The people here need to know something... Evidence alone is not decisive in worldview discussions. You can't just "present more evidence" to try to prove your worldview, because our worldview tells us what to make of the evidence.
Hindu's believe that this world is all an illusion. So if you show him/her a physical object and say "here, this proves that this object exists", is the Hindu going to be convinced? Of course not, they believe everything is an illusion.
I don't have to believe evidence for evolution will be found, it already has. Evolution has NEVER said we came from rocks. I have already said there's a preponderance of evidence to support evolution. Stop trying to undermine my argument rather than supporting your own. I choose to believe in facts presented by smart people, not that some omnipotent space wizard plonked people down as they are and created things like dinosaur bones to "test their faith".
@TheMightyX Um... If you think the story of evolution doesn't say we came from rocks, where do you think it says we came from? Of course it says we "evolved" from rocks! (Ultimately it suggests we came from NOTHING, rocks are just one step) If you find that hard to believe then that's good! Question the crap you've been fed by well meaning but sadly misled people. :-)
@jwheat65 The theory of evolution does not say we came from rocks! Why don't you go read a book on the subject? The theory is that preexisting molecules combined in the huge fusion reactors that are stars. How about we look at the story of Noah, where our argument started? He believed Hyenas were an unholy mix of dog and cat, and would not allow them on the ark. How about there are 350,000 kinds of beetles in the world, and if he only took two of each animal, it doesn't allow for their existence
@TheMightyX I don't know why we're arguing about this. There is no evidence to support evolution. Evolution is not a fact. Evolution cannot be proved. Evolution does assume that we "evolved from rocks". Evolution is best described as a belief system (or a religion). Hoaxes and circular reasoning do not constitute evidence.
I think there's a lot of material here for a comedian.
@jwheat65 The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Over 200,000 peer reviewed papers, palaeontology, transitional fossils, molecular biology, carbon dating, domestication and evolution itself has been observed.
Are you saying some imaginary sky daddy who cares what we eat and how we have sex - created all of this in six days lol.
p.s. evolution occurred after abiogenesis. You would be on much safer ground trying to disprove these current models as proposed, but evolution itself is FACT ;-)
@la2111 It's funny how people get so wound up when you challenge their religious beliefs!
Sorry but you're wrong. Evolution has never been observed! Evolution is not fact. How loud you say it doesn't make it fact. You've been sadly misled. :-)
@jwheat65 I don't have any belief in the supernatural. Faith is belief without evidence - that's your speciality.....
As for observation of evolution.......birds, insect resistance to pesticides, MRSA, new strains of E-coli, these have been observed in the lab and in the 'field'. The research is well documented.
You just keep repeating your creationist mantra denying the facts or deliberately misleading yourself and other people therefore: violating your own 9th commandment......
@la2111 So if someone says evolution is God's plan for nature you would accuse them of being wrong and violating the tenets of your nontheistic beliefs? Not everyone who believes in God denies that evolution is a reality. And non-belief can itself become a sort of religion as well, there are systems of belief that are treated as religions despite having no main deity.
@schizoidboy If evolution of all species on the Earth (and the big bang) was down to god then I would have no problem with that.
It's the people who assert (without evidence) that god answers their prayers, cares what we eat, what day we have sabbath whom we have sex with and in what way. These people tend to want a theocracy imposed upon us.
And a secular, democratic, non-believing humanist would never say: you must follow us and do as we do or you spend eternity in hell..........
@la2111 Not everyone who believes in God believes in a theocracy. Personally I believe religion is down to the believer and there should never be a gun to ones head. When you force someones beliefs on someone it ceases to be religion but then becomes politics, but this is more down to human nature then it is religion. Secularism also suffers from this problem, where it has happened in Communist countries (and the French Revolution as well) where those who were religious were targeted.
@schizoidboy We sort of agree then - on most points. Accept that communist countries (or most of them anyway) had anti-religious polices rather than secularism.
The real test would be can you name a fully secular, democratic, rational, humanist country that has fell into famine, war, corruption, crime and degradation of human rights? Its not an easy question to answer, but I can bet you can name a number of religious countries that has fell into one or all of the above.............
@la2111 Of course countries that have freedom of religion rather then a state sponsored religion are less likely to have the problems you mentioned. Of course secularism or human secularism can also evolve (no pun intended) into a religion of it's own, it has happened with Buddhism, Janism, and other Eastern philosophies and they are nontheistic but suffered from the same problems. Again it is human nature that is more dangerous then any ideology or religion.
@schizoidboy I would prefer freedom from religion than of religion ;-)
Also I think the definition of religion is the worship of a deity or spiritual leader with supernatural abilities. Therefore rational based secularism by definition could not become a religion. I know little of buddhism so I wont comment.
Your last point is interesting - but to get a 'person of good nature' to commit an evil act you would need religion or an extreme ideology first? (unless they were a psycho/sociopath).
@la2111 I'm not so sure people are rational - period. Benjamin Franklin was challenged with a similar letter from a secularist. Apparently this person also claimed to be rational and without God, but Franklin reminded him that he might be a rational person with ethics but most people are not and "If people behave badly with God imagine how they would behave without him."
@schizoidboy Most people behave irrational everyday - horoscopes, black cats etc. But I think you may have strayed onto morality at the end of your comment. And yes religion in its domesticated form, may have some benefit on the less able minded and help guide them throughout life and maybe even inhibit those with psychopathic tendencies.
Rationality can be acquired via learning and life experience - but a basic sense of morality is already hardwired into us from evolution.
@la2111 The problem with rationality is it depends on who is rationalizing, regardless of beliefs not everyone, especially non-believers, rationalize things the same way. Holding on to a single principle is a sure way of creating a dogma and that is more likely to cause problems rather then belief in a deity. Social Darwinism, which is a secular concept - unless there is a religion that has adopted it, can be used to justify colonialism and genocide, "we do this to survive." as a rational idea.
@la2111 I beg to differ on your last point - morality = behaviour + societal acceptance. What is morally reprehensible in once society is perfectly normal, acceptable or desirable in another. E.g. Cannibalism, drinking bull semen, stoning people to death. Society decides morality, not evolution or religion.
@wkirbyification I said a 'basic' sense of morality is hardwired into us. This is based on the 'golden rule' which appears across all tribes, societies, creeds and nations. Any society that practises acts such as cannibalism eventually dies out.
Modern moralities such as anti-slavery, gay rights, womens rights and animal rights are indeed decided by (educated) societies - and in opposition to religious groups...........
@la2111 I agree with ur sentiment but cannot agree with ur idea of 'basic'. There are tribes in PNG that practice cannibalism stil and have done so for thousands of yrs. All civilisations eventually die out regardless of what their morals are. The modern moralities you refer to are specific to Western culture and have little or no value in many Eastern countries (China for example) or tribal cultures dotted around the world. Who is to say that those modern moralities u refer to are 'right'?
@la2111 I agree with ur sentiment but cannot agree with ur idea of 'basic'. There are tribes in PNG that practice cannibalism stil and have done so for thousands of yrs. All civilisations eventually die out regardless of what their morals are. The modern moralities you refer to are specific to Western culture and have little or no value in many Eastern countries (China for example) or tribal cultures dotted around the world. Who is to say that those modern moralities u refer to are 'right'?
Belief in evolution is not a religion. Religion implies faith, faith implies belief of things despite EVIDENCE (a lack thereof, or or contradictory). It's true evolution is a theory, but a theory comes from the examination of facts and their relation to one another. Evolution is all about facts. For example, the Bombardier beetle is frequently used as an argument for god's existence. However, the existence of every necessary evolutionary step to get to the Bombardier already exists in nature.
Mitchell and Webb are fantastic comedians. I enjoy their comedy very much, except when they make fun of Christianity. They cannot prove that my God doesn't exist, and I believe that he does. Why don't they make fun of the religion of evolution as well?
