to all kinds of unanswered (and unanswerable) complications.

God not existing, however, answers everything.

Occam's Razor FTW!

[antipelagian]

Can you explain why necrophilia is wrong...from your worldview?

Is there a *logical* problem when it comes to evil in the Christian worldview? Or is there a logical problem for the atheist talking about morality from his worldview?

[OccamKant]

I never said necrophilia was wrong.

I find it gross, and it probably is a vector for disease, but YOU are starting from the assumption that it's "wrong".

How is sex with a dead body different than sex with a doll, other than the fact that the tissues are rotting and it's just about the grosses thing I can imagine?

I find it disgusting, but obviously it turns some people on. As long as it doesn't become a new epicenter for some kind of epidemic, who gives a shit?

[antipelagian]

What repulses you about necrophilia?

That's interesting you admit it isn't wrong. I was curious, though...why would it matter if it became a new epicenter? If it isn't wrong...only gross...who cares?

[OccamKant]

What repulses me? Well, I guess the same thing that makes me repulsed at the idea of eating shit or drinking piss. But some people still do it.

I don't understand what you're trying to get at here.

[antipelagian]

Let's play out the necrophilia thing a bit...

Let's say you are in an accident, you surivive and the passenger with you (a loved one) died. You go to the morgue to i.d. the body only to find a male nurse is "having his way" with your loved one's body.

In what sense would you be repulsed, if at all, by that?

[OccamKant]

Obviously because I would still have feelings for the recently deceased (hence the term "loved one") and to see what looks like rape would be infuriating.

If I saw someone having sex with a stranger's dead body, I would be repulsed mainly because I've been brought up in a society that looks down on sex with the dead.

Your questions piss me off because I can't believe these are honest questions.

Where in the bible, by the way, does it say not to have sex with the dead?

[antipelagian]

Rape? You act as if that's wrong. The body is a lifeless "doll", right? Who cares if you loved the corpse while it walked around.

My question is honest...you aren't grappling with the bull shittery atheism produces when atheists try to speak in moral terms.

[OccamKant]

Rape is wrong because people have feelings, and people suffer.

I guess you must be in support of rape, since you don't seem to accept my arguments, and the bible is all for it.

So, should we notify the police to come and talk to you then?

[antipelagian]

"Rape is wrong b/c people have feeling..."

So what? What if someone feels good hurting someone else? Further, if we punish criminals by locking them up...do we take their feelings into consideration? Why not?

[OccamKant]

Criminals forego their freedom by harming others.

And again - harming others leads to anarchy, which is a downfall of society, which I have already said that I support.

Where do YOU get your morals from? If you followed the bible, you'd be in jail in short order, so where do you turn, if not the same kind of thinking that backs my point of view?

[antipelagian]

"Criminals forego their freedom by harming others"

Again...harm is "relative", right? Unfortunately, defining who it is relative to is impossible.

My moral standards are foundational in God's character. You and I have a very good idea of what is right and wrong because we are created analagously to God. Further, God has clearly revealed His Law in the Bible.

Your last comment is a bunny trail. Let's stay on topic. After all, we are limited on characters here.

[OccamKant]

As I said before - I would accept a court's definition of harm. This is why we have human judges and juries. So we can apply a little intelligence to the problems of justice.

It's obviously not impossible to define, because we do it every day. We would have no justice system if we couldn't agree on what constitutes harm.

As for God's law, that's incredibly fallacious. You do not follow God's laws. It's not a bunny trail, it's just turning the questioning back on you.

[OccamKant]

Seriously - answer this: Do you think Slavery is wrong? If so, please point out where in the bible it says "Thou shall have no slaves".

I can point to many places where it discusses what you're supposed to do with your slaves, so obviously God supports slavery.

Do you?

[OccamKant]

The basis for my moral stance is that (a) our survival is a good thing, from our point of view, and (b) people experience both pain and pleasure. Pleasure leads to happiness and success (increased survival) and pain leads to diminished survival and death.

[antipelagian]

(a) who is it that makes up "our"? Who is determining our survival is "good"?

(b) Pleasure and pain are descriptions of sensations...not value. Further, some experience pleasure at other people's pain...would those people be wrong?

[OccamKant]

Well, "our" could be mankind, or it could be the society we're in. We, as a group, decide that our survival is good. If we didn't, we'd be suicidal and die out.

Pleasure and pain are sensations, yes. But they are also typically indicators of safety or danger. Who said anything about value?

And many people experience pleasure at other's pain. But unless they're causing the pain, their pleasure is irrelevant. That's slapstick comedy, after all.

[antipelagian]

The amorphous "our" cannot be defined. You're not sure who or what group you're appealing to for your set of subjective morals. Even if you could define who "our" is, this is nothing more than might makes right. Survival would simply involve not stepping on the toes of the mightier.

I mentioned value in reference to your talking about pain/pleasure and success. It doesn't follow that success is a result of pleasure...cont...

[antipelagian]

cont...

Much of my success is a result of pain. But still, that doesn't mean pain creates success.

