"If i a person where to dissappear in front of me, id recodnize how unreasonable it would be for the other person to believe in me without colobratiating evidence."
Thats why most reasonable people often classically first say both in reality and in stories: "Did you see that!?" Thats the important step in belief and knowledge!
Make sure what you saw other could independently verify :P
In summary. Scientists aren't automatically more openminded than people who believe in ghosts. That's misleading. Scientists are humans too, and just as prone to personal flaws, biases, and closed mindedness. You video does not adequately represent this. In answer to the magic powder question. I'd cut my hand and let them put the powder into my wound. Risking myself for the chance of helping my loved one. Without endangering them. That's love and open mindedness.
@blkbld He talks about a lot of the points you bring up. For ex, you state, "Quite often an event that COULD be supernatural in origins is completely ignored without being properly investigated." Watch the vid at 7:24. You state, "This video SUGGESTS an attitude of dismissal..." No, watch at 4:15. You stated, "I search for answers to all things..." Watch at 6:52. I suggest watching the vid again and listening very carefully to his words. There's a reason he's worded the vid the way he did.
P3. The attitude you attribute to scientists is the attitude I attribute to 'TRUE Scientists'. The majority of population who consider themselves allies of science are just as closed minded as anyone else. I search for answers to all things, and I never disbelieve someone just because my exp doesn't support their viewpoint. But neither do I accept it. I wait for my own proof. Too many people just shrug and go "I don't believe, so shut up about it." Those people give true scientists the bad name.
@blkbld haha You should drink tap water then and wait to see if you get cancer from the flouride in it. It's been tested on lab rats, but apparently your own proof is more important.
@soridosuneku Firstly, I'm on a well. Nice try. Secondly the contents of tapwater vary from location to location. Concentrations of chemical additives, and groundwater contamination. So. Just cause someone 'studied' it, doesn't mean they studied it well, or properly. As far as I'm concerned. If you don't wanna take something on faith, then do the research yourself.
As a followup. Quite often an event that COULD be supernatural in origins is completely ignored without being properly investigated. For example: "Oh it must have just been the wind. There's never been any evidence for Ghosts." The 'scientist' doesn't look for sources of wind, ie check for open windows, etc. This video SUGGESTS an attitude of dismissal, by not showing both sides, and if anything will only make CMed people on the science side even more CMed. part 3 coming.
I agree with this video to a point. I'm annoyed by the author's bias. He's using the video to discredit anyone who DOES believe in the supernatural, by making them all the chars who are closeminded. A point he never addresses is that many people who ARE CMed, cite science without truly understanding it. If he really wanted to make a point about being OMed, he should have equally represented both sides. Some examples of close minded people citing sciences wrong, in order to prove their point. imo
You said your athiest, but in a previous bit you said something like this: "I can't prove their is no god or spiritual divinity, so their is none." Is closed minded. I would of said you was agnostic as with real proof you would believe in something spiritual. If proof appeared. Athiest to me is another religion of I BELIEVE IN NO GOD OR SPIRITUALITY, EVEN THOUGH I CAN'T DISPROVE IT. That to be is just as close minded and very religious like in some ways.
@id493337 No, it's closed-minded to reject evidence that doesn't back your claim. Since no-one has proven ghosts exists, attributing something to ghosts while rejecting the evidence-based explanation would be closed-minded.
This entire thing is a straw man argument, which seems to be a trend in neo-atheism, especially on youtube. The narrator begins by asserting that "it seems to be an extremely common experience amongst people who don't believe in certain non-scientific concepts to be told by others who do to be more open minded." Leaving aside the obvious point that this claim has no basis and is completely anecdotal...
@meditationasmovement ...(it isn't like he starts by quoting a study or research, he just wants to make an argument so he makes a claim and couches it with the word "seems"), he then goes on to assert that this reaction is "typically" based on highly flawed thinking and proceeds to offer up several examples which include, his "neighbor," someone who once tried to suggest...
@meditationasmovement ...that "scientist who ask for evidence before accepting claims are as closed minded as witch doctors," "Alfie," a "number of people" who "work themselves up into a froth." He even explicitly says "it's a classic debating trick to exaggerate and therefor misrepresent another persons position," which he then proceeds to do throughout this entire clip...
@meditationasmovement ...The point is that these are all straw men that he's set up simply to tear down. He's not talking about arguments made by anyone who could later claim that they do or don't believe what he attributes to them, rather he's constructed fictional entities to argue with and attributed them to his opposing view-point. This is a text book straw man fallacy.
@meditationasmovement Except for the part where he's right. What he's trying to say about being open minded is correct, even if his examples might step into the far end of stupidity.
Also you have no account of his experiences in life, its possible he has indeed met people who are like this and is therefore justified in using these examples.
@Ingmatter ...and it's possible that I've seen chicken that breaths fire. You have no account of MY experiences in life, its possible I have indeed met chickens who are like this and is therefore justified in using these examples.
You're kind of missing the point. This entire video is about setting up a weak argument and tearing it down to make people on the internet with a 105 IQ feel better about themselves than people with a 95 IQ without having to do any serious intellectual work.
@meditationasmovement A four comment tirade of this entire video being a strawman, which they are not. I can identify with most examples as has been presented by a believer in supernatural &/or pseudo science.
IE. your close minded if you don't believe my claims
In regards to videos I have commented on especially ghost videos if one comes up with an alternate reason or even can't explain it & won't assert or believe some supernatural cause is said to be close minded
@robvlob 4 comments because of the character limit, and being able to "identify" with an example doesn't make it any less of a straw man. In fact it is basing your justification for this argument on your subjective experience, which is precisely the sort of this the creator of this video is attempting to argue against. The purpose of my comments was to suggest that any argument should be made against the strongest case made by your opposition. Attacking a straw man like this is just weak.
@meditationasmovement "4 comments because of the character limit, and being able to "identify" with an example doesn't make it any less of a straw man...." Yes it does if it is the bases of someones' argument it isn't a strawman plain and simple.
i find it funny how ppl get angry if your views disagree with theirs. why do we have to all agree? i have met some who get really abusive bc i said i didn't believe in the big bang theory.. as science itself says nothing comes from nothing, it is always in a state of flux. even when i say this i get insulted bc its a common belief so therefore must be truth lol or if u don't believe all science u must believe in a religion. i do love discovery science by theoretical science is like religion lol
@AnthicusZithna that everything started with a big bang. before that there was nothing. is what i have heard. but my point is we r allowed to disagree with each other. its no ones business and its not like it changes anything.. i don't go around being mean to ppl bc they have different views.. there is danger of ppl believing white lab coats like they use to believe dog collars, take the milgram experiment for example
Well no. The theory says (long story short): the Universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state which expanded rapidly.
Maybe you should learn first what a "theory" means, second learn what a specific theory really explains, third learn the evidence that supports the theory and finally try to criticize it. Because you are doing it in the wrong order.
@AnthicusZithna hmm i don't really need to be educated on the big bang. i choose not to believe we have enough data or access to data to figure out how the universe began. i don't believe god did it or that there is a god particle.. the lhc in my mind is a waste of time. i know what a theory is, i understand math. i jus think there r more important things to think about.. i'm more interested in the future.. history is only interesting in looking at the path to the now..
@codeXenigma like what? If Einstein had not done the math on general relativity and we had not tested it, we would have no GPS. The study of quantum physics gives us the possibility of nearly unlimited computing power.
@codeXenigma Actually, theoretical science is vital to applied science. Take GPS, for example. The GPS satelites would not have the neccesary level of co- if they worked on purely Newtonian laws - they would experience slight errors in timing that would make GPS unreliable and inaccurate. Luckily, we have relativity.
@thinkingguy87 don't get me wrong, i'm all for studying and trying to understand our environment, and ourselves. some theories r as crazy as religion. based on the information of speed of light, some believe if u travel faster than light u can effect time lol
i have heard 'scientists' make this claim. no evidence, jus a theory. in a world where ppl demand evidence for belief, i think science should relay the facts rather than all the 'what ifs..' is the point i was trying to make
@codeXenigma Some scientists have said that our models ("scientific theories") -- which have been shown to be accurate through various experiments but still continue to be tested to attempt to falsify them -- predict that a faster-than-light particle, should it exist, would travel backwards in time. No one claims these particles *do* exist, as we've never managed to observe one, and have no idea how one would originate.
There is *nothing* about that which is contrary to critical thought.
@Geeforson yeah i watched a documentary about this 'theoretical particle' and thought O of gods sake lol.. get it.. bc they can't prove they exist, but make up stories of what ifs...
billions of dollar they have spent trying to look for the god particle, looking for particles that can time travel. looking for matter that fills in the blanks of their theories.
in that science is not giving us the facts, its jus playing with 'imagination by numbers'
« bc they can't prove they exist, but make up stories of what ifs »
That's how *every* theory and hypothesis comes into being. We make up what-if stories explaining some observation, and then we start *testing* those stories to see how well they hold up against further observation. The Higgs-boson too is a hypothesis awaiting confirmation. That's simply how science works.
@codeXenigma We've made many observations. With these observations, we have formed models. These models have explained the observations, and they've made predictions about further things that we may observe. We've tested many of our current models' predictions, and so far they've been right.
The models predict how a tachyon would act; that a higgs-boson must exist. If these predictions are experimentally falsified, we know the model is inaccurate and requires refinement. This *IS* Science.
1 - Argument from increduility. This is a classic logical fallacy. just because you think that an idea sounds crazy doesn;t make it wrong.
2 - Theoretical physicists incorporate mountains of data and math into their arguments. They also make falsifiable claims and design experiments to test them (the LHC, for example.)
