ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
@Mogley52 The Bible CLEARLY states that AT A MINIMUM the devil and false prophet will burn forever. It's right there in Revelation 20:10-15. So either the Bible is wrong and you're right, or you're right and the Bible is wrong. But if the Bible is wrong, then how much of it can be trusted, eh?
@Mogley52 Clearly you need to sit down and view the list of videos linked to in this video. EVERYTHING you've claimed has been successfully refuted many times over by people who actually study the science. Just look up the "index of creationist claims" to see how nothing you've said is new or impressive.
The ONLY way you can hope to get around the fact that nearly 100% of all life and earth scientists accept evolutionary theory is to posit some massive, worldwide conspiracy. Good luck!
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
@Mogley52 Bullshit. The fact that the universe had a beginning 13.7 billion years ago does NOT indicate the universe could not have sustained itself. The universe could have spontaneously formed from the quantum void, much like particles appear and disappear "out of nothing." And that's just ONE purely naturalistic hypothesis that is supported by the evidence. Resorting to supernatural explanations is simply irrational, given that there ARE more plausible naturalistic explanations.
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY. Read this Internet article. Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. Given enough time, all of the energy becomes useless and the universe cannot be sustained. Even in an open system, there has to be an already existing energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
@Mogley52 Just because creationists agree with the scientific evidence for entropy doesn't mean they are right and scientists are wrong. And what's your evidence that spontaneous order cannot occur "to any significant degree" from chaos? Crystals form highly ordered structures from simple chemicals, which disproves your claim right there. Entropy is a factor of the universe, but so what? It has no negative implications for evolution, nor positive for creationism.
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
@Mogley52 We KNOW the universe isn't eternal because of the expansion of the universe, redshifting, the cosmic background radiation, etc. They all point to a universe 13.7 billion years old. What caused the universe we don't know for certain yet, but quantum theory predicts multiple universe. There is certainly NO indication that any god exists. My video Deconstructing the Kalam Cosmological Argument shows takes apart the god claim and has yet to be successfully refuted by fundies.
@Mogley52 "Einstein ... didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator."
So you're saying Christianity is false because Einstein didn't believe in the Christian God?
You're making what is called an "Argument From Authority" fallacy. Just because an individual is an expert in one thing does NOT make him an expert in something unrelated.
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
@Mogley52 Creationists have yet to come up with any mechanism that would prevent speciation beyond so-called "kinds" (in fact, they don't even have a scientific definition of "kind"!).
You have some notion that there are "incomplete" evolutionary forms. That's simply wrong, since all species are constantly evolving. Pre-adaptation explains how organs develop from OTHER features used for OTHER purposes.
You REALLY need to read some actual science articles, not refuted creationist bullshit.
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
@Mogley52 Again, you're so wrong. Ring species are real-world examples of species that have evolved into new species from a common ancestor. Species A can breed with B, and B with C, and C with D, but D can no longer breed with A. That's how speciation often occurs.
Nature doesn't have to "invent" new genes, merely transpose, duplicate or otherwise change them and allow random mutation to introduce variation on which natural selection can act.
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
@Mogley52 Wow, you really don't understand even the basics of evolutionary theory, do you? The answer to your question is PRE-ADAPTATION, which anyone who studies evolution knows. It's why "intelligent design" failed in the Dover court case, since scientists produced examples of pre-adapted features that completely refuted all the supposed evidence used to support "irreducible complexity."
And your claim is SO outdated. We've since found Tiktaalik as a fish-tetrapod link.
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
@Mogley52 The reason legitimate scientists tend not to debate creationists is because debates are NOT the proper forum for evaluating scientific evidence. Any scientist knows this. You present your position in science journals, and the claims have to be THOROUGHLY supported, and they have to pass rigorous testing by other scientists. Creationists are virtually NEVER scientists in relevant fields and they almost NEVER submit articles for publication...because they FAIL to support their claims.
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
@Mogley52 As an evolutionary scientist myself, I can tell you obviously don't understand the arguments. There are PLENTY of arguments as to specific pathways and rates of evolution, but there is virtually 100% agreement that evolution occurred.
All you need for proof of macro-evolution is to look at the discovery of Tiktaalik, which I describe in my video on why scientists don't believe in creationism. If evolutionary theory weren't true, its discovery would have been impossible.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
@Mogley52 No, explaining how the diversity of species EVOLVED through natural mechanisms means no supernatural explanation is NECESSARY.
If you really don't understand how cells could evolve from non-living material, then you need to study abiogenesis. If you're not willing to do that, at least google "how life evolved" and study the New Scientist link to see just one example of the steps that may have occurred using purely naturalistic means. Chemicals to cells was not just one step.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a trait survives, that survival is called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
@Mogley52 So now you're confusing chemical evolution with biological evolution. Sorry, but even if a god or alien created the first life form, it wouldn't refute evolution, since evolution is about diversification SINCE abiogenesis.
You have a typically naive creationist misunderstanding of how abiogenesis would work. Self-reproducing chemicals went through many steps before they became ANYTHING like a cell.
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
@Mogley52 OF COURSE apes are comfortable how they walk. EVERY species is comfortable in its locomotion. But if their environment changes, and mutations occur that vary locomotion enough to be more accommodating for the new environment, they will be selected for.
Human evolution is well documented. I suggest you read what ACTUAL paleontologists and physical anthropologists have learned, rather than relying on provably non-scientific sources like AiG.
GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information can't happen by chance, so this is the best explanation. So-called junk DNA is not junk. These "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body). Read my Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
@Mogley52 Really? So the very different forms of eyes between insects, mollusks and mammals is evidence of multiple designers?
Genetic information IS modified by chance mutations. EACH of us contains 100-200 mutations. And junk DNA is a fact, as removing it with no adverse affect proves. That some people have mistaken active DNA for junk DNA doesn't change this.
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, etc., etc.). Also, read my Internet article ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH. In the Earth's past, powerful volcanic activity spewed life-containing dirt into space very possibly reaching Mars .
@Mogley52 Sorry, but when 99.85% of all life and earth scientists agree that evolutionary theory is accurate and creationism isn't even scientific, that should be a hint right there that something's wrong with your claim. I've studied creationism for years and even have my degree in evolution. Nobody who understands science can accept the shoddy claims of creationists. That's why they LOSE in courts.
Every claim you've made has been thoroughly refuted.
Alas, creationists just say it's "microevolution within the same biblical 'kind'." Of course, they lump ALL bacteria into a single "kind," which is the equivalent of lumping ALL animals into the same kind. But if they don't understand biology, why should they understand taxonomy?
So if you have 15 minutes and want to check it out and evaluate my evidence, I would GREATLY appreciative. If not, thats totally cool. But I just haven't had anyone who knows more than me about this kind of stuff check the videos out yet, so I don't know if they are really any good... Anyways, great videos! Thanks!
Hey Underlings! I can't believe someone finally assembled a video stockpile like this! This is just amazing! I have watched so many masterpieces of logic and reason dealing with the subjects in the title of this video, and I always figured I would make a list and put them somewhere. But this is so much better! On a much less interesting note, I just put out a 2 video series called "Why biblical creation never happened" in which I listed the most compelling evidence I found to combat creationism.
This is BRILLIANT. As a science student, we understand that you can never learn enough in this world.....what is your motive? Just to raise awareness and provide people with knowledge, I believe? :) thank you.
My motive is exactly as you say, but I also consider it an arsenal to use in arming one's self against religious fundamentalists trying to shape society according to their religious dogma. There are just so many good videos out there, but trying to find them can be a real chore. This should help. Let others know about it! And let me know if you discover any videos that should be added.
Most Christians don't understand the scientific arguments supporting creationism. Please read my popular Internet articles: NATURAL LIMITS OF EVOLUTION, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS, HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM, SECOND COMING OF CHRIST MISUNDERSTOOD, CONSERVATIVE THEOLOGIAN NO LONGER BELIEVES ETERNAL TORMENT (Explains why eternal punishment in the Bible does not mean eternal torment).
The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence and power for the origin and order of the universe. Science shows that the universe has no ability to have sustained itself from eternity. Therefore, it requires a beginning. That beginning has to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. Please peruse my science articles under my name: Babu G. Ranganathan.
@Mogley52 Actually, science does no such thing. We have solid evidence that the universe was formed 13.7 billion years ago, that cosmological constants could vary and still sustain planets, that the cosmic void can indeed generate "something from nothing" (we even see it at the quantum level) and even some evidence that multiple universes exist. NONE of that requires or even implies a supernatural intelligence...and in fact there is no evidence for ANYTHING supernatural.
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Species couldn't have survived while their vital tissues, organs, biological systems were still evolving. Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
@Underlings No Problem - I don't see "Defender of Reason" - She left (forced I think) but her videos are available at vidkid40 - not sure if this was a fan - very very comprehensive did you just not sleep :-) and you have one of my all time favs - TheoreticalBullshit's God's Checklist 2.0 - How come you don't have 100K subscribers!