@jwheat65 Evolution is not a religion, it's a theory. Religion involves faith despite evidence. Science is based ENTIRELY on evidence, and changes as new information is discovered, so is thus constantly in flux. Religion is more or less static system which ignores or revokes evidence because it does not fit into their dogma. Besides which, all the "funny" things you could say about evolution were all said 150 years ago.
@TheMightyX Let me clarify. *Belief* in evolution is a religion. Evolution is a theory as there are no facts to prove it. If there were facts to prove it, it would not be a theory but a fact. As it is not fact you need faith to believe it's true. Hence it's a religion. :-)
@jwheat65 Evolution is supported by an array of related facts. Scientists can trace an animal's evolutionary heritage through an array of increasingly sophisticated means. A theory is a theory because new evidence can always spring up to change our perception of how all the facts fit together. To argue that a theory is not supported by fact is simply not true. All theories are supported by facts, but it allows for new facts to come in and change our perception of how everything fits together.
@TheMightyX Believe what you will. I will point out that the belief that we came from rocks has no evidence and cannot be proved. This is a religious belief. You apparently have faith that evidence will be found. I believe it wont.
@jwheat65 I think you don't understand the word "theory". A theory in normal life is something that is plausible but not necessarily right. A scientific theory, like General Relativity or Evolution, is something which has been proven right. It doesn't mean "we're not sure but it sounds fun", it means "the evidence seems to imply this. This is probably right then, unless new evidence says it isn't." There's a huge difference.
I just love the fact that so many people of both camps are obviously well-read/educated but still seem to think that they will conclusively solve existentialism in the space of 500 characters.
I believe that anyone who believes word for word a fairytale book that was written 1700 years ago must be smoking major amounts of meth or something....... Why not think logically for a change instead of mythical lands of beasts, unicorns and wizards who respawn after 3 days and can move a 3 tonne boulder out of the way by themselves?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
oh god, if nothing funny happens within the first 30 seconds, I'm outta here. And now there's nothing after a whole minute. Nothing funny here at all. NOT FUNNY.
@organboi The reason that you didn't find it funny was that there wasn't a laugh track. Lots of people need the laugh track to know when things are funny.
@instereovideos I don't, and there were only a couple of chuckles in this thing. I like the idea, but it seems like they should have been able to do more with it. Like, W(Excitedly)."And if you don't confess, you burn forever." M(apprehensively), "I don't know, that seems a bit morbid," W(Angrily), "You always do that..." you see where I'm going with this... was there a middle sketch?
What if we're all wrong. What if Siddhartha is as close I'm going to get to do unto others, shalt not kill, respect ALL LIVING THINGS! I'm an earthling, humanoid, God Bless the World? One nation under Canada, above Mexico!
@Greyvallorean2 christians dont believe in ghosts and zombies, and Noah did not fit millions in the boat, only the species in the area that would flood. Also, can you tell me the the exact verse in the bible that says "there were no dinosaurs"? Didnt think so! Dont just judge christians as deluded fools. everyone has there own beliefs, and its not your place to judge them.
@kazjoy40 my understanding was that the entire planet was supposedly flooded, where they would have needed to fit millions of species on the boat. the whole idea of this is so laughably absurd its a wonder to think anyone could believe this.
@AussiePolitics No there isn't, the rain (fresh) and rivers (fresh) would mix with all the sea water making a halfway mix lethal for both salt and fresh water fish
@TheHDreality there are some fish that can do quite well in both conditions. sharks such as the bullshit can also do fine in fresh water. there have been bull sharks found 400km inland in fresh water and they have been fine.
meh i cant be bothered discussing this rubbish. its just laughable how people can believe that millions of species would fit on a boat.
@kazjoy40 There are two kinds of Christians: those who don't take the Bible 100% literally and idiots. The whole world flooded in the story of Noah's Ark, so Noah would have had to put hundreds of millions of species on the ark. If you believe that this happened you are an idiot, completely devoid of wothwhile knowledge or sense.
@TheSobek Then where do you draw the line? Where do you decide what is literal and what is not? Is Jesus's resurrection from the dead to be taken metaphorically too? Because his resurrection sounds no less ridiculous than Noah's ark; and if Jesus's rising from the dead is metaphorical than the foundation of the Christian faith is shattered.
@iruruu The resurrection of Christ is something that, unfortunately, cannot be disproved. The Flood can be disproved. If you accept that Jesus Christ was the son of God, then his resurrection is not only plausible but probable. Noah, on the other hand, was a human.
@TheSobek "If you accept that Jesus Christ was the son of God". Allow me to point out the obvious flaw here, not everyone even believes that your God is real (or any God in the case of Athiests). Also, the resurrection can be disproved with a bit of basic medical science, once brain death occurs (highly likely in the case of a crucifiction victim) the cadaver has virtually non-existant chances of being successfully recusitated and even if that occurs, will likely have severe brain damage.
@TheSobek Christ himself too? He clearly links his literal return with the literal flood. If the flood is metaphorical it seems his return is too. You are also making the mistake of assuming that the amount of species would be the same as the present, that there would be pairs of wolves, coyotes, dobermans, dingos etc. instead of just a pair of dogs. But I guess I am just a idiot.
@hypn0t0ad Well yeah, you are an idiot. Wolves, coyotes and dingos didn't evolve from some sort of generic dog in just the last 7000 years. There might be a few more species today, but it wouldn't be many. Just so we're clear, I quite firmly believe that Jesus Christ was NOT the Son of God and that he will never return from the dead.
@hypn0t0ad I'm sorry but I just found this comment utterly hilarious the second time I can't believe you haven't deleted it. Did you really think that 7000 years ago there were like 100 different animals or something? 'Frog', 'bird', 'bat', 'dog', 'cat'? I know I shouldn't goad you but I mean really? Really?
The bible never claims that Noah had to put millions of speacies of anything on the ark. Its specifically states, 2 of each KIND. new species would be formed eventually after population grew and dispersed. Thats how genetics works. New species arise but always stay withing the boundery of their genetic code.
next time state facual information instead of your ad hominims.
@Commonvoice815 The biblical definition of "kind" is very different from science. Infact in science there even isn't such a definition. If we'd go with the biblical definition of kind then 2 animals of different kinds cannot interbreed, and thus no new species. And if we're talking about 2 animals of the same species forming new species: they would inbreed themselves out long before that happens. Don't try to make a age old old fairytale sound scientific when it isn't.
@byteresistor you clearly haven't read a very good bible since it actually says that they took several of every animal onto the ark, I suppose you also think there were three wise men. maybe study the text? it's just an idea.
@Commonvoice815 Two of each kind? Does that mean one of each genus? I hate to break it to you but that's still a lot of animals. Less, to be sure, but many many more than one man can manage. If he got one of every class, that I could just about believe, I mean assuming he didn't worry about subclasses and infraclasses and such like. Assuming he had that kind of biological knowledge. The problem there is that there just wouldn't have been time for all the species we know today to evolve.
@TheSobek Oh, don't forget insects! He had to have at least two of EVERY KIND OF INSECT/ARTHROPOD. I don't know the exact breakdown except for spiders (30,000+ spiders classified), but there are WAY more beetles, then you have butterflies, regular flies, TRUE flies, mites, isopods, etc. Hey, do you think we got Bathynomeus Giganteus (giant sea isopods) because Noah accidentally dropped a relative of the Sow Bug into the ocean?
@jwheat65 ...but if it's two of each kind, and not two of each variation, doesn't that kind of open the door for evolution arguments? If you just took two beetles, let's say ladybugs, then how do you wind up with a Rose Chafer beetle? :P
@Commonvoice815 I find it utterly hilarious that you see the logic in evolution but consider the story of the Ark to be even vaguely possible. Although given this nonsense about species 'staying within the boundary of their genetic code' (which doesn't actually mean anything) perhaps you don't understand evolution very well.
Next time state FACTUAL information instead of bullshit.
HA! The spin off of the spin off, is the reformation. I wouldn't have got that if I wasn't supposed to be doing an essay on it rather than watching M&W vids :S
So THIS is what you can do with a degree in philosophy... Write long pretentious comments on a YouTube video. Here I was thinking that it's a useless degree.