@thinkingguy87 time traveling particles is pretty crazy. based on how light info travels.. that if u go faster that the speed of light, u can effect time, rather than jus your observation of it. ppl use to believe if u traveled faster than sound u would explode. using light info u can see somethings history, but to claim u can travel in time is a sci~fi theory that doesn't make logical sense.. besides no evidence
in modern times i prefer to believe when there is evidence
@codeXenigma Ok, who the hell are you quoting? Theoretical physicists never say these things for certain, they make theory based on observation and quite a bit of math. They then test their hypothesis in experiments. You're still arguing from incredulity.
@thinkingguy87 when its proved i will look at the data and draw my conclusions. ok the reason i don't like theoretical science.. i don't think its healthy when they look to try to prove their theories. i would prefer if they were straight talking.. in a 'this is what we have discovered' like in the would it stand up in court, does it stand up beyond a reasonable doubt.. they teach these theories and i think thats wrong, i think they should only teach the findings. is all ok
@thinkingguy87 bc the point of this topic of conversation isn't 'what is the truth or what has science done for us?' its looking at how ppl respond to each others opinions about what they 'believe' and how we study data.
i in no way was attacking 'science or religion' i was jus saying its strange how personal ppl seem to take it if u happen to disagree with their personal opinions of life, the universe and everything. lol
@codeXenigma I assume there is a possibility you may have unwittingly created a strawman. My assumption is what you are referring to as people getting angry because you don't believe as they do is actually people getting frustrated at your lack of understanding or strawmanning of the bigbang theory.
IE. there isn't a something from nothing in the bigbang theory it deals with an unknown singularity @ 10-43 seconds after the bigbang before that is also unknown, not nothing.
@robvlob hmm i don't see why anyone would get angry at what others believe, or doubt. i think angry ppl jus use stuff like, u don't understand, as an excuse bc they want to vent some of their anger. jus bc something has a 'science' label doesn't mean 'truth'. if ppl didn't challenge theories we would all be still believing the witch doctors, its healthy to question theories, besides some change as more info comes to light, like dinos didn't get wiped out, but evolved into birds..
@robvlob also the big bang does state that before there was nothing. quotes: 1)Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. 2)based on:galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," who discovered this phenomenon in 1929
yet there is lots of galaxies moving towards each other, like Andromeda?? i don't believe we have the technology to know and to observer the cycles of space.
@codeXenigma You're being closed-minded. We actually have the technology to measure the movement of galaxies, which is how we got the the Big Bang in the first place. The Big Bang model does not cover what happened pre-singularity, or even if "pre-singularity" makes sense.
And again, we have a model that says a tachyon would do a certain thing if it existed. No one says they actually do exist or have been observed. No one knows if time travel exists, and many point out the issues if it did.
@codeXenigma i.e., you're making up strawmen for the sake of arguing against science, rather than actually reading what anyone has written here. In other words, you're being obtusely closed-minded.
@Geeforson hayman the subject was why its annoying when ppl call u names and closed minded jus bc u have different view.. so what we have different views.. it is jus a theory after all
i have studied a lot of science, i jus disagree with some of it. some of it is amazing. but i'm don't believe they will find a 'god particle'. so know its healthy to question it, same as i question spirituality also. i guess i jus have a curious mind and don't jus believe what i am told.
@Geeforson don't label me, i'm jus pointing out why i doubt it rather than 'believe' it. but i guess if we r questioning science we must be closed minded bc why would science not be truth, i mean they r human beings and humans know everything..
i was quoting what is written about the big bang and no i don't believe we have enough data to jump to the knowledge of how the universe began. hence why its a theory.. rather than a fact.. so i am allowed to question. what is closed minded?
@codeXenigma Rather than thinking about and responding to anything anyone is saying, you deflect and try to route the conversation around it. You just want to find some way of saying "Science is wrong", but completely ignore any counter-arguments or evidence that falsifies that statement. I'm pretty sure that exactly matches the definition of closed-mindedness found *in this very video* ;)
@Geeforson when did i ever say "science is wrong"? what r u on about? i was laughing at how yes its annoying when jus bc u have different views on 'theories' that others think u r closed minded. i have already explained why i question some of the theories. i was jus saying its annoying.. thanks for proving my point.. haha
@Geeforson check out the milgram experiment for the danger of believing jus bc a man in a lab coat tell u what to believe. of course the same can be said for dog collars. try to remember what planet u r on and the history of knowledge and don't jus believe what u r told.. if u have an opinion u have free will, if u blindly follow more fool u.. have u studied evolution, then u know we r still learning and um discovering new data all the time. our study of the universe is jus beginning
@codeXenigma Do you realize big-bang-theoryDOTcom is a creationist oriented website? In which "1)Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing." Is verbatim from it.
Click on links within the site you will be linked to other common creationist drivel.
I find it ironic how people put down Wikipedia yet crap resources like big-bang-theory get used as if it more accurate.
@robvlob i jus googled it bc i needed a quote.. but its something i have heard a few times. i jus used that quote as its a common idea of the big bang theory. but i wasn't really looking for a debate on if its a truth about 'how did the universe get created'. i only mentioned the big bang theory along with time-traveling bc they r theories i don't believe in, yet find it strange how rude ppl get if u disagree with them. belief is personal but i jus prefer evidence b4 i believe fairplay
@codeXenigma If nothing else works, let's try reductio ad absurdum.
I don't believe that you're a human being. I think you're a demon. An evil evil demon who lives under a bridge. No sense in arguing with me, beliefs are personal after all, and it's all 'jus a theory'. I would need to see evidence (blood samples would work) that you're human before I believe otherwise.
@Geeforson lol omg u believe in demons now hahahahahahahaha hmm yes i see how open minded u r.. so that is how u handle others having a difference of opinion. how have i shown that i am evil? there is no evidence to even suggest such a thing, is this how u calculate data? or r u so needing others to agree with your opinions bc u r insecure and need others to believe what u believe to make the world all safe and ok. get a grip bro. i can't believe that was your response lol
@codeXenigma Reductio ad absurdum failed, I give up.
@meditationasmovement if you honestly still believe this is a strawman, please just look at the comments from codeXenigma. She/he is exemplifying most of the points in the video.
@Geeforson bc i tend towards evidence b4 i am willing to believe, rather jus on the say so of others? science looked into the kingdom of heaven and found a universe. i believe there is a huge universe bc there is evidence. but really with the few cameras i don't believe they know all its secrets... don't get your knickers in a twist. if u believe in the various theories that is up to u. some ppl like evidence, some jus need something to follow ; )
@codeXenigma Reductio ad absurdum failed, I give up.
@meditationasmovement if you honestly still believe this is a strawman, please just look at the comments from codeXenigma. She/he is exemplifying most of the points in the video.
@codeXenigma "i jus googled it bc i needed a quote.. but its something i have heard a few times....." Well maybe its about fricken time you stop listening to or reading from creationist sources. This is me getting frustrated not angry at your continual adherence to creationist explanatory drivel of the big bang. Sure there are scientists that say there was nothing prior to the big bang but something from nothing isn't part of the BBT. Believe or disbelieve IDC just get it right.
Be cautious, because your definition of agnostic is implied to be far different from the one used on the internet most commonly. Like political belief containing not just "left" and "right" but also "up" and "down," theistic belief is not simply a slider going from left to right, from theist to agnostic to atheist. A/gnosticism pertains only to whether or not you claim to have knowledge or if knowledge can be known, and in that sense, I am an agnostic atheist.
@chadachada123 I am agnostic, meaning I believe we don't have enough proof that anything happened, and since we barely know anything as of now. Even something as silly sounding to some, as a "God" can exist, and has proof of existence, but we don't know what to look for, or where too look.
@danny899 You don't understand. Agnostic/Gnostic and Atheism are NOT comparable positions. If I can explain it right, Atheism has to do with a belief, Agnosticism/Gnosticism deals with certainty. You can have Agnostic Atheists or Agnostic Theists.
If you don't have any reason to currently believe a god exists, you are Atheist. But that's simply the default position, there's nothing wrong with it. You can still be uncertain whether or not there is a god (Agnostic).
@Ingmatter Agnosticism was originally "without knowledge", which is still the easiest way of putting it. An agnostic theist believes that a god exists, but claims to have no actual knowledge of the truth of this belief. An agnostic atheists doesn't have a belief in a god, and all professes no knowledge as to the existence or non-existence of a god.
"I don't accept 'God exists' as being true; I think there's a chance She exists and a chance She doesn't" is an agnostic atheist position.
@Geeforson although instead of "I don't belive in God; I think there's a chance it exists and a chance it doesn't", I prefer "I don't believe in God *because* I have no evidence to support it", which marries the two and is still an agnostic position since there's no claim of evidence against. That's a rational belief, since I'm actually justifying the belief by using my current knowledge of the premise. That's kind of a default 'skeptical' position, and obviously not the one atheist-bashers use.
@thescheibers6923 it's more of self-realization rather than believe I'd say. It's nothing as an idea or concept that mind can look for.. it's energy thing, vibration,mystical, achieving wisdom, and self knowing yourself. When Nature says that you're ready, she will give you more to understand about you.
How about that Matter is an illusion and it's only Energy and Vibration? How about that we are really One? Separation is an illusion. Everything is Energy. Look up the work of David Bohm and Einsteinz
@Motorokr123 totally agree with you.. How could Science explain, 10 people took ayahuasca in ceremony healing and all 10 encountered same visions and messages?
Basically they have had joint "hallucination".. no separation it's all energy and Mind is limited and rationalizes to never ending cycle to which can not give answers to things beyond it's 5 physical senses of reality.
What the bleep do we know? Both Science and Religion must come as One for us to ever find some sort of Truth. The Spiritual Sciences reveal a whole new world of paradigm shift. Materialistic Science is bases on the Newtonian Illusion of Matter while Dogmatic Religion is based on strong beliefs on the unknown that are not known through intuition but through fear.
@KemaTheAtheist If you believe that Spiritual science has not proven anything , You're very wrong!!!!
