i wanna meet that first guy. he's got that "ill be your friend because i like you, and to say otherwise doesn't make sense because i couldn't give a bigger fuck" vibe ya know?
Hey why is there a picture of the Great One at the end of the video, there is plenty of physical evidence of his noodly apendage's. FSM is real, there are pictures all over the internet of him.
@msginca As Francis Urquhart famously said, 'You might well think that; I couldn't possibly comment.' ;8) Fun times weren't they — loved doing this collab. ;8)
I hate when eloquent people take low-level monkey ideas I have and express them like this.
I've based my wife over the head verbally for dropping cliches like they're proof of wisdom without realizing there was a whole movement of it on the intertubes.
That was an unsubstantiated claim accredited to a Lady Hope, who claimed she had visited a bedridden Charles at Down House in the autumn of 1881. Charles's daughter Henrietta (Litchfield) wrote on page 12 of the London evangelical weekly, The Christian, for 23 February 1922, "I was present at his deathbed. Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness." Thus it is very unlikely to be true. Anyone who has done there homework should know this. Out of date argument... Next...
@pjumpy Ah — it all becomes clear. So apparently people who continue to proliferate myths like 'Darwin recanted' should just be left to carry on spreading misinformation. Setting them straight — educating people on these mistakes they are still perpetuating — is now the shortcoming of the educator — not the person spreading the mistake. People unfortunately don't do their homework. So. When people stop coming to me with out-of-date arguments, I'll stop setting them straight.
@TheraminTrees Clear? Apparently not. By all means, we should help educate those that are in error. . What interested me was that the author of said video (you) followed it up with an equally ill-informed statement about the issues surrounding Galileo's discovery. What next, you going to accuse Christians of believing in a flat earth? Haha! There's a cliche that atheists still love to use, you should take the time to educate your brothers and sisters as well.
@pjumpy What a bunch of silly rhetoric. The Darwin point was accurate — the lame pretext you had to muster in order to criticise it was that it was out of date. By that logic, all of historical education is illegitimate. Poor. Next in innaccurate criticism of the Galileo point — another fail. And lastly some idiotic wild stab, trying to suggest I'd accuse christians of believing in the flat earth. Your desperation is quite depressing — and your trolling is more than obvious.
A lot of parroting of other people's ill informed ideas... That pretty well sums up this video. Using out of date arguments, logical fallacies and unsubstantiated opinions. Sure, there are a lot of Christians that get their facts wrong by not investigating the truth of a statement, but here were a bunch of atheists doing exactly the same thing and proclaiming to be offering intelligent debate. Do you homework children.
@pjumpy The thing that's marking you out as a troll right now is that your comment is nothing but an empty slur — which is typical of trolls. If you actually have anything of substance to say about specific points made in the video, say it. Otherwise your comments can be taken for what they are — empty bluster and rhetoric.
@jinnwarior I sat down, had my favorite drink, contemplated, had another one, contemplated, had another one, contemplated a little more...
I still have not sure how you could think life after death could be absolute torture. Unless you are referring to hell?
But if you go to heaven: a perfect body, no death, no hate, no evil, no sadness, no lying, no sickness. Seems like a pretty sweet deal if I can only make it there.
Life is the hard bit, but the reward is worth the struggle.
maybe eternal life would be nice for a few years, maybe a hundred, maybe even a thousand. but what about the thousand after that? and the thousand after that? and millions later? you'd be immeasurably bored. a good example would be the 40k universes' dark eldar. its just terrible to think about.
@jinnwarior That's a lot of maybe's. Maybe our God, who created everything we know and much more we do not know, has the ability to keep us entertained. Using fictional characters from the World of War Craft as the basis of your beliefs does not present a logical argument. The fact that you did is 'terrible to think about'. God created the universe and everything in it in 6 days, imagine what He could do with 6000years. I dare say boredom will not be an issue.
@jinnwarior No need to be nasty brother. If you are going to justify your opinion, use something a little more substantial than computer game characters.
It's interesting...I'm a Christian, and I agree with every idea in this video. (Not the cliches, the rebuttals of the cliches. xD) Very nice! I like the way the ideas are presented, and the presenters are very eloquent and thoughtful. I guess I'm a liberal Christian; I tend to reject most of the mindless, biased cliches of ignorant Christians ._. I prefer to see things from different perspectives, and I'm highly open to the possibility of my error. Not all of us are idiots, I promise. ^^;
@MaRiAtheHeDg3hOg To say that you agree with every idea in this video indicates to me that perhaps you should study the subjects a little more thoroughly. What exactly do you mean by a liberal Christian? You only believe the parts of the Bible that suits you? That is not liberal, it's losing your way. Question: What is your life's purpose? Not all atheists are idiots either but it doesn't improve their perspective.
Stalin studied to become an Orthodox Christian Preist. Once he came to power he eradicated the other religions and made himself the object of the people's worship and fear. His rule over them was absolute, including over life and death. If not for his deep understanding of Christianity, he would have had no blueprint for how to turn himself into a deity and weild his tyrannical dictatorship. So it wasn't his atheism that made him evil- it was his attempt to be just like the Christian God.
The worst part of human failure comes from failing to identify the real cause of evil, whilst people are searching for the devil for the cause, they are not realizing that the real devil comes from the ones who tried to be the angel. Jesus and Mohammed has been the causes of most death even if they didn't mean to. The point is, religion is not the one we worship but Atheism is definitely not an option. We exist for a reason, we don't need a book to tell us that :)
As far as original languages is concerned, it bothers me when people who only speak English make this claim. By what basis do they hold that, for instance, Jesus' "brothers" were really "cousins" (Catholic) or that Jesus turned water into "Welch's Grape Juice" (Evangelicals)?
What about Santa Claus? You never mentioned him among your Supernaturals... Pretty stunning revelation isn't it?
I think Santa very much proves that there is a higher commercial power out there, and if you don't believe me, well there are thousands of books proving that as a fact so...Merry Commercial Christmas everybody!
@bobjoemage I never said called science narrow minded! And you're missing the point. I love science. True Science is the search for empirical unbiased knowledge. While no scientist is 100% unbiased, the SERIOUS scientist tries to systematically eliminate bias from his/her research to the greatest degree possible. What we often see today is that some people from many camps, layman and scientist alike, deliberately misinterpret or misrepresent scientific research to fit their own bias or agenda.
Main problem: Atheists are just as biased and dogmatic as religious persons. Science is no dogma, it's an empirical quest for insight and knowledge. 80 years ago there was no big bang, and the atom, photons, quarks etc.etc. are also recent discoveries. In 100 yrs most of what science now holds to be true, will be either falsified or modified beyond recognition. By all means: Criticize religion, if you think it a fruitful use of your time, just don't replace one narrow minded dogma with another.
@piaten This video deals with very specific arguments that were being actively put our way all the time. Did you have some point to make about that actual content? Make irrelevant, broad-brush putdowns and insinuations — if you think that a fruitful use of your time,
@TheraminTrees Just a clarification: I ain't puttin' nobody down! Period! 500 letters doesn't always allow for nuances to come through cleary. My objection was especially to the last argument. I see nothing in natural science that proves or disproves whether there's a spiritual realm or not. While that will(?) someday be the case, for now, it's purely a question of faith. So without empirical data, the existence of a spiritual realm is not currently a scientific debate, but one of conviction.
@piaten Yes, you were putting people down — as biased and dogmatic. If you're withdrawing that generalisation, great. I'm an atheist, and I find nothing narrow-minded or dogmatic in requiring evidence, nor in rejecting unsubstantiated supernatural claims and beliefs on that basis. Unfortunately, that rational standpoint is the subject of widespread prejudice — I was unaware of just how widespread until 3 or 4 years ago.
@TheraminTrees I said "AS narrow minded" as rel. ppl. Meaning there are all sorts of variations within both groups, which in my experience is correct, both among my friends and on YT. I totally respect your views. Problems only arise when someone makes themselves the representative of "the ONE and ABSOLUTE TRUTH", or "THE EXCLUSIVE SCHOOL OF THE TRUTH", and stop respecting other people and viewpoints, which I see both in religion and among atheists.
@piaten 'Meaning there are all sorts of variations within both groups'
—That meaning did not come through at all in what you wrote — but the clarification is appreciated.
'Problems only arise when someone makes themselves the representative of "the ONE and ABSOLUTE TRUTH" ....'
—So why not address that problem when it arises. Instead you've raised that stuff here, on a video addressing very specific arguments. Perhaps you can understand the confusion that causes.
@piaten Things like the atom are not recent discoveries. We still have no proof of them. They are an ancient greek philosophy that anything can be cut in half over and over till it is to small to see.
@piaten The only difference between religion and sience is that you're using science right now to comunicate with others. You're siting on your chair using a computer powered by electricity, you go to home with a car, the food you eat is given to you by the science that makes it possible to grow a vast ammount of crops without beeing atacked by pests. Even when you get sick and require an apendix removed you use a doctor who learned science, you dont go to a priest and pray
@piaten u literally just said science is something that evolves and changes with current information and yet your still calling science narrow minded?
@piaten I'd like to add, while science will move forward and make new discoveries and modifications, an overwhelming amount of scientific established fact and theory will remain just as it is. "Most" of science, as you say, will not be falsified or modified. In fact very few established scientific theories will be overturned.
@oddthedumbboy And here's just a fun "fact": Back in high school my math teacher mathematically proved, through many mathematical operations, that 2+2=5. None of the students could find an error to his equations. While this doesn't mean anything, but it shows that even math, the most objective and accurate of all sciences, can be twisted and manipulated by the scientist. What then about the less accurate fields, like cellular biology, kosmology etc. "The scientist is indispensible in science."
@piaten also, I personally understand those who are dogmatic about the fact that 2 + 2 = 4 or perhaps, to take that a step further, about the fact that evolution has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt from a thousand different angles through a multitude of disciplines. Making a reasonable argument doesn't automatically make one dogmatic.
There is no scientific evidence to ABSOLUTELY PROVE there is no God, but I believe there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to SUGGEST there is no God.
