hey, just to say on the last. I don't think a world without religion is becoming a better place. People are divided by views. Want some example? Christian are denomated. and dawkins' arguments is just ridiculous.
Atheism is lack of belief in any god(s). So we cannot be called atheist(s) for not believing zeus, thor, ra, etc.
good people to do evil things, if they was a good people, they would reject a religion that told them to do evil, otherwise, that people is not really good at all.
Famous christians, Isaac Newton, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Christopher Colombus, Wright brothers,John Adams, Joan of Arc, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King Jr, Elvis, George Forman, C.S Lewis, Galileo Galilei, and J.R.R Tolkien! I could keep going but it would take to long, if you think religion is dumb your calling some of the best scientists, painters, poets, humanitarians and Presidents stupid.
@oogrooq Oh yeah sorry I didn't recognize any of the famous atheists they are not popular enough so apparently they had a very little impact on society.
@oogrooq Well George Foreman has been hit by Ali, Shavers, and Frazier. Of course he is going to have been concussed at points. Doesnt change the fact that he was a brilliant boxer!
Perhaps the whole argument is semantics or How you define god. For me god could be the very most intelligent, most evolved entity. This being out of all other beings via process of elimination is the first to reach the highest level of computational intelligence. The fact that we exist as consciousness evolved out of matter suggests that the process at least once can produce a sentient being. Now given all the universe and all its time to evolve such a being It seems scientificaly likely to be.
>>>another words if God as I have defined him/her (lets face it theres a definition for every human) is impossible then how do you reckon that a process such as evolution can produce us sentient beings but with all the time and matter of the universe didnt produce a prior very most intelligent being that may very well fit most definitions of God. The sheer statistical probability of all those trillions of rolls of the dice should have rolled out such a being. Agnosticism seems the only truth.
God!? what is it? How do you define it? I'm still about to get across anybody who can define his "god" logically :) Christians and other monotheists are usually mentally disconnected from reality as we know it. The poorer/unread they are, the more faith do they put in the fairy-tales. It's really a shame! People should have equal opportunities of gaining knowledge. . .
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"Some of us just go one GOD further." That's like somebody who doesn't watch TV saying to somebody who only watches one channel, I'm just one channel less than you. M-hm.
"For good people to do evil things ..." How many "good people" have been complicit to the Nazi regime and the Communist regimes? Did they do it because of religion?
Bad people do things in the name of religion ... and in the name of fighting it.
"Falls on the last priest" Sounds like the French Revolution.
1.)The TV analogy is a bad one, cos' channels do exist no one doubts that even if they don't watch any. It'd be a good analogy only if there indeed were thosands of gods you'd worship only one of them yet still knowing there are more than this one gods. But you DONT! And that makes youre analogy worthless.
I don't care who suggested it even if it was Dawkins or Hitchens themselves, its WRONG analogy for the reasons I more than clearly explained above.
Gods DONT exist (at least ppl disagree). Channels DO EXIST.Watcher and Non-watcher both AGREE that TV exist one just prefers not to watch. And that is where your analogy falls apart. Your analogy makes the false assumption that Gods exist.
Awatcher in your analogy would deny existence of Television altogether which is ridiculous.
@yancur I'll grant your point. There are things about the analogy that I don't like myself, e.g. all channels on the TV are fairly equal, depending on one's taste. The true God is not equal to mythological gods and I would be more inclined to be the non-TV watcher than the watcher because so much of TV is ridiculous. (Yet, if one could find that one edifying channel, it might be worth the watching.)
Now grant mine, concrete analogies are intended to illustrate more abstract concepts.
@MorganMarvinson Wow lololol hahhaa cant believe your reply, you're the 8th wonder of the world: The Idiot. Hint: There IS no sarcasm in that one. Good luck trying to understand sometimes!
@2CSST2 "Wow lololol hahhaa cant believe your reply, you're the 8th wonder of the world: The Idiot. Hint: There IS no sarcasm in that one. Good luck trying to understand sometimes!" PSP.
morgan and yancur: U re both forgeting, watching too much tv tends to rot the brain. imagine watching just one chanel all the time. u d be totally screwed up. so i tend to agree, that the analogy holds, yet i would give 2 twists. first: the person weatching just one channel is really screwed up. second: god and tv programs(the content) have a very simmilair way of existing. They only exist in the form of art or literature, if u want to be genourous about it . ...
@igorkra11 "Imagine watching just one channel all the time." Don't have to imagine. A good friend of mine only has PBS. He just loves it and tells me about some of the great things he has learned. But he does other things besides watch TV. He also reads and gardens and works and has pets.
If ur not so generous about it,u would use the word fiction.Though in both cases it means the same thing.From this perspective:morgans claim is too strong,in the sense that gods,do not exist,does not mean complete inexistence,since they at least exist as fiction.On the other hand Yancur is probably wrong in another sense,cuz i bet he tends to think that this existence of god is more than purely fictional.(did i mix u two up?: i don t know who s the religious one and whos not: but u get my point)
@MorganMarvinson LOlololol "The analogy was suggested by an atheist". Well, there you go, it must be a good analogy then. Know what, you just have to find an atheist saying atheism is false and you got us! Your analogy is terrible.
1) Channels don't contradict each other, you can watch any of them you want without any contradictions, not so for religion
2) For this analogy to make any sense whatsoever it needs at least some allusion to belief/disbelief andwhat reality is
@2CSST2 "you just have to find an atheist saying atheism is false and you got us" Then, apparently you are "gotten," witness Anthony Flew. But, then of course, he had to turn in his membership card after he made the statement.
2.)Hitler(cahtolic) used religious sentiment to eradicate Jews. He mentions Jesus as a fighter against Jews in his speaches (just look it up). Claiming that 40% of Germans who voted Hitler in were evil ppl is ridiculous. They were manipulated by using religion. He also signed concordat with Vatican where he promised privilages to Catholics in exchange for Vatican not interfering with his regime. Till last days of his rule, priests said prayers for Hitler in churches in all GE.
Hitler was baptised a Catholic (as an infant), but stopped attending church when left home. The Catholics wanted to sign a Concordat because he was infringing on their rights so they were afraid of another Kulturkampf, not because they liked him. And the Nazis "almost immediately commenced a series of violations of the Concordat", so it was obviously not done because Hitler actually cared about the good of Catholicism.
Nazi priests were very rare: about 138 out of 42,000 (Spicer)
"Claiming that 40% of Germans who voted Hitler in were evil ppl is ridiculous. They were manipulated by using religion."
No, the election was corrupt, the SA or SS for intimidation to ensure he got the votes.
Also, his main rivals was the Catholic Centre Party, their dissolution along with keeping priests out of politics was what he was getting in the Concordat in return for guaranteeing the rights of Catholics to practice their religion. Why would he do that if Catholics liked him?
@yancur Try using that argument against Stalin, who was responsible for more deaths than Hitler and did not allow religious practices. Religion doesn't kill people. People kill people.
@MrDasmaster The illustration is whether one watched a single channel on TV or watches no channels on TV. The difference is not merely incremental as the suggestion about "worshipping one less god" implies.
To use the analogy with your suggestion--either a person watches one channel on TV or the TV doesn't exist--doesn't make sense.
For him to say he doesn't watch TV because TVs don't exist is ludicrous. He may not have one, but TVs do exist.
I 'm totally agnostic but I don't understand how some people can think that religion only is the origin of every evil and still calling themselves rationalists.
Did Auchwitz-Birkenau ran on religious thinking ?
Goulag ?
Red Kmer camps ?
Chinese cultural revolution ?
What was the type of religious faith was driving those mass murder outfits ?
Face the facts, believer and non-believer (like me) are all men, and the way they behave isn't that much influenced by what they believe or not.
The difference between all thought is weather we believe in logic and reason or miracles. I believe that logic and reason are the gifts of God but have an open mind
So you didn't bother to watch the video but do bother to comment on it and expect anyone to answer you?
Some people are simply awesome..
Well ok.
Obviously there is some contradiction in the views of a deist and atheist, but it's of no significance as it doesn't influence their lives at all.
This in sharp contrast with theists and their beliefs. Who are not only directly influenced by their superstitious beliefs but (and which is the most important) want to force it on others as well.
Really? Deism didn't influence the life of Thomas Jefferson? Allen Jayne asserts that Jefferson incorporated Deist theology into the Declaration of Independence.
I have personally witnessed how ReligionFreeDeist's conversion from Christian to Deist has influenced his life.
You atheist fundamentalists are just as full-of-shit and disingenuous as your Christian fundamentalist foes.
Only a moron or the self-deceived can think that a person's worldview doesn't influence their life.
Deism is purely belief that there was a god at the begining and then all evolved according to natural laws without any interference from this god. Deist just like atheist doesn't believe in afterlife, soul or any such nonsesne.
Deism is an evolutionary step towards atheism and was popular before Darwin and other scientific discoveries. Some do not evolve further but most did.
"Fundamentalist Atheist"? Is it worse or better then fundamentalist A-vampirist?
"Only a moron or the self-deceived can think that a person's worldview doesn't influence their life. "
Who said it doesn't??
I said that there is no significant difference between atheist and deist in their look on the world, and from their beliefs (in no-god or deist god) they cannot derive their morals or actions.
Ahteist and Deist are like two ppl one who don't believe in vampires and one who does, but deosn't think they interfere with our world at all.
Not those who spend of their substance, to be seen of men, but have no faith in God and the Last Day: If any take the Evil One for their intimate, what a dreadful intimate he is!
Of no effect is the repentance of those who continue to do evil, until death faces one of them, and he says, "Now have I repented indeed;" nor of those who die rejecting Faith: for them have We prepared a punishment most grievous.
Who receiveth guidance, receiveth it for his own benefit: who goeth astray doth so to his own loss: No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another: nor would We visit with Our Wrath until We had sent an apostle (to give warning).
