You obviously have no idea what in the hell you are talking about. Apparently you have not even looked at the fossil record. If you are going to make a hate video, at least get your facts straight.
You might be shocked to know most of the founding fathers were not of faith. In fact most truly hated it. Religion and all the hate that comes from it, will in fact be the reason this world ends. You spew some pretty funny stuff. Thanks for the giggle.
great video my friend!!! its alarming how many people think that belief in a classical understanding of god is what defines religion.... not realizing that a belief in anything without evidence that is coupled with repeated dogma by priests such as hitchens and dawkins is more a religion then christianity. one is imposed belief which ultimatley ends in dispair and or pride, where as the other (christianity) is a recieved belief. both groups use faith and make philosophical claims. its so easy
this guy is ignorant to science and how theories work in science. If he wants to under stand whats having he should take ff his "bible goggles" and look at the real world and information for what it is and not fill it will with "god did it".
SOME atheists believe that SOME of these things MAY be true, but none of them have the kind of certainty theists have for the existence of God. Atheism requires no explanations, only uncertainty. There were atheists long before grand scientific theories of the universe. There were atheists before evolution was understood.
@TheSammySpectacular Anything that is verifiable. Your family, your community, yourself. The beauty of a sunset, the wonder in a child's eyes. Too many to list.
@TheSammySpectacular Anything that is verifiable. Your family, your community, yourself. The beauty of a sunset, the wonder in a child's eyes. Too many to list.
If you really think that science takes a leap of faith, your an idiot. All the "gap filling" you talk about is completely plausible and is all based on a fact. We know evolution is true....so there for this may have happened. Its like this... If you and I saw someone jump off of a cliff, blood, brain, everywhere. You and I can come up with the conclusion that there dead. Science stops there. You guys just make something up, saying oh there soul goes to heaven. There is no reason to believe that.
Strings theory-paralel universes..etc, actualy makes sence, but no body clames that to be certain. Your book filed with absurds on the other hand clames to be true.
Evolution is not about belive - You except it ..(.as the Vatican/Pope did) or not-if you think earth is flat, 6000y old etc.
You bring up "gap-filling" conjectures that are scarcely mentioned in these books. Dawkins is a staunch critic of punctuated equilibrium. Panspermia is just a hypothesis altough plausible. Multiverse and string theory are speculations at this stage. Everyone admits it. Show me a Xtianwho says the same about God.
Holy shit! You being so stupid and ignorant gives me a headache. Not because you make points to challenge my concept of reality, but because your concept of reality has no rational reason in reality!
Your god is the one who says that people are made of dirt. You're pretty arrogant to assert that there is no other argument than "I don't get it so god did it."
Everyone has been an athiest once in there life, I bilieve that there is no proof of religion and there is no proof of evolution, you will say there is fossils, the Bible, the Quran........ Religion is hard to bilieve I dont go against christianity, but I do go against the idea that there is a god. On the same hand I dont bilieve in Science either ever since Charles Darwin propossed the theory of evolution scientists have found fossils and other things. This has just made them bilieve in fact.
The difference here is that science comes up with hypotheses (gap fillers) then goes about trying to disprove them or come up with a better one. A few decades ago, the gap-fillers would have been "The Big Bang" vs "The Steady State" theories... After heated debate and much testing, evidence supporting the Big Bang side of the argument has grown so that we accept it is the better explanation. It may yet be disproved. Religion has used the same gap filler for hundreds or thousands of years though.
How can the absence of religion be a religion? Why do you disparage your position, religion, by bringing atheism into your camp and denounce atheism by calling it what you are? Name one scientist who calls the parallel universe hypothesis true rather than conjecture that fits the equations of quantum mechanics. What has evolution to do with atheism? Most evolutionists are theists. Francis Crick died an atheist. He was not a major proponent of panspermia: he speculated about it in one speech.
I think the difference is that, science will say, look here's our hypothesis for (for example) parallel universes. We have some loose evidence but not enough to make it a theory and if new evidence comes out falsifying that hypothesis we will disgard it. Science starts out with beliefs but then pain stakenly try to find evidence to support those beliefs, and if they cant then it has no value. much like thiesm
There is a huge difference between postulating an idea about a currently unexplained event,ie. multiple universes, punctuated equilibrium, insane spores idea, and the idea of god as the answer to everything. Their ideas will eventually either be proven correct or replaced by better hypothesis. God however is never tested, simply put in a function not currently understood as the cause of it. Once its proven he is not the reason he is pushed into the next gap. The arrogance of it is unbelievable
Fossil record does not show change? ugh, yes it does...its the reason why there are so many species over such a vast time scale. Simpler creatures at the start changing into more advanced, or better stated as better equipped for their environment. Punctuated equilibrium is an idea on how evolution works, but it doesnt deny evolution works. It basically says at times the change happens quicker due to changing environments. It only sounds like a gapfiller if you dont understand what its describing
so when its cold what about that or when someone tickles someone in a sensitive spot what about them goosedumps dont get me wrong im not saying evolution is wrong but i want to know
The "Big Bang Theory" always makes me laugh because I can picture the whole thing................................Bang!! Earth is here and presto we have lakes, land, animals, and people.
MAN, MOTHER NATURE WAS DOING PRETTY GOOD!! It's weird though, she's not doing much now. What about this........God Created the World, lakes, land, people, and the animals, but we as humans over time have made an absolute mess of it that we actual found within ourselves to believe there is no God
This video is full of Bull-shit. The multiple Universe theory is not a fact, and it isn't accepted by the whole scientific community, it's just a hypothesis and until we can prove it, it will remain as such. As for evolution, we can observe it today, new species are created all the time.
@LeeL29 LOL New species are created everyday?? Not so! Darwin's THEORY is shatered by the discovery of the DNA and RNA strands. Evolutionists are considered uneduated now!
@mabellehardie i didnt say everyday i said all the time as in not figuratively every second but just very frequently. DNA and RNA helps to prove evolution, it shows how closely related animal species are to others. I dont know where you think it shatters it
What's the point of asking for evidence for non-existence? Does that lead to any kind of information about the entity in question? How does someone know that a unicorn or the golden teapot behind Jupiter does not exist? How does someone know, there isn't another supernatural intity that created the universe, whereas god just resides somewhere else and doesn't care. It is impossible to give evidence for non-existence - however, there are lots of arguments and reasons either way.
No thanks, I choose the other option about the origin of the universe: as long as I don't know who or what or how or when it was created I rather BELIEVE it existed already for ever. And if there comes up some evidence that god created it, well then I am sure it will not be the god of the bible; this one is just not the right one.
And by the way - intelectually and emotionally speaking, it is not very satifatory to 'define' god as the one who existed for ever and thus does not need a cause.
Somehow it seems more delicious to eat real icecream rather than a definition of it; besides, icecream with 'Bible-Gods-Taste' just isn't good for your mental health.
The universe is eternal? It has always existed? Haha that theory has been utterly rejected by the scientific community. There is good evidence against this theory such as the radiation background echoe, the motion of the galaxies and the law of thermodynamics. Even stephen Hawking agrees that the universe had a beginning. The discovery channel just had a show on how the universe did not always exist and that it did in fact have a beginning, even the big bang declares a beginning!
Fine-let's assume the universe had a beginning-that's also ok with me as long as one doesn't claim that this is a proof for a supernatural cause of the universe. And even if science will find some more facts and qualities about this 'beginning' this can not give the slightest information about the existence or the quality of the supernatural. Sorry, science just doesn't do this.
I totally agree. I'm not claiming that since the universe had a beginning then it proves that it was done by God. I am saying that the God explanation is the best explanation that I have heard. So I am sticking with it until a better one comes along. Based on evidence we can make a logical inference. But it's not proof.
Sorry, but saying that god is the best explanation for the beginning/cause of the universe is no (scientific) explanation. You could say as well 'Humpti-Dumpti' did it, but again, this has no meaning or content. Also, using 'logical inference' does not really help, since infering from the natural to the supernatural is logically and rationally not possible. Inferring to the supernatural goes arbitrarily (adjustable at will) - no knowledge or quality can be derived through volition.
Why does the explanation have to be scientific? Science can't answer everything, and you believe in lots of things that are not scientifically proven. And there is no evidence that Humpti Dumpti exists, it is not credible.
