*sigh* im tired of this internet holy war between athiests and religious... honestly, your all a bunch of hypocritic dicks who have your heads way to far up ur asses
what you are talking about is young earth creationists, some creationists (like myself) are men and women of science who see that both science and religion can coexist. yes it takes some effort mentally but it is possible and we have just as many verses as they do to prove that science s just as true as the bible. their big one, genesis1 was written as a poem not a history book.
Why do we have to inhumanly attack each other??? I see it from both sides of the debate and if that is our method of talking, it is no wonder we cannot have a civilized intelligent conversation. What I believe is my own choice and if people want to discuss what they believe I love to learn but accept the fact that I have a voice as well. I am sorry others push their faith on you but do not presume that I have no intelligence and am worthless because of what I believe.
Thanks for the post, djarm67. I was amused and even got a chuckle. Say, have you even considered that your theories and my theories might both be mostly right? Surely you've thought that, just maybe, things like DNA, the complexity of the human mind and it's connection with the brain, the fact that humans are no better or worse off than 5,000 years ago, gravity, the fact that the moon has only one face, and countless other facts of the Universe could not have happened by chance?
@therfleig I'm quite happy to have this discussion with you. Are you willing to change your position? If I can demonstrate where you are in error, are you willing to concede that your sources are unreliable?
@therfleig - No credible scientist have ever claimed it happened by chance. Not a single universally accepted peer-reviewed scientific study has ever claimed evolution has ANYTHING to do with chance. It is simply in your interest to make it look that way. You lie.
Religion is dead, you had a nice 5000 year run, but it is now over. Close to 90% of the population in Europe are now atheists when it comes to classical religion.
We win, now go back to the bronze age where you belong.
Of course they could have happened by chance. It's a limitation of the human mind to assume that things are too "complicated' to have happened by chance. The universe is plenty big enough, and old enough, for all of it to have been chance. It's the same with the concept of "beginning" and "ending:" limitations of the human mind.
I am a Christian, but I believe in evolution to a point. And for the most part I agree with your statement here. Many Christians do not practice what they preach. But some of us do, or at least try. I would love to have a friendly debate with you about evolution. We can if you would like. set a date, and it can be a youtube debate. I am not a hater, but if it is a intellectual debate, we can skype it and let others listen. Up to you, but I would like to do that. Just message me
@f00tstep Not really. There is macro evolution and micro evolution. I believe that as human being we do develop changing body parts as we evolve as people, but I do not believe that we came from something else originally. I have studied Darwin's theory and there are many holes in it. Like how all primates have 48 chromosomes and we are missing 2. Where did our strength go? All primates are so much stronger. We are more intelligent, but less strong. Just too many holes.
@anphelps27 You can't believe in micro and not macro because they use the exact same process, it just sounds stupid to say you only believe in one. Anyway pushing that aside, our strength was lost for efficiancy purposses. We figured out how to creat tools to do tasks therefor our bodies would be using up extra energy to fuel extra muscles so that trait was lost to our genetic memory and will remain shut down.
@anphelps27 "I have studied Darwin's theory and there are many holes in it."
That's because you're looking at DARWIN'S theory, not the theory of evolution as it exists today. Darwin would require years of education to get caught up on the last 150 years of discovery.
"Like how all primates have 48 chromosomes and we are missing 2."
Trivially easy to answer (Though not necessarily to understand). Google "chromosome fusion," or "human chromosome number 2."
@TrevorBlack79 Ok, valid point you make. There are still valid arguments on both sides on the coin though. I am not saying that the Bible has all the answers as to where we came from, but neither does evolution. And I will google what you say.
@anphelps27 RE:"I would love to have a friendly debate with you about evolution"
I am always disturbed by statements like this. The reason it disturbs me is that evolutionary theory has more confirmation than any other scientific theory. But how often do you see people wanting to debate the existence of the atom? Heliocentric model? Relativity? Germ theory of disease? Flat Earth?
@Ansonidak i like debating too . i noticed you said we dont debate other things well we do in a way because we continually work to resarch these things, from atoms were once as small as it gets, no longer ture , or now the theroy of special relitivity is being challanged , light may no longer be the fast thing, which is great. Just like us as time goes on we evolve so does our science and understanding.
@anphelps27 There is only one problem with having a debate. Your faith, Christianity has several different denominations. Catholics, Protestants, Baptist, Mormons etc. Each of these Christian sects believe in slightly different things, even you said many of them do and don't practice what they preach. You can't possibly represent all of them and their ideas. However, one evolutionist can represent the evolution theory, because the scientific data is exactly the same agreed upon information.
Why does this guy spend his life trying to prove his beliefs when he thinks he will just die? If he really believed what he "believes" he should be out having all the fun he can before he turns to dust.
@deadlifter410 because we are doing our part to humanity.it would be like leaving a mentally retarded person alone and not offering any help to the mentally retarded person.same concept.we atheists who propagate science and reason try to help you religious twits to use your brain and think about it
tHIS IS THE FIRST TIME i HAVE FOUND A SITE THAT IS BENEATH CONTEMPT would you have us believe you are a beleaguered scientist instead of a high school propellor head your angst filled plea is not credible you claim to represent acadenia when in fact you probably are in the chess club.
@tapdancinmouz Well done, you've found wiktionary. Really, if you will word a sentence in such an ostentatious way, don't expect anyone to be either impressed, or in any way inclined to take you seriously. Also; If you really are going for an eloquent image, learn some grammar and spelling. Mistakes I've noticed here: '[space];', '[space].', 'you little world', 'Him', 'BTW:God's', 'Pharisaical', and the last sentence made no sense. Finally; that smiley on the end was completely unfitting.
@tapdancinmouz " when you little world falls apart ." - And god will support you? Where is he now then, can you prove he is real?
"You're "wise in your own eyes"" Because we think for our selves, we don't blindly believe in some stupid little fairy tale with no evidence to support it.
Of course, you follow a religion, so you will continue to deny all evidence that science provides. So I guess trying to prove anything to you idiots is a waste of time.
Wonderful video. I don't think I've seen another video that demonstrates both the ignorance and the dishonesty of creationists so clearly. FYI: "In an article for Social Psychology Quarterly, Kanazawa lays out facts based on U.S. data to support his theory. According to that research, young adults who identify as "not at all religious" had an average IQ of 103 as teens, while those who identified as "very religious" had an average IQ of 97."
I would guess this video was supposed to be directed to those creationist that do flag, bot and all that other stuff and perhaps extend the flaming to a few leaders who make false claims. I would hope its not directed to creationist as a whole group (even tho i myself has a hard time seeing them as an intellectual group), because then its just random flaming of alot of innocent people (even tho they might be annoying, they still have the right to think what they want).
@ReeRoun But isn't it fun how a lot of creationists false flag videos, and on a public level you here them say that they are treated as jews in nazi germany to make their creationism more valid (Just see the movie xpelled). Isn't it funny? Some creationists false flag and waste their time on this filthy tactic, and then some of them have the stomach to say that they are "prosecuted"? It just make me laugh.
while i am an evolutionist, i think you are going a bit far in generalizing creationists as bad people, calling all of them morally bankrupt, which is a morally bankrupt statement in and of itself as showing any form of bias is, after all, immoral.
also, as an evolutionist, i hate to point this out to you, but as you are almost completely just spouting off bias in this, you are pretty much proving a lot of their points about us when you condemn all of them like that for what only some did
Years ago when I was in highschool I had this religion class, they tought christianity to us as an obligatory class. One time, I thought to myself "Meh, what is everyone saying about it, i'm sure its not that bad". So i grabbed the old testament, opened on a random page, and read something like this : If you are fighting with another man, and your wife trying to separate you accidentally touches the other mans genitals you have to cut off her hand.
It would be like me as a creationist and christian vilifying atheists in general because of such vocal stooges like TheAmazingAtheist and similar minded atheists.