Every soul shall have a taste of death: And only on the Day of Judgment shall you be paid your full recompense. Only he who is saved far from the Fire and admitted to the Garden will have attained the object (of Life): For the life of this world is but goods and chattels of deception.
Apologetics, coming from the Greek απολογια, is a defense of any position in a long standing argument. Usually it does refer to the Christian Apologists, but if Atheists see themselves as defending their position, they are also practicing apologetics.
Read Book VII of the Confessions, Book XII of the City of God, paragraph 22 of the Enchiridion, and On the Nature of the Good. These are all places where you will encounter the uniquely Augustinian moral ontology.
By the way, if there is no God, what benefit is there to insisting that he does not exist, or even to assembling a "Greatest Hits" collection of Non-theists? If there is no God there should be no reason to even address the notion of a God, thus no reason to assemble a list of those who don't believe in him. If this is for your own psychological benefit, say so, or stop posting these irrelevant videos. It has no point. It is illogical. It's as bad as all those "Jesus loves you" videos.
If you don't believe in Adolf Hitler and his National Socialism, what benefit is there on insisting that he was wrong and evil, or even to assembling a "Greatest Hits" collection of Anti-Fascists?
I love atheistic attempts at refutations of the philosophy of religion. Epicurus and a later Epicurean named Lucretius are essentially the only atheists who have ever succeeded in positing a truly logical case for atheism, and their argument from undesign/the problem of evil was almost accidentally defeated by St. Augustine with his ontology of the substantiality of good and evil being privation of that substance. Likewise, the arguments from cosmology and reason itself are rather solid. Silly.
Lol, you made me really laugh. St. Augustine poses no challenge at all, not even to old greek philosophers who predate him a couple of centuries. he was an old silly fool, and his "proof" of God is silly at best. Much like Aquinases.
His "arguments" have been refuted before St.Augustine was even born, and any child with half a brain can rebut these nonsensical "proofs" without really trying.
"7+3 = 10 and therefore there is God!", I mean let's get serious.
I wasn't referring to his proof of God's existence. I was referring to his ontology of the substantiality of 'Good', and the privation of that substance, 'evil', which undermines the logical basis of the argument from undesign presented by Epicurus and Lucretius, and by modification Hume.
Never heard of this work of his, so you will either have to put that argument forth for me, or just suppose that I wouldn't know the answer anyway and don't bother..
Any way of thinking can be twisted to create violence: 9/11 and perversion of Islam, The Crusades a perversion of Christianity, The halocaust a perversion of natural selection, Soviet burning of churches a perversion of atheism.
Despite what many like Sam Harris say, Atheism does have content. It is a "something".
No you are wrong. Atheism does not have content. The word shouldn't even exist just like the word A-Vampirism doesn't.
9/11 wasn't pervesion of Islam it was fulfilment of the Islam creed, the same for Christianity and Crusades. As for the "pervesion of atheism" it's just plainly ridiculous. First of all, it was communism not atheism, and secondly it was fight for power nothing more. It was the same as burning Churches by Muslim and Mosqes by Christians in the middle ages.Intimidation and terror
That is because the God question is not actually parallel to: Vampires, FSM, Tooth Fairy, or Santa Claus. The God question is simply trying to understand the entity/being/singularity that terminates the infinte regress.
Also, you did not deny that the halocaust was a perversion of Darwinism and the principles of natural selection. Should we eliminate Darwinian thinking because it occaisionally is used for evil? Of course not. Because Darwinism is not intrinsically evil, and neither is religion
I think it is paralel to the god question. There is no need to "terminate the infinite regress" by a god at all. Also god entity actually furthers the regress. If Universe is too complex to be uncreated, then who created this God entity which is far more complex?
Oh yes, I forgot that one. Obviously holocaust wasn't perversion of Darwinism. Firstly holocausts predate Darwin thousands of years (just look up the Bible) and secondly I dont see how killing jews have anything to do with Evolution.
the vid should have shown which one was close to diest and athiest.... cuss i just found out im a deist and i want to know who else is, and how they see it
You see, the problem is that the difference is so insignificant that it really doesn't matter from the practical point of view. And therefore its hard to say which were "true atheists" and which "true deists"..
Yes, that is correct. Don't get me wrong, I realize that there IS philosophical difference between Deist and Atheist, no question about that. But on a purely practical level there is none. Both Atheist and Deist don't pray, don't go to a holy war, don't follow stupid rules written in ancient texts, that don't any make sense. Atheist nor Deist would fly a plain into a building or bomb an abortion clinic.
It's not about what you or me believe, it's what the belief makes you do that matters.
There is difference to Atheists an Deists you so have pointed that out. Atheists don't belive in anything of a godhead while a Deist belive there is a godhead but just there to created the universe and let things grow from there natuarlly with no messiahs and/or prophets.
I'm surprised you have added Jefferson to the list. He's considered one of the more prominent Deists in America. I like the video though. I'll have to look up some of these guys when I have the time.
Some good quotes from some intelligent people and a good video I think. That does not mean I agree with all. I would like to differentiate between religion and god, for example, if you would accept that.
I understand that there is no need to tell others to become atheists. I personally am not atheistic because I believe that there is always mystery and probably something that powers everything. God was invented to explain mystery. I say God is mystery. It is like the imaginary number. It doesn't exist and it cancels itself out in many cases, but we need the concept of it.
The faults of logic people employed concept of god is not the concept itself.
Two wrongs doesn't make a right, I still believe that these statements are fanatical in their own way. You know you don't have to belong to a religion in order to be fanatical, you should check what happened in the Russian revolution, how many churches have been destroyed and priests massacred in the name of an atheist ideology.
You really have definitions problem. Russian revolution was a Communist revolution not Atheist revolution. Not a single person was killed in the name of Atheism as far as history goes. Not that it is any credit to atheism, since it is nothing but a disbelief. Claiming it was atheist ideology is like claiming it was A-Vampirist ideology (since they disbelieved in Vampires) and blame all ppl who disbelieve in Vampires for it.. It's ridiculous.
You can be fanatic about any idea, but not "a-idea".
The Russian revolution was communist; however it had a strong atheist thought as it criticized religions for "enslaving" people. When you say that no one was ever killed in the name of atheism your idea is at such a low level that no one can possibly argue with you, of course there has never been an atheist nation that killed in the name of atheism, but people in the past have been killed because of their beliefs by groups with atheist principles, it is a fact!
The criticism of religion was actually the good thing about Communism although the means were questionable.
Tell me one example when a religious person was killed SOLELY for their belief in god.
You obviously don't understand that when there was persecution it was largely of the clergy members. Because they had the power (as they still do to this very day) over the uneducated masses. That was the main reason Stalin and other regimes tried hard to get rid of the clergy and belief in god.
It's actually you who has very low understanding of the topic. You came here with the preposterous idea that atheism is as fanatical as religions and then pull out the standard strawman - Communism.
The absurdity of the implication Atheism => Communism and therfore Atheism => Evil is as absurd as saying Stalin had a moustache, Hitler had a moustache they both were evil, therefore all ppl with moustaches are evil..
Stalin killed ppl for power; atheists as well as theists.
You're in contradiction with yourself, than we could also say that the so-called killing in the name of religion was also for power and that religion was a simple excuse. Look there are many other things I could talk about, but you just cant or wont understand what I'm saying, just forget about it Im getting tired of this never ending talk.
No I am not contradicting myself. Because what you said is exactly true! The religion is in fact just a way how to excuse killing (or other actions) for the rulling class! And that is exactly the problem. Religion does NO GOOD at all that couldn't possibly be done by other means. But it does TONS of EVIL that wouldn't exist if there was no religion. And that is my point, you are so hardly trying not to understand.
Trust me, you have nothing new to tell me I haven't heard thousand times before.
Can someone please tell me what the music is? The first part had Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, what is this? If it's in public domain, I'd love to use it in one of my videos. Thanks for any clues!
Oh, BTW, great compilation. Fantastic! My favorite, Feynman, was there too :)
Stopped the video at the comment by Steven Weinberg. Brilliant a physicist as he was, that statement (probably off the cuff and overcritical) I think is wrong.
Conformity in a power structure organization leads to the loss of individual will and dehumanization. There's a video on the TEDTalksDirector channel here on YouTube by Philip Zimbardo which goes into this in exquisite detail. It's a deeper psychological issue common to all humanity, regardless of the beliefs we dress over it.
Religion, however, is rather a double edged danger - because not only does it provide the conformity (submit to Allah, we are one in Christ, etc) and the power structure which can lead to atrocities or justified injustice, it also breeds fundamentalism fueled by sacred texts from a very primitive and barbarous era.
So simply removing religion would not solve the problem, just shift it to a different vehicle... as kazmanian27 pointed out. Lenin and Stalin promoted ideological and national fundamentalism - and promoted conformity to a uniform power structure that was their system of government.
Atheist, Christian, Deist, Muslim, Buddhist, Agnostic, Gnostic... it doesn't matter. We're all equally capable of the same atrocities.
I think the root of this particular evil is, truly, when we stop thinking for ourselves and voluntarily submit to someone else's authority, divinity, morality, ideology - rather than our own and coming together as a collective to discuss and debate constantly our ethics and our politics.
It's difficult, and requires a great deal of personal responsibility and effort. The process can be chaotic.
So perhaps not in the context the Church would, or often has, interpreted it - one can find a great deal of wisdom in the words of Jesus Christ when he said:
"Enter though the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow is the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."
You are blaspheming all other religions except for your own. You are pawn of Satans to all other religions except for yours. You are mocking all other creeds except yours.
So the difference between you and an atheist is just that atheist "blaspehmes" one god more.
How are you not judging me? You laugh at us, because we are dumb according to you, and "bamboozled" by satan, claiming we speak a gospel of hate? So again, to hell with you. Taking pride in your own ignorance should be against the law.