Non-scientific explanations can be satisfactory or useful. And as you said, Humpti Dumpti is not credible - just as the supernatural. It looks like, you bear two diffent types of truths - one for the natural world and one for the supernatural. Then you apply this on terms like explanation, evidence, logic, credible, believe ... so what's the evidence of the other kind for the supernatural? By the way, I do believe a lot - all refer to the natural world though (the sun will rise tomorrow).
Well then my question to you would be, how do you know that there is nothing beyond the physical natural world? What evidence do you have that supports naturalism, or the view that there is no supernatural and and there is nothing beyond the natural world...?
I don't know that 'there is nothing beyond the physical natural world'. Not knowing is no evidence for the contrary. Besides that they are words, Naturalism and Theism are convictions - there can't be evidence for a conviction. Although, there is evidence that I as a person am convinced of naturalism by the fact that I write this text. Give the supernatural a name/personality/quality and then give some evidence for it. Naturalism as term is self-explainatory but there can't be evidence for it.
So since you don't know if there is anything beyond the natural world then this would leave you at more of an agnostic position. I know that it is not evidence for the contrary. And with your last sentence, are you saying that there is no evidence that supports naturalism, or better yet, what good evidence is there to support atheism. Personally I havn't found or heard of any yet...
You may call it atheism or agnosticism - I call myself a naturalist. The 'a' implies that something is missing or flawed. So I rather define myself by an affirmative term. I also don't ask myself whether I am non-astrologer. Again, there is no use to look for evidence for a term - it's semantically impossible. Science has brought up a vast amount of evidence for all sorts of conditions and qualities. So what kind of evidence can you offer for a specific quality of the supernatural?
Well you avoided my question there. What good evidence is there that supports naturalism, or atheism. What evidence is there that God does not exist? And you want evidence for God? The life death and resurrection of Jesus. If Jesus is who he claimed to be then that is evidence of God. The origin of the universe is evidence of God as well. But what evidence do you have for the contrary?
There is undeniable evidence that people believe in 5.000 different. gods, adhere to 1000 diff. religions and believe in 1000 diff. kinds of holy books. Most of them claim their god is the true one - this supports my conviction that these are all illusions. There is nothing wrong with illusions, as long as they are not forced upon me. Sorry, but get the facts about the god of the bible. No need to quote all the atrocitities ordered by god to Mose, Josua, Elia in the OT, it suffices to ...
even in the NT god has not really changed (outdated sexual moral, dispicable gender roles, eternal torments for sins committed in a non eternal life, Jesus had nothing to say against slavery, he quoted the mass murderer Mose, Josua Elia many times) to see that the the god of the Bible is not a good role model. 1000s killed in the flood, 1000s languishing in the purgortory ... a god, who created us with original sin and then had to send Jesus to correct his mistake? Sorry I am not convinced
The burden of evidence has to be carried by those who claim certain entities; not the one, who stays in an economic position has to proof that the more laborous metaphysical assumption is false. In addition, naturalism not only is more economic and better founded than supernatural ontologies, but it is also heuristically more fruitful (e.g. just compare the achievements of medical science to that what prayer or esotericism can offer).
Yes if someone makes a claim that God exists then they should provide evidence. But if someone is claiming that God does not exist, then they should also provide evidence as to why God does not exist. Give their reasonings as to why God does not exist. And I havn't heard of any good arguements for that. I am still waiting to see any good evidence that supports atheism. How does someone know that God does not exist?
"The life, death and ressurection of jesus" came from your holy book. Where did that come from, and why do you believe it to be true?
Also, the stoning to death of adulterers, children who are unkind to their parents, and women who wish to divorce their husbands came from your holy book. Do you follow that, too?
The bible was written by men, just like how any other book in history is written. Except this book was inspired by God. I believe the bible to be true based on facts and evidence, it's credible. Innocent until prove guilty, and no one has ever been able to disprove the bible. Why don't I stone people to death? Show me in the bible where it says that today we are to still stone people to death. That was the OT civil law, Jesus came to fulfill that.
Don't try to bring "facts" and "evidence" into your system of belief. Thats just it. Faith = belief with a lack of evidence. You have no evidence to speak with.
I don't know what kind of faith you are talking about but my faith is based on evidence. I have no evidence to speak with to support the bible? The over 25,000 archaeological discoveries that have been found that prove certain people places and events that occured in the bible, sounds like evidence to me. Or the writings and sources that are not religious and that are outside the bible, that's more evidence. The scientific information in the bible as well is evidence.
Lack of evidence? Evolutionist talks about lack of evidence. WOW
Ok let me ask you about some evidence. Tell me how did male and female genes evolve in the first place if there was one amoeba, ONE SINGLE LIFE FORM, one lightning strike( no body knows from where that pop-up).EXPLAIN THAT.
@Riste1986 Ask a question about the right theory not Abiogenesis! Your so called Evolutionists have no liability to answer a question from another Theory!
I don't know how a single-celled organism split into two genders, but saying you don't know is better/more correct than saying a supernatural being did it. I can't be wrong. You can.
Well this is why Jesus said , "He who has ears to hear, let him hear" (Luke 14:35 ). The people who wanted attention from the crowd like today's scientist and Darwin, stoned the innocent who believed in Jesus, Jesus did not said stone every one to death as you walk on earth, that would be stupid . Children unkind to their parent - what Bible is that ? Women who wish to divorce their husbands - that's not the Bible.
@roniepao There's nothing to misinterpret. Cheer when the babies of your enemy are dashed upon the rocks, and make your Lord happy by spilling the blood of witches, children who talk back to their parents, homosexuals, and followers of other religions. Your god isn't truly happy with you unless you do these things.
Sure you can stick to the god of the bible - the problem is that you are stuck with an ancient, jealous, killing, murderering,... god, whose most famous agents like Mose, Josua, Elia, Ezechiel ... killed, murdered, raped, ... in the name of this god. Even Jesus quoted Mose and Elia 7 respectively 19 times rather than quoting good guys like Amos, Hosea or Micha. Have I left anything ... plenty like: a cruel christian history, an outdated sexual moral, a dispicable gender role, ...
Order, design, intelligence, ha! ha! coming out of the mouth of a guy who believes in the greatest abortionist ever, last count GOD 1 billion miscarriages and counting, can we have another round of applause for Mr. Sanctity of Life, LOL
Science will never answer the questions of first space-time, mass-energy, life, rationality, consciousness, information code, thought, meaning, language, the Self -- You don't seem to go there, because these are questions outside Science. The passive place to rest, "My Science doesn't have all the answers yet, but at least I don't propose an unseen God in the meantime."
In 2005, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a Wisconsin official violated an inmate's rights because he didn't treat atheism as a religion. "Atheism is religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being."
Indeed, the belief system of atheism is based on faith that there is no God -- The US Supreme Court in Torcaso v Watkins (1961) defined atheism/secular humanism as a religion by its own terms.
@reflect7 The Supreme Court once ruled that a human being could be property, the same as a mule or a piece or rope--what' your point? If the Supreme Court says something it cannot be questioned?
Even if Atheism was a religion "so what" I say to believers, what's your point? That it might just be nonsense like a religious belief that an eternal being can die and keep living eternally and nutjobs call it a miracle, LOL
This guy obviously does not understand what the :god of the gaps" idea is all about. The idea that alien spores started life on Earth is way more of an explanation than "god did it". And the gap objection was started by a Christian. He didn't want peopel to say the magic starts wherever science doesn't have an explanation.
Also, supernovas make evolution go faster? No one ever said that but this guy.
atheism is not a religion, you are blatantly wrong and you are a liar, if you had done even the least bit of research you would realize how wrong you are.
Evolution takes more faith to believe in than God in my opinion. It is just as much a religion. It takes faith to think we evolved and it takes faith to believe we will do so again in a billion years. So, why is it wrong for us to believe in what we cannot see when they believe in what they cannot see?
There is as much evidence for the theory of evolution as there is for the theory of electricity or the theory of gravitation. You might as well challenge one of the latter, since you cannot see gravitation or electricity either, right?
Seriously... we have the fossil record, DNA analyses that prove the high degree of relationship between modern apes and humans. Medical science deals with evolving bacteria strains all the time, hence the need for new antiobiotics. We have...