@RexCogidubnus Whilst I agree everything below is pretentious and a rather pathetic waste of time, I disagree in you condemning philosophy as a useless degree. What did yo study may I ask? To see where best to take this argument.
Religion is useless, it causes more problems than it solves. I can't see for the life of me how educated people could believe in ghosts and zombies. But hey, maybe the world was made in seven days, lets just assume that 'god' (Ha Ha) forgot dinosaurs in the bible and that noah really DID fit millions of species into 1 boat. I could continue but I cba.
Wow, you all are conducting one of the most reasonable sustained arguments I have ever seen on youtube. I feel like I should horribly misspell something or say something bigoted just to set the tone back to normal...
"I've always thought we should have done more with the Holy Ghost."
Lol. I can imagine that when the Bishops sat down to decide what bits of text should be included in Biblical canon, the meeting would have been very much like this. Minus the computers of course... at least I don't think they had those in the second century AD.
Simply not true! Some of the most intelligent people in the world are religious.
Education and faith are entirely different things. A highly educated person would be making a greater leap of faith to believe in a God.
It is certainly true that uneducated people tend to cling to faith without proper understanding but it does not follow that all religious people are uneducated.
There is, however, a strong statistical correlation with education and non-belief. Sure, you can be smart and religious, but you could also be smart and believe in astrology or Bigfoot or some crazy conspiracy theory.
I made no claim to the contrary. I was meerly challenging the claim made by habs4life9 that all religious people are uneducated. Surely it's obvious, that is a totally false and unfounded claim!
Most priests are intelligent, educated people who have degrees and doctorates from prestigious universities. Regardless of whether they are right or wrong about God and religion, they are still intelligent people.
I am not religious but I have seen many intelligent arguments for God's existence
I've heard intelligent arguments for the existence of a God or "creator". I am yet to find a good argument for a particular religion such as Christianity, though.
@amazinhazon Several specific "christological" arguments have been put forward by various apologists for Christianity. Its also possible to to argue that the nature of some of the generic arguments for theism lends credence to a judeo-christian worldview contra various other theistic philosophies.
@101francis101 you are naive. These people are intelligent yes, but they are also deceptive and misleading. It suits them to create the best arguments even when they know they are in the wrong (for example, the disgusting practise of saying condoms do not prevent STI contraction in AIDS striken countries...) because it suits their agenda, and although they are intelligent they have little honesty or integrity.
@fragman08 Naive how? I was not insinuating that (priests for example) are intelligent and therefore correct. I acknowledge of course that there are corrupt priests, bishops, theologians or whatever, out there, some of whom might be very intelligent and others who are not. I repeat (from previous posts) that my initial comment was to counter habs4life9's claim that "all religious people are uneducated." I only posted to argue against this. I am not trying to glorify the church in any way.
@101francis101 It's not about intellingence at all. It's about cognitive dissonance. Everyone does it, but some of us try to use our rational mind to override it.
@101francis101 It's not about intellingence at all. It's about cognitive dissonance. Everyone does it, but some of us try to use our rational mind to override it.
I am well aware of the strong statistical correlation to which you refer and at no point did I deny it or argue against it. Perhaps it is youtubes disorganised arragnement of comments that has confused practically all posters. When I said "simply not true" that was a direct response to habs4life9's claim that ALL religious people are uneducated. It is impossible to substantiate such a claim. Whether or not habs4life9 meant that literally or not, I felt I should try to counter the absurd claim
education is relative anyway! like so many things, and ironicly just like religion it therefore cannot be grasped and changed systematically. We have to wait for religion to die out, which I reckon it will over the next couple of centuries.
The internet is helping it along I think. If you're an honest Christian and try and debate on Youtube, It'll at the very least make you think about things.
@RedAliceJoyDOLtis religion won't die out. There's been (correct) arguments against the existence of God(s) since before the 5th Century B.C. If the wider world hasn't taken notice in 2500 years, they won't anytime soon. It could potentially disappear that quickly as older generations die etc but the youth are indoctrinated from birth all over the world. Just won't happen. Greater men than Dawkins/Hitchens have proposed atheism throughout history to no avail..
@TerryDBlack it's a real pity considering that if it weren't for religion there would be far fewer wars and science would be over a thousand years advanced to what we have today
@Highstar25 Ever heard of communism? By far the bloodiest century in the world's history was the last.. and it was characterised by a philosophy which, at its core, was incompatible with theism.
@QuisSeperabit60 Just because it was not compatible with theism does not make it guided by atheism, as atheism is a lack of belief rather than a world view. For example, some tryannical government may happen to pass legislation on stamps, banning them.
This would be purely incidental, and not a motivating factor for said government.
@fragman08 If it is incompatible with theism, then by logical deduction, it embraces, as a foundational aspect of its philosophical system - an atheist, or at least irreligious world view. The mass murder and persecution by Communists of religious people of every persuasion right across the world demonstrates my intial point quite clearly. The atheism of, to my knowledge, every 20th century communist regime was not merely incidental, it was an intrinsic part of Marxist philosophy.
@QuisSeperabit60 the flood never happened, it is impossible to build a ship out of wood to hold 2 of every single species that ever existed (because evolution isn't real apparently), including dinosaurs, plus food for them.
there, the bible is the word of god, and god apparently lied. this throws the whole book into doubt, as well as gods existence.
@Neylonx Those dilemmas barely present a problem to the flawed young earth Biblical literalist interpretation. There were literally millions of cubic feet of space in the ark with the dimensions set forth in Genesis, the hebrew word "kind" is akin to the english word genus, describing species group, and the animals taken on board (if you do accept the literalist, global flood account) would undoubtedly have been infants.
@Neylonx Your final argument is a non-sequitur.Even if all its premises follow (and the young earth position is the only valid interpretation) all the argument does is cast doubt on the theological position that the Bible is the exactly literal, word-for-word, directly mandated word of God. It would have no effect on the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, and certainly not on the existence of God per se. What's bizarre is that I've actually come across this argument before, shabby as it is.
@kirke27 ok then, the only evidence for god existence is full of made up stuff. in modern times that makes the source invalid by anyones standards...
so you admit some of the stuff in the bible is made up, so some gigantic ship that would be impossible to build out of wood and the tools available at the time? we cant make ships that big now with fibreglass, metal and machines!
and that kinds thing you've made up, or prove it. anyway it doesnt matter, the flood didnt happen.
@Neylonx That depends on the validity of your misassumption that the Bible is the only evidence for God's existence, which it is not. In fact Christians rarely even hold the Bible out as evidence of God's existence, the Bible is the word of God, but his existence is already taken as established. Several observations or arguments point to God's existence - moral, cosmological, teleological, ontological etc.
@Neylonx But again you're failing to understand the point. I highly doubt that the millions of non-Christians who believe in God (Encyclopaedia Brittanica estimates that around 92% of all the world's population ever to exist have been theists of some form) would accept the argument that the Bible is the only evidence for God's existence.
@Neylonx As to Noah's Ark, an Italian liner with bigger dimensions was built in 1884. Whilst it would most certainly have been difficult to have built the Ark humanly it would not have been impossible, and with God all things are possible.
I think there is considerable scientific evidence, as well as narrative evidence from hundreds of other cultures, that some sort of localised flood event did happen, but that it is difficult to establish the precise dating and nature of that event
@QuisSeperabit60 Atheists don't have to provide evidence, the burden of proof is upon the claimant (you claim that God exists... you prove it.) It is assumed something does not exist unless it is proved to exist.
@fragman08 This is paradoxical in that it is both true and false. If said by an agnostic atheist, who means that his view does not assert a positive claim about God's non-existence, then in that sense it is true. But, importantly, the statement is false because all atheists assert a positive claim, namely that “God is not required.", i.e. that things like epistemology or morality... can be comprehended w/o God, whilst corresponding with and explaining the facts of human experience .
@QuisSeperabit60 You're playing with words. "God is not required" is just a rephrasing of "God doesn't exist". I'm an atheist, and I see no evidence that God is required, therefore I don't believe God is required. If God exists and he created everything, then obviously he is required for a complete understanding, but until there is evidence for such a thing, I refrain from believing it.