@oddthedumbboy Spoken like a true believer! And you make predictions based on what? Intuition? Beliefs? Bias? Tea leaves?! There's a name for what you're doing here, and it spells: DIVINATION! Truth is, the only quasi-scientific method of predicting the future, though highly uncertain and speculative, is looking to history. And if history shows us anything, it is that scientific knowledge up until now has been forever reinventing itself, multiplying and changing beyond recognition. cont.
@oddthedumbboy cont: Contrary to what you might believe, I'm not a religious fanatic, though fanatically oppose the blind following of any dogmatic belief system. We both agree evolution is a beautiful theory. But if tomorrow I was presented with scientific research which irrefutably falsified this theory, I would give it up, just like that. Would you?! Science is a method of aquireing and testing knowledge! Atheism is a belief! So there is a distinction: DON'T mix the two!!
@piaten I think the last phrase in your comment was a broad-brush putdown, as theramin said. It is unclear whether it is directed at the maker of the video or biased atheists. I agree that the last argument in the video does not make clear sense, to me at least, and I would also say that the rest of the video appears insulting to those of different opinion. Exactly the kind of thing that can cause knee-jerk reactions and conflict between people.
Continued: Many of your other videos put across an atheist view point in a much clearer and easy to follow way. Of course, it is difficult to do this when adressing specific arguments with many different people. The main points to be taken from this are: - faith is belief in something without evidence, so to have faith in a religion is to accept it has no hard evidence.
- There will always be contrasting opinions among people.
- Text can never convey the true meaning of the words it contains.
If a person can gain purpose in life by being confronted with an impending mortality then why would being confronted with the belief that you are not mortal add any purpose???
Regarding #4: If only the manuscripts were as good as 1000th generation xerox. Most of the individuals who were regarded as "professional" scribes in the first cenury of Christianity, were merely copyists, imitating the shapes of the letters without being able to read them. This was a point of criticism both within and without the church. Today we have over 5000 manuscripts for the New Testament and the variations among them number, conservatively around 400,000. See, "Misquoting Jesus"
@Theramin: Very clever video. I don't suppose this structure hasn't been used before but this is the 1st time I've seen it.
It's easy to shoot down cliches. There are many atheist arguments that have become cliche that can be easily dismantled (e.g. "You believe because you need to believe.").
I think it's amusing that the reason believers buy the Darwin recantation story is that they regard it as not only incorrect but SINFUL to teach evolution. So, in their eyes, this supposed (but false) recanting is a REPENTANCE. They figure that if they can convince you that Darwin repented, he must have known he was teaching 'falsehoods' for purely evil purposes (to lead people astray) and that you also should repent. What a fucking mind-job.
WTF!!!!! Conformation BIAS!!!!!!!??????? I want to kick my nutts into my ass then set myself on fire? Fuck BALLZZZ!!! Man I can't believe the extent at which the religious will word rape. Bottom line is...gods are finally held to an accounting party...ATHEISTS. If he is what is claimed...he would have expected this....and it stands to reason...that the religious...would be the failed experiments going...well....down to the "pit". Good thing for them they will find that it's... BULLSHIT.
The stalin atheist thing may be true but then again he turned religion into a weapon after stalingrad. Let us not forget that after that horrible battle for both sides that Stalin reopened the chruches and declared a holy war on the germans.
@Shydrow True, agree with you...but right or wrong about stalin...it's still a religious cop-out. It's become a pathetic rebuttal to the fact that they're affiliated with a religion who kills the innocent for their god. "Well look at what the Atheist's have done", they'll say. If I don't like indoor pluming...I don't burn people alive in their homes to make my point. Stalin, Hitler, etc. did what they did AS A GOD. Even if it weren't...for one... it's still in "their" image. Good info BTW. ;)
@ MrLaufer777- argument from incredulity. Just because you can't believe something happened does not mean that it didn't. You are committing a logical fallacy.
indeed it is the atheists who so often glorify the Creator better than any narrow minded theist ever will. so many good clever ppl thinking for themselves, not judging others but trying to understand them. Mercy, Justice, Knowledge are some of the names of God. those who love these things...theirs is the kingdom of heaven for all eternity and there they will drink from the rivers of knowledge and evolve spiritually.
hey dude waazzap, I was a bit high and drunk last night so I didnt have the will power to say anything but arrogance. I never said that are arrogant...I was talking about myself. and NO dear friend/foe I have absolutely no fuckin evidence supporting my so called theories. I believe In a Being above all beings just because I cant imagine that this fucking glorious universe just happened dude. U know what I mean??? Im not sure what we is the object of our "discussion" Clarify...
That doesn't really factor into the definition of "animal" which I was using. One isn't an animal because they do bad things. They are an animal because they are not a plant, fungus, protozoan, bacteria, or virus. The traits we exibit all fall neatly into kingdom animalia.
To say one is walking by faith, is liking saying one can walk by air, walk by FSM, walk by Zeus -- faith is like those, doesn't really tell you how one live
—I'm not — I'm stating diversity. You know of no christian who 'believes' in hate, violence, etc? Well I do: for instance the christians who've sent me death threats in my time on Youtube. And don't bother with the line, 'But they're not true christians' — I did a whole video on that subject. So you and them can sit in a room and argue over what christianity is and whether such violence is 'christian'. I'll see you in 40 years, still at stalemate.
You have a philosophical dilemma because "how can you be a Christian"
(follower of Christ) and promote an idea
that is contrary to the actions and teachings of Christ??? Anyone teaching
hate and violence is NOT following Christ and their theology is clearly NOT Christian. NO person following Christ would do anything except pray for you and answer your questions.
Nope, the dilemma is all yours. Yours and the christians who sent me death threats — you all define christians your way, and they will shout you down far harder than you will shout at them, that THEY are the christians, not you. As I've said, you can all discuss it among yourselves — I really couldn't care less. Because I have no one version of christianity to defend/protect, I can acknowledge that there are 1000s, many of which aggressively conflict.
This is evasive to the definition of being a Christian (as following the teachings of Christ). If Jesus Christ taught against death threats and did NOT give them and if Jesus taught against hate, etc. then how can a person be in the process of following Christ and violate His teachings.
Many people claim to be Christians but this does not mean they are following the teachings of Christ. Your response is evasive to this contradictory behavior being diametrically opposed to its nomenclature.
'This is evasive to the definition of being a christian'
— again [how many times?] not *the* definition — *your* definition. Again [how many times] go argue with christians who send death threats, not me. They will answer citing other passages, referring to his righteous anger and passages where it's said children who dishonour should be put to death. And they will dismiss your christianity too. But take note — that argument is yours and theirs, not mine.
Which teachings, though? Remember what JC said about rich men, needles and heaven? Yet I see an awful lot of Beemers and Mercs pulling out of the local church near. I'm sure they claim to be true Christians too. This isn't an attack on you, Breckmin - for all I know you give your money to the poor and access your account at the library. My point is if this religion were 'real' then everyone should have the same life view. If you can't agree on even such basic precepts, then isn't it all a sham?
About 4-5 years ago, a man cut his hand off with a circular saw, and threw it in the microwave for 40 minutes. When the paramedics arrived, he was calm and explained that the Bible (Jesus actually) had instructed him to do it.
Mathew 5-30.
Christians claimed that he was insane -- actually he was one of the only REAL Christians, a true believer.
So if you see anyone with their eyes gouged out (Mat. 5-29) or their hands missing, you know you are dealing with a REAL Christian.
Not to the extent that we do, of course. Nor can I back that up any better than I have already. It's merely my personal belief, and you're all free to agree or disagree or call me a faggot or whatever you like. However, you have to admit that it has more validity than the idea that the universe was created in it's present form six thousand years ago when we can see stars that are over six thousand light years away, and date rocks at over a hundred million years.
Sorry. That last post was typo-central. I'm trying to say too much in too small a space and getting myself confused.
Now the question of self-awareness is an interesting one, however, how do we know that it's exclusive to Humans? None of us have ever been any other animal. How do we know what's going on in their heads? Personally, I believe that some other animals DO in fact have the beginnings of self-awareness. They can use tools and make themselves understood amongst themselves.
Now I'm not going to sit here and say that there was not creator, because I don't know. I have no personal belief in one, but that is far from conclusive when making existence claims, either pro or con. That being said, however, I am going to say that Humans were not made in their present form because all the physical evidence points to the contrary. The oldest existing human remains are don't even begin to compare in age to this planet, let alone the universe in which it appeared.
I mean, we don't even have any mutually exclusive talents from other animals. We're not the only animals that use tools. We're not the only animals that build structures. We're not even the only animals that verbally communicate complex ideas. Yes, we do all these things better than any other animals. We're smarter. That's all it really boils down to. However, that doesn't "separate us from the animals." We are not fundamentally different.
Dude, you don't start by assuming something. That's the quickest way to confirmation bias. You have to observe and gather information, and then make a learned opinion and test it from there.
As for Humans being remarkably different from other animals, that is mere arrogance. We ARE animals. If you don't believe me, look the word "animal" up in the dictionary and name one trait listed which Human's don't possess.
Basically, you've failed at what you complained and complained people never listened to — the production of evidence. ALL you've said amounts to 'BUT IT'S COMMON SENSE' Blah. Blah. Blah. *As predicted* — NO EVIDENCE!
We are just beginning to look at one of many evidences for which I can list....and already you make the charge of "no evidence." This in response to clear alleged evidence for which you do not give a valid reason to reject. What is the purpose in your "belief" that either "information" OR "IF-THEN programming" can form without intelligence?
'We are just beginning to look at one of many evidences for which I can list ....and already you make the charge of "no evidence".'
—My 'charge' is that, for all your insistence of evidence, you have failed FOR DAYS to provide it. You mention IF-THEN programming, gravitional energy etc, and seem to think the existence of a creator has been established and must now be refuted. It hasn't been established at all. No more than rain 'proves' there's a sea in the sky.