...we have observed speciation through hybridization of fly species both in nature and under lab conditions, where the new species show a different behaviour than either parent species. We have documented cases of insects and plant species changing in color and appearance as they inhabit new environments. We have observed speciation in lab tests where protozoan predators cause changes in a bacteria population, size changes and even the merging into multicellular colonies. We have...
No, you don't just "make up" a gap-filler to answer these unknown questions, you hypothesize as to the cause and then look at the evidence. Scientists are simply saying "look, here's one way it could have happened, but we don't know exactly". There's no dogmatic "gap-filler" involved, which is to be believed without evidence. Besides, most of the hypotheses (not theories, mind you) mentioned here have very little support in the scientific community.
So Religion is a fundamental belief. You have to follow doctrines that cannot be changed. Science changes all the time depending on the latest knowledge discovery - its flexible. What you describe as Dawkins or Harris's belief are infact theories - they are happy to change their view if a theory doesn't stand up to scrutiny, religion cannot - its all written in the book (Torah, Bible, Quran, insert bronze age book here)
RELIGION.a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
FUNDAMENTAL. serving as, or being an essential part of, a foundation or basis; basic; underlying: fundamental principles; the fundamental structure.
RELIGION.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
ATHEISM. means I don't believe in any thing - its not a group - its an individueal statement that you don't belief - no singing no chanting - no groveling.
Wow he must have no read those books. Or at least not understood anything he read. Especially about the "gaps." He's misleading so many Christians that will never in their life read an intellectual book and that's why they think we're stupid and crazy.
Who's for starting an a-fairyism religion with me? We'll meet once a month to hang out, discuss the ethical issues related to our absence of belief in fairies, and die our hair bald in a-fairyist solidarity!
Or you can believe in Hogwarts of Harry Potter! No one is saying that parallel universes exists, it's merely a speculation, which seems less plausible than before. Do you need faith to believe that Australia exists, or that the earth is round? Next, there is a difference between philosophical reason and a theological conviction. Agnosticism does not pertain to this topic -- addresses different question. Atheism is a religion only if bald is a hair color and not collecting stamps is a hobby ;]
Why is everyone troubled by the fact that atheism is religious at its core? In 2005, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a Wisconsin official violated an inmate's rights because he didn't treat atheism as a religion when the inmate wanted to start a discussion group in the prison. "Atheism is religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being."
mm it can be i guess if make it that, i just like to be open minded about things. what i don't like is how when your a kid in the intellectual stage, you have the church telling you whats what aned some what controling your thoughts into thinkin there way, you being a kid you don't know any better
What? I'm just noting that faith is a component of all belief systems -- Indeed, the belief system of atheism is based on faith that there is no God -- The US Supreme Court in Torcaso v Watkins (1961) defined atheism/secular humanism as a religion by its own terms.
Not faith - likelihood. And Torcaso v Watkins was about confirming the right to hold office regardless of a belief in a God. Only a single footnote in the court text refers to 'secular humanism' as a religion - but every court (bar the 7th Circuit Court of Thingamyjig, apparently!) since has rejected the claim that atheism is a religion. And the US does not officially recognise atheism as a religion.
1.AHTEISM IS NOT A RELIGION! Atheism is a philosophical stand point that you DON'T belive in any supernatural beings.
2.The parallel universe theory came about because many physical calculations were pointing in the same direction and a lot of world leading scientists support this theory although not all. So it is NOT out of science!
3.The fossil record CLEARLY shows gradual evolution. How many thousends of pictures do you want?
While atheism is not a religion, it can be fairly said- and many of the comments prove it- that its adherents sometimes defend it with religious fervor. There's nothing wrong with science. Science is the study of natural phenomena. It can add greatly to the quality of all our lives- it does everyday. We live in the natural world, after all. But we serve a supernatural God. Science has its limitations. It is a tool in our hands, and was never meant to be our master.
Even if these "gap-fillers" are real, and at first glance this seems like a bunch of straw-man arguments and lies, but assuming it is all true, there is one key difference. These "Atheist gap-fillers" would be falsifiable, they could be proved wrong. God isn't.
no strawman there. All the atheists do it. But we have one gap filler from an historical document. Evolutionists make up ad-hoc fillers every single day. As a matter of fact, they have had 1000s of gap fillers, all to try to replace our gap filler and they have failed miserabely. But they will keep using other peoples' money(ie christian money) so they can waste our time with more gap fillers. We could use that money for real science.
Atheism is not a religion at all it is just not believing in any kind of faith. Many atheists are atheist in the same way as some people are apolitical meaning they have no interest in politics claiming that it bores them. Some people are bored by religion but are not atheist in the same way as say Dawkins or Hitchins.
you set up a strawman we fill gaps with science reality not with fantasy and the land of make believe. the multiverse theory is well supported by mathimatic we just don't have the tech. to observe but at least we can make predictions watch imagine the 10th dimension. we have observed macro evolution in the fossil record um the field of genetics along proves evolution 99.98% of the scientists believe in evolution we have 1000's transtional forms your lying go to donexdous2 he has vids of trns
Well this gap filling as you call it with Panspermia Theory.Personally as a atheist I find it to be just as repugnant as a theist pulling the so called faith card when called on a topic they have no reasoning for.This is where a true person of reason must say I don't know to be correct or of course have a theory based in deductive inclination .
So, you gave us some hypotheses, alas without mentioning that they are quite controversial in the scientific community. And without mentioning that they are just that: hypotheses. Not even theories. And even scientistific theories are debatable - every scientist admits that. Now compare that to the god of the gaps, that HAS to exist for the theist, it's not debatable, that would be blasphemy? Can you see the difference?
The thing with religion is that it never gets upgraded, on the other hand science don't have a problem to discard wrong theories. And philosophy is part of science. If all you religious freaks don't like science go back to your caves.
Again, no self respecting scientist, Athiest or agnostic who fills in a gap in scientific evidence does so claiming them as facts, they are theories, hypothesies, that seem to fit the greater picture for which there is plenty of evidence. If you and your fellows are prepared to admit that your beliefs (the bible) are also theories that you may never be able to prove conclusively, then you have a point, otherwise you're wasting your time, no-one of critical thinking will take you seriously.
No they are not theories. Theories (in science) are based on facts. The multi-verse is not theoretical. Neither is it a hypothesis. A scientific hypothesis requires testability. The multi-verse is pure conjecture that is, at least, no better than invoking God. At least it shows a recognition of the materialist's problem.
The suggestion that the anthropic principle is what scientists actually believe is a myth. It is however in no conflict with the science and is thus far more likely than the god hypothesis.
ok your an idiot, there are many equations to prove the constants in the universe, as for darwin evolution we can see proof, in rapid evolving creatures such as flys can show mutation in a more visible amount of time.
You are simply missing the point here. Of course we can use good operational science to prove that there are certain mathematical constants in our Universe. Actually they are so finely tuned for life, that it definitely requires a greater leap of faith to be an atheist. As for evolution, no-one disputes that we observe adaptations (within boundaries of a created kind).
For macroevolution we must be able to observe creation of NEW genetic information. This has never been observed. :)
We need to adequately specify the distinction between "faith" and "science." The standard sterotype (science vs. religion) is flawed, because some form of faith (in a religion) is required to believe in creation or evolution. Both creation and evolution make claims about an unrepeatable past that was not observed by humans. This is distinctly different from normal science, which is a methodological system governing directly observed, repeatable results (such as laboratory experiments).
In 2005, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a Wisconsin official violated an inmate's rights because he didn't treat atheism as a religion. "Atheism is religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being."
Thanks for your post -- Indeed, the belief system of atheism is based on faith that there is no God -- The US Supreme Court in Torcaso v Watkins (1961) defined atheism/secular humanism as a religion by its own terms.
And panspermia is in no way the only explanation for the non-theistic origins of life. There are plenty of authors, like Freeman Dyson and John Maynard Smith, who are talking about the spinning together of processes of metabolism and reproduction from molecules much simpler than DNA. You've not really got a point here. Time to step beyond the bestseller lists ;)
No, I don't think the parallel universe theory was proposed BECAUSE there's a gap in understanding; from what I've read (quantum physics books rather than evolution vs creation) it sounds like parallel universes is an alternative interpretation of quantum effects long established by experiment.
