Smart

[brownc01]

"Maybe we aren't as smart as we think". I wish every single religious person in existence would read that quote.

[SeriousVoyager]

liked it...1 historical mistake however. Globes are older than Christ however - the idea people of Columbus's day thought the world was flat (500 yrs ago) became a commanly repeated mistake after Irving Washington wrote a story about Columbus in 19th century America.....great video though.

[eeeadame]

MAN THATS SO SOLID PRAISE THE LORD JESUS CHRIST!

[4smartypants]

An athiest argument I hear often tries to give God human atributes and blames God for what people in history have done to other people in a power struggle of to gain political advantage. If they actually read their Bible they would come to know God. But they are scared and love the darkness and their sinful lives.

[CumSeNumesteMelodia]

this video is great. both what it shows and what is says.

[tg3793]

I really liked "Star Trek The Wrath of the Lamb". Do a search for it without the quotes. I think you'll like it too. You'll never watch Star Trek and see it the same way again. ... Do a YouTube search for "Star Trek The Wrath of the Lamb" without the quotes.

[ivionday]

Science doesn't know everything (and doesn't claim to) otherwise it would STOP. 

[QuisSeperabit60]

Melymbrosia is either equivocating, or mistaken. "In 1600 there was no official Catholic position on the Copernican system, and it was certainly not a heresy. When Bruno was burned at the stake as a heretic, it had nothing to do with his writings in support of Copernican cosmology." - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Copernicus' works had been in publication for over 70 years before resticted by Rome (of which I am no defender). The truth is an elusive creature, especially one prefers a lie.

[TheCreatingPost]

Christian Faith on the other hand is based on the Bible which clearly states that God created one man and one woman and we are all derived from them. They were perfect... not subhuman. Sin has cause imperfection. Adam and Eve were a mixture of all races and their bodies were the most perfect human bodies ever. You can not be a christian and be racist. If you are racist, you are in a state of sin. Hitler only pretended to be Christian to help his popularity.

[TheCreatingPost]

This video is wonderful.

I just have to comment to SeriphArcher (the know it all?). Atheism = Racism if people realize it or not. Atheist believe that people are evolved from lesser people. If you look at all of their drawings, less evolved people are always black. So to an atheist that would mean the darker a person is, the less evolved they are. cont.

[SeriphArcher]

@TheCreatingPost

So you analysis of atheism is silly. Do I believe there are lesser evolved creatures? Yes. I believe in single cell organisms and multi-celled non sentient creatures. However, the evolutionary pictures that involve "Blacks" as being lesser evolved is because most agree that Africa is where human life started, and hadn't branched off to other areas where skin tones would have lightened due to less UV radiation. However, calling this racism is a little silly.

[soopahsoopah]

Ah the appeal to ignorance - a hallmark of christian propaganda, why am I not surprised.

[QuisSeperabit60]

@soopahsoopah An appeal to ignorance is a logical fallacy whereby a premise is held forth as true because it has not been proved wrong. This video is simply pointing out the finite nature of the human capacity for absolute knowledge... even were one to draw any further inferences from that, your characterisation would still be invalid.

The strawman - a hallmark of anti-Christian argumentation... why am I not surpised.

[soopahsoopah]

@QuisSeperabit60 indeed and good point - the technical definition of the fallacy does not quite apply. It came to mind and I used it because the video is literally appealing to ignorance, the message being: we are ignorant, so here, have religion! Perhaps the more appropriate term would be the "Non Sequitur" or "does not follow". No need to resort to strawmen when addressing something this insipid.

[kirke27]

@soopahsoopah I disagree with your interpretation. Subjective projections only tenuously linked to the original source will always be flawed, but if one were to derive any such interpretation from the video it might be that we should re-examine, or at least be ready to question, the argumentum ad populum for the neo-darwinian paradigm in light of the fact that even a consensus within the scientific community has been, and has the potential to be, mistaken re: their deeply held convictions.