This is one of the BEST videos I've ever seen. THANK YOU so very much sir.You are a hero of sorts.(not a sandwich). Making life easier for all mankind puts you in a class with few equals. Bravo!Bravo! Thanks again Derek.
@preptimenow :-) Glad you like the list! Most videos one just creates and that's it, but this one has to be periodically maintained. So I appreciated the acknowledgement, and I hope you'll let others know about it.
@sevenworldscollide I'll take the hugs and raise you a high-five. I hope you make good use of this resource (and keep an eye on it--I update it periodically). Cheers.
@macnutz Oh, you've no idea.... Take the average length of a video and multiply it by 800 to find the MINIMAL amount of time I spent viewing videos (since some of them I had viewed long ago and wanted to re-view them to be sure they fit). But I think it was worth it.
And thanks! I'm glad to hear you'll find it useful.
@rastarigate That's some good stuff. I hadn't seen it before (which is exactly why I made this list). Look for it to be added to the list over the next day or so.
@rastarigate On second thought, while the production quality is excellent, and the arguments are quite valid, a lot of the content is more tit-for-tat insults than refutations of creationist claims. They're still great videos...but the intent of my list is to provide videos geared mostly to educate and use in debates--more useful to all rather than in that one specific argument.
Not an easy call, though--I like his work, and others I've included do provide ad hominems too.
@Underlings Insults are not ad hominems fyi. Just because someone makes an insulting statement, it isn't an ad hominem until the premise is made: "Because you're [enter insult here] you're wrong".
Most video debunking creationist argument, or theist argument for that matter, can be largely insulting, yet contain no ad hominems...
But this is a common mistake to confuse insults as ad hominems. It's a pet peeve of mine. Just my two cents
Again this is no personal attack on you - I just voiced my opinion here because your video seems to be promoting a number of videos by different people in the atheist community. I don't have a single problem with religion. It is not the religion's fault that homosexuals are treated poorly. The bible is very very vague on homosexuality. It is an old text that many people believe in to give them hope. It is not Christianity itself, but homophobics who abuse christianity to push their agenda.
@locomotiveman100 I'm not taking it as a personal attack. But yes, I'm promoting a number of videos from the atheist community...in fact that's the whole point of this meta-video.
However, I do disagree that the Bible is "very vague" on homosexuality--at least from the fundie POV (which is the problematic one). A few examples:
@MrNDSteinbach Can you point out which ones were not atheists? Also, I think it depends on your definition. As Underlings commented above, "agnostic" and "atheist" are, or can be, one in the same (with variations, I realize.) The technical definition is "without theism", so in that respect all the men above, save perhaps Darwin, fits this description (although Darwin drifted toward agnosticism in his later years.)
@MrNDSteinbach Thanks... nice reply. Technically a 'theism' is a belief system pertaining "to" a deity. So a "deist" would have an unknown deity without any theology (or theism). Take Jefferson: "Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Is this the statement of a deist or an agnostic? I think it's semantics in the end. Sagan called his death "a dreamless sleep with no awakening."
@MrNDSteinbach No, most of them were deists...but would have been atheists had it been an option in their day. Still, I agree. The poster should read "non-Christians," perhaps.
Thank You! What a lot of work you put into this. I will be sending select videos to the creationists that I argue with. Thanks for all the effort put in.
Great! I took a look at some of the videos. I can only conclude that---from a free-thinker's point of view---videos that attract thumbs-downs from creationists must be excellent ;)
Since creationists have no evidence and no irrefutable apologetic arguments, I guess that thumbing videos down feels like a potent argument for "God" and the "Cree-A-Tor". About as effective as prayer!.
This an excellent idea ;D Thanks for putting in so much effort.
My only suggestion--right now--would be to list the channels to which you have linked frequently. I had already found most of them, but it might be helpful to those who haven't.
Sorry. I meant urls to the actual channels: eg AronRa, AntiCitizenX, etc.
I don't mean to detract from your excellent, by-topic catalog of videos, I merely meant that you have listed videos by a manageable range of uploaders.
@musekiteer Ah, so you mean a separate list of channel names? I do have them listed in order by channel name, and figured anyone interested in more work by them can simply click on a video, which gives them easy access to the channel. But if there's demand for a list of channels, I could do that.
@proveritam True...but then there'd be little point in doing this list, since people would still have to slog through a lot of videos, figure out what they're about from often non-descriptive names, and wouldn't have an easy way to search for specific topics.
I see your point. However, anyone who found the list of channel names (if you choose to include it) would *already* have found your very useful list of videos.
@proveritam Well, each video has the channel name listed with it, and they're all in order by channel name...so essentially the list is already there.
I've spent a lot of time hunting down videos, and I STILL keep finding new ones. Rather than everyone having to do the same, having one consolidated list helps--especially for those who don't have the time to hunt down the videos themselves.
I can see that you do not want a sublist. That is fine. I had already scanned through your list and, on the assumption that one good video usually follows another, subbed to most of the channels that I had not yet found.
I think that your consolidated list is excellent--thanks ;D
Two suggestions off the Dawkins channel: “ Why We Believe in Gods - Andy Thomson ”, and “ 'Morality: From the Heavens or From Nature?' by Dr. Andy Thomson, AAI 2009 ”. Long, but useful.
@wannadieessay Hey everyone, wannadieessay is a perfect example of the kind of person I talk about in my video titled "What the Followers of an Evil God Would be Like." Fundies are just not rational people--instead of making cogent arguments to support their claims, they resort to ad hominems like wannadieessay's. And their desire to warp humanity to their sick agenda is exactly the motivation that keeps me making these videos.
@vachief Actually, I'm not gay, although I have gay friends and have nothing at all against them.
But I don't know what you mean by Jesus speaking of "sick agenda." Unless you mean the concept of burning in hell after you die simply for not believing in him (especially when he doesn't provide any evidence he exists). THAT is one truly sick agenda.
@Underlings ..I really don't care if your gay or not, but your comments are irresponsible and juvenile. Nobody burns in hell after they die anyway, that is pure Roman propaganda that was sorted out 500 years ago. Speaking of evidence, all the archeology in the past 150 years only authenticates rather than refutes the Biblical text. I have looked at dozens of artifacts from antiquity that verify wth 100% accuracy. How many do you require?
@vachief Seriously? Someone calls me a "douchebag, pedofile," etc. and I reply without insults, but simply to point out this is why I make these videos...but I'M irresponsible and juvenile? Sheesh.
Millions of FUNDIES believe in hell, and THEY'RE the ones I argue against (as stated at the beginning of the series and on my channel). Thus hell is a GIVEN with them.
Even ONE piece of hard evidence to support ANY supernatural claim in the Bible would be enough. Got even one?
@Underlings ...How about the Black Obelisk, or perhaps the Taylor Prism or the Cyrus Cylinder. Out of dozens, these three substantciate the historical timeline in the books of Isaiah, 2 Chronicles and 2 Kings. Not a single artifact has ever been found that refutes the Biblical narrative. The reformation identified the meaning of hell as death. God created mankind, if they go bad, does he not have authority to destroy what he creates? If not , why not?
@vachief Evidence for MUNDANE events in the Bible is hardly evidence for even a single SUPERNATURAL event (which is what I asked you to provide). To date science has only debunked supernatural claims--not once has it gone the other way.
The fundie God is all-knowing and all-powerful. Thus, if humans "go bad," it is entirely his fault. You should watch my evil God video series--it addresses this issue and much more.
@Underlings I was showing you that the historical accuracy of the Holy Bible...is indisputable ...with archeological corrboration. Your not familiar with the Biblical text, that Sir, is painfully obvious. If you wish to critique a book, you should at least read it first. Your work is amateurish.
@vachief That some of the Bible may be historically accurate is not in question. It's just irrelevant. If I claimed Frederick Walton invented linoleum in 1860 and that I can read minds, the accuracy of the first claim has ZERO relevance to the second claim.
I've read the Bible through twice, plus read much of up to a DOZEN different versions, plus I query biblical scholar colleagues on confusing passages. And the fact that no fundie has successfully disputed my claims shows my "amateurishness."
@Underlings ...Of the thousands of artifacts we now have in museum collections..do you know of any that refute the biblical timeline? I haven't seen any, not even one. I use a KJV for comparison, as it is the bench mark for a lot of reasons. Evolution claims that monkeys turn into men...I know as I've been to the Smithsonian...that is what they teach, although I hear the cry of denial constantly. Is it the same monkey business that Jefferson was playing with?...smells like it. lol
@vachief Radiometric dating, cosmic background radiation, redshifting, lake varves, ice cores, mutation rates and MUCH more all contradict the biblical timeline.
And if you have even a BASIC understanding of evolution you'd know we share a COMMON ANCESTOR with modern monkeys, although cladistically we're all STILL monkeys, just as we're STILL mammals. Monkeys didn't "turn into men." That's a strawman argument.
If you really care to know the science, let me know and I'll help you learn it.
@Underlings ..According to the Smithsonian, monkeys turn into men, after a period of time. I've been there and viewed all the pictures. Maybe you should call... them, as I consider it all ridiculous nonsense anyway. Last I heard conjecture does not constitute scientific fact. If they would stop teaching it as an absolute, it probably wouldn't bother me to much.