The math of M-Theory seem to suggest parallel universes in higher dimensions. This isn't some random guess as you're suggesting in your phrasing. It's coming out of complex mathematics.
But you see, what motive do they have for positing such an idea? Is it comforting? No, in science it doesn't matter how comforting it is, it's just what can be tested and observed or inferred by the math. Infinite Parallel universes isn't a nice thought, but if it's true? So be it.
Technically, everyone is an agnostic. No one -knows-. Even the harshest de facto atheist is still an agnostic. The difference between a de facto atheist and a generic Christian is that a Christian will make the, to me, absurd claim to know the mind of god. This destructive and divisive logic separates people and closes the door to rational discourse.
Here's the mistake that I think you're making, while a lot of atheists/agnostics may claim to believe into some variation of Darwinian or Big-Bang theory related explanation, that doesn't hold true for all atheists. You're making a broad sweep to try and flush them out.
Thanks for the insults -- Science doesn't go any further than the naturalistic box. Science is great for exploring the design, order, complexity, fine-tuning, laws of today's anthropic-principled world, but certain questions cannot be asked. If I ask them, and propose something outside the naturalistic box, I'm labeled an idiot.
"If I ask them, and propose something outside the naturalistic box, I'm labeled an idiot."
You're only labeled an idiot if you propose the existence of things that are entirely outside everyone's experience without having any evidence to back up your claim. Specifically, the christian God must be more complex than the what he is supposed to "explain".
In other words, if you have no evidence, saying that X caused everything is exactly as informative as saying "I don't know".
Science will never answer the questions of first mass-energy, first life, rationality, consciousness, thought, meaning, language, the self -- The scientific gurus won't go there, because these are questions outside science. The passive place to rest, "My religion of science doesn't have all the answers yet." In the agnostic meantime, all others are idiots.
"Science will never answer the questions of first mass-energy, first life, rationality, consciousness, thought, meaning, language, the self -- The scientific gurus won't go there, because these are questions outside science"
This is utterly wrong. Rationality, conciousness, thought, language are all in the process of being explained. At this point it's obvious that they are all mostly explained by the physical wiring of the brain, with language taking some input from environment.
Classic - science doesn't have all the answers (yet) so God has to be the answer - flawed argument. Your next post should be on why your God is the one true God but all the others worhsipped in the world are not...argh, I see, it's all about "faith". Another flawed argument!
This has been flagged as spam show
You obviously have no idea what in the hell you are talking about. Apparently you have not even looked at the fossil record. If you are going to make a hate video, at least get your facts straight.
beadheadbrassie 3 months ago
Haha punctuated equilibrium was lamarks theoery that was disproved over 150 years ago
EpicSkillz45 3 months ago
You might be shocked to know most of the founding fathers were not of faith. In fact most truly hated it. Religion and all the hate that comes from it, will in fact be the reason this world ends. You spew some pretty funny stuff. Thanks for the giggle.
PatriziaVonDousen 6 months ago 2
Thank you God Bless
DonDaddaDash 7 months ago
I have no faith. Umad?
S1mpleZach12 8 months ago
@Patience1138 I can't believe the level of stupidity. Please, look up the definition of religion and come back.
HyperionZ619 8 months ago
Atheism is not a religion, just as Theism is not a religion. It's a mere ideology. This guy is a nut.
HyperionZ619 8 months ago
@HyperionZ619 Technically, you could argue that it's a type of religion.
Patience1138 8 months ago
wait till you die and see how right this so called nut is! the joke is going to be on you!
MrSlippin22 6 months ago
ya and not painting is a hobby... right?... wow
mooregreenplease 9 months ago
great video my friend!!! its alarming how many people think that belief in a classical understanding of god is what defines religion.... not realizing that a belief in anything without evidence that is coupled with repeated dogma by priests such as hitchens and dawkins is more a religion then christianity. one is imposed belief which ultimatley ends in dispair and or pride, where as the other (christianity) is a recieved belief. both groups use faith and make philosophical claims. its so easy
BigG99 10 months ago
fail
hempartist420 10 months ago
this guy is ignorant to science and how theories work in science. If he wants to under stand whats having he should take ff his "bible goggles" and look at the real world and information for what it is and not fill it will with "god did it".
pontello08 1 year ago
retard
jimbocidman 1 year ago
SOME atheists believe that SOME of these things MAY be true, but none of them have the kind of certainty theists have for the existence of God. Atheism requires no explanations, only uncertainty. There were atheists long before grand scientific theories of the universe. There were atheists before evolution was understood.
Achillies101 1 year ago
If you can't believe in God, what can you believe in?
TheSammySpectacular 1 year ago
@TheSammySpectacular Anything that is verifiable. Your family, your community, yourself. The beauty of a sunset, the wonder in a child's eyes. Too many to list.
BiffWhitebread13 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSammySpectacular Anything that is verifiable. Your family, your community, yourself. The beauty of a sunset, the wonder in a child's eyes. Too many to list.
BiffWhitebread13 1 year ago
If you really think that science takes a leap of faith, your an idiot. All the "gap filling" you talk about is completely plausible and is all based on a fact. We know evolution is true....so there for this may have happened. Its like this... If you and I saw someone jump off of a cliff, blood, brain, everywhere. You and I can come up with the conclusion that there dead. Science stops there. You guys just make something up, saying oh there soul goes to heaven. There is no reason to believe that.
theUSER101 1 year ago
Strings theory-paralel universes..etc, actualy makes sence, but no body clames that to be certain. Your book filed with absurds on the other hand clames to be true.
Evolution is not about belive - You except it ..(.as the Vatican/Pope did) or not-if you think earth is flat, 6000y old etc.
Aleksamson 1 year ago
this guys a complete dickhead!!!!!!! he doesnt know shit
coooly2 1 year ago
this atheistism dont surprise me. its part of the signs of the second coming of Jesus as the bibleddescribed.
roniepao 1 year ago
You are one big argument from ignorance. Ahh, I don't even know where to begin.
xMKIVxVR6x 1 year ago
You bring up "gap-filling" conjectures that are scarcely mentioned in these books. Dawkins is a staunch critic of punctuated equilibrium. Panspermia is just a hypothesis altough plausible. Multiverse and string theory are speculations at this stage. Everyone admits it. Show me a Xtianwho says the same about God.
lovasip 1 year ago
what a douche!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
glockdoc101 1 year ago
Science propouses ideas in order to explain the world and they can be proven wrong or right... they don't worship idols and believe in bullshit^^
ShowyGDL 1 year ago
wow- so much ignorance neatly encapsulated in one redneck
SuperBeanson 1 year ago 3
its so sad to see videos like this
ignaci0bosch 1 year ago
Holy shit! You being so stupid and ignorant gives me a headache. Not because you make points to challenge my concept of reality, but because your concept of reality has no rational reason in reality!
Your god is the one who says that people are made of dirt. You're pretty arrogant to assert that there is no other argument than "I don't get it so god did it."
hevyAccel 1 year ago
Everyone has been an athiest once in there life, I bilieve that there is no proof of religion and there is no proof of evolution, you will say there is fossils, the Bible, the Quran........ Religion is hard to bilieve I dont go against christianity, but I do go against the idea that there is a god. On the same hand I dont bilieve in Science either ever since Charles Darwin propossed the theory of evolution scientists have found fossils and other things. This has just made them bilieve in fact.
Anz709 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Anz709 //scientists have found fossils and other things. This has just made them bilieve in fact//
It's usually a good thing to believe facts.
Eron2828 1 year ago
The difference here is that science comes up with hypotheses (gap fillers) then goes about trying to disprove them or come up with a better one. A few decades ago, the gap-fillers would have been "The Big Bang" vs "The Steady State" theories... After heated debate and much testing, evidence supporting the Big Bang side of the argument has grown so that we accept it is the better explanation. It may yet be disproved. Religion has used the same gap filler for hundreds or thousands of years though.
ferrett78 1 year ago
I'm not in the whole argument of religion vs. atheism but fact is the guy makes sense in the video.