[soopahsoopah]

@kirke27 Ok, granted I am drawing on a degree of inference to get to that conclusion - and I can concede that questioning convictions is a good thing, as it skeptical inquiry is the bedrock of scientific progress. All that holds, right up until the end. Why add the reference to scripture then, if not to create a counterpoint? The implication may be deliberately obtuse (like the writing style of most of the commenters here lately), but it is there.

[kirke27]

@soopahsoopah But again, such intentions might not even have been in the mind of the video's creator at all, and as far as I can see, the video produces no point of contention. Other videos by ignitermedia, such as the marshmallow test, seem to work on similar lines.

[mahhootenanny]

Human condition: sin nature. Fallen.

[11914386]

Great video!

[Godisthebest9]

I wish the horse was to stay, I like horses.

[ChristKid1994]

this isnt targeting science or athiesm. its trying to say that people in general are wise in their own eyes, be they scientists or religious fanatics. it shows how stupid humanity is compared to how it sees itself.

in reality, "the fear [reverence] of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom." you can trust in science and even religious practices and be misguided. but when you trust in God himself, aside from the religion of man (ceremonies), you know that you are wise.

[tobyricketts]

I agree 100% with this But heres the thing - science has never EVER said it has all the answers - in fact, as stated in the video often science is wrong and new theories come along to correct old ones. As far as I can see the only theory that says it has all the answers is... religion. The bible is the same as it was 2000 years ago, complete with genocide, infanticide, rape and murder.

It's very cool, and 'street', and relaxed, but it seems to be doing the work of atheist, not Christian values.

[LloyJac]

Where in the Bible (please give me verse addresses) are "genocide, infanticide, rape, and murder" condoned? Also, since when has Christianity been cool? The answer one: it does not condone those if one looks at the context; in fact, it says "Love your neighbor as yourself," and in many spots directly opposes these things and others just as bad. Answer two: Christianity has been persecuted since its inception - look at our leader.

[Shoots1978]

Yeah, your right the bible has those things in it. Does it mean it's there for us to live like that? No!, Of course not, we learn from the past that is history. Many things that happened to Israel is because of their disobiedance and wanting to do things one there on without God and His ways. So when God sent people to warn them about what was to come, they ignored the men. Hum, sounds like a nation I know today. Who could that be, thinking.......? Ah, America?

[PeripheralMan]

You're not quite correct about "science has never EVER said that it has all the asnwers." Atheistic scientists contend that science is the only way to establish any truth (I left that small "t", because we all know that "truth" is relative, right?).

Atheist values? What are THEY? I've never heard of atheists having any set values except a deference to hedonism or nihilism. When atheists approach morality or values, their failing point is establishing a standard to follow. No God, no standard.

[SeriphArcher]

Truth, knowledge, and fact are all different. Most atheists are deontologists.

[loganhuggins1]

This is my Favorite! Very Creative and Awesome Message. Done in a very cool way so everyone can understand it, Believers and Unbelievers.

Nice.

Keep it up!

[jessicaliumail]

I think this film is interesting and original.

[GreenHarpist]

Um, actually, people knew in the middle ages that the world was spherical. It was reported even then that only idiots thought it was flat.

[SeriphArcher]

you mean the church? b/c they were the ones arguing for a flat world and the earth at the enter of the universe.

[GreenHarpist]

The Church tried to argue that the world was at the center of the universe, yes, and that the sun revolved around the earth. But they did not argue that the world was flat. That is a myth created by later people to make the medievals look stupid.

[SeriphArcher]

St. Augustine, " But as to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours, that is on no ground credible."

[SeriphArcher]

This is a poor video. Well put together, but anyone who has any background in history could easily rebut this by pointing out that Religion was the backbone to a lot of the major misunderstandings. e.g. the world flat, and layout of the solar system..

[Toribus]

No, anyone with a background in history would easily rebut the illusion you try to present of having a background in history.

