Religion. You just got your ass handed to you in a brilliant moment of exquisite shame. There are no gods, no hell, no heaven. No gods is a fact because there is zero peer reviewed, demonstrable empirical scientific evidence to prove gods exist. We are done.
@stickybelvedere as it happens I've eaten a collective 52 grams of psilocybin mushrooms and I've enjoyed many on the list of "entheogens" yet at the same time I am and have been what you might call an atheist. You're confusing a wonderful and numinous introspective experience with an infantile need to attribute the ineffable to something "higher" than human. In effect you're calling yourself god or your perceptions "higher" based on a subjective human experience. Sigmund Freud > Terence Mckenna
@stickybelvedere I was a few words short of saying something as I meant it. Allow me to rephrase: In effect you're calling yourself a god or your perceptions "higher" based on your awestruck inability to readily explain a subjective human experience. Your comment is the definition of solipsism, and you'd be better off examining real literature on psychology or psycho analysis rather than confiding in the mystics. Because at this point you're sharing the stage with rain dancing and black magic.
I'm not necessarily saying that the entheogenic experience is "higher" than humans. But it CERTAINLY reveals that there is much more than we are capable of understanding collectively.
So when i see people like the guy in this video, who seem certain that their view of reality is more valid than other people's views of reality, it makes me wonder about them.
@stickybelvedere As it happens, "solipsism" is dictionarydotcom's second most popular search today so I'll use their definition. Taken from their page, solipsism is considered to "be extreme preoccupation with and indulgence of one's feelings, desires, etc.; egoistic self-absorption." If you hold a mushroom trip as evidence of the existence of something "higher", then surely this is an indulgence of your own self absorbed feelings.
Why do you think, that a human mind can have any insights into the architecture of the universe? Why do you think, that anything has to be c r e a t e d? Why can't things just h a p p e n or e m e r g e or whatever? Is it because you can create something? Isn't that an egocentric point of view? Or, to say it in the words of Terry Prattchett: "It's very hard to talk quantum using a language originally designed to tell other monkeys where the ripe fruit is."
Both creationists as well as atheists need to treat one another with respect. How can one say to the other that his beliefs are uneducated when his own beliefs hold similar flaws or gaps that can not yet be known?
@Winderman1400, Occam's Razor proves creation. All logic brings evolution down to only two choices: 1. All things were created by God. 2. All things were created by nothing. Since all the laws of science prove #2 to be pure insanity that only leaves you with #1. God created all things. Nothing is unable to create even the smallest particle of anything.
Nothing can't even create a vacuum. That's because a vacuum must be contained by something.
@MaximusArurealius Don't get me wrong, i'm a creationist as well. There's just such a huge amount of disrespect that goes on in the creationism vs atheism discussions. There's no reason to insult the intelligence of another person when clearly both theories are so similar.
The atheist says the universe is supernatural (beyond our comprehension at this point)
@Winderman1400 I'm an atheist and I don't think that the universe is supernatural. One thing about supernatural things is that we don't really know if they're real or not. We do know that the universe is real, why would it be supernatural?
Sure it has more unknowns than knowns, but we do discover them scientifically step by step, while the only thing we know about any god is what has been written when the religion was founded and what has been written since.
@darksaiyan2006 I am an agnostic, I wouldn't be so arrogant as the guy in the video here. I wouldn't say though that all atheists are arrogant. The Universe may be natural, the entity that created it probably some 14 billion years ago would have have to be supernatural. Whatever it was it was outside or beyond the natural universe, or supernatural if you like. You could also believe that the universe came out of nothing, I choose not to do that.
@gpguy2 The guy is a comedian, comedians make jokes. You are either a theist or you are not. You either believe in a God or multiple Gods or you do not. Whether or not something can or cannot be proven has nothing to do with it.
@gpguy2 Seems like u have already presumed that there was an 'entity',and it caused the universe, but thet truth is no-one really knows the real cause. But an intelligence is the LEAST likely scenario imo.Whatever caused that event may well be 'outside' or 'beyond' THIS universe, but i would call it 'Extra-Universal' rather than 'Supernatural'. Also how can u 'choose' not to believe something, what if it were proven that the Uni did come from nothing,can u still choose to disbelieve it?
@Winderman1400 atheist don't say the universe is supernatural... scientifics do not believe in supernatural events or forces because we have never seen it. There might have been strange events we still cannot explain, but we can now explain many things that were once thought as "supernatural". You get it all wrong when you say that atheists think the universe is supernatural.
@razioth Well, as I said before, I don't necessarily define supernatural as "magic" or "miraculous". Just merely something we couldn't comprehend yet. Scientists still don't understand the universe fully.
But the main difference between science and religion is that science doesn't claim to have an answer to EVERYTHING, but it does try to find it by logic, reasoning and experiments.
Whereas religion often refer to a miracle or divine intervention
'Peer reviewed' means write a paper, give it to a couple of people that think the same way you do on a subject, and have them OK it for publishing. You're naive if you think it works any other way. BTW climategate wasn't anything that we didn't already know about peer review. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
@MaximusArurealius You are hilarious. Please keep it up. Im sure Christians are very proud of intelligence and integrity you represented them as having. Bravo Maximus.
I just love how you people give yourselves away with "peer review." Those who succumb to peer pressure or who use it as a tool to suppress ideas are always referring to it without realizing that it means absolutely nothing. It's a logical fallacy at best. Take your choice, appeal to authority or ad populum, etc. Climategate has completely PWNED peer review.
@Mogley52 No offence but you talk the biggest pile of crap out. The best is that you profess that it is your own crap. You even go so far as to say you give lectures and that university faculty are unable to refute your claims. All I can say is bullshit and of course liar, liar pants on fire!
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
GOD, HEAVEN, AND SEX: Internet article examines the Biblical possibility of sex in heaven. Human sexuality isn't just for reproduction. There are reasons the Bible requires marriage for sex on earth, but those reasons won't exist in heaven. Scripture teaches, in heaven, we'll be like the angels only in one sense - no marriage, but we won't be like angels in every other way (i.e. Bible says we'll enjoy food and drink). Psalm 16:11 says there will be great spiritual joy and pleasures in heaven.
@Mogley52 Dude, all you're doing is copying and pasting from an entire Creationist article. Stop copy-pasting and use your own mind. Every single statement you have posted has been refuted and debunked time and time again. Check out the Skeptic's Dictionary (skepdic dot com).
@Mogley52 if any of what you're saying is true then publish a paper in a scientific journal refuting evolution. Not only will you go down as the most influential scientist of our generation, but you will also get about a million dollars. This way you wont have to argue about it on youtube; all honest people will people you. There is only one catch: what you are saying has to be true. If its not, stfu.
This is what happens every time some scientist begins having doubts about evolution. His colleagues call him a creationist & ban him forever. No Nobel Prize. They cannot deal with the questions and calling him "creationist" is a perfect ad hominem. They no longer have to give him any credence. Calling him a creationist means in their minds he doesn't use science he uses the Bible even if he doesn't. The fact that they pull this shit proves that they really don't have a leg to stand on.
