ah,the workings of the religious mind and still theres 23 self deceivers that refuse to reason to date. youd think thed stay clear of this, still their deep set indoctronation allows their ignorance to unfold. excellent video. thumbed up of course.
The only thing I don't like about this video is that you compare the universe to a box. The universe does not exist to hold things, but a box does. So the actual story is much harder to believe then your video lol.
Why be agnostic when the only evidence for the existence of God is the Bible, and the Bible makes simple errors that no truly all-knowing deity would ever make and allow to be presented in his name...unless he were totally evil...
@formless777 The god of the Bible is only one definition. There may be definitions of god which are not logically impossible, internally consistent, demonstrable, verifiable, and not simply new label for an already existing entity.
But hang on... the only people who are making claims about this deity are believers. Agnostics have no real opinion, because they admit they don't know. Now if we are able to use the believers' own evidence to prove that their claims are bogus and impossible within their own logical and cultural frames of reference, then the matter is closed. This works on all deities within their appropriate contexts.
@formless777 I am not disagreeing, but we as a matter of strict logic we cannot claim to have seen or know about all the possible definitions of “god”. This is an extreme skeptical point which leads to agnosticism about almost everything, but I can live with that.
@formless777 Well some definitions of gods make claims we can test. Intercessory prayer, virgin births, waling on water, turning water into wine, rising from the dead, and flying off into the clouds are all claims about reality. Either these things are once off events, or they never happened in the first place.
Interesting you raise the virgin birth. That is a comic one. Are you aware that parthenogenic (virgin) birth if factual and not uncommon in humans, but always produces a female offspring. There is a caveat however... if a woman with an XXY chomosome mutation loading produced a parthenogenetic child it could be male, but she'd be an hermaphrodite. So either Jesus is a bearded lady, or Mary was an Hermaphrodite. Secret Gospel of Mark much ? LOL :D
Ah, but you see here you're referring back to the Bible for evidence, and I think it is eminently possible to demonstrate that if the God in question is the God of the Bible, then we can be CERTAIN that it doesn't exist beyond any reasonable doubt. The other thing is that you are referring to supposed acts of that God, but if those acts can be duplicated with stage magic, are we to assume that Penn & Teller are in fact Gods ?
The patron deities of "atheism & stage magic" perhaps ? I also think you underestimate the power of remaining silent... Teller's definitely the whole deal, not a demigod.
Theists hate me. They are always posting nonsensical ramblings, bible scripture or elementary level ridicule on my channel. I need some Atheists to post some common sense to balance out the doltish, indoctrinated, christian tripe.
Flanders is the leparachaun, the goat is the troll, and that random guy is the whatever the other thing was. They can't open the box because it is a projection of the box they are in, and the hole drilled is a simulation of what would happen if you drilled a hole into the obviously destructible chest. So in this case, both of them are right.
Agnosticism; a-gnosis; not knowledge. Not claiming to possess absolute knowledge of the existence or non-existence of God. The 'atheist' here translates to an AGNOSTIC ATHEIST, in that he does not claim to have absolute knowledge on the matter.
Negative atheism: non-belief in the non-existence of God. Opposed to positive atheism; belief in the non-existence of God. This is DIFFERENT from agnosticism, as it's a position of not BELIEVING; not of not CLAIMING KNOWLEDGE.
But you can't prove that leprechauns exist, you haven't searched every inch of the planet, nor have you considered that leprechauns can hide from you when they want.
@TurboDally Without any rational reason or need for leprechauns, is it even worth the time to search? Also, if people were to start making laws based on leprechaun belief without themselves having searched every inch of the planet, that would make them nutjobs.
the term "leprachaun" is extremely offensive to people with Primordial Dwarfism, a very rare genetic condition believed to only affect 100 people in the world, look it up, that is where the legend came from, in an age before medicine and real doctors, genetic problems could often lead to legends of mythical creatures.
@FluffyFeralMarmot No, the focus should be on the box. The box exists. The person making the claim about the box is irrelevant. The claim about the contents of the box can be tested objectively without reference to the person or persons making the claim. The claim is true or false regardless of how many people may or may not make the claim. A fact is a fact and cannot be changed merely by weight of numbers asserting otherwise.
@Jezzmeister Wrong. If it's clearly an unverifiable claim or one of any number of equally likely claims, then the question becomes WHY does this person believe this particular claim. It's becomes an issue of psychology, not reality.
@FluffyFeralMarmot But you've moved the goalposts Fluff. We started out talking about a box that we all agreed, for the sake of this argument, existed. What is being claimed about the contents of the box is objectively verifiable. For you to suddenly assert that the claim is "clearly unverifiable" is a new assertion that has itself no relationship to the situation thus presented. In fact, you've effectively echoed the Agnostic's equally irrational assertion that the box is impervious.