WiiFolderJosh 1 year ago
Darwin said it was slow and gradual, he was wrong about that, his thoughts are 150 years out of date. DNA markers prove we evolved.
gregrutz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sounds like you did minimal research and wrote down a summary of rebuttals on theories you clearly don't understand. And Atheism is not a religion.
gregrutz 1 year ago
How can the absence of religion be a religion? Why do you disparage your position, religion, by bringing atheism into your camp and denounce atheism by calling it what you are? Name one scientist who calls the parallel universe hypothesis true rather than conjecture that fits the equations of quantum mechanics. What has evolution to do with atheism? Most evolutionists are theists. Francis Crick died an atheist. He was not a major proponent of panspermia: he speculated about it in one speech.
cliffwalkinfool 1 year ago
well said
b45100 1 year ago
I think the difference is that, science will say, look here's our hypothesis for (for example) parallel universes. We have some loose evidence but not enough to make it a theory and if new evidence comes out falsifying that hypothesis we will disgard it. Science starts out with beliefs but then pain stakenly try to find evidence to support those beliefs, and if they cant then it has no value. much like thiesm
cunucky 1 year ago
good vid. thanks
TomSondergaard 1 year ago
There is a huge difference between postulating an idea about a currently unexplained event,ie. multiple universes, punctuated equilibrium, insane spores idea, and the idea of god as the answer to everything. Their ideas will eventually either be proven correct or replaced by better hypothesis. God however is never tested, simply put in a function not currently understood as the cause of it. Once its proven he is not the reason he is pushed into the next gap. The arrogance of it is unbelievable
HerkMondo84 1 year ago
Fossil record does not show change? ugh, yes it does...its the reason why there are so many species over such a vast time scale. Simpler creatures at the start changing into more advanced, or better stated as better equipped for their environment. Punctuated equilibrium is an idea on how evolution works, but it doesnt deny evolution works. It basically says at times the change happens quicker due to changing environments. It only sounds like a gapfiller if you dont understand what its describing
HerkMondo84 1 year ago
so when its cold what about that or when someone tickles someone in a sensitive spot what about them goosedumps dont get me wrong im not saying evolution is wrong but i want to know
clubcard246 1 year ago
FAILBLOG
tommo1313 1 year ago
Here we go again...
"Fosil records don't show slow, gradual change... "
* big sigh * ... yes.... yes they do... go visit one of thousands of natural history museums and remove the biblical blinders please.
Kuth70 1 year ago
lovely, false dichotomies and straw-men... was really surprised not to see any ad homonyms, though
oelergodt 2 years ago
One of the themes of your videos is your crappy shirts.
atheistATTACK 2 years ago
The "Big Bang Theory" always makes me laugh because I can picture the whole thing................................Bang!! Earth is here and presto we have lakes, land, animals, and people.
MAN, MOTHER NATURE WAS DOING PRETTY GOOD!! It's weird though, she's not doing much now. What about this........God Created the World, lakes, land, people, and the animals, but we as humans over time have made an absolute mess of it that we actual found within ourselves to believe there is no God
89AEF 2 years ago
"The so called big bang theory"
Did you just say that the big bang couldn't have happened? I'm sorry but are you fucking high on meth?
goonodeath 2 years ago
This video is full of Bull-shit. The multiple Universe theory is not a fact, and it isn't accepted by the whole scientific community, it's just a hypothesis and until we can prove it, it will remain as such. As for evolution, we can observe it today, new species are created all the time.
LeeL29 2 years ago 8
Believe it or not,many Darwinian scientists are enbracing the multiple universe theory.
N00bcrunch3r 2 years ago
@LeeL29 Are you sure?
Patience1138 8 months ago
@Patience1138 pretty much so
LeeL29 8 months ago
@LeeL29 If you say so...
Patience1138 8 months ago
@LeeL29 LOL New species are created everyday?? Not so! Darwin's THEORY is shatered by the discovery of the DNA and RNA strands. Evolutionists are considered uneduated now!
mabellehardie 7 months ago
@mabellehardie i didnt say everyday i said all the time as in not figuratively every second but just very frequently. DNA and RNA helps to prove evolution, it shows how closely related animal species are to others. I dont know where you think it shatters it
LeeL29 7 months ago
What's the point of asking for evidence for non-existence? Does that lead to any kind of information about the entity in question? How does someone know that a unicorn or the golden teapot behind Jupiter does not exist? How does someone know, there isn't another supernatural intity that created the universe, whereas god just resides somewhere else and doesn't care. It is impossible to give evidence for non-existence - however, there are lots of arguments and reasons either way.
manu191357 2 years ago
The burden of proof falls on the presenter/believer.
dirtydeedz161 2 years ago
No thanks, I choose the other option about the origin of the universe: as long as I don't know who or what or how or when it was created I rather BELIEVE it existed already for ever. And if there comes up some evidence that god created it, well then I am sure it will not be the god of the bible; this one is just not the right one.
And by the way - intelectually and emotionally speaking, it is not very satifatory to 'define' god as the one who existed for ever and thus does not need a cause.
manu191357 2 years ago
Somehow it seems more delicious to eat real icecream rather than a definition of it; besides, icecream with 'Bible-Gods-Taste' just isn't good for your mental health.
manu191357 2 years ago
The universe is eternal? It has always existed? Haha that theory has been utterly rejected by the scientific community. There is good evidence against this theory such as the radiation background echoe, the motion of the galaxies and the law of thermodynamics. Even stephen Hawking agrees that the universe had a beginning. The discovery channel just had a show on how the universe did not always exist and that it did in fact have a beginning, even the big bang declares a beginning!
pricer5 2 years ago
Fine-let's assume the universe had a beginning-that's also ok with me as long as one doesn't claim that this is a proof for a supernatural cause of the universe. And even if science will find some more facts and qualities about this 'beginning' this can not give the slightest information about the existence or the quality of the supernatural. Sorry, science just doesn't do this.
manu191357 2 years ago
Comment removed
manu191357 2 years ago
I totally agree. I'm not claiming that since the universe had a beginning then it proves that it was done by God. I am saying that the God explanation is the best explanation that I have heard. So I am sticking with it until a better one comes along. Based on evidence we can make a logical inference. But it's not proof.
pricer5 2 years ago
Sorry, but saying that god is the best explanation for the beginning/cause of the universe is no (scientific) explanation. You could say as well 'Humpti-Dumpti' did it, but again, this has no meaning or content. Also, using 'logical inference' does not really help, since infering from the natural to the supernatural is logically and rationally not possible. Inferring to the supernatural goes arbitrarily (adjustable at will) - no knowledge or quality can be derived through volition.
manu191357 2 years ago
Why does the explanation have to be scientific? Science can't answer everything, and you believe in lots of things that are not scientifically proven. And there is no evidence that Humpti Dumpti exists, it is not credible.
pricer5 2 years ago
Non-scientific explanations can be satisfactory or useful. And as you said, Humpti Dumpti is not credible - just as the supernatural. It looks like, you bear two diffent types of truths - one for the natural world and one for the supernatural. Then you apply this on terms like explanation, evidence, logic, credible, believe ... so what's the evidence of the other kind for the supernatural? By the way, I do believe a lot - all refer to the natural world though (the sun will rise tomorrow).
manu191357 2 years ago
Well then my question to you would be, how do you know that there is nothing beyond the physical natural world? What evidence do you have that supports naturalism, or the view that there is no supernatural and and there is nothing beyond the natural world...?
pricer5 2 years ago
I don't know that 'there is nothing beyond the physical natural world'. Not knowing is no evidence for the contrary. Besides that they are words, Naturalism and Theism are convictions - there can't be evidence for a conviction. Although, there is evidence that I as a person am convinced of naturalism by the fact that I write this text. Give the supernatural a name/personality/quality and then give some evidence for it. Naturalism as term is self-explainatory but there can't be evidence for it.
manu191357 2 years ago
So since you don't know if there is anything beyond the natural world then this would leave you at more of an agnostic position. I know that it is not evidence for the contrary. And with your last sentence, are you saying that there is no evidence that supports naturalism, or better yet, what good evidence is there to support atheism. Personally I havn't found or heard of any yet...