[melymbrosia]

Actually, SeriphArcher is right on at least one count, and probably more. The Church supported the Ptolemaic/geocentric world view (i.e., that the sun revolves around the earth) because of Bible verses taken out of context. The Church also persecuted and tried to silence astronomers who argued that the earth revolves around the sun. In fact, the most famous of these, Giordano Bruno, was burned at the stake as a heretic in 1600.

[SeriphArcher]

I like how they voted my comment down because I point out a fact that they don't like to accept. I mean they'd freak out if someone made a video about how christianity has killed more people than any other movement in the history of the world.

[Shoots1978]

Prove it.

[PeripheralMan]

The problem is that atheism, not Christianity, has been the killer of more people. Do your history. Yes, the crusades ... we all know about that. What about Stalin? Pol-Pot? Hitler? (And don't tell me Hitler was christian, he was not. He adopted Christian messages for his purpose, but if you read his philosophy and mandate, he wanted to return Germany to the "true Aryan religion," a pagan system that embraced cahracters found in Wagner's Ring Cycle. Mao-Tse Tung: yeah, no blood there. Think.

[SeriphArcher]

You are kind of an idiot. First off Hitler was a devout christian and in the vast majority of his writings he talks about how god has vested in him the task of riding the world of the Jews. Hell, he even asked the pope for his blessing in killing the Jews.

There is a difference between someone killing for something (As in religious warfare or thinking a group of people are subhuman on religious grounds like Hitler) and normal genocide, Continued.

[SeriphArcher]

I can direct you to multitudes of sources on Hitler's Christianity. Also remember, that just because it doesn't fit your interpretation of Christianity doesn't mean that it isn't Christianity. Multiple Christian sects have pagan rites prescribed into them.

First off, You really need to take even a basic level history class. I'm originally from the Soviet Union, and Stalin's purges has absolutely nothing to do with atheism, it had to do with racism and economic greed. In fact, cont.

[SeriphArcher]

Stalin even remarked that the idea that all humans had equal worth (a tenant in atheism) would have to be discarded in order to justify the mandates and murders. Stalin created his own religion around himself as does any dictator. Stalin was hyper delusional.

[QuisSeperabit60]

@SeriphArcher I'm not sure what exactly a "tenant in atheism" is, but in terms of the naturalistic worldview, there is no rational basis for the argument that a tenet of naturalism is that human life is of equal worth. Particularly given that ethical judgements, or statements of value, are invariably subjective and mind-specific under any secular ethical system, deontological or no.

[SeriphArcher]

I meant tenet, I have a habit of flipping those two words. English is not my first language.

In regards to your objection to equality of human life in atheism, I'm unsure exactly how your argument makes any impact. The rational basis is that atheism rejects ideology that constrains us in narratives by force. The rejection of such narratives allow people to act more justly towards individuals, and see human life as the base denominator we all share. I may not like people equally, but they all

[SeriphArcher]

have the right to life. A great painter is always a better painter than a bad painter, that subjective judgement has no effect on my ethical outlook, nor does subjective ethical judgement based on my world view make the view of equality incompatible. Life itself is the thing that is equal, what one does with life is obviously subjective.

[QuisSeperabit60]

@SeriphArcher Per metaphysical naturalism, there is no rational basis for objective moral values and duties, and hence morality has no truth value and cannot be treated as binding. On atheism, morality is simply a reflection of cultural norms such as fashion, there is no objective moral lawgiver, no overarching enforcement of moral precepts, and no basis for making judgments about some other agent's conduct.

[SeriphArcher]

@QuisSeperabit60 Per a very constrained view of metaphysical naturalism, sure. However, Postmodern atheists view experience as to hold a different quality. In atheism morality isn't firmly rejected like you seem to believe, moralities are not bound to be based only in deistic systems of thought. Cultural based moralities are often oppressive and its why atheism often rejects them. This has led to an error in understanding as being an atheist and having an ethical system aren't at odds.

[QuisSeperabit60]

@SeriphArcher What I meant was that, in the worldview of one who embraces metaphysical naturalism, human beings are no more than relatively advanced primates. Human life might be the base denominator which we all share, but the life has no intrinsic worth or value. Each human (being is not even the right word here) is no more than an aggregate of organic material; and life is cheap.