@Jezzmeister If the contents are verifiable, that's a different story. You picked up on an old thread...I haven't watched this video in a while so I don't remember the particulars.
My guess would be that no matter what evidence was presented, some people would still stick to their initial claim. In that case, the box would become sort of a Rorschach test, revealing more about the claimant than the contents.
@FluffyFeralMarmot Yes, that's very probable. The cognitive dissonance set up by objective evidence versus firmly held belief rarely results in the dismantling of the belief. It is more usual for the believer to refute the evidence, and set up a set of rationalisations to support their response. That is worthy of further study. Ironically, I suspect that, having refuted objective evidence of their belief-system's falsehood, they are unlikely to accept science-based explanations of themselves.
@FluffyFeralMarmot I would like to know too. Cause thus far all the atheist did was ask questions, use evidence, and finally when all else failed rolled his eyes and then got more tools.
Mat 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. Servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. Are you the enemy of GOD sowing bad seed?
Because awareness and consciousness coherently goes with more dimensions and more dimension mean more ability to do more things so of speak and usually the more dimension and abject has the more complex it gets.
But base on the current information given that there is a leprechauns in the box that possibility if it to be in the box is relative small but with the M-theory and the Uncertainty principle they is a chance that there is a Leprechaun's inside.
@OffNewGrounds Of course, as soon as the box is opened a radioactive decay will trigger a reaction which will cause the leprechaun to vanish instantly. So, we will never know if it existed at all. So, I suppose, god's existence may be based on a quantum mechanical response! Perhaps the discovery of a god will result in his instantaneous disappearance!!! He he he he.
@CombatRocks "..discovery of a god will result in his instantaneous disappearance!!!"
Indeed.
`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
@OffNewGrounds You probably mean electron wave function collapse, the Schodinger's Cat experiment, to wit that an unobserved space has an infinite number of possible quantum states which all exist simultaneously until observation enforces one - based on probability. The only things you can categorically deny are inside a box are things that are too big to fit inside it, and things which cannot exist 'silver gold / dry water' because of the law of non-contradiction.
Even if it was true in one universe and false the other, that would not mean that it would simultaneously be both at once. Parallel universes don't work that way.
The chance would not be 50/50. After all, there being a chance doesn't answer the question of whether the creature exists or not. IE even if it was proven that god was possible to exist, that would not even be close to meaning or proving that god exists.
Major flaw in this video proposition is the assumption that all people have the same level of consciousness and awareness. It varies more than musical ability. A top musician can pick out a sound that a non musical person cannot even hear and thus denies. The deniers are just less highly tuned and virtually deaf to many sound qualities. They mistakenly insist everyone else is deaf also and .liars and fools.Huge mistake.
@kimbo99 Your statement is exactly what the video is refuting, namely, the notion that some people are capable of detecting the existence of some thing which has no objective manifestation and which exists only subjectively. Sounds indetectable to the human ear are nevertheless verifiable by measuring devices which detect sounds outside the normal human range of hearing, yet these indetectable sounds (to human ears) are natural phenomena, not supernatural.
@kimbo99 Thus, the claim that some people are able to detect the existence of a god or gods rests on a claim which is not supported by objective analysis or experimentation or observation, and which is revealed to be exactly as those who claim to possess the ability, entirely subjective and unverifiable, thus invalid.
@kimbo99 Yes I agree with your state it coherently goes also with the device use to measure the information, higher awareness promotes more "tools" so of speak to receive the information.
Of course that's possible, just not likely. While your beliefs aren't as threatening as the Abrahamic religions, your still left with no evidence of consciousness existing after we die. It may make you feel good to believe that death isn't eternal, but there is just as much evidence to believe any of the other beliefs. Your concept of god is just more moral.
Agnostics simply don't know whether a god exists or not. The possibility is always there. Maybe god is hiding from people. Seems silly but who knows what the ultimate plan could be! Its ok not to know everything.
This has just become my favourite video on youtube... The animation is quite good and isn't over the top as some would do, and the script is just fucking brilliant! I can't believe someone could actually squeeze so many things into less than 10 minutes of animation and still maintain it's coherency. Excellent job! All the * in the known Universe, I raise my hat to you, askegg and Matt.
One small observation: when confronted with the hole on the box, most christians will say that the hole doesn't exist and if you see it it's because the troll makes you believe that, not that you changed boxes.
This is great. It reminds me of a cartoon called "Science vs. Religion" that I saw on the God is Imaginary page. It is in the comics section in the July 2009 cartoons. It is two guys, Science and Religion in a dark room and Religion says there are dragons. It's pretty funny. There are many great atheism/religion is silly cartoons there.
NO WAY!!! I saw his in the first movie and He was definitely covered in Oil making him Anointed in christco Not anti-Cristo.