@vachief Bullshit. The Smithsonian displays the science, which is that we share a common ancestor.
Evolution is THE most verified theory in biology--hardly "conjecture"--and there is no competing theory that can even begin to account for all the evidence.
Facts are used to VALIDATE theories, they're not the highest level of certainty. THEORIES are the highest level of certainty in science, but they are NEVER taken as absolute. NO theory can be proven TRUE, only FALSE. See /watch?v=WqznURlEWI0
@Underlings ..Millions of people trot through the Smithsonian every year dragging thier kids with them. The monkey to man exhibit is placed in such a manner to get maximum viewing. Talk about a subliminal sales pitch...kids see it and it sinks in deep. It's not long, with the help of steady reinforcement at school as well as the Discovery Channel, then toss in a little cannabis and Voila...a whole new batch of Lennon disiples. Very clever, I'll give them that.
@vachief Next time you visit the Smithsonian, actually READ the plaques with the exhibit to understand what it's saying. Don't blame evolutionary science for your lack of attention.
99.85% of all life and earth scientists accept evolutionary theory as accurate. Do you honestly believe virtually ALL of them--the brightest and most educated among us--are wrong about evolution, while creationists like you who don't understand even the basic principles of evolution are correct? Seriously?
@Underlings .....Principles built on a house of cards you mean...which is about as nutty as saying that God is evil. It's not science...it's hash pipe nonsense, very popular nonsence in this day and age. Do you think eight year olds read the plaques? gimme a break.
@vachief Seriously? You think that a theory based on the scientific method--the most rigorous and strictly evidence-based system of knowledge we have--that's accepted by virtually the entire scientific community because it's supported by virtually all the evidence..is a house of cards?
Plus you think the god of the Bible isn't evil? View my videos on the topic, since I make a clear case that not one of you fundies has been able to successfully dispute.
@Underlings ...Evolution theories are junk science, it's alternative religion, this is what happens when some quacky academics invade the theology department. This "God is Evil" tangent thing that you have run off on doesn't mesh with reality, had you spent a significant time reading you would know that.
@vachief The ONLY relevant scientists who say that evolution is junk science are religious fundamentalists...which should be indicative of just how trustworthy they are. But since virtually the ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY accepts evolutionary theory, that should tell you something. Either the experts on what constitutes good science and who are most qualified to evaluate the evidence are all wrong...or the non-experts are wrong. Or do you think there's a global conspiracy among scientists?
@vachief I'll put the God is evil subject in its own thread here. My claim is that the Bible and the universe itself prove beyond all reasonable doubt that IF the God of the Bible exists, he is the most evil creature in existence. I prove he condones or commits murder, rape, slavery, theft, child abuse, cannibalism, torture, incest, lying, betrayal, etc. By our very own standards God is utterly evil and deserves only our disgust.
@Underlings ....I know your wrong...I own a Holy Bible...and I've been reading it for years. And your trying to convince people that evolution is'nt a religion? LOL You and Dawkins....make me laugh.
@vachief I'm wrong? Okay, then prove it. View my video series that makes my case and then try to prove me wrong. Here's the intro:
/watch?v=KbQQ6MSP7kw
Go ahead. Prove me wrong. I dare you. :-)
Evolution is a scientific conclusion. It has no gods, no religious ceremonies, no belief based on faith, and no claim for ANYTHING supernatural. So tell me...how is it a religion? Next time, why don't you actually LOOK UP the definition before you put your foot in your mouth.
@Underlings ....Your kidding me ...right? Cannabalism? Rape? Slavery?.....Do me a big favor...go buy yourself a KJV...instead of one of these ridiculous "modern" versions. A lot of these so-called "bibles" actually have opposite readings from the KJV, the people that publish them really ought to be put in jail. This is a huge issue by itself, but for the sake of our discussion, let's use the KJV, if you don't have one, buy one, if your interested in biblical understanding.
@vachief I studied MAINLY the KJV and NIV, but also parts of a dozen other versions. Jeremiah 19:9 and Deuteronomy 28:53 are just TWO examples of God threatening people with cannibalism. Leviticus 25:44-46 proves God condones slavery. In Deuteronomy 22:28-29 God forces rape victims to marry their rapists. He's a sick bastard.
THAT is evidence God is evil. Just try to spin it so that his actions are actually GOOD. Good luck.
@Underlings.Read the whole chapter, Jeremiah 19 the people had turned to Baal worship and God punished them by causing them to eat the flesh of thier own children. It's terrible, I agree but to God the worship of false gods is worse. We have documentation in this chapter of the wrath of God, and it is'nt pleasent. Under the new covenant punishment is defered to the end, but the wrath is still the same about how God deals with men who sin. Do I fear God? Yes I do, because of stories like these.
@vachief Read the whole chapter? I read it MANY times during my research. I DO know the context. Do you honestly think that forcing people to EAT their own children is less evil than worshiping other gods? Two wrongs to NOT make a right. And you (and God) are un-American, because freedom to worship other gods is right there in our Bill of Rights.
You admit you fear God for the evil things he does to people, yet you still worship him. You, sir, are a fucking coward and you disgust me.
@Underlings ...You don't get to decide what is right and wrong in regard to the actions of God.....that is the whole point. God and men are not on the same level. Because I accept Gods' offer.....you call that cowardice? I will gladly do as God has asked, I know that sin is wrong, but I'm by no means perfect in the eyes of men. So what is the answer then? Shall we sin with abandon and give up our salvation? Does that make sense to you?
@UnderlingsConcerning Jeremiah 19...Do really believe after all you have read, that God enjoys giving out these kinds of punishments? That is sort of what your implying, that God gets a kick out of punishing people just for fun. God did not threaten them with cannabalism. His judgement upon them was a result of what they had done. They could have prevented the whole thing. That is the message today, God does love his creation, but at the same time will not tolerate willfull disobediance.
@vachief OF COURSE God enjoys giving out such punishments. He is all-powerful and all-knowing, so he could EASILY avoid committing all the atrocities. Just as he unleashed Satan on humanity, he does it all because he WANTS it to be so, not because he HAS to.
Do I REALLY have to explain that forcing someone to eat their own children isn't love? You punish a disobedient child by sending him to his room to teach him to behave, you don't torture him for ETERNITY. Atheist morality is FAR more just.
@Underlings ...Evolution is argued as an absolute, I know, as I speak with the evolutionist crowd quite often. These people are born again believers, with the tenacity of a seasoned theologian. From the Oxford dictionary..1.) the belief in a superhuman controlling power. Sure sounds like this mysterious "force" that evolutionists talk about. 3.) a particular system of faith and worship. You have faith and you "worship" science. 5.) a thing strongly devoted to. That one is obvious. lol
@vachief AGAIN you're wrong. There is not a SINGLE theory in science that is argued as an "absolute." In fact ALL theories are considered tenuous and MUST be changed or abandoned if evidence comes along that cannot be reconciled with current theory.
WHAT "force" are you talking about? Natural selection and mutation? BOTH are easily verified in nature--and even fundies don't deny that much.
In what way do we worship science? Respect for its proven effectiveness does NOT constitute "worship."
@Underlings ...The "force" is something I heard from another evolutionist. A fish can not develop the desire to walk on land, or by it's own volition grow 2 pairs of legs...so what is the driver? We have never seen an animal grow appendages as the result of the natural selection process. The real truth is simple...animals haven't changed hardly at all....the geological record confirms it. An Ant is still an ant.
@vachief Ah, sounds like you misunderstood the guy. There's nothing "mysterious" about SELECTIVE force. All it means is that in any population where there is genetic variation, some individuals will have a greater chance of surviving to reproduce, which will cause their genes to spread throughout the population. Nothing mysterious there.
Name even ONE biologist who says evolution claims new appendages would evolve in our lifetimes. That's NOT evolution, it's mutation.
@Underlings ...That is why evolution is a religion....because you have "faith" in something that no man has ever observed. On the other hand....we have have this man called Jesus....whom thousands observed. Your religion requires a higher level of "faith" then mine does.....mine is documented.
@vachief Wrong yet AGAIN. We HAVE observed evolution--we see it DAILY in labs and in nature. Also, no one has seen the nucleus of an atom, but we have inferred it accurately enough to create nuclear power and weaponry. Whoever said one must observe DIRECTLY or it's a religion obviously doesn't know what he's talking about.
Why do you try to bring evolution down to the level of faith? Is it because you know scientific evidence is superior to faith?
@vachief Do you understand the difference between worship and respect? Worship requires reverential love; respect does not. I respect the effectiveness of science, which has a track record that far exceeds any other system of knowledge known to humanity. Faith has only resulted in confusion, conflict and thousands of bickering religions. Science EMBRACES change when it discovers something wrong...and that is precisely why it deserves the respect religion does not.