@Griexx Semantics is entirely crucial to proper philosophy. The issue at hand here is what one is actually asserting a positive claim about...if you believe that something like objective morality, can be explained without reference to God, then you shoulder the burden of proving such a claim. You are also relying on the argument from ignorance fallacy - one cannot claim that a proposition is false on account that it has not been proven true (which, in this case, has yet to be sustained).
@QuisSeperabit60 If objective morality exists (I'm undecided about what I believe, but I'm leaning towards that it doesn't), I see no reason why it would necessitate a God. If you're making the positive claim that it does, the burden of proof is on you.
Secondly, I'm not claiming any proposition to be false, I'm saying I have yet to see evidence that warrants the belief in it. Thus my non-belief is justified.
@Griexxt I could legitimately say that the burden lies upon you to prove that morality is subjective, a positive claim. The existence of objective morality seems to be incorrigable, or properly basic, in the sense that it cannot be explained by reference to any more foundational proposition. As to whether objective morality can exist without God, you'll struggle to find a serious ethicist who defends such intellectual suicide. Unless you classify Ayn Rand as a serious ethicist lol.
@QuisSeperabit60 I'm not saying that morality is subjective, I say I believe it is, because I have yet to be presented with anything I would call a moral absolute. I'm not asking you to believe what I believe, so I have no burden of proof. What I have is a reasoned argument for what I believe. And I'm willing to listen to arguments that could change my mind, but so far they have been unconvincing to me.
@Griexxt The debate over objective morality isn't technically about the existence of "moral absolutes" (which is, rather, the frame of reference for the utilitarian/deontological debate). Instead, to say a certain category of action is objectively morally wrong is to say it is wrong regardless of the opinions of the agent performing said action, or of society writ large, as to its morality, i.e. that moral values are mind-independent. This is, again, an incorrigable, or properly basic belief.
@Griexxt Certainly. I believe that for a person to rape and then eat an infant is an example of an act that is objectively, mind indepentantly, morally wrong.
@QuisSeperabit60 For a person, yes. But in the animal kingdom, things like that are not unknown. Our view of these acts are the result of our evolution as social animals. So what does "mind independently" mean?
@Griexxt That's because there is something distinct about humanity which sets it apart from the animal kingdom.Humans have a dualist nature, they are imbued with a capacity to reason, make ethical judgements, and an awareness of aesthetics etc.Whilst it is true that certain traits are perpetuated as a result of random genetic mutation, this cannot explain reason, or why certain moral actions are wrong independently of human minds, or societal development i.e. true regardless of those things.
im not arguing abt existentialism then...
webb has a charming profile.
PigSty1985 1 week ago
The Holy Ghost is like Mike in the Young Ones.
Yes! A Young Ones reference.
tagginos 2 months ago 3
was this before or after the adverts they did for Apple?
Either way, note the computer choice... Robert's got a Mac, David's got a PC :p
SunShineNotAvailable 3 months ago
@SunShineNotAvailable
Both are Macs, soooo ...
Xigano1 1 month ago
LOL mike in the young ones
horseofkhorne 5 months ago
The people here need to know something... Evidence alone is not decisive in worldview discussions. You can't just "present more evidence" to try to prove your worldview, because our worldview tells us what to make of the evidence.
Hindu's believe that this world is all an illusion. So if you show him/her a physical object and say "here, this proves that this object exists", is the Hindu going to be convinced? Of course not, they believe everything is an illusion.
Daracon75 5 months ago
Magic or Science? there's only one way to find out.......Fiiiiiggghhhhtt!
vortx100 5 months ago
I don't have to believe evidence for evolution will be found, it already has. Evolution has NEVER said we came from rocks. I have already said there's a preponderance of evidence to support evolution. Stop trying to undermine my argument rather than supporting your own. I choose to believe in facts presented by smart people, not that some omnipotent space wizard plonked people down as they are and created things like dinosaur bones to "test their faith".
TheMightyX 5 months ago
@TheMightyX Um... If you think the story of evolution doesn't say we came from rocks, where do you think it says we came from? Of course it says we "evolved" from rocks! (Ultimately it suggests we came from NOTHING, rocks are just one step) If you find that hard to believe then that's good! Question the crap you've been fed by well meaning but sadly misled people. :-)
jwheat65 5 months ago
@jwheat65 The theory of evolution does not say we came from rocks! Why don't you go read a book on the subject? The theory is that preexisting molecules combined in the huge fusion reactors that are stars. How about we look at the story of Noah, where our argument started? He believed Hyenas were an unholy mix of dog and cat, and would not allow them on the ark. How about there are 350,000 kinds of beetles in the world, and if he only took two of each animal, it doesn't allow for their existence
TheMightyX 5 months ago
@TheMightyX I don't know why we're arguing about this. There is no evidence to support evolution. Evolution is not a fact. Evolution cannot be proved. Evolution does assume that we "evolved from rocks". Evolution is best described as a belief system (or a religion). Hoaxes and circular reasoning do not constitute evidence.
I think there's a lot of material here for a comedian.
jwheat65 5 months ago
@jwheat65 The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Over 200,000 peer reviewed papers, palaeontology, transitional fossils, molecular biology, carbon dating, domestication and evolution itself has been observed.
Are you saying some imaginary sky daddy who cares what we eat and how we have sex - created all of this in six days lol.
p.s. evolution occurred after abiogenesis. You would be on much safer ground trying to disprove these current models as proposed, but evolution itself is FACT ;-)
la2111 5 months ago 7
@la2111 It's funny how people get so wound up when you challenge their religious beliefs!
Sorry but you're wrong. Evolution has never been observed! Evolution is not fact. How loud you say it doesn't make it fact. You've been sadly misled. :-)
jwheat65 5 months ago
@jwheat65 I don't have any belief in the supernatural. Faith is belief without evidence - that's your speciality.....
As for observation of evolution.......birds, insect resistance to pesticides, MRSA, new strains of E-coli, these have been observed in the lab and in the 'field'. The research is well documented.
You just keep repeating your creationist mantra denying the facts or deliberately misleading yourself and other people therefore: violating your own 9th commandment......
la2111 5 months ago 21
@la2111 So if someone says evolution is God's plan for nature you would accuse them of being wrong and violating the tenets of your nontheistic beliefs? Not everyone who believes in God denies that evolution is a reality. And non-belief can itself become a sort of religion as well, there are systems of belief that are treated as religions despite having no main deity.
schizoidboy 4 months ago
@schizoidboy If evolution of all species on the Earth (and the big bang) was down to god then I would have no problem with that.
It's the people who assert (without evidence) that god answers their prayers, cares what we eat, what day we have sabbath whom we have sex with and in what way. These people tend to want a theocracy imposed upon us.
And a secular, democratic, non-believing humanist would never say: you must follow us and do as we do or you spend eternity in hell..........
la2111 4 months ago 3
@la2111 Not everyone who believes in God believes in a theocracy. Personally I believe religion is down to the believer and there should never be a gun to ones head. When you force someones beliefs on someone it ceases to be religion but then becomes politics, but this is more down to human nature then it is religion. Secularism also suffers from this problem, where it has happened in Communist countries (and the French Revolution as well) where those who were religious were targeted.
schizoidboy 4 months ago
@schizoidboy We sort of agree then - on most points. Accept that communist countries (or most of them anyway) had anti-religious polices rather than secularism.
The real test would be can you name a fully secular, democratic, rational, humanist country that has fell into famine, war, corruption, crime and degradation of human rights? Its not an easy question to answer, but I can bet you can name a number of religious countries that has fell into one or all of the above.............
la2111 4 months ago 4
@la2111 Of course countries that have freedom of religion rather then a state sponsored religion are less likely to have the problems you mentioned. Of course secularism or human secularism can also evolve (no pun intended) into a religion of it's own, it has happened with Buddhism, Janism, and other Eastern philosophies and they are nontheistic but suffered from the same problems. Again it is human nature that is more dangerous then any ideology or religion.
schizoidboy 4 months ago
@schizoidboy I would prefer freedom from religion than of religion ;-)
Also I think the definition of religion is the worship of a deity or spiritual leader with supernatural abilities. Therefore rational based secularism by definition could not become a religion. I know little of buddhism so I wont comment.