The real Anti-Cristo told me he Tricked you and you need to believe me or you will Suffer Iternely by being raped while punching the shit out of you right in the stomach FOREVER!!!
I don't like how they portrayed the agnostic as a fence-sitter. Agnosticism is still making a claim, and the claim is that we either A) don't know enough to say whether or not there is a god or B) that we can't know whether or not there is a god. I don't like either, but the point is, agnosticism is not fence sitting. Great video though.
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned already, but you should have just synced the actual audio from the radio show with your animation . . . I thought the original acting was superb. You didn't have to do your own voices.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
As a Christian, I want to share Jesus with others because of the difference He can make in someone's life. As an atheist, you are telling people that God doesn't exist because . . . . I am not sure why. Is it so you don't feel like the only one? I triple dog dare you to read I Chronicles 28:9 in the Old Testament. It will either change your life, or come back to haunt you. I'm praying that it be the prior.
Lot's of people claim other religions have saved them or makes them feel good. What makes your any better than theirs. (by the way - I was also a Christian).
Again, lots of book have profound sayings, but that does not mean they were dictated by the creator of the universe.
Argument from personal experience is a logical fallacy and not proof of the existence of god.
The following claim that people have had their lives changed by converting to their belief: Catholics, 7th Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Muslims, Hindi, Buddhists, Hare Krishnas, Scientologists, Wiccans, and on and on.
It's psychological projection. Attributing SELF improvement to an external source.
It's all in your head. There is no secret ingredient in secret ingredient soup.
I Chron 28:9 is a not-so-veiled threat of hell. And it's bullshit.
There is no hell. There also is no heaven, no soul, no judgment, no afterlife, no nothing. And nobody there to "judge" you. No god of any sort, no angels, no demons, no dead relatives, not one thing.
As evidenced by one of the fundamental tenets of Pastafarianism- the list of "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts."
#7. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Go Around Telling People I Talk To You. You're Not That Interesting. Get Over Yourself. And I Told You To Love Your Fellow Man, Can't You Take A Hint?
You don't burn in FSM hell. Instead, the beer is stale and the strippers have STDs.
Ha! This was brilliant! Wonderful script and double kudos to the animation...you have no idea how much I resemble that goat. All in all, a perfect representation of the modern atheist, theist and agnostic.
i never said it had to do with his exsitence of god im just saying that evoution is dun b and i cant belive u poeple think we evolved from fish is dats so how come fish today arent evolving into humans?!
Typical idiot with no idea of what evolution actually says. We are a modern species who did not evolve from another modern species. Progressive and additive changes over long periods of time lead to vastly different organisms - common ancestry. There is nothing to suggest what any species might evolve into.
Jesus, if you are going to attack an idea at least have one clue what's it's about first.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
wut the fuck god does exsit i no theres no proof but is there any proof about evolution NO there isnt so u know i woulndt be talking if i were you and if u dont believe in god in thats ok because god doesnt believe in force and hes NOT gonna send u to hell because you dont believe in him !
agnostics simply say, that there is a probability value for the existence of god, based on our current knowledge. biblical god almost certainly does not exist, but some more panteistic theories might have higher values of probability. it is completely unwise to rule them all out. strong atheism is therefore just a very crude approximation of real situation.
Technically you are correct - and many people are agnostic atheists or agnostic theists. Given there is no evidence for leprechauns in the box (or gods) then the probabilities for both are much the same - should we go around saying leprechauns might exist?
agnostics are seriously misunderstood in this video. in fact, agnostic approach is the only one compatible with current scientific point of view. no observation of the object does not make it nonexistant. this was shown for example in the discovery of neutrinos, when we had no sensory data, but we did not considered them to be imaginary. now the same situation is with higgs boson. no one saw one yet, but that does not mean, there are none.
Not quite. The skeptic here wishes to investigate the box and its contents - the agnostic simply declares it cannot be known. While this is a characterisation of the agnostic position, many take this stance without realising the debate is not about knowledge - it's about belief.
We have evidence for neutrinos and Higgs, which is why we hold them to real (until evidence to the contrary comes along).
we don't have any evidence for the existence of higgs (we are waiting for lhc to provide some). in fact, with no evidence, the probability of higgs and god is the same, but you reject one concept and admit other. why is that?
agnotics says, that the existence of god is unknown to us, not unknowable. all agnostic writers used this definition (T. Huxsley, B. Russell, R.Ingersoll). Only strong agnosticism talks about unknowable and only in some concepts of god.
Have have mathematical models which predict the Higgs. We do not have equivalents for a god.
Strange you attack my definition of one type of agnostic, then admit to their being different types. A strong agnostic (as demonstrated here) says god is unknowable. A weak one says it's unknown.