@Underlings Animals have changed DRASTICALLY over hundreds of millions of years. Look at fossils from the Cambrian. Apart from horseshoe crabs, do ANY of them look like ANYTHING alive today? Any birds, mammals, dinosaurs...even ANY ants? Of course not--not even slightly. But if you follow how they've changed through the fossil record, you can see diversification and change leading up to today's species.
If you don't actually READ UP on the evidence, of course you believe as you do! Sheesh.
Dudes give it a rest already lol. You guys have actually made me renounce atheism recently. I'm now happily agnostic. And no I don't care about your dictionary definition. And no I also do not slant towards Christianity or any other religion at all. I too have grave doubts about their logical cohesion. I just don't spend my day arguing with people who genuinely believe things differently to them. Just because some people are creationists, does not mean the world is going to end tomorrow.
In fact, I know someone is probably going to now bring up creationism in schools and how it will ruin society, or september the 11th, but you guys fail as you are using extreme examples to justify your argument. You are being close minded and petty just to prove you are smarter than everyone else. The majority, no in fact 99.9999% of religious people cause no harm to society. Those that do usually hide behind it with ulterior motives, and you strawman their religion because it is an easy target.
@locomotiveman100 When you are raised to believe that science is wrong and religion is right, that all you have to do is ask god for financial security and truly believe and he will give it to you without having to work hard for it, that is detrimental to society. That's how i was raised, god will just give you things if you believe hard enough because the bible says so, faith the size of a mustard seed blah blah blah. Religion promotes ignorance to all believers and that causes harm to society.
@rod31808 If you are implying all religious people are lazy, then I can't help you. In fact, a lot of them, particuarly Christians, are motivated to work harder and be more moral individuals, because they believe that life is a test.. Religion may "promote ignorance" in small insignificant parts of a person's life, but it can also promote a society that works well together, and thrives. Your argument purposefully chooses a black and white stance - Us vs. Them. This is a grey issue.
Human nature is the root of evil, not these ancient beliefs. Religion is just one of the many many many many things used by humans to justify evil actions, and in fact it is just that they are morally impaired. Try a little apathy and open mindedness. You'll all be a lot happier. I swear to Richard DAWKINS!!!! Oh by the way when science is your god, you are also putting faith in a very fallible, constantly revised and innacurate religion. Have a nice day : )
You are compairing science to the dogma of religion. And then you go on to say that science changes constantly. How is it like religion then if it is revised?
And please pick up a dictionary and look up what the word religion means. It seems some people like to use it on everything these days.
@byteresistor lol i love irony. Pick up a dictionary? haha. Ever heard of a linguistic device man? Oh wait, you have because you talked about burning stupid didn't you? How would one burn stupid? This is why you guys annoy me. You're alll hypocrites. Number 1 logical fail = misinterpreting a simple analogy when you know what it means. 2 = facetious ad hominem attack.3 = The interpretation of religion is revised constantly lol. Many scripts are ambiguous and people just read the meaning they want
@locomotiveman100 If you think agnostic is a "lesser version" of atheism, then you need to view the videos I have on my list on exactly that topic. Agnosticism deals with knowledge and atheism deals with belief, which is why most of us are agnostic atheists.
And your claims about the lack of harm religion causes is very telling. There are several excellent videos that dispute that clearly. You would really benefit by educating yourself with these videos.
@Underlings - I know there is a technical difference between atheism and agnosticism. But I have already stated that I do not care about menial semantics. It doesn't do anything to persuade people of ardent faith. If you really want to attack religion, you cannot do it with logic, because they have chosen to ignore it in one small area of their life because it makes many of them happy. Religion is slowly dying on its own, not because of Dawkins, but because of general improvements in education.
@locomotiveman100 You don't care about "menial semantics"? Using agnosticism as a "less extreme version of atheism" is like calling a Christian a Muslim, in that you convey serious ignorance of the differences and confuse the intent of your point.
AGAIN, if you viewed the appropriate videos from my list you'd see that there are videos that specifically address your claim about religion dying. Why would you make claims about something you haven't studied? That's what fundies do.
@locomotiveman100 Furthermore, what "improvements in education" are you talking about? Education is getting WORSE in the US, not better.
But outspoken "militant atheists" like Dawkins, Myers, Hitchins, many of us on YouTube, etc. ARE helping to educate those who will listen. Religions themselves are contributing another part of the solution, with their hypocrisy toward gays and abuse of children.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 1 week ago
@Mogley52 The Bible CLEARLY states that AT A MINIMUM the devil and false prophet will burn forever. It's right there in Revelation 20:10-15. So either the Bible is wrong and you're right, or you're right and the Bible is wrong. But if the Bible is wrong, then how much of it can be trusted, eh?
Underlings 1 week ago
@Mogley52 Clearly you need to sit down and view the list of videos linked to in this video. EVERYTHING you've claimed has been successfully refuted many times over by people who actually study the science. Just look up the "index of creationist claims" to see how nothing you've said is new or impressive.
The ONLY way you can hope to get around the fact that nearly 100% of all life and earth scientists accept evolutionary theory is to posit some massive, worldwide conspiracy. Good luck!
Underlings 1 week ago
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 1 week ago
@Mogley52 Bullshit. The fact that the universe had a beginning 13.7 billion years ago does NOT indicate the universe could not have sustained itself. The universe could have spontaneously formed from the quantum void, much like particles appear and disappear "out of nothing." And that's just ONE purely naturalistic hypothesis that is supported by the evidence. Resorting to supernatural explanations is simply irrational, given that there ARE more plausible naturalistic explanations.
Underlings 1 week ago
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY. Read this Internet article. Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. Given enough time, all of the energy becomes useless and the universe cannot be sustained. Even in an open system, there has to be an already existing energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
Mogley52 1 week ago
@Mogley52 Just because creationists agree with the scientific evidence for entropy doesn't mean they are right and scientists are wrong. And what's your evidence that spontaneous order cannot occur "to any significant degree" from chaos? Crystals form highly ordered structures from simple chemicals, which disproves your claim right there. Entropy is a factor of the universe, but so what? It has no negative implications for evolution, nor positive for creationism.
Underlings 1 week ago
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
Mogley52 1 week ago
@Mogley52 We KNOW the universe isn't eternal because of the expansion of the universe, redshifting, the cosmic background radiation, etc. They all point to a universe 13.7 billion years old. What caused the universe we don't know for certain yet, but quantum theory predicts multiple universe. There is certainly NO indication that any god exists. My video Deconstructing the Kalam Cosmological Argument shows takes apart the god claim and has yet to be successfully refuted by fundies.
Underlings 1 week ago
@Mogley52 "Einstein ... didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator."
So you're saying Christianity is false because Einstein didn't believe in the Christian God?
You're making what is called an "Argument From Authority" fallacy. Just because an individual is an expert in one thing does NOT make him an expert in something unrelated.
Underlings 1 week ago
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 1 week ago
@Mogley52 Creationists have yet to come up with any mechanism that would prevent speciation beyond so-called "kinds" (in fact, they don't even have a scientific definition of "kind"!).
You have some notion that there are "incomplete" evolutionary forms. That's simply wrong, since all species are constantly evolving. Pre-adaptation explains how organs develop from OTHER features used for OTHER purposes.
You REALLY need to read some actual science articles, not refuted creationist bullshit.
Underlings 1 week ago
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 1 week ago
@Mogley52 Again, you're so wrong. Ring species are real-world examples of species that have evolved into new species from a common ancestor. Species A can breed with B, and B with C, and C with D, but D can no longer breed with A. That's how speciation often occurs.
Nature doesn't have to "invent" new genes, merely transpose, duplicate or otherwise change them and allow random mutation to introduce variation on which natural selection can act.
Underlings 1 week ago
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 1 week ago
@Mogley52 Wow, you really don't understand even the basics of evolutionary theory, do you? The answer to your question is PRE-ADAPTATION, which anyone who studies evolution knows. It's why "intelligent design" failed in the Dover court case, since scientists produced examples of pre-adapted features that completely refuted all the supposed evidence used to support "irreducible complexity."
And your claim is SO outdated. We've since found Tiktaalik as a fish-tetrapod link.
Underlings 1 week ago
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
Mogley52 1 week ago
@Mogley52 The reason legitimate scientists tend not to debate creationists is because debates are NOT the proper forum for evaluating scientific evidence. Any scientist knows this. You present your position in science journals, and the claims have to be THOROUGHLY supported, and they have to pass rigorous testing by other scientists. Creationists are virtually NEVER scientists in relevant fields and they almost NEVER submit articles for publication...because they FAIL to support their claims.
Underlings 1 week ago
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
Mogley52 1 week ago
@Mogley52 As an evolutionary scientist myself, I can tell you obviously don't understand the arguments. There are PLENTY of arguments as to specific pathways and rates of evolution, but there is virtually 100% agreement that evolution occurred.
All you need for proof of macro-evolution is to look at the discovery of Tiktaalik, which I describe in my video on why scientists don't believe in creationism. If evolutionary theory weren't true, its discovery would have been impossible.
Underlings 1 week ago
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 1 week ago
@Mogley52 No, explaining how the diversity of species EVOLVED through natural mechanisms means no supernatural explanation is NECESSARY.