Your last point is interesting - but to get a 'person of good nature' to commit an evil act you would need religion or an extreme ideology first? (unless they were a psycho/sociopath).
la2111 4 months ago 2
@la2111 I'm not so sure people are rational - period. Benjamin Franklin was challenged with a similar letter from a secularist. Apparently this person also claimed to be rational and without God, but Franklin reminded him that he might be a rational person with ethics but most people are not and "If people behave badly with God imagine how they would behave without him."
schizoidboy 4 months ago
@schizoidboy Most people behave irrational everyday - horoscopes, black cats etc. But I think you may have strayed onto morality at the end of your comment. And yes religion in its domesticated form, may have some benefit on the less able minded and help guide them throughout life and maybe even inhibit those with psychopathic tendencies.
Rationality can be acquired via learning and life experience - but a basic sense of morality is already hardwired into us from evolution.
la2111 4 months ago
@la2111 The problem with rationality is it depends on who is rationalizing, regardless of beliefs not everyone, especially non-believers, rationalize things the same way. Holding on to a single principle is a sure way of creating a dogma and that is more likely to cause problems rather then belief in a deity. Social Darwinism, which is a secular concept - unless there is a religion that has adopted it, can be used to justify colonialism and genocide, "we do this to survive." as a rational idea.
schizoidboy 4 months ago
@la2111 I beg to differ on your last point - morality = behaviour + societal acceptance. What is morally reprehensible in once society is perfectly normal, acceptable or desirable in another. E.g. Cannibalism, drinking bull semen, stoning people to death. Society decides morality, not evolution or religion.
wkirbyification 4 months ago
@wkirbyification I said a 'basic' sense of morality is hardwired into us. This is based on the 'golden rule' which appears across all tribes, societies, creeds and nations. Any society that practises acts such as cannibalism eventually dies out.
Modern moralities such as anti-slavery, gay rights, womens rights and animal rights are indeed decided by (educated) societies - and in opposition to religious groups...........
la2111 4 months ago
@la2111 I agree with ur sentiment but cannot agree with ur idea of 'basic'. There are tribes in PNG that practice cannibalism stil and have done so for thousands of yrs. All civilisations eventually die out regardless of what their morals are. The modern moralities you refer to are specific to Western culture and have little or no value in many Eastern countries (China for example) or tribal cultures dotted around the world. Who is to say that those modern moralities u refer to are 'right'?
wkirbyification 4 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@la2111 I agree with ur sentiment but cannot agree with ur idea of 'basic'. There are tribes in PNG that practice cannibalism stil and have done so for thousands of yrs. All civilisations eventually die out regardless of what their morals are. The modern moralities you refer to are specific to Western culture and have little or no value in many Eastern countries (China for example) or tribal cultures dotted around the world. Who is to say that those modern moralities u refer to are 'right'?
wkirbyification 4 months ago
Belief in evolution is not a religion. Religion implies faith, faith implies belief of things despite EVIDENCE (a lack thereof, or or contradictory). It's true evolution is a theory, but a theory comes from the examination of facts and their relation to one another. Evolution is all about facts. For example, the Bombardier beetle is frequently used as an argument for god's existence. However, the existence of every necessary evolutionary step to get to the Bombardier already exists in nature.
TheMightyX 5 months ago
Holy Ghost is Mike from the Young Ones, therefore not funny or memorable other than his association with the others.
666deadman1988 5 months ago
Mitchell and Webb are fantastic comedians. I enjoy their comedy very much, except when they make fun of Christianity. They cannot prove that my God doesn't exist, and I believe that he does. Why don't they make fun of the religion of evolution as well?
jwheat65 6 months ago
@jwheat65 Evolution is not a religion, it's a theory. Religion involves faith despite evidence. Science is based ENTIRELY on evidence, and changes as new information is discovered, so is thus constantly in flux. Religion is more or less static system which ignores or revokes evidence because it does not fit into their dogma. Besides which, all the "funny" things you could say about evolution were all said 150 years ago.
TheMightyX 6 months ago
@TheMightyX Let me clarify. *Belief* in evolution is a religion. Evolution is a theory as there are no facts to prove it. If there were facts to prove it, it would not be a theory but a fact. As it is not fact you need faith to believe it's true. Hence it's a religion. :-)
jwheat65 5 months ago
@jwheat65 Evolution is supported by an array of related facts. Scientists can trace an animal's evolutionary heritage through an array of increasingly sophisticated means. A theory is a theory because new evidence can always spring up to change our perception of how all the facts fit together. To argue that a theory is not supported by fact is simply not true. All theories are supported by facts, but it allows for new facts to come in and change our perception of how everything fits together.
TheMightyX 5 months ago
@TheMightyX Believe what you will. I will point out that the belief that we came from rocks has no evidence and cannot be proved. This is a religious belief. You apparently have faith that evidence will be found. I believe it wont.
jwheat65 5 months ago
@jwheat65 I think you don't understand the word "theory". A theory in normal life is something that is plausible but not necessarily right. A scientific theory, like General Relativity or Evolution, is something which has been proven right. It doesn't mean "we're not sure but it sounds fun", it means "the evidence seems to imply this. This is probably right then, unless new evidence says it isn't." There's a huge difference.
Drag0nfoxx 5 months ago
@jwheat65 Let me *clarify*. In your case, I think your parents threw away the baby and kept the afterbirth...........
la2111 5 months ago 5
The big question is where is the iMac plugged in?
smartalec88 6 months ago
I just love the fact that so many people of both camps are obviously well-read/educated but still seem to think that they will conclusively solve existentialism in the space of 500 characters.
blaizethatshitup 7 months ago 209
@blaizethatshitup Should be the top comment on here.
tanton1 7 months ago 15
@blaizethatshitup
Existence exists, the end ;) Noting doesn't exist, since it can't exist ;) Double the end
annata12 7 months ago
@blaizethatshitup ...well played, sir.
TheMightyX 5 months ago
@blaizethatshitup existentialism isn't a problem it's a philosophical stance.
khasab 2 months ago
I believe that anyone who believes word for word a fairytale book that was written 1700 years ago must be smoking major amounts of meth or something....... Why not think logically for a change instead of mythical lands of beasts, unicorns and wizards who respawn after 3 days and can move a 3 tonne boulder out of the way by themselves?
Vanubis10 7 months ago
Anyone else notice the way David Mitchell rocks his shoulders the first time he says spin off?
2hot2hoot 8 months ago
@TheSobek Im with you there, mate, but "idiots" is probably a bit too harsh
kazjoy40 8 months ago
Wow, I forgot how much those old macs look like Jolly Ranchers.
KingOfMadCows 9 months ago
Lol
80snessEj 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
oh god, if nothing funny happens within the first 30 seconds, I'm outta here. And now there's nothing after a whole minute. Nothing funny here at all. NOT FUNNY.
organboi 10 months ago
@organboi ::sigh:: you win. I'll remove it immediately.
tanton1 10 months ago 95
@organboi how do you know nothing happens after a minute? surely you were outta here after 30 seconds?
MadOldPete 10 months ago 2
@organboi The reason that you didn't find it funny was that there wasn't a laugh track. Lots of people need the laugh track to know when things are funny.
instereovideos 9 months ago
@instereovideos I don't, and there were only a couple of chuckles in this thing. I like the idea, but it seems like they should have been able to do more with it. Like, W(Excitedly)."And if you don't confess, you burn forever." M(apprehensively), "I don't know, that seems a bit morbid," W(Angrily), "You always do that..." you see where I'm going with this... was there a middle sketch?