If you have a problem with the fence sitters take it up with Matt Dillahunty who wrote the script. All I did was animate it.
Agnostics do not believe that there is no god. Atheist beleive that there is no god. Both do not believe there is a god. Both share the same scientific approach. Your approach is fine with feisabe things like neurons. But not so great with things like santa clause.
agnostic approach is feisable in all cases. the properties of santa claus (he should be living in north pole, but he isnt there, he should be seen flying in a sledges, but he isnt, his speed of travel is suppously unnatural) so we can easily conclude with our approach, that santa claus doesnt exist. we can say the same for many concepths of gods, but we cannot for some.
Sure, I guess I should have said leprechauns or fairies or something that you can't say the same for. If you really don't believe that fairies don't exist (neither that they do exist) There's something wrong.
why not? there may be intelligent beings, which are undetectable for our sensors (maybe occupying different dimensions, or other universes). many physicists consider multiverse, or multidimensional theories. some form of substance can be organized in those places in a form, that can be considered as an intelligence. calling those beings funny fairytales names does say absolute nothing about their existence.
I didn't call them funny farie tale names, I called them things that you can't say the same for.
No one says there can't be intelligent beings in other universes, or undetectable beings, or that we surely aren't in the matrix. What we say is we do not believe we are in the matrix and we believe we are not in 'the matrix'.
Is this really your only argument? To say that it's possible? How many times do we have to point out to you that this is a straw man?
yes, and what i say is that that is not a rational statement. in a scientific approach, the word "believe" has no point. when we don't know about things, we simply don't know. we do not believe one way or another. rational person does not have to have a strong opinion about everything. it is better to say "i don't know" then "i believe".
Show that it is better (or worse). Are you changing your position to "I believe that but there's no point in talking about it"?
There isn't 'no point' in using believe because it's a well defined position. If you don't believe that stem cells do not have a soul (and don't believe that they do) and a group of people believe they do, and no person believes they don't, guess what happens?
When someone says they believe X, it's equivalent to saying 'I'd voluntarily bet everything and anything that that is the case, although I don't know' (imagining that some magic would reveal the truth).
Put another way, the probability has become low (or high) enough, that it's actually foolish not to bet. (I'll pay you double your bet, the only way you LOSE is if tmw's lottery number IS the number you chose).
I can say with certainty that you would take the lottery bet for as much as you can afford(if nothing extra is added to the scenario). Why? Because It's the most wise thing to do.
So one (of many) uses for using believe is that it allows us to make predictions. I predict another abortion doctor will be murdered because of his profession alone. It's a consequence of belief, not of knowing. "The killer will believe that the the benefits will outweigh the consequences" <--no value in mentioning?
i'm not sure what are you trying to say. anyway, you can predict even without belief. in fact, prediction withot belief are usually much more precise. belief is a subjectional thing, you hardly persuade someone with other belief to yours. you need belief only when you have no evidence, therefore the computation of probability is a hard task. this fact make belief always unjustified.
I'm saying Susan is taller than jack. You are saying that Mark is the taller than either of them. But you aren't contradicting what I'm saying....
There is value in what I, you, and other's believe. One example of why Is that we can make predictions with such knowledge. Now you contradict or give up.
ha this totally isn't a metaphor
leothelion19 1 month ago
ah,the workings of the religious mind and still theres 23 self deceivers that refuse to reason to date. youd think thed stay clear of this, still their deep set indoctronation allows their ignorance to unfold. excellent video. thumbed up of course.
kram83au 4 months ago
The only thing I don't like about this video is that you compare the universe to a box. The universe does not exist to hold things, but a box does. So the actual story is much harder to believe then your video lol.
Daoutsida05 5 months ago
@Daoutsida05 The universe contains everything, so the analogy isn’t all that bad.
askegg 5 months ago
@askegg I see your point. I was wrong.
Daoutsida05 5 months ago
@Daoutsida05 Wow. I wish all arguments were this easy :)
askegg 5 months ago 7
@askegg Pride gets in the way I imagine.
Daoutsida05 5 months ago
@askegg
It theoretically holds 'everything'
Germanboy567 1 month ago
Why be agnostic when the only evidence for the existence of God is the Bible, and the Bible makes simple errors that no truly all-knowing deity would ever make and allow to be presented in his name...unless he were totally evil...
formless777 6 months ago
@formless777 The god of the Bible is only one definition. There may be definitions of god which are not logically impossible, internally consistent, demonstrable, verifiable, and not simply new label for an already existing entity.
askegg 6 months ago
@askegg
But hang on... the only people who are making claims about this deity are believers. Agnostics have no real opinion, because they admit they don't know. Now if we are able to use the believers' own evidence to prove that their claims are bogus and impossible within their own logical and cultural frames of reference, then the matter is closed. This works on all deities within their appropriate contexts.