'exactly like a computer' ergo ' Someone clearly programmes this'
—Oh my goodness. Do you think this kind of childish reasoning passes for logic? So if I see a bird that looks like it's wearing a hat. that means that somewhere there's a divine milliner somewhere? Just because I think it resembles that phenomenon, which is familiar to me? You ever heard of anthropomorphism? Projection?
The problem with your analogy is that you can examine the bird carefully to see if it is indeed wearing a hat. If it is wearing a hat...THEN you know someone MADE that hat. As long as you fail to address the premises of what is falsifiable and open for falsification...you will not see the clear error in your logic. You can falsify that IF-THEN programming can emerge
—Nope — it's actually the reverse. I'm making the very point that we CAN look at the bird to see if it's wearing a hat — and that's, by analogy, the very thing you refuse to do with the phenomena you mention: examine the phenomena you mention for EVIDENCE. By analogy you insist, because it looks like a hat to you, it must be evidence of a hat-maker. You've already ruled out natural processes. The analogy is very sound.
The difference is we can take the hat off..pass it around and see the stitches and the material and how it is clearly a hat. Your analogy attempt to interject "possibility" of something "natural" that is clearly known to be programmed...just like we know hats are made by hat makers. Your analogy would only apply to design, anyway...NOT mathematical programming.
De ja vu — I said the VERY POINT is *we can examine the hat*. You're now *demonstrating* that you're not listening — by explaining back to me that 'we can examine the hat'. Since the analogy is clearly beyond your grasp, we'll stick to literal. There is no 'clearly known to be programmed' — programmed implies intelligence/intention, and, in over a week, you've failed to provide evidence of either. You're completely stuck in presupposition limbo. It's quite something to witness.
Well then please enlighten us as to how an IF-THEN algorithm is not programmed.
Based on our uniform and repeated experience with IF-THEN algorithms we know that these DO come from Intelligence.
Observation of Information (that needs a Source), complex mechanical "working" systems (that don't arise without Intelligence) and IF-THEN algorithms is NOT a presupposition. It is scientific observation which leads to you to CLEAR conclusion of Intelligence(unless you have a limited definition for sc
Breckmin, you *continue* to fall into exactly the same trap as IDists — seeing parallels and metaphors and then asserting the metaphor is literal. IF-THEN occurs in some computer programming languages. Because you see parts of natural systems that have contingent aspects, depending on certain conditions being true, you then assert that that's IF-THEN *programming*. Paul Valery warns against the folly of mistaking metaphor for proof — a folly you flex with vigour.
Algorithms are NOT metaphors. The fact that an IF-THEN algorithm exists only requires HONESTY on the part of the person engaged in scientific observation.
The algorithm is LITERAL. It is actual. It exists. The fact that you can not explain it without Intelligence exists also...as basic common sense. It is NOT an appeal to ignorance unless you have limited definitions which exclude theistic implication. As long as you continue to limit your view of science...you will not be searching for t
Unfortunately insinuations of dishonesty do not change your metaphor to reality. Contingency does not imply programming — it's plain and it's simple. You can say that it does until you're blue in the face, but if that's all your 'meaty' arguments amounted to, go joined the IDists: they welcome that circular stuff. And whaddyaknow — you didn't present anything new after all your bold claims of 'clear' evidence.
Why are you calling an algorithm contingency? It is not a metophor. You are confusing design with information and algorithms. it's plain and it's simple,"
There is nothing circular about observaton.
As far as more evidence....I am more than happy to go through fine tuning and other evidences for a Creator. Right now we are just on the first point of IF-THEN algorithms...and what are they evidence of....
—Algorithms are *about* contingency — ie, one outcome being contingent upon a certain condition, or go to another outcome if the condition isn't present.
'As far as more evidence'
—Nope — not 'more', because you haven't presented any. Your single 'argument' — and it can hardly be called that — is 'programming is stuff that looks like programming'. And that's the fruit of *seven days*. Time's up — you've had seven days and wasted it.
"5. It is utterly ridiculous to accuse the Creator of "refusing to provide evidence for His Existence" when your own existence itself exposes the CLEAR need for a Creator."
You're gonna have to explain this to me, because I don't see it. How is that evidence for a creator. It doesn't seem obvious to me at all.
If you believe that everything around you in our universe began to exist without intelligence or without a first cause that was implemented by something or Someone, then we will suppose possiblity rather than practicality. You
can convince yourself that abiogenesis could have occured...and that information can be increased in the genome via natural selection, etc. and end up in a
belief structure of universal common descent theory. If you believe that chimpanzees and human beings have
As long as you present it incorrectly - you are not only building a strawman, but you are also never going to understand the valid arguments and why they are valid.
Besides, I don't believe in creation ex nihilo and there is a move toward the understanding that "nothing comes from nothing."
"nothing comes from nothing" seems pretty obvious.
If you're not a creationist, you certainly seem to advocate creation. Your very argument, from what I read was all about "designer" influence, which speaks to the very heart of Creationism. Either way, if you believe in/follow the bible it clearly says that God (magic man in the sky) spoke everything into existence (incantations = magic). So I fail to see how I misrepresented anything. I just call 'em like I seem 'em.
I am a Creationist...and I do not hide behind "I.D."
I also believe in the Tanakh and the testimonies of the early Christian writers.
What you are misrepresenting is first "God, the Creator" Himself by calling Him a mere "invisible man in the sky."
To do this is to misrepresent a Holy and Infinite Creator as a mere finite being in the sky somewhere. This misconception leads to other false analogies...such as
common ancestor, THEN you could suppose this....but step back and look at the CLEAR difference in behavior and dominion from panina and Homo sapiens. Christians who are in close fellowship with the Creator know that God gave us creatures like apes to fully demonstrate that we are created in the Image of God..quite different than other animals. To us it is MORE than obvious,, it is basic common sense...but how you get to common sense starts with solid foundational assumptions. It is not so simp
I deny the idea of 'christians who are in close fellowship with the creator'. There are only christians who claim fellowship with the creator — and that group is as diverse as it gets, believing in all kinds of hate and violence and vengeance and murder, etc., among those who happen to believe in love, honesty, etc..
You can not appeal to hypocrisy as a means of justifying the logic that human beings are QUITE different than animals.
Besides, I know of no one in "that group" who "believes" in hate, violence, vengance or murder. In fact, they stand very much against the murder certain babies in certain locations.
Human beings ARE animals. Racoons and Buffalo are animals also, but they're very different from each other, so to what extent are you trying to distinguish us from the rest of the animal kingdom? If you narrow it down, human beings are primates specifically. We share all the traits of primates, making us still part of the ape family. For the same reason that all ducks are birds, but not all birds are ducks..humans are apes..aka animals.
"so to what extent are you trying to distinguish us from the rest of the animal kingdom?"
Human consciousness. Self-awareness to the degree to contemplate your own existence. Artistic expression..mathematical ability and the ability to understand the concept of infinity and eternity... there are several things which point to the fact that we are different from all other animals. We are uniquely created in God's Conscious Image
Those all derive from intellect, which humans clearly have more of than any other animal on the planet. However, mathematical understanding has been demonstrated in birds, let alone in other primates. Chimpanzees have been taught to fly planes for crying out loud. Artistic expression is completely subjective anyway. One man's art is another's trash, chimps appreciate beauty in their own way. What's beautiful to them would not be to us, and vice versa.
I don't think we are created in God's conscious image. If so, tell me, what does god need with reproductive organs, or a heart, or a stomach? Does god require a nutritional diet of some kind? Does god have kidneys that need constant emptying? Is god limited to two eyes, while simultaneously claiming to be able to see all, all the time, everywhere? To what extent of humanity is God limited to, that he felt to give us all of his traits, that limit us so perversely in this world?
The Creator does not have a physical body, except for when He became a Man and was born to Mary and His Name was Jesus. Jesus' body is the only body which
God was Incarnate. God the Father has NO body the way in which you just described...
@Breckmin Then explain this absurdity of human kind being created in 'his image". If he has no "image", then what the hell is it talking about? I guarantee you, the people who taught me that phrase, and who taught them that phrase, were referring, contextually, to the believed physical traits of God. I'll refer you to Michelangelo's mural of God creating Adam in the Sistine Chapel as just one example. So please, explain to me how that's suddenly not the case anymore?
Michelangelo's painting is just anthropomorphic...it is not a basis for any theological understanding of God. We are NOT created in God's physical Image because God is not physical. We say we are created in God's "conscious" Image because we are referring to the "human consciousness" and our ability to create thoughtful art, understand mathematical complexities and contemplate our existence with expressive and detailed communication. There are even more examples of things which separate us f
@Breckmin I know what the painting IS....what I'm telling you is that these people, after having read the bible, believed that God had human traits after reading, IN THE BIBLE, that man was created "in his image". For centuries, this was the context in which these words were placed by ALL believers. This stuff separating "conscious" from "physical" is brand all brand new in order to dance around these very kinds of query. You don't get to change the rules just cause you don't have a real answer.
If you read Philo of Alexandria..and specifically "De Opificio Mundi" you will see that the rules have not changed. Being created in God's Image does NOT mean God somehow has a body...this is foolishness. How can God create matter if He is somehow made up of matter. It is non-sequitur and the Jews and early Christians never believed this. Read Philo.
@Breckmin So the modern day believers are not jumping on the bandwagon with the beliefs of people they most likely referred to absurd in the time that Philo had originally written it. Philo was at least smart enough to realize the gap in believing that God had human traits, and decided to write it down, but the church wanted nothing to do with such ridiculousness. It is only now that the believers have started to realize their futility, so now you adopt the next best thing. Typical.
1. Being eternal. We have an eternal spiritual existence that will either be in fellowship with God or eternally disfellowshiped, disowned and punished
perfectly for exact offenses. This is spiritual death and it is multi-faceted...you can not isolate on "torture" or you will miss the reason for connected premises.
2. Mathematical ability and understanding
the concept of infinity and how to use it as a determiner.
3. Artistic ability. Animals that paint NEVER have any
1. Evidence man....evidence. This is presupposed drivel that can only begin to be true if God exists in the first place, of which there is also no evidence. And who said anything about "torture"?