I see individuals doing stupid things, sometimes working together as a self-proclaimed group, but i do not think that making such generalizations like you do is warranted.
Take on the rotten apples, but keep the peace between yourself and the rest.
I try to adhere to that philosophy as much as possible.
First of all, i'm a creationist who despises false flagging, votebotting and filing false DMCA claims by fellow creationists, especially if they're attempts to censor free speech.
While i disagree with evolution theory, i back your right to present it and try to refute creationism.
I think you're right in addressing the creationists that behave badly, but generalizing creationists due to a vocal and insidious subgroup is never a good thing.
you can't be a christians that does not believe in the bible, the word Christian denotes a belief in Jesus of Nazareth's divinity. If you believe in the morals of the bible your just a moral person, most atheists agree with many morals of the bible, like dont steal, dont kill, dont rape, dont lie. so stop tagging on a title like "christian" that's only an insult to your intelligence.
Im a christian, but I dont believe there is a higher power. I believe in the morals it has. But when It comes to jack asses like people that blow up abortion clinics/flag the videos/etc. Those are the people that need to die. I want most atheists to know there are Christians that are not morally bankrupt, but that number is VERY small.
What do you expect from creationists? They believe that the whole humankind is a result of incest! Adam and Eve were the only humans created by God. Eve gave birth to lotsa children, the children married each other and so on and so forth... And the explanation is: back then incest supposedly was "perfectly safe", cuz "genetics were not corrupted"!!!!! More questions???
This is what bothers me. I consider myself a Christian, but I also believe that the facts supporting evolution can't be ignored. Filing false claims, vote botting and the like are all forms of bearing false witness...you know something we were told not to do by the 10 commandments. Taking actions like this betray our faith, trying to forcibly censor them isn't moral or right.
I am a creationist myself, but i agree that false flagging, votebotting, filing false DMCA claims is just not done and intellectually dishonest, whether a creationist or an evolutionist does it.
Just because there are creationists that resort to false flagging, votebotting and filing false DMCA claims, doesn't mean they're the majority of creationists, nor that they or their actions speak for the majority of creationists.
We can agree. We might agree on the idea of creationism and evolution but we can at least agree that it's wrong to censor this way. If nothing else this gives me some hope.
@Darkstar1484 Dear Darkstar, you are very right and also very close an even bigger that will set you free. that is if you dare to draw the conclusions of your convictions. evolution and genesis simply does not add up, and if you look deeper you will many other conflicts between christianity and the things we know to be true about the world. I wish you the best of luck and hope you have curage to keep digging for truth and honesty.
@neuromatiker Nah, you didn't understand, back when I made the comment you replied to I was still a Christian. Liberal love thy neighbor kind, but yeah.
There are plenty of creationist arguments that hold up and make sense you just won't listen to them. Every time I try to put up a logical explanation for God it gets voted out. Just because there many Christians that say they are Christians doesn't mean they are truly Christians. To be a true christian is to follow after Jesus and to love him and to love you. I hope you all come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ God bless you all.
Name one. We're not talking about wether a god or gods exist, we're talking about the creation model of the bible, and for that, there are no arguments that make sense or hold up.
awesomenize1, name one creationist argument that holds up and makes sense. Every argument I have encountered was deeply flawed and had been successfully rebutted by science. But I'm open to looking at evidence. What have you got?
yes the morals that you are expressing are valid, but unfortunately your religious texts seem to not always agree on this. also, if you can, please reply with evidence of God. and i mean factual, unbiased evidence. after all if you can inspire Christianity in me you can sleep easy knowing you saved a soul today.
For some odd reason this video would not start playing till I moved it up a little. But what I wanted to say about it is, "Dog that's your sister, don't do it.."
We can't help but prove points and use logic to refute the creationists, but in the back of our minds we know that it has no effect on them. Still, we must try.
Outstanding video, although it will have no effect on on the retards. They are, after all, retarded.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
No it is you that has no effects on science. You athest want to look at the world simplier but that wrong. God has always been and made the universe. Not the universe making itself or the universe always being.
simple fact all creationist do is cause wars with somone who has a diffrent god and the worst part is if there is a god in any way shape or form ITS THE FUCKING PLANETS!!!.not some queer ass looking muslim jew from 2K years ago for fuck sake.
We don't systematically attack accounts with programs that vote 1 star on a video 500 times. I haven't seen a creationist video that has needed age verification... ever, nor any accounts shut down due to flagging. However, I've seen it several times against the pro-science side.
You only think that because you want it to be true, typical of most religious, unfortunately.
Read everything you have said below so far, and note that you are committing the same 'mistake' - you believe what you want to believe, and assume it is true.
And "typical of most religious"... religious what? Want to finish that segment? It makes no sense, you failed to make a point.
And who is "we" - are you more than 1 person? You are speaking for people that haven't spoken... How naiive to think you can speak on behalf of another - the world is made up of individuals, is it not?
Never, EVER generalise. Religious people? What kind of material do you read? Or not read for that matter?
So I believe there's a God... I don't go out and kill people who don't. I don't belittle them, I even listen to whatever reasons people have for not believing, to the best of my ability. I don't even believe there is a Hell.
But I am a religious person, so what does the title mean then? My religious views are different from other religious views... are all religious people the same? No.
Yes all regious people. (The people that are truly regious.) They're all the ame thing. An good example would be 9/11. Osama was a muslim but he wasn't truly muslim. However Hitler was athest. However he wasn't truely ahtest? That makes no sense. Religion is the way to go. You would use science when naming your baby why use it in determining how the universe was born.
You can't answer my question can you... people that are truly religious - again, what is that? A person is not defined my their religion, but by their beliefs. A belief is not a religion, a religion is a way of interpreting a belief.
Your entire paragraph makes no sense, I use science to name my baby? Totally lost me... And 9/11 was committed by terrorists, who are not necessarily believers in God. Any person with enough sense would know those terrorists just enjoy causing pain, nothing more.
You actually added to the tally of how many times you didn't read everything I said. Stop giving yourself the pseudo-slogan of "reading everything". Just do it and it would be demonstrably true.
Religious is a noun, as well as an adjective. When a noun, referring to people who adhere to religion. Even if you didn't know that, you could just use your deductive reasoning.
Did you read the comment I responded to? The comment slurred evolutionary advocates, that's who I meant by "we".
Your talking (or were) about how 'you' think that evolutionists are one-starring videos... even though that maybe true , it is not on the scale of creationist votebots...
and yes i did say the statement is false, but it is... for the most part.
lemme put it this way
it is undisputed that many videos made by users like Thunderf00t and DPRjones, and the whole lot have been attacked by multiple 1 star votes. now its not just 1 or 2 by the random person who does that. its thousands... (not per video but per channel)
Check some of Thunderf00ts old videos (if they're still up) and check the rating statistics... if i am correct, then you will see large spikes in the "Line" as ill call it...
What, you're saying that mountains of evidence from 10's of thousands of scientists makes their ideas right? And who was the douche who said religion is to be accepted unconditionally? What a joke, i've never had that thrown upon me in all my studies, maybe you should take some theology classes and learn something.
And if scientists are so "free thinking", why can't it think beyond the "Big Bang" theory?
All creationists are ignorant? Hilarious. Don't stereotype please, it's ignorant.
Please, tell me what conditions substantiate the claims of a religion. Don't just call me names and laugh at your own ignorance (and self created irony).
The big bang theory is the colloquial name for the modern cosmological model. It's the best model derived from empirical study. If you're so free thinking why can't you attempt to understand methodological naturalism?
You're perpetuating the stereotype with your mindless platitudes.
Because the Modern cosmological model is yet to be completed, hence "Theory".
Religions claim many things - like science, it is mans way of interpreting reality as we know it - there are no conditions, you accept or you don't - if you believe or not, that's your choice.