formless777 6 months ago
@formless777 I am not disagreeing, but we as a matter of strict logic we cannot claim to have seen or know about all the possible definitions of “god”. This is an extreme skeptical point which leads to agnosticism about almost everything, but I can live with that.
askegg 6 months ago
@askegg
A fair comment, so I ask you in the interests of strict logic, how can we verify the validity of any of the definitions of "god" ?
formless777 6 months ago
@formless777 Well some definitions of gods make claims we can test. Intercessory prayer, virgin births, waling on water, turning water into wine, rising from the dead, and flying off into the clouds are all claims about reality. Either these things are once off events, or they never happened in the first place.
askegg 6 months ago
@askegg
Interesting you raise the virgin birth. That is a comic one. Are you aware that parthenogenic (virgin) birth if factual and not uncommon in humans, but always produces a female offspring. There is a caveat however... if a woman with an XXY chomosome mutation loading produced a parthenogenetic child it could be male, but she'd be an hermaphrodite. So either Jesus is a bearded lady, or Mary was an Hermaphrodite. Secret Gospel of Mark much ? LOL :D
formless777 6 months ago 2
Addendum...
Ah, but you see here you're referring back to the Bible for evidence, and I think it is eminently possible to demonstrate that if the God in question is the God of the Bible, then we can be CERTAIN that it doesn't exist beyond any reasonable doubt. The other thing is that you are referring to supposed acts of that God, but if those acts can be duplicated with stage magic, are we to assume that Penn & Teller are in fact Gods ?
formless777 6 months ago
@formless777 I am pretty sure Penn is a god. Not sure about Teller - perhaps a demigod?
askegg 6 months ago
@askegg
The patron deities of "atheism & stage magic" perhaps ? I also think you underestimate the power of remaining silent... Teller's definitely the whole deal, not a demigod.
formless777 6 months ago
@formless777 Oh, I forgot to add - I have yet to come across such a thing.
askegg 6 months ago
For a moment I thought the poor guy will get accused in aggression against divine incarnations at 8:03 and get attacked by Flanders.
NetIncarnate 6 months ago
Theists hate me. They are always posting nonsensical ramblings, bible scripture or elementary level ridicule on my channel. I need some Atheists to post some common sense to balance out the doltish, indoctrinated, christian tripe.
scotttebben 6 months ago
Lovely piece of work! I hate agnostics.
calmreason 7 months ago 2
Ray Comfort is Ned Flanders I never put it together until now
finderfinder100 7 months ago
Flanders is the leparachaun, the goat is the troll, and that random guy is the whatever the other thing was. They can't open the box because it is a projection of the box they are in, and the hole drilled is a simulation of what would happen if you drilled a hole into the obviously destructible chest. So in this case, both of them are right.
hagamablabla 7 months ago
Useful definitions:
Agnosticism; a-gnosis; not knowledge. Not claiming to possess absolute knowledge of the existence or non-existence of God. The 'atheist' here translates to an AGNOSTIC ATHEIST, in that he does not claim to have absolute knowledge on the matter.
Negative atheism: non-belief in the non-existence of God. Opposed to positive atheism; belief in the non-existence of God. This is DIFFERENT from agnosticism, as it's a position of not BELIEVING; not of not CLAIMING KNOWLEDGE.
Gewath 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Leprechauns are real its religions that are made up lies
mcdinkity 8 months ago
Shillelagh is pronounced "sh-LAY-lee". (Don't ask me WHY.)
GoblinXXX 10 months ago
Agnostics, the only people more obnoxious than Christians.
videoguy604 10 months ago
So, 22 people believe in leprechauns?
Dear god/jesus christ/holy spirit/abomination of all three in one and/or allah,
If you're floating around out there somewhere, why the f*ck did you put me on this earth with such fu**ing dumb*sses??????????????????????????
OjLeno 11 months ago 4
Oh, come on lisa! Everyone knows leprechauns are extinct.!
MansonFan64 1 year ago
lol
rupertmyprince 1 year ago
I reckon Ned Flanders' look was based on Ray Comfort.
jazzx251 1 year ago
@jazzx251 Or vice versa? I'm sure Ray considers Ned a fine role model.
89Duo 1 year ago
can I mirror this?
ebilly99 1 year ago
But you can't prove that leprechauns exist, you haven't searched every inch of the planet, nor have you considered that leprechauns can hide from you when they want.
TurboDally 1 year ago
@TurboDally Without any rational reason or need for leprechauns, is it even worth the time to search? Also, if people were to start making laws based on leprechaun belief without themselves having searched every inch of the planet, that would make them nutjobs.
simplemindedted 1 year ago
Really funny
TwistedMetal707 1 year ago
@MrXalexer Where is the deist?