2. again, not a concept native to just humans. Many species have demonstrated understanding of mathematics
3. see my other posts to you
You keep bringing up the same tired arguments even though they continue to be refuted as unsubstantial and irrelevant. Why?
Many species have demonstrated understanding of mathematics
using mathematics to count (btw, you are substantiating that mathematics exists with animals apart from humans - SO that would mean that humans did NOT invent mathematics - I agree with you).
your young is not the same thing as an
understanding of functions, equations or an application of mathematics that goes beyond counting. What animals have been shown to understand anything above and "identity level?"
@Breckmin Birds have demonstrated understanding of concepts like zero, which is a concept that's still relatively new to us. There was one particular that I read about where they would bring a tray out that had nothing on it, and say "how many trucks?" The bird would reply, "none". Among other interactions having to do with quantity of arbitrary objects that also made them distinguish shape and color as well. So what you're saying is simply not true, and these concepts aren't exclusive to us.
Wow, what a completely dishonest answer. Just scoff and the point will go away, is that it? This bird was a big deal, and it did get lots of press. In fact it even made the news when he died. That you weren't paying attention is irrelevant. This was an African Gray Bird named Alex. You can look him up, he's easy to find. There are articles all over talking about the cognitive thought process of animals like him being far more advanced than people like you have always thought. Just look him up.
Please note that I said below "Sort of like a parrot
actually TALKING instead of just repeating
sounds that it has learned to piece together."
I've just looked at several videos from Alex the parrot and all it does is remind me of the same nonsense we went through with Cocoa the gorilla. When you take a parrot and teach it hundreds of sounds the fact that it can make a correct association with the constant interaction with a TRAINER...does NOT mean the bird understands the concepts of mult
The more I see of this bird the more that it reminds me of how people systematically deceive themselves to believe an illusion of meaningful conversation rather than a basic instinctive response like we see between other animals. If this is your assertion for evidence that a bird understands mathematics then I am not
certain anything will bring you back to pragmatism. Parrots can repeat sounds
and often their timing is great. Clearly Alex was an exceptional bird...but it is illogical to mak
Dude...the experiments they're doing is not about "having a conversation" with birds. It was about understanding and exposing cognitive brain function far more advanced than people had originally thought, in animals with walnut size brains. These are controlled tests, that are constantly repeated. It's about the bird being able to identify shape, color, and quantity, among other things. All of which we had thought were exclusive to humans. This bird, and others like it, prove that it's not.
I should have known a parrot would bite me on this one...but it is an EXCELLENT example of invalid induction. The same type of induction that takes the processes by which God uses to create variety in species (common descent with modification, survival of the fittest, mutation) and induces it to conclude universal common descent is the same exact type of induction of taking a parrot who can say sounds and syllables it has been taught and induce it to birds actually carrying on meaningful conver
@Breckmin Of course the gorilla can't pain the same painting either of us could (or could it). I've seen abstract "art" that could easily have been painted by a gorilla, but I digress. Just because they lack the motor function to produce the same kind of "art" doesn't mean they don't appreciate their own concepts of beauty with the same vigor as we do ours.
Again, mathematical concepts (like zero) have been demonstrated in a number of lower life, so these concepts are not native to just us.
Absolute ridiculousness. Your assertion that animals have no appreciation of beauty (art) is complete rubbish, and only your opinion. Just because it's not the same as yours doesn't mean it's non-existent. And the fact that elephants are self-aware enough to not only understand the shape of themselves, but then are able to duplicate it, speaks precisely against your assertions that they have no concept of these concepts, regardless of their "motivations" for a peanut.
@Breckmin "The Creator does not have a physical body, except for when He became a Man..."
This is completely inconsistent with what the bible actually says. By this, I'm referring to points in the bible where Jesus lifts his head to the sky and speaks to God (himself). He even bellows as to why God has forsaken him. And while I'm on the subject, what is this magical power in the spilling of blood and the death of a complete stranger is supposed to redeem me for my "original" sin, that wasn't?
This video montage is absolutely devastating to the beliefs of theists. I see from the comments section that their willful stupidity is not penetrated by this excellent evidence.
5. It is utterly ridiculous to accuse the Creator of "refusing to provide evidence for His Existence" when your own existence itself exposes the CLEAR need for a Creator. It is like creating a definition for examination which elimates the logical answer and then claiming that everything that doesn't comply with your definitions are an appeal to ignorance,
The only reason it is an appeal to ignorance in your mind, or an argument to the negative is because you eliminated the correct answer as a
i wanna meet that first guy. he's got that "ill be your friend because i like you, and to say otherwise doesn't make sense because i couldn't give a bigger fuck" vibe ya know?
jujup3al 2 months ago
The first dude is hilarious
bowbow13pats 4 months ago
Lucretius sounds like an atheist prophet. Even then he could see the writing on the wall.
stevenweir76 5 months ago
Hey why is there a picture of the Great One at the end of the video, there is plenty of physical evidence of his noodly apendage's. FSM is real, there are pictures all over the internet of him.
JesseDeanWalker 5 months ago
This video is interesting (if for no other reason) for the sake of how far it shows Google text-to-voice has improved in just three years.
MagiMysteryTour 5 months ago
The people in this video are *Clearly* superior to the rest of humanity ... especially that guy at the end. *cough cough*
msginca 6 months ago
@msginca As Francis Urquhart famously said, 'You might well think that; I couldn't possibly comment.' ;8) Fun times weren't they — loved doing this collab. ;8)
TheraminTrees 5 months ago
@TheraminTrees
I have the ominous feeling that if we were ever in the same room together, we'd laugh ourselves to death!!! loll
msginca 5 months ago
Incredible video.
Iovereband 6 months ago
I hate when eloquent people take low-level monkey ideas I have and express them like this.
I've based my wife over the head verbally for dropping cliches like they're proof of wisdom without realizing there was a whole movement of it on the intertubes.
MrRahtin 6 months ago
That was an unsubstantiated claim accredited to a Lady Hope, who claimed she had visited a bedridden Charles at Down House in the autumn of 1881. Charles's daughter Henrietta (Litchfield) wrote on page 12 of the London evangelical weekly, The Christian, for 23 February 1922, "I was present at his deathbed. Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness." Thus it is very unlikely to be true. Anyone who has done there homework should know this. Out of date argument... Next...
pjumpy 7 months ago
@pjumpy Ah — it all becomes clear. So apparently people who continue to proliferate myths like 'Darwin recanted' should just be left to carry on spreading misinformation. Setting them straight — educating people on these mistakes they are still perpetuating — is now the shortcoming of the educator — not the person spreading the mistake. People unfortunately don't do their homework. So. When people stop coming to me with out-of-date arguments, I'll stop setting them straight.
TheraminTrees 7 months ago
@TheraminTrees Clear? Apparently not. By all means, we should help educate those that are in error. . What interested me was that the author of said video (you) followed it up with an equally ill-informed statement about the issues surrounding Galileo's discovery. What next, you going to accuse Christians of believing in a flat earth? Haha! There's a cliche that atheists still love to use, you should take the time to educate your brothers and sisters as well.
pjumpy 7 months ago
@pjumpy What a bunch of silly rhetoric. The Darwin point was accurate — the lame pretext you had to muster in order to criticise it was that it was out of date. By that logic, all of historical education is illegitimate. Poor. Next in innaccurate criticism of the Galileo point — another fail. And lastly some idiotic wild stab, trying to suggest I'd accuse christians of believing in the flat earth. Your desperation is quite depressing — and your trolling is more than obvious.
TheraminTrees 7 months ago
Oooh! A challenge! You pick one and I'll answer. Troll? And who might you be, Billy Goat Gruff? Haha!
I do love a good nursery rhyme...
pjumpy 7 months ago
@pjumpy Let's hear the problems with the 'Darwin recanted' section.
TheraminTrees 7 months ago
A lot of parroting of other people's ill informed ideas... That pretty well sums up this video. Using out of date arguments, logical fallacies and unsubstantiated opinions. Sure, there are a lot of Christians that get their facts wrong by not investigating the truth of a statement, but here were a bunch of atheists doing exactly the same thing and proclaiming to be offering intelligent debate. Do you homework children.
pjumpy 7 months ago
@pjumpy The thing that's marking you out as a troll right now is that your comment is nothing but an empty slur — which is typical of trolls. If you actually have anything of substance to say about specific points made in the video, say it. Otherwise your comments can be taken for what they are — empty bluster and rhetoric.
TheraminTrees 7 months ago
^TheraminTrees: 1 Piaten: 0
outofhereful 8 months ago
Life is so short that makes it so precious. You have 1 life to do what you want with (make babies etc) then its ends and thats that.
andysim232 8 months ago
@andysim232 Boy! Aren't you a cheerful one! What makes you so certain that there is nothing after life?
pjumpy 8 months ago
@pjumpy because that would suck.
jinnwarior 7 months ago
@jinnwarior And why would that suck?
pjumpy 7 months ago
@pjumpy
sit down, have a glass of your favorite drink, then contemplate why living after death would be absolute torture.
jinnwarior 7 months ago
@jinnwarior I sat down, had my favorite drink, contemplated, had another one, contemplated, had another one, contemplated a little more...
I still have not sure how you could think life after death could be absolute torture. Unless you are referring to hell?
But if you go to heaven: a perfect body, no death, no hate, no evil, no sadness, no lying, no sickness. Seems like a pretty sweet deal if I can only make it there.