If you really don't understand how cells could evolve from non-living material, then you need to study abiogenesis. If you're not willing to do that, at least google "how life evolved" and study the New Scientist link to see just one example of the steps that may have occurred using purely naturalistic means. Chemicals to cells was not just one step.
Underlings 1 week ago
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a trait survives, that survival is called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 1 week ago
@Mogley52 So now you're confusing chemical evolution with biological evolution. Sorry, but even if a god or alien created the first life form, it wouldn't refute evolution, since evolution is about diversification SINCE abiogenesis.
You have a typically naive creationist misunderstanding of how abiogenesis would work. Self-reproducing chemicals went through many steps before they became ANYTHING like a cell.
Underlings 1 week ago
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 1 week ago
@Mogley52 OF COURSE apes are comfortable how they walk. EVERY species is comfortable in its locomotion. But if their environment changes, and mutations occur that vary locomotion enough to be more accommodating for the new environment, they will be selected for.
Human evolution is well documented. I suggest you read what ACTUAL paleontologists and physical anthropologists have learned, rather than relying on provably non-scientific sources like AiG.
Underlings 1 week ago
GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information can't happen by chance, so this is the best explanation. So-called junk DNA is not junk. These "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body). Read my Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 1 week ago
@Mogley52 Really? So the very different forms of eyes between insects, mollusks and mammals is evidence of multiple designers?
Genetic information IS modified by chance mutations. EACH of us contains 100-200 mutations. And junk DNA is a fact, as removing it with no adverse affect proves. That some people have mistaken active DNA for junk DNA doesn't change this.
Underlings 1 week ago
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, etc., etc.). Also, read my Internet article ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH. In the Earth's past, powerful volcanic activity spewed life-containing dirt into space very possibly reaching Mars .
Mogley52 1 week ago
@Mogley52 Sorry, but when 99.85% of all life and earth scientists agree that evolutionary theory is accurate and creationism isn't even scientific, that should be a hint right there that something's wrong with your claim. I've studied creationism for years and even have my degree in evolution. Nobody who understands science can accept the shoddy claims of creationists. That's why they LOSE in courts.
Every claim you've made has been thoroughly refuted.
Underlings 1 week ago
Here is a cute one called "A Creationist Visits the Doctor". The last comment made me chuckle It is by hostroute 1:11 in length
I tried to include the link, but it dids not work.
doyoulookup 4 months ago
@doyoulookup Amusing. :-)
Alas, creationists just say it's "microevolution within the same biblical 'kind'." Of course, they lump ALL bacteria into a single "kind," which is the equivalent of lumping ALL animals into the same kind. But if they don't understand biology, why should they understand taxonomy?
Underlings 4 months ago
What a tremendous amount of work you have put into compiling this list. Thank you.
doyoulookup 4 months ago
@doyoulookup Thank you for appreciating all the work this took!
Underlings 4 months ago
I just visited the web page that you set up, and I watched a few videos. Good job and thanks.
comingatchu 4 months ago
@comingatchu You're most welcome.
Underlings 4 months ago
So if you have 15 minutes and want to check it out and evaluate my evidence, I would GREATLY appreciative. If not, thats totally cool. But I just haven't had anyone who knows more than me about this kind of stuff check the videos out yet, so I don't know if they are really any good... Anyways, great videos! Thanks!
ItsEasyIfYouThink 5 months ago
Hey Underlings! I can't believe someone finally assembled a video stockpile like this! This is just amazing! I have watched so many masterpieces of logic and reason dealing with the subjects in the title of this video, and I always figured I would make a list and put them somewhere. But this is so much better! On a much less interesting note, I just put out a 2 video series called "Why biblical creation never happened" in which I listed the most compelling evidence I found to combat creationism.
ItsEasyIfYouThink 5 months ago
@ItsEasyIfYouThink Thanks! It took a hell of a lot more work than any of my other videos, so I appreciate the appreciation. ;-)
I'll check your videos out.
Underlings 5 months ago
This is BRILLIANT. As a science student, we understand that you can never learn enough in this world.....what is your motive? Just to raise awareness and provide people with knowledge, I believe? :) thank you.
AmateurVisions 6 months ago
@AmateurVisions Thank you!
My motive is exactly as you say, but I also consider it an arsenal to use in arming one's self against religious fundamentalists trying to shape society according to their religious dogma. There are just so many good videos out there, but trying to find them can be a real chore. This should help. Let others know about it! And let me know if you discover any videos that should be added.
Underlings 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Most Christians don't understand the scientific arguments supporting creationism. Please read my popular Internet articles: NATURAL LIMITS OF EVOLUTION, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS, HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM, SECOND COMING OF CHRIST MISUNDERSTOOD, CONSERVATIVE THEOLOGIAN NO LONGER BELIEVES ETERNAL TORMENT (Explains why eternal punishment in the Bible does not mean eternal torment).
Mogley52 6 months ago
The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence and power for the origin and order of the universe. Science shows that the universe has no ability to have sustained itself from eternity. Therefore, it requires a beginning. That beginning has to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. Please peruse my science articles under my name: Babu G. Ranganathan.
Mogley52 6 months ago
@Mogley52 Actually, science does no such thing. We have solid evidence that the universe was formed 13.7 billion years ago, that cosmological constants could vary and still sustain planets, that the cosmic void can indeed generate "something from nothing" (we even see it at the quantum level) and even some evidence that multiple universes exist. NONE of that requires or even implies a supernatural intelligence...and in fact there is no evidence for ANYTHING supernatural.
Underlings 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Species couldn't have survived while their vital tissues, organs, biological systems were still evolving. Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 6 months ago
Wow, this is great. Thank you so much for putting the site list together. Great channel to by the way.
PumpkinPixie1978 7 months ago
@PumpkinPixie1978 Thanks, and you're most welcome!
Underlings 7 months ago
Thank you so much for adding me to the list :) I really appreciate it
KnownNoMore 7 months ago
@KnownNoMore You're welcome. You have some great videos there. (BTW, I've added more and rearranged their sections.)
Underlings 7 months ago
Amazing - I've dreamed of doing somthing like this - but this is huge - Thankyou - now to spend my life watching what I've missed
Artifactorfiction 9 months ago
@Artifactorfiction Thank you and you're welcome. Now get to work and I'll check in on you again sometime next year. ;-)
And pass this link on to others if you get the chance.
Underlings 9 months ago
@Underlings No Problem - I don't see "Defender of Reason" - She left (forced I think) but her videos are available at vidkid40 - not sure if this was a fan - very very comprehensive did you just not sleep :-) and you have one of my all time favs - TheoreticalBullshit's God's Checklist 2.0 - How come you don't have 100K subscribers!
Artifactorfiction 9 months ago
@Artifactorfiction I'll add her to my list for channels to check during the next update round. Thanks!
I love that checklist too--SO well delivered.
I've no idea why my channel isn't more popular.
Sincerely,
Osama Bin Laden
;-)
Underlings 9 months ago
This is one of the BEST videos I've ever seen. THANK YOU so very much sir.You are a hero of sorts.(not a sandwich). Making life easier for all mankind puts you in a class with few equals. Bravo!Bravo! Thanks again Derek.
preptimenow 10 months ago
@preptimenow :-) Glad you like the list! Most videos one just creates and that's it, but this one has to be periodically maintained. So I appreciated the acknowledgement, and I hope you'll let others know about it.
Underlings 10 months ago
@Underlings Your effort on this video is greatly appreciated.
preptimenow 10 months ago
What a great project! I am honored to be on the list.
AntiCitizenX 10 months ago
@AntiCitizenX Glad you like! And you're on it because you should be. Good stuff.
Underlings 10 months ago
When I heard you talk I never imagined you had a mustache. I am most impressed.
CanadianNihilist 1 year ago
@CanadianNihilist Wow, I had no idea my mustache was that impressive! ;-)
Underlings 1 year ago
Thank you so much for this. Exactly what our Reason and Science Society needed! Many internet hugs for you!
sevenworldscollide 1 year ago
@sevenworldscollide I'll take the hugs and raise you a high-five. I hope you make good use of this resource (and keep an eye on it--I update it periodically). Cheers.
Underlings 1 year ago
WOW!!! My gratitude overflows. I am so glad you've done this! Wowowowow!
ReligiousFiction 1 year ago
@ReligiousFiction You are SO welcome. :-)
Underlings 1 year ago
Lot of channels I hadn't come across before, thank you for you efforts.
Meatbag211 1 year ago
@Meatbag211 You're most welcome.
Underlings 1 year ago
This list is greatly appreciated and will be used. Thanks for what I know was a lot of effort.
macnutz 1 year ago
@macnutz Oh, you've no idea.... Take the average length of a video and multiply it by 800 to find the MINIMAL amount of time I spent viewing videos (since some of them I had viewed long ago and wanted to re-view them to be sure they fit). But I think it was worth it.
And thanks! I'm glad to hear you'll find it useful.