Please check the youtube video " Conscioussness, intent... Masaru Emoto" or write
"The Hidden Messages in the Water" .. Also if you think Vibrational (energy) or Spiritual Medicine has not helped humans check Brayden's lecture curing Cancer IN LESS THAN 2 MIN!!!!
Give citation of the peer-reviewed research. If should be easy to prove under scientific experimental conditions. If you can cure cancer in 2 minutes, you'd win a nobel.
@KemaTheAtheist You need to expand your consciousness, how you do it? By allowing yourself to explore the unknown. There's nothing in this video more than explanation of 5 sensory human mind, what I ask you do to is go to Water, Consciousness and intent and check Dr. Masaru Emoto's great things he discovered in energy medicine.. are you allowing yourself to be open to that? Ask yourself..it's up to you how much you can progress.
@KemaTheAtheist is at your argument? You're a child to me my dear. You are not ready yet to know of that, nature will choose when you're ready and will provide you, but not in this life, you got lots to learn on 5 senses level, I understand where you're. It is okay, one day you will now what I tell you now :)
Yes. If what you say is true, you should have no problem proving it under experimental conditions. Go pair up with an oncologist and start curing people of cancer. Publish a paper and win a Nobel prize and become world famous, rich, loved by all for all the good you do.
Cancers don't just go away because you wish them away. Reality doesn't work like that.
But, on the off chance you're the first person to prove some crazy wishful thinking actually works. To quote Tim Minchin: If you for example, show me that it works, I will change my mind. I will spin on a fucking dime. I will be embarrassed as hell, but I will run through the streets yelling, "It's a miracle! Take physics and bin it! ...and when I've recovered from the shock, I will take a compass and carve "fancy that" on the side of my cock."
@KemaTheAtheist so allow yourself, don't be afraid to know of these things, do your research , Science starts to slowly cooperate and fuse with it's other half.. that gives us hope that humanity can improve the world we live in, by consciously expanding. Anything you see in this world is created by our consciousness. And that is the way to bring changes in this world
@Motorokr123 All Scientific laws , including the Newton's, come from the ultimate source- the non physical one.. Newton's third law is very like the spiritual law of Karma,
so science needs to know it's god father. I know you'd agree with many things though, more people don't pay attention to it's laws, they are reflection of higher realities that are hard to be proven scientifically.. Check "The Hidden Messages in the Water", great discovery by Masaru Emoto :-)
@MacedonKing "Check "The Hidden Messages in the Water", great discovery by Masaru Emoto" I'll give you two choices. Someone want to make money off a bunch of gullible people so he takes pictures of a bunch of snow flakes and labels the pretty ones off of things he likes and the ugly ones off of things he does. OR, Someone conceives a multi-million dollar laboratory set up that allows him to create snowflakes and plays music to them and thinks at them to see if they change shape.
@michalchik sounds like a 5 year old boy, make sure you get the book, it's small simple and easy read. You didn't pay attention it's not the music that is played you dumber.
It's the words that we use or are part of our consciousness shows how the vibration of the negative or positive word affect the water, and imagine more than 60% of the body is water, if words can do that to water, imagine what words do to our bodies.. You're not even on the level of intelligence to talk over
"if words can do that to water, imagine what words do to our bodies"
So, you're claiming all the biochemistry, chemical reactions, and whatnot in our bodies that has nothing to do with water is effected by what you claim words do to water?
I retract my previous statements. I return to my previous assertion that you're either troll, insane, or retarded. There is no other rational explanation for the stupidity you're spouting.
@KemaTheAtheist you're not getting it, how could you :),negative words or thoughts, they're vibration when we utter them,depending on the vibration we send it depends what and how our bodies that produce these harmful chemicals or not, you get it? Obviously don't, nothing is black and white in this world. We're the only beings given the opportunity to evolve on conscious level. That is pretty much rational, now go and look for Curing Cancer in 2 min with Greg Brayden lectures.
"negative words or thoughts, they're vibration when we utter them?"
All words work that way, idiot.
"depending on the vibration we send it depends what and how our bodies that produce these harmful chemicals or not, you get it?"
ROFL. No. That's not how the body works. What your body produces is based on your genes and gene expression controlled my transcription factors, nutrition, and a variety of other factors. The words you say, has no effect on gene expression.
"We're the only beings given the opportunity to evolve on conscious level."
That's complete bullshit. There's many other animals capable of exhibiting emotions similar to humans. Elephants and most apes mourn their dead, many animals are self-aware and recognize themselves in a mirror, exhibit love towards family and friends.
You are no where close to rational. What's worse is that you're so far off from rational, that your ability to gauge rationality is nonexistent. The Dunning-Kruger effect... look it up.
@KemaTheAtheist You have no knowledge in vibrational or energy medicine.. There's tons of stores, books and schools for that. What do you talk about? Are you aware what you talk about?
I watched the video... You do understand that what he says is demonstrably false, right? We can measure electromagnetic fields and vibrations and things like that which our bodies produce, and they don't go kilometers away from our bodies. That's just stupid talk. Only the gullible and/or ignorant accept that as a premise.
@KemaTheAtheist This practices have been part of humanity for thousands of years, used for healing people using the natural way of healing.. You simply are not on half level of that to understand. One suggestion to you: If you don't get don't judge it. One realization :), what is not logical to the limited mind, it's called non-sense, or bullshit, to be more precise, what can't give answer to in domen of 5 senses it's crazy, due to it's limitations many things can't be known
Yeah, and people also still believe in acupuncture after it was shown to be no better than a placebo, and a weaker placebo than some guy just poking needles anywhere instead of the "correct" places according to acupuncture specialists.
All you're doing is asserting claims without evidence.
Do the experiments with controls, write a paper, get it peer-reviewed, and get it published. Until then, I won't trust such stupid claims.
@thinkingguy87 because science has not given enough room for alternative approaches. Our humanity failed big time, disconnecting from the ancient knowledge related to our non physical part- energy.. So to say as Mr.Braiden says " The space between us" "between you and me, is anything but not empty". Have you seen that video curing cancer in less than 3 min lecturing and video analyzing it? Science of course due to lack of understanding called it "miracle". Takes time for change
@CryptSphinx no I don't get insulted mate, I just don't understand your point, I was explaining the missing link between energy and matter, that science will be incomplete, but slowly fuse with the alternative approaches , practices, knowledge.. it gives hope.. I'm quite open, but human consciousness and intelligence does not end with the rational five-sensory human mind, we're suppose to evolve consciously beyond that.
@thinkingguy87 my friend, if you're interested also look for the book "The Hidden Messages in the water" by Masaru Emoto.Great discovery, simple and easy read book.
Our words,whether say something,or chant are sounds(vibrations) right?When we send healing sounds,words,chants,or thoughts with strong intent,the blocked energies in the body that created illness start to flow(dissolve).We are humans(body is matter) but also we have non physical part( energy ).We're link between both
@MacedonKing I sued to believe in these things when I was 5 years old. Then I grew up and realized that book can contain inaccuracies and even fraud. Did you know that the dictionary does not even have the word gullible in it? Go look for it.
I have seen the book BTW. It reminds me of the books I used to read when I was a little kid that "proved" if you slept under a pyramid you would not age and that the earth was hollow and filled with dinos and that plants read minds.
@QualiaSoup I hav a heavy question for you - What about having the open-mindedness to stop being open-minded, and to let an "emotional logic" take over? This would still be an act of open-mindedness, no?
Secondly, does a completely passionate devotion to open-mindedness (as I have, or hope to have) bring unease, dissatisfaction with state of mind, and tormenting uncertainty? Is it possible to find 'truth' with an open mind without emotional interference & distortions i.e. not only "your" truth?
There are some people who do lagmite research to try and explain the un explained. Unfortunately both the scientific community, and the paranormal nutters ostrosices them. The don't have blind faith either way. IMO that is just good science. Another way to look at it is think about when all the physicist were looking for "the either". Any one who disagreed was a nutter..
Unfortunately one of the weaknesses of a rational mind is it does not want to acknowledge an irrational event...lest say I saw a UFO. I am not saying I saw men from mars. I am saying I saw something that was flying and I don't know what it was. Because 90%+ are hoax, rational people assume the other 10% are. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...
While your argument is valid, it is a bit of splinting hairs. Unenforceable scientists are people, and so it is difficult if not impossible for them to set their POV aside completely. A for instance is science spent about 50 years directly ignoring scientific evidence that humans can proses sensory input form magnetic fields... Most paranormal research is a croak, but most valid research is ignored because science made up its mind without doing an experiment, which is in its self bad science.
Qualia, I seriously think that, at this point, the price you're paying for being "open minded" isn't worth it if every video you make ends up flooded with 17 year old pseudo intellectuals and kids who think because they're somewhat educated, that it gives them the right to speak outside of their field of knowledge simply because they can google anything that anyone says that may stump them so they google it and pretend to know, you're gonna start losing mad subscriptions...
@exiledregiment thsi video was made 2 years ago. You can have your opinion about it. But I think it is excellent and only has brought Qualia more subs.
Also speaking out of someones field is what most people do. If not then there would be almost no debate. Especially not in politics.
Im sorry to say but this video just isn't thought provoking enough to warrant this much thought process and conversational dialogue , So to everyone who's arguing like 15 year old pseudo intellectual know it all online psychologists, chill the fuck out, watch the video, learn something, and keep your goddamn uneducated opinions to yourselves.
And no, saying to me " hur hur just because u have nothin 2 say doesnt mean we dunt has nuthin 2 say " doesn't make you witty.