@MaximusArurealius That's not true in the slightest. Many scientist look at evolution critically, but they go about it the right way. Creationist misrepresent evo to make it look like it has holes that it doesnt; they avoid putting their ideas through the gauntlet of the sci method and go straight to their flock and misrepresent evo. The oppurtunity to prove a point is available to anyone- Including you. You dont need a popular vote. Publish a paper and we will all listen. And STOP WHINING.
@southstar99 Oh they look at it in the "right" way? Which way am I supposed to look at dinos turning into birds, wolf-like creatures turning into whales, and monkeys turning into men? DO I need to publish a paper to see through bullshit? Do you do a paper for the Snake Oil salesman at your door? HAR HAR HAR HAR
It's pure phony bullshit. Nobody needs a fucking paper you idiot.
@MaximusArurealius The fact that Christians continually lie and misrepresent evolution prove that THEY dont have a leg to stand on. Why does the discovery institute put out bogus list of scientist that support creationism? Why did creationist lie at the Dover trials after swearing on the bible? Why do creationist always spread things about evolution that are clearly not true? Why dont they educate themselves? Some have and they know they dont have a leg to stand on so they lie. FACT.
@southstar99 Christians lie and misrepresent? About what asshole? About Piltdown man, Java man, Nebraska man, Neanderthal man, Peking man, Archeopteryx, Archaeoraptor, Lucy, dinos turning into birds, Frankenstein experiments, failed germ and fly experiments, failed Abiogenesis experiments, monkeys turning into men, and the phony Phylogenetic Tree of Life? They don't need to lie about anything Mr Dipshit.
@MaximusArurealius By your response its clear that you're either twelve years old, or you know your full of it. For the record I said "go about it the right way" not "look at it the right way". Until creationist step up to the plate and publish papers in peer reviewed journals, they wont get any respect from the scientific community. Why dont they publish papers? They are full of it.
@southstar99 But hey please keep it up. I love when creationist talk because it opens peoples eyes to the bullshit that Christianity and creationism really is. You and other creationist are hurting your cause by being dishonest and ridiculous. Nobody believes that wolf-like creatures turned into whales or that monkeys turned into man. Go read a book other than the bible or stfu.
@southstar99 "Nobody believes that wolf-like creatures turned into whales or that monkeys turned into man" YOU DO and that's what your theory is all about. Without that shit you have NOTHING.
@southstar99 "By your response its clear that you're either twelve years old" Oh wow, you really got me! But how's it feel to get your ass kicked by a 12 year old? "Until creationist... publish papers in peer reviewed journals, they wont get any respect... blah blah blah" Oh bullshit. Climategate has proven peer review to be just what we already knew. It's just a good ole boy system of patting each other on the back.
@MaximusArurealius When you ask "what about asshole?"... read my comment again... i list about 4 things... of course you dont have a response to any of it. Do you?
@southstar99 "read my comment again... i list about 4 things" All you listed was a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions (i.e., made up bullshit with no proof). Everything I listed is true. ]
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
WHAT ABOUT THE STARS? Gravity explains how the order found in the precise courses of trillions of stars is maintained, but gravity can't explain the origin of that order! Did all the trillions stars agree to get out of each others way? C'mon! Disorder in the universe is because of chance, but the order is because of design. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
NATURAL LAWS CAN EXPLAIN how an airplane works or how a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot explain the origin of either. What about natural selection? Natural selection doesn't produce anything. It only "selects" from what is produced and it only operates once there is life, not before. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, then that species survives (is "selected"). That's all it is! Don't worship it! Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
THOSE SCIENTISTS WHO SAY we're here by chance and macro-evolution, are expressing faith not science (science is based on what is observed). Creationists also are expressing faith. The issue is which faith is better supported by science. Science, so far, shows life can't happen by chance and only limited evolution is possible in life. Read my popular Internet articles HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM and WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
I'VE GIVEN LECTURES defending scientific creationism before science faculty and students at various secular colleges. At the end, I opened up for comments, questions, rebuttals. Very few of the evolutionist science faculty criticized what I had to say, and, when they did, I successfully refuted them. They knew enough science to realize that what I was saying was true. Dawkins is playing on the scientific ignorance of the masses! Read my Internet article in Pravda: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read my popular Internet articles: ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM, ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE!
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select" from traits having survival value. It doesn't produce those traits. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article that examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of both transitional forms and lack of sequence of the fossil layers. Discusses mixed species in fossils (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum conveniently ignored by evolutionists).
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
@neo001x I dont know if this is true, but I've heard there is this thing on the internet, .. i think it's called "google".. from what i hear, you simply type in a persons name into "google", .. and almost as soon as you've typed it in, a whole list of information regarding that person comes up on the screen.
@Atheisophy Considering I'm stationed in England, I actually don't see a lot of American shows. But I do love Dr. Who, Robin Hood, and a few other British Sci-Fi shows. And the only reason why I even said Monty Python is because more times than not, my girlfriend is watching it when I get home from work.
@Atheisophy The majority of British shows my girl watches is the British The Office and Monty Python. When I say humor, I mean Colbert and Stewart. That's funny. Believe me, I don't like Will Farrel, Steve Correl, or any of those shit actors. I'm more into Adam Sandler and some Jim Carrey. I know how stupid American humor can be.
@Daracon75 They are not 'baseless'. They are assumed, based on observation, experiment, and predictions shown to be correct. A statement or postion in not incorrect just because you lack the skill to understand it. As an example, take this statement: ' .., [C]ows are really carnivores.'. You may think that statement to be obviously incorrect, but you would be mistaken. It' all based on how much you know and understand about the world around you.
@yeshuahfullofit Of course they're not based on observation. The supposed events they're referring to according to them, occurred in the past, and were observed by no living human... nor can the supposed events be repeated. It's not science in the slightest. The scientific method cannot be applied to it in any way whatsoever.
@Daracon75 We 'observered' that amino acids exist in space. We 'observed that comets brought amino acids to Earth. We 'observed' that amino acids are instrumental in how our life was formed. You draw the 'scientific' conclusion from those 'observed' facts. Make an 'assumption'.
@Daracon75 In my hot, sweaty, crotch. Every Mon., Wed., and Fri. after my three hour workouts.. If I don't spray it down with massive amounts of man-made chemical protectants......SCREECH!! OH!! THE HORROR!! ... I may get 'abiogenesis' happening, dude. Sniff that! ; )
@Daracon75 Oh so you've observed that a magical bipedal hairless ape of the homo genus created life, have you? Were you around to witness this event for which there is no physical evidence of any kind other than a 2000 year old book written by primitive humans and then translated so many times that even the elaborate falsehood itself has lost all meaning?