Life is the hard bit, but the reward is worth the struggle.
pjumpy 7 months ago
@pjumpy
maybe eternal life would be nice for a few years, maybe a hundred, maybe even a thousand. but what about the thousand after that? and the thousand after that? and millions later? you'd be immeasurably bored. a good example would be the 40k universes' dark eldar. its just terrible to think about.
jinnwarior 7 months ago
@jinnwarior That's a lot of maybe's. Maybe our God, who created everything we know and much more we do not know, has the ability to keep us entertained. Using fictional characters from the World of War Craft as the basis of your beliefs does not present a logical argument. The fact that you did is 'terrible to think about'. God created the universe and everything in it in 6 days, imagine what He could do with 6000years. I dare say boredom will not be an issue.
pjumpy 7 months ago
@pjumpy
"world of warcraft"
well now i know you're just being a cockhead.
jinnwarior 7 months ago
@jinnwarior No need to be nasty brother. If you are going to justify your opinion, use something a little more substantial than computer game characters.
pjumpy 7 months ago
It's interesting...I'm a Christian, and I agree with every idea in this video. (Not the cliches, the rebuttals of the cliches. xD) Very nice! I like the way the ideas are presented, and the presenters are very eloquent and thoughtful. I guess I'm a liberal Christian; I tend to reject most of the mindless, biased cliches of ignorant Christians ._. I prefer to see things from different perspectives, and I'm highly open to the possibility of my error. Not all of us are idiots, I promise. ^^;
MaRiAtheHeDg3hOg 8 months ago
@MaRiAtheHeDg3hOg To say that you agree with every idea in this video indicates to me that perhaps you should study the subjects a little more thoroughly. What exactly do you mean by a liberal Christian? You only believe the parts of the Bible that suits you? That is not liberal, it's losing your way. Question: What is your life's purpose? Not all atheists are idiots either but it doesn't improve their perspective.
pjumpy 7 months ago
Zeus may still show up. You never know.
sambricky 9 months ago
Atheism was around before fish crawled onto land.
VolcanicPenguin 9 months ago
WizardJim has a fucking awesome beard.
PlzHelpwithname 9 months ago
Stalin studied to become an Orthodox Christian Preist. Once he came to power he eradicated the other religions and made himself the object of the people's worship and fear. His rule over them was absolute, including over life and death. If not for his deep understanding of Christianity, he would have had no blueprint for how to turn himself into a deity and weild his tyrannical dictatorship. So it wasn't his atheism that made him evil- it was his attempt to be just like the Christian God.
1955RodHot 11 months ago
The worst part of human failure comes from failing to identify the real cause of evil, whilst people are searching for the devil for the cause, they are not realizing that the real devil comes from the ones who tried to be the angel. Jesus and Mohammed has been the causes of most death even if they didn't mean to. The point is, religion is not the one we worship but Atheism is definitely not an option. We exist for a reason, we don't need a book to tell us that :)
romeofire87 11 months ago
@romeofire87 What reason is that?
Griexxt 11 months ago
Can't people see the obvious connection between evil people - THEY BOTH HAD MUSTACHES!
Viktxr 11 months ago
@Viktxr
but that would make chuck norris evil. how do we resolve such a quandary?
pyr666 9 months ago
theres no reason to believe the fact that their fathers beat them caused them to take over europe
darris321 1 year ago
As far as original languages is concerned, it bothers me when people who only speak English make this claim. By what basis do they hold that, for instance, Jesus' "brothers" were really "cousins" (Catholic) or that Jesus turned water into "Welch's Grape Juice" (Evangelicals)?
txvoltaire 1 year ago
What about Santa Claus? You never mentioned him among your Supernaturals... Pretty stunning revelation isn't it?
I think Santa very much proves that there is a higher commercial power out there, and if you don't believe me, well there are thousands of books proving that as a fact so...Merry Commercial Christmas everybody!
MyRazberry 1 year ago
@bobjoemage I never said called science narrow minded! And you're missing the point. I love science. True Science is the search for empirical unbiased knowledge. While no scientist is 100% unbiased, the SERIOUS scientist tries to systematically eliminate bias from his/her research to the greatest degree possible. What we often see today is that some people from many camps, layman and scientist alike, deliberately misinterpret or misrepresent scientific research to fit their own bias or agenda.
piaten 1 year ago
What a sexy voiceover :D
anvita99 1 year ago
NeonReturns = Brad Neely?
JohnSnowstorm 1 year ago
The feminine voice at the beginning and the end sound a lot like GLaDOS.
RogerOcelot 1 year ago
Main problem: Atheists are just as biased and dogmatic as religious persons. Science is no dogma, it's an empirical quest for insight and knowledge. 80 years ago there was no big bang, and the atom, photons, quarks etc.etc. are also recent discoveries. In 100 yrs most of what science now holds to be true, will be either falsified or modified beyond recognition. By all means: Criticize religion, if you think it a fruitful use of your time, just don't replace one narrow minded dogma with another.
piaten 1 year ago
@piaten This video deals with very specific arguments that were being actively put our way all the time. Did you have some point to make about that actual content? Make irrelevant, broad-brush putdowns and insinuations — if you think that a fruitful use of your time,
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
@TheraminTrees Just a clarification: I ain't puttin' nobody down! Period! 500 letters doesn't always allow for nuances to come through cleary. My objection was especially to the last argument. I see nothing in natural science that proves or disproves whether there's a spiritual realm or not. While that will(?) someday be the case, for now, it's purely a question of faith. So without empirical data, the existence of a spiritual realm is not currently a scientific debate, but one of conviction.
piaten 1 year ago
@piaten Yes, you were putting people down — as biased and dogmatic. If you're withdrawing that generalisation, great. I'm an atheist, and I find nothing narrow-minded or dogmatic in requiring evidence, nor in rejecting unsubstantiated supernatural claims and beliefs on that basis. Unfortunately, that rational standpoint is the subject of widespread prejudice — I was unaware of just how widespread until 3 or 4 years ago.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
@TheraminTrees I said "AS narrow minded" as rel. ppl. Meaning there are all sorts of variations within both groups, which in my experience is correct, both among my friends and on YT. I totally respect your views. Problems only arise when someone makes themselves the representative of "the ONE and ABSOLUTE TRUTH", or "THE EXCLUSIVE SCHOOL OF THE TRUTH", and stop respecting other people and viewpoints, which I see both in religion and among atheists.
piaten 1 year ago
@piaten 'Meaning there are all sorts of variations within both groups'
—That meaning did not come through at all in what you wrote — but the clarification is appreciated.
'Problems only arise when someone makes themselves the representative of "the ONE and ABSOLUTE TRUTH" ....'
—So why not address that problem when it arises. Instead you've raised that stuff here, on a video addressing very specific arguments. Perhaps you can understand the confusion that causes.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
@piaten Things like the atom are not recent discoveries. We still have no proof of them. They are an ancient greek philosophy that anything can be cut in half over and over till it is to small to see.
fireex0 1 year ago
@piaten The only difference between religion and sience is that you're using science right now to comunicate with others. You're siting on your chair using a computer powered by electricity, you go to home with a car, the food you eat is given to you by the science that makes it possible to grow a vast ammount of crops without beeing atacked by pests. Even when you get sick and require an apendix removed you use a doctor who learned science, you dont go to a priest and pray
veemonro 1 year ago
@piaten u literally just said science is something that evolves and changes with current information and yet your still calling science narrow minded?
bobjoemagee 1 year ago
@piaten I'd like to add, while science will move forward and make new discoveries and modifications, an overwhelming amount of scientific established fact and theory will remain just as it is. "Most" of science, as you say, will not be falsified or modified. In fact very few established scientific theories will be overturned.
oddthedumbboy 1 year ago
@oddthedumbboy And here's just a fun "fact": Back in high school my math teacher mathematically proved, through many mathematical operations, that 2+2=5. None of the students could find an error to his equations. While this doesn't mean anything, but it shows that even math, the most objective and accurate of all sciences, can be twisted and manipulated by the scientist. What then about the less accurate fields, like cellular biology, kosmology etc. "The scientist is indispensible in science."
piaten 1 year ago
@piaten also, I personally understand those who are dogmatic about the fact that 2 + 2 = 4 or perhaps, to take that a step further, about the fact that evolution has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt from a thousand different angles through a multitude of disciplines. Making a reasonable argument doesn't automatically make one dogmatic.
There is no scientific evidence to ABSOLUTELY PROVE there is no God, but I believe there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to SUGGEST there is no God.
oddthedumbboy 1 year ago
@oddthedumbboy Spoken like a true believer! And you make predictions based on what? Intuition? Beliefs? Bias? Tea leaves?! There's a name for what you're doing here, and it spells: DIVINATION! Truth is, the only quasi-scientific method of predicting the future, though highly uncertain and speculative, is looking to history. And if history shows us anything, it is that scientific knowledge up until now has been forever reinventing itself, multiplying and changing beyond recognition. cont.
piaten 1 year ago
@oddthedumbboy cont: Contrary to what you might believe, I'm not a religious fanatic, though fanatically oppose the blind following of any dogmatic belief system. We both agree evolution is a beautiful theory. But if tomorrow I was presented with scientific research which irrefutably falsified this theory, I would give it up, just like that. Would you?! Science is a method of aquireing and testing knowledge! Atheism is a belief! So there is a distinction: DON'T mix the two!!
piaten 1 year ago
@piaten I think the last phrase in your comment was a broad-brush putdown, as theramin said. It is unclear whether it is directed at the maker of the video or biased atheists. I agree that the last argument in the video does not make clear sense, to me at least, and I would also say that the rest of the video appears insulting to those of different opinion. Exactly the kind of thing that can cause knee-jerk reactions and conflict between people.
810cars 1 year ago
Continued: Many of your other videos put across an atheist view point in a much clearer and easy to follow way. Of course, it is difficult to do this when adressing specific arguments with many different people. The main points to be taken from this are: - faith is belief in something without evidence, so to have faith in a religion is to accept it has no hard evidence.
- There will always be contrasting opinions among people.
- Text can never convey the true meaning of the words it contains.
810cars 1 year ago
Ugh all from the UK, great round up of atheists there buddy.
keuven 1 year ago
what can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof lol
insanewarlock666 1 year ago
If a person can gain purpose in life by being confronted with an impending mortality then why would being confronted with the belief that you are not mortal add any purpose???
dookiecheez 1 year ago
Regarding #4: If only the manuscripts were as good as 1000th generation xerox. Most of the individuals who were regarded as "professional" scribes in the first cenury of Christianity, were merely copyists, imitating the shapes of the letters without being able to read them. This was a point of criticism both within and without the church. Today we have over 5000 manuscripts for the New Testament and the variations among them number, conservatively around 400,000. See, "Misquoting Jesus"
MrSteveSpears 1 year ago
very nice
they are so bad at debating
hahaha "you have to believe in god first then you'll see the evidence?"
hahaha wow the stupidity
atheistkyo 1 year ago
@Theramin: Very clever video. I don't suppose this structure hasn't been used before but this is the 1st time I've seen it.