You close your mind. I am free thinking, and I have carefully considered in the time I have what has been offered to me by science and religion alike - but these things take time and thought. Sorry for calling you a douche.
Of course cosmology is incomplete, but it still has a large amount if information. Mathematics isn't complete either, does that mean numbers don't exist?
Theory (Science); A set of facts, principals, and propositions, unified in their relation, used to explain phenomena.
-Encarta
It's a theory because of the knowledge it holds, not the knowledge it's uncovering.
Dentharthurden54, please note that you said "scientific" usage, but the word is used in many ways, what made scientific usage more legitimate than others, if that is what you mean by your comment?
Otherwise, I have looked it up, and doogtoog's definition is sound.
The scientific definition is not more legitimate: It is more relevant. You are talking about scientific theories, so the colloquial definition is irrelevant.
Language, not science, invented the word "theory", and it is used in many ways.
I had talked about a scientific theory - the definition of theory according to science is irrelevant, a theory is a theory, there was nothing 'colloquial' about it, the word was used in its purest sense.
Language is a body of lexicons and syntaxes. It doesn't create anything.
You are wrong. The only relevant definition of theory is that of science. You claimed that the Big Bang theory was a colloquial theory, your definition. I pointed out that it was a scientific theory, which has a completely differant definition. The only relevant definition is that used in science.
The big bang theory is a theory for the same reason kinetics is.
Your definition is colloquial in that it is the common usage. The scientific definition is used mainly in science, and rarely in common situations, so is the non-colloquial definition.
If you are using it in its most common sense to describe a scientific theory, then you are simply misusing the word. Cell theory, germ theory, et cetera are not "speculative views". The only way the word "theory" makes sense describing scientific theories is when you use the scientific definition.
You use the definition of a colloquial theory, not a scientific one. Encarta has a similar colloquial definition. Does the Australian Pocket Oxford Dictionary define a scientific theory?
How is it incomplete as a theory?
I did not say that you said cosmology didn't exist. I said you said it wasn't complete and therefor is intrinsically incorrect.
The point of scientific epistemology is to find what more there is to add to the model.
Science is not an interpretation. It's the end result of the methodological naturalistic epistemology. Epistemology is a way of learning, not interpretations. Epistemology sets conditions.
Something is science if it passes methodological naturalism's conditions. The main condition is, "can something be observed under every instance with no exception?". This has been refined to the scientific method, which is a dramatic conditioning process.
I cannot then believe in this concept of an anthropomorphic god, who has the powers of interfering with these natural laws."
-Albert Einstein, from Private Albert Einstein, by Peter A. Bucky, Andrews and McMeel (05/01/1992) Pg. 86
Existence can easily be defined as having an applicable definition. If something is the literal absence of something then it exists AS the absence of that thing. You failed to make a point.
Thank you for not reading what I wrote, and putting words in my mouth because you didn't have the attention span to read more than 1/3 of the worst in any one sentence.
I doubt you will even read this. You express why so many hate the religious, they almost never listen, and because of this they make the hugest platitudes.
Wrong - I read everything you wrote, not a lot of it made sense to me, but I tried. You presume too much, and you argue with venom, I think you even missed the sincere apology for insulting you earlier and kept up the insults.
I "express" why so many hate the religious - if you even read my contribution you would realise I never said that once.
Take your own advice, and I wished you luck because that's what it'll take for you to realise your own arrogance.
How am I being arrogant. You never addressed the main issue, even when I put it forward directly. You claim to have "carefully considered [...] science and religion", but you never presented anything of meaning.
You make bare assertions with no evidence, and claim you have the better. You are the pigeon in the analogy. You spend most of the time claiming that particular terms mean something off the wall rather than presenting anything valuable.
The point of God is to teach humans to love one another, and to treat each other with respect. There is no way we could have come up with that idea by ourselves, when we are so focussed on bettering ourselves at the expense of others.
Therefore the "theory" goes that God gave the gift of "benevolence" and "love" to us so we would use it to better humanity.
Get it? I hope so, you seem to twist my words or read into them too much. The answer is in the Bible, and the wisdom it contains.
he point of god is to explain things that can't be immediately verified. The existence of a god doesn't change whether someone loves another, respects another, etc. If it were true that that was the point of god, the plan surely backfired, considering people use god to justify atrocities more than any one other thing.
Why are you even saying this? It's completely irrelevant.
See? When I respond to you directly, you just find another way to discard it - I just told you what the point of God is, and you just add in your own definition and assume you are correct. Again. You are a child, to claim that every word you add is true - I do not commit atrocities in the name of God, how can you claim every religious person does as you suggest? Have you proof? Or just lame, generalised, unresearched, opinionated rubbish. Pointless to discuss this with you further.
7 I never asked what the point of a god was. I said point blank, that the notion was irrelevant. This conversation stated when you claimed that religion has conditions by which it asserts knowledge. I asked what substantiation there was, you never answered.
The conversation then went toward evidence for a god. I asked you what could cause an inference leading to a god. You never answered.
That's untrue, I never stated that religion has conditions upon which to believe it, quite the opposite, you are not reading what I am saying. At all. And i said good actions were what substantiated my belief there was a God, so what are you talking about, that I never answered?
You specifically stated. "who was the douche who said religion is to be accepted unconditionally? What a joke, i've never had that thrown upon me in all my studies..."
YOU said that. It was the first comment I responded to.
Stating that good actions imply god is a non sequitur. As I stated, good actions exist independently of anything outside of humanity.
You have yet to provide substantiation. You have to outline your logical steps. How would "good actions" mean god?
Love is an emotion that is not unique to humans. Like all emotions, it developed because of it's survival benefits.
Benevolence is a behavior. It is merely one of many types of interactions between people. It makes any sense to say humans couldn't do this without anything to supply it.
The bible also says that a perfectly round lake with a diameter of 10 will have a circumference of 30, as well as number of other idiocies.
The bible contradicts benevolence more than it supports it.
Evidence please. You can't just make statements and assume they are true. Read through the Book of Wisdom, if you have even bothered to open a bible at all.
If you don't think the bible promotes violence, you never read it. There is no excuse for claiming something so ignorant. Why am I teaching you about your religion?
I never said the bible promotes violence, nor even referred to the idea, how did you manage to come to that conclusion?
You make assumptions again. Do not refer to points I did not even make, you are responding to things I am not saying. Sound familiar? Stop committing your own errors.
By the way, I know you don't understand syntax very well, so, to save time, I'll say this right now.
If somebody says the word "If" when beginning a sentence, it is stating a conditional. In common debate, conditionals are used to remove or address propositions anticipated to arrive.
I stated "If you are using the word god as..." to address a point I would anticipate you making. At no point when using a conditional am I claiming that the proposition has been made.
You have yet to address the main issue. What evidence points to a god? How can a god be inferred from observation? If there is nothing in these categories, there is no reason to consider god a reasonable idea.
Religion is more cut and dry. You believe it, or not, even if it's verifyably false.
How have I closed my mind by creating standards? I don't believe everything I'm told. It's very important not to in science. That is why in chemistry class you mix chemicals together to very something is true. In biology, you dissect and observe. In astronomy and cosmology we have telescopes and computer simulations.
Evidence is what ideas should be based around. evidence is verifiable observation. If you base any idea on anything else, it's nothing separate from imagination. The mountain of evidence makes it the most verifiably right idea there is.
Evidence - according to your given definition, if enough people say the same thing, then it is true. And yet science is about proof. If science proves something, and the everyone says it is wrong, is science wrong?
All the EVIDENCE provided in this video is from one type of source, scientists that disagree with creationism. What about evidence from everyone else?
Again, open your mind, I like to read different points of view, you don't, as you prove constantly with your scorn.
I said, point blank "evidence is verifiable observation." Do you not read what someone said before you reply?