@Daracon75 Or, decide that we can 'know' nothing except for what we witness now, before our eyes. I believe a meteor hit Arizona, resulting in a huge crater. You, nor I, were there to see it. The evidence is there, one only needs to make the 'assumption'. Do you deny that a meteor hit there upon that basis? You clearly see the fallacy of your 'reasoning'. Let it go. Defending an Iron Age/Bronze Age myth will only lead you to shame.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". In a few thousand years a hairless monkey became able to view planets across light years of space. The universe is billions of years old, and infinitely huge - what are the odds that there are a few 'magic men and women' who may be able to influence events. Is that scientific logic, and sound math ?
The creationist isn't Human anymore. It is a fine example of devolution by choice. A failed fallen lowbrow version of bipedal hominid. An embarrassing farcical dipshit that, to become a creationist, has handed away the very trait that used to make them human. Logic. Its a fact that you cannot be both Human and religious at the same moment. You must choose one side or the other. We must cleanse Earth of this filth, this vermin until only the Humans are left and we can live in peace.
@withnail555 I think you've clearly illustrated the fact that you're completely unfamiliar with how stupid creationists are. Or you are one, and have taken offense.
I haven't heard a more lucid definition of "Intelligent Design".
Any time I don't understand something, like why people voted for George W Bush TWICE or why Fermat's Last Theorem is true or why the British royal family is German, I'll just say "A magic man done it."
@PktMma I can see you're from the netherlands. It would be hard for you to get, british stand ups like Robin Ince is very difficult to observe if you aren't British.
Christians can't disprove fairies and gravity is just a theory. But one thing is for sure, superstitious people are sheep and more easy to control, they're so dumb they'll believe giving money to the wealthy will reward them someday, just like giving money to support million dollar cathedrals, vineyards and jet planes for their Evangelical "Holy" man will insure them a ticket into heaven.
And I just wanted to add, like many others have, the point of contention regarding the debate on the existence of one or more deities (I'm going to be lazy and forgo explicitly defining what is meant by "deity" for the sake of the character limit) isn't that they do or do not exist, but rather that it is currently not explicitly proven either way, and that in the absence of credible evidence, the onus of proof is on those who are making the claim of existence.
It still amazes and disappoints me that certain people are unable to come to terms with the fact that we (humanity) do not have an answer to every question. If approached by an issue of which you know very little, isn't it more humbling and rewarding to say "I don't know." then seek out an explanation via rational inquiry?
Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source ... They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres
that everything we see around us, from all the forces to our emotions, are just created in a moment not so long ago by something(god?) that constructed all the property's of the universe we can observe now. There is no back tracking needed to explain why we are here.
Its not that i have thought about this for more than 5 minits, and its late in the evening. Maybe the next morning i will laugh about my comment when i see its totally ridicioulus. please tell me if you think im an idiot thanks!
I personally prefer science becuase I am not raised whit an religion. But on the other half I love one particular aspect of creationism(correct me if its not creationism). Sience is very much about evolution. When you've got the idea of evolution you can backtrack the whole timeline to the beginning of the 'universe'. But the genius thing about creationism is that you dont have the haslle of back tracking an timeline if you just say....(beeing continiued next message)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Robin Ince isn't funny, infact he's an absolute cunt, I remember when this guy was on some talk show not on the panel but pretending to be a concerned member of the general public ranting about how badly muslims are being treated. And at the same time he says he hates religion...... just another lefty liberal cunt.
@GodwinCarpenter I think he would like that, coming from a BNP supporting lunatic who believes Jews were responsible for 9/11. I can't even be bothered to insult you.
@GodwinCarpenter Awwwwww cute... You know you can hate religion and still be appalled by how a group of people are being treated? Or is that somehow unfathomable in that tiny narrow-mind of yours? What I find funny is you brand him a "liberal lefty cunt" as if you're opinion is somehow a massive bombshell if you don't like the guy wtf are you doing commenting on one of his videos? Nobody has forced you here so please stfu and stop spouting your opinion as if its the only one that matters.
@LazySquirell There are many tiny narrow minds here and mine isn't one of them. I know it's in vouge to go against the grain but seriously mate, don't you think that YOUR opinion doesn't matter because you basically just follow government guide lines on what you are allowed to think and say.
@GodwinCarpenter Yep I completely follow what the government guide lines on what I'm allowed to think and say... Okay back to reality for a second I hope you'll indulge me with an answer to this, If you don't like or agree with Robin Ince and you're not a fan of his why are you here? Yours and many others opinions do matter but that doesn't mean I can't challenge it with my own opinion and I'll be damned the day I'm told my I cant challenge others opinions.
Yeh, i agree mait we shuld get hold of thees treehugging do gooders and cut off all of there balls and maik them eat it. fucking liberals maik me so ANGRY CUUUUNTTTTTSSSS!!!!!!!!!!
Damn, I cannot leave it be! The guy in the video says the universe is "16 billion years old" but we know now that it is 13.7 billion years old and that is final. It is not a minor detail to be off by several billion years, you know.: )
Magic Spaghetti Man in the Sky DUN IT ALL, he made animals out of clay and then shot lightning bolts from his finger tips and the animal said "hello". If you don't believe this you will burn in hell for eternity you demon-cunt!!!
man, you're right. please go teach creationism and 6000 years theory in your school. science is a scam. evolution is a scam. only Bible and Christianity can save you.
leave science, biology and nature to the heathen nation like EU and China, you don't need science, do you?
please, as an Asian, as a non-American, i would really love to see you guys go discard evolution, biology( yup, evolution is biology, constant change of cell level life ) and science. love it man!
This is from wiki: The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which an unskilled person makes poor decisions and reaches erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to realize their mistakes. The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their own ability as above average, much higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate their abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority.
@robhoneycutt Interesting. I guess on an epistemological level it'd be pretty difficult for me to make a water-tight case that I was the latter rather than the former; I can't ever rule out the possibility that I'm too stupid to recognise my own stupidity.
On the other hand some people are just obviously dumb - I find it difficult to imagine creationist halfwit Stephen Baldwin, for example, being able to get dressed by himself without sustaining some kind of injury.
One final point: if entropy can only increase and there can be no localised decreases, and if this therefore precludes the possibility of evolution taking place, then the same has to be true of every other reversal of entropic flow that we see around us - embryonic development doesn't exist; we don't develop from a foetus into a child; plants don't grow from seeds into their flowers or fruits, hurricanes and tornadoes are figments of our imagination and trees are impossible.
chuichupachichi - It never ceases to amaze me the number of scientifically ignorant laymen who are convinced they have discovered a contradiction in the laws of physics, and that the greatest minds of the last century and a half have all failed to spot what is so obvious to them.
I propose a new law- the Law Of Slow-witted Hubris: the more often a person says things like "you're not too bright, are you?", the more vacuous their own grasp of the subject tends to be.
@BullInTheHeather1 I think your law of slow-witted hubris has already been done. It's called the Dunning-Kruger Effect. (I think I like your name better, though.)