Said simply: sensation of impending danger or safety doesn't tell us what we ought to do. There are many paranoid people that act brash and may even kill in response to their paranoia.

[OccamKant]

"There are many paranoid people that act brash and may even kill in response to their paranoia."

I certainly hope you're not seriously trying to use the thought processes of insane people in your arguments, are you?

[OccamKant]

Since I believe morals to be relative, obviously I wouldn't pin them to a specific "our".

Morals for your men's club would be different than the morals for your country, or city.

I do believe that there are some overall fundamental behaviours that would be considered "rude" anywhere. Punching someone in the face for no reason, for example. Or theft.

And I do not believe in might makes right.

I'm more along the lines of survival of both the individual and the group, in balance.

[OccamKant]

Here you go, antipelagian. The basis for my moral thinking:

"You may do whatever you want, unless it harms, or threatens harm, someone else or their property."

And as a general guide: "Do unto others as they would be done by."

Do you think these statements are good or bad basis for moral behavior?

[antipelagian]

Who defines "harms"? Is threatening "bad"?

In order to argue in relativist terms, you're assuming normative standards...which flies in the face of relativism.

"Do unto others" is from my worldview...not yours.

Whether your assumptions produce generally moral behavior is not the point...the point is that your assumptions contradict your relativism.

You're looking at this pragmatically, I'm looking at it logically.

[OccamKant]

Harm is pretty easy to understand. I would accept the decision of a judge in a court, for example.

Your second sentence makes no sense.

Neither your third.

How do my assumptions contradict my relativism?

How exactly are you being logical? I will agree that I'm being pragmatic, and I would argue that it's also logical.

[antipelagian]

My 2nd sentence refers to the fact that moral relativism relies on objective standards. Those standards include what constitutes "harm". Also, the fact you expect others to act according to the golden rule.

My third statement was pointing out "do unto others" is a truth revealed in Scripture and doesn't follow logically from your worldview...

I am being logical by showing fallacies such as contradictions,mere assertions,& non sequiturs in your attempt to intelligibly account for morality.

[OccamKant]

I don't see how moral relativism relies on objective standards.

"Do unto others" as a concept was developed long before the bible. The greeks, I believe, came up with the idea.

A good idea is a good idea regardless of who came up with it.

Where have I contradicted myself? What nonsequitur have I used?

[OccamKant]

Why is it you christians are the ones who always bring up necrophilia and cannibalism?

Is it because you want to have sex with jesus? Is it because jesus said to eat his flesh and drink his blood?

Should I extrapolate from your line of questioning that you are a closet necrophiliac cannibal, and it's all because of christianity?

[OccamKant]

Is there a logical problem regarding evil in the christian world?

Sure. You claim that your god is loving, but he's a murdering, hateful sadistic bastard.

Loving =/= hateful

Seems like a logical problem to me.

Is there a logical problem for an atheist talking about morality? Of course not. I've given you excellent atheistic reasons for morality, but you seem to base your thinking on the idea that we should not survive.

I think you have a mental problem.

[reflectionist]

I might add, OccamKant, that this video seems to be very relative to the conversation you and I had in the text comments to TheCarruths' video, "Ten." (By the way, I'm still waiting for that discussion outside of those comments.) That video had many elements brought up during a conversation I had with him on Stickam, about those "10 Questions Every Intelligent Christian Must Answer."

Yeah...maybe I'm narcissistic to notice those things. I'm interested to hear your opinion on my vids as well.

[OccamKant]

Ok, I'll check yours out too.

I'm afraid I don't remember where we left off on the "Ten" video, actually. Sorry about that.

[highwind8124]

I'm an apostate Christian, and I found the last half of the video pretty fallacious. If we applied this razor method to science, constantly finding new things and then having new questions, we'd never be able to progress in science because of that stupid method.

And please, the Christian answer to why there's suffering in the world does work. The religion isn't true, but if every person in their heart wants to do things their way and be evil, then if that experiment fails, that's our fault.

[OccamKant]

Science DOES work "by the razor". As new facts come to light, or new experiments are performed, useless or incorrect elements are cut away.

If someone has a simpler explanation of evolution, that WORKS, and covers all known observations, and is TESTABLE, then it would take the place of evolution. Of course, ID is a laughable attempt, and in no way is scientific, or testable.

I have no idea what you're trying to say with your second paragraph.

[highwind8124]

Yes, of course, INCORRECT findings are obviously going to be "cut away", but that says nothing on complexity. The simple understanding in science is often discarded for something much more complex, thus why science textbooks are so thick.

And the second paragraph basically says it's not that the "man has sinned" explanation for suffering is flawed, but simply that you don't get it.

Again, I think the Bible sucks, but because it is false. I dislike false arguments equally as much.

[OccamKant]

I guess I'm completely missing your point.

How are my arguments false?

[highwind8124]

And yes, ID is clearly false and laughable.

[kalsolarUK]

cool, can I buy these razors in packs of 10?

[CousinoMacul]

I'm sorry but they only come in powers of two, so if you don't mind an 8-pack or a 16-pack, then you're in luck.

[kalsolarUK]

ok, you've twisted my arm..a 16 pack it is.