Underlings 1 year ago
Thanks for the list. Found some very interesting videos on it (of course).
KajVO 1 year ago
Wow, impressive. Thanks for this.
1Weemaryanne 1 year ago
DUDE, "TheLivingDinosaur" is much funnier than thunderfoot, in my opinion.
His videos are excellent in quality and he is quite knowledgeable.
He pwns better than anyone I have ever seen on youtube. Plus he has tons of very well done videos. I watch them quite often.
here: watch?v=LWIyAU7NOVM
rastarigate 1 year ago
@rastarigate That's some good stuff. I hadn't seen it before (which is exactly why I made this list). Look for it to be added to the list over the next day or so.
Underlings 1 year ago
@Underlings
No worries, I am sure there are a few more I haven't remembered. But yeah, he is hilarious.
Thank you so much for the list, it's great!
rastarigate 1 year ago
@rastarigate On second thought, while the production quality is excellent, and the arguments are quite valid, a lot of the content is more tit-for-tat insults than refutations of creationist claims. They're still great videos...but the intent of my list is to provide videos geared mostly to educate and use in debates--more useful to all rather than in that one specific argument.
Not an easy call, though--I like his work, and others I've included do provide ad hominems too.
Underlings 1 year ago
@Underlings Insults are not ad hominems fyi. Just because someone makes an insulting statement, it isn't an ad hominem until the premise is made: "Because you're [enter insult here] you're wrong".
Most video debunking creationist argument, or theist argument for that matter, can be largely insulting, yet contain no ad hominems...
But this is a common mistake to confuse insults as ad hominems. It's a pet peeve of mine. Just my two cents
Wittgensteinism 1 year ago
@Wittgensteinism Fair enough. I know the difference yet I still tend to use them interchangeably. My bad.
Underlings 1 year ago
Again this is no personal attack on you - I just voiced my opinion here because your video seems to be promoting a number of videos by different people in the atheist community. I don't have a single problem with religion. It is not the religion's fault that homosexuals are treated poorly. The bible is very very vague on homosexuality. It is an old text that many people believe in to give them hope. It is not Christianity itself, but homophobics who abuse christianity to push their agenda.
locomotiveman100 1 year ago
@locomotiveman100 I'm not taking it as a personal attack. But yes, I'm promoting a number of videos from the atheist community...in fact that's the whole point of this meta-video.
However, I do disagree that the Bible is "very vague" on homosexuality--at least from the fundie POV (which is the problematic one). A few examples:
Genesis 19
Leviticus 18:22
Leviticus 20:13
Romans 1:26-27
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
1 Timothy 1:9-10
Jude 1:7
Underlings 1 year ago
Fantastic job! Thanks for including my vid in there too. ; )
rationalmuscle 1 year ago
@rationalmuscle You're welcome. Three of them, actually. :-)
Underlings 1 year ago
And I'm honoured two of mine are on the list. What an amazing list!! Bookmarked for ever more!!
AuntieDiluvian 1 year ago
Very good idea indeed!
AuntieDiluvian 1 year ago
Brilliant Idea! I always thought something like this would be greatly useful but I'm waaaaay too lazy to actually do something about it.
Thank you sincerely for doing all the work.
buzzausa 1 year ago
Brilliant idea! I alwaysthought something like this would be greatly useful, but I'm waaay to lazy to actually do something about it.
Thank you sincerely for doing all the work.
buzzausa 1 year ago
I do not like that atheism motivational picture at 0:35. Nearly all of them where not atheist.
MrNDSteinbach 1 year ago
@MrNDSteinbach Can you point out which ones were not atheists? Also, I think it depends on your definition. As Underlings commented above, "agnostic" and "atheist" are, or can be, one in the same (with variations, I realize.) The technical definition is "without theism", so in that respect all the men above, save perhaps Darwin, fits this description (although Darwin drifted toward agnosticism in his later years.)
rationalmuscle 1 year ago
@rationalmuscle Mark Twain: Questioned Theism
Albert Einstein: Deist, maybe Pantheist
Charles Darwin: More Agnostic than Theist
Carl Sagan: Agnostic
Abe Lincoln: More Agnostic than Theist
Ben Franklin: Deist
Thomas Jefferson: Deist
Under the definition: Without theism, it fits nearly 100% of these men.
Under the definition: Without God, it fits nearly none of these men, if at all.
MrNDSteinbach 1 year ago
@MrNDSteinbach Thanks... nice reply. Technically a 'theism' is a belief system pertaining "to" a deity. So a "deist" would have an unknown deity without any theology (or theism). Take Jefferson: "Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Is this the statement of a deist or an agnostic? I think it's semantics in the end. Sagan called his death "a dreamless sleep with no awakening."
rationalmuscle 1 year ago
@rationalmuscle It's all semantics! We can all agree they where smart, agnostic individuals and after that it's all semantics.
MrNDSteinbach 1 year ago
@MrNDSteinbach Yep. Then again I think an agnostic 'is' an atheist... : )
rationalmuscle 1 year ago
@MrNDSteinbach No, most of them were deists...but would have been atheists had it been an option in their day. Still, I agree. The poster should read "non-Christians," perhaps.
Underlings 1 year ago
@Underlings Maybe even go as far as say non-theist.
MrNDSteinbach 1 year ago
You are awesome!
Barboy0 1 year ago
Thank You! What a lot of work you put into this. I will be sending select videos to the creationists that I argue with. Thanks for all the effort put in.
coopersnoop 1 year ago
Great! I took a look at some of the videos. I can only conclude that---from a free-thinker's point of view---videos that attract thumbs-downs from creationists must be excellent ;)
Since creationists have no evidence and no irrefutable apologetic arguments, I guess that thumbing videos down feels like a potent argument for "God" and the "Cree-A-Tor". About as effective as prayer!.
heterodoxism2 1 year ago
This an excellent idea ;D Thanks for putting in so much effort.
My only suggestion--right now--would be to list the channels to which you have linked frequently. I had already found most of them, but it might be helpful to those who haven't.
musekiteer 1 year ago
@musekiteer You're welcome!
Hmm, I'm not sure what you mean by listing the channels I have linked frequently....
Underlings 1 year ago
@Underlings
Sorry. I meant urls to the actual channels: eg AronRa, AntiCitizenX, etc.
I don't mean to detract from your excellent, by-topic catalog of videos, I merely meant that you have listed videos by a manageable range of uploaders.
musekiteer 1 year ago
@musekiteer Ah, so you mean a separate list of channel names? I do have them listed in order by channel name, and figured anyone interested in more work by them can simply click on a video, which gives them easy access to the channel. But if there's demand for a list of channels, I could do that.
Underlings 1 year ago
@Underlings
Channel names would be useful, and the list would be short.
proveritam 1 year ago
@proveritam True...but then there'd be little point in doing this list, since people would still have to slog through a lot of videos, figure out what they're about from often non-descriptive names, and wouldn't have an easy way to search for specific topics.
Underlings 1 year ago
@Underlings
I see your point. However, anyone who found the list of channel names (if you choose to include it) would *already* have found your very useful list of videos.
proveritam 1 year ago
@proveritam Well, each video has the channel name listed with it, and they're all in order by channel name...so essentially the list is already there.
I've spent a lot of time hunting down videos, and I STILL keep finding new ones. Rather than everyone having to do the same, having one consolidated list helps--especially for those who don't have the time to hunt down the videos themselves.
Underlings 1 year ago
@Underlings
I can see that you do not want a sublist. That is fine. I had already scanned through your list and, on the assumption that one good video usually follows another, subbed to most of the channels that I had not yet found.
I think that your consolidated list is excellent--thanks ;D
Two suggestions off the Dawkins channel: “ Why We Believe in Gods - Andy Thomson ”, and “ 'Morality: From the Heavens or From Nature?' by Dr. Andy Thomson, AAI 2009 ”. Long, but useful.
proveritam 1 year ago
@proveritam Agreed. Added.
Underlings 1 year ago
@Underlings U look like a tool, douchebag, pedofile, molester, and u just sound like and idiot.
wannadieessay 1 year ago
@wannadieessay Hey everyone, wannadieessay is a perfect example of the kind of person I talk about in my video titled "What the Followers of an Evil God Would be Like." Fundies are just not rational people--instead of making cogent arguments to support their claims, they resort to ad hominems like wannadieessay's. And their desire to warp humanity to their sick agenda is exactly the motivation that keeps me making these videos.
So...thanks, guy.
Underlings 1 year ago
@Underlings Haha saweet....but i feel better now, i made u mad!!! and thats what i wanted.
wannadieessay 1 year ago
@wannadieessay Mad? Are you kidding? I LOVE getting posts like this--it's perfect vindication of my claims against fundies! :-)
Underlings 1 year ago
@Underlings I love troll Christians.
CaptPreston 1 year ago
@Underlings ...Do you believe that Jesus....spoke of sick agenda? Or is that a cover for your homosexuality?
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief Actually, I'm not gay, although I have gay friends and have nothing at all against them.