It's easy to shoot down cliches. There are many atheist arguments that have become cliche that can be easily dismantled (e.g. "You believe because you need to believe.").
DrDeist 1 year ago
Who was the fellow at 4:37? He sounds very interesting.
madjimms 1 year ago
I think it's amusing that the reason believers buy the Darwin recantation story is that they regard it as not only incorrect but SINFUL to teach evolution. So, in their eyes, this supposed (but false) recanting is a REPENTANCE. They figure that if they can convince you that Darwin repented, he must have known he was teaching 'falsehoods' for purely evil purposes (to lead people astray) and that you also should repent. What a fucking mind-job.
eulercircles 1 year ago
WTF!!!!! Conformation BIAS!!!!!!!??????? I want to kick my nutts into my ass then set myself on fire? Fuck BALLZZZ!!! Man I can't believe the extent at which the religious will word rape. Bottom line is...gods are finally held to an accounting party...ATHEISTS. If he is what is claimed...he would have expected this....and it stands to reason...that the religious...would be the failed experiments going...well....down to the "pit". Good thing for them they will find that it's... BULLSHIT.
Mikedogg13666 1 year ago
very good!
jojoinhere 1 year ago
Yu diz da
Leprechawn!
Da leprechaun comm
aftya yoo ...
... lik in dA mOOvY
ProfessorZaroff 1 year ago
the ending was scary D:
bobplatypus 1 year ago
GREAT its all important and frequent arguments in one place; the video itself is very well done!
000florence000 1 year ago
I see your lips moving but all i hear is "blah blah blah smart stuff blah motherfucker blah" It's like a smart version of Samuel L Jackson
(this is a joke, i really did pay attention to your video)
kravn4smore 1 year ago
The stalin atheist thing may be true but then again he turned religion into a weapon after stalingrad. Let us not forget that after that horrible battle for both sides that Stalin reopened the chruches and declared a holy war on the germans.
Shydrow 1 year ago
@Shydrow True, agree with you...but right or wrong about stalin...it's still a religious cop-out. It's become a pathetic rebuttal to the fact that they're affiliated with a religion who kills the innocent for their god. "Well look at what the Atheist's have done", they'll say. If I don't like indoor pluming...I don't burn people alive in their homes to make my point. Stalin, Hitler, etc. did what they did AS A GOD. Even if it weren't...for one... it's still in "their" image. Good info BTW. ;)
Mikedogg13666 1 year ago
My fellow atheists, you are not alone. :)
bookwormsrcool 1 year ago
Bravo! Bravo!
1Mafioso4 1 year ago
ahhahhahaaahaa :DDD Christian idiots :DD "Atheist is like nazism or Communism"
mikroholisti 1 year ago
@ MrLaufer777- argument from incredulity. Just because you can't believe something happened does not mean that it didn't. You are committing a logical fallacy.
TheAtomicist42 2 years ago
poor taste in a first episode, otherwise it's a good clip
didate 2 years ago
indeed it is the atheists who so often glorify the Creator better than any narrow minded theist ever will. so many good clever ppl thinking for themselves, not judging others but trying to understand them. Mercy, Justice, Knowledge are some of the names of God. those who love these things...theirs is the kingdom of heaven for all eternity and there they will drink from the rivers of knowledge and evolve spiritually.
MrLaufer777 2 years ago
well, you'd be right if we found evidence of God. but, we haven't, so let's assume that Atheists are already on the right track
TaeGaruma34 2 years ago
@MrLaufer777
Care to justify or add citation to these err.. 'facts'?
cmwissy 2 years ago
arrogance....................................
MrLaufer777 2 years ago
@MrLaufer777
Arrogance - 'overbearing pride evidenced by a superior manner toward inferiors '
I asked for evidence.
But hey - if you want to play the stereotypical game , that's fine.
cmwissy 2 years ago
Also - It's arrogant to assume you are right with so *little* evidence.
cmwissy 2 years ago
hey dude waazzap, I was a bit high and drunk last night so I didnt have the will power to say anything but arrogance. I never said that are arrogant...I was talking about myself. and NO dear friend/foe I have absolutely no fuckin evidence supporting my so called theories. I believe In a Being above all beings just because I cant imagine that this fucking glorious universe just happened dude. U know what I mean??? Im not sure what we is the object of our "discussion" Clarify...
MrLaufer777 2 years ago
wizard jim is amazing with his tyrannical motherfucker bashing
TaeGaruma34 2 years ago
I would have rated this video 10 stars had that been possible.
It was that great!
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 2 years ago
Hitler, was an ex Catholic. He persecuted priests'
as well as jews and gypsies. Maximillian Kolbe - a Franciscan friar was placed in Auschwitz.
He persecuted Jehovah's Witness as well.
Stalin was an ex Russian Orthodox.
pollylodges 2 years ago
NeonReturns is new to me. I couldn't find him on youtube to subscribe. *sniff*
y0nd3r 2 years ago
can you disprove super mario? no? HE EXISTS!
larryinc64 2 years ago
And Toad is an irresistible force.
TheraminTrees 2 years ago
I dunno ... I've *always* been partial to carniverous underground cave dwellers on mars. ... (They talk to me by transmitting their thoughts!)
msginca 1 year ago
@larryinc64 i knew it!
kravn4smore 1 year ago
That doesn't really factor into the definition of "animal" which I was using. One isn't an animal because they do bad things. They are an animal because they are not a plant, fungus, protozoan, bacteria, or virus. The traits we exibit all fall neatly into kingdom animalia.
ScttDynamite220 2 years ago
Very good compilation.
FaganRoberts 2 years ago
Where did neonreturns go!?!?!?
SIASLbyRAH 2 years ago
how about this one commonly spoken with pride: "believers don't walk by sight, we walk by faith"
cholotara 2 years ago
@cholotara
To say one is walking by faith, is liking saying one can walk by air, walk by FSM, walk by Zeus -- faith is like those, doesn't really tell you how one live
yellowlynx 2 years ago
'You cannot appeal to hypocrisy ....'
—I'm not — I'm stating diversity. You know of no christian who 'believes' in hate, violence, etc? Well I do: for instance the christians who've sent me death threats in my time on Youtube. And don't bother with the line, 'But they're not true christians' — I did a whole video on that subject. So you and them can sit in a room and argue over what christianity is and whether such violence is 'christian'. I'll see you in 40 years, still at stalemate.
TheraminTrees 2 years ago
'But they're not true christians'
You have a philosophical dilemma because "how can you be a Christian"
(follower of Christ) and promote an idea
that is contrary to the actions and teachings of Christ??? Anyone teaching
hate and violence is NOT following Christ and their theology is clearly NOT Christian. NO person following Christ would do anything except pray for you and answer your questions.
Breckmin 2 years ago
'You have a philosophical dilemma ....'
Nope, the dilemma is all yours. Yours and the christians who sent me death threats — you all define christians your way, and they will shout you down far harder than you will shout at them, that THEY are the christians, not you. As I've said, you can all discuss it among yourselves — I really couldn't care less. Because I have no one version of christianity to defend/protect, I can acknowledge that there are 1000s, many of which aggressively conflict.
TheraminTrees 2 years ago
This is evasive to the definition of being a Christian (as following the teachings of Christ). If Jesus Christ taught against death threats and did NOT give them and if Jesus taught against hate, etc. then how can a person be in the process of following Christ and violate His teachings.
Many people claim to be Christians but this does not mean they are following the teachings of Christ. Your response is evasive to this contradictory behavior being diametrically opposed to its nomenclature.
Breckmin 2 years ago
'This is evasive to the definition of being a christian'
— again [how many times?] not *the* definition — *your* definition. Again [how many times] go argue with christians who send death threats, not me. They will answer citing other passages, referring to his righteous anger and passages where it's said children who dishonour should be put to death. And they will dismiss your christianity too. But take note — that argument is yours and theirs, not mine.
TheraminTrees 2 years ago
Which teachings, though? Remember what JC said about rich men, needles and heaven? Yet I see an awful lot of Beemers and Mercs pulling out of the local church near. I'm sure they claim to be true Christians too. This isn't an attack on you, Breckmin - for all I know you give your money to the poor and access your account at the library. My point is if this religion were 'real' then everyone should have the same life view. If you can't agree on even such basic precepts, then isn't it all a sham?
TheLivingDinosaur 2 years ago
About 4-5 years ago, a man cut his hand off with a circular saw, and threw it in the microwave for 40 minutes. When the paramedics arrived, he was calm and explained that the Bible (Jesus actually) had instructed him to do it.
Mathew 5-30.
Christians claimed that he was insane -- actually he was one of the only REAL Christians, a true believer.
So if you see anyone with their eyes gouged out (Mat. 5-29) or their hands missing, you know you are dealing with a REAL Christian.
HealthyHomeGardening 2 years ago
Not to the extent that we do, of course. Nor can I back that up any better than I have already. It's merely my personal belief, and you're all free to agree or disagree or call me a faggot or whatever you like. However, you have to admit that it has more validity than the idea that the universe was created in it's present form six thousand years ago when we can see stars that are over six thousand light years away, and date rocks at over a hundred million years.
ScttDynamite220 2 years ago
Sorry. That last post was typo-central. I'm trying to say too much in too small a space and getting myself confused.
Now the question of self-awareness is an interesting one, however, how do we know that it's exclusive to Humans? None of us have ever been any other animal. How do we know what's going on in their heads? Personally, I believe that some other animals DO in fact have the beginnings of self-awareness. They can use tools and make themselves understood amongst themselves.