Jonstern1983 9 months ago
@organboi this is hilarious because it takes the piss out of pathetic religious people
garethkielty 8 months ago
Comment removed
matthewapplemac 7 months ago
@organboi
you obviously dont understand comedy dear sir
matthewapplemac 7 months ago
@organboi Idiots like you need canned-laughter to tell you when to laugh.
TweekDash 6 months ago
@organboi well....
JHMnations 6 months ago
@organboi I think it's hard for you to get something funny without the laughing effects.
Geckuno 3 months ago
ok im offended, that is total bull and an unfair claim...
no way is mike as bad as the hoky ghost!
Papped1710 10 months ago
What if we're all wrong. What if Siddhartha is as close I'm going to get to do unto others, shalt not kill, respect ALL LIVING THINGS! I'm an earthling, humanoid, God Bless the World? One nation under Canada, above Mexico!
amyray63 11 months ago
Who's right. Rather which religion version of Bible
amyray63 11 months ago
@Greyvallorean2 christians dont believe in ghosts and zombies, and Noah did not fit millions in the boat, only the species in the area that would flood. Also, can you tell me the the exact verse in the bible that says "there were no dinosaurs"? Didnt think so! Dont just judge christians as deluded fools. everyone has there own beliefs, and its not your place to judge them.
kazjoy40 11 months ago
@kazjoy40 Christians do believe in ghosts/spirits - hence 'in the name of the father, the son, and the holy ghost'
grandmasterreggae 10 months ago
@kazjoy40 my understanding was that the entire planet was supposedly flooded, where they would have needed to fit millions of species on the boat. the whole idea of this is so laughably absurd its a wonder to think anyone could believe this.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@AussiePolitics it's amazing they haven't realised that all the fish would die too lol
TheHDreality 9 months ago
@TheHDreality true! fresh water! and what about all the evil animals that lived in the sea? there's a bit of a loop hole in it for evil seals.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@AussiePolitics No there isn't, the rain (fresh) and rivers (fresh) would mix with all the sea water making a halfway mix lethal for both salt and fresh water fish
TheHDreality 9 months ago
@TheHDreality there are some fish that can do quite well in both conditions. sharks such as the bullshit can also do fine in fresh water. there have been bull sharks found 400km inland in fresh water and they have been fine.
meh i cant be bothered discussing this rubbish. its just laughable how people can believe that millions of species would fit on a boat.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@kazjoy40 There are two kinds of Christians: those who don't take the Bible 100% literally and idiots. The whole world flooded in the story of Noah's Ark, so Noah would have had to put hundreds of millions of species on the ark. If you believe that this happened you are an idiot, completely devoid of wothwhile knowledge or sense.
TheSobek 8 months ago
@TheSobek Then where do you draw the line? Where do you decide what is literal and what is not? Is Jesus's resurrection from the dead to be taken metaphorically too? Because his resurrection sounds no less ridiculous than Noah's ark; and if Jesus's rising from the dead is metaphorical than the foundation of the Christian faith is shattered.
iruruu 8 months ago
@iruruu The resurrection of Christ is something that, unfortunately, cannot be disproved. The Flood can be disproved. If you accept that Jesus Christ was the son of God, then his resurrection is not only plausible but probable. Noah, on the other hand, was a human.
TheSobek 8 months ago
@TheSobek "If you accept that Jesus Christ was the son of God". Allow me to point out the obvious flaw here, not everyone even believes that your God is real (or any God in the case of Athiests). Also, the resurrection can be disproved with a bit of basic medical science, once brain death occurs (highly likely in the case of a crucifiction victim) the cadaver has virtually non-existant chances of being successfully recusitated and even if that occurs, will likely have severe brain damage.
randomface54 8 months ago
@TheSobek Christ himself too? He clearly links his literal return with the literal flood. If the flood is metaphorical it seems his return is too. You are also making the mistake of assuming that the amount of species would be the same as the present, that there would be pairs of wolves, coyotes, dobermans, dingos etc. instead of just a pair of dogs. But I guess I am just a idiot.
hypn0t0ad 8 months ago
@hypn0t0ad Well yeah, you are an idiot. Wolves, coyotes and dingos didn't evolve from some sort of generic dog in just the last 7000 years. There might be a few more species today, but it wouldn't be many. Just so we're clear, I quite firmly believe that Jesus Christ was NOT the Son of God and that he will never return from the dead.
TheSobek 8 months ago
@hypn0t0ad I'm sorry but I just found this comment utterly hilarious the second time I can't believe you haven't deleted it. Did you really think that 7000 years ago there were like 100 different animals or something? 'Frog', 'bird', 'bat', 'dog', 'cat'? I know I shouldn't goad you but I mean really? Really?
TheSobek 7 months ago
@TheSobek umm.. lets see.
The bible never claims that Noah had to put millions of speacies of anything on the ark. Its specifically states, 2 of each KIND. new species would be formed eventually after population grew and dispersed. Thats how genetics works. New species arise but always stay withing the boundery of their genetic code.
next time state facual information instead of your ad hominims.
Commonvoice815 8 months ago
@Commonvoice815 The biblical definition of "kind" is very different from science. Infact in science there even isn't such a definition. If we'd go with the biblical definition of kind then 2 animals of different kinds cannot interbreed, and thus no new species. And if we're talking about 2 animals of the same species forming new species: they would inbreed themselves out long before that happens. Don't try to make a age old old fairytale sound scientific when it isn't.
byteresistor 7 months ago
@byteresistor you clearly haven't read a very good bible since it actually says that they took several of every animal onto the ark, I suppose you also think there were three wise men. maybe study the text? it's just an idea.
cyoobist 7 months ago
@Commonvoice815 Two of each kind? Does that mean one of each genus? I hate to break it to you but that's still a lot of animals. Less, to be sure, but many many more than one man can manage. If he got one of every class, that I could just about believe, I mean assuming he didn't worry about subclasses and infraclasses and such like. Assuming he had that kind of biological knowledge. The problem there is that there just wouldn't have been time for all the species we know today to evolve.
TheSobek 7 months ago
@TheSobek Oh, don't forget insects! He had to have at least two of EVERY KIND OF INSECT/ARTHROPOD. I don't know the exact breakdown except for spiders (30,000+ spiders classified), but there are WAY more beetles, then you have butterflies, regular flies, TRUE flies, mites, isopods, etc. Hey, do you think we got Bathynomeus Giganteus (giant sea isopods) because Noah accidentally dropped a relative of the Sow Bug into the ocean?
TheMightyX 7 months ago
@TheMightyX Two of each kind, not each variation of each kind.
jwheat65 6 months ago
@jwheat65 ...but if it's two of each kind, and not two of each variation, doesn't that kind of open the door for evolution arguments? If you just took two beetles, let's say ladybugs, then how do you wind up with a Rose Chafer beetle? :P
TheMightyX 6 months ago
@Commonvoice815 I find it utterly hilarious that you see the logic in evolution but consider the story of the Ark to be even vaguely possible. Although given this nonsense about species 'staying within the boundary of their genetic code' (which doesn't actually mean anything) perhaps you don't understand evolution very well.
Next time state FACTUAL information instead of bullshit.
TheSobek 7 months ago
Bonus Young Ones reference!
NevTheDeranged 1 year ago
HA! The spin off of the spin off, is the reformation. I wouldn't have got that if I wasn't supposed to be doing an essay on it rather than watching M&W vids :S
davoisakoollord 1 year ago
God does not exist, end of. Now, enjoy the video.
torakrubik 1 year ago 7
Oh my god! this is so anti christ, how ever will i live...oh wait, the water melon proved "there is no god"
garethkielty 1 year ago
So THIS is what you can do with a degree in philosophy... Write long pretentious comments on a YouTube video. Here I was thinking that it's a useless degree.
RexCogidubnus 1 year ago 37
@RexCogidubnus Whilst I agree everything below is pretentious and a rather pathetic waste of time, I disagree in you condemning philosophy as a useless degree. What did yo study may I ask? To see where best to take this argument.
birdie9or11 1 year ago 3
@RexCogidubnus
You can also teach others how to do it.
116Bears 1 year ago
Ha ha! Mike from the Young Ones!!