He was involved a long time ago, but now he's at rest. ;-)
KaraRvn 1 year ago
AWESOME video.
KaraRvn 1 year ago
the term "leprachaun" is extremely offensive to people with Primordial Dwarfism, a very rare genetic condition believed to only affect 100 people in the world, look it up, that is where the legend came from, in an age before medicine and real doctors, genetic problems could often lead to legends of mythical creatures.
IndianaJoel93 1 year ago
Aweeeesoooommmmeee! ^_^
Schala25 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This video completely illustrates the problem with the atheist tack.
FluffyFeralMarmot 1 year ago
@FluffyFeralMarmot How so?
askegg 1 year ago 15
@askegg Because the Christian is always losing. They assume that God makes it so they never lose.
hagamablabla 7 months ago
@FluffyFeralMarmot The proper focus, when someone makes a claim that a leprechaun is in a box, should be on the person making the claim, not the box.
"Really, why do you think there's a leprechaun in the box? Do you often hear leprechauns in boxes? What does the leprechaun mean to you?"
FluffyFeralMarmot 1 year ago
@FluffyFeralMarmot No, the focus should be on the box. The box exists. The person making the claim about the box is irrelevant. The claim about the contents of the box can be tested objectively without reference to the person or persons making the claim. The claim is true or false regardless of how many people may or may not make the claim. A fact is a fact and cannot be changed merely by weight of numbers asserting otherwise.
Jezzmeister 1 year ago
@Jezzmeister Wrong. If it's clearly an unverifiable claim or one of any number of equally likely claims, then the question becomes WHY does this person believe this particular claim. It's becomes an issue of psychology, not reality.
FluffyFeralMarmot 1 year ago
@FluffyFeralMarmot But you've moved the goalposts Fluff. We started out talking about a box that we all agreed, for the sake of this argument, existed. What is being claimed about the contents of the box is objectively verifiable. For you to suddenly assert that the claim is "clearly unverifiable" is a new assertion that has itself no relationship to the situation thus presented. In fact, you've effectively echoed the Agnostic's equally irrational assertion that the box is impervious.
Jezzmeister 1 year ago
@Jezzmeister If the contents are verifiable, that's a different story. You picked up on an old thread...I haven't watched this video in a while so I don't remember the particulars.
My guess would be that no matter what evidence was presented, some people would still stick to their initial claim. In that case, the box would become sort of a Rorschach test, revealing more about the claimant than the contents.
FluffyFeralMarmot 1 year ago
@FluffyFeralMarmot Yes, that's very probable. The cognitive dissonance set up by objective evidence versus firmly held belief rarely results in the dismantling of the belief. It is more usual for the believer to refute the evidence, and set up a set of rationalisations to support their response. That is worthy of further study. Ironically, I suspect that, having refuted objective evidence of their belief-system's falsehood, they are unlikely to accept science-based explanations of themselves.
Jezzmeister 1 year ago
@FluffyFeralMarmot I would like to know too. Cause thus far all the atheist did was ask questions, use evidence, and finally when all else failed rolled his eyes and then got more tools.
sabertooth1980 1 year ago
@FluffyFeralMarmot Yes please elaborate.
MMbass420 1 year ago
I love how much the 'Flanders' character sounds like Ray Comfort.
cherylsalo 1 year ago 3
I haven't laughed so hard in ages!
cherylsalo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
MAT the DILL blocks valu777 is he afraid?
Mat 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. Servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. Are you the enemy of GOD sowing bad seed?
valu777 1 year ago
I've heard this before but this animation really kept my ears attentive. Great vid guys!
drche420 1 year ago
The 'agnostic' at the end was genius.
Mathenaut 1 year ago
Is there a cat in the box too?
nickramsay2 1 year ago
Because awareness and consciousness coherently goes with more dimensions and more dimension mean more ability to do more things so of speak and usually the more dimension and abject has the more complex it gets.
OffNewGrounds 1 year ago 2
But base on the current information given that there is a leprechauns in the box that possibility if it to be in the box is relative small but with the M-theory and the Uncertainty principle they is a chance that there is a Leprechaun's inside.
OffNewGrounds 1 year ago 7
@OffNewGrounds Quantum Leprechauns?
askegg 1 year ago 9
@askegg We know that usually applies to Quantum Mechanics
OffNewGrounds 1 year ago 2
@OffNewGrounds Of course, as soon as the box is opened a radioactive decay will trigger a reaction which will cause the leprechaun to vanish instantly. So, we will never know if it existed at all. So, I suppose, god's existence may be based on a quantum mechanical response! Perhaps the discovery of a god will result in his instantaneous disappearance!!! He he he he.
CombatRocks 1 year ago
@CombatRocks "..discovery of a god will result in his instantaneous disappearance!!!"