In Simple words: "If religion had proof to back their beliefs,Their would be no Athiest". Its not that Athiests hate your god.We just don't blindly follow MAN without first asking "why?" and "Where is your Proof".We do not believe in airplanes because someone somewhere said they exist we are the type of people that needed to see the airplane and experience it and even touch it to believe it.We do not believe in the word of the historically Corrupt man. We can only believe in something with proof
I have anecdotal evidence of spirits that my family, friends, and I have seen in my home, but do not expect anyone to believe in them just because I say so! I recognize how crazy it sounds and stranger things have happened to larger groups of people through mass hysteria. Anecdotal evidence is not proof at all. I do not blame anyone for being skeptical of spirits or even laughing me to the funny farm. I'd feel the same way if I hadn't experienced it and it is the PROPER reaction! Go Skepticism!
@exiledregiment That's a very learned response, thanks for the comment. Maybe you could tell me why you think so, since I'm always willing to learn new things. Also, I am a ma'am.
I am a Catholic. I've never found more illogical beliefs than atheists. They must deny reality to retain their beliefs. 1) They MUST believe infinite can exist in reality. 2) They MUST believe nothing can make something. 3) They believe 'one cannot prove a negative;, which is totally false. 4) They must believe 'lack of evidence is proof of something not existing' - totally false! Do aliens not exist because there is no evidence? Did black holes not exist because Greeks had no evidence?
@6630mcdo 1) Then how did god come to be? 2) Not necessarily 3) Prove to me unicorns don't exist. 4) No. A lack of evidence does not mean something doesn't exist. Many, I'd venture to say most, atheists are agnostic. If you or anyone was able to really prove there was a god (not just the Xian god, but any god - depending on your definition of the word), why would we continue being atheists? But you're not able to prove it. Why devote your life to something that possibly and probably is just myth
@ColignyForever 1) I do not understand your exact question. God never 'began to exist' but is timeless, i.e., exists outside of time. Oh, how is God infinite then? Theists state God is infinite in QUALITY, not quantity. 2) The majority of negatives can be proven. Worse case, we would be left with an 'I don't know', not since you have weak evidence, they therefore, do not exist. Unicorns could exist on the planet. I do not claim they do not exist. Do you believe in them? (con't)
@ColignyForever (con't) But there are many negatives like I can prove your non-existent or 7 billion peoples' non-existent. I can prove there are no children as US Congressmen. A MUST read "THINKING TOOLS: YOU CAN PROVE A NEGATIVE Dr. Steven D. Hales" - he's from Penn State(?) I believe. It changed my mind. 4) Yes, I agree most atheists are actually agnostics, which is a logical position if one just does not believe the evidence is strong.
@6630mcdo When did I say you couldn't prove a certain type of negative? I simply asked you to disprove a mythological being. If a mythological being does not exist, how do you go about disproving it? I'll give you another chance. Disprove to me the existence of the god Odin and his son Thor, then I will debate you all you like. (And the Kalam argument? You have probably heard it refuted many times, but if not, I'll share a video with you. Let me know if you want it.)
@ColignyForever I've read all the attacks of the Kalam, but all fail. It's a simple argument. To think it's false, you must believe that this is false. Premise 1: Any star that begins to exist has a cause. Premise 2: Stars do exist. C: Therefore, stars have a cause. Yet emotions have atheists thinking "Okay, we know God does not exist. So, there must be something wrong with this argument." This is a circular reasoning!!!
@6630mcdo To think the Kalam argument is true, you must believe that it is true. To someone like me, even as science stupid as I am, your argument does not make sense. Because even if everything needed an infinite cause, who is to say that this cause is a god? who is to say it is a sentient god? and who is to say that it is the god of xianity, judaism, and islam? Why not another, or unknown god or none at all? Nothing in the argument answers that. At all. watch?v=baZUCc5m8sE Go for it.
@ColignyForever As for Odin, remember, if there is no evidence, we must conclude 'we don't know.' Not the error, atheists state 'no evidence, aw=no existence!' Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. Now, being a Norse mythology, we could give a probabilistic argument that is was created by men. But I see no evidence to determine he does not exist. Odin and Thor could be advanced aliens, if true. Santa has positive evidence like no one at the N. Pole & parents give gifts.
@6630mcdo I'm not asking about Santa, though. I'm asking about Odin and Thor. So if you say that Odin and Thor may exist, then why do you choose to worship your god and not them? For one thing, they are infinitely more badass. What makes you choose your god over all of the other personified gods, or even a pantheistic or deistic god? What makes you think you've perhaps made the right choice? Also, agnostic atheists (what i am) do not say that. I say "we dont know, so why bother!"
@ColignyForever Well, I see no evidence Thor could not exist. But I cannot make a logical fallacy and state he does not. I must hold back a claim. There can be only one God logically. Thor cannot be God since he is matter, time and space. Also, God is not worshiped because He is all - 'powerful, smart, knowledge, etc' it is only because He is perfectly holy! I've studied many religions when in college. Catholicism is the only belief-system that is not logically flawed. Jesus ...
In a nutshell: "Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out".
Lyrero 3 days ago
@blkbld no, that's stupid.
DonMezzo 4 days ago
@DonMezzo your counter argument is intelligent and concise. Well enunciated and clearly well thought out. *slow clap*
I bet you were the top of your SpEd class. Have a gold star.
blkbld 2 days ago
The unfortunate thing is that 99% of people watching this video are the ones who are already genuinly open-minded, "preaching to the converted" :P
2012felixx 4 days ago
290 people don't have an open mind.
danwarb1 4 days ago
"If i a person where to dissappear in front of me, id recodnize how unreasonable it would be for the other person to believe in me without colobratiating evidence."
Thats why most reasonable people often classically first say both in reality and in stories: "Did you see that!?" Thats the important step in belief and knowledge!
Make sure what you saw other could independently verify :P
Anuojat 4 days ago
I like you sensible approach and calming voice, your the first person I will ever subscribe to.
m1rzaknows 5 days ago
This might be my favourite video ever.
riddlethos 6 days ago
This is marvelous, and so sensible it's funny
Livtoday 6 days ago
In summary. Scientists aren't automatically more openminded than people who believe in ghosts. That's misleading. Scientists are humans too, and just as prone to personal flaws, biases, and closed mindedness. You video does not adequately represent this. In answer to the magic powder question. I'd cut my hand and let them put the powder into my wound. Risking myself for the chance of helping my loved one. Without endangering them. That's love and open mindedness.
Thank you.
blkbld 1 week ago
@blkbld He talks about a lot of the points you bring up. For ex, you state, "Quite often an event that COULD be supernatural in origins is completely ignored without being properly investigated." Watch the vid at 7:24. You state, "This video SUGGESTS an attitude of dismissal..." No, watch at 4:15. You stated, "I search for answers to all things..." Watch at 6:52. I suggest watching the vid again and listening very carefully to his words. There's a reason he's worded the vid the way he did.
Ripley747 2 days ago
P3. The attitude you attribute to scientists is the attitude I attribute to 'TRUE Scientists'. The majority of population who consider themselves allies of science are just as closed minded as anyone else. I search for answers to all things, and I never disbelieve someone just because my exp doesn't support their viewpoint. But neither do I accept it. I wait for my own proof. Too many people just shrug and go "I don't believe, so shut up about it." Those people give true scientists the bad name.
blkbld 1 week ago
@blkbld haha You should drink tap water then and wait to see if you get cancer from the flouride in it. It's been tested on lab rats, but apparently your own proof is more important.
soridosuneku 2 days ago
@soridosuneku Firstly, I'm on a well. Nice try. Secondly the contents of tapwater vary from location to location. Concentrations of chemical additives, and groundwater contamination. So. Just cause someone 'studied' it, doesn't mean they studied it well, or properly. As far as I'm concerned. If you don't wanna take something on faith, then do the research yourself.
blkbld 2 days ago
@blkbld drink it regularly of course.
soridosuneku 2 days ago
As a followup. Quite often an event that COULD be supernatural in origins is completely ignored without being properly investigated. For example: "Oh it must have just been the wind. There's never been any evidence for Ghosts." The 'scientist' doesn't look for sources of wind, ie check for open windows, etc. This video SUGGESTS an attitude of dismissal, by not showing both sides, and if anything will only make CMed people on the science side even more CMed. part 3 coming.
blkbld 1 week ago
I agree with this video to a point. I'm annoyed by the author's bias. He's using the video to discredit anyone who DOES believe in the supernatural, by making them all the chars who are closeminded. A point he never addresses is that many people who ARE CMed, cite science without truly understanding it. If he really wanted to make a point about being OMed, he should have equally represented both sides. Some examples of close minded people citing sciences wrong, in order to prove their point. imo
blkbld 1 week ago
9:27 Represents relegious extremists and racists
420mindbodysoul 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You said your athiest, but in a previous bit you said something like this: "I can't prove their is no god or spiritual divinity, so their is none." Is closed minded. I would of said you was agnostic as with real proof you would believe in something spiritual. If proof appeared. Athiest to me is another religion of I BELIEVE IN NO GOD OR SPIRITUALITY, EVEN THOUGH I CAN'T DISPROVE IT. That to be is just as close minded and very religious like in some ways.
TheaDragonSpirit 1 week ago
Comment removed
TheaDragonSpirit 1 week ago
This is very agnostic! :-) I like it!