"Nothing great about an athiest, being an athiest doesn't make one smarter, only dumber in a philosophical sense." A great quote from a guy who (surprise) believed in a God. lol.. 1 of billions of folks smart and dumb alike and I am one of them.
Sure being an atheist won't make you smarter, but claiming that it makes you dumber in philosophical sense shows complete lack of understanding of the term atheist.
It's like claiming that being a-Vampirist is "dumber in philosophical sense" than being Vampirist. Utterly ridiculous.
BTW: Point of this vid was to show that not ALL atheist are vile children-eating monsters, not that all atheists are smart - which would of course be ludicrous.
What the hell? Feynman!? I always thought he was a world famous physicist...but this lables him as a world famous athiest...strange. I dont even remember reading that he ever gave the topic of relegion much great thought compared to topics such as physics and other sciences.
He didn't place much emphasis on his atheism, why should he? He was an atheist just like he was an avampirist, awerevolfist aSantaClausist.. The word Atheism should not even exist in a normal world. But in a world where people believe in gods this word has its place.
But Feynman was quite an outspoken atheist as far as I know..
hehe you might want to curb your enthusiasm for your not so original conclusion that religion is just weakminded people's comforter. I am rather brilliant and I believe in God. Further I have been able to formulate a proof that we are spiritual beings as opposed to biological machines. think about the following and think carefully. does the code bool pain=true; manifest the sensation of pain? yet we have sensation. try to build a machine, biological or otherwise, that has sensation. temet nosce
What brings you to believe that "brilliant" people cannot get infected by a mind virus?
"try to build a machine, biological or otherwise, that has sensation."
Solipsism. Prove to me that anyone else besides you has "sensation of pain" not only pain=true. Yes, we can create a machine that will react to "pain" in the same way we do. And prove to me that the machine does NOT have the sensation of pain as well..
Besides, even if you are right, how does this proove god at all?
your logic is flawed. proof by example requires only one. me. I don't have to show others have feelings. similarly, you need only realize your own.
even if we were to assume the material could have sensation as a completely superfluous sideeffect (since a reaction requires no sensation) that would be quite something in itself wouldn't it.
and I am right, without any room for error. you can see it if you try. it doesn't prove God. only the spiritual. good start though, wouldn't you say? :)
No actually there is no flaw in my logic, you just didn't understand what I was trying to point out. We could build a machine purely out of matter that will manifest feelings and you have no way of finding whether it actually does. Consider this:
bool pain = true;
if (pain) printf ("Ouch");
Now, prove to me that a computer running this sequence doesn't actually "feel" the pain. Certainly not in the same way we do, but then a bacterium doesn't feel pain in the same way either..
"think about it. only you can choose to see. I can't see it for you"
Rest assured that this is not at all the first time someone brought this idea to my attention. And I did think about it. While thinking about it we both reach a point where we have to say we don't know something. I leave it at that and hope fore scientific explanation to be made in the future, you go one step more and "invent" an explanation that feels good for you. I refuse to do that..
but that's simply not true. ti does afford the thinker certainty in this matter. I'm not strongly convinced, I don't want to believe, I know now. as you can know if you take the time to realize how profound the fact that this domain exists when the material world view has no need for it nor any way to manifest it. that's what bool pain=true; can show you. the mechanistic vs the spiritual. the mechanistic is blind to the spiritual. but you can see when you are ready
Why is it that everytime i see an atheist they are extremly arrogant and condescending. Look at it like this; people who are atheist are just as religous about thier beliefs as a holyrolling christian. You both are identical if you ask me.
Why is it that everytime I see an theist he is even more arrogant than an atheist? It's the arrogant theist who claims to KNOW there is a All-Powerful being that has nothing better to do than to watch their misserable lives, care about them, do them all sorts of favors as they ask for them and condemn everyone that does not believe in him to eternal torture.
Yes, I am often being arrogant when confronted with a willfully ignorant theist, but never THIS arrogant..
um I'm not a theist. i dont claim i KNOW anything nor did I. I call it how i see it. If that bothers you so much dont worry i wont loose sleep over it. Dont get all sensitive and mad because you are a closet freak christian.
Err, I'm not sure WHO is getting all sensitive here. I was not talking about you. I was answering your question why are atheist sometimes arrogant towards theists.
But in your case probably the old saying holds; the struck goose squeals..
Here.. Ill dumb it down for your small GED mind frame little guy.. Religion / re·li·gion: the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices. An atheist would be socially classified as a religion making it no different from Christianity or any other religion. So what makes you think Atheist are smarter? Just by what you just said to me proves my point about atheists being arrogant and condescending. Now go back to the kitchen and make me a sandwich
Listen GED I am not a Christian I am agnostic but I still hold common respect for peoples beliefs. I dont bash on them so i can boost my super cool GED ego like yours. I'm not going to watch your brainwashing bullshit nor do i care to, your are all the same. Your just mad because you never made it to college and you probubly pick potatos with your dad. Like I said go to the kitchen and make me a sandwhich
and you even admitted that atheist are arrogant and condescending hahahahahahhahahah i love this GED he's so smart and cool. I wish i worked on the potato farm with him and his dad ahahahahahahahhahah
@axiomizer I know an atheist who has 2 Masters degree and worked as a grantwriter making give or take 40K if that a year. Way smart and way to go with the 2 Masters degrees. Atheists have nothing of substance bottom line - you are obnoxiously boring individuals.
"even if we were to assume the material could have sensation as a completely superfluous sideeffect [..] that would be quite something in itself wouldn't it."
Yes, it is something. It's still more rational to assume that it is as you describe it, then to make up an entirely imaginary plane of existence called "spiritual world" and attribute it to it..
Also, I think you are confusing 2 things here. Sensation of pain and awareness of this sensation. A bacteria feels pain but is not aware of it.
no it's not more rational. your desperate hope that it's just a side effect of all things conflicts with the observation that only some things are in this domain. why do we have the few sensations we have and not sensations to match all the little processes in the visual cortex, or the auditory. why is something subconscious and other things not.
have the courage to stop your obtuseness when you know there is something to it and not continue the desperate klinging to the material world view
Yes, it is a more rational explanation, because it does add only one unknown to the equation, whereas your "explanation" brings thousands of unanswerable questions.
And I didn't say I buy that explanation. I just accepted it for the sake of argument...
Prove to me existence of "spiritual world" and I'll consider accepting your explanation, until then I'll retain my skeptical position., in the same way I retain my skeptical position to the existence of Vampires..
etheangel2220 said: "What the hell? Feynman!? I always thought he was a world famous physicist...but this lables him as a world famous athiest...strange. I dont even remember reading that he ever gave the topic of relegion much great thought compared to topics such as physics and other sciences."
exactly! hence a-theist! easy to understand with the application of some brain power!
I am turned speechless over the arguments used by theists. It is basically circular logic, and there's always something that we don't understand that they can use to show as "evidence" that God exists.
3) Finally, your description of abiogenis is simplistic to the point of absurdity. No complex life form "just" sprung into being. Primitive life was not even as complex as a virus or prion. Those forms only came to exist after millions of intermediary steps, many of which failed because of internal errors, or enviromental factors. Still, there are certain microenviroments that can provide long term favorable conditions for life to evolve eg certain types clays acreting on rock imperfections.
Flows from the physics of this universe? Im going to add that one to my list along with "Quantum fluctuations of empty space into everything"(BB). THERE IS NOTA FACT OF SCIENCE ANYWHERE TO KEEP US FROM BELIEVING THAT'BY THE WORD OF THE LORD WERE THE HEAVENS MADE.. AND ALL THE HOST OF THEM BY THE BREATH OF HIS MOUTH..FOR HE SPAKE AND IT WAS DONE; HE COMMANDED, AND IT STOOD FAST"(PSALM 33:6,9 WHY DONT YOU ANSWER MY QUESTION?????
Look Mister, I'm not going to asnwer or discuss ANYTHING with you until you explain the information in that video. You asked me about PROOF of the descent of humans from apes, and I WILL NOT let you off the hook:
watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
I'm not going into debunking all the crap you are spouting untill you answer that one. And since we both know you can't, it basically means: Goodbye, and have a great life full of superstition.
I will be glad to watch the vid. How do i access it? where? I actually thought it was some fancy formula that you blew me away with. Always keep that humor going.
THe reason evolution says nothing about how molecules turned into life is because they have nothing to say.Its a total embarrassment to them. Dean Canyon and Barry Stienman wrote the only book promoting C.E. back in the 70s and Canyon has long since discarded it as false. Harvards George Wald says that spont. gener. of a living organism is impossible, but then he goes on to say he believes in spont. gener.. Fred Hoyle says created material comes from nowhere, it just appears! You call this sci?
Evolution doesn't concern itself with abiogenesis any more than it does with cosmology. And even though they are compatible they are different theories. Even if life was created by your magic-man in the sky the way we see it now, Evolution would still be taking place, because its flows form the physics of this Universe. At the moment we DON'T KNOW yet how the life originated from non life. But 500 years ago we didn't know were lightning came from, so Zeus did it right?
Why do you insist on getting personal. Why dont you just answer the question. What is the process by which evolution proceeds? If you have a FAITH that BELIEVES in naturalism, why do you refuse to defend it. Simple question.How does evolution work?? How did an amoeba eventually give rise to the diversity of living things?? Rule of debate. If you cant answer the question attack your opposition. Your getting consistent at that.
You are accusing me of not answering yet you didn't answer this simple queistion:
watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
And after answering that your god is Liar, answer how is it with Retroviruses present in humans and great apes.. I'm really curious about the explanation. Seriously.