But I don't know what you mean by Jesus speaking of "sick agenda." Unless you mean the concept of burning in hell after you die simply for not believing in him (especially when he doesn't provide any evidence he exists). THAT is one truly sick agenda.
Underlings 1 year ago
@Underlings ..I really don't care if your gay or not, but your comments are irresponsible and juvenile. Nobody burns in hell after they die anyway, that is pure Roman propaganda that was sorted out 500 years ago. Speaking of evidence, all the archeology in the past 150 years only authenticates rather than refutes the Biblical text. I have looked at dozens of artifacts from antiquity that verify wth 100% accuracy. How many do you require?
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief Seriously? Someone calls me a "douchebag, pedofile," etc. and I reply without insults, but simply to point out this is why I make these videos...but I'M irresponsible and juvenile? Sheesh.
Millions of FUNDIES believe in hell, and THEY'RE the ones I argue against (as stated at the beginning of the series and on my channel). Thus hell is a GIVEN with them.
Even ONE piece of hard evidence to support ANY supernatural claim in the Bible would be enough. Got even one?
Didn't think so.
Underlings 1 year ago
@Underlings ...How about the Black Obelisk, or perhaps the Taylor Prism or the Cyrus Cylinder. Out of dozens, these three substantciate the historical timeline in the books of Isaiah, 2 Chronicles and 2 Kings. Not a single artifact has ever been found that refutes the Biblical narrative. The reformation identified the meaning of hell as death. God created mankind, if they go bad, does he not have authority to destroy what he creates? If not , why not?
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief Evidence for MUNDANE events in the Bible is hardly evidence for even a single SUPERNATURAL event (which is what I asked you to provide). To date science has only debunked supernatural claims--not once has it gone the other way.
The fundie God is all-knowing and all-powerful. Thus, if humans "go bad," it is entirely his fault. You should watch my evil God video series--it addresses this issue and much more.
Underlings 1 year ago
@Underlings I was showing you that the historical accuracy of the Holy Bible...is indisputable ...with archeological corrboration. Your not familiar with the Biblical text, that Sir, is painfully obvious. If you wish to critique a book, you should at least read it first. Your work is amateurish.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief That some of the Bible may be historically accurate is not in question. It's just irrelevant. If I claimed Frederick Walton invented linoleum in 1860 and that I can read minds, the accuracy of the first claim has ZERO relevance to the second claim.
I've read the Bible through twice, plus read much of up to a DOZEN different versions, plus I query biblical scholar colleagues on confusing passages. And the fact that no fundie has successfully disputed my claims shows my "amateurishness."
Underlings 1 year ago
@Underlings ...Of the thousands of artifacts we now have in museum collections..do you know of any that refute the biblical timeline? I haven't seen any, not even one. I use a KJV for comparison, as it is the bench mark for a lot of reasons. Evolution claims that monkeys turn into men...I know as I've been to the Smithsonian...that is what they teach, although I hear the cry of denial constantly. Is it the same monkey business that Jefferson was playing with?...smells like it. lol
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief Radiometric dating, cosmic background radiation, redshifting, lake varves, ice cores, mutation rates and MUCH more all contradict the biblical timeline.
And if you have even a BASIC understanding of evolution you'd know we share a COMMON ANCESTOR with modern monkeys, although cladistically we're all STILL monkeys, just as we're STILL mammals. Monkeys didn't "turn into men." That's a strawman argument.
If you really care to know the science, let me know and I'll help you learn it.
Underlings 1 year ago
@Underlings ..According to the Smithsonian, monkeys turn into men, after a period of time. I've been there and viewed all the pictures. Maybe you should call... them, as I consider it all ridiculous nonsense anyway. Last I heard conjecture does not constitute scientific fact. If they would stop teaching it as an absolute, it probably wouldn't bother me to much.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief Bullshit. The Smithsonian displays the science, which is that we share a common ancestor.
Evolution is THE most verified theory in biology--hardly "conjecture"--and there is no competing theory that can even begin to account for all the evidence.
Facts are used to VALIDATE theories, they're not the highest level of certainty. THEORIES are the highest level of certainty in science, but they are NEVER taken as absolute. NO theory can be proven TRUE, only FALSE. See /watch?v=WqznURlEWI0
Underlings 1 year ago
@Underlings ..Millions of people trot through the Smithsonian every year dragging thier kids with them. The monkey to man exhibit is placed in such a manner to get maximum viewing. Talk about a subliminal sales pitch...kids see it and it sinks in deep. It's not long, with the help of steady reinforcement at school as well as the Discovery Channel, then toss in a little cannabis and Voila...a whole new batch of Lennon disiples. Very clever, I'll give them that.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief Next time you visit the Smithsonian, actually READ the plaques with the exhibit to understand what it's saying. Don't blame evolutionary science for your lack of attention.
99.85% of all life and earth scientists accept evolutionary theory as accurate. Do you honestly believe virtually ALL of them--the brightest and most educated among us--are wrong about evolution, while creationists like you who don't understand even the basic principles of evolution are correct? Seriously?
Underlings 1 year ago
@Underlings .....Principles built on a house of cards you mean...which is about as nutty as saying that God is evil. It's not science...it's hash pipe nonsense, very popular nonsence in this day and age. Do you think eight year olds read the plaques? gimme a break.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief Seriously? You think that a theory based on the scientific method--the most rigorous and strictly evidence-based system of knowledge we have--that's accepted by virtually the entire scientific community because it's supported by virtually all the evidence..is a house of cards?
Plus you think the god of the Bible isn't evil? View my videos on the topic, since I make a clear case that not one of you fundies has been able to successfully dispute.
Yeah, you ARE deluded.
Underlings 1 year ago
@Underlings ...Evolution theories are junk science, it's alternative religion, this is what happens when some quacky academics invade the theology department. This "God is Evil" tangent thing that you have run off on doesn't mesh with reality, had you spent a significant time reading you would know that.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief The ONLY relevant scientists who say that evolution is junk science are religious fundamentalists...which should be indicative of just how trustworthy they are. But since virtually the ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY accepts evolutionary theory, that should tell you something. Either the experts on what constitutes good science and who are most qualified to evaluate the evidence are all wrong...or the non-experts are wrong. Or do you think there's a global conspiracy among scientists?
Underlings 1 year ago
@vachief I'll put the God is evil subject in its own thread here. My claim is that the Bible and the universe itself prove beyond all reasonable doubt that IF the God of the Bible exists, he is the most evil creature in existence. I prove he condones or commits murder, rape, slavery, theft, child abuse, cannibalism, torture, incest, lying, betrayal, etc. By our very own standards God is utterly evil and deserves only our disgust.
Now...go ahead and prove me wrong.
Underlings 1 year ago
@Underlings ....I know your wrong...I own a Holy Bible...and I've been reading it for years. And your trying to convince people that evolution is'nt a religion? LOL You and Dawkins....make me laugh.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief I'm wrong? Okay, then prove it. View my video series that makes my case and then try to prove me wrong. Here's the intro:
/watch?v=KbQQ6MSP7kw
Go ahead. Prove me wrong. I dare you. :-)
Evolution is a scientific conclusion. It has no gods, no religious ceremonies, no belief based on faith, and no claim for ANYTHING supernatural. So tell me...how is it a religion? Next time, why don't you actually LOOK UP the definition before you put your foot in your mouth.
Underlings 1 year ago
@Underlings ....Your kidding me ...right? Cannabalism? Rape? Slavery?.....Do me a big favor...go buy yourself a KJV...instead of one of these ridiculous "modern" versions. A lot of these so-called "bibles" actually have opposite readings from the KJV, the people that publish them really ought to be put in jail. This is a huge issue by itself, but for the sake of our discussion, let's use the KJV, if you don't have one, buy one, if your interested in biblical understanding.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief I studied MAINLY the KJV and NIV, but also parts of a dozen other versions. Jeremiah 19:9 and Deuteronomy 28:53 are just TWO examples of God threatening people with cannibalism. Leviticus 25:44-46 proves God condones slavery. In Deuteronomy 22:28-29 God forces rape victims to marry their rapists. He's a sick bastard.
THAT is evidence God is evil. Just try to spin it so that his actions are actually GOOD. Good luck.
Underlings 1 year ago
@Underlings.Read the whole chapter, Jeremiah 19 the people had turned to Baal worship and God punished them by causing them to eat the flesh of thier own children. It's terrible, I agree but to God the worship of false gods is worse. We have documentation in this chapter of the wrath of God, and it is'nt pleasent. Under the new covenant punishment is defered to the end, but the wrath is still the same about how God deals with men who sin. Do I fear God? Yes I do, because of stories like these.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief Read the whole chapter? I read it MANY times during my research. I DO know the context. Do you honestly think that forcing people to EAT their own children is less evil than worshiping other gods? Two wrongs to NOT make a right. And you (and God) are un-American, because freedom to worship other gods is right there in our Bill of Rights.
You admit you fear God for the evil things he does to people, yet you still worship him. You, sir, are a fucking coward and you disgust me.