TheaDragonSpirit 1 week ago
This video proves that the internet is slowly killing religion.
dkthg 1 week ago
lol some humans are so open minded their brains fall out ;3
PinkProgram 1 week ago
I get it, so like it closed minded to believe in supernatural stuff but open minded to believe in scientific theories.
id493337 1 week ago
@id493337 No, it's closed-minded to reject evidence that doesn't back your claim. Since no-one has proven ghosts exists, attributing something to ghosts while rejecting the evidence-based explanation would be closed-minded.
thinkingguy87 1 week ago
This entire thing is a straw man argument, which seems to be a trend in neo-atheism, especially on youtube. The narrator begins by asserting that "it seems to be an extremely common experience amongst people who don't believe in certain non-scientific concepts to be told by others who do to be more open minded." Leaving aside the obvious point that this claim has no basis and is completely anecdotal...
meditationasmovement 2 weeks ago
@meditationasmovement ...(it isn't like he starts by quoting a study or research, he just wants to make an argument so he makes a claim and couches it with the word "seems"), he then goes on to assert that this reaction is "typically" based on highly flawed thinking and proceeds to offer up several examples which include, his "neighbor," someone who once tried to suggest...
meditationasmovement 2 weeks ago
@meditationasmovement ...that "scientist who ask for evidence before accepting claims are as closed minded as witch doctors," "Alfie," a "number of people" who "work themselves up into a froth." He even explicitly says "it's a classic debating trick to exaggerate and therefor misrepresent another persons position," which he then proceeds to do throughout this entire clip...
meditationasmovement 2 weeks ago
@meditationasmovement ...The point is that these are all straw men that he's set up simply to tear down. He's not talking about arguments made by anyone who could later claim that they do or don't believe what he attributes to them, rather he's constructed fictional entities to argue with and attributed them to his opposing view-point. This is a text book straw man fallacy.
meditationasmovement 2 weeks ago
@meditationasmovement Except for the part where he's right. What he's trying to say about being open minded is correct, even if his examples might step into the far end of stupidity.
Also you have no account of his experiences in life, its possible he has indeed met people who are like this and is therefore justified in using these examples.
Ingmatter 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ingmatter ...and it's possible that I've seen chicken that breaths fire. You have no account of MY experiences in life, its possible I have indeed met chickens who are like this and is therefore justified in using these examples.
You're kind of missing the point. This entire video is about setting up a weak argument and tearing it down to make people on the internet with a 105 IQ feel better about themselves than people with a 95 IQ without having to do any serious intellectual work.
meditationasmovement 1 week ago
@meditationasmovement A four comment tirade of this entire video being a strawman, which they are not. I can identify with most examples as has been presented by a believer in supernatural &/or pseudo science.
IE. your close minded if you don't believe my claims
In regards to videos I have commented on especially ghost videos if one comes up with an alternate reason or even can't explain it & won't assert or believe some supernatural cause is said to be close minded
robvlob 1 week ago
@robvlob 4 comments because of the character limit, and being able to "identify" with an example doesn't make it any less of a straw man. In fact it is basing your justification for this argument on your subjective experience, which is precisely the sort of this the creator of this video is attempting to argue against. The purpose of my comments was to suggest that any argument should be made against the strongest case made by your opposition. Attacking a straw man like this is just weak.
meditationasmovement 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@meditationasmovement "4 comments because of the character limit, and being able to "identify" with an example doesn't make it any less of a straw man...." Yes it does if it is the bases of someones' argument it isn't a strawman plain and simple.
robvlob 1 week ago
@meditationasmovement Not really, he's just framing his argument and his line of reasoning.
thinkingguy87 2 weeks ago
*i do love discovery science but theoretical science is like religion lol
codeXenigma 2 weeks ago
i find it funny how ppl get angry if your views disagree with theirs. why do we have to all agree? i have met some who get really abusive bc i said i didn't believe in the big bang theory.. as science itself says nothing comes from nothing, it is always in a state of flux. even when i say this i get insulted bc its a common belief so therefore must be truth lol or if u don't believe all science u must believe in a religion. i do love discovery science by theoretical science is like religion lol
codeXenigma 2 weeks ago
@codeXenigma
Based on what you said. I really doubt that you understand what the big bang theory really explains.
AnthicusZithna 2 weeks ago
@AnthicusZithna that everything started with a big bang. before that there was nothing. is what i have heard. but my point is we r allowed to disagree with each other. its no ones business and its not like it changes anything.. i don't go around being mean to ppl bc they have different views.. there is danger of ppl believing white lab coats like they use to believe dog collars, take the milgram experiment for example
codeXenigma 2 weeks ago
@codeXenigma
Well no. The theory says (long story short): the Universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state which expanded rapidly.
Maybe you should learn first what a "theory" means, second learn what a specific theory really explains, third learn the evidence that supports the theory and finally try to criticize it. Because you are doing it in the wrong order.
AnthicusZithna 1 week ago
@AnthicusZithna hmm i don't really need to be educated on the big bang. i choose not to believe we have enough data or access to data to figure out how the universe began. i don't believe god did it or that there is a god particle.. the lhc in my mind is a waste of time. i know what a theory is, i understand math. i jus think there r more important things to think about.. i'm more interested in the future.. history is only interesting in looking at the path to the now..
codeXenigma 1 week ago
@codeXenigma like what? If Einstein had not done the math on general relativity and we had not tested it, we would have no GPS. The study of quantum physics gives us the possibility of nearly unlimited computing power.
thinkingguy87 1 week ago
@codeXenigma Actually, theoretical science is vital to applied science. Take GPS, for example. The GPS satelites would not have the neccesary level of co- if they worked on purely Newtonian laws - they would experience slight errors in timing that would make GPS unreliable and inaccurate. Luckily, we have relativity.
thinkingguy87 2 weeks ago
@thinkingguy87 don't get me wrong, i'm all for studying and trying to understand our environment, and ourselves. some theories r as crazy as religion. based on the information of speed of light, some believe if u travel faster than light u can effect time lol
i have heard 'scientists' make this claim. no evidence, jus a theory. in a world where ppl demand evidence for belief, i think science should relay the facts rather than all the 'what ifs..' is the point i was trying to make
codeXenigma 2 weeks ago
@codeXenigma Some scientists have said that our models ("scientific theories") -- which have been shown to be accurate through various experiments but still continue to be tested to attempt to falsify them -- predict that a faster-than-light particle, should it exist, would travel backwards in time. No one claims these particles *do* exist, as we've never managed to observe one, and have no idea how one would originate.
There is *nothing* about that which is contrary to critical thought.
Geeforson 1 week ago
@Geeforson yeah i watched a documentary about this 'theoretical particle' and thought O of gods sake lol.. get it.. bc they can't prove they exist, but make up stories of what ifs...
billions of dollar they have spent trying to look for the god particle, looking for particles that can time travel. looking for matter that fills in the blanks of their theories.
in that science is not giving us the facts, its jus playing with 'imagination by numbers'
yet give it a 'science' label and ??
codeXenigma 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@codeXenigma
« bc they can't prove they exist, but make up stories of what ifs »
That's how *every* theory and hypothesis comes into being. We make up what-if stories explaining some observation, and then we start *testing* those stories to see how well they hold up against further observation. The Higgs-boson too is a hypothesis awaiting confirmation. That's simply how science works.
MrGralgrathor 1 week ago
@codeXenigma We've made many observations. With these observations, we have formed models. These models have explained the observations, and they've made predictions about further things that we may observe. We've tested many of our current models' predictions, and so far they've been right.
The models predict how a tachyon would act; that a higgs-boson must exist. If these predictions are experimentally falsified, we know the model is inaccurate and requires refinement. This *IS* Science.
Geeforson 1 week ago
@codeXenigma Two points here:
1 - Argument from increduility. This is a classic logical fallacy. just because you think that an idea sounds crazy doesn;t make it wrong.
2 - Theoretical physicists incorporate mountains of data and math into their arguments. They also make falsifiable claims and design experiments to test them (the LHC, for example.)
thinkingguy87 1 week ago
@thinkingguy87 time traveling particles is pretty crazy. based on how light info travels.. that if u go faster that the speed of light, u can effect time, rather than jus your observation of it. ppl use to believe if u traveled faster than sound u would explode. using light info u can see somethings history, but to claim u can travel in time is a sci~fi theory that doesn't make logical sense.. besides no evidence
in modern times i prefer to believe when there is evidence
codeXenigma 1 week ago
@codeXenigma Ok, who the hell are you quoting? Theoretical physicists never say these things for certain, they make theory based on observation and quite a bit of math. They then test their hypothesis in experiments. You're still arguing from incredulity.
thinkingguy87 1 week ago
@thinkingguy87 when its proved i will look at the data and draw my conclusions. ok the reason i don't like theoretical science.. i don't think its healthy when they look to try to prove their theories. i would prefer if they were straight talking.. in a 'this is what we have discovered' like in the would it stand up in court, does it stand up beyond a reasonable doubt.. they teach these theories and i think thats wrong, i think they should only teach the findings. is all ok
codeXenigma 1 week ago
@codeXenigma Who are "they" and just where are they teaching their findings as concrete, non-falsifiable, absolutely true no matter what fact?
And you preferences aside, you haven't addressed the important contributions theoretical physics have made over time.
thinkingguy87 1 week ago
@thinkingguy87 bc the point of this topic of conversation isn't 'what is the truth or what has science done for us?' its looking at how ppl respond to each others opinions about what they 'believe' and how we study data.
i in no way was attacking 'science or religion' i was jus saying its strange how personal ppl seem to take it if u happen to disagree with their personal opinions of life, the universe and everything. lol
codeXenigma 1 week ago
@codeXenigma I assume there is a possibility you may have unwittingly created a strawman. My assumption is what you are referring to as people getting angry because you don't believe as they do is actually people getting frustrated at your lack of understanding or strawmanning of the bigbang theory.
IE. there isn't a something from nothing in the bigbang theory it deals with an unknown singularity @ 10-43 seconds after the bigbang before that is also unknown, not nothing.
robvlob 1 week ago
@robvlob hmm i don't see why anyone would get angry at what others believe, or doubt. i think angry ppl jus use stuff like, u don't understand, as an excuse bc they want to vent some of their anger. jus bc something has a 'science' label doesn't mean 'truth'. if ppl didn't challenge theories we would all be still believing the witch doctors, its healthy to question theories, besides some change as more info comes to light, like dinos didn't get wiped out, but evolved into birds..
codeXenigma 1 week ago
@robvlob also the big bang does state that before there was nothing. quotes: 1)Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. 2)based on:galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," who discovered this phenomenon in 1929
yet there is lots of galaxies moving towards each other, like Andromeda?? i don't believe we have the technology to know and to observer the cycles of space.
codeXenigma 1 week ago
@codeXenigma You're being closed-minded. We actually have the technology to measure the movement of galaxies, which is how we got the the Big Bang in the first place. The Big Bang model does not cover what happened pre-singularity, or even if "pre-singularity" makes sense.