ScttDynamite220 2 years ago
Now I'm not going to sit here and say that there was not creator, because I don't know. I have no personal belief in one, but that is far from conclusive when making existence claims, either pro or con. That being said, however, I am going to say that Humans were not made in their present form because all the physical evidence points to the contrary. The oldest existing human remains are don't even begin to compare in age to this planet, let alone the universe in which it appeared.
ScttDynamite220 2 years ago
I mean, we don't even have any mutually exclusive talents from other animals. We're not the only animals that use tools. We're not the only animals that build structures. We're not even the only animals that verbally communicate complex ideas. Yes, we do all these things better than any other animals. We're smarter. That's all it really boils down to. However, that doesn't "separate us from the animals." We are not fundamentally different.
ScttDynamite220 2 years ago
Dude, you don't start by assuming something. That's the quickest way to confirmation bias. You have to observe and gather information, and then make a learned opinion and test it from there.
As for Humans being remarkably different from other animals, that is mere arrogance. We ARE animals. If you don't believe me, look the word "animal" up in the dictionary and name one trait listed which Human's don't possess.
ScttDynamite220 2 years ago
You should have also asked him to watch the news or read a newspaper sometime, tally up the death-count, and then still say we're not animals.
TheLivingDinosaur 2 years ago
Basically, you've failed at what you complained and complained people never listened to — the production of evidence. ALL you've said amounts to 'BUT IT'S COMMON SENSE' Blah. Blah. Blah. *As predicted* — NO EVIDENCE!
TheraminTrees 2 years ago
We are just beginning to look at one of many evidences for which I can list....and already you make the charge of "no evidence." This in response to clear alleged evidence for which you do not give a valid reason to reject. What is the purpose in your "belief" that either "information" OR "IF-THEN programming" can form without intelligence?
Breckmin 2 years ago
'We are just beginning to look at one of many evidences for which I can list ....and already you make the charge of "no evidence".'
—My 'charge' is that, for all your insistence of evidence, you have failed FOR DAYS to provide it. You mention IF-THEN programming, gravitional energy etc, and seem to think the existence of a creator has been established and must now be refuted. It hasn't been established at all. No more than rain 'proves' there's a sea in the sky.
TheraminTrees 2 years ago
'exactly like a computer' ergo ' Someone clearly programmes this'
—Oh my goodness. Do you think this kind of childish reasoning passes for logic? So if I see a bird that looks like it's wearing a hat. that means that somewhere there's a divine milliner somewhere? Just because I think it resembles that phenomenon, which is familiar to me? You ever heard of anthropomorphism? Projection?
TheraminTrees 2 years ago
The problem with your analogy is that you can examine the bird carefully to see if it is indeed wearing a hat. If it is wearing a hat...THEN you know someone MADE that hat. As long as you fail to address the premises of what is falsifiable and open for falsification...you will not see the clear error in your logic. You can falsify that IF-THEN programming can emerge
without intelligence and prove us all wrong...
we won't be holding our breath
Breckmin 2 years ago
'The problem with your analogy is ....'
—Nope — it's actually the reverse. I'm making the very point that we CAN look at the bird to see if it's wearing a hat — and that's, by analogy, the very thing you refuse to do with the phenomena you mention: examine the phenomena you mention for EVIDENCE. By analogy you insist, because it looks like a hat to you, it must be evidence of a hat-maker. You've already ruled out natural processes. The analogy is very sound.
TheraminTrees 2 years ago
The difference is we can take the hat off..pass it around and see the stitches and the material and how it is clearly a hat. Your analogy attempt to interject "possibility" of something "natural" that is clearly known to be programmed...just like we know hats are made by hat makers. Your analogy would only apply to design, anyway...NOT mathematical programming.
Breckmin 2 years ago
De ja vu — I said the VERY POINT is *we can examine the hat*. You're now *demonstrating* that you're not listening — by explaining back to me that 'we can examine the hat'. Since the analogy is clearly beyond your grasp, we'll stick to literal. There is no 'clearly known to be programmed' — programmed implies intelligence/intention, and, in over a week, you've failed to provide evidence of either. You're completely stuck in presupposition limbo. It's quite something to witness.
TheraminTrees 2 years ago
Well then please enlighten us as to how an IF-THEN algorithm is not programmed.
Based on our uniform and repeated experience with IF-THEN algorithms we know that these DO come from Intelligence.
Observation of Information (that needs a Source), complex mechanical "working" systems (that don't arise without Intelligence) and IF-THEN algorithms is NOT a presupposition. It is scientific observation which leads to you to CLEAR conclusion of Intelligence(unless you have a limited definition for sc
Breckmin 2 years ago
Breckmin, you *continue* to fall into exactly the same trap as IDists — seeing parallels and metaphors and then asserting the metaphor is literal. IF-THEN occurs in some computer programming languages. Because you see parts of natural systems that have contingent aspects, depending on certain conditions being true, you then assert that that's IF-THEN *programming*. Paul Valery warns against the folly of mistaking metaphor for proof — a folly you flex with vigour.
TheraminTrees 2 years ago
Algorithms are NOT metaphors. The fact that an IF-THEN algorithm exists only requires HONESTY on the part of the person engaged in scientific observation.
The algorithm is LITERAL. It is actual. It exists. The fact that you can not explain it without Intelligence exists also...as basic common sense. It is NOT an appeal to ignorance unless you have limited definitions which exclude theistic implication. As long as you continue to limit your view of science...you will not be searching for t
Breckmin 2 years ago
Unfortunately insinuations of dishonesty do not change your metaphor to reality. Contingency does not imply programming — it's plain and it's simple. You can say that it does until you're blue in the face, but if that's all your 'meaty' arguments amounted to, go joined the IDists: they welcome that circular stuff. And whaddyaknow — you didn't present anything new after all your bold claims of 'clear' evidence.
TheraminTrees 2 years ago
"Contingency does not imply programming "
Why are you calling an algorithm contingency? It is not a metophor. You are confusing design with information and algorithms. it's plain and it's simple,"
There is nothing circular about observaton.
As far as more evidence....I am more than happy to go through fine tuning and other evidences for a Creator. Right now we are just on the first point of IF-THEN algorithms...and what are they evidence of....
Breckmin 2 years ago
'Why are you calling an algorithm contingency?'
—Algorithms are *about* contingency — ie, one outcome being contingent upon a certain condition, or go to another outcome if the condition isn't present.
'As far as more evidence'
—Nope — not 'more', because you haven't presented any. Your single 'argument' — and it can hardly be called that — is 'programming is stuff that looks like programming'. And that's the fruit of *seven days*. Time's up — you've had seven days and wasted it.
TheraminTrees 2 years ago
There are so many different sorts of win in this video.
Another sooper-dooper vid by TheraminTrees.
karadan100 2 years ago
"5. It is utterly ridiculous to accuse the Creator of "refusing to provide evidence for His Existence" when your own existence itself exposes the CLEAR need for a Creator."
You're gonna have to explain this to me, because I don't see it. How is that evidence for a creator. It doesn't seem obvious to me at all.
ScttDynamite220 2 years ago
If you believe that everything around you in our universe began to exist without intelligence or without a first cause that was implemented by something or Someone, then we will suppose possiblity rather than practicality. You
can convince yourself that abiogenesis could have occured...and that information can be increased in the genome via natural selection, etc. and end up in a
belief structure of universal common descent theory. If you believe that chimpanzees and human beings have
a
Breckmin 2 years ago
Yes, because your assumption that magic invisible man in the sky wished it all into being out of thin air (from nothing) is far more plausible.
BiggestOfDaddies 2 years ago
As long as you present it incorrectly - you are not only building a strawman, but you are also never going to understand the valid arguments and why they are valid.
Besides, I don't believe in creation ex nihilo and there is a move toward the understanding that "nothing comes from nothing."
1. no invisible man in the sky
2. no wishing
3. not necessarily (from nothing)
Breckmin 2 years ago
"nothing comes from nothing" seems pretty obvious.
If you're not a creationist, you certainly seem to advocate creation. Your very argument, from what I read was all about "designer" influence, which speaks to the very heart of Creationism. Either way, if you believe in/follow the bible it clearly says that God (magic man in the sky) spoke everything into existence (incantations = magic). So I fail to see how I misrepresented anything. I just call 'em like I seem 'em.
BiggestOfDaddies 2 years ago
I am a Creationist...and I do not hide behind "I.D."
I also believe in the Tanakh and the testimonies of the early Christian writers.
What you are misrepresenting is first "God, the Creator" Himself by calling Him a mere "invisible man in the sky."
To do this is to misrepresent a Holy and Infinite Creator as a mere finite being in the sky somewhere. This misconception leads to other false analogies...such as
tea pots in orbit, invisible dragons in your
garage, flying spaghetti monsters
Breckmin 2 years ago
common ancestor, THEN you could suppose this....but step back and look at the CLEAR difference in behavior and dominion from panina and Homo sapiens. Christians who are in close fellowship with the Creator know that God gave us creatures like apes to fully demonstrate that we are created in the Image of God..quite different than other animals. To us it is MORE than obvious,, it is basic common sense...but how you get to common sense starts with solid foundational assumptions. It is not so simp
Breckmin 2 years ago
I deny the idea of 'christians who are in close fellowship with the creator'. There are only christians who claim fellowship with the creator — and that group is as diverse as it gets, believing in all kinds of hate and violence and vengeance and murder, etc., among those who happen to believe in love, honesty, etc..
TheraminTrees 2 years ago
You can not appeal to hypocrisy as a means of justifying the logic that human beings are QUITE different than animals.
Besides, I know of no one in "that group" who "believes" in hate, violence, vengance or murder. In fact, they stand very much against the murder certain babies in certain locations.
Breckmin 2 years ago
"human beings are QUITE different than animals."
Human beings ARE animals. Racoons and Buffalo are animals also, but they're very different from each other, so to what extent are you trying to distinguish us from the rest of the animal kingdom? If you narrow it down, human beings are primates specifically. We share all the traits of primates, making us still part of the ape family. For the same reason that all ducks are birds, but not all birds are ducks..humans are apes..aka animals.