(by the way, i asked you a ques. first.didn't is past tense. play fair) The presence of common parts, like hearts or lungs or retroviruses is an observation. it can be used equally as an argument 4 a creator or common ances. after all, we live on the same planet,eat same food and breathe the same air. Similar design, common designer. A watermelon,jellyfish and a cloud are all 98% h2o. Good observation, but does not mean they are related. I'll have to call John Nash on your form. Is it a joke??
No it could NOT be used as argumet for creator at all! Because Retroviruses get randomly stuck in the DNA (by accident) on a random location. The problem with the "creator hypothesis" they are found in Apes in the EXACTLY same location as in humans! So if the very same retrovirus got stuck in an Ape's DNA and in Human DNA, we would find it on a different location. But we find it on the exact same location! This was predicted by Evolutionary theory, but contradicts the "Creation Hypothesis".
I might add that the "scientific method" which stresses experimentation and induction from data was primarily formulated by Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626), Lord Chancellor of England who, among other attributes was a devout believer in the Bible.He wrote "There are 2 books laid before us to study, to prevent our falling into error; first, the volume of the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the Creatures, which express His power" Hewasascientistandbiblicalcreationist
If science means knowledge then evolution has (as i have stated) has nothing to do with science. Science is the study of facts and i challenge you or anyone to present ONE fact os science that supports evolution.(the belief that molecules plus billions of years plus undirected chance produced all living creatures, plants and insects. If you think evolution has anything to do with science, then tell me, how did we evolve? What was (or is) the driving mechanism??? Thankyou, G.L.
Evolution DOES NOT say anything about how molecules organized to form first life. It's abiogenesis which is not theory just scientific hypothesis. I challenged you to read something before posting something that would once again betray your ignorance of science. Seems, you did it again..
You wanna proof that we evolved from primates? OK, here you go:
watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk This fact can mean only one of 2 things. Either there is evolution going on, or your god is deceiving liar..
Actually, EV, has alot to say about how molecules turned into life! Millions of years ago at some imaginary place an imaginary pond appeared with imaginary chemicals. then imag. lighting struck (h20 was there too),there was no oxy. but kazam! A living self replicating critter appeared. What did it eat?? How did it survive without o2? Your crowd BELIEVES this bad science fiction, and you want to make fun of me 4 believing in a creator first cause. Thats insane logic and reasoning.
One last time I will tell you this, and will not repeat it to you.
What you are describing is Abiogenesis - hypothesis which tries to describe this. It's still not a theory, and is being tested and researched. You can say that God created first living cell and from then on, evolution took place, like many Christians believe today. I actually believe abiogensis but recognize that it's still not final theory and years of research are still necessery. But some impressive things are known already.
This is a distortion of an experiment from the 1960's and a faulty line of reasoning.
1) abiogenesis had to occur in anerobic conditions because the early earth's atmosphere was reducing (mostly hydrogen, methane and ammonia. It was only when life evolved the ability to photosynthesize that the earth developed an oxygen atmosphere. There is still anerobic life today (botulism, deep sea vents) but most of it was killed by the O2 atmosphere. It acts as a supercharger for other aeorbic life forms
Giving them a strong competitive advantage. Current speculation is that lipid structures still found in meteorites today (lipids are fairly complex molecules that self-organize into films - like soap bubbles) provided a framework for the assembly of life. The chemicals the lightning experiment produced also exist in space (they can be detected by spectroscopy) and simply fell to earth in micro-meteorites. Eventually after millions of years a self-perpetuating combination occured... viola! Life
2) This is a stupid question. Early primitive life "ate" like most simple aquatic microscopic organisms still do today, by absorbing organic chemicals and inorganic nutrients from the surrounding enviroment. No 02 was needed, because anerobic life forms get energy from other chemical reactions (reducing reactions) just like aerobic life gets it from reactions involving 02. You obviously know little about Chemistry if you don't understand oxidation/reduction reactions, or is that made up too?
OK. Science means knowledge. It is sum of what humanity knows about our universe. Knowledge is different from belief, that it must be both justified and (objectively) true. Knowl. is subset of belief.
Part of science is a method used to assess what is true and what is not. This method is called "scientific method" and it's currently the only self-correcting tool for acquiring knowledge we have. It's not perfect, but it obviously works.
You might try to look it up on wikipedia for more details.
Ultimately, we both have belief systems. I once shared your views, however that was before i was exposed to the scientific roadblocks to evolution. 5 yrs. at the UOFLA. a science deg. and not 1 word about the possibility of creation. Evolution violates every law of science. It takes much less faith based on the facts to believe in a creator God who made you and i than to believe it all got here from a big Bang (or should i say bust) 30 billion yrs. ago. IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE H. AND E.
some sweet info here
osclarkos 1 day ago
good work here
xtremetom180 3 days ago
interesting video and very informative
distractionxx 5 days ago
hey, just to say on the last. I don't think a world without religion is becoming a better place. People are divided by views. Want some example? Christian are denomated. and dawkins' arguments is just ridiculous.
Atheism is lack of belief in any god(s). So we cannot be called atheist(s) for not believing zeus, thor, ra, etc.
good people to do evil things, if they was a good people, they would reject a religion that told them to do evil, otherwise, that people is not really good at all.
INYO121277 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
watch?v=o9ktS2U53Qg Write "Logical Evidences for Islam" and watch it...
There is A Creator. There a religion. Islam is the true religion.
shncsr 5 months ago
Religion is a good thing for good people and a bad thing for bad people.
H. Richard Niebuhr
MrBiblecontradiction 5 months ago
Famous christians, Isaac Newton, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Christopher Colombus, Wright brothers,John Adams, Joan of Arc, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King Jr, Elvis, George Forman, C.S Lewis, Galileo Galilei, and J.R.R Tolkien! I could keep going but it would take to long, if you think religion is dumb your calling some of the best scientists, painters, poets, humanitarians and Presidents stupid.
QUEENBEACHA 6 months ago
@QUEENBEACHA
Columbus was an asshole, Foreman (with an 'e') has had several concussions, Mother Theresa was a fraud.
You used the wrong 'too' and the wrong 'you're'.
oogrooq 5 months ago
@oogrooq Oh yeah sorry I didn't recognize any of the famous atheists they are not popular enough so apparently they had a very little impact on society.
QUEENBEACHA 5 months ago
@oogrooq Well George Foreman has been hit by Ali, Shavers, and Frazier. Of course he is going to have been concussed at points. Doesnt change the fact that he was a brilliant boxer!
3011295jw 1 month ago
@QUEENBEACHA hahaha! funny
jmangta 4 months ago
I liked the Steven Weinberg quote the most. I've never heard it before.
Still, they were all brilliant.
HerlockSholmes123 7 months ago
1. God is by definition that than which no greater can be conceived.
2. It is greater to be worshipped by everyone rather than not.
3. No god has been worshipped by everyone.
4. Therefore, there is no god.
drrobertoboogie97 7 months ago
Perhaps the whole argument is semantics or How you define god. For me god could be the very most intelligent, most evolved entity. This being out of all other beings via process of elimination is the first to reach the highest level of computational intelligence. The fact that we exist as consciousness evolved out of matter suggests that the process at least once can produce a sentient being. Now given all the universe and all its time to evolve such a being It seems scientificaly likely to be.
DK0526 9 months ago
>>>another words if God as I have defined him/her (lets face it theres a definition for every human) is impossible then how do you reckon that a process such as evolution can produce us sentient beings but with all the time and matter of the universe didnt produce a prior very most intelligent being that may very well fit most definitions of God. The sheer statistical probability of all those trillions of rolls of the dice should have rolled out such a being. Agnosticism seems the only truth.
DK0526 9 months ago
everything is cooler with pirate music..but still great video!!!
eahazell 10 months ago
You forgot Joseph Stalin.
Sneezlebob 1 year ago
@Sneezlebob Stalin shouldn't be called an atheist because of his cult of personality and how he saw himself as a god.
drrobertoboogie97 7 months ago
God!? what is it? How do you define it? I'm still about to get across anybody who can define his "god" logically :) Christians and other monotheists are usually mentally disconnected from reality as we know it. The poorer/unread they are, the more faith do they put in the fairy-tales. It's really a shame! People should have equal opportunities of gaining knowledge. . .
armelix73 1 year ago
@armelix73 God cannot be defined by mere men. God doesn't have to explain anything to you. You have to figure the definition yourself.
gurucarcar 1 year ago
Ha, you do need it explained to you. There is no god therefore no tv! Your analogy need work people made the tv up ! Just like god!
MrDasmaster 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Some of us just go one GOD further." That's like somebody who doesn't watch TV saying to somebody who only watches one channel, I'm just one channel less than you. M-hm.
"For good people to do evil things ..." How many "good people" have been complicit to the Nazi regime and the Communist regimes? Did they do it because of religion?
Bad people do things in the name of religion ... and in the name of fighting it.
"Falls on the last priest" Sounds like the French Revolution.
Come on!
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson
1.)The TV analogy is a bad one, cos' channels do exist no one doubts that even if they don't watch any. It'd be a good analogy only if there indeed were thosands of gods you'd worship only one of them yet still knowing there are more than this one gods. But you DONT! And that makes youre analogy worthless.
yancur 1 year ago 2
@yancur 1. The analogy was suggested to me by an atheist.
2. In worshipping Yahweh, the Jews were to "Have no other gods before me."
3. When you choose to watch one channel, you deny the others. Choice is what the analogy teaches; not whether all channels are equal.
4. The non-TV watcher is oblivious to what the TV watcher experiences.
It's only an analogy. It was intended to make you think.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson
I don't care who suggested it even if it was Dawkins or Hitchens themselves, its WRONG analogy for the reasons I more than clearly explained above.
Gods DONT exist (at least ppl disagree). Channels DO EXIST.Watcher and Non-watcher both AGREE that TV exist one just prefers not to watch. And that is where your analogy falls apart. Your analogy makes the false assumption that Gods exist.