Science is not about proof, if it was there would be no science. Evidence is something verifiable. Science is made of refined models that change as new evidence is presented. All models withing science are the most accurate we have, and they can only get more so.
You just said "evidence is what ideas SHOULD be based around." Verifiable observation is truthful observation, but according to which truth? If you see yellow and I see red, what is the truth of it? If someone else says yellow, that makes me wrong does it?
And if scientists have a new idea without any solid evidence, you are saying it is not seperate from imagination; why should they even pursue new ideas, if it's wrong?
Refer to your comment regarding evidence before replying.
Yellow is an average wavelength of a group of photons between 570 and 590 nanometers. Red is between 620 and 750 nanometers. There is no opinion, it is a measurable circumstance. Methodological naturalism does not deal with opinion or spectator claims, it deals with observation.
The goal of science is to make the most accurate modle. No one has a right modle, and it may be an impossibility, but we can make a very accurate modle.
Creationism is about believing in shit you know isn't true. How can one be reasonable or sensible when thinking is the very thing one must not do? Everything we do, we do ultimately to ourselves. The worst of things in the world are not useless; they can serve as a bad example. All experience is each of us finding out something more about ourself. No one ever convinced anyone of anything. In eternity, how many side trips would you take?
*sigh* im tired of this internet holy war between athiests and religious... honestly, your all a bunch of hypocritic dicks who have your heads way to far up ur asses
MrMeineNamen 2 months ago
what you are talking about is young earth creationists, some creationists (like myself) are men and women of science who see that both science and religion can coexist. yes it takes some effort mentally but it is possible and we have just as many verses as they do to prove that science s just as true as the bible. their big one, genesis1 was written as a poem not a history book.
Timmytime178 3 months ago
This is just great. Its just wonderful.
SuperMrAtheist 5 months ago
Why do we have to inhumanly attack each other??? I see it from both sides of the debate and if that is our method of talking, it is no wonder we cannot have a civilized intelligent conversation. What I believe is my own choice and if people want to discuss what they believe I love to learn but accept the fact that I have a voice as well. I am sorry others push their faith on you but do not presume that I have no intelligence and am worthless because of what I believe.
danewheeler 6 months ago
love it.
somethingonmyhip 8 months ago
Thanks for the post, djarm67. I was amused and even got a chuckle. Say, have you even considered that your theories and my theories might both be mostly right? Surely you've thought that, just maybe, things like DNA, the complexity of the human mind and it's connection with the brain, the fact that humans are no better or worse off than 5,000 years ago, gravity, the fact that the moon has only one face, and countless other facts of the Universe could not have happened by chance?
therfleig 8 months ago
@therfleig I'm quite happy to have this discussion with you. Are you willing to change your position? If I can demonstrate where you are in error, are you willing to concede that your sources are unreliable?
DJ
djarm67 8 months ago 7
@therfleig - No credible scientist have ever claimed it happened by chance. Not a single universally accepted peer-reviewed scientific study has ever claimed evolution has ANYTHING to do with chance. It is simply in your interest to make it look that way. You lie.
Religion is dead, you had a nice 5000 year run, but it is now over. Close to 90% of the population in Europe are now atheists when it comes to classical religion.
We win, now go back to the bronze age where you belong.
facepalmization 8 months ago 2
@therfleig ummm... I dont wanna start a discussion but... what makes you think the moon has only one face???
maximkazhenkov11 6 months ago
@therfleig
Of course they could have happened by chance. It's a limitation of the human mind to assume that things are too "complicated' to have happened by chance. The universe is plenty big enough, and old enough, for all of it to have been chance. It's the same with the concept of "beginning" and "ending:" limitations of the human mind.
lilinfu2 4 months ago
You know what this video needs? Some good music in the background!
BiggySeth 9 months ago
Somtimes I think having faith in creatinists is more ridiculess than having faith in a god.
f00tstep 10 months ago
Your welcome! XD hehehe
Jesusfreakmm 10 months ago
I am a Christian, but I believe in evolution to a point. And for the most part I agree with your statement here. Many Christians do not practice what they preach. But some of us do, or at least try. I would love to have a friendly debate with you about evolution. We can if you would like. set a date, and it can be a youtube debate. I am not a hater, but if it is a intellectual debate, we can skype it and let others listen. Up to you, but I would like to do that. Just message me
anphelps27 10 months ago 4
@anphelps27 skype sent. Add me
djarm67 10 months ago 3
@anphelps27 How do you believe in it to a point? It's believe or don't believe isn't it?
f00tstep 9 months ago
@f00tstep Not really. There is macro evolution and micro evolution. I believe that as human being we do develop changing body parts as we evolve as people, but I do not believe that we came from something else originally. I have studied Darwin's theory and there are many holes in it. Like how all primates have 48 chromosomes and we are missing 2. Where did our strength go? All primates are so much stronger. We are more intelligent, but less strong. Just too many holes.
anphelps27 9 months ago
@anphelps27 You can't believe in micro and not macro because they use the exact same process, it just sounds stupid to say you only believe in one. Anyway pushing that aside, our strength was lost for efficiancy purposses. We figured out how to creat tools to do tasks therefor our bodies would be using up extra energy to fuel extra muscles so that trait was lost to our genetic memory and will remain shut down.
f00tstep 9 months ago
@anphelps27 "I have studied Darwin's theory and there are many holes in it."
That's because you're looking at DARWIN'S theory, not the theory of evolution as it exists today. Darwin would require years of education to get caught up on the last 150 years of discovery.
"Like how all primates have 48 chromosomes and we are missing 2."
Trivially easy to answer (Though not necessarily to understand). Google "chromosome fusion," or "human chromosome number 2."
TrevorBlack79 8 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 Ok, valid point you make. There are still valid arguments on both sides on the coin though. I am not saying that the Bible has all the answers as to where we came from, but neither does evolution. And I will google what you say.
anphelps27 8 months ago
Comment removed
TrevorBlack79 8 months ago
@anphelps27 go debate christopher hitchens
phildirt3 9 months ago
@anphelps27 RE:"I would love to have a friendly debate with you about evolution"
I am always disturbed by statements like this. The reason it disturbs me is that evolutionary theory has more confirmation than any other scientific theory. But how often do you see people wanting to debate the existence of the atom? Heliocentric model? Relativity? Germ theory of disease? Flat Earth?
Ansonidak 5 months ago
@Ansonidak i like debating too . i noticed you said we dont debate other things well we do in a way because we continually work to resarch these things, from atoms were once as small as it gets, no longer ture , or now the theroy of special relitivity is being challanged , light may no longer be the fast thing, which is great. Just like us as time goes on we evolve so does our science and understanding.
William81Edge10 4 months ago
i always love that our sides videos are always open for comments but not the others side .
William81Edge10 4 months ago
@anphelps27 There is only one problem with having a debate. Your faith, Christianity has several different denominations. Catholics, Protestants, Baptist, Mormons etc. Each of these Christian sects believe in slightly different things, even you said many of them do and don't practice what they preach. You can't possibly represent all of them and their ideas. However, one evolutionist can represent the evolution theory, because the scientific data is exactly the same agreed upon information.
1SmartMofo 2 months ago
Why does this guy spend his life trying to prove his beliefs when he thinks he will just die? If he really believed what he "believes" he should be out having all the fun he can before he turns to dust.
deadlifter410 1 year ago
@deadlifter410 because we are doing our part to humanity.it would be like leaving a mentally retarded person alone and not offering any help to the mentally retarded person.same concept.we atheists who propagate science and reason try to help you religious twits to use your brain and think about it
HalcyonAugust2 1 year ago 2
@deadlifter410 really? i mean, really? is that the best your brain can do. Sad, just sad.