pricer5 2 years ago
You may call it atheism or agnosticism - I call myself a naturalist. The 'a' implies that something is missing or flawed. So I rather define myself by an affirmative term. I also don't ask myself whether I am non-astrologer. Again, there is no use to look for evidence for a term - it's semantically impossible. Science has brought up a vast amount of evidence for all sorts of conditions and qualities. So what kind of evidence can you offer for a specific quality of the supernatural?
manu191357 2 years ago
Well you avoided my question there. What good evidence is there that supports naturalism, or atheism. What evidence is there that God does not exist? And you want evidence for God? The life death and resurrection of Jesus. If Jesus is who he claimed to be then that is evidence of God. The origin of the universe is evidence of God as well. But what evidence do you have for the contrary?
pricer5 2 years ago
There is undeniable evidence that people believe in 5.000 different. gods, adhere to 1000 diff. religions and believe in 1000 diff. kinds of holy books. Most of them claim their god is the true one - this supports my conviction that these are all illusions. There is nothing wrong with illusions, as long as they are not forced upon me. Sorry, but get the facts about the god of the bible. No need to quote all the atrocitities ordered by god to Mose, Josua, Elia in the OT, it suffices to ...
manu191357 2 years ago
even in the NT god has not really changed (outdated sexual moral, dispicable gender roles, eternal torments for sins committed in a non eternal life, Jesus had nothing to say against slavery, he quoted the mass murderer Mose, Josua Elia many times) to see that the the god of the Bible is not a good role model. 1000s killed in the flood, 1000s languishing in the purgortory ... a god, who created us with original sin and then had to send Jesus to correct his mistake? Sorry I am not convinced
manu191357 2 years ago
The burden of evidence has to be carried by those who claim certain entities; not the one, who stays in an economic position has to proof that the more laborous metaphysical assumption is false. In addition, naturalism not only is more economic and better founded than supernatural ontologies, but it is also heuristically more fruitful (e.g. just compare the achievements of medical science to that what prayer or esotericism can offer).
manu191357 2 years ago
Yes if someone makes a claim that God exists then they should provide evidence. But if someone is claiming that God does not exist, then they should also provide evidence as to why God does not exist. Give their reasonings as to why God does not exist. And I havn't heard of any good arguements for that. I am still waiting to see any good evidence that supports atheism. How does someone know that God does not exist?
pricer5 2 years ago
hmmm, very nicely put
dudeguy927 2 years ago
"The life, death and ressurection of jesus" came from your holy book. Where did that come from, and why do you believe it to be true?
Also, the stoning to death of adulterers, children who are unkind to their parents, and women who wish to divorce their husbands came from your holy book. Do you follow that, too?
dirtydeedz161 2 years ago
The bible was written by men, just like how any other book in history is written. Except this book was inspired by God. I believe the bible to be true based on facts and evidence, it's credible. Innocent until prove guilty, and no one has ever been able to disprove the bible. Why don't I stone people to death? Show me in the bible where it says that today we are to still stone people to death. That was the OT civil law, Jesus came to fulfill that.
pricer5 2 years ago
Don't try to bring "facts" and "evidence" into your system of belief. Thats just it. Faith = belief with a lack of evidence. You have no evidence to speak with.
dirtydeedz161 2 years ago
I don't know what kind of faith you are talking about but my faith is based on evidence. I have no evidence to speak with to support the bible? The over 25,000 archaeological discoveries that have been found that prove certain people places and events that occured in the bible, sounds like evidence to me. Or the writings and sources that are not religious and that are outside the bible, that's more evidence. The scientific information in the bible as well is evidence.
pricer5 2 years ago
Lack of evidence? Evolutionist talks about lack of evidence. WOW
Ok let me ask you about some evidence. Tell me how did male and female genes evolve in the first place if there was one amoeba, ONE SINGLE LIFE FORM, one lightning strike( no body knows from where that pop-up).EXPLAIN THAT.
Riste1986 2 years ago
@Riste1986 Ask a question about the right theory not Abiogenesis! Your so called Evolutionists have no liability to answer a question from another Theory!
hfinity 2 years ago
What are you babbling about?
I don't know how a single-celled organism split into two genders, but saying you don't know is better/more correct than saying a supernatural being did it. I can't be wrong. You can.
dirtydeedz161 2 years ago
Thanks for you answer. It was really educational.
Riste1986 2 years ago
If you want an education, open your closed-up mind and talk to an expert on the subject of microbiology.
dirtydeedz161 2 years ago
Well this is why Jesus said , "He who has ears to hear, let him hear" (Luke 14:35 ). The people who wanted attention from the crowd like today's scientist and Darwin, stoned the innocent who believed in Jesus, Jesus did not said stone every one to death as you walk on earth, that would be stupid . Children unkind to their parent - what Bible is that ? Women who wish to divorce their husbands - that's not the Bible.
Riste1986 2 years ago
All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
And for the divorce one, those are in there, too.
Your holy book is flawed.
dirtydeedz161 2 years ago
@dirtydeedz161
read the bible again. you misinterpret it.
roniepao 1 year ago
@roniepao There's nothing to misinterpret. Cheer when the babies of your enemy are dashed upon the rocks, and make your Lord happy by spilling the blood of witches, children who talk back to their parents, homosexuals, and followers of other religions. Your god isn't truly happy with you unless you do these things.
dirtydeedz161 1 year ago
Sure you can stick to the god of the bible - the problem is that you are stuck with an ancient, jealous, killing, murderering,... god, whose most famous agents like Mose, Josua, Elia, Ezechiel ... killed, murdered, raped, ... in the name of this god. Even Jesus quoted Mose and Elia 7 respectively 19 times rather than quoting good guys like Amos, Hosea or Micha. Have I left anything ... plenty like: a cruel christian history, an outdated sexual moral, a dispicable gender role, ...
No thanks.
manu191357 2 years ago
Order, design, intelligence, ha! ha! coming out of the mouth of a guy who believes in the greatest abortionist ever, last count GOD 1 billion miscarriages and counting, can we have another round of applause for Mr. Sanctity of Life, LOL
elvismilk 2 years ago
Science will never answer the questions of first space-time, mass-energy, life, rationality, consciousness, information code, thought, meaning, language, the Self -- You don't seem to go there, because these are questions outside Science. The passive place to rest, "My Science doesn't have all the answers yet, but at least I don't propose an unseen God in the meantime."
reflect7 2 years ago
Sounds like you did minimal research and wrote down a summary of rebuttals on theories you clearly don't understand. And Atheism is not a religion.
ripticdu 2 years ago 8
In 2005, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a Wisconsin official violated an inmate's rights because he didn't treat atheism as a religion. "Atheism is religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being."
reflect7 2 years ago
Indeed, the belief system of atheism is based on faith that there is no God -- The US Supreme Court in Torcaso v Watkins (1961) defined atheism/secular humanism as a religion by its own terms.
reflect7 2 years ago
There were laws written saying whites can't marry blacks, so what is your point by bring up some court's definition?
elvismilk 2 years ago
@reflect7 You need faith to believe in the supernatural.
You don't need faith to not believe.
gregrutz 1 year ago 8
@gregrutz What do you believe in...?
reflect7 1 year ago
@reflect7 I don't believe not believing in a religion is a religion.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Comment removed
S1mpleZach12 8 months ago
@reflect7
There are no tenets of atheism. The court ruled they way it did for the protection of atheists/agnostics constitutional rights.
xMKIVxVR6x 1 year ago
@reflect7 The Supreme Court once ruled that a human being could be property, the same as a mule or a piece or rope--what' your point? If the Supreme Court says something it cannot be questioned?
BiffWhitebread13 1 year ago
Even if Atheism was a religion "so what" I say to believers, what's your point? That it might just be nonsense like a religious belief that an eternal being can die and keep living eternally and nutjobs call it a miracle, LOL
elvismilk 2 years ago
This guy obviously does not understand what the :god of the gaps" idea is all about. The idea that alien spores started life on Earth is way more of an explanation than "god did it". And the gap objection was started by a Christian. He didn't want peopel to say the magic starts wherever science doesn't have an explanation.
Also, supernovas make evolution go faster? No one ever said that but this guy.
ManicEightBall 2 years ago
atheism is not a religion, you are blatantly wrong and you are a liar, if you had done even the least bit of research you would realize how wrong you are.
syndicateluv 2 years ago
what makes you think that Atheism is a religion?