Awatcher in your analogy would deny existence of Television altogether which is ridiculous.
yancur 1 year ago 9
@yancur I'll grant your point. There are things about the analogy that I don't like myself, e.g. all channels on the TV are fairly equal, depending on one's taste. The true God is not equal to mythological gods and I would be more inclined to be the non-TV watcher than the watcher because so much of TV is ridiculous. (Yet, if one could find that one edifying channel, it might be worth the watching.)
Now grant mine, concrete analogies are intended to illustrate more abstract concepts.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Wow lololol hahhaa cant believe your reply, you're the 8th wonder of the world: The Idiot. Hint: There IS no sarcasm in that one. Good luck trying to understand sometimes!
2CSST2 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@2CSST2 "Wow lololol hahhaa cant believe your reply, you're the 8th wonder of the world: The Idiot. Hint: There IS no sarcasm in that one. Good luck trying to understand sometimes!" PSP.
MorganMarvinson 3 months ago
morgan and yancur: U re both forgeting, watching too much tv tends to rot the brain. imagine watching just one chanel all the time. u d be totally screwed up. so i tend to agree, that the analogy holds, yet i would give 2 twists. first: the person weatching just one channel is really screwed up. second: god and tv programs(the content) have a very simmilair way of existing. They only exist in the form of art or literature, if u want to be genourous about it . ...
igorkra11 1 year ago
@igorkra11 "Imagine watching just one channel all the time." Don't have to imagine. A good friend of mine only has PBS. He just loves it and tells me about some of the great things he has learned. But he does other things besides watch TV. He also reads and gardens and works and has pets.
It's not as bad as one might think.
MorganMarvinson 3 months ago
If ur not so generous about it,u would use the word fiction.Though in both cases it means the same thing.From this perspective:morgans claim is too strong,in the sense that gods,do not exist,does not mean complete inexistence,since they at least exist as fiction.On the other hand Yancur is probably wrong in another sense,cuz i bet he tends to think that this existence of god is more than purely fictional.(did i mix u two up?: i don t know who s the religious one and whos not: but u get my point)
igorkra11 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson but what if the tv doesnt exist ...?
MrDasmaster 1 year ago
@MrDasmaster Even my friends in Ethiopia who live in huts know that TV exists. What is your point?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson LOlololol "The analogy was suggested by an atheist". Well, there you go, it must be a good analogy then. Know what, you just have to find an atheist saying atheism is false and you got us! Your analogy is terrible.
1) Channels don't contradict each other, you can watch any of them you want without any contradictions, not so for religion
2) For this analogy to make any sense whatsoever it needs at least some allusion to belief/disbelief andwhat reality is
2CSST2 3 months ago
@2CSST2 "you just have to find an atheist saying atheism is false and you got us" Then, apparently you are "gotten," witness Anthony Flew. But, then of course, he had to turn in his membership card after he made the statement.
Shucks!
MorganMarvinson 3 months ago
@MorganMarvinson
2.)Hitler(cahtolic) used religious sentiment to eradicate Jews. He mentions Jesus as a fighter against Jews in his speaches (just look it up). Claiming that 40% of Germans who voted Hitler in were evil ppl is ridiculous. They were manipulated by using religion. He also signed concordat with Vatican where he promised privilages to Catholics in exchange for Vatican not interfering with his regime. Till last days of his rule, priests said prayers for Hitler in churches in all GE.
yancur 1 year ago 9
@yancur
Hitler was baptised a Catholic (as an infant), but stopped attending church when left home. The Catholics wanted to sign a Concordat because he was infringing on their rights so they were afraid of another Kulturkampf, not because they liked him. And the Nazis "almost immediately commenced a series of violations of the Concordat", so it was obviously not done because Hitler actually cared about the good of Catholicism.
Nazi priests were very rare: about 138 out of 42,000 (Spicer)
afeeder 1 year ago
@yancur
"Claiming that 40% of Germans who voted Hitler in were evil ppl is ridiculous. They were manipulated by using religion."
No, the election was corrupt, the SA or SS for intimidation to ensure he got the votes.
Also, his main rivals was the Catholic Centre Party, their dissolution along with keeping priests out of politics was what he was getting in the Concordat in return for guaranteeing the rights of Catholics to practice their religion. Why would he do that if Catholics liked him?
afeeder 1 year ago
@yancur Try using that argument against Stalin, who was responsible for more deaths than Hitler and did not allow religious practices. Religion doesn't kill people. People kill people.
JasonHouston77 6 months ago
@MorganMarvinson if your needed my point explained to you i am afraid i would be wasting my time with you
MrDasmaster 1 year ago
@MrDasmaster The illustration is whether one watched a single channel on TV or watches no channels on TV. The difference is not merely incremental as the suggestion about "worshipping one less god" implies.
To use the analogy with your suggestion--either a person watches one channel on TV or the TV doesn't exist--doesn't make sense.
For him to say he doesn't watch TV because TVs don't exist is ludicrous. He may not have one, but TVs do exist.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
really need to look up more info these people are all very religious
EGPMH 1 year ago
I 'm totally agnostic but I don't understand how some people can think that religion only is the origin of every evil and still calling themselves rationalists.
Did Auchwitz-Birkenau ran on religious thinking ?
Goulag ?
Red Kmer camps ?
Chinese cultural revolution ?
What was the type of religious faith was driving those mass murder outfits ?
Face the facts, believer and non-believer (like me) are all men, and the way they behave isn't that much influenced by what they believe or not.
061369317 1 year ago
Nice video, although you should have made it a bit more longer.
Electronic897 1 year ago
The difference between all thought is weather we believe in logic and reason or miracles. I believe that logic and reason are the gifts of God but have an open mind
on everything else as logic and reason dictates.
petebax1 1 year ago
WTF do atheists and deists have to do with one another?
IWannabeJew 1 year ago
Uh, oh, and I thought it was quite clear from the quotes themselves..
yancur 1 year ago
Didn't watch the video.
You don't see contradiction in the two terms, eh, given that atheist might as well be adeist?
IWannabeJew 1 year ago
So you didn't bother to watch the video but do bother to comment on it and expect anyone to answer you?
Some people are simply awesome..
Well ok.
Obviously there is some contradiction in the views of a deist and atheist, but it's of no significance as it doesn't influence their lives at all.
This in sharp contrast with theists and their beliefs. Who are not only directly influenced by their superstitious beliefs but (and which is the most important) want to force it on others as well.
yancur 1 year ago
Really? Deism didn't influence the life of Thomas Jefferson? Allen Jayne asserts that Jefferson incorporated Deist theology into the Declaration of Independence.
I have personally witnessed how ReligionFreeDeist's conversion from Christian to Deist has influenced his life.
You atheist fundamentalists are just as full-of-shit and disingenuous as your Christian fundamentalist foes.
Only a moron or the self-deceived can think that a person's worldview doesn't influence their life.
IWannabeJew 1 year ago
No it didn't. His non-theism did.
Deism is purely belief that there was a god at the begining and then all evolved according to natural laws without any interference from this god. Deist just like atheist doesn't believe in afterlife, soul or any such nonsesne.
Deism is an evolutionary step towards atheism and was popular before Darwin and other scientific discoveries. Some do not evolve further but most did.
"Fundamentalist Atheist"? Is it worse or better then fundamentalist A-vampirist?
yancur 1 year ago
"Only a moron or the self-deceived can think that a person's worldview doesn't influence their life. "
Who said it doesn't??
I said that there is no significant difference between atheist and deist in their look on the world, and from their beliefs (in no-god or deist god) they cannot derive their morals or actions.
Ahteist and Deist are like two ppl one who don't believe in vampires and one who does, but deosn't think they interfere with our world at all.
The difference is insignificant.
yancur 1 year ago
@IWannabeJew
the founding father where secular u idiot.
they made the declaration to protects all beliefs ...that includes non believers, deists, agnostics and all other religions.
sidewaysfcs0718 1 year ago
Not those who spend of their substance, to be seen of men, but have no faith in God and the Last Day: If any take the Evil One for their intimate, what a dreadful intimate he is!
i7o999 1 year ago
Of no effect is the repentance of those who continue to do evil, until death faces one of them, and he says, "Now have I repented indeed;" nor of those who die rejecting Faith: for them have We prepared a punishment most grievous.
i7o999 1 year ago
Who receiveth guidance, receiveth it for his own benefit: who goeth astray doth so to his own loss: No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another: nor would We visit with Our Wrath until We had sent an apostle (to give warning).
i7o999 1 year ago
Every soul shall have a taste of death: And only on the Day of Judgment shall you be paid your full recompense. Only he who is saved far from the Fire and admitted to the Garden will have attained the object (of Life): For the life of this world is but goods and chattels of deception.
i7o999 1 year ago
Probably the best "Famous Atheists" video I've watched. You only pick the best quotes.
fbajwa1 1 year ago
This video is not about famous theists, but the two first guys.
Eyelash85 1 year ago
So...posting a video slideshow of some atheist thinkers is a serious work of atheist apologetics...? Nice to know you're trying.
augustinian2018 2 years ago
No. Apologetics is a religious endeavour.
Popperite 2 years ago
Apologetics, coming from the Greek απολογια, is a defense of any position in a long standing argument. Usually it does refer to the Christian Apologists, but if Atheists see themselves as defending their position, they are also practicing apologetics.
jwoelmer2 1 year ago
Read Book VII of the Confessions, Book XII of the City of God, paragraph 22 of the Enchiridion, and On the Nature of the Good. These are all places where you will encounter the uniquely Augustinian moral ontology.
(hint: you'll have to use semantics)
augustinian2018 2 years ago
By the way, if there is no God, what benefit is there to insisting that he does not exist, or even to assembling a "Greatest Hits" collection of Non-theists? If there is no God there should be no reason to even address the notion of a God, thus no reason to assemble a list of those who don't believe in him. If this is for your own psychological benefit, say so, or stop posting these irrelevant videos. It has no point. It is illogical. It's as bad as all those "Jesus loves you" videos.
augustinian2018 2 years ago
If you don't believe in Adolf Hitler and his National Socialism, what benefit is there on insisting that he was wrong and evil, or even to assembling a "Greatest Hits" collection of Anti-Fascists?
