Randall Niles Thinks About ... Atheist Religion

[GoaHead80]

What an idiot! Science is not about faith.

[bigguitar22]

Fine tuning? What about bone cancer in children - viruses that could wipe us out? What about volcanos, earthquakes genetic abnormalities - some fantastic design isn't it? This is simply creationist bullshit!

[DarwinsChihuahua]

@bigguitar22 You haven't considered the possibility that God exists and just happens to be a dick that gets off on violence and suffering. It certainly shows in His work.

[bigguitar22]

@DarwinsChihuahua I haven't because that's just as barmy. Why would a god create a universe - enjoy torture and yet never reveal himself? Sounds human to me?

[Rockster969]

 Atheist religion? Fucktard

[skrambelled]

Although I do not subscribe to the majority of the theories that this webcaster has cited, I fail to recognize how you have debunked a single thing about atheism...

Ultimately, you have done nothing but legitimize atheism as equally plausible as any neo-christian philosophy. If I were to reduce your philosophy to a very abridged and rudimentary level, you would also feel obliged to scoff at the primitive points of argument I would be providing. i.e. George Carlin.

[thewordofgod2010]

Great Job Randell. Looking at the comments here I see you really hit a nerve with some Atheists by confronting them with their faith. I've always thought Punctuated Equilibrium was one of the most desperate acts of the evolutionists. There is no evolution in the fossil record so let's pretend it happens so fast that the fossil record doesn't pick it up. It's kind of like believing fairies dance in the woods every night.......but only when nobody is looking.

[kaxitaksi]

How about some critical thinking m8 ;))

[gregrutz]

Some people think evolution is a religion too. Silly.

Yes. God made the universe and fine tuned it. Now do you accept evolution ????

Why Not? God fine tuned it to happen 'naturally'. Didn't He?

[panterguy]

Scientific speculation is not a philosophy.

[AcidtKandyboy]

@panterguy yes it is

[tiagotrinidad]

There's a problem with trying to base atheism in science: ontological claims is outside the scope of scientific/methodological naturalism. Metodological naturalism can only study natural cause-effect relationships and how can we know about things in that scope.

That's what the speaker is arguing about. Philosophical speculation about why something is, is out of scope.

Naturalism by definition cannot make any statement about the supernatural. And that's what you see most atheists trying to do.

[gregrutz]

@tiagotrinidad Correct. Science does not comment on the supernatural.

Creationists think it tries to prove there is no God. Sorry if what they discover does not match your story. Study the fossils to find out the Truth.

Atheists try and use science to prove we don't need a God and turn it into ''God vs. science' No help, shut up about your lack of religion.

[heislordforever]

Hey brother, love your work! God bless & keep it up. Jamie

[gregrutz]

@heislordforever I thought telling lies was a sin?

[pumpstations]

The fossils ARE there go to a museum, read a book with ( pictures ) if it would help.

Wow do you even understand that you were arguing 2 vastly different things and tying them together?

Also if Atheism is a religion, then not playing polo is a sport, and not believing in the great pumpkin is a belief structure.

Gotta go, I have a full afternoon of not being a slave, and not believing in Mithra. After which I will not be Chinese or worship the Easter bunny.

[RadicalBladeBullet]

"...Or you can stick with the God of the Bible." Religion isn't the absolute default. Besides, do you know how hard it is to actually become a fossil? You have to die in the right place (preferably a rock/mud slide or a tar pit), let sediment take the place of your bones as they crumble, and then they have to survive to be found. Millions, if not billions, of creatures that ever lived actually never made it into the fossil record. Evolution is the most SCIENTIFICALLY SOUND theory we have.

[pumkinpi2]

After listening to his misrepresentations of evolution, a view embrace by most Christians I must point out, I find he is either ignorant, misinformed, or a liar. Frankly, I find the third option the most likely.

[BCT071]

"The God of the Bible"?

Are you for real?

What would you be saying if you were born in Iran,India,China,Pakistan,Anci­ent Egypt or Rome?

You'd be proclaiming the existence of another God with a whole different set of life instructions.

Religion = Malware.

GODWARE.

[benthemiester]

Massimo Pigliucci, a hard core evolutionist himself has just said we should relax the modern synthesis. He and other Altenberg 16 attendees came to the conclusion that the modern theory of evolution is insufficient in explanatory powers to account for life as we know it. They are proposing a new extended synthesis that deals with constructs of epigenetics, placidity and self organizing models, and it has pissed of Eugenie Scott and Dawkins, who still believe in this out dated paradigm.

[LetReasonPrevail1]

Randall Niles is a monumental retard.

One logical fallacy after another.

There are so many examples of this, that I can't fit it into 500 words.