Underlings 1 year ago
@Underlings ...You don't get to decide what is right and wrong in regard to the actions of God.....that is the whole point. God and men are not on the same level. Because I accept Gods' offer.....you call that cowardice? I will gladly do as God has asked, I know that sin is wrong, but I'm by no means perfect in the eyes of men. So what is the answer then? Shall we sin with abandon and give up our salvation? Does that make sense to you?
vachief 1 year ago
@UnderlingsConcerning Jeremiah 19...Do really believe after all you have read, that God enjoys giving out these kinds of punishments? That is sort of what your implying, that God gets a kick out of punishing people just for fun. God did not threaten them with cannabalism. His judgement upon them was a result of what they had done. They could have prevented the whole thing. That is the message today, God does love his creation, but at the same time will not tolerate willfull disobediance.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief OF COURSE God enjoys giving out such punishments. He is all-powerful and all-knowing, so he could EASILY avoid committing all the atrocities. Just as he unleashed Satan on humanity, he does it all because he WANTS it to be so, not because he HAS to.
Do I REALLY have to explain that forcing someone to eat their own children isn't love? You punish a disobedient child by sending him to his room to teach him to behave, you don't torture him for ETERNITY. Atheist morality is FAR more just.
Underlings 1 year ago
@Underlings ......Your wrong.....God does not enjoy punishing the wicked. Do you have a text that indicates that?
vachief 1 year ago
@Underlings ...Evolution is argued as an absolute, I know, as I speak with the evolutionist crowd quite often. These people are born again believers, with the tenacity of a seasoned theologian. From the Oxford dictionary..1.) the belief in a superhuman controlling power. Sure sounds like this mysterious "force" that evolutionists talk about. 3.) a particular system of faith and worship. You have faith and you "worship" science. 5.) a thing strongly devoted to. That one is obvious. lol
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief AGAIN you're wrong. There is not a SINGLE theory in science that is argued as an "absolute." In fact ALL theories are considered tenuous and MUST be changed or abandoned if evidence comes along that cannot be reconciled with current theory.
WHAT "force" are you talking about? Natural selection and mutation? BOTH are easily verified in nature--and even fundies don't deny that much.
In what way do we worship science? Respect for its proven effectiveness does NOT constitute "worship."
Underlings 1 year ago
@Underlings ...The "force" is something I heard from another evolutionist. A fish can not develop the desire to walk on land, or by it's own volition grow 2 pairs of legs...so what is the driver? We have never seen an animal grow appendages as the result of the natural selection process. The real truth is simple...animals haven't changed hardly at all....the geological record confirms it. An Ant is still an ant.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief Ah, sounds like you misunderstood the guy. There's nothing "mysterious" about SELECTIVE force. All it means is that in any population where there is genetic variation, some individuals will have a greater chance of surviving to reproduce, which will cause their genes to spread throughout the population. Nothing mysterious there.
Name even ONE biologist who says evolution claims new appendages would evolve in our lifetimes. That's NOT evolution, it's mutation.
Underlings 1 year ago
@Underlings ...That is why evolution is a religion....because you have "faith" in something that no man has ever observed. On the other hand....we have have this man called Jesus....whom thousands observed. Your religion requires a higher level of "faith" then mine does.....mine is documented.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief Wrong yet AGAIN. We HAVE observed evolution--we see it DAILY in labs and in nature. Also, no one has seen the nucleus of an atom, but we have inferred it accurately enough to create nuclear power and weaponry. Whoever said one must observe DIRECTLY or it's a religion obviously doesn't know what he's talking about.
Why do you try to bring evolution down to the level of faith? Is it because you know scientific evidence is superior to faith?
Underlings 1 year ago
@Underlings ....Stop worshiping science....they have been known to be wrong. Question everything, and quit being such a lay down.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief Do you understand the difference between worship and respect? Worship requires reverential love; respect does not. I respect the effectiveness of science, which has a track record that far exceeds any other system of knowledge known to humanity. Faith has only resulted in confusion, conflict and thousands of bickering religions. Science EMBRACES change when it discovers something wrong...and that is precisely why it deserves the respect religion does not.
Underlings 1 year ago
@Underlings Animals have changed DRASTICALLY over hundreds of millions of years. Look at fossils from the Cambrian. Apart from horseshoe crabs, do ANY of them look like ANYTHING alive today? Any birds, mammals, dinosaurs...even ANY ants? Of course not--not even slightly. But if you follow how they've changed through the fossil record, you can see diversification and change leading up to today's species.
If you don't actually READ UP on the evidence, of course you believe as you do! Sheesh.
Underlings 1 year ago
uh albert einstein was not an athiest he was a diest. just thought id point that out
XxDaGGa 1 year ago
@dontOVERREACT Thanks. I'll certainly take a look at your list.
Underlings 1 year ago
Dudes give it a rest already lol. You guys have actually made me renounce atheism recently. I'm now happily agnostic. And no I don't care about your dictionary definition. And no I also do not slant towards Christianity or any other religion at all. I too have grave doubts about their logical cohesion. I just don't spend my day arguing with people who genuinely believe things differently to them. Just because some people are creationists, does not mean the world is going to end tomorrow.
locomotiveman100 1 year ago
In fact, I know someone is probably going to now bring up creationism in schools and how it will ruin society, or september the 11th, but you guys fail as you are using extreme examples to justify your argument. You are being close minded and petty just to prove you are smarter than everyone else. The majority, no in fact 99.9999% of religious people cause no harm to society. Those that do usually hide behind it with ulterior motives, and you strawman their religion because it is an easy target.
locomotiveman100 1 year ago
@locomotiveman100 When you are raised to believe that science is wrong and religion is right, that all you have to do is ask god for financial security and truly believe and he will give it to you without having to work hard for it, that is detrimental to society. That's how i was raised, god will just give you things if you believe hard enough because the bible says so, faith the size of a mustard seed blah blah blah. Religion promotes ignorance to all believers and that causes harm to society.
rod31808 1 year ago
@rod31808 If you are implying all religious people are lazy, then I can't help you. In fact, a lot of them, particuarly Christians, are motivated to work harder and be more moral individuals, because they believe that life is a test.. Religion may "promote ignorance" in small insignificant parts of a person's life, but it can also promote a society that works well together, and thrives. Your argument purposefully chooses a black and white stance - Us vs. Them. This is a grey issue.
locomotiveman100 1 year ago
Human nature is the root of evil, not these ancient beliefs. Religion is just one of the many many many many things used by humans to justify evil actions, and in fact it is just that they are morally impaired. Try a little apathy and open mindedness. You'll all be a lot happier. I swear to Richard DAWKINS!!!! Oh by the way when science is your god, you are also putting faith in a very fallible, constantly revised and innacurate religion. Have a nice day : )
locomotiveman100 1 year ago
@locomotiveman100 "when science is your god"
the stupid it burns
You are compairing science to the dogma of religion. And then you go on to say that science changes constantly. How is it like religion then if it is revised?
And please pick up a dictionary and look up what the word religion means. It seems some people like to use it on everything these days.
byteresistor 1 year ago
@byteresistor lol i love irony. Pick up a dictionary? haha. Ever heard of a linguistic device man? Oh wait, you have because you talked about burning stupid didn't you? How would one burn stupid? This is why you guys annoy me. You're alll hypocrites. Number 1 logical fail = misinterpreting a simple analogy when you know what it means. 2 = facetious ad hominem attack.3 = The interpretation of religion is revised constantly lol. Many scripts are ambiguous and people just read the meaning they want
locomotiveman100 1 year ago
@locomotiveman100 If you think agnostic is a "lesser version" of atheism, then you need to view the videos I have on my list on exactly that topic. Agnosticism deals with knowledge and atheism deals with belief, which is why most of us are agnostic atheists.
And your claims about the lack of harm religion causes is very telling. There are several excellent videos that dispute that clearly. You would really benefit by educating yourself with these videos.
Underlings 1 year ago
@Underlings - I know there is a technical difference between atheism and agnosticism. But I have already stated that I do not care about menial semantics. It doesn't do anything to persuade people of ardent faith. If you really want to attack religion, you cannot do it with logic, because they have chosen to ignore it in one small area of their life because it makes many of them happy. Religion is slowly dying on its own, not because of Dawkins, but because of general improvements in education.
locomotiveman100 1 year ago
@locomotiveman100 You don't care about "menial semantics"? Using agnosticism as a "less extreme version of atheism" is like calling a Christian a Muslim, in that you convey serious ignorance of the differences and confuse the intent of your point.
AGAIN, if you viewed the appropriate videos from my list you'd see that there are videos that specifically address your claim about religion dying. Why would you make claims about something you haven't studied? That's what fundies do.
Underlings 1 year ago
@locomotiveman100 Furthermore, what "improvements in education" are you talking about? Education is getting WORSE in the US, not better.
But outspoken "militant atheists" like Dawkins, Myers, Hitchins, many of us on YouTube, etc. ARE helping to educate those who will listen. Religions themselves are contributing another part of the solution, with their hypocrisy toward gays and abuse of children.
Underlings 1 year ago