A Creation without a Creator, Laws of Nature without a law giver, natural selection without a selector - yeah that's really logical and intelligent Robin.
1. By calling the universe a "creation" you are begging the question.
2. Laws of nature are simply labels we give to observations of predictability within the universe, they are not real things and don't exist without observers.
3. You don't understand what natural selection is or how it works.
4. Science does not say the universe was created, you are misinformed.
@Jurassic56 who created the creator? How is it that this complex universe MUST have a creator to account for its existence, but the infinitely more complex creator can just stand by exempt from the very rules you used to invoke his necessity? In other words why doesn't the infinitely more complex creator Not need a creator of its own?
(cont.)...all you are saying is "I am arbitrarily changing the rules of logical discourse. Despite the fact that I observe the strictures of logic and reason in every other area of my life, when it comes to religion I reserve the right to make up the rules as I go along." Do not kid yourself that that amounts to a sensible answer. In any other situation you would dismiss such an argument out of hand.
...(cont.) If you were to ask your mechanic how he managed to mend your car and he replied "well, I'm a very, very good mechanic" I doubt you would consider this a satisfactory explanation for your car's regeneration. It isn't, in fact, an explanation at all. This is what your appeal to 'omnipotence' amounted to.
Wsewell12 - I congratulate you for at least attempting to answer the questions although I still haven't received a reply from a creationist. Nevertheless, the two questions I asked were constructed explicitly for the purpose of smoking out examples of theological evasiveness and you have kindly obliged me. As LanceDirk says, "omnipotence" is no kind of answer to the 1st question...(cont.)
This is terrible
dkabrt1 20 hours ago
Smug atheism isn't funny. Sorry.
alriooreo 2 days ago
@blackbeltste Oh, fair enough. But are you religious or atheist?
MrKelsomatic 2 weeks ago
Incredibly unfunny.
blackbeltste 3 weeks ago
@blackbeltste Well what makes you say that?
MrKelsomatic 2 weeks ago
@MrKelsomatic Well, it didn't make me laugh.
blackbeltste 2 weeks ago
Religion. You just got your ass handed to you in a brilliant moment of exquisite shame. There are no gods, no hell, no heaven. No gods is a fact because there is zero peer reviewed, demonstrable empirical scientific evidence to prove gods exist. We are done.
699backstab 4 weeks ago
Ok, thanks! Now "Magic Man" by Heart is stuck in my head!
sidDkid87 1 month ago
@sidDkid87 sick song
alriooreo 2 days ago
oooooooooooh robin
larryjlangan 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
eat 5g of mushrooms or learn to meditate and then try and tell me there is no "god" or higher consiousness.
stickybelvedere 2 months ago
@stickybelvedere as it happens I've eaten a collective 52 grams of psilocybin mushrooms and I've enjoyed many on the list of "entheogens" yet at the same time I am and have been what you might call an atheist. You're confusing a wonderful and numinous introspective experience with an infantile need to attribute the ineffable to something "higher" than human. In effect you're calling yourself god or your perceptions "higher" based on a subjective human experience. Sigmund Freud > Terence Mckenna
rypaz87 1 month ago
@stickybelvedere I was a few words short of saying something as I meant it. Allow me to rephrase: In effect you're calling yourself a god or your perceptions "higher" based on your awestruck inability to readily explain a subjective human experience. Your comment is the definition of solipsism, and you'd be better off examining real literature on psychology or psycho analysis rather than confiding in the mystics. Because at this point you're sharing the stage with rain dancing and black magic.
rypaz87 1 month ago
@rypaz87
Do you even know what solipsism means?
My comment certainly doesn't suggest that.
I'm not necessarily saying that the entheogenic experience is "higher" than humans. But it CERTAINLY reveals that there is much more than we are capable of understanding collectively.
So when i see people like the guy in this video, who seem certain that their view of reality is more valid than other people's views of reality, it makes me wonder about them.
stickybelvedere 1 month ago
@stickybelvedere As it happens, "solipsism" is dictionarydotcom's second most popular search today so I'll use their definition. Taken from their page, solipsism is considered to "be extreme preoccupation with and indulgence of one's feelings, desires, etc.; egoistic self-absorption." If you hold a mushroom trip as evidence of the existence of something "higher", then surely this is an indulgence of your own self absorbed feelings.
rypaz87 1 month ago
Why do you think, that a human mind can have any insights into the architecture of the universe? Why do you think, that anything has to be c r e a t e d? Why can't things just h a p p e n or e m e r g e or whatever? Is it because you can create something? Isn't that an egocentric point of view? Or, to say it in the words of Terry Prattchett: "It's very hard to talk quantum using a language originally designed to tell other monkeys where the ripe fruit is."
MrPRhodan 2 months ago
Both creationists as well as atheists need to treat one another with respect. How can one say to the other that his beliefs are uneducated when his own beliefs hold similar flaws or gaps that can not yet be known?
Winderman1400 2 months ago
@Winderman1400, Occam's Razor proves creation. All logic brings evolution down to only two choices: 1. All things were created by God. 2. All things were created by nothing. Since all the laws of science prove #2 to be pure insanity that only leaves you with #1. God created all things. Nothing is unable to create even the smallest particle of anything.
Nothing can't even create a vacuum. That's because a vacuum must be contained by something.
MaximusArurealius 2 months ago
@MaximusArurealius Don't get me wrong, i'm a creationist as well. There's just such a huge amount of disrespect that goes on in the creationism vs atheism discussions. There's no reason to insult the intelligence of another person when clearly both theories are so similar.
The atheist says the universe is supernatural (beyond our comprehension at this point)
The creationist says god is supernatural.
Not so different.
Winderman1400 2 months ago
@Winderman1400 They are not similar at all.
truvelocity 2 months ago
@Winderman1400 How is a talking snake who convinced a woman to eat a peace of fruit compete with evolution theory?
truvelocity 2 months ago
@truvelocity Cmon mannn, argue with respect. Also, I never said I was a christian.
Winderman1400 2 months ago
@Winderman1400 I'm an atheist and I don't think that the universe is supernatural. One thing about supernatural things is that we don't really know if they're real or not. We do know that the universe is real, why would it be supernatural?
Sure it has more unknowns than knowns, but we do discover them scientifically step by step, while the only thing we know about any god is what has been written when the religion was founded and what has been written since.
darksaiyan2006 2 months ago
@darksaiyan2006 I am an agnostic, I wouldn't be so arrogant as the guy in the video here. I wouldn't say though that all atheists are arrogant. The Universe may be natural, the entity that created it probably some 14 billion years ago would have have to be supernatural. Whatever it was it was outside or beyond the natural universe, or supernatural if you like. You could also believe that the universe came out of nothing, I choose not to do that.
gpguy2 2 months ago
@gpguy2 The guy is a comedian, comedians make jokes. You are either a theist or you are not. You either believe in a God or multiple Gods or you do not. Whether or not something can or cannot be proven has nothing to do with it.