Lozano9123x 1 year ago 2
the pigeon thing was absolute genius :D :D
best analogy EVER
ipeterG123 1 year ago 2
tHIS IS THE FIRST TIME i HAVE FOUND A SITE THAT IS BENEATH CONTEMPT would you have us believe you are a beleaguered scientist instead of a high school propellor head your angst filled plea is not credible you claim to represent acadenia when in fact you probably are in the chess club.
MrNewkingjames 1 year ago
@MrNewkingjames OI!! The grown ups are talking, piss off to the naughty step and chill.
annoyed001 1 year ago
Great video.... Thanks for giving them tight
kokopingo 1 year ago
Awesome video. Thumbs up!
UZiBLASTER7 1 year ago
Well done!
42317 1 year ago
Where human beings are created by that of the finest materials. Creationists are those bits of corn you find in god's dog's shit.
DoTheShuffaloShake 1 year ago
@tapdancinmouz Well done, you've found wiktionary. Really, if you will word a sentence in such an ostentatious way, don't expect anyone to be either impressed, or in any way inclined to take you seriously. Also; If you really are going for an eloquent image, learn some grammar and spelling. Mistakes I've noticed here: '[space];', '[space].', 'you little world', 'Him', 'BTW:God's', 'Pharisaical', and the last sentence made no sense. Finally; that smiley on the end was completely unfitting.
Pudabudigada 1 year ago
1412 thumbs up for this video
27 thumbs down
hahahahahahahahahaha
INTOTHEGRINDER 1 year ago
Hmm, any creationist here ordered a HUGE p0wn sammich ? :)
TheDezmona 1 year ago
@tapdancinmouz " when you little world falls apart ." - And god will support you? Where is he now then, can you prove he is real?
"You're "wise in your own eyes"" Because we think for our selves, we don't blindly believe in some stupid little fairy tale with no evidence to support it.
Of course, you follow a religion, so you will continue to deny all evidence that science provides. So I guess trying to prove anything to you idiots is a waste of time.
KarlxMxN 1 year ago
Wonderful video. I don't think I've seen another video that demonstrates both the ignorance and the dishonesty of creationists so clearly. FYI: "In an article for Social Psychology Quarterly, Kanazawa lays out facts based on U.S. data to support his theory. According to that research, young adults who identify as "not at all religious" had an average IQ of 103 as teens, while those who identified as "very religious" had an average IQ of 97."
GenRipper 1 year ago 2
I would guess this video was supposed to be directed to those creationist that do flag, bot and all that other stuff and perhaps extend the flaming to a few leaders who make false claims. I would hope its not directed to creationist as a whole group (even tho i myself has a hard time seeing them as an intellectual group), because then its just random flaming of alot of innocent people (even tho they might be annoying, they still have the right to think what they want).
Tho i like the vid.
ReeRoun 1 year ago
@ReeRoun But isn't it fun how a lot of creationists false flag videos, and on a public level you here them say that they are treated as jews in nazi germany to make their creationism more valid (Just see the movie xpelled). Isn't it funny? Some creationists false flag and waste their time on this filthy tactic, and then some of them have the stomach to say that they are "prosecuted"? It just make me laugh.
Imhornydadcomeinside 11 months ago 2
i hold this fistful of degenerate ideas, for every genius that was murdered by jesus.
ni3dzi3lski 1 year ago
Nice video.
5m1nutes 1 year ago
while i am an evolutionist, i think you are going a bit far in generalizing creationists as bad people, calling all of them morally bankrupt, which is a morally bankrupt statement in and of itself as showing any form of bias is, after all, immoral.
also, as an evolutionist, i hate to point this out to you, but as you are almost completely just spouting off bias in this, you are pretty much proving a lot of their points about us when you condemn all of them like that for what only some did
yaoimutt 2 years ago
PS, please note that i am still a fan, i just think that you went a little too far in this video
yaoimutt 2 years ago
Some day creationists need to begin to have a openmind to the possibility for a natural explanation for our universe!
And yes, this video is lost on them : (
daarco2 2 years ago
I'm the same opinion as shaun365.
Years ago when I was in highschool I had this religion class, they tought christianity to us as an obligatory class. One time, I thought to myself "Meh, what is everyone saying about it, i'm sure its not that bad". So i grabbed the old testament, opened on a random page, and read something like this : If you are fighting with another man, and your wife trying to separate you accidentally touches the other mans genitals you have to cut off her hand.
...really
Dentister 2 years ago
It would be like me as a creationist and christian vilifying atheists in general because of such vocal stooges like TheAmazingAtheist and similar minded atheists.
I see individuals doing stupid things, sometimes working together as a self-proclaimed group, but i do not think that making such generalizations like you do is warranted.
Take on the rotten apples, but keep the peace between yourself and the rest.
I try to adhere to that philosophy as much as possible.
Barachem 2 years ago
"You creationists, yada yada yada..."
First of all, i'm a creationist who despises false flagging, votebotting and filing false DMCA claims by fellow creationists, especially if they're attempts to censor free speech.
While i disagree with evolution theory, i back your right to present it and try to refute creationism.
I think you're right in addressing the creationists that behave badly, but generalizing creationists due to a vocal and insidious subgroup is never a good thing.
Barachem 2 years ago
'Try and refute creationism'
We have refuted it. Long long ago.
mrstone56 2 years ago
you can't be a christians that does not believe in the bible, the word Christian denotes a belief in Jesus of Nazareth's divinity. If you believe in the morals of the bible your just a moral person, most atheists agree with many morals of the bible, like dont steal, dont kill, dont rape, dont lie. so stop tagging on a title like "christian" that's only an insult to your intelligence.
Jarut195 2 years ago
Thanks, a-holes!
tctheunbeliever 2 years ago
Im a christian, but I dont believe there is a higher power. I believe in the morals it has. But when It comes to jack asses like people that blow up abortion clinics/flag the videos/etc. Those are the people that need to die. I want most atheists to know there are Christians that are not morally bankrupt, but that number is VERY small.
RozarNippets 2 years ago 2
What do you expect from creationists? They believe that the whole humankind is a result of incest! Adam and Eve were the only humans created by God. Eve gave birth to lotsa children, the children married each other and so on and so forth... And the explanation is: back then incest supposedly was "perfectly safe", cuz "genetics were not corrupted"!!!!! More questions???
yegorletoff 2 years ago
This is what bothers me. I consider myself a Christian, but I also believe that the facts supporting evolution can't be ignored. Filing false claims, vote botting and the like are all forms of bearing false witness...you know something we were told not to do by the 10 commandments. Taking actions like this betray our faith, trying to forcibly censor them isn't moral or right.
Darkstar1484 2 years ago 37
@Darkstar1484
I am a creationist myself, but i agree that false flagging, votebotting, filing false DMCA claims is just not done and intellectually dishonest, whether a creationist or an evolutionist does it.
Just because there are creationists that resort to false flagging, votebotting and filing false DMCA claims, doesn't mean they're the majority of creationists, nor that they or their actions speak for the majority of creationists.
Such censorship i deem morally wrong.
Barachem 2 years ago
We can agree. We might agree on the idea of creationism and evolution but we can at least agree that it's wrong to censor this way. If nothing else this gives me some hope.
Darkstar1484 2 years ago
@Darkstar1484 Dear Darkstar, you are very right and also very close an even bigger that will set you free. that is if you dare to draw the conclusions of your convictions. evolution and genesis simply does not add up, and if you look deeper you will many other conflicts between christianity and the things we know to be true about the world. I wish you the best of luck and hope you have curage to keep digging for truth and honesty.
neuromatiker 3 months ago
@neuromatiker Oh I found my way into the light these days, I'm an atheist. It was really a matter of reading the bible.
Darkstar1484 3 months ago
@Darkstar1484 Sorry,I must have misunderstood something. But welcome in the light brother.
neuromatiker 3 months ago
@neuromatiker Nah, you didn't understand, back when I made the comment you replied to I was still a Christian. Liberal love thy neighbor kind, but yeah.