Sector806 1 year ago 3
yea im in nice gear
hilderbrack 1 year ago
I never realised how good the mitchell and webb situation is compared to look, which is frankly too broad and quirky for my liking.
hippotoast 1 year ago
Religion is useless, it causes more problems than it solves. I can't see for the life of me how educated people could believe in ghosts and zombies. But hey, maybe the world was made in seven days, lets just assume that 'god' (Ha Ha) forgot dinosaurs in the bible and that noah really DID fit millions of species into 1 boat. I could continue but I cba.
Greyvallorean2 1 year ago
Wow, you all are conducting one of the most reasonable sustained arguments I have ever seen on youtube. I feel like I should horribly misspell something or say something bigoted just to set the tone back to normal...
yoo guyz R so stoopid!
;-)
RokiaNY 1 year ago 82
@RokiaNY you forgot the 'lolz'
stopthesoftkill 11 months ago 2
@RokiaNY My favorite is the following: YOUR ALL GAY (sic)
TheWonderfulWombat 9 months ago
@RokiaNY cuntz like that u mean
n2488 8 months ago
Mitchell and Webb are Atheists.
ChristopherLuck 1 year ago
situation...FAR better than look...anyone else agree???
guitar0211 1 year ago
That last line is now one of my all time favourites. Holy Ghost = Mike FTW.
amphitritie 1 year ago
So is this a joke about our history just being what they wrote?
S0rasN0b0dy 1 year ago
Who the FUCK came up with the football shaped button below the vid?!?!?! prick!
whyaretherenoneleft 1 year ago
"I've always thought we should have done more with the Holy Ghost."
Lol. I can imagine that when the Bishops sat down to decide what bits of text should be included in Biblical canon, the meeting would have been very much like this. Minus the computers of course... at least I don't think they had those in the second century AD.
Francis2061 1 year ago
I'd forgotten about Mike...
Mscatee 1 year ago
thelouisfanclub actually it started withthe plaeolithic people around three million years ago
Before homosapiens existed
Unless you count Neanderthal or homoerectus as humans which I can understand
1LDOBVREiDO 1 year ago
FUNNY!!!
Decibel33 1 year ago
LMAO
marcuelcajon 1 year ago
The holy ghost is like Mike in 'The Young Ones' ha ha!
trancemanic 1 year ago 6
@trancemanic Agreed. A great line.
abauslau 1 year ago
This is the funniest thing EVER!!! I mean, EVER!!!!!
AliceCullensAwesome 1 year ago
I like how he bigged up Catholicism. :)
Makes me proud to be one.
Plain Boring Protestants. hah! :)
Bigwullie1 1 year ago
You guys kill me!! Go turn yourself in at the nearest police station!
crazy4carolyn 2 years ago
You guys are awesome
tanton1 2 years ago 5
no, tanton1, YOU'RE AWESOME
Bjarku 2 years ago 2
Amazing - thank you for posting!
I loved watching that show when I lived in England!
jnelson30000 2 years ago 2
I'm one of the do-what-you-like-ones with nice stuff. :3
TherealMrChristophel 2 years ago
But... I liked Mike in the Young Ones.
Wolfogre 2 years ago 12
Apparently in these sketches David Mitchell got a horrible rash on his face so had to wear loads of makeup
SenorKristobbalVLog 2 years ago
really ? whered you know about it ?
brilliantfranz 2 years ago
Its on the dvd commentary
SenorKristobbalVLog 2 years ago
divine retribution of the highest order! wait no, that sucks as retribution.
Ch35h1r3C47 2 years ago
The Holy Ghost is like Mike in The Young Ones...
OMG - if this isn't divinly inspired comedy I don't know what is!!!
MariaVosa 2 years ago 29
I agree! I couldn't believe he said that. hehehe
I loved the young ones.
Mglosk 2 years ago
These are good!
jazzx251 2 years ago
this is great. imac ibook and mitchell and webb. Awsome
TheDGWJ 2 years ago 2
brilliant. religion is stupid and everyone who believes in religion is an uneducated hick.
habs4life9 2 years ago 7
Don't make me smack you, dude. :P
l adore this sketch. Hee. And l'm one of the "plain, annoyed ones".
CCNuck 2 years ago 9
Simply not true! Some of the most intelligent people in the world are religious.
Education and faith are entirely different things. A highly educated person would be making a greater leap of faith to believe in a God.
It is certainly true that uneducated people tend to cling to faith without proper understanding but it does not follow that all religious people are uneducated.
101francis101 1 year ago
There is, however, a strong statistical correlation with education and non-belief. Sure, you can be smart and religious, but you could also be smart and believe in astrology or Bigfoot or some crazy conspiracy theory.
AtomikNY 1 year ago 12
@AtomikNY
it's more like "smart BUT religious".
neomp5 1 year ago
I made no claim to the contrary. I was meerly challenging the claim made by habs4life9 that all religious people are uneducated. Surely it's obvious, that is a totally false and unfounded claim!
Most priests are intelligent, educated people who have degrees and doctorates from prestigious universities. Regardless of whether they are right or wrong about God and religion, they are still intelligent people.
I am not religious but I have seen many intelligent arguments for God's existence
101francis101 1 year ago 11
@101francis101
I've heard intelligent arguments for the existence of a God or "creator". I am yet to find a good argument for a particular religion such as Christianity, though.
amazinhazon 1 year ago
@amazinhazon Jesus mate...
daveisrave 1 year ago
@daveisrave lol
TerryDBlack 1 year ago
@amazinhazon Several specific "christological" arguments have been put forward by various apologists for Christianity. Its also possible to to argue that the nature of some of the generic arguments for theism lends credence to a judeo-christian worldview contra various other theistic philosophies.
QuisSeperabit60 1 year ago
@101francis101 you are naive. These people are intelligent yes, but they are also deceptive and misleading. It suits them to create the best arguments even when they know they are in the wrong (for example, the disgusting practise of saying condoms do not prevent STI contraction in AIDS striken countries...) because it suits their agenda, and although they are intelligent they have little honesty or integrity.
fragman08 1 year ago
@fragman08 Naive how? I was not insinuating that (priests for example) are intelligent and therefore correct. I acknowledge of course that there are corrupt priests, bishops, theologians or whatever, out there, some of whom might be very intelligent and others who are not. I repeat (from previous posts) that my initial comment was to counter habs4life9's claim that "all religious people are uneducated." I only posted to argue against this. I am not trying to glorify the church in any way.
101francis101 1 year ago
@101francis101 It's not about intellingence at all. It's about cognitive dissonance. Everyone does it, but some of us try to use our rational mind to override it.
joelthompson1701 1 year ago
@101francis101 It's not about intellingence at all. It's about cognitive dissonance. Everyone does it, but some of us try to use our rational mind to override it.
joelthompson1701 1 year ago
I am well aware of the strong statistical correlation to which you refer and at no point did I deny it or argue against it. Perhaps it is youtubes disorganised arragnement of comments that has confused practically all posters. When I said "simply not true" that was a direct response to habs4life9's claim that ALL religious people are uneducated. It is impossible to substantiate such a claim. Whether or not habs4life9 meant that literally or not, I felt I should try to counter the absurd claim
101francis101 1 year ago 2
@101francis101
education is relative anyway! like so many things, and ironicly just like religion it therefore cannot be grasped and changed systematically. We have to wait for religion to die out, which I reckon it will over the next couple of centuries.
RedAliceJoyDOLtis 1 year ago
@RedAliceJoyDOLtis
lol religion will never die out
as long as there have been people on earth they have had religious belief
why would it altogether suddenly "die out" in a couple of hundred years.
thelouisfanclub 1 year ago
@thelouisfanclub
The internet is helping it along I think. If you're an honest Christian and try and debate on Youtube, It'll at the very least make you think about things.
amazinhazon 1 year ago
@amazinhazon
So, you think Christians are Christian because they don't think about things?
thelouisfanclub 1 year ago
@RedAliceJoyDOLtis religion won't die out. There's been (correct) arguments against the existence of God(s) since before the 5th Century B.C. If the wider world hasn't taken notice in 2500 years, they won't anytime soon. It could potentially disappear that quickly as older generations die etc but the youth are indoctrinated from birth all over the world. Just won't happen. Greater men than Dawkins/Hitchens have proposed atheism throughout history to no avail..