Indeed.
`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
(credit to Douglas Adams)
Schala25 1 year ago
@Schala25 Precisely!!
CombatRocks 1 year ago
@OffNewGrounds You probably mean electron wave function collapse, the Schodinger's Cat experiment, to wit that an unobserved space has an infinite number of possible quantum states which all exist simultaneously until observation enforces one - based on probability. The only things you can categorically deny are inside a box are things that are too big to fit inside it, and things which cannot exist 'silver gold / dry water' because of the law of non-contradiction.
KentRigeI 1 year ago
@KentRigeI I didn't know thanks.
OffNewGrounds 1 year ago
@OffNewGrounds You are correct in your assertion in POSSIBILITY.
bulletmunchr 9 months ago
parallel universes dictated that both possibilities are truth so don't bother and open the box.
OffNewGrounds 1 year ago
@OffNewGrounds
Even if it was true in one universe and false the other, that would not mean that it would simultaneously be both at once. Parallel universes don't work that way.
drche420 1 year ago
@drche420 We didn't stated that it would be simultaneously just that there is a still a chance of the event happening.
OffNewGrounds 1 year ago
@OffNewGrounds
The chance would not be 50/50. After all, there being a chance doesn't answer the question of whether the creature exists or not. IE even if it was proven that god was possible to exist, that would not even be close to meaning or proving that god exists.
drche420 1 year ago
@drche420 No comment
OffNewGrounds 1 year ago
That's Theism in a nutshell. The Atheist Experience is awesome and was an intricate part of my deconversion process. Great video.
futurepsycdoc 1 year ago
ahahahhaa. SOO accurate. THUMBS UP
Ecite 1 year ago
This is very well done. It illustrates the concept quite well, and I couldn't stop laughing! Thank you. :-)
KaraRvn 1 year ago
all that and you didnt open the box! you bastard!
MrStripyHead 1 year ago
Major flaw in this video proposition is the assumption that all people have the same level of consciousness and awareness. It varies more than musical ability. A top musician can pick out a sound that a non musical person cannot even hear and thus denies. The deniers are just less highly tuned and virtually deaf to many sound qualities. They mistakenly insist everyone else is deaf also and .liars and fools.Huge mistake.
kimbo99 1 year ago
@kimbo99 Your statement is exactly what the video is refuting, namely, the notion that some people are capable of detecting the existence of some thing which has no objective manifestation and which exists only subjectively. Sounds indetectable to the human ear are nevertheless verifiable by measuring devices which detect sounds outside the normal human range of hearing, yet these indetectable sounds (to human ears) are natural phenomena, not supernatural.
bobtheantman1 1 year ago
@kimbo99 Thus, the claim that some people are able to detect the existence of a god or gods rests on a claim which is not supported by objective analysis or experimentation or observation, and which is revealed to be exactly as those who claim to possess the ability, entirely subjective and unverifiable, thus invalid.
bobtheantman1 1 year ago
@kimbo99 Yes I agree with your state it coherently goes also with the device use to measure the information, higher awareness promotes more "tools" so of speak to receive the information.
OffNewGrounds 1 year ago
Could it possibly be that whoever created the world we live in doesn't want us to know he exists until some later time?
I don't believe that you will perish to hell for not believing in God, that's lunacy.
However, I do believe we go on after we die, after all we are not rocks. We are conscience, that is something I would consider quite amazing.
There is too much organization to the universe and anyone who says the universe is chaos, has not really looked very hard.
Flakester1 1 year ago
@Flakester1
Of course that's possible, just not likely. While your beliefs aren't as threatening as the Abrahamic religions, your still left with no evidence of consciousness existing after we die. It may make you feel good to believe that death isn't eternal, but there is just as much evidence to believe any of the other beliefs. Your concept of god is just more moral.
futurepsycdoc 1 year ago
Agnostics simply don't know whether a god exists or not. The possibility is always there. Maybe god is hiding from people. Seems silly but who knows what the ultimate plan could be! Its ok not to know everything.
porghog 2 years ago
Haha, I love the fact that the agnostic is the most retarded of them all. :P
pr0kris 2 years ago
Hehe, the agnostic is funny as hell.
gagaplex 2 years ago
Wtf did i just watch?
marekatt1 2 years ago
This has just become my favourite video on youtube... The animation is quite good and isn't over the top as some would do, and the script is just fucking brilliant! I can't believe someone could actually squeeze so many things into less than 10 minutes of animation and still maintain it's coherency. Excellent job! All the * in the known Universe, I raise my hat to you, askegg and Matt.
Segepop 2 years ago 2
Why does the rating system not go up to 10? Or 100. Or the first inaccessible cardinal.
birkett83 2 years ago
5/5 and faved
thunderpants10 2 years ago
This is brilliant! Well done.
tallifer1 2 years ago
One small observation: when confronted with the hole on the box, most christians will say that the hole doesn't exist and if you see it it's because the troll makes you believe that, not that you changed boxes.