Anyone care for examples? I'd be glad to provide as many as possible.

He is such a tool.

[thegman2]

stfu you puppet and go back to chruch! randall niles can go suck dong

[benthemiester]

He's not a moron. He may disagree with many on evolution and Metaphysics, but to call him a moron is a false narrative. I can't believe the type of reasoning that is threaded on this post. Just follow your own logic. If someone is a moron, why waste your time talking about a person like that, much less threading about him. If your mad the ship is sinking yell at modern current science because that is what is peeling away Darwism as evidence of the Altenberg 16 summit.

[LetReasonPrevail1]

@benthemiester Sorry, but you are mistaken. Calling Randal a moron isn't a false narrative, it is a personal attack (Argumentum Ad Hominem). A narrative implies the telling of a story or sequence of events. "Moron" is a descriptor, so can say it is a false discriptor, but on the surface it isn't false, just unflattering in nature. So to prove it is false, you would need to provide evidence to the contrary, or you could demand that the people calling him a moron provide proof of his moronism.

[LetReasonPrevail1]

@benthemiester The reason why I would "waste my time" talking about a moron such as Randal Niles is because he publicly spews his unsupported and logically fallacious beleifs in a very public forum.

When anyone shares their views via mass media, then they are open to any and all refutations, and their level of integrity or intelligence (or lack thereof in Randal's case) is completely irrelevant.

Does this make sense to you, or would you like me to type a bit slower?

[benthemiester]

@LetReasonPrevail1

Fair enough, then dispute his points with with reason, as reasonable men and women, instead of name calling.

[benthemiester]

@LetReasonPrevail1 You should get it straight from the horses mouth, the modern synthesis is dead and dying, check out my vid... Will The Real Theory of Evolution Please Stand Up? It would help if you have a background in biology but is also interesting for those who don't, maybe.

[NotTooObvious]

new athiests? bullshit. they have been around forever. this guy is a moron.

[stevebritgimp]

Allow me to vote this down - and thanks for posting. While the punctuated equilibrium idea isn't entirely ideal, fossils don't form for the convenience of our scientists. Maybe if the guy in the video saw a train going into a tunnel, and then coming out again a few moments later at a different speed, he would think there was a slow train, which disappeared and a new fast train was created in its place at the tunnel entrance.

[lasverdessondemuerto]

Wel i expected that my english was good enough. Alright, Darwin says that is less problematic a false idea than a false fact. Al these ideas that nagel talk about in this video are just caonjetures about eventes and facts, these are not science, the science begin when al the technological an methodologycal tools are used to verify and shown if one of these are real or false. Science is in constant change

[Textra1]

Atheism is no more a religion than bald is a hair colour. A lack of belief is not a belief. The lack of religion is not a religion.

There is no fine tuning. You're looking at it backwards. It's not fine tune to us, we're tuned to it. That's what evolution is. By favouring traits that aid survival, replicating organisms that best suit their environment are selected for.

[Textra1]

You clearly don't understand evolution. What you're doing is called 'Projection'. You're projecting the inadequacies of your religion and belief system, onto so called atheism and evolution. Though what evolution has to do with atheism is beyond me. If you choose to believe iron/bronze age myths over scientific truths, that's your bag mate.

[Pigdowndog]

So the writings of a few medieval story tellers about an omnipient all powerful super being outweighs all of modern science and research.

I'll rush out to buy a Bible immediately.

[DarwinsChihuahua]

Actually, the humans who wrote the Bible predate the medieval period by at least 500 years. But yeah, that's basically what they think.

[Pigdowndog]

There is some disagreement as to when the medieval period or middle ages began. Some historians put it as early as 200AD which is when the so called gospels were mostly written.

But of course such hair splitting shouldn't distract from the fact that the Bible is a load of old bovine excrement.

[smaugfrost]

Two points of contention:

1. "parallel universe theory" is not even mentioned by the vast majority of the atheist sources mentioned. It has nothing to do with atheism, and is a purview of quantum mechanics.

2. Theories as "gap fillers" work towards providing an answer TO "the gaps". They are self-evident, self-editing, as well as self-deleting.

And unlike the "bible god", which is inculcated from an early age as TRUTH, hypothetical theories are presented as hypotheticals, not TRUTH.

[xylnimue]

You are either ignorant of the actual science, or intentionally lying to support your points.

Good job Quote Mining and misquoting.

Science views gaps as places to explore, challenge, and learn. Faith just looks at a gap and shoves their imaginary friend in it.