TerryDBlack 1 year ago
@TerryDBlack it's a real pity considering that if it weren't for religion there would be far fewer wars and science would be over a thousand years advanced to what we have today
Highstar25 1 year ago
@Highstar25 Ever heard of communism? By far the bloodiest century in the world's history was the last.. and it was characterised by a philosophy which, at its core, was incompatible with theism.
QuisSeperabit60 1 year ago
@QuisSeperabit60 Just because it was not compatible with theism does not make it guided by atheism, as atheism is a lack of belief rather than a world view. For example, some tryannical government may happen to pass legislation on stamps, banning them.
This would be purely incidental, and not a motivating factor for said government.
fragman08 1 year ago
@fragman08 If it is incompatible with theism, then by logical deduction, it embraces, as a foundational aspect of its philosophical system - an atheist, or at least irreligious world view. The mass murder and persecution by Communists of religious people of every persuasion right across the world demonstrates my intial point quite clearly. The atheism of, to my knowledge, every 20th century communist regime was not merely incidental, it was an intrinsic part of Marxist philosophy.
QuisSeperabit60 1 year ago
@TerryDBlack Correct arguments supporting God's non-existence... care to provide one?
QuisSeperabit60 1 year ago
@QuisSeperabit60 the flood never happened, it is impossible to build a ship out of wood to hold 2 of every single species that ever existed (because evolution isn't real apparently), including dinosaurs, plus food for them.
there, the bible is the word of god, and god apparently lied. this throws the whole book into doubt, as well as gods existence.
Neylonx 1 year ago
@Neylonx Those dilemmas barely present a problem to the flawed young earth Biblical literalist interpretation. There were literally millions of cubic feet of space in the ark with the dimensions set forth in Genesis, the hebrew word "kind" is akin to the english word genus, describing species group, and the animals taken on board (if you do accept the literalist, global flood account) would undoubtedly have been infants.
kirke27 1 year ago
@Neylonx Your final argument is a non-sequitur.Even if all its premises follow (and the young earth position is the only valid interpretation) all the argument does is cast doubt on the theological position that the Bible is the exactly literal, word-for-word, directly mandated word of God. It would have no effect on the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, and certainly not on the existence of God per se. What's bizarre is that I've actually come across this argument before, shabby as it is.
kirke27 1 year ago
@kirke27 ok then, the only evidence for god existence is full of made up stuff. in modern times that makes the source invalid by anyones standards...
so you admit some of the stuff in the bible is made up, so some gigantic ship that would be impossible to build out of wood and the tools available at the time? we cant make ships that big now with fibreglass, metal and machines!
and that kinds thing you've made up, or prove it. anyway it doesnt matter, the flood didnt happen.
Neylonx 1 year ago
@Neylonx That depends on the validity of your misassumption that the Bible is the only evidence for God's existence, which it is not. In fact Christians rarely even hold the Bible out as evidence of God's existence, the Bible is the word of God, but his existence is already taken as established. Several observations or arguments point to God's existence - moral, cosmological, teleological, ontological etc.
QuisSeperabit60 1 year ago
@Neylonx But again you're failing to understand the point. I highly doubt that the millions of non-Christians who believe in God (Encyclopaedia Brittanica estimates that around 92% of all the world's population ever to exist have been theists of some form) would accept the argument that the Bible is the only evidence for God's existence.
QuisSeperabit60 1 year ago
@Neylonx As to Noah's Ark, an Italian liner with bigger dimensions was built in 1884. Whilst it would most certainly have been difficult to have built the Ark humanly it would not have been impossible, and with God all things are possible.
I think there is considerable scientific evidence, as well as narrative evidence from hundreds of other cultures, that some sort of localised flood event did happen, but that it is difficult to establish the precise dating and nature of that event
QuisSeperabit60 1 year ago
@QuisSeperabit60 Atheists don't have to provide evidence, the burden of proof is upon the claimant (you claim that God exists... you prove it.) It is assumed something does not exist unless it is proved to exist.
fragman08 1 year ago
@fragman08 This is paradoxical in that it is both true and false. If said by an agnostic atheist, who means that his view does not assert a positive claim about God's non-existence, then in that sense it is true. But, importantly, the statement is false because all atheists assert a positive claim, namely that “God is not required.", i.e. that things like epistemology or morality... can be comprehended w/o God, whilst corresponding with and explaining the facts of human experience .
QuisSeperabit60 1 year ago
@QuisSeperabit60 You're playing with words. "God is not required" is just a rephrasing of "God doesn't exist". I'm an atheist, and I see no evidence that God is required, therefore I don't believe God is required. If God exists and he created everything, then obviously he is required for a complete understanding, but until there is evidence for such a thing, I refrain from believing it.
Griexxt 1 year ago
@Griexx Semantics is entirely crucial to proper philosophy. The issue at hand here is what one is actually asserting a positive claim about...if you believe that something like objective morality, can be explained without reference to God, then you shoulder the burden of proving such a claim. You are also relying on the argument from ignorance fallacy - one cannot claim that a proposition is false on account that it has not been proven true (which, in this case, has yet to be sustained).
QuisSeperabit60 1 year ago
@QuisSeperabit60 If objective morality exists (I'm undecided about what I believe, but I'm leaning towards that it doesn't), I see no reason why it would necessitate a God. If you're making the positive claim that it does, the burden of proof is on you.
Secondly, I'm not claiming any proposition to be false, I'm saying I have yet to see evidence that warrants the belief in it. Thus my non-belief is justified.
Griexxt 1 year ago
@Griexxt I could legitimately say that the burden lies upon you to prove that morality is subjective, a positive claim. The existence of objective morality seems to be incorrigable, or properly basic, in the sense that it cannot be explained by reference to any more foundational proposition. As to whether objective morality can exist without God, you'll struggle to find a serious ethicist who defends such intellectual suicide. Unless you classify Ayn Rand as a serious ethicist lol.
QuisSeperabit60 1 year ago
@QuisSeperabit60 I'm not saying that morality is subjective, I say I believe it is, because I have yet to be presented with anything I would call a moral absolute. I'm not asking you to believe what I believe, so I have no burden of proof. What I have is a reasoned argument for what I believe. And I'm willing to listen to arguments that could change my mind, but so far they have been unconvincing to me.
Griexxt 1 year ago
@Griexxt The debate over objective morality isn't technically about the existence of "moral absolutes" (which is, rather, the frame of reference for the utilitarian/deontological debate). Instead, to say a certain category of action is objectively morally wrong is to say it is wrong regardless of the opinions of the agent performing said action, or of society writ large, as to its morality, i.e. that moral values are mind-independent. This is, again, an incorrigable, or properly basic belief.
QuisSeperabit60 1 year ago
@QuisSeperabit60 Can you mention an action which is objectively morally wrong regardless of opinions, society and mind?
Griexxt 1 year ago
@Griexxt Certainly. I believe that for a person to rape and then eat an infant is an example of an act that is objectively, mind indepentantly, morally wrong.
QuisSeperabit60 1 year ago
@QuisSeperabit60 For a person, yes. But in the animal kingdom, things like that are not unknown. Our view of these acts are the result of our evolution as social animals. So what does "mind independently" mean?
Griexxt 1 year ago
@Griexxt That's because there is something distinct about humanity which sets it apart from the animal kingdom.Humans have a dualist nature, they are imbued with a capacity to reason, make ethical judgements, and an awareness of aesthetics etc.Whilst it is true that certain traits are perpetuated as a result of random genetic mutation, this cannot explain reason, or why certain moral actions are wrong independently of human minds, or societal development i.e. true regardless of those things.
QuisSeperabit60 1 year ago
@QuisSeperabit60 I think you're making positive statement about biology that you have little evidence behind you