Darkstar1484 3 months ago
There are plenty of creationist arguments that hold up and make sense you just won't listen to them. Every time I try to put up a logical explanation for God it gets voted out. Just because there many Christians that say they are Christians doesn't mean they are truly Christians. To be a true christian is to follow after Jesus and to love him and to love you. I hope you all come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ God bless you all.
awesomenize1 2 years ago
Name one. We're not talking about wether a god or gods exist, we're talking about the creation model of the bible, and for that, there are no arguments that make sense or hold up.
DodoPandemic 2 years ago 5
awesomenize1, name one creationist argument that holds up and makes sense. Every argument I have encountered was deeply flawed and had been successfully rebutted by science. But I'm open to looking at evidence. What have you got?
ebullock43 2 years ago 6
yes the morals that you are expressing are valid, but unfortunately your religious texts seem to not always agree on this. also, if you can, please reply with evidence of God. and i mean factual, unbiased evidence. after all if you can inspire Christianity in me you can sleep easy knowing you saved a soul today.
qulqunick 2 years ago
Are you talking about old testament texts or what.
awesomenize1 2 years ago
I thank you for your efforts in the battle against creationist
please keep up the good work
yarrarat 2 years ago
interresting
super7fanboy 2 years ago
For some odd reason this video would not start playing till I moved it up a little. But what I wanted to say about it is, "Dog that's your sister, don't do it.."
xD
Bebopgirlblues 2 years ago
agreed
waynerick96 2 years ago
We can't help but prove points and use logic to refute the creationists, but in the back of our minds we know that it has no effect on them. Still, we must try.
Outstanding video, although it will have no effect on on the retards. They are, after all, retarded.
FistfullaBerries 2 years ago 45
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No it is you that has no effects on science. You athest want to look at the world simplier but that wrong. God has always been and made the universe. Not the universe making itself or the universe always being.
gigaboy47 2 years ago
Logic/comprehension fail, gigaboy.
BoredomCorner 2 years ago 3
Scientific look at the world is far more complex than the creationist one... Proof is that you don't understand it...
Acrimonator 2 years ago
Outstanding video. So very, very true.
1ProudFemaleAtheist 2 years ago
to hell with votebots!
ringmasterslash 2 years ago 2
simple fact all creationist do is cause wars with somone who has a diffrent god and the worst part is if there is a god in any way shape or form ITS THE FUCKING PLANETS!!!.not some queer ass looking muslim jew from 2K years ago for fuck sake.
manic42018 2 years ago
nice video ! :)
samirhossain 2 years ago
I think it is you evolutionist that are putting one star on vidoes and flag videos.
gigaboy47 2 years ago
Giving a one star vote isn't a bad thing.
We don't systematically attack accounts with programs that vote 1 star on a video 500 times. I haven't seen a creationist video that has needed age verification... ever, nor any accounts shut down due to flagging. However, I've seen it several times against the pro-science side.
You only think that because you want it to be true, typical of most religious, unfortunately.
doogtoog 2 years ago
Read everything you have said below so far, and note that you are committing the same 'mistake' - you believe what you want to believe, and assume it is true.
And "typical of most religious"... religious what? Want to finish that segment? It makes no sense, you failed to make a point.
And who is "we" - are you more than 1 person? You are speaking for people that haven't spoken... How naiive to think you can speak on behalf of another - the world is made up of individuals, is it not?
AT32123 2 years ago
Comment removed
gigaboy47 2 years ago
This comment is stupd. It is talkng about religious people duh.
gigaboy47 2 years ago
Comment removed
AT32123 2 years ago
Never, EVER generalise. Religious people? What kind of material do you read? Or not read for that matter?
So I believe there's a God... I don't go out and kill people who don't. I don't belittle them, I even listen to whatever reasons people have for not believing, to the best of my ability. I don't even believe there is a Hell.
But I am a religious person, so what does the title mean then? My religious views are different from other religious views... are all religious people the same? No.
AT32123 2 years ago
Yes all regious people. (The people that are truly regious.) They're all the ame thing. An good example would be 9/11. Osama was a muslim but he wasn't truly muslim. However Hitler was athest. However he wasn't truely ahtest? That makes no sense. Religion is the way to go. You would use science when naming your baby why use it in determining how the universe was born.
gigaboy47 2 years ago
You can't answer my question can you... people that are truly religious - again, what is that? A person is not defined my their religion, but by their beliefs. A belief is not a religion, a religion is a way of interpreting a belief.
Your entire paragraph makes no sense, I use science to name my baby? Totally lost me... And 9/11 was committed by terrorists, who are not necessarily believers in God. Any person with enough sense would know those terrorists just enjoy causing pain, nothing more.
AT32123 2 years ago
Religious is defined as follows.
Religious; derivative of Religion meaning, a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by.
Believing what a person wants to be true without justification is an implication of being religious.
Once again, you lack the linguistic knowledge to warrant me discussing this any further.
Ant I stated "most" as to not generalize. I would only be generalizing if I said "all".
5 times now.
doogtoog 2 years ago
You actually added to the tally of how many times you didn't read everything I said. Stop giving yourself the pseudo-slogan of "reading everything". Just do it and it would be demonstrably true.
Religious is a noun, as well as an adjective. When a noun, referring to people who adhere to religion. Even if you didn't know that, you could just use your deductive reasoning.
Did you read the comment I responded to? The comment slurred evolutionary advocates, that's who I meant by "we".
doogtoog 2 years ago
Ehh... yeah no...
im sorry but that statement is false
Thassarian09 2 years ago
do you have proof
gigaboy47 2 years ago
Proof of what?
I never asked a question, i made 'comment' or a 'Statement'
Thassarian09 2 years ago
what are you talking about
gigaboy47 2 years ago
Yeah i kind, of fucked up with that
Correction: Proof? proof for what? i don't need proof for the statement i made. YOU need proof of what your saying.
Thassarian09 2 years ago
Now why do I need proof and you do not. Second of all you probably don't even know what I'm talking about.
gigaboy47 2 years ago
you need proof because you are the one making the claim..isnt that obvious?
OSHUNLIDE 2 years ago
Your talking (or were) about how 'you' think that evolutionists are one-starring videos... even though that maybe true , it is not on the scale of creationist votebots...
Thassarian09 2 years ago
Seeing as you haven't replied i will assume you either,
A: Admitted defeat and gave up
B: Gave up trying to find my comment in the mess you created
C: Ignored/Blocked me like all ignorant people will do when they know they cant win...
Or D: All of the above
Thassarian09 2 years ago
The reason I havn't awsner is my cat died also you said the statement is false that was what I was talking about.
gigaboy47 2 years ago
appeal to emotion. FAIL
Psychentist 2 years ago
Ok your cat died, i honestly don't care...
and yes i did say the statement is false, but it is... for the most part.
lemme put it this way
it is undisputed that many videos made by users like Thunderf00t and DPRjones, and the whole lot have been attacked by multiple 1 star votes. now its not just 1 or 2 by the random person who does that. its thousands... (not per video but per channel)
and when i look at a creationist video
it either has
A 5 stars
B You cant give ratings
or C 3.5 (average...)
Thassarian09 2 years ago
can you prove it
gigaboy47 2 years ago
Check some of Thunderf00ts old videos (if they're still up) and check the rating statistics... if i am correct, then you will see large spikes in the "Line" as ill call it...
Thassarian09 2 years ago
Holy shit, best video on youtube.
mcjacobs2488 2 years ago 3
praise the lord?
DeeHDTV 2 years ago
5* and favorite.
ReverendAtomSmasher 2 years ago
I voted 1. HAHAHA NERD.
seniorxduck 2 years ago
So true...