[alphacause]

Thanks for that lucid explanation of Occam's Razor. I think almost all of Christian apologetics, and theistic apologetics in general, can be refuted by applying Occam's principle.

The funny thing is that Christians, in every other area of their lives, apply Occam's Razor. They just willingly suspend the application of this principle when it casts doubt on their favored mythology. Yet, they have no problem applying it to rival religions or myths of the past.

[reflectionist]

William of Ockham was Roman Catholic, actually.

[OccamKant]

Well, he was, until he was excommunicated for saying that the Pope was wrong.

[reflectionist]

Oh. Hehehe. I just thought I'd try that line out since someone used it on me. I figured as much.

[PanamaJackson]

What?!?! There is no Santa?!?! LOL!!! Thanks, great video!

[djosephallen]

Its people like you that keep me interested in these topics....Ive heard occams razor a million times and still you manage to give it even more power and a better perspective...thanks...5stars

[windham666]

i treat christians just like they are adult children who never stopped believing in santa. I examine them with a mixture of sadness, bewildernment and terror, especially when i see them lining up at the voting booths, to vote for santa-believin' candidates, during an election.

[clownschuhe]

I'm sure kids care only about the presents they KNOW they're getting regardless of the truth about Santa so they're willing to believe and submit to any bullshit they're fed by their parents. The Santa myth is effectively just a tool to control kids' behavior.

Ironically, at the same time, the chances are the parents probably submit to their own "Santa" myth based completely on faith and they're buying into that without a shred of doubt.

[reflectionist]

Well, to play devil's advocate, here... I think that a lot of those questions are answered in the Bible, if you look hard enough. They aren't satisfactory, and it IS begging the question...but it is also Christian doctrine and should be fair game for defending certain Christian ideals.

However, the Bible can be very counterintuitive, as well. Many of the things it says can, and are, misconstrued to say...well, whatever the hell the reader wants. It really just depends on perspective.

Good vid

[reflectionist]

And, just because I happen to be a pretentious insufferable douche, you didn't include the spinning of the earth in your Santa premises! If he were able to stay in one timezone, and get it done in... say, an hour to an hour and a half, he could really be doing that all 24 hours of the day.

I digress though.

But yes...atheism is preferrable because it makes the least amount of assumptions. But it DOES make its presumptions too.

[reflectionist]

This kind of gets into a Burden of Proof fallacy on my part, but, the existence of a God cannot be ruled out because, well... Occam's Razor doesn't rule it out. It just says, "Go with what's easier, because it's easier."

Also, I still hold that Santa Claus can be falsified by other means than Occam's Razor.

Again, OccamKant, great vid. Five stars for you.

[OccamKant]

Many thanks!

[reflectionist]

You're very welcome.

[OccamKant]

Actually, I *did* take that into account, where I said the day had 86400 seconds. :) The 20,000 houses per second was for a full 24 hour day.

If he had to do it just in the few hours of one country's night, that would be even worse.

[reflectionist]

Oh, I misunderstood / didn't know how many seconds a full 24 hour day would contain. Sorry. :)

[agnosticman77]

Another awesome video. Pretty much sums up apologetics nicely.

[freedomsfart]

Santa Claus is God for the tots. He sees you at all times and passes judgement. You must fear the fact that Santa can deprive you of rewards. He is an introduction to what is to come with a life of faith.

I think it would be better if Santa, instead of leaving a lump of coal for naughty children, would deposit into a child's carefully hung stocking a poisonous snake, like the serpent in the Garden of Eden.

That would teach the buggers to watch their backs as well as about original sin.

[Philosophobia]

really good video.

Minor point however, is that not everyone celebrates Christmas. Like Jesus, Santa only cares about Christians and hates Jews, so he'd only show up to roughly a third of the population.

And Santer can visit all those homes because he can stop time, duh. :P Or at least that's what the santa apologetics told me.

[OccamKant]

Thanks - but even if SC had the ability to stop time, he'd be in a bit of a pickle, because then he'd stop too.

Unless you're going to say he exists outside of space and time (where have I heard that before...)

You see? You begin to layer on the shite, and it becomes obvious that there are some problems with this line of thinking.

Santa Apologists... that made me laugh.

[OccamKant]

Also - even if he COULD move when the rest of the universe was time stopped: The air molecules wouldn't let him pass, because they need time to move. So air would become solid.

Yep - endless problems with the ol' SC.

[Cafeeine]

oooh! but you ignored time zones! And that kids that don't know Santa do not get presents! and mass-mailing coal to naughty kids! and...and ....

oh wait. Santa is fictional, isn't he? Heheh.

Nice video OccamKant, eloquently put.

[OccamKant]

Actually, in the santa myth, I don't think it relates to any specific beliefs. I think it says something like "all good little boys and girls".

Maybe this is an open door to Santa Sects, who all interpret the myth differently.

[Cougs08]

You're forgetting the Santa Trinity. So you have to divide all of your figures by three. Each entity delivers to 1/3 of the homes.

Duh.

[Ateapotist]

Good video. :)

[daisyannmae]

WOW!!