GBXS 2 months ago
@gpguy2 Seems like u have already presumed that there was an 'entity',and it caused the universe, but thet truth is no-one really knows the real cause. But an intelligence is the LEAST likely scenario imo.Whatever caused that event may well be 'outside' or 'beyond' THIS universe, but i would call it 'Extra-Universal' rather than 'Supernatural'. Also how can u 'choose' not to believe something, what if it were proven that the Uni did come from nothing,can u still choose to disbelieve it?
rossini55 2 months ago
@Winderman1400 atheist don't say the universe is supernatural... scientifics do not believe in supernatural events or forces because we have never seen it. There might have been strange events we still cannot explain, but we can now explain many things that were once thought as "supernatural". You get it all wrong when you say that atheists think the universe is supernatural.
razioth 2 months ago
@razioth Well, as I said before, I don't necessarily define supernatural as "magic" or "miraculous". Just merely something we couldn't comprehend yet. Scientists still don't understand the universe fully.
Winderman1400 2 months ago
@Winderman1400 Oh well then I agree with you.
But the main difference between science and religion is that science doesn't claim to have an answer to EVERYTHING, but it does try to find it by logic, reasoning and experiments.
Whereas religion often refer to a miracle or divine intervention
razioth 2 months ago
The way I see it, I think the big bang is impossible. Things don't create themselves.
So we're really left with two logical answers:
A: The universe is infinite, never began, never will end.
or
B: The universe is beyond our comprehension at this point.
Many label the idea of a grand creator as completely fictitious, but essentially these would be the exact the attributes of such a being.
If such a being were to exist, it would have to be infinite, as well as beyond comprehension.
Winderman1400 2 months ago
magic bang done it?
Winderman1400 2 months ago
'Peer reviewed' means write a paper, give it to a couple of people that think the same way you do on a subject, and have them OK it for publishing. You're naive if you think it works any other way. BTW climategate wasn't anything that we didn't already know about peer review. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealius 2 months ago
@MaximusArurealius You are hilarious. Please keep it up. Im sure Christians are very proud of intelligence and integrity you represented them as having. Bravo Maximus.
southstar99 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@southstar99 HAR HAR HAR so you can't refute anything I say so all you have to come back with is "wah wah wah" That's not even a good try skippy.
PWNED
MaximusArurealius 2 months ago
PEER REVIEWS
I just love how you people give yourselves away with "peer review." Those who succumb to peer pressure or who use it as a tool to suppress ideas are always referring to it without realizing that it means absolutely nothing. It's a logical fallacy at best. Take your choice, appeal to authority or ad populum, etc. Climategate has completely PWNED peer review.
MaximusArurealius 2 months ago
Karl Pilkington hates this guy
Stillwater900 3 months ago
All true and very funny; but we must not forget to question the principles of science and the idea of science itself. BTW, I'm not a creationist.
ukedge87 3 months ago
@ukedge87 Use the semi colon in place of words like 'but', 'and', and 'then', not before them, this would require a comma.
tool2342 1 month ago
Little thumbs
weezilesq 4 months ago
What a load of shit.
jbeebus 4 months ago
@Mogley52 No offence but you talk the biggest pile of crap out. The best is that you profess that it is your own crap. You even go so far as to say you give lectures and that university faculty are unable to refute your claims. All I can say is bullshit and of course liar, liar pants on fire!
Realityprogramming 4 months ago
lol loved it!
CircusOfBedlam 4 months ago
lolfunny
pyrobryan 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GOD, HEAVEN, AND SEX: Internet article examines the Biblical possibility of sex in heaven. Human sexuality isn't just for reproduction. There are reasons the Bible requires marriage for sex on earth, but those reasons won't exist in heaven. Scripture teaches, in heaven, we'll be like the angels only in one sense - no marriage, but we won't be like angels in every other way (i.e. Bible says we'll enjoy food and drink). Psalm 16:11 says there will be great spiritual joy and pleasures in heaven.
Mogley52 5 months ago
@Mogley52 Dude, all you're doing is copying and pasting from an entire Creationist article. Stop copy-pasting and use your own mind. Every single statement you have posted has been refuted and debunked time and time again. Check out the Skeptic's Dictionary (skepdic dot com).
TerranRich 5 months ago
@Mogley52 if any of what you're saying is true then publish a paper in a scientific journal refuting evolution. Not only will you go down as the most influential scientist of our generation, but you will also get about a million dollars. This way you wont have to argue about it on youtube; all honest people will people you. There is only one catch: what you are saying has to be true. If its not, stfu.
southstar99 3 months ago
This is what happens every time some scientist begins having doubts about evolution. His colleagues call him a creationist & ban him forever. No Nobel Prize. They cannot deal with the questions and calling him "creationist" is a perfect ad hominem. They no longer have to give him any credence. Calling him a creationist means in their minds he doesn't use science he uses the Bible even if he doesn't. The fact that they pull this shit proves that they really don't have a leg to stand on.
MaximusArurealius 2 months ago
@MaximusArurealius That's not true in the slightest. Many scientist look at evolution critically, but they go about it the right way. Creationist misrepresent evo to make it look like it has holes that it doesnt; they avoid putting their ideas through the gauntlet of the sci method and go straight to their flock and misrepresent evo. The oppurtunity to prove a point is available to anyone- Including you. You dont need a popular vote. Publish a paper and we will all listen. And STOP WHINING.
southstar99 2 months ago
@southstar99 Oh they look at it in the "right" way? Which way am I supposed to look at dinos turning into birds, wolf-like creatures turning into whales, and monkeys turning into men? DO I need to publish a paper to see through bullshit? Do you do a paper for the Snake Oil salesman at your door? HAR HAR HAR HAR
It's pure phony bullshit. Nobody needs a fucking paper you idiot.
PWNED
MaximusArurealius 2 months ago
@MaximusArurealius The fact that Christians continually lie and misrepresent evolution prove that THEY dont have a leg to stand on. Why does the discovery institute put out bogus list of scientist that support creationism? Why did creationist lie at the Dover trials after swearing on the bible? Why do creationist always spread things about evolution that are clearly not true? Why dont they educate themselves? Some have and they know they dont have a leg to stand on so they lie. FACT.
southstar99 2 months ago
@southstar99 Christians lie and misrepresent? About what asshole? About Piltdown man, Java man, Nebraska man, Neanderthal man, Peking man, Archeopteryx, Archaeoraptor, Lucy, dinos turning into birds, Frankenstein experiments, failed germ and fly experiments, failed Abiogenesis experiments, monkeys turning into men, and the phony Phylogenetic Tree of Life? They don't need to lie about anything Mr Dipshit.