[SeriphArcher]

@QuisSeperabit60 Plus I think trying to debate "Natrualism" and "Theism" as opposites is kind of hard and does both sides injustice, its like comparing two completely different beasts. If you are trying to compare them it should be "naturalism vs. supernaturalism" or "atheism vs. theism". Defining the totality of atheist thought into metaphysical naturalism is falling into a logical trap that assumes synecdoche.

[SeriphArcher]

Anyways, trying to debate whether 'base worth' has any logical concept is a lot like asking you to prove god or me to disprove god. Both things are impossible, much like its impossible to prove the nature of worth and whether there is a subjective quality involved if we accept net equality.

[QuisSeperabit60]

@SeriphArcher Depends what you mean by proof, there is very little that we can prove absolutely, look at the Descartes criticism of sensory perception for example. With Plantinga, I would agree that God's existence can be proved, in some sense at least; and argue that if any of the arguments for His existence follow that existence is made epistemologically more probable than not. Although atheism, offering, as it does, no arguments for God's non-existence, faces a very different challenge.

[SeriphArcher]

There is fact a posteriori and fact a priori, the facts a priori are undeniable as the nature of the statement is grounded in base.

Yes the challenge is different, as it is impossible to prove something does not exist unless you can argue it in a closed system. I can prove that my room does not have a bear in it, but it is extremely difficult for me to prove an invisible unicorn is not sipping iced tea in the back yard with the spirit of elvis and jesus.

[QuisSeperabit60]

@SeriphArcher In any case, that sounds akin to Loki's wager.

[SeriphArcher]

I'm not saying that it is not worthy of discussion, I am saying that no matter what you do with the topic the nature of the discussion is speculative and relative no matter how hard you try to break it down. Worth is such an undefinable concept, it is almost impossible to not be logically ignostic on it.

[QuisSeperabit60]

@SeriphArcher I'm not trying to debate "naturalism and theism", merely to pin down our relative worldviews (something the postmodernist makes very difficult) and consider their merits. I'm aware that a pantheist, for example, might also be a metaphysical naturalist; but it seems to me axiomatic that there is no logical basis for supernaturalism on an atheist worldview. You, and certain strains of Eastern philosophical thought may disagree but I don't see that that disagreement can be sustained.

[SeriphArcher]

I'd also reject that any relevant evidence points to some watchmaker in the sky. But again thats subjective.

Well, postmodernism is kind of about rejecting the pinning down of worldviews, so I would say thats pretty much in line with its system of thought.

I'd argue again that the constructed reality we live in has value to understanding our place in the world. I reject forcible and restrictive narratives that religions propose, unless the person joins willingly and not by accidental birth.

[QuisSeperabit60]

@SeriphArcher "The rational basis is that atheism rejects ideaology that constrains us in narratives by force". It might be a language problem but that makes little to no sense. Atheism sustains no common ethical position, but metaphysical naturalism is the logical concomitant of atheism. Postmodernism is self-defeating; if the postmodernist wishes to reject the claim that there is no such thing as objective truth, they necessarily make an objectively true statement in so doing.

[SeriphArcher]

Sorry I'm speaking in very academic terms. Narratives in the field of post-modern thought are overarching moralities that bind us to a believe system by force (cultural pressures, guilt, etc) which are ingrained into us at birth.

Again you are confusing fact, truth, and belief. They are three metaphysically different things. Also this criticism of relativity is pretty vapid, you seem smart enough to know that the "contradiction" isn't real and is only used to make the responder sound fake

[SeriphArcher]

by forcing them into making a very complex argument.

The Postmodernist will always say there is no objective truth, but he will never deny the apple is a fruit.

[QuisSeperabit60]

@SeriphArcher @SeriphArcher You are now discussing narratives in postmodern thought, originally you were discussing narrative in atheism. To equivocate atheism and post-modernism I would see as a mistake.