And again, we have a model that says a tachyon would do a certain thing if it existed. No one says they actually do exist or have been observed. No one knows if time travel exists, and many point out the issues if it did.
Geeforson 1 week ago
@codeXenigma i.e., you're making up strawmen for the sake of arguing against science, rather than actually reading what anyone has written here. In other words, you're being obtusely closed-minded.
Geeforson 1 week ago
@Geeforson hayman the subject was why its annoying when ppl call u names and closed minded jus bc u have different view.. so what we have different views.. it is jus a theory after all
i have studied a lot of science, i jus disagree with some of it. some of it is amazing. but i'm don't believe they will find a 'god particle'. so know its healthy to question it, same as i question spirituality also. i guess i jus have a curious mind and don't jus believe what i am told.
codeXenigma 1 week ago
@Geeforson don't label me, i'm jus pointing out why i doubt it rather than 'believe' it. but i guess if we r questioning science we must be closed minded bc why would science not be truth, i mean they r human beings and humans know everything..
i was quoting what is written about the big bang and no i don't believe we have enough data to jump to the knowledge of how the universe began. hence why its a theory.. rather than a fact.. so i am allowed to question. what is closed minded?
codeXenigma 1 week ago
@codeXenigma Rather than thinking about and responding to anything anyone is saying, you deflect and try to route the conversation around it. You just want to find some way of saying "Science is wrong", but completely ignore any counter-arguments or evidence that falsifies that statement. I'm pretty sure that exactly matches the definition of closed-mindedness found *in this very video* ;)
Geeforson 1 week ago
@Geeforson when did i ever say "science is wrong"? what r u on about? i was laughing at how yes its annoying when jus bc u have different views on 'theories' that others think u r closed minded. i have already explained why i question some of the theories. i was jus saying its annoying.. thanks for proving my point.. haha
codeXenigma 1 week ago
@Geeforson check out the milgram experiment for the danger of believing jus bc a man in a lab coat tell u what to believe. of course the same can be said for dog collars. try to remember what planet u r on and the history of knowledge and don't jus believe what u r told.. if u have an opinion u have free will, if u blindly follow more fool u.. have u studied evolution, then u know we r still learning and um discovering new data all the time. our study of the universe is jus beginning
codeXenigma 1 week ago
@codeXenigma Do you realize big-bang-theoryDOTcom is a creationist oriented website? In which "1)Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing." Is verbatim from it.
Click on links within the site you will be linked to other common creationist drivel.
I find it ironic how people put down Wikipedia yet crap resources like big-bang-theory get used as if it more accurate.
robvlob 1 week ago
@robvlob i jus googled it bc i needed a quote.. but its something i have heard a few times. i jus used that quote as its a common idea of the big bang theory. but i wasn't really looking for a debate on if its a truth about 'how did the universe get created'. i only mentioned the big bang theory along with time-traveling bc they r theories i don't believe in, yet find it strange how rude ppl get if u disagree with them. belief is personal but i jus prefer evidence b4 i believe fairplay
codeXenigma 1 week ago
@codeXenigma If nothing else works, let's try reductio ad absurdum.
I don't believe that you're a human being. I think you're a demon. An evil evil demon who lives under a bridge. No sense in arguing with me, beliefs are personal after all, and it's all 'jus a theory'. I would need to see evidence (blood samples would work) that you're human before I believe otherwise.
Geeforson 1 week ago
@Geeforson lol omg u believe in demons now hahahahahahahaha hmm yes i see how open minded u r.. so that is how u handle others having a difference of opinion. how have i shown that i am evil? there is no evidence to even suggest such a thing, is this how u calculate data? or r u so needing others to agree with your opinions bc u r insecure and need others to believe what u believe to make the world all safe and ok. get a grip bro. i can't believe that was your response lol
codeXenigma 1 week ago
@codeXenigma Reductio ad absurdum failed, I give up.
@meditationasmovement if you honestly still believe this is a strawman, please just look at the comments from codeXenigma. She/he is exemplifying most of the points in the video.
Geeforson 1 week ago
@Geeforson bc i tend towards evidence b4 i am willing to believe, rather jus on the say so of others? science looked into the kingdom of heaven and found a universe. i believe there is a huge universe bc there is evidence. but really with the few cameras i don't believe they know all its secrets... don't get your knickers in a twist. if u believe in the various theories that is up to u. some ppl like evidence, some jus need something to follow ; )
codeXenigma 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@codeXenigma Reductio ad absurdum failed, I give up.
@meditationasmovement if you honestly still believe this is a strawman, please just look at the comments from codeXenigma. She/he is exemplifying most of the points in the video.
Geeforson 1 week ago
@codeXenigma "i jus googled it bc i needed a quote.. but its something i have heard a few times....." Well maybe its about fricken time you stop listening to or reading from creationist sources. This is me getting frustrated not angry at your continual adherence to creationist explanatory drivel of the big bang. Sure there are scientists that say there was nothing prior to the big bang but something from nothing isn't part of the BBT. Believe or disbelieve IDC just get it right.
robvlob 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@codeXenigma
« its a common idea of the big bang theory »
But not what the theory itself actually states.
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
These are all Jack Kirby Illustrations!
vicdmise 2 weeks ago
Need more open minded people in congress.
xNeo2Rememberx 3 weeks ago
This.
MellowJelly 3 weeks ago
That's why being Agnostic is the ultimate open minded belief :D
danny899 3 weeks ago
@danny899
Be cautious, because your definition of agnostic is implied to be far different from the one used on the internet most commonly. Like political belief containing not just "left" and "right" but also "up" and "down," theistic belief is not simply a slider going from left to right, from theist to agnostic to atheist. A/gnosticism pertains only to whether or not you claim to have knowledge or if knowledge can be known, and in that sense, I am an agnostic atheist.
chadachada123 3 weeks ago
@chadachada123 I am agnostic, meaning I believe we don't have enough proof that anything happened, and since we barely know anything as of now. Even something as silly sounding to some, as a "God" can exist, and has proof of existence, but we don't know what to look for, or where too look.
danny899 2 weeks ago
@danny899 So you're an agnostic atheist, then. You don't have a belief in a god/gods, and think that it isn't known currently. Agnostic atheist.
chadachada123 2 weeks ago
@chadachada123 No, that's the thing. I think there is a chance of being a god, but there is also a chance there isn't.
danny899 2 weeks ago
@danny899 You don't understand. Agnostic/Gnostic and Atheism are NOT comparable positions. If I can explain it right, Atheism has to do with a belief, Agnosticism/Gnosticism deals with certainty. You can have Agnostic Atheists or Agnostic Theists.
If you don't have any reason to currently believe a god exists, you are Atheist. But that's simply the default position, there's nothing wrong with it. You can still be uncertain whether or not there is a god (Agnostic).
Ingmatter 2 weeks ago
@Ingmatter Agnosticism was originally "without knowledge", which is still the easiest way of putting it. An agnostic theist believes that a god exists, but claims to have no actual knowledge of the truth of this belief. An agnostic atheists doesn't have a belief in a god, and all professes no knowledge as to the existence or non-existence of a god.
"I don't accept 'God exists' as being true; I think there's a chance She exists and a chance She doesn't" is an agnostic atheist position.
Geeforson 1 week ago
@Geeforson although instead of "I don't belive in God; I think there's a chance it exists and a chance it doesn't", I prefer "I don't believe in God *because* I have no evidence to support it", which marries the two and is still an agnostic position since there's no claim of evidence against. That's a rational belief, since I'm actually justifying the belief by using my current knowledge of the premise. That's kind of a default 'skeptical' position, and obviously not the one atheist-bashers use.
Geeforson 1 week ago
i'm relinking this to everyone who calls me closeminded :D
BalthazzarCH 3 weeks ago
I love this video. It just says it so well. Thanks for taking the trouble.
apeswithhobbies 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
MoonjimunjiVevo 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
MoonjimunjiVevo 3 weeks ago
Lol I'm open minded. But I don't hate god I just don't believe in him.
thescheibers6923 1 month ago
@thescheibers6923 it's more of self-realization rather than believe I'd say. It's nothing as an idea or concept that mind can look for.. it's energy thing, vibration,mystical, achieving wisdom, and self knowing yourself. When Nature says that you're ready, she will give you more to understand about you.
MacedonKing 1 month ago
@KemaTheAtheist
How about that Matter is an illusion and it's only Energy and Vibration? How about that we are really One? Separation is an illusion. Everything is Energy. Look up the work of David Bohm and Einsteinz
Motorokr123 1 month ago
@Motorokr123 totally agree with you.. How could Science explain, 10 people took ayahuasca in ceremony healing and all 10 encountered same visions and messages?
Basically they have had joint "hallucination".. no separation it's all energy and Mind is limited and rationalizes to never ending cycle to which can not give answers to things beyond it's 5 physical senses of reality.
MacedonKing 1 month ago
@MacedonKing cuz people's brains are similar, and they all took the same drug? lol
CHAOSDEATHCULT 1 month ago
@CHAOSDEATHCULT unless we're meant to devolve, maybe lol
MacedonKing 1 month ago
@MacedonKing there's no such thing as "devolve". that presupposes a goal in evolution, where there's none.