666YouthOfToday666 2 years ago
OMG your Powervideomaker is UNREGISTERED!?
my god man how do you sleep at night!?
lol. I kid... 5 stars.
jmosler9 2 years ago
love the pigeon playing chess analogy
gilgamesh011 2 years ago
What, you're saying that mountains of evidence from 10's of thousands of scientists makes their ideas right? And who was the douche who said religion is to be accepted unconditionally? What a joke, i've never had that thrown upon me in all my studies, maybe you should take some theology classes and learn something.
And if scientists are so "free thinking", why can't it think beyond the "Big Bang" theory?
All creationists are ignorant? Hilarious. Don't stereotype please, it's ignorant.
AT32123 2 years ago
Please, tell me what conditions substantiate the claims of a religion. Don't just call me names and laugh at your own ignorance (and self created irony).
The big bang theory is the colloquial name for the modern cosmological model. It's the best model derived from empirical study. If you're so free thinking why can't you attempt to understand methodological naturalism?
You're perpetuating the stereotype with your mindless platitudes.
doogtoog 2 years ago
Because the Modern cosmological model is yet to be completed, hence "Theory".
Religions claim many things - like science, it is mans way of interpreting reality as we know it - there are no conditions, you accept or you don't - if you believe or not, that's your choice.
You close your mind. I am free thinking, and I have carefully considered in the time I have what has been offered to me by science and religion alike - but these things take time and thought. Sorry for calling you a douche.
AT32123 2 years ago
Of course cosmology is incomplete, but it still has a large amount if information. Mathematics isn't complete either, does that mean numbers don't exist?
Theory (Science); A set of facts, principals, and propositions, unified in their relation, used to explain phenomena.
-Encarta
It's a theory because of the knowledge it holds, not the knowledge it's uncovering.
doogtoog 2 years ago
Again you missed the issue I presented you, or you purposely avoid addressing it for fear that you don't have an answer.
I said, as a theory, it is incomplete - look, even I have a definition:
Theory: Speculative view, abstract knowledge or speculative thought.
- The Australian Pocket Oxford Dictionary
I did not say it Cosmology didn't exist, I said incomplete, in the making, it has potential, has some merit.
There's more out there.
AT32123 2 years ago
Please, look up the *scientific* usage of the word "theory".
Dentarthurdent54 2 years ago
Dentharthurden54, please note that you said "scientific" usage, but the word is used in many ways, what made scientific usage more legitimate than others, if that is what you mean by your comment?
Otherwise, I have looked it up, and doogtoog's definition is sound.
Thank you anyway.
AT32123 2 years ago
The scientific definition is not more legitimate: It is more relevant. You are talking about scientific theories, so the colloquial definition is irrelevant.
Dentarthurdent54 2 years ago
Language, not science, invented the word "theory", and it is used in many ways.
I had talked about a scientific theory - the definition of theory according to science is irrelevant, a theory is a theory, there was nothing 'colloquial' about it, the word was used in its purest sense.
AT32123 2 years ago
Language is a body of lexicons and syntaxes. It doesn't create anything.
You are wrong. The only relevant definition of theory is that of science. You claimed that the Big Bang theory was a colloquial theory, your definition. I pointed out that it was a scientific theory, which has a completely differant definition. The only relevant definition is that used in science.
The big bang theory is a theory for the same reason kinetics is.
doogtoog 2 years ago
Your definition is colloquial in that it is the common usage. The scientific definition is used mainly in science, and rarely in common situations, so is the non-colloquial definition.
doogtoog 2 years ago
If you are using it in its most common sense to describe a scientific theory, then you are simply misusing the word. Cell theory, germ theory, et cetera are not "speculative views". The only way the word "theory" makes sense describing scientific theories is when you use the scientific definition.
Dentarthurdent54 2 years ago
You use the definition of a colloquial theory, not a scientific one. Encarta has a similar colloquial definition. Does the Australian Pocket Oxford Dictionary define a scientific theory?
How is it incomplete as a theory?
I did not say that you said cosmology didn't exist. I said you said it wasn't complete and therefor is intrinsically incorrect.
The point of scientific epistemology is to find what more there is to add to the model.
doogtoog 2 years ago
Science is not an interpretation. It's the end result of the methodological naturalistic epistemology. Epistemology is a way of learning, not interpretations. Epistemology sets conditions.
Something is science if it passes methodological naturalism's conditions. The main condition is, "can something be observed under every instance with no exception?". This has been refined to the scientific method, which is a dramatic conditioning process.
doogtoog 2 years ago
You know nothing about religion, "cut and dry", "verifyably false"?
Why is it that a great scientific mind like Einstein believed in God? How could he be so stupid as to give even the concept of God thought?
Unless he explored the possibility and saw merit. Does cold exist, or is it an absence of heat? Does dark exist or is it an absence of light?
You create standards, and yet immediately you cut off other ideas with those same standards. Nothing is cut and dry, look for yourself.
AT32123 2 years ago
Wow, you are a sad individual.
I cannot then believe in this concept of an anthropomorphic god, who has the powers of interfering with these natural laws."
-Albert Einstein, from Private Albert Einstein, by Peter A. Bucky, Andrews and McMeel (05/01/1992) Pg. 86
Existence can easily be defined as having an applicable definition. If something is the literal absence of something then it exists AS the absence of that thing. You failed to make a point.
doogtoog 2 years ago
Thank you, I'm done here.
Thanks for sharing your ideas, and perhaps letting me share mine, I'm not sure if that's what you've done.
Best of luck to you.
Mark
AT32123 2 years ago
Thank you for not reading what I wrote, and putting words in my mouth because you didn't have the attention span to read more than 1/3 of the worst in any one sentence.
I doubt you will even read this. You express why so many hate the religious, they almost never listen, and because of this they make the hugest platitudes.
You don't need luck, you need patience.
doogtoog 2 years ago
Wrong - I read everything you wrote, not a lot of it made sense to me, but I tried. You presume too much, and you argue with venom, I think you even missed the sincere apology for insulting you earlier and kept up the insults.
I "express" why so many hate the religious - if you even read my contribution you would realise I never said that once.
Take your own advice, and I wished you luck because that's what it'll take for you to realise your own arrogance.
AT32123 2 years ago
I pointed out 3 instances where you didn't read what I said. I suspect you skimmed what I wrote and didn't try to understand much of it.
I don't care that you insulted me, nor do I care that you apologised, it is irrelevant.
doogtoog 2 years ago
How am I being arrogant. You never addressed the main issue, even when I put it forward directly. You claim to have "carefully considered [...] science and religion", but you never presented anything of meaning.
You make bare assertions with no evidence, and claim you have the better. You are the pigeon in the analogy. You spend most of the time claiming that particular terms mean something off the wall rather than presenting anything valuable.
doogtoog 2 years ago
The point of God is to teach humans to love one another, and to treat each other with respect. There is no way we could have come up with that idea by ourselves, when we are so focussed on bettering ourselves at the expense of others.
Therefore the "theory" goes that God gave the gift of "benevolence" and "love" to us so we would use it to better humanity.
Get it? I hope so, you seem to twist my words or read into them too much. The answer is in the Bible, and the wisdom it contains.
AT32123 2 years ago
he point of god is to explain things that can't be immediately verified. The existence of a god doesn't change whether someone loves another, respects another, etc. If it were true that that was the point of god, the plan surely backfired, considering people use god to justify atrocities more than any one other thing.
Why are you even saying this? It's completely irrelevant.
doogtoog 2 years ago
See? When I respond to you directly, you just find another way to discard it - I just told you what the point of God is, and you just add in your own definition and assume you are correct. Again. You are a child, to claim that every word you add is true - I do not commit atrocities in the name of God, how can you claim every religious person does as you suggest? Have you proof? Or just lame, generalised, unresearched, opinionated rubbish. Pointless to discuss this with you further.