Possibly, we're getting into semantics, and disagreement is probably inevitable, but let me set out my position - to my mind facts are true statements, all truth is objective, but not all truths are facts. Belief and truth can also be synonymous.

[SeriphArcher]

Whenever I use the term narrative I'm always talking in postmodern terms, atheism has a narrative itself though, and I agree they are not the same. Hence why I admitted several times many atheists are metaphysical naturalists but many are post-modernists.

I can agree to that if its the best way you understand it, there are obviously some more complex parts to it.

[QuisSeperabit60]

@SeriphArcher I don't see that there is any problem inherent in the contradiction. Relativism is entirely illogical. If there are no absolute truths, then you cannot believe anything absolutely at all, including that there are no absolute truths. Therefore, nothing could be really true for you - including relativism

[SeriphArcher]

No its not. Relativism posits "There is no absolute truth" as a fact, not a belief or a "truth". Thats the issue. Your argument even denies your own definitions earlier. Relativists just argue that no "truth" as a system is correct, Christianity may accidentally get one tenet of its truth factual, but systemically it is nearly impossible for any truth to be absolute.

This argument has been killed in debates and texts dozens of times.

[QuisSeperabit60]

@SeriphArcher And even if such a position were the invariable cocomitant of atheist naturalism, the particular level of worth ascribed to the life of a single relatively advanced primate in a universe slowly succumbing to entropic heat death would surely have to be zero. Its also interesting to hear you concede that communism was a religion of sorts... one wonders where that leaves the new atheists? The irony that they would embrace that which they most despise is delicious.

[SeriphArcher]

I laughed when I read this, any even remotely competent physicist will tell you that entropy effects only a closed and isolated system, which anyone who has done even a singular amount of research into string theory will tell you is not the case with this universe, and those who may not agree that we aren't experiencing entropy will tell you that the jury is out on whether we are or not.

Communism wasn't a religion. Stalinism was a cult of personality. Communism is an economic system.

[SeriphArcher]

Attempting to blur topics into things like Communism=atheism without actually arguing it kind of shows that you don't respect open discourse. The clever replacing of a cult of personality with the identifier of communism is nothing but sad.

Also not all atheists are Naturalists, probably a good portion of atheists are postmodernist, and accept that subjective truth is valuable. Hence why I don't object to people being religious, I just object to people being forced into religions.

[QuisSeperabit60]

@SeriphArcher Jean Paul Sartre and Michael Focualt, as well as Derrida, postmodernists all, had enough philosophical nouse to recognise that without God, there is a crisis of meaning, and that no true, transcendent purpose to life could be sustained in a mere world of stuff, thrown out into space and time, going nowhere, meaning nothing.

[SeriphArcher]

Naming three people and assuming that makes a point isn't very effective. Focualt specifically deals with biopower and governmental philosophy. I am also confused that you list Sarte, as he was a staunch atheist. Perhaps you got your philosophies backwards. Actually, come to thing about it he wasn't a postmodernist either, he is an existential philosopher.

There is no trancendent purpose. I never claim there was.

[QuisSeperabit60]

@SeriphArcher I know, normally an argument from authority. But if we're talking about defining a particular vein of philosophical thought it seemed appropriate.

[SeriphArcher]

Well, to bad Sarte isn't a postmodernist, and Focault is more of a political philosopher than anything else. Also I could just list like 15 atheistic postmodernists. So yeah, that argument doesn't really fly.

[QuisSeperabit60]

@SeriphArcher You have a morbid sense of humour if you entropic heat death amusing. I'm not a physicist and so defer to your evidently superior prescience regarding the ultimate fate of the Universe; but, anything I have ever read on the subject (albeit that this point is almost entirely superfluous to the argument I was making); holds out that the theory of entopic heat death is consistent with any of the three projected spatial models of the Universe, and remains entirely valid.

[SeriphArcher]

Minkowskain space explains entropy in unclosed systems rather well. So does string theory. I reccommend picking up some texts on both, they are quite fascinating. Heat death is kind of physics version of nuclear winter, there was a lot of what seemed to be strong evidence for it until our scientific prowesses advanced and we realized neither is likely to occur.