I'm sorry to say this, but you need to do some more research before you even think about spilling your fictional beliefs to the world.
your not as smart as think..
I believe in only what I see and not some stupid book that was written thousands of years ago.
people need to wake up and realize the truth before they go into ther biblical bullshit..
fightforfreedom27 3 years ago
follow the link in the details to see the holes in the fosil record.
tedgraham 3 years ago
Yeah, and Christians can't find the tears of Jesus below the cross to prove that he was really there. What's your point?
elvismilk 2 years ago
Evolution takes more faith to believe in than God in my opinion. It is just as much a religion. It takes faith to think we evolved and it takes faith to believe we will do so again in a billion years. So, why is it wrong for us to believe in what we cannot see when they believe in what they cannot see?
Faithbound213 3 years ago
There is as much evidence for the theory of evolution as there is for the theory of electricity or the theory of gravitation. You might as well challenge one of the latter, since you cannot see gravitation or electricity either, right?
Seriously... we have the fossil record, DNA analyses that prove the high degree of relationship between modern apes and humans. Medical science deals with evolving bacteria strains all the time, hence the need for new antiobiotics. We have...
Tastentier 3 years ago
...we have observed speciation through hybridization of fly species both in nature and under lab conditions, where the new species show a different behaviour than either parent species. We have documented cases of insects and plant species changing in color and appearance as they inhabit new environments. We have observed speciation in lab tests where protozoan predators cause changes in a bacteria population, size changes and even the merging into multicellular colonies. We have...
Tastentier 3 years ago
No, you don't just "make up" a gap-filler to answer these unknown questions, you hypothesize as to the cause and then look at the evidence. Scientists are simply saying "look, here's one way it could have happened, but we don't know exactly". There's no dogmatic "gap-filler" involved, which is to be believed without evidence. Besides, most of the hypotheses (not theories, mind you) mentioned here have very little support in the scientific community.
TomOfTheCosmos 3 years ago
So Religion is a fundamental belief. You have to follow doctrines that cannot be changed. Science changes all the time depending on the latest knowledge discovery - its flexible. What you describe as Dawkins or Harris's belief are infact theories - they are happy to change their view if a theory doesn't stand up to scrutiny, religion cannot - its all written in the book (Torah, Bible, Quran, insert bronze age book here)
You really are thick aren't you eh ?
JCthefirst1122 3 years ago 3
RELIGION.a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
FUNDAMENTAL. serving as, or being an essential part of, a foundation or basis; basic; underlying: fundamental principles; the fundamental structure.
JCthefirst1122 3 years ago
RELIGION.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
ATHEISM. means I don't believe in any thing - its not a group - its an individueal statement that you don't belief - no singing no chanting - no groveling.
JCthefirst1122 3 years ago
Wow he must have no read those books. Or at least not understood anything he read. Especially about the "gaps." He's misleading so many Christians that will never in their life read an intellectual book and that's why they think we're stupid and crazy.
purplekayls69 3 years ago
Who's for starting an a-fairyism religion with me? We'll meet once a month to hang out, discuss the ethical issues related to our absence of belief in fairies, and die our hair bald in a-fairyist solidarity!
Rissoleking 3 years ago
Or you can believe in Hogwarts of Harry Potter! No one is saying that parallel universes exists, it's merely a speculation, which seems less plausible than before. Do you need faith to believe that Australia exists, or that the earth is round? Next, there is a difference between philosophical reason and a theological conviction. Agnosticism does not pertain to this topic -- addresses different question. Atheism is a religion only if bald is a hair color and not collecting stamps is a hobby ;]
Savagecuntfart 3 years ago
Why is everyone troubled by the fact that atheism is religious at its core? In 2005, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a Wisconsin official violated an inmate's rights because he didn't treat atheism as a religion when the inmate wanted to start a discussion group in the prison. "Atheism is religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being."
reflect7 3 years ago
Like i said you agree with the fact that religion sucks, because the only reason you try say atheism is a religion is to attack it.
flayed2 3 years ago
you do realize that you are arguing something proven by modern law with a lawyer, right?
ryutenchi 3 years ago
mm it can be i guess if make it that, i just like to be open minded about things. what i don't like is how when your a kid in the intellectual stage, you have the church telling you whats what aned some what controling your thoughts into thinkin there way, you being a kid you don't know any better
thcinmybody 3 years ago
Quoting prisoners and the Wisconsin '7th Circuit Court of Appeals' is a real good way to get people on your side. Now THAT's authoritative!
Rissoleking 3 years ago
By trying to establish atheism as a religion you are implicitly stating that religious knowledge is less respectful.
Well that is correct religious knowledge is less respectful, but i wouldn't think you'd say that.
flayed2 3 years ago
What? I'm just noting that faith is a component of all belief systems -- Indeed, the belief system of atheism is based on faith that there is no God -- The US Supreme Court in Torcaso v Watkins (1961) defined atheism/secular humanism as a religion by its own terms.
reflect7 3 years ago
Not faith - likelihood. And Torcaso v Watkins was about confirming the right to hold office regardless of a belief in a God. Only a single footnote in the court text refers to 'secular humanism' as a religion - but every court (bar the 7th Circuit Court of Thingamyjig, apparently!) since has rejected the claim that atheism is a religion. And the US does not officially recognise atheism as a religion.
Rissoleking 3 years ago
Since don't know the origin of the universe, lets put a sky daddy there guys! And kill those who don't buy the bullshit we've come up with.
You could call it tossing out a theory.
Or you might want to consider calling it changing your mind.
GarethandSarah 3 years ago
I am just going to line up the mistakes!
1.AHTEISM IS NOT A RELIGION! Atheism is a philosophical stand point that you DON'T belive in any supernatural beings.
2.The parallel universe theory came about because many physical calculations were pointing in the same direction and a lot of world leading scientists support this theory although not all. So it is NOT out of science!
3.The fossil record CLEARLY shows gradual evolution. How many thousends of pictures do you want?
Salladsdressing 3 years ago
While atheism is not a religion, it can be fairly said- and many of the comments prove it- that its adherents sometimes defend it with religious fervor. There's nothing wrong with science. Science is the study of natural phenomena. It can add greatly to the quality of all our lives- it does everyday. We live in the natural world, after all. But we serve a supernatural God. Science has its limitations. It is a tool in our hands, and was never meant to be our master.
swansdaughter 3 years ago
Even if these "gap-fillers" are real, and at first glance this seems like a bunch of straw-man arguments and lies, but assuming it is all true, there is one key difference. These "Atheist gap-fillers" would be falsifiable, they could be proved wrong. God isn't.
ThetaOmega 3 years ago
Dennet and Harris are American...you disingenuous "false witness."
Is it okay for you to lie and deceive in order for you to protect your religion?
Does this not make you resemble the Scribes and Pharisee's that your "Lord" stood against?
Think about that.
dfarmer1584 3 years ago
no strawman there. All the atheists do it. But we have one gap filler from an historical document. Evolutionists make up ad-hoc fillers every single day. As a matter of fact, they have had 1000s of gap fillers, all to try to replace our gap filler and they have failed miserabely. But they will keep using other peoples' money(ie christian money) so they can waste our time with more gap fillers. We could use that money for real science.
mwwolf62 3 years ago 2
Atheism is not a religion at all it is just not believing in any kind of faith. Many atheists are atheist in the same way as some people are apolitical meaning they have no interest in politics claiming that it bores them. Some people are bored by religion but are not atheist in the same way as say Dawkins or Hitchins.
patarciepaul 3 years ago
No you are mistaking FAITH AND CONFIDENCE
dragoonthief 3 years ago
you set up a strawman we fill gaps with science reality not with fantasy and the land of make believe. the multiverse theory is well supported by mathimatic we just don't have the tech. to observe but at least we can make predictions watch imagine the 10th dimension. we have observed macro evolution in the fossil record um the field of genetics along proves evolution 99.98% of the scientists believe in evolution we have 1000's transtional forms your lying go to donexdous2 he has vids of trns
benalissa284632 3 years ago
Did you just make all this up? Nothing you said is true except maybe the 10th dimension statement.
Superlvlan 3 years ago
modern breaking theories based on evidence and the scientific method or a hypothesis written 2000 years ago by man... hmm...