One other hint for you:
God = not real.
Believers in God = real.
God = no threat at all.
Believes = serious threat to entire human kind.
yancur 2 years ago
@yancur nice one
squmak 2 years ago
I love atheistic attempts at refutations of the philosophy of religion. Epicurus and a later Epicurean named Lucretius are essentially the only atheists who have ever succeeded in positing a truly logical case for atheism, and their argument from undesign/the problem of evil was almost accidentally defeated by St. Augustine with his ontology of the substantiality of good and evil being privation of that substance. Likewise, the arguments from cosmology and reason itself are rather solid. Silly.
augustinian2018 2 years ago
Lol, you made me really laugh. St. Augustine poses no challenge at all, not even to old greek philosophers who predate him a couple of centuries. he was an old silly fool, and his "proof" of God is silly at best. Much like Aquinases.
His "arguments" have been refuted before St.Augustine was even born, and any child with half a brain can rebut these nonsensical "proofs" without really trying.
"7+3 = 10 and therefore there is God!", I mean let's get serious.
yancur 2 years ago
I wasn't referring to his proof of God's existence. I was referring to his ontology of the substantiality of 'Good', and the privation of that substance, 'evil', which undermines the logical basis of the argument from undesign presented by Epicurus and Lucretius, and by modification Hume.
augustinian2018 2 years ago
Never heard of this work of his, so you will either have to put that argument forth for me, or just suppose that I wouldn't know the answer anyway and don't bother..
yancur 2 years ago
What's the music called?
alexmccormack 2 years ago
Any way of thinking can be twisted to create violence: 9/11 and perversion of Islam, The Crusades a perversion of Christianity, The halocaust a perversion of natural selection, Soviet burning of churches a perversion of atheism.
Despite what many like Sam Harris say, Atheism does have content. It is a "something".
Keysteeze 2 years ago
No you are wrong. Atheism does not have content. The word shouldn't even exist just like the word A-Vampirism doesn't.
9/11 wasn't pervesion of Islam it was fulfilment of the Islam creed, the same for Christianity and Crusades. As for the "pervesion of atheism" it's just plainly ridiculous. First of all, it was communism not atheism, and secondly it was fight for power nothing more. It was the same as burning Churches by Muslim and Mosqes by Christians in the middle ages.Intimidation and terror
yancur 2 years ago
That is because the God question is not actually parallel to: Vampires, FSM, Tooth Fairy, or Santa Claus. The God question is simply trying to understand the entity/being/singularity that terminates the infinte regress.
Also, you did not deny that the halocaust was a perversion of Darwinism and the principles of natural selection. Should we eliminate Darwinian thinking because it occaisionally is used for evil? Of course not. Because Darwinism is not intrinsically evil, and neither is religion
Keysteeze 2 years ago
I think it is paralel to the god question. There is no need to "terminate the infinite regress" by a god at all. Also god entity actually furthers the regress. If Universe is too complex to be uncreated, then who created this God entity which is far more complex?
Oh yes, I forgot that one. Obviously holocaust wasn't perversion of Darwinism. Firstly holocausts predate Darwin thousands of years (just look up the Bible) and secondly I dont see how killing jews have anything to do with Evolution.
yancur 2 years ago
the vid should have shown which one was close to diest and athiest.... cuss i just found out im a deist and i want to know who else is, and how they see it
Luke13PL 2 years ago
You see, the problem is that the difference is so insignificant that it really doesn't matter from the practical point of view. And therefore its hard to say which were "true atheists" and which "true deists"..
yancur 2 years ago
correct me if im wrong but:
athiest-> does not believe in god
Deist-> believes in god but just takes a step back and lets the world be by itself kind of
Luke13PL 2 years ago
Yes, that is correct. Don't get me wrong, I realize that there IS philosophical difference between Deist and Atheist, no question about that. But on a purely practical level there is none. Both Atheist and Deist don't pray, don't go to a holy war, don't follow stupid rules written in ancient texts, that don't any make sense. Atheist nor Deist would fly a plain into a building or bomb an abortion clinic.
It's not about what you or me believe, it's what the belief makes you do that matters.
yancur 2 years ago
There is difference to Atheists an Deists you so have pointed that out. Atheists don't belive in anything of a godhead while a Deist belive there is a godhead but just there to created the universe and let things grow from there natuarlly with no messiahs and/or prophets.
strangerinwhite 2 years ago
It seems conflict has forced its way even into the realm of the nonexistent. What further can one say?
omocorp 2 years ago 3
I'm surprised you have added Jefferson to the list. He's considered one of the more prominent Deists in America. I like the video though. I'll have to look up some of these guys when I have the time.
mailchibi88 2 years ago
Some good quotes from some intelligent people and a good video I think. That does not mean I agree with all. I would like to differentiate between religion and god, for example, if you would accept that.
tidders2 2 years ago
I understand that there is no need to tell others to become atheists. I personally am not atheistic because I believe that there is always mystery and probably something that powers everything. God was invented to explain mystery. I say God is mystery. It is like the imaginary number. It doesn't exist and it cancels itself out in many cases, but we need the concept of it.
The faults of logic people employed concept of god is not the concept itself.
soccom8341576 2 years ago
These guys are just as fanatical as the religious institutions they criticise!
bukkake999 2 years ago
Yeah, just like anti-fascists are as fanatical as fascists..
How many atheist burned people at stakes simply because they disbelieved differently then them? How many wars in the name of atheism you know?
You should really check your definitions of fanatism.
yancur 2 years ago
Two wrongs doesn't make a right, I still believe that these statements are fanatical in their own way. You know you don't have to belong to a religion in order to be fanatical, you should check what happened in the Russian revolution, how many churches have been destroyed and priests massacred in the name of an atheist ideology.
bukkake999 2 years ago
You really have definitions problem. Russian revolution was a Communist revolution not Atheist revolution. Not a single person was killed in the name of Atheism as far as history goes. Not that it is any credit to atheism, since it is nothing but a disbelief. Claiming it was atheist ideology is like claiming it was A-Vampirist ideology (since they disbelieved in Vampires) and blame all ppl who disbelieve in Vampires for it.. It's ridiculous.
You can be fanatic about any idea, but not "a-idea".
yancur 2 years ago
The Russian revolution was communist; however it had a strong atheist thought as it criticized religions for "enslaving" people. When you say that no one was ever killed in the name of atheism your idea is at such a low level that no one can possibly argue with you, of course there has never been an atheist nation that killed in the name of atheism, but people in the past have been killed because of their beliefs by groups with atheist principles, it is a fact!
bukkake999 2 years ago
The criticism of religion was actually the good thing about Communism although the means were questionable.
Tell me one example when a religious person was killed SOLELY for their belief in god.
You obviously don't understand that when there was persecution it was largely of the clergy members. Because they had the power (as they still do to this very day) over the uneducated masses. That was the main reason Stalin and other regimes tried hard to get rid of the clergy and belief in god.
yancur 2 years ago
It's actually you who has very low understanding of the topic. You came here with the preposterous idea that atheism is as fanatical as religions and then pull out the standard strawman - Communism.
The absurdity of the implication Atheism => Communism and therfore Atheism => Evil is as absurd as saying Stalin had a moustache, Hitler had a moustache they both were evil, therefore all ppl with moustaches are evil..
Stalin killed ppl for power; atheists as well as theists.
yancur 2 years ago
You're in contradiction with yourself, than we could also say that the so-called killing in the name of religion was also for power and that religion was a simple excuse. Look there are many other things I could talk about, but you just cant or wont understand what I'm saying, just forget about it Im getting tired of this never ending talk.
bukkake999 2 years ago
No I am not contradicting myself. Because what you said is exactly true! The religion is in fact just a way how to excuse killing (or other actions) for the rulling class! And that is exactly the problem. Religion does NO GOOD at all that couldn't possibly be done by other means. But it does TONS of EVIL that wouldn't exist if there was no religion. And that is my point, you are so hardly trying not to understand.
Trust me, you have nothing new to tell me I haven't heard thousand times before.
yancur 2 years ago
They just took advantage of the mass belief system that was already in place.
aiyic 2 years ago
Can someone please tell me what the music is? The first part had Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, what is this? If it's in public domain, I'd love to use it in one of my videos. Thanks for any clues!
Oh, BTW, great compilation. Fantastic! My favorite, Feynman, was there too :)
srikanthsrs 2 years ago
sinuev1....you wrote about entering the "narrow" gate, and not the "broad" one. RELIGION my dear friend could not be any broader!
euroman32589 2 years ago
Stopped the video at the comment by Steven Weinberg. Brilliant a physicist as he was, that statement (probably off the cuff and overcritical) I think is wrong.
Conformity in a power structure organization leads to the loss of individual will and dehumanization. There's a video on the TEDTalksDirector channel here on YouTube by Philip Zimbardo which goes into this in exquisite detail. It's a deeper psychological issue common to all humanity, regardless of the beliefs we dress over it.
Sinuev1 2 years ago
... or lack of belief thereof.
Religion, however, is rather a double edged danger - because not only does it provide the conformity (submit to Allah, we are one in Christ, etc) and the power structure which can lead to atrocities or justified injustice, it also breeds fundamentalism fueled by sacred texts from a very primitive and barbarous era.
Fundamentalism, also, exists outside of religion.
Sinuev1 2 years ago
So simply removing religion would not solve the problem, just shift it to a different vehicle... as kazmanian27 pointed out. Lenin and Stalin promoted ideological and national fundamentalism - and promoted conformity to a uniform power structure that was their system of government.