RKramska 1 month ago
@RKramska I agree there is none, that was not my point though :)
MacedonKing 1 month ago
@Motorokr123 You are most certainly a troll.
thinkingguy87 2 weeks ago
What the bleep do we know? Both Science and Religion must come as One for us to ever find some sort of Truth. The Spiritual Sciences reveal a whole new world of paradigm shift. Materialistic Science is bases on the Newtonian Illusion of Matter while Dogmatic Religion is based on strong beliefs on the unknown that are not known through intuition but through fear.
Motorokr123 1 month ago
@Motorokr123
"The Spiritual Sciences reveal a whole new world of paradigm shift."
Name a single thing "revealed" by "spiritual science."
KemaTheAtheist 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KemaTheAtheist If you believe that Spiritual science has not proven anything , You're very wrong!!!!
Please check the youtube video " Conscioussness, intent... Masaru Emoto" or write
"The Hidden Messages in the Water" .. Also if you think Vibrational (energy) or Spiritual Medicine has not helped humans check Brayden's lecture curing Cancer IN LESS THAN 2 MIN!!!!
MacedonKing 1 month ago
@MacedonKing
You're either a troll, insane, or retarded.
KemaTheAtheist 1 month ago
@KemaTheAtheist you sound narrow-minded :)
MacedonKing 1 month ago
@MacedonKing
Give citation of the peer-reviewed research. If should be easy to prove under scientific experimental conditions. If you can cure cancer in 2 minutes, you'd win a nobel.
Evidence or gtfo.
KemaTheAtheist 1 month ago
@MacedonKing
You need to watch the video again.
KemaTheAtheist 1 month ago
@KemaTheAtheist You need to expand your consciousness, how you do it? By allowing yourself to explore the unknown. There's nothing in this video more than explanation of 5 sensory human mind, what I ask you do to is go to Water, Consciousness and intent and check Dr. Masaru Emoto's great things he discovered in energy medicine.. are you allowing yourself to be open to that? Ask yourself..it's up to you how much you can progress.
MacedonKing 1 month ago
@MacedonKing
ROFL. Let me know when you win a Nobel and the JREF million dollar challenge.
KemaTheAtheist 1 month ago
@KemaTheAtheist is at your argument? You're a child to me my dear. You are not ready yet to know of that, nature will choose when you're ready and will provide you, but not in this life, you got lots to learn on 5 senses level, I understand where you're. It is okay, one day you will now what I tell you now :)
MacedonKing 1 month ago
@MacedonKing
"is at your argument?"
Yes. If what you say is true, you should have no problem proving it under experimental conditions. Go pair up with an oncologist and start curing people of cancer. Publish a paper and win a Nobel prize and become world famous, rich, loved by all for all the good you do.
Cancers don't just go away because you wish them away. Reality doesn't work like that.
cont...
KemaTheAtheist 1 month ago
cont 2...
But, on the off chance you're the first person to prove some crazy wishful thinking actually works. To quote Tim Minchin: If you for example, show me that it works, I will change my mind. I will spin on a fucking dime. I will be embarrassed as hell, but I will run through the streets yelling, "It's a miracle! Take physics and bin it! ...and when I've recovered from the shock, I will take a compass and carve "fancy that" on the side of my cock."
KemaTheAtheist 1 month ago
@KemaTheAtheist so allow yourself, don't be afraid to know of these things, do your research , Science starts to slowly cooperate and fuse with it's other half.. that gives us hope that humanity can improve the world we live in, by consciously expanding. Anything you see in this world is created by our consciousness. And that is the way to bring changes in this world
MacedonKing 1 month ago
@Motorokr123 All Scientific laws , including the Newton's, come from the ultimate source- the non physical one.. Newton's third law is very like the spiritual law of Karma,
so science needs to know it's god father. I know you'd agree with many things though, more people don't pay attention to it's laws, they are reflection of higher realities that are hard to be proven scientifically.. Check "The Hidden Messages in the Water", great discovery by Masaru Emoto :-)
MacedonKing 1 month ago
@MacedonKing "Check "The Hidden Messages in the Water", great discovery by Masaru Emoto" I'll give you two choices. Someone want to make money off a bunch of gullible people so he takes pictures of a bunch of snow flakes and labels the pretty ones off of things he likes and the ugly ones off of things he does. OR, Someone conceives a multi-million dollar laboratory set up that allows him to create snowflakes and plays music to them and thinks at them to see if they change shape.
michalchik 1 month ago
@michalchik sounds like a 5 year old boy, make sure you get the book, it's small simple and easy read. You didn't pay attention it's not the music that is played you dumber.
It's the words that we use or are part of our consciousness shows how the vibration of the negative or positive word affect the water, and imagine more than 60% of the body is water, if words can do that to water, imagine what words do to our bodies.. You're not even on the level of intelligence to talk over
MacedonKing 1 month ago
@MacedonKing
"if words can do that to water, imagine what words do to our bodies"
So, you're claiming all the biochemistry, chemical reactions, and whatnot in our bodies that has nothing to do with water is effected by what you claim words do to water?
I retract my previous statements. I return to my previous assertion that you're either troll, insane, or retarded. There is no other rational explanation for the stupidity you're spouting.
KemaTheAtheist 1 month ago
@KemaTheAtheist you're not getting it, how could you :),negative words or thoughts, they're vibration when we utter them,depending on the vibration we send it depends what and how our bodies that produce these harmful chemicals or not, you get it? Obviously don't, nothing is black and white in this world. We're the only beings given the opportunity to evolve on conscious level. That is pretty much rational, now go and look for Curing Cancer in 2 min with Greg Brayden lectures.
MacedonKing 1 month ago
@MacedonKing
"negative words or thoughts, they're vibration when we utter them?"
All words work that way, idiot.
"depending on the vibration we send it depends what and how our bodies that produce these harmful chemicals or not, you get it?"
ROFL. No. That's not how the body works. What your body produces is based on your genes and gene expression controlled my transcription factors, nutrition, and a variety of other factors. The words you say, has no effect on gene expression.
KemaTheAtheist 1 month ago
@MacedonKing
"We're the only beings given the opportunity to evolve on conscious level."
That's complete bullshit. There's many other animals capable of exhibiting emotions similar to humans. Elephants and most apes mourn their dead, many animals are self-aware and recognize themselves in a mirror, exhibit love towards family and friends.
Your assertion is one of ignorance.
KemaTheAtheist 1 month ago
@MacedonKing
"That is pretty much rational"
You are no where close to rational. What's worse is that you're so far off from rational, that your ability to gauge rationality is nonexistent. The Dunning-Kruger effect... look it up.
KemaTheAtheist 1 month ago
@KemaTheAtheist You have no knowledge in vibrational or energy medicine.. There's tons of stores, books and schools for that. What do you talk about? Are you aware what you talk about?
MacedonKing 1 month ago
@KemaTheAtheist
Watch how Vibration can heal Cancer in 3mins
/watch?v=fmMNlmn1DPc
More on healing: watch?v=o8DeBePK3Wg
Don't bother anything to say, for the sake just to say.. You're not vibrating on the same level.. you don't get many things yet
MacedonKing 1 month ago
@MacedonKing
I watched the video... You do understand that what he says is demonstrably false, right? We can measure electromagnetic fields and vibrations and things like that which our bodies produce, and they don't go kilometers away from our bodies. That's just stupid talk. Only the gullible and/or ignorant accept that as a premise.
KemaTheAtheist 4 weeks ago
@KemaTheAtheist This practices have been part of humanity for thousands of years, used for healing people using the natural way of healing.. You simply are not on half level of that to understand. One suggestion to you: If you don't get don't judge it. One realization :), what is not logical to the limited mind, it's called non-sense, or bullshit, to be more precise, what can't give answer to in domen of 5 senses it's crazy, due to it's limitations many things can't be known
MacedonKing 1 month ago
Comment removed
Aizlebunny 1 month ago
Comment removed
KemaTheAtheist 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MacedonKing
Yeah, and people also still believe in acupuncture after it was shown to be no better than a placebo, and a weaker placebo than some guy just poking needles anywhere instead of the "correct" places according to acupuncture specialists.
All you're doing is asserting claims without evidence.
Do the experiments with controls, write a paper, get it peer-reviewed, and get it published. Until then, I won't trust such stupid claims.
KemaTheAtheist 4 weeks ago
@MacedonKing How so? How does vibration cure cancer, and, if so, why is cancer still persistent? Why have we sought other ways of curing it?
thinkingguy87 2 weeks ago
@thinkingguy87 because science has not given enough room for alternative approaches. Our humanity failed big time, disconnecting from the ancient knowledge related to our non physical part- energy.. So to say as Mr.Braiden says " The space between us" "between you and me, is anything but not empty". Have you seen that video curing cancer in less than 3 min lecturing and video analyzing it? Science of course due to lack of understanding called it "miracle". Takes time for change
MacedonKing 2 weeks ago
@MacedonKing As a matter of interest did you watch the entire video ?
(please don't take that as some kind of sideways insult, I do ask quite genuinely)
CryptSphinx 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
MacedonKing 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CryptSphinx no I don't get insulted mate, I just don't understand your point, I was explaining the missing link between energy and matter, that science will be incomplete, but slowly fuse with the alternative approaches , practices, knowledge.. it gives hope.. I'm quite open, but human consciousness and intelligence does not end with the rational five-sensory human mind, we're suppose to evolve consciously beyond that.
MacedonKing 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
MacedonKing 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thinkingguy87 my friend, if you're interested also look for the book "The Hidden Messages in the water" by Masaru Emoto.Great discovery, simple and easy read book.
Our words,whether say something,or chant are sounds(vibrations) right?When we send healing sounds,words,chants,or thoughts with strong intent,the blocked energies in the body that created illness start to flow(dissolve).We are humans(body is matter) but also we have non physical part( energy ).We're link between both
MacedonKing 2 weeks ago
@MacedonKing I sued to believe in these things when I was 5 years old. Then I grew up and realized that book can contain inaccuracies and even fraud. Did you know that the dictionary does not even have the word gullible in it? Go look for it.