JW6639 3 years ago
Well this gap filling as you call it with Panspermia Theory.Personally as a atheist I find it to be just as repugnant as a theist pulling the so called faith card when called on a topic they have no reasoning for.This is where a true person of reason must say I don't know to be correct or of course have a theory based in deductive inclination .
stevenrayd 3 years ago
So, you gave us some hypotheses, alas without mentioning that they are quite controversial in the scientific community. And without mentioning that they are just that: hypotheses. Not even theories. And even scientistific theories are debatable - every scientist admits that. Now compare that to the god of the gaps, that HAS to exist for the theist, it's not debatable, that would be blasphemy? Can you see the difference?
Tastentier 3 years ago
He's got a good point about the sillyness of scientists proposing a multi-verse with no evidence.
dralberthofmann 3 years ago
It's a good point, perhaps, against the straw man he built; however, it is not a good point against the reality of contemporary scholarship.
dfarmer1584 3 years ago
Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair style.
You sir deserve your one-star rating.
astervick 3 years ago 9
The thing with religion is that it never gets upgraded, on the other hand science don't have a problem to discard wrong theories. And philosophy is part of science. If all you religious freaks don't like science go back to your caves.
o0n1 3 years ago 2
Again, no self respecting scientist, Athiest or agnostic who fills in a gap in scientific evidence does so claiming them as facts, they are theories, hypothesies, that seem to fit the greater picture for which there is plenty of evidence. If you and your fellows are prepared to admit that your beliefs (the bible) are also theories that you may never be able to prove conclusively, then you have a point, otherwise you're wasting your time, no-one of critical thinking will take you seriously.
feargusc 3 years ago 5
No they are not theories. Theories (in science) are based on facts. The multi-verse is not theoretical. Neither is it a hypothesis. A scientific hypothesis requires testability. The multi-verse is pure conjecture that is, at least, no better than invoking God. At least it shows a recognition of the materialist's problem.
dralberthofmann 3 years ago
The suggestion that the anthropic principle is what scientists actually believe is a myth. It is however in no conflict with the science and is thus far more likely than the god hypothesis.
artyfarty2 3 years ago
Ok, I'll play. Where did God come from? And when did he get created?
charlesfloyb 4 years ago
Try the Who Created God? video over on the Related Videos section to the right -- See what you think.
reflect7 3 years ago
I saw "atheist religion" and was immediately pissed. Faith is bad. Goodnight, kids.
bigalisme 4 years ago
ok your an idiot, there are many equations to prove the constants in the universe, as for darwin evolution we can see proof, in rapid evolving creatures such as flys can show mutation in a more visible amount of time.
darkz2k3 4 years ago
You are simply missing the point here. Of course we can use good operational science to prove that there are certain mathematical constants in our Universe. Actually they are so finely tuned for life, that it definitely requires a greater leap of faith to be an atheist. As for evolution, no-one disputes that we observe adaptations (within boundaries of a created kind).
For macroevolution we must be able to observe creation of NEW genetic information. This has never been observed. :)
JonathanMcLatchie 4 years ago
We need to adequately specify the distinction between "faith" and "science." The standard sterotype (science vs. religion) is flawed, because some form of faith (in a religion) is required to believe in creation or evolution. Both creation and evolution make claims about an unrepeatable past that was not observed by humans. This is distinctly different from normal science, which is a methodological system governing directly observed, repeatable results (such as laboratory experiments).
JonathanMcLatchie 4 years ago
JonathanMcLatchie: "Both creation and evolution make claims about an unrepeatable past that was not observed by humans."
Forensic science makes claims about an unrepeatable past that was not observed, e.g. a murder with no witness.
Are you saying people are convicted on faith? Or are they convicted on evidence?
darktango78 4 years ago
In 2005, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a Wisconsin official violated an inmate's rights because he didn't treat atheism as a religion. "Atheism is religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being."
reflect7 4 years ago
Thanks for your post -- Indeed, the belief system of atheism is based on faith that there is no God -- The US Supreme Court in Torcaso v Watkins (1961) defined atheism/secular humanism as a religion by its own terms.
reflect7 4 years ago
this video is labeled "atheist Religion" if you think atheism is a religion, then you dont even know what it is to begin with.
icecoldpierre 4 years ago
because we have oodles of evidence that god exists?
12DGAF21 4 years ago
And panspermia is in no way the only explanation for the non-theistic origins of life. There are plenty of authors, like Freeman Dyson and John Maynard Smith, who are talking about the spinning together of processes of metabolism and reproduction from molecules much simpler than DNA. You've not really got a point here. Time to step beyond the bestseller lists ;)
museumoftechno 4 years ago
No, I don't think the parallel universe theory was proposed BECAUSE there's a gap in understanding; from what I've read (quantum physics books rather than evolution vs creation) it sounds like parallel universes is an alternative interpretation of quantum effects long established by experiment.
museumoftechno 4 years ago
godis just a thought
svbl76 4 years ago
The math of M-Theory seem to suggest parallel universes in higher dimensions. This isn't some random guess as you're suggesting in your phrasing. It's coming out of complex mathematics.
But you see, what motive do they have for positing such an idea? Is it comforting? No, in science it doesn't matter how comforting it is, it's just what can be tested and observed or inferred by the math. Infinite Parallel universes isn't a nice thought, but if it's true? So be it.
ScottishAtheist 4 years ago
Well said.
israelx7 4 years ago
Technically, everyone is an agnostic. No one -knows-. Even the harshest de facto atheist is still an agnostic. The difference between a de facto atheist and a generic Christian is that a Christian will make the, to me, absurd claim to know the mind of god. This destructive and divisive logic separates people and closes the door to rational discourse.
Napstrpsx 4 years ago
Here's the mistake that I think you're making, while a lot of atheists/agnostics may claim to believe into some variation of Darwinian or Big-Bang theory related explanation, that doesn't hold true for all atheists. You're making a broad sweep to try and flush them out.
Napstrpsx 4 years ago
Thanks for the insults -- Science doesn't go any further than the naturalistic box. Science is great for exploring the design, order, complexity, fine-tuning, laws of today's anthropic-principled world, but certain questions cannot be asked. If I ask them, and propose something outside the naturalistic box, I'm labeled an idiot.
reflect7 4 years ago
"If I ask them, and propose something outside the naturalistic box, I'm labeled an idiot."
You're only labeled an idiot if you propose the existence of things that are entirely outside everyone's experience without having any evidence to back up your claim. Specifically, the christian God must be more complex than the what he is supposed to "explain".
In other words, if you have no evidence, saying that X caused everything is exactly as informative as saying "I don't know".
olavka 4 years ago
brilliant mate, just brilliant, 5*
utubethereforeican 4 years ago
Science will never answer the questions of first mass-energy, first life, rationality, consciousness, thought, meaning, language, the self -- The scientific gurus won't go there, because these are questions outside science. The passive place to rest, "My religion of science doesn't have all the answers yet." In the agnostic meantime, all others are idiots.
reflect7 4 years ago
"Science will never answer the questions of first mass-energy, first life, rationality, consciousness, thought, meaning, language, the self -- The scientific gurus won't go there, because these are questions outside science"
This is utterly wrong. Rationality, conciousness, thought, language are all in the process of being explained. At this point it's obvious that they are all mostly explained by the physical wiring of the brain, with language taking some input from environment.
olavka 4 years ago
Classic - science doesn't have all the answers (yet) so God has to be the answer - flawed argument. Your next post should be on why your God is the one true God but all the others worhsipped in the world are not...argh, I see, it's all about "faith". Another flawed argument!
Vibr8tor 4 years ago
Maybe his next video will be:
"Randall Niles thinks about...
What it feels like when everyone thinks you are an idiot."
Or maybe:
"Randall Niles thinks about...
How you can express things in such general terms that fairy tales and genetics sound the same."
GurzgleGurzgle 4 years ago
religion is lies, propoganda,fear and brainwashing
coldtaxer 4 years ago 2
learn science, learn about theories, hypothesis and speculation, and then criticize science.
or you already know that, but you somehow bury it deep in your mind?
or, what's worse, you know how science works, but you're on the side of christians just to make money from them.
why don't you go live in a cave if you're so insulted by science?
julianrod 4 years ago 2