Atheist, Christian, Deist, Muslim, Buddhist, Agnostic, Gnostic... it doesn't matter. We're all equally capable of the same atrocities.
Sinuev1 2 years ago
I think the root of this particular evil is, truly, when we stop thinking for ourselves and voluntarily submit to someone else's authority, divinity, morality, ideology - rather than our own and coming together as a collective to discuss and debate constantly our ethics and our politics.
It's difficult, and requires a great deal of personal responsibility and effort. The process can be chaotic.
Sinuev1 2 years ago
So perhaps not in the context the Church would, or often has, interpreted it - one can find a great deal of wisdom in the words of Jesus Christ when he said:
"Enter though the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow is the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."
Sinuev1 2 years ago
You forgot Lenin and Stalin.
kazmanian27 2 years ago
The man who went and killed 10 year old Holly Jones was an Atheist...he raped and killed he knowing who wouldn't have to rot in hell when he died:D!!
Marikafan 2 years ago
were all the deists
RedArmyPunke 2 years ago
It all depends on your point of view.
ISBN8675309 2 years ago
Pirates of the caribbean!
generaldesor 3 years ago 3
You are blaspheming all other religions except for your own. You are pawn of Satans to all other religions except for yours. You are mocking all other creeds except yours.
So the difference between you and an atheist is just that atheist "blaspehmes" one god more.
yancur 3 years ago
What to you care what other people think?
Richard Feynman
bauler 3 years ago
How are you not judging me? You laugh at us, because we are dumb according to you, and "bamboozled" by satan, claiming we speak a gospel of hate? So again, to hell with you. Taking pride in your own ignorance should be against the law.
RhinoAts51 3 years ago
Nice work judging millions in a single youtube comment. To hell with you.
RhinoAts51 3 years ago
Fuck off!
blackflagqwerty 3 years ago 3
R.Dawkins is promoting his religion: "Man is just an animal"
The founder of psychiatry (Pavlov) did the same.
There is a new Zoo opening soon here in Thailand, they need
animals, you Dawkins fans are welcome to apply for a job,
We still have vacancy in our cages.
Please spread this message.
Thanks
marcotai 3 years ago
Yes, because we all know Thailand is the technological peak of humanity, where they finally figured out the truth behind faith.
RhinoAts51 3 years ago
"Nothing great about an athiest, being an athiest doesn't make one smarter, only dumber in a philosophical sense." A great quote from a guy who (surprise) believed in a God. lol.. 1 of billions of folks smart and dumb alike and I am one of them.
B360Lightning 3 years ago
Sure being an atheist won't make you smarter, but claiming that it makes you dumber in philosophical sense shows complete lack of understanding of the term atheist.
It's like claiming that being a-Vampirist is "dumber in philosophical sense" than being Vampirist. Utterly ridiculous.
BTW: Point of this vid was to show that not ALL atheist are vile children-eating monsters, not that all atheists are smart - which would of course be ludicrous.
yancur 3 years ago
nice video!!
bende6m 3 years ago
God Bless the Atheists.
DarkLotus118 3 years ago 9
Oh, the irony! :D
ZarlanTheGreen 3 years ago 4
What the hell? Feynman!? I always thought he was a world famous physicist...but this lables him as a world famous athiest...strange. I dont even remember reading that he ever gave the topic of relegion much great thought compared to topics such as physics and other sciences.
etheangel2220 3 years ago
He didn't place much emphasis on his atheism, why should he? He was an atheist just like he was an avampirist, awerevolfist aSantaClausist.. The word Atheism should not even exist in a normal world. But in a world where people believe in gods this word has its place.
But Feynman was quite an outspoken atheist as far as I know..
yancur 3 years ago
hehe you might want to curb your enthusiasm for your not so original conclusion that religion is just weakminded people's comforter. I am rather brilliant and I believe in God. Further I have been able to formulate a proof that we are spiritual beings as opposed to biological machines. think about the following and think carefully. does the code bool pain=true; manifest the sensation of pain? yet we have sensation. try to build a machine, biological or otherwise, that has sensation. temet nosce
DanFrederiksen 3 years ago
What brings you to believe that "brilliant" people cannot get infected by a mind virus?
"try to build a machine, biological or otherwise, that has sensation."
Solipsism. Prove to me that anyone else besides you has "sensation of pain" not only pain=true. Yes, we can create a machine that will react to "pain" in the same way we do. And prove to me that the machine does NOT have the sensation of pain as well..
Besides, even if you are right, how does this proove god at all?
yancur 3 years ago
your logic is flawed. proof by example requires only one. me. I don't have to show others have feelings. similarly, you need only realize your own.
even if we were to assume the material could have sensation as a completely superfluous sideeffect (since a reaction requires no sensation) that would be quite something in itself wouldn't it.
and I am right, without any room for error. you can see it if you try. it doesn't prove God. only the spiritual. good start though, wouldn't you say? :)
DanFrederiksen 3 years ago
No actually there is no flaw in my logic, you just didn't understand what I was trying to point out. We could build a machine purely out of matter that will manifest feelings and you have no way of finding whether it actually does. Consider this:
bool pain = true;
if (pain) printf ("Ouch");
Now, prove to me that a computer running this sequence doesn't actually "feel" the pain. Certainly not in the same way we do, but then a bacterium doesn't feel pain in the same way either..
yancur 3 years ago
think about it. only you can choose to see. I can't see it for you
DanFrederiksen 3 years ago
"think about it. only you can choose to see. I can't see it for you"
Rest assured that this is not at all the first time someone brought this idea to my attention. And I did think about it. While thinking about it we both reach a point where we have to say we don't know something. I leave it at that and hope fore scientific explanation to be made in the future, you go one step more and "invent" an explanation that feels good for you. I refuse to do that..
yancur 3 years ago
but that's simply not true. ti does afford the thinker certainty in this matter. I'm not strongly convinced, I don't want to believe, I know now. as you can know if you take the time to realize how profound the fact that this domain exists when the material world view has no need for it nor any way to manifest it. that's what bool pain=true; can show you. the mechanistic vs the spiritual. the mechanistic is blind to the spiritual. but you can see when you are ready
DanFrederiksen 3 years ago
Why is it that everytime i see an atheist they are extremly arrogant and condescending. Look at it like this; people who are atheist are just as religous about thier beliefs as a holyrolling christian. You both are identical if you ask me.
Vegathetruth 3 years ago
Why is it that everytime I see an theist he is even more arrogant than an atheist? It's the arrogant theist who claims to KNOW there is a All-Powerful being that has nothing better to do than to watch their misserable lives, care about them, do them all sorts of favors as they ask for them and condemn everyone that does not believe in him to eternal torture.
Yes, I am often being arrogant when confronted with a willfully ignorant theist, but never THIS arrogant..
yancur 3 years ago
um I'm not a theist. i dont claim i KNOW anything nor did I. I call it how i see it. If that bothers you so much dont worry i wont loose sleep over it. Dont get all sensitive and mad because you are a closet freak christian.
Vegathetruth 3 years ago
Err, I'm not sure WHO is getting all sensitive here. I was not talking about you. I was answering your question why are atheist sometimes arrogant towards theists.
But in your case probably the old saying holds; the struck goose squeals..
yancur 3 years ago
Vegathetruth said: "Why is it that everytime i see an atheist they are extremly arrogant and condescending."
it's actually an illusion caused by your inferiority complex kicking in because atheists are so much smarter than you!
axiomizer 3 years ago 7
Here.. Ill dumb it down for your small GED mind frame little guy.. Religion / re·li·gion: the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices. An atheist would be socially classified as a religion making it no different from Christianity or any other religion. So what makes you think Atheist are smarter? Just by what you just said to me proves my point about atheists being arrogant and condescending. Now go back to the kitchen and make me a sandwich
Vegathetruth 3 years ago
vegathetruth - you are a pompous hypocritical ass, being more arrogant and condescending than any atheist that i have ever met! LOL!
but that's par for the course for the kind, peaceful followers of religion!LMAO!
you are not even smart enough to understand basic english - "a-theist" - try it! LOL!
and try watching:
watch?v=4EWyD34FxmI
interesting facts on atheists seeming to have all the best science achievements!
no go back to your church and kiss your priests ring!
LMAO!
axiomizer 3 years ago
Listen GED I am not a Christian I am agnostic but I still hold common respect for peoples beliefs. I dont bash on them so i can boost my super cool GED ego like yours. I'm not going to watch your brainwashing bullshit nor do i care to, your are all the same. Your just mad because you never made it to college and you probubly pick potatos with your dad. Like I said go to the kitchen and make me a sandwhich
Vegathetruth 3 years ago
Haha... Vegathetruth, you've got some of the lamest responses I've ever read. Do us all a favor and disable your YouTube account.
NeoXF 2 years ago
NeoXF... i don't even need to say anything because your stupidity and ignorance speaks for itself
Vegathetruth 2 years ago
and you even admitted that atheist are arrogant and condescending hahahahahahhahahah i love this GED he's so smart and cool. I wish i worked on the potato farm with him and his dad ahahahahahahahhahah
Vegathetruth 3 years ago
@axiomizer I know an atheist who has 2 Masters degree and worked as a grantwriter making give or take 40K if that a year. Way smart and way to go with the 2 Masters degrees. Atheists have nothing of substance bottom line - you are obnoxiously boring individuals.
gurucarcar 1 year ago
"even if we were to assume the material could have sensation as a completely superfluous sideeffect [..] that would be quite something in itself wouldn't it."
Yes, it is something. It's still more rational to assume that it is as you describe it, then to make up an entirely imaginary plane of existence called "spiritual world" and attribute it to it..