BiggestOfDaddies 2 years ago
"so to what extent are you trying to distinguish us from the rest of the animal kingdom?"
Human consciousness. Self-awareness to the degree to contemplate your own existence. Artistic expression..mathematical ability and the ability to understand the concept of infinity and eternity... there are several things which point to the fact that we are different from all other animals. We are uniquely created in God's Conscious Image
Breckmin 2 years ago
Those all derive from intellect, which humans clearly have more of than any other animal on the planet. However, mathematical understanding has been demonstrated in birds, let alone in other primates. Chimpanzees have been taught to fly planes for crying out loud. Artistic expression is completely subjective anyway. One man's art is another's trash, chimps appreciate beauty in their own way. What's beautiful to them would not be to us, and vice versa.
BiggestOfDaddies 2 years ago
I don't think we are created in God's conscious image. If so, tell me, what does god need with reproductive organs, or a heart, or a stomach? Does god require a nutritional diet of some kind? Does god have kidneys that need constant emptying? Is god limited to two eyes, while simultaneously claiming to be able to see all, all the time, everywhere? To what extent of humanity is God limited to, that he felt to give us all of his traits, that limit us so perversely in this world?
BiggestOfDaddies 2 years ago
The Creator does not have a physical body, except for when He became a Man and was born to Mary and His Name was Jesus. Jesus' body is the only body which
God was Incarnate. God the Father has NO body the way in which you just described...
Unless you believe in heretical Mormonism.
Breckmin 2 years ago
@Breckmin Then explain this absurdity of human kind being created in 'his image". If he has no "image", then what the hell is it talking about? I guarantee you, the people who taught me that phrase, and who taught them that phrase, were referring, contextually, to the believed physical traits of God. I'll refer you to Michelangelo's mural of God creating Adam in the Sistine Chapel as just one example. So please, explain to me how that's suddenly not the case anymore?
BiggestOfDaddies 2 years ago
Michelangelo's painting is just anthropomorphic...it is not a basis for any theological understanding of God. We are NOT created in God's physical Image because God is not physical. We say we are created in God's "conscious" Image because we are referring to the "human consciousness" and our ability to create thoughtful art, understand mathematical complexities and contemplate our existence with expressive and detailed communication. There are even more examples of things which separate us f
Breckmin 2 years ago
@Breckmin I know what the painting IS....what I'm telling you is that these people, after having read the bible, believed that God had human traits after reading, IN THE BIBLE, that man was created "in his image". For centuries, this was the context in which these words were placed by ALL believers. This stuff separating "conscious" from "physical" is brand all brand new in order to dance around these very kinds of query. You don't get to change the rules just cause you don't have a real answer.
BiggestOfDaddies 2 years ago
If you read Philo of Alexandria..and specifically "De Opificio Mundi" you will see that the rules have not changed. Being created in God's Image does NOT mean God somehow has a body...this is foolishness. How can God create matter if He is somehow made up of matter. It is non-sequitur and the Jews and early Christians never believed this. Read Philo.
Breckmin 2 years ago
@Breckmin So the modern day believers are not jumping on the bandwagon with the beliefs of people they most likely referred to absurd in the time that Philo had originally written it. Philo was at least smart enough to realize the gap in believing that God had human traits, and decided to write it down, but the church wanted nothing to do with such ridiculousness. It is only now that the believers have started to realize their futility, so now you adopt the next best thing. Typical.
BiggestOfDaddies 2 years ago
In God's Image:
1. Being eternal. We have an eternal spiritual existence that will either be in fellowship with God or eternally disfellowshiped, disowned and punished
perfectly for exact offenses. This is spiritual death and it is multi-faceted...you can not isolate on "torture" or you will miss the reason for connected premises.
2. Mathematical ability and understanding
the concept of infinity and how to use it as a determiner.
3. Artistic ability. Animals that paint NEVER have any
Breckmin 2 years ago
@Breckmin
1. Evidence man....evidence. This is presupposed drivel that can only begin to be true if God exists in the first place, of which there is also no evidence. And who said anything about "torture"?
2. again, not a concept native to just humans. Many species have demonstrated understanding of mathematics
3. see my other posts to you
You keep bringing up the same tired arguments even though they continue to be refuted as unsubstantial and irrelevant. Why?
BiggestOfDaddies 2 years ago
Many species have demonstrated understanding of mathematics
using mathematics to count (btw, you are substantiating that mathematics exists with animals apart from humans - SO that would mean that humans did NOT invent mathematics - I agree with you).
your young is not the same thing as an
understanding of functions, equations or an application of mathematics that goes beyond counting. What animals have been shown to understand anything above and "identity level?"
Breckmin 2 years ago
@Breckmin Birds have demonstrated understanding of concepts like zero, which is a concept that's still relatively new to us. There was one particular that I read about where they would bring a tray out that had nothing on it, and say "how many trucks?" The bird would reply, "none". Among other interactions having to do with quantity of arbitrary objects that also made them distinguish shape and color as well. So what you're saying is simply not true, and these concepts aren't exclusive to us.
BiggestOfDaddies 2 years ago
The bird would reply, "none".
So they have birds speaking English now.
I wonder why this find didn't get very much press.
Breckmin 2 years ago
Wow, what a completely dishonest answer. Just scoff and the point will go away, is that it? This bird was a big deal, and it did get lots of press. In fact it even made the news when he died. That you weren't paying attention is irrelevant. This was an African Gray Bird named Alex. You can look him up, he's easy to find. There are articles all over talking about the cognitive thought process of animals like him being far more advanced than people like you have always thought. Just look him up.
BiggestOfDaddies 2 years ago
Please note that I said below "Sort of like a parrot
actually TALKING instead of just repeating
sounds that it has learned to piece together."
I've just looked at several videos from Alex the parrot and all it does is remind me of the same nonsense we went through with Cocoa the gorilla. When you take a parrot and teach it hundreds of sounds the fact that it can make a correct association with the constant interaction with a TRAINER...does NOT mean the bird understands the concepts of mult
Breckmin 2 years ago
The more I see of this bird the more that it reminds me of how people systematically deceive themselves to believe an illusion of meaningful conversation rather than a basic instinctive response like we see between other animals. If this is your assertion for evidence that a bird understands mathematics then I am not
certain anything will bring you back to pragmatism. Parrots can repeat sounds
and often their timing is great. Clearly Alex was an exceptional bird...but it is illogical to mak
Breckmin 2 years ago
Dude...the experiments they're doing is not about "having a conversation" with birds. It was about understanding and exposing cognitive brain function far more advanced than people had originally thought, in animals with walnut size brains. These are controlled tests, that are constantly repeated. It's about the bird being able to identify shape, color, and quantity, among other things. All of which we had thought were exclusive to humans. This bird, and others like it, prove that it's not.
BiggestOfDaddies 2 years ago
I should have known a parrot would bite me on this one...but it is an EXCELLENT example of invalid induction. The same type of induction that takes the processes by which God uses to create variety in species (common descent with modification, survival of the fittest, mutation) and induces it to conclude universal common descent is the same exact type of induction of taking a parrot who can say sounds and syllables it has been taught and induce it to birds actually carrying on meaningful conver
Breckmin 2 years ago
there are a few more points...but I am hoping you got the picture that I painted. And elephant or a gorilla could not paint
the picture I painted intellectually.
Breckmin 2 years ago
@Breckmin Of course the gorilla can't pain the same painting either of us could (or could it). I've seen abstract "art" that could easily have been painted by a gorilla, but I digress. Just because they lack the motor function to produce the same kind of "art" doesn't mean they don't appreciate their own concepts of beauty with the same vigor as we do ours.
Again, mathematical concepts (like zero) have been demonstrated in a number of lower life, so these concepts are not native to just us.
BiggestOfDaddies 2 years ago
@Breckmin I've actually seen video of an elephant painting a picture on canvas of an elephant
BiggestOfDaddies 2 years ago
I've taken my kids to the circus many times.
It is a complete joke. The elephant has not concept of art. My kids even say "that's not paining!" If they are smart
enough to figure it out...I would think the rest of us (without invalid assumptions of shared common ancestry) would easily see the difference.
These animals have no clue what they
are doing..they just want the food right
afterwards and most people admit this.
(not an argumentum ad populum because it is not part of the argu
Breckmin 2 years ago
Absolute ridiculousness. Your assertion that animals have no appreciation of beauty (art) is complete rubbish, and only your opinion. Just because it's not the same as yours doesn't mean it's non-existent. And the fact that elephants are self-aware enough to not only understand the shape of themselves, but then are able to duplicate it, speaks precisely against your assertions that they have no concept of these concepts, regardless of their "motivations" for a peanut.
BiggestOfDaddies 2 years ago
But please don't ever expect an elephant or a dolphin to be communicating with you on the internet some day.
Such an assertion is "absolute ridiculousness." Sort of like a parrot
actually TALKING instead of just repeating
sounds that it has learned to piece together.
Breckmin 2 years ago
@Breckmin "The Creator does not have a physical body, except for when He became a Man..."
This is completely inconsistent with what the bible actually says. By this, I'm referring to points in the bible where Jesus lifts his head to the sky and speaks to God (himself). He even bellows as to why God has forsaken him. And while I'm on the subject, what is this magical power in the spilling of blood and the death of a complete stranger is supposed to redeem me for my "original" sin, that wasn't?
BiggestOfDaddies 2 years ago
This video montage is absolutely devastating to the beliefs of theists. I see from the comments section that their willful stupidity is not penetrated by this excellent evidence.
LordSlag 2 years ago
5. It is utterly ridiculous to accuse the Creator of "refusing to provide evidence for His Existence" when your own existence itself exposes the CLEAR need for a Creator. It is like creating a definition for examination which elimates the logical answer and then claiming that everything that doesn't comply with your definitions are an appeal to ignorance,
The only reason it is an appeal to ignorance in your mind, or an argument to the negative is because you eliminated the correct answer as a
Breckmin 2 years ago
I love christians, kinda like the way I liked Bush...
junkrocker 2 years ago