I have seen the book BTW. It reminds me of the books I used to read when I was a little kid that "proved" if you slept under a pyramid you would not age and that the earth was hollow and filled with dinos and that plants read minds.
michalchik 4 weeks ago
that pink shirt is so boss.
iSOisoleucine 1 month ago
The narrator does not pass the Turing test. And there is no empirical evidence for the existence of "guilt".
hyoomik 1 month ago
I gotta say, it's "closed-minded", not "close-minded". "Close" is a verb, not an adjective (unlike "open", which is both, so I see the confusion).
LokcedUot 1 month ago
100% agree. Close-minded people deserve to be eliminated from this earth.
Aziatic2 1 month ago
@Aziatic2 How open-minded of you.
LokcedUot 1 month ago
QualiaSoup, just thought I'd say thanks for making this video explaining open mindedness. I have found it rather helpful.
supergenius1337 1 month ago
@QualiaSoup I hav a heavy question for you - What about having the open-mindedness to stop being open-minded, and to let an "emotional logic" take over? This would still be an act of open-mindedness, no?
Secondly, does a completely passionate devotion to open-mindedness (as I have, or hope to have) bring unease, dissatisfaction with state of mind, and tormenting uncertainty? Is it possible to find 'truth' with an open mind without emotional interference & distortions i.e. not only "your" truth?
oc00011 1 month ago
There are some people who do lagmite research to try and explain the un explained. Unfortunately both the scientific community, and the paranormal nutters ostrosices them. The don't have blind faith either way. IMO that is just good science. Another way to look at it is think about when all the physicist were looking for "the either". Any one who disagreed was a nutter..
TheShowThatSUX 1 month ago
Unfortunately one of the weaknesses of a rational mind is it does not want to acknowledge an irrational event...lest say I saw a UFO. I am not saying I saw men from mars. I am saying I saw something that was flying and I don't know what it was. Because 90%+ are hoax, rational people assume the other 10% are. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...
TheShowThatSUX 1 month ago
While your argument is valid, it is a bit of splinting hairs. Unenforceable scientists are people, and so it is difficult if not impossible for them to set their POV aside completely. A for instance is science spent about 50 years directly ignoring scientific evidence that humans can proses sensory input form magnetic fields... Most paranormal research is a croak, but most valid research is ignored because science made up its mind without doing an experiment, which is in its self bad science.
TheShowThatSUX 1 month ago
Qualia, I seriously think that, at this point, the price you're paying for being "open minded" isn't worth it if every video you make ends up flooded with 17 year old pseudo intellectuals and kids who think because they're somewhat educated, that it gives them the right to speak outside of their field of knowledge simply because they can google anything that anyone says that may stump them so they google it and pretend to know, you're gonna start losing mad subscriptions...
exiledregiment 1 month ago
@exiledregiment thsi video was made 2 years ago. You can have your opinion about it. But I think it is excellent and only has brought Qualia more subs.
Also speaking out of someones field is what most people do. If not then there would be almost no debate. Especially not in politics.
NathanWubs 1 month ago
Im sorry to say but this video just isn't thought provoking enough to warrant this much thought process and conversational dialogue , So to everyone who's arguing like 15 year old pseudo intellectual know it all online psychologists, chill the fuck out, watch the video, learn something, and keep your goddamn uneducated opinions to yourselves.
And no, saying to me " hur hur just because u have nothin 2 say doesnt mean we dunt has nuthin 2 say " doesn't make you witty.
exiledregiment 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@exiledregiment
« keep your goddamn uneducated opinions to yourselves »
Nope. Opinions are like assholes. And everybody needs to crap once in a while.
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
6630mcdo is a troll. Even worse, a christian.
Thank the RaptorJesus that most people on the internet are atheists.
Frozenkex 1 month ago
@Frozenkex Most people on the internet are atheists? I want to believe that, but I'll need to see the evidence.
Algolei 1 month ago
In Simple words: "If religion had proof to back their beliefs,Their would be no Athiest". Its not that Athiests hate your god.We just don't blindly follow MAN without first asking "why?" and "Where is your Proof".We do not believe in airplanes because someone somewhere said they exist we are the type of people that needed to see the airplane and experience it and even touch it to believe it.We do not believe in the word of the historically Corrupt man. We can only believe in something with proof
JusBenLawyered 1 month ago
@JusBenLawyered I say WE but i can really only talk for myself, so i appologize for that lol
JusBenLawyered 1 month ago
I cant believe this great video is prohibited for the german audiance (without a proxy). Shame on you YouTube! And shame on you GEMA!
MrRaistlim 1 month ago
Thumbs up if you linked this on FB or came here because of a link on FB.
Gaugeforever 1 month ago
Well done!
herrrrunsamok 1 month ago
I have anecdotal evidence of spirits that my family, friends, and I have seen in my home, but do not expect anyone to believe in them just because I say so! I recognize how crazy it sounds and stranger things have happened to larger groups of people through mass hysteria. Anecdotal evidence is not proof at all. I do not blame anyone for being skeptical of spirits or even laughing me to the funny farm. I'd feel the same way if I hadn't experienced it and it is the PROPER reaction! Go Skepticism!
ColignyForever 1 month ago
@ColignyForever Huge crock of shit.
Good day, sir.
exiledregiment 1 month ago
@exiledregiment That's a very learned response, thanks for the comment. Maybe you could tell me why you think so, since I'm always willing to learn new things. Also, I am a ma'am.
ColignyForever 1 month ago
I am a Catholic. I've never found more illogical beliefs than atheists. They must deny reality to retain their beliefs. 1) They MUST believe infinite can exist in reality. 2) They MUST believe nothing can make something. 3) They believe 'one cannot prove a negative;, which is totally false. 4) They must believe 'lack of evidence is proof of something not existing' - totally false! Do aliens not exist because there is no evidence? Did black holes not exist because Greeks had no evidence?
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@6630mcdo 1) Then how did god come to be? 2) Not necessarily 3) Prove to me unicorns don't exist. 4) No. A lack of evidence does not mean something doesn't exist. Many, I'd venture to say most, atheists are agnostic. If you or anyone was able to really prove there was a god (not just the Xian god, but any god - depending on your definition of the word), why would we continue being atheists? But you're not able to prove it. Why devote your life to something that possibly and probably is just myth
ColignyForever 1 month ago
@ColignyForever 1) I do not understand your exact question. God never 'began to exist' but is timeless, i.e., exists outside of time. Oh, how is God infinite then? Theists state God is infinite in QUALITY, not quantity. 2) The majority of negatives can be proven. Worse case, we would be left with an 'I don't know', not since you have weak evidence, they therefore, do not exist. Unicorns could exist on the planet. I do not claim they do not exist. Do you believe in them? (con't)
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@ColignyForever (con't) But there are many negatives like I can prove your non-existent or 7 billion peoples' non-existent. I can prove there are no children as US Congressmen. A MUST read "THINKING TOOLS: YOU CAN PROVE A NEGATIVE Dr. Steven D. Hales" - he's from Penn State(?) I believe. It changed my mind. 4) Yes, I agree most atheists are actually agnostics, which is a logical position if one just does not believe the evidence is strong.
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@6630mcdo When did I say you couldn't prove a certain type of negative? I simply asked you to disprove a mythological being. If a mythological being does not exist, how do you go about disproving it? I'll give you another chance. Disprove to me the existence of the god Odin and his son Thor, then I will debate you all you like. (And the Kalam argument? You have probably heard it refuted many times, but if not, I'll share a video with you. Let me know if you want it.)
ColignyForever 1 month ago
@ColignyForever I've read all the attacks of the Kalam, but all fail. It's a simple argument. To think it's false, you must believe that this is false. Premise 1: Any star that begins to exist has a cause. Premise 2: Stars do exist. C: Therefore, stars have a cause. Yet emotions have atheists thinking "Okay, we know God does not exist. So, there must be something wrong with this argument." This is a circular reasoning!!!
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@6630mcdo To think the Kalam argument is true, you must believe that it is true. To someone like me, even as science stupid as I am, your argument does not make sense. Because even if everything needed an infinite cause, who is to say that this cause is a god? who is to say it is a sentient god? and who is to say that it is the god of xianity, judaism, and islam? Why not another, or unknown god or none at all? Nothing in the argument answers that. At all. watch?v=baZUCc5m8sE Go for it.
ColignyForever 1 month ago
@ColignyForever As for Odin, remember, if there is no evidence, we must conclude 'we don't know.' Not the error, atheists state 'no evidence, aw=no existence!' Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. Now, being a Norse mythology, we could give a probabilistic argument that is was created by men. But I see no evidence to determine he does not exist. Odin and Thor could be advanced aliens, if true. Santa has positive evidence like no one at the N. Pole & parents give gifts.
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@6630mcdo I'm not asking about Santa, though. I'm asking about Odin and Thor. So if you say that Odin and Thor may exist, then why do you choose to worship your god and not them? For one thing, they are infinitely more badass. What makes you choose your god over all of the other personified gods, or even a pantheistic or deistic god? What makes you think you've perhaps made the right choice? Also, agnostic atheists (what i am) do not say that. I say "we dont know, so why bother!"
ColignyForever 1 month ago
@ColignyForever Well, I see no evidence Thor could not exist. But I cannot make a logical fallacy and state he does not. I must hold back a claim. There can be only one God logically. Thor cannot be God since he is matter, time and space. Also, God is not worshiped because He is all - 'powerful, smart, knowledge, etc' it is only because He is perfectly holy! I've studied many religions when in college. Catholicism is the only belief-system that is not logically flawed. Jesus ...
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@6630mcdo 1. Does god need to be holy to be god? Why? Why not neutral? Why not malevolent? Anyway, your god