[QuisSeperabit60]

@SeriphArcher The communist regime imposed in Soviet Russia shared characteristics with the communist regimes imposed in almost every other country around the world.If you'd read the comment properly, you'd have realised that I wasn't even attempting to equivocate communism with atheism (although atheism is a necessary aspect of communism as propogated by Marx and practiced in every single communist regime ever to exist) I was merely interested to hear you concede that Stalinism was a religion

[SeriphArcher]

Marxism, Communism, Stalinism, and Maoism are all different and share little with each other, other than the misbelief they are all Communism. For instance the first communist like state existed in Jerusalem amoung christians who were waiting for the return of the christ.

[QuisSeperabit60]

@SeriphArcher I'd agree that there are many differences, but atheism is one of the hallmarks of any of the Marxist/Communist regimes imposed anywhere around the world in the last century, incidentally the bloodiest in Earth's history.

If you're referring to the Church in Acts, the system of wealth-sharing there imposed was voluntary, and based on Christian charity. It bore little resemblance to the philosophy of Marx.

[SeriphArcher]

No, I'm not talking about the Church in Acts, I'm talking about Christian Socialism which existed in Jerusalem after Acts was penned. Ended in a mass suicide, caused the church to bar suicide because of it? Sound familiar. I can send you an academic paper on it if you'd like.

I'd agree any Marxist system must be atheist, but Communist systems by their definition do not have to be. I mean I'd argue Luxemborgism and Christian Communism both are religiously accepting communist systems.

[rwmaynard219]

What you are saying is totally erroneous. Do you have any documentation proving this statement? I here this all the time and their isn't a shred of evidence that could prove that claim.

[SeriphArcher]

What time period do you want? Just some highlights perhaps?

Extremely conservative estimates from the Catholic Church put Catholic/Protestant violence between each other over religion at roughly 14 million during the middle ages.

The biological warfare used by christian settlers (Smallpox blankets, infected food, ) after indians refused to convert is estimated to have wiped out around 40-100 million people depending on who you ask.

The Armenian Genocide. The Nanking Massacre also included

[QuisSeperabit60]

Actually, you are both mistaken. To quote the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "in 1600 there was no official Catholic position on the Copernican system, and it was certainly not a heresy. When Bruno was burned at the stake as a heretic, it had nothing to do with his writings in support of Copernican cosmology." Copernicus' works had been in publication for over 70 years before resticted by Rome (of which I am no defender). The truth is an elusive creature, especially one prefers a lie.

[SeriphArcher]

Interesting seeing as all heliocentic texts were placed in the Index Librorum Prohibitorum published in 1664, and several papal commands were given to astronomers banning them from teaching any heliocentric ideas.

I find it funny how you want to obscure the truth. Sure in 1600 at the advent of the popularization of heliocentrism there was no official doctrine against it. By 1610 there were papal prohibitions about it. By mid 1600s all heliocentric texts were banned.

There is your dogma.

[QuisSeperabit60]

@SeriphArcher Your rhetoric doesn't follow.. I don't see how how I'm in any way attempting to obscure the truth. The Catholic Church never persecuted any scientists who opted to espouse heliocentric theories. What the Church reacted against, as I acknowledged in my initial post, was the (false) teaching, as scientific fact, that the sun was at the centre of the Universe. Prior to his trial, Galileo was actually invited to publish a treatise on the arguments for and against heliocentricity.

[SeriphArcher]

Yep, Galileo was told he should write a book about it, and then it was summarily added to the Index and he was brought to Rome and then punished for his text after being told he had crossed a line. The Catholic church expected Heliocentrisms arguments to be poor in the text. He was persecuted for his arguments for Heliocentrism.

I'm confused are you saying Heliocentrism was 'false'. Obviously he didn't know the universe had tons of other galaxys.