EPIC FAIL
MaximusArurealius 2 months ago
@MaximusArurealius By your response its clear that you're either twelve years old, or you know your full of it. For the record I said "go about it the right way" not "look at it the right way". Until creationist step up to the plate and publish papers in peer reviewed journals, they wont get any respect from the scientific community. Why dont they publish papers? They are full of it.
southstar99 2 months ago
@southstar99 But hey please keep it up. I love when creationist talk because it opens peoples eyes to the bullshit that Christianity and creationism really is. You and other creationist are hurting your cause by being dishonest and ridiculous. Nobody believes that wolf-like creatures turned into whales or that monkeys turned into man. Go read a book other than the bible or stfu.
southstar99 2 months ago
@southstar99 "Nobody believes that wolf-like creatures turned into whales or that monkeys turned into man" YOU DO and that's what your theory is all about. Without that shit you have NOTHING.
MaximusArurealius 2 months ago
@southstar99 "By your response its clear that you're either twelve years old" Oh wow, you really got me! But how's it feel to get your ass kicked by a 12 year old? "Until creationist... publish papers in peer reviewed journals, they wont get any respect... blah blah blah" Oh bullshit. Climategate has proven peer review to be just what we already knew. It's just a good ole boy system of patting each other on the back.
FAIL
MaximusArurealius 2 months ago
@MaximusArurealius When you ask "what about asshole?"... read my comment again... i list about 4 things... of course you dont have a response to any of it. Do you?
southstar99 2 months ago
@southstar99 "read my comment again... i list about 4 things" All you listed was a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions (i.e., made up bullshit with no proof). Everything I listed is true. ]
EPIC FAIL
MaximusArurealius 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 5 months ago
@Mogley52 You know shit...
Stevoukos 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT ABOUT THE STARS? Gravity explains how the order found in the precise courses of trillions of stars is maintained, but gravity can't explain the origin of that order! Did all the trillions stars agree to get out of each others way? C'mon! Disorder in the universe is because of chance, but the order is because of design. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LAWS CAN EXPLAIN how an airplane works or how a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot explain the origin of either. What about natural selection? Natural selection doesn't produce anything. It only "selects" from what is produced and it only operates once there is life, not before. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, then that species survives (is "selected"). That's all it is! Don't worship it! Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THOSE SCIENTISTS WHO SAY we're here by chance and macro-evolution, are expressing faith not science (science is based on what is observed). Creationists also are expressing faith. The issue is which faith is better supported by science. Science, so far, shows life can't happen by chance and only limited evolution is possible in life. Read my popular Internet articles HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM and WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'VE GIVEN LECTURES defending scientific creationism before science faculty and students at various secular colleges. At the end, I opened up for comments, questions, rebuttals. Very few of the evolutionist science faculty criticized what I had to say, and, when they did, I successfully refuted them. They knew enough science to realize that what I was saying was true. Dawkins is playing on the scientific ignorance of the masses! Read my Internet article in Pravda: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read my popular Internet articles: ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM, ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE!
Mogley52 5 months ago
@Mogley52 What on Earth makes you think they are 'popular'?
gamesbok 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select" from traits having survival value. It doesn't produce those traits. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article that examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of both transitional forms and lack of sequence of the fossil layers. Discusses mixed species in fossils (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum conveniently ignored by evolutionists).
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 5 months ago
who is robin ince?
neo001x 6 months ago
@neo001x I dont know if this is true, but I've heard there is this thing on the internet, .. i think it's called "google".. from what i hear, you simply type in a persons name into "google", .. and almost as soon as you've typed it in, a whole list of information regarding that person comes up on the screen.
bonnie43uk 5 months ago
Comment removed
neo001x 6 months ago
He's the one in 4 rooms?
neo001x 6 months ago
Comment removed
neo001x 6 months ago
All of it. If that's supposed to be political satire they just don't understand what it is.
For audiences who think sneer is a form of debate.
OBadgerOStripeyOne 6 months ago
@Atheisophy Considering I'm stationed in England, I actually don't see a lot of American shows. But I do love Dr. Who, Robin Hood, and a few other British Sci-Fi shows. And the only reason why I even said Monty Python is because more times than not, my girlfriend is watching it when I get home from work.
HimesInu 6 months ago
@Atheisophy The majority of British shows my girl watches is the British The Office and Monty Python. When I say humor, I mean Colbert and Stewart. That's funny. Believe me, I don't like Will Farrel, Steve Correl, or any of those shit actors. I'm more into Adam Sandler and some Jim Carrey. I know how stupid American humor can be.
HimesInu 6 months ago
Was that supposed to be funny?
It was excruciatingly embarrassing.
BadgerOStripeyOne 6 months ago
@BadgerOStripeyOne
which part?
Kiesel 6 months ago
Lol
ElMufro 6 months ago
Head like a fucking orange.
Westy91 6 months ago
I normally don't like British humor, it's not that I don't get it more than it is mostly stupid humor, but that was great.
HimesInu 6 months ago
Just found an unkown $5 in my wallet; MAGIC MAN DONE IT.
emjaiz 6 months ago
from 0:26 to 0:55 ... that's a lot of unproven, baseless assumptions.
Daracon75 7 months ago
@Daracon75 They are not 'baseless'. They are assumed, based on observation, experiment, and predictions shown to be correct. A statement or postion in not incorrect just because you lack the skill to understand it. As an example, take this statement: ' .., [C]ows are really carnivores.'. You may think that statement to be obviously incorrect, but you would be mistaken. It' all based on how much you know and understand about the world around you.
yeshuahfullofit 7 months ago
@yeshuahfullofit Of course they're not based on observation. The supposed events they're referring to according to them, occurred in the past, and were observed by no living human... nor can the supposed events be repeated. It's not science in the slightest. The scientific method cannot be applied to it in any way whatsoever.
Daracon75 7 months ago
@Daracon75 We 'observered' that amino acids exist in space. We 'observed that comets brought amino acids to Earth. We 'observed' that amino acids are instrumental in how our life was formed. You draw the 'scientific' conclusion from those 'observed' facts. Make an 'assumption'.
yeshuahfullofit 7 months ago 2
@yeshuahfullofit Oh so you've also observed that abiogenesis has occurred, have you?
Daracon75 7 months ago
@Daracon75 In my hot, sweaty, crotch. Every Mon., Wed., and Fri. after my three hour workouts.. If I don't spray it down with massive amounts of man-made chemical protectants......SCREECH!! OH!! THE HORROR!! ... I may get 'abiogenesis' happening, dude. Sniff that! ; )
yeshuahfullofit 7 months ago 2
@Daracon75 You ask a rhetorical, facetious, question.....you get a rhetorical, facetious, answer. ; )
yeshuahfullofit 7 months ago 2
Comment removed
frankmademedoit 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Daracon75 Oh so you've observed that a magical bipedal hairless ape of the homo genus created life, have you? Were you around to witness this event for which there is no physical evidence of any kind other than a 2000 year old book written by primitive humans and then translated so many times that even the elaborate falsehood itself has lost all meaning?
frankmademedoit 6 months ago
@Daracon75 Or, decide that we can 'know' nothing except for what we witness now, before our eyes. I believe a meteor hit Arizona, resulting in a huge crater. You, nor I, were there to see it. The evidence is there, one only needs to make the 'assumption'. Do you deny that a meteor hit there upon that basis? You clearly see the fallacy of your 'reasoning'. Let it go. Defending an Iron Age/Bronze Age myth will only lead you to shame.
yeshuahfullofit 7 months ago 2
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". In a few thousand years a hairless monkey became able to view planets across light years of space. The universe is billions of years old, and infinitely huge - what are the odds that there are a few 'magic men and women' who may be able to influence events. Is that scientific logic, and sound math ?
dnomyarnostaw 7 months ago
This really isn't funny... at all...