[BBMix]

The only problem with Christians is that they can't accept that their religion is dying out, and whenever there is a philisophical problem to be solved they always bring god into the argument. Why? Isn't the universe good enough as it is. Is it just so incomplete that theists have to bring more mystsery into anything thats apparently mystserious. To my mind if there was a god, then it would be plainly obvious that there was one lurking somewhere in the fabric of reality. Thats very obvious to me

[J33zyCr33zy]

If atheism is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

[philstilwell]

Proposed scientific answers to evolutionary gaps fall within the testable realm of naturalism, instead of the untestable realm of the supernatural. We propose, then have the patience to wait to see if science validates or invalidates the proposal. We should not, however, shove a square god into a round question. Just let science do its job. This tactic might have saved believers some embarrassment on such issues as germ theory and heliocentrism.

[tmcthree]

Actualy I think you'll find that the parallel universe theory is one of many different theories that suggest an answer to this question. No scientists say they know for sure that any of these theories are correct. They are just suggested as possibilites with a reasonable probability. God is accepted as (tchnically) possible, but it has an extrodinarily low probabilty.

This is the difference, science doesn't claim to know that which it doesn't. Religion claims to know the creator personally!

[Cafeeine]

While this guy is misrepresenting left and right I will point out that there are 'gap fillers' in science. The difference is that when religion says "this unknown thing is divinely made" science says "this thing is currently unknown" and proceeds to make educated guesses. These guesses go through a lot of scrutiny to be considered accurate. Its the difference between a work in progress and the indisputable divine revelation, true "because we say so"

[kev3d]

What a dishonest douche bag. His gross distortions and lies aside, even if everything boiled down to philosophical opinion (it doesn't, but lets pretend) The God of the bible and koran seeks Unlimited punishment for limited crimes, including thinking 'sinful' thoughts. What kind of fucked up philosophy is that? Obviously this asshole didn't actually read the books, he read the reviews written by people who skimmed the books and naturally, he missed the point entirely.

[chricla]

Wow! The delusion of this being Dennet, Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens' words are really far out. Once again a religious person fails miserably at debunking atheism. After all, the only arguments he tries to make against atheism (although they don't) here also debunks his own believes. He actually speaks out against believing in things there are no evidence for, and then says that his own unproven belief is supposed to be better than any other unproven belief.

[harrisonfong]

it's good to see this guy is at least trying to think about the validity of atheism. instead of just saying atheists are just like that because god made them to be.

[abetterpersonthanyou]

Sam Harris and Dan Dennett are from England? That's news to me.

[Cafeeine]

Probably news to them as well.

[LightGreen5013]

@abetterpersonthanyou

No they're not, and neither are Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and many other 'founding fathers' who were openly opposed to the ideals and practices of Christianity.

[bacon4247]

The multi universe theory and Panspermia are ideas of things that COULD possibly be true. Neither idea is accepted as, or taught as, fact. Furthermore any scientifically minded person who holds to one of the views would change that view in the face of irrefutable evidence. I guarantee that in the face of such evidence no Panspermia advocates will ever lobby school boards to "teach the controversy"

[daymyth]

Isn't bareing false witness a great sin?

Or you can not apply a gap and say, currently we just don't know but here are a few possibilities that are in line with the theories we have today...

Or you could go back to the age old "god of hte bible" response MAGIC....

[dfarmer1584]

So typical: A Christian lying, distorting, misrepresenting, "bearing false witness" etc etc, in order to prop up his ancient mythology.

Everything is wrong with this video. Everything he says is a complete willful distortion, or simply a lie. AND HE KNOWS IT! I don't have the space here to refute any of it, and I won't bother with a video--there are many already available which completely refute this nonsense. Look them up for yourself.

This is plain hypocrisy. Disingenuous propaganda.

[KuppinCasual]

@dfarmer1584 This "propaganda" is doing his best to save your soul. we know where you stand. don't be a dick.

[KuppinCasual]

@dfarmer1584 distortion, all he said was that somewhere down the road, you put your faith in something. it's obvious he's a christian but he didn't lie in this video

[JackadullBoy]

"All of your great thinkers today are saying, "Yeah, it's totally improbable.""

Name one "great thinker" who has ever used that phrase.

Your manner and mode of speech are announcing to anyone who can bear to listen that you are indifferent to education, and that although you can't be bothered to educate yourself, you're perfectly comfortable spouting off to everybody else.

[kazooboo]

Ummmm, no. You go to a place of "conjecture". Big difference.

The god of the bible was conjecture sold as "fact", and if you want to stick to a conjecture that has no reasonable chance of being true, then, by all means, stick to "the god of the bible".

But I can't promise I won't laugh at you.

[LarryBassTheMaster]

I'll stick with the scientific gap-fillers until someone comes up with a better explanation. The Bible isn't it.