AT32123 2 years ago
What? that's 7 times.
6. You said that I said that everyone religious commits atrocities.
I actually said.
"people use god to justify atrocities more than any one other thing."
You did not read what I actually said.
I could point out numerous times atrocities being justified using god, if you would like.
doogtoog 2 years ago
7 I never asked what the point of a god was. I said point blank, that the notion was irrelevant. This conversation stated when you claimed that religion has conditions by which it asserts knowledge. I asked what substantiation there was, you never answered.
The conversation then went toward evidence for a god. I asked you what could cause an inference leading to a god. You never answered.
doogtoog 2 years ago
That's untrue, I never stated that religion has conditions upon which to believe it, quite the opposite, you are not reading what I am saying. At all. And i said good actions were what substantiated my belief there was a God, so what are you talking about, that I never answered?
AT32123 2 years ago
You specifically stated. "who was the douche who said religion is to be accepted unconditionally? What a joke, i've never had that thrown upon me in all my studies..."
YOU said that. It was the first comment I responded to.
Stating that good actions imply god is a non sequitur. As I stated, good actions exist independently of anything outside of humanity.
You have yet to provide substantiation. You have to outline your logical steps. How would "good actions" mean god?
doogtoog 2 years ago
Comment removed
AT32123 2 years ago
Love is an emotion that is not unique to humans. Like all emotions, it developed because of it's survival benefits.
Benevolence is a behavior. It is merely one of many types of interactions between people. It makes any sense to say humans couldn't do this without anything to supply it.
The bible also says that a perfectly round lake with a diameter of 10 will have a circumference of 30, as well as number of other idiocies.
The bible contradicts benevolence more than it supports it.
doogtoog 2 years ago
*Does it make any sense to say humans couldn't do this without anything to supply it?
doogtoog 2 years ago
Evidence please. You can't just make statements and assume they are true. Read through the Book of Wisdom, if you have even bothered to open a bible at all.
AT32123 2 years ago
are some cases of violence promotion from the "book of wisdom".
The story of Job centers around god allowing Satan to torment Job, because god thinks it's a reasonable thing to do.
In Job 6:4 and 7:2 it states that god uses dreams, arrows, and poison to torment humans.
Psalm claims a myriad of horrible things are good.
Slavery
2:8-9, 149:5-8
War
7:11-13, 18:34, 144:1
500 words isn't enough for even the rest of psalm. If you would like, I could continue.
doogtoog 2 years ago
If you don't think the bible promotes violence, you never read it. There is no excuse for claiming something so ignorant. Why am I teaching you about your religion?
doogtoog 2 years ago
I never said the bible promotes violence, nor even referred to the idea, how did you manage to come to that conclusion?
You make assumptions again. Do not refer to points I did not even make, you are responding to things I am not saying. Sound familiar? Stop committing your own errors.
AT32123 2 years ago
8 times.
I stated the following "If you don't think the bible promotes violence, you never read it."
I was referencing your comment stating "Evidence please. You can't just make statements and assume they are true. Read the Book of Wisdom..."
Which was responding to me stating "The bible contradicts benevolence more than it supports it."
I specifically stated the opposite of what you claim I said.
doogtoog 2 years ago
By the end of this 10% of my comments could consist of quoting previous parts of the conversation correcting you.
Here's and idea READ EVERYTHING!!!!
It's getting annoying to have to keep correcting you about what has previously transpired.
doogtoog 2 years ago
"Here's and idea READY EVERYTHING!!!!"
I'm just going to correct you here, it's AN, not AND.
AT32123 2 years ago
By the way, I know you don't understand syntax very well, so, to save time, I'll say this right now.
If somebody says the word "If" when beginning a sentence, it is stating a conditional. In common debate, conditionals are used to remove or address propositions anticipated to arrive.
I stated "If you are using the word god as..." to address a point I would anticipate you making. At no point when using a conditional am I claiming that the proposition has been made.
GOT IT?
doogtoog 2 years ago
You have yet to address the main issue. What evidence points to a god? How can a god be inferred from observation? If there is nothing in these categories, there is no reason to consider god a reasonable idea.
doogtoog 2 years ago
Religion is more cut and dry. You believe it, or not, even if it's verifyably false.
How have I closed my mind by creating standards? I don't believe everything I'm told. It's very important not to in science. That is why in chemistry class you mix chemicals together to very something is true. In biology, you dissect and observe. In astronomy and cosmology we have telescopes and computer simulations.
There is nothing like this in religion.
doogtoog 2 years ago
Evidence is what ideas should be based around. evidence is verifiable observation. If you base any idea on anything else, it's nothing separate from imagination. The mountain of evidence makes it the most verifiably right idea there is.
doogtoog 2 years ago
Evidence - according to your given definition, if enough people say the same thing, then it is true. And yet science is about proof. If science proves something, and the everyone says it is wrong, is science wrong?
All the EVIDENCE provided in this video is from one type of source, scientists that disagree with creationism. What about evidence from everyone else?
Again, open your mind, I like to read different points of view, you don't, as you prove constantly with your scorn.
AT32123 2 years ago
I said, point blank "evidence is verifiable observation." Do you not read what someone said before you reply?
Science is not about proof, if it was there would be no science. Evidence is something verifiable. Science is made of refined models that change as new evidence is presented. All models withing science are the most accurate we have, and they can only get more so.
doogtoog 2 years ago
You just said "evidence is what ideas SHOULD be based around." Verifiable observation is truthful observation, but according to which truth? If you see yellow and I see red, what is the truth of it? If someone else says yellow, that makes me wrong does it?
And if scientists have a new idea without any solid evidence, you are saying it is not seperate from imagination; why should they even pursue new ideas, if it's wrong?
Refer to your comment regarding evidence before replying.
AT32123 2 years ago
Yellow is an average wavelength of a group of photons between 570 and 590 nanometers. Red is between 620 and 750 nanometers. There is no opinion, it is a measurable circumstance. Methodological naturalism does not deal with opinion or spectator claims, it deals with observation.
The goal of science is to make the most accurate modle. No one has a right modle, and it may be an impossibility, but we can make a very accurate modle.
doogtoog 2 years ago
For example, newtonian mechanics is known to be false, however, it's taught because it's accurate to some degree, and so, is useful.
doogtoog 2 years ago
The same person that made this video made another one asking for exactly what you complain about.
If you have evidence from someone else, go ahead and present it. Here is the video code. A6aU7zakKBs
If I didn't listen to the other side, why would I be talking to you?
Here is a good quote that I think you should consider from one of the most intelligent people of the last century, Richard Feynman.
"Keep an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out."
doogtoog 2 years ago
Everything the creationists are doing indicates they are running scared. I don't know of one atheist who has turned to the tactics that they use.
Deep down inside they know how ridiculous their beliefs are.
Cissy2cute 2 years ago
Creationism is about believing in shit you know isn't true. How can one be reasonable or sensible when thinking is the very thing one must not do? Everything we do, we do ultimately to ourselves. The worst of things in the world are not useless; they can serve as a bad example. All experience is each of us finding out something more about ourself. No one ever convinced anyone of anything. In eternity, how many side trips would you take?
rollsthepaul 2 years ago
'Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.' - James Madison. Former US president.
'All thing men are atheists' - Ernest Hemingway
'Why would god create faulty humans and blame them for his mistakes?'
'Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.' Denis Dident - French Philospher
Some of my favourite quotes. Fantastic video, sums up the thoughts of all intellectuals and free thinkers.
penorpls 2 years ago 2
penorpls--although I have many favorite quotes, this is in my top ten:
"We would be 1,500 years ahead if it hadn't been for the church dragging science back by its coattails and burning our best minds at the stake."
Catherine Fahringer
Cissy2cute 2 years ago 2
This video says it all, folks. Good job, subbed.
NotoirX 2 years ago
support
LtPinb