ProtestantsRUs 7 months ago
Magic man done it! Cant stop saying that at every possible situation after this :)
Gazmus 7 months ago
a forcey force force
ivanmikhailov 7 months ago
"Forcey force force" is a GREAT name for god!
JMUDoc 8 months ago
The creationist isn't Human anymore. It is a fine example of devolution by choice. A failed fallen lowbrow version of bipedal hominid. An embarrassing farcical dipshit that, to become a creationist, has handed away the very trait that used to make them human. Logic. Its a fact that you cannot be both Human and religious at the same moment. You must choose one side or the other. We must cleanse Earth of this filth, this vermin until only the Humans are left and we can live in peace.
699backstab 8 months ago
Whatever you believe, this is terribly unfunny.
tomaroony 8 months ago
totally agree, I would say that Robin Ince is god, but then that would mean that he doesn't exist, and he clearly does :)
lopzag 9 months ago
What a ghastly, skinny, unfunny cunt.
withnail555 9 months ago
@withnail555 I think you've clearly illustrated the fact that you're completely unfamiliar with how stupid creationists are. Or you are one, and have taken offense.
compactdisk2 8 months ago
I haven't heard a more lucid definition of "Intelligent Design".
Any time I don't understand something, like why people voted for George W Bush TWICE or why Fermat's Last Theorem is true or why the British royal family is German, I'll just say "A magic man done it."
drfoxcourt 9 months ago 2
These people managed to make unfunny commedy about creationism. How is that even possible?
PktMma 10 months ago
@PktMma
You're probably American.
It's British comedy, you wouldn't get it.
ResiusOnline 9 months ago
@ResiusOnline a bit patronising?
TristanBByrne 8 months ago
@PktMma I can see you're from the netherlands. It would be hard for you to get, british stand ups like Robin Ince is very difficult to observe if you aren't British.
kly45 9 months ago
Christians can't disprove fairies and gravity is just a theory. But one thing is for sure, superstitious people are sheep and more easy to control, they're so dumb they'll believe giving money to the wealthy will reward them someday, just like giving money to support million dollar cathedrals, vineyards and jet planes for their Evangelical "Holy" man will insure them a ticket into heaven.
0MirrorMask0 10 months ago
As a comedy sketch it kind of sucks.
Btw, is that the guy from the Daily Show behind him ?
karry299 10 months ago
@karry299 No. He played one of the geeks for the calender shoot on The IT Crowd. They look alike though.
clearlogicify 10 months ago
And I just wanted to add, like many others have, the point of contention regarding the debate on the existence of one or more deities (I'm going to be lazy and forgo explicitly defining what is meant by "deity" for the sake of the character limit) isn't that they do or do not exist, but rather that it is currently not explicitly proven either way, and that in the absence of credible evidence, the onus of proof is on those who are making the claim of existence.
seanpawdraig 10 months ago
It still amazes and disappoints me that certain people are unable to come to terms with the fact that we (humanity) do not have an answer to every question. If approached by an issue of which you know very little, isn't it more humbling and rewarding to say "I don't know." then seek out an explanation via rational inquiry?
seanpawdraig 10 months ago
god!! this guy is about as funny as my last telephone bill
whattyhoo 10 months ago
Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source ... They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres
albert einstein.
HLecterPHD 1 year ago
@HLecterPHD Oh well, that settles it. If it's attributed to Einstein, it must be true.
DarioBattisti 1 year ago
@DarioBattisti
you dont dont like it ignore it
HLecterPHD 1 year ago
@HLecterPHD I don't don't like it? I like it?
How could I possibly ignore such eloquence?
DarioBattisti 1 year ago
@DarioBattisti
your choice
HLecterPHD 1 year ago
one part of me wants robin to succeed, but another wants him in rickys see-through box/sitting on rickys wardrobe for a day for £1000.
the best of robin comes when he is being tormented by ricky.
unfortunately robin ince must be tormented for the greater good.
sorry robin but its for the best.
HLecterPHD 1 year ago
that everything we see around us, from all the forces to our emotions, are just created in a moment not so long ago by something(god?) that constructed all the property's of the universe we can observe now. There is no back tracking needed to explain why we are here.
Its not that i have thought about this for more than 5 minits, and its late in the evening. Maybe the next morning i will laugh about my comment when i see its totally ridicioulus. please tell me if you think im an idiot thanks!
ytkoekie2000 1 year ago
« There is no back tracking needed to explain why we are here. »
On the other hand, simply saying "a god made everything" does *not* explain *why* anything exists.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
I personally prefer science becuase I am not raised whit an religion. But on the other half I love one particular aspect of creationism(correct me if its not creationism). Sience is very much about evolution. When you've got the idea of evolution you can backtrack the whole timeline to the beginning of the 'universe'. But the genius thing about creationism is that you dont have the haslle of back tracking an timeline if you just say....(beeing continiued next message)
ytkoekie2000 1 year ago
« When you've got the idea of evolution you can backtrack the whole timeline to the beginning of the 'universe' »
No, not really. Evolutionary theory applies only to life, and only to life at some indeterminate time after it originated.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
That was a good and fair summary of the creationist stupidity.
napataatta 1 year ago
hahahahahahahha ..
hahahha
wht an end .. MAGIC MAN DONE IT !!
astoma199 1 year ago
Creationism is religion
2xtreem4u 1 year ago
Stuart Foot.
Burnzy8418 1 year ago
Oh and this comedy sketch sucks absolute balls. Wasn't even remotely funny.
RandomMocker 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Robin Ince isn't funny, infact he's an absolute cunt, I remember when this guy was on some talk show not on the panel but pretending to be a concerned member of the general public ranting about how badly muslims are being treated. And at the same time he says he hates religion...... just another lefty liberal cunt.
GodwinCarpenter 1 year ago
@GodwinCarpenter I think he would like that, coming from a BNP supporting lunatic who believes Jews were responsible for 9/11. I can't even be bothered to insult you.
doosher 1 year ago
@doosher Your existence is insult enough.
GodwinCarpenter 1 year ago
@GodwinCarpenter Awwwwww cute... You know you can hate religion and still be appalled by how a group of people are being treated? Or is that somehow unfathomable in that tiny narrow-mind of yours? What I find funny is you brand him a "liberal lefty cunt" as if you're opinion is somehow a massive bombshell if you don't like the guy wtf are you doing commenting on one of his videos? Nobody has forced you here so please stfu and stop spouting your opinion as if its the only one that matters.