[SeriphArcher]

So if you are trying to say the church was right all along, I think it would be a bit unfair, as his 'universe' is our 'solar system'. They had identical meanings given the time period.

[QuisSeperabit60]

@SeriphArcher There were many scientific objections to Galileo's heliocentricity, which had been a credible theory as far back as the time of the Stoics. Although many of these were based upon the idea of geocentricity, as was the opposition from the Church itself, some of those objections have been sustained as valid today. I'm not saying that the Church, which I think favoured geocentricity was right, merely pointing out the irony in the fact that Galileo was wrong all along.

[QuisSeperabit60]

@SeriphArcher From anything I've read Galileo was called to Rome not because he presented credible scientific arguments, of which the Vatican was already aware; but rather because the advocate of geocentricity in his book was called simplicio (simpleton), and the suspected ridicule put Galileo out of favour with the Pope, who had hitherto actually been one of his supporters.

But, like I said, I'm not supporter of the "Church" and as this debate is becoming academic this will be my last reply.

[SeriphArcher]

@QuisSeperabit60

The actual papal summon was to explain to him the difference between description and teaching, the See felt that he was advocating something the church disagreed with instead of simply describing. I've never read he was summoned over that use alone, but that, that simply added flame to the fire.

Why don't you like academic debate?

[QuisSeperabit60]

@SeriphArcher In fact, among the most noteworthy scientists to be executed for holding forth unpopular theories were those who died at the hands of the secular government imposed in the aftermath of the French Revolution. Its strange that you should think I have any sort of ideaological bent towards whitewashing the crimes of the Catholic Church, which has been responsible for the martyrdom of millions of Protestants, I just don't think history should be manipulated.

[SeriphArcher]

You are talking about the scientists killed during the run of The Church of Reason? The knowledge based cult that worshiped a goddess of knowledge and justice? I don't know if I"d really consider that secular. I mean they had a feast in honor of those two dieties and in fact worshiped in Notre Dame.

Or are you talking about something else? Because if thats the example, I'm kind of unmoved.

[QuisSeperabit60]

@SeriphArcher Sorry I can't remember the source document, and thus the names, circumstances of the deaths. All I remember is that it was a blog related to the Galileo issue.

[SeriphArcher]

@QuisSeperabit60

I'm unable to respond without knowing who died at whose hands.

[SeriousVoyager]

@melymbrosia Yea, you are right: The Church made mistakes. They have long admitted that. Your problem is that Einstein, Darwin, and the whole lot also made ignorant scientific statements...based on the science of their day. I think you'll find the Vatican has always been on the cutting edge (in historical context.) Copernicus was a Catholic Priest. Mendel (father of genetics) also a Priest. Lemetraie (founder of "Big Bang") also a Catholic Priest. Theology is where they have never been wrong.

[EternalFlamesofDeath]

I love this video, my Religion teacher showed this to us in class one day.

[kentpaul65102]

You are truly a genius

[tsferg]

Great video! Stupid message.

[randomwizkid]

so true...

[csjlitz]

Good job!

[FIDESetRATIOihtys]

Awesome!!!

[VersatileMind4Christ]

Very good points

[dragongirl42391]

This is hilariously true!

[Idnaflesymem]

Well done! God bless you!

[xdanker]

You should get mony for you vids!

...but thanks for sharing it! :-)

[rymelpie]

They do. Igniter Media sells these to churches.

[Palm2Palm]

Fantastic!!!

[JoyfulJangle]

I just *love* your style! It's such an inventive way to challenge conventional thinking about God, and ourselves in relation to Him. Keep on using your talents for His Kingdom!

[kazns]

super

[TheApostleVideo]

Awesome

[bignewgame]

Oops I forgot to tell you that that was written by Roger Vogelsang back in 1999

[bignewgame]

It requires a true genius to use words with insight since it takes an alert conscious mind between these two complemental mental faculty to `read' out reality, especially when speaking!

[NloveWithChrist]

neat-O, gang! Neat-O!

[mrhoads120]

That's incredible, very creative