Also, I think you are confusing 2 things here. Sensation of pain and awareness of this sensation. A bacteria feels pain but is not aware of it.
yancur 3 years ago
no it's not more rational. your desperate hope that it's just a side effect of all things conflicts with the observation that only some things are in this domain. why do we have the few sensations we have and not sensations to match all the little processes in the visual cortex, or the auditory. why is something subconscious and other things not.
have the courage to stop your obtuseness when you know there is something to it and not continue the desperate klinging to the material world view
DanFrederiksen 3 years ago
Yes, it is a more rational explanation, because it does add only one unknown to the equation, whereas your "explanation" brings thousands of unanswerable questions.
And I didn't say I buy that explanation. I just accepted it for the sake of argument...
Prove to me existence of "spiritual world" and I'll consider accepting your explanation, until then I'll retain my skeptical position., in the same way I retain my skeptical position to the existence of Vampires..
yancur 3 years ago
you lost me at "i am rather brilliant",
"it doesnt prove god", "i believe in god".
christhemountain 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
did you try to understand...
DanFrederiksen 3 years ago
etheangel2220 said: "What the hell? Feynman!? I always thought he was a world famous physicist...but this lables him as a world famous athiest...strange. I dont even remember reading that he ever gave the topic of relegion much great thought compared to topics such as physics and other sciences."
exactly! hence a-theist! easy to understand with the application of some brain power!
axiomizer 3 years ago
I am turned speechless over the arguments used by theists. It is basically circular logic, and there's always something that we don't understand that they can use to show as "evidence" that God exists.
PCoderch 3 years ago 4
great video
M32Encina 3 years ago
3) Finally, your description of abiogenis is simplistic to the point of absurdity. No complex life form "just" sprung into being. Primitive life was not even as complex as a virus or prion. Those forms only came to exist after millions of intermediary steps, many of which failed because of internal errors, or enviromental factors. Still, there are certain microenviroments that can provide long term favorable conditions for life to evolve eg certain types clays acreting on rock imperfections.
massivereader 3 years ago
Flows from the physics of this universe? Im going to add that one to my list along with "Quantum fluctuations of empty space into everything"(BB). THERE IS NOTA FACT OF SCIENCE ANYWHERE TO KEEP US FROM BELIEVING THAT'BY THE WORD OF THE LORD WERE THE HEAVENS MADE.. AND ALL THE HOST OF THEM BY THE BREATH OF HIS MOUTH..FOR HE SPAKE AND IT WAS DONE; HE COMMANDED, AND IT STOOD FAST"(PSALM 33:6,9 WHY DONT YOU ANSWER MY QUESTION?????
bonnevillebusa 3 years ago
Look Mister, I'm not going to asnwer or discuss ANYTHING with you until you explain the information in that video. You asked me about PROOF of the descent of humans from apes, and I WILL NOT let you off the hook:
watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
I'm not going into debunking all the crap you are spouting untill you answer that one. And since we both know you can't, it basically means: Goodbye, and have a great life full of superstition.
yancur 3 years ago
I will be glad to watch the vid. How do i access it? where? I actually thought it was some fancy formula that you blew me away with. Always keep that humor going.
bonnevillebusa 3 years ago
Oh, OK, sorry.
Look at your browser's address input there's youtube com / watch?v=PfnbOcmDXxo
so suply it with this instead:
watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
(this notion is used because YT doesn't allow links to be posted in comments)
yancur 3 years ago
THe reason evolution says nothing about how molecules turned into life is because they have nothing to say.Its a total embarrassment to them. Dean Canyon and Barry Stienman wrote the only book promoting C.E. back in the 70s and Canyon has long since discarded it as false. Harvards George Wald says that spont. gener. of a living organism is impossible, but then he goes on to say he believes in spont. gener.. Fred Hoyle says created material comes from nowhere, it just appears! You call this sci?
bonnevillebusa 3 years ago
Evolution doesn't concern itself with abiogenesis any more than it does with cosmology. And even though they are compatible they are different theories. Even if life was created by your magic-man in the sky the way we see it now, Evolution would still be taking place, because its flows form the physics of this Universe. At the moment we DON'T KNOW yet how the life originated from non life. But 500 years ago we didn't know were lightning came from, so Zeus did it right?
yancur 3 years ago
Why do you insist on getting personal. Why dont you just answer the question. What is the process by which evolution proceeds? If you have a FAITH that BELIEVES in naturalism, why do you refuse to defend it. Simple question.How does evolution work?? How did an amoeba eventually give rise to the diversity of living things?? Rule of debate. If you cant answer the question attack your opposition. Your getting consistent at that.
bonnevillebusa 3 years ago
You are accusing me of not answering yet you didn't answer this simple queistion:
watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
And after answering that your god is Liar, answer how is it with Retroviruses present in humans and great apes.. I'm really curious about the explanation. Seriously.
yancur 3 years ago
(by the way, i asked you a ques. first.didn't is past tense. play fair) The presence of common parts, like hearts or lungs or retroviruses is an observation. it can be used equally as an argument 4 a creator or common ances. after all, we live on the same planet,eat same food and breathe the same air. Similar design, common designer. A watermelon,jellyfish and a cloud are all 98% h2o. Good observation, but does not mean they are related. I'll have to call John Nash on your form. Is it a joke??
bonnevillebusa 3 years ago
No it could NOT be used as argumet for creator at all! Because Retroviruses get randomly stuck in the DNA (by accident) on a random location. The problem with the "creator hypothesis" they are found in Apes in the EXACTLY same location as in humans! So if the very same retrovirus got stuck in an Ape's DNA and in Human DNA, we would find it on a different location. But we find it on the exact same location! This was predicted by Evolutionary theory, but contradicts the "Creation Hypothesis".
yancur 3 years ago
I might add that the "scientific method" which stresses experimentation and induction from data was primarily formulated by Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626), Lord Chancellor of England who, among other attributes was a devout believer in the Bible.He wrote "There are 2 books laid before us to study, to prevent our falling into error; first, the volume of the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the Creatures, which express His power" Hewasascientistandbiblicalcreationist
bonnevillebusa 3 years ago
Argumentum Ad Hominem - irrelevant.
yancur 3 years ago
If science means knowledge then evolution has (as i have stated) has nothing to do with science. Science is the study of facts and i challenge you or anyone to present ONE fact os science that supports evolution.(the belief that molecules plus billions of years plus undirected chance produced all living creatures, plants and insects. If you think evolution has anything to do with science, then tell me, how did we evolve? What was (or is) the driving mechanism??? Thankyou, G.L.
bonnevillebusa 3 years ago
Evolution DOES NOT say anything about how molecules organized to form first life. It's abiogenesis which is not theory just scientific hypothesis. I challenged you to read something before posting something that would once again betray your ignorance of science. Seems, you did it again..
You wanna proof that we evolved from primates? OK, here you go:
watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk This fact can mean only one of 2 things. Either there is evolution going on, or your god is deceiving liar..
yancur 3 years ago
Actually, EV, has alot to say about how molecules turned into life! Millions of years ago at some imaginary place an imaginary pond appeared with imaginary chemicals. then imag. lighting struck (h20 was there too),there was no oxy. but kazam! A living self replicating critter appeared. What did it eat?? How did it survive without o2? Your crowd BELIEVES this bad science fiction, and you want to make fun of me 4 believing in a creator first cause. Thats insane logic and reasoning.
bonnevillebusa 3 years ago
One last time I will tell you this, and will not repeat it to you.
What you are describing is Abiogenesis - hypothesis which tries to describe this. It's still not a theory, and is being tested and researched. You can say that God created first living cell and from then on, evolution took place, like many Christians believe today. I actually believe abiogensis but recognize that it's still not final theory and years of research are still necessery. But some impressive things are known already.
yancur 3 years ago
This is a distortion of an experiment from the 1960's and a faulty line of reasoning.
1) abiogenesis had to occur in anerobic conditions because the early earth's atmosphere was reducing (mostly hydrogen, methane and ammonia. It was only when life evolved the ability to photosynthesize that the earth developed an oxygen atmosphere. There is still anerobic life today (botulism, deep sea vents) but most of it was killed by the O2 atmosphere. It acts as a supercharger for other aeorbic life forms
massivereader 3 years ago
Giving them a strong competitive advantage. Current speculation is that lipid structures still found in meteorites today (lipids are fairly complex molecules that self-organize into films - like soap bubbles) provided a framework for the assembly of life. The chemicals the lightning experiment produced also exist in space (they can be detected by spectroscopy) and simply fell to earth in micro-meteorites. Eventually after millions of years a self-perpetuating combination occured... viola! Life
massivereader 3 years ago
2) This is a stupid question. Early primitive life "ate" like most simple aquatic microscopic organisms still do today, by absorbing organic chemicals and inorganic nutrients from the surrounding enviroment. No 02 was needed, because anerobic life forms get energy from other chemical reactions (reducing reactions) just like aerobic life gets it from reactions involving 02. You obviously know little about Chemistry if you don't understand oxidation/reduction reactions, or is that made up too?
massivereader 3 years ago
Dear yancur, Then lets start with this, since your a scientist and im not. What is science?? Go ahead and define science for me, please.
bonnevillebusa 3 years ago
OK. Science means knowledge. It is sum of what humanity knows about our universe. Knowledge is different from belief, that it must be both justified and (objectively) true. Knowl. is subset of belief.
Part of science is a method used to assess what is true and what is not. This method is called "scientific method" and it's currently the only self-correcting tool for acquiring knowledge we have. It's not perfect, but it obviously works.
You might try to look it up on wikipedia for more details.
yancur 3 years ago
Ultimately, we both have belief systems. I once shared your views, however that was before i was exposed to the scientific roadblocks to evolution. 5 yrs. at the UOFLA. a science deg. and not 1 word about the possibility of creation. Evolution violates every law of science. It takes much less faith based on the facts to believe in a creator God who made you and i than to believe it all got here from a big Bang (or should i say bust) 30 billion yrs. ago. IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE H. AND E.
bonnevillebusa 3 years ago