LazySquirell 1 year ago
@LazySquirell There are many tiny narrow minds here and mine isn't one of them. I know it's in vouge to go against the grain but seriously mate, don't you think that YOUR opinion doesn't matter because you basically just follow government guide lines on what you are allowed to think and say.
GodwinCarpenter 1 year ago
@GodwinCarpenter Yep I completely follow what the government guide lines on what I'm allowed to think and say... Okay back to reality for a second I hope you'll indulge me with an answer to this, If you don't like or agree with Robin Ince and you're not a fan of his why are you here? Yours and many others opinions do matter but that doesn't mean I can't challenge it with my own opinion and I'll be damned the day I'm told my I cant challenge others opinions.
LazySquirell 1 year ago
@GodwinCarpenter
Yeh, i agree mait we shuld get hold of thees treehugging do gooders and cut off all of there balls and maik them eat it. fucking liberals maik me so ANGRY CUUUUNTTTTTSSSS!!!!!!!!!!
weavehole 1 year ago
Damn, I cannot leave it be! The guy in the video says the universe is "16 billion years old" but we know now that it is 13.7 billion years old and that is final. It is not a minor detail to be off by several billion years, you know.: )
winterstellar 1 year ago 2
@winterstellar true that ^^ i wanted to say the same thing.
nervozaur 1 year ago
Ha Ha Excellent, hit the nail right on the head.
CarajilloDulce 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This clown doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. The only funny thing about this video is the supine ignorance it displays about science.
anselmiano 1 year ago
The creationism debate ended in 1859.
jleque16 1 year ago
Magic Spaghetti Man in the Sky DUN IT ALL, he made animals out of clay and then shot lightning bolts from his finger tips and the animal said "hello". If you don't believe this you will burn in hell for eternity you demon-cunt!!!
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago 2
Creationists should be refused medical treatment for denying the very theory that led to the development of most treatments.
TheMojomo 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is awful comedy. Really badly written, and a terrible concept with those two goons at the back.
feckingbillgates 1 year ago
...well that wasn't really funny. I mean.. ah whatever
woweixiaomiandui 1 year ago
Shite, Robin.
You totally avoided how the scientists believed the world was created.
With your lame ass material you are a creationist's wet dream. Stop it now.
stitchkaboodle999 1 year ago
man, you're right. please go teach creationism and 6000 years theory in your school. science is a scam. evolution is a scam. only Bible and Christianity can save you.
leave science, biology and nature to the heathen nation like EU and China, you don't need science, do you?
please, as an Asian, as a non-American, i would really love to see you guys go discard evolution, biology( yup, evolution is biology, constant change of cell level life ) and science. love it man!
please go do it!
jojoinhere 1 year ago
This is from wiki: The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which an unskilled person makes poor decisions and reaches erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to realize their mistakes. The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their own ability as above average, much higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate their abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt Interesting. I guess on an epistemological level it'd be pretty difficult for me to make a water-tight case that I was the latter rather than the former; I can't ever rule out the possibility that I'm too stupid to recognise my own stupidity.
On the other hand some people are just obviously dumb - I find it difficult to imagine creationist halfwit Stephen Baldwin, for example, being able to get dressed by himself without sustaining some kind of injury.
BullInTheHeather1 1 year ago
One final point: if entropy can only increase and there can be no localised decreases, and if this therefore precludes the possibility of evolution taking place, then the same has to be true of every other reversal of entropic flow that we see around us - embryonic development doesn't exist; we don't develop from a foetus into a child; plants don't grow from seeds into their flowers or fruits, hurricanes and tornadoes are figments of our imagination and trees are impossible.
BullInTheHeather1 1 year ago
chuichupachichi - It never ceases to amaze me the number of scientifically ignorant laymen who are convinced they have discovered a contradiction in the laws of physics, and that the greatest minds of the last century and a half have all failed to spot what is so obvious to them.
I propose a new law- the Law Of Slow-witted Hubris: the more often a person says things like "you're not too bright, are you?", the more vacuous their own grasp of the subject tends to be.
BullInTheHeather1 1 year ago
@BullInTheHeather1 I think your law of slow-witted hubris has already been done. It's called the Dunning-Kruger Effect. (I think I like your name better, though.)
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@BullInTheHeather1 I'll go with that.
feckingbillgates 1 year ago
A Creation without a Creator, Laws of Nature without a law giver, natural selection without a selector - yeah that's really logical and intelligent Robin.
Jurassic56 1 year ago
@Jurassic56 who said the big bang is created, if it were, it's a bad creation.
FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 1 year ago
@Jurassic56
1. By calling the universe a "creation" you are begging the question.
2. Laws of nature are simply labels we give to observations of predictability within the universe, they are not real things and don't exist without observers.
3. You don't understand what natural selection is or how it works.
4. Science does not say the universe was created, you are misinformed.
nakedapedude 1 year ago 2
@Jurassic56 who created the creator? How is it that this complex universe MUST have a creator to account for its existence, but the infinitely more complex creator can just stand by exempt from the very rules you used to invoke his necessity? In other words why doesn't the infinitely more complex creator Not need a creator of its own?
shonkey 1 year ago 3
"magic man dun it"
willgimon 1 year ago 3
forcey force force
what567 1 year ago
a growy force haha
wubbadubdub 1 year ago 2
(cont.)...all you are saying is "I am arbitrarily changing the rules of logical discourse. Despite the fact that I observe the strictures of logic and reason in every other area of my life, when it comes to religion I reserve the right to make up the rules as I go along." Do not kid yourself that that amounts to a sensible answer. In any other situation you would dismiss such an argument out of hand.
BullInTheHeather1 1 year ago 3
...(cont.) If you were to ask your mechanic how he managed to mend your car and he replied "well, I'm a very, very good mechanic" I doubt you would consider this a satisfactory explanation for your car's regeneration. It isn't, in fact, an explanation at all. This is what your appeal to 'omnipotence' amounted to.
As for yr answer to the 1st question (cont.)...
BullInTheHeather1 1 year ago 10
correction: "...no kind of answer to the 2ND question." Oops.
BullInTheHeather1 1 year ago
Wsewell12 - I congratulate you for at least attempting to answer the questions although I still haven't received a reply from a creationist. Nevertheless, the two questions I asked were constructed explicitly for the purpose of smoking out examples of theological evasiveness and you have kindly obliged me. As LanceDirk says, "omnipotence" is no kind of answer to the 1st question...(cont.)
BullInTheHeather1 1 year ago
Nazipope does NOT approve!
+<{:^=(
mtssvnsn 1 year ago
magic man done it
mrlatchmere 1 year ago 16
It's 2010 and some portion of the human race still thinks rainbows are remote controlled by one of the gods.
StopSpamming1 1 yea