AzraelI666 2 years ago
Brilliant I loved it.
WatanukiProductions 2 years ago
This is great. It reminds me of a cartoon called "Science vs. Religion" that I saw on the God is Imaginary page. It is in the comics section in the July 2009 cartoons. It is two guys, Science and Religion in a dark room and Religion says there are dragons. It's pretty funny. There are many great atheism/religion is silly cartoons there.
jimbrown257 2 years ago
this is annoying lol
BeyondThaDeepWoods 2 years ago
Love the agnostic "it's impervious"
bowlsallbroken 2 years ago
Awesome, NonStamp was right, you are way too under played.
M1ST3RHYDE 2 years ago
This is so well done, 5/5
RoCkErX285 2 years ago
Repent everybody
The Jesuit General Adolfo Nicolas is Antichrist.
ccf1971 2 years ago
Repent, ccf1971
The Decepticon Supreme Commander Megatron is Antichrist.
GodOfShinyThings 2 years ago
NO WAY!!! I saw his in the first movie and He was definitely covered in Oil making him Anointed in christco Not anti-Cristo.
The real Anti-Cristo told me he Tricked you and you need to believe me or you will Suffer Iternely by being raped while punching the shit out of you right in the stomach FOREVER!!!
M1ST3RHYDE 2 years ago
I really love this video. Nice job!
zece1314 2 years ago
perfect!
Screwlander 2 years ago
I don't like how they portrayed the agnostic as a fence-sitter. Agnosticism is still making a claim, and the claim is that we either A) don't know enough to say whether or not there is a god or B) that we can't know whether or not there is a god. I don't like either, but the point is, agnosticism is not fence sitting. Great video though.
flimflam0069 2 years ago
Thanks that was great
goosini86 2 years ago
What's the song used?
qwertyzz7 2 years ago
So funny, but so true! lol :-)
darrenpearsall 2 years ago 2
Bravo!
cheezombie 2 years ago
Seth Green is behind "Robot Chicken" - an hilarious animated comedy.
askegg 2 years ago
A platoon of robot chickens has been dispatched to deal with your insurgency.
askegg 2 years ago
Ha! Your welcome :)
askegg 2 years ago
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned already, but you should have just synced the actual audio from the radio show with your animation . . . I thought the original acting was superb. You didn't have to do your own voices.
Uneventless 2 years ago
I was unaware they did it on the Non Prophets when I made this. Oh well, live and learn.
askegg 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
As a Christian, I want to share Jesus with others because of the difference He can make in someone's life. As an atheist, you are telling people that God doesn't exist because . . . . I am not sure why. Is it so you don't feel like the only one? I triple dog dare you to read I Chronicles 28:9 in the Old Testament. It will either change your life, or come back to haunt you. I'm praying that it be the prior.
slw80 2 years ago
Lot's of people claim other religions have saved them or makes them feel good. What makes your any better than theirs. (by the way - I was also a Christian).
Again, lots of book have profound sayings, but that does not mean they were dictated by the creator of the universe.
askegg 2 years ago
Oh, and read Judges 1:19 and ask yourself what sort of a god is stopped by iron chariots.
askegg 2 years ago
Argument from personal experience is a logical fallacy and not proof of the existence of god.
The following claim that people have had their lives changed by converting to their belief: Catholics, 7th Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Muslims, Hindi, Buddhists, Hare Krishnas, Scientologists, Wiccans, and on and on.
It's psychological projection. Attributing SELF improvement to an external source.
It's all in your head. There is no secret ingredient in secret ingredient soup.
middlekk 2 years ago 3
I Chron 28:9 is a not-so-veiled threat of hell. And it's bullshit.
There is no hell. There also is no heaven, no soul, no judgment, no afterlife, no nothing. And nobody there to "judge" you. No god of any sort, no angels, no demons, no dead relatives, not one thing.
When you die, you decompose. Period.
Deal with it.
middlekk 2 years ago 17
Bullcrap. I'm not going to decompose. We've got modern science to prevent that. With the help of taxidermy I'll be around forever!
NoAntecessor 2 years ago
I gave you the Fonzie but It turned out as t Thumbs down when I refreshed the screen. This happens alot I have been finding out.
M1ST3RHYDE 2 years ago
The intent is appreciated ;)
NoAntecessor 2 years ago
@middlekk "Hell is other people", Jean Paul Sartre.
CombatRocks 1 year ago
@middlekk
proof
MrSav0 1 year ago
@MrSav0
Logic
middlekk 1 year ago
@middlekk
C'mon dude, that is so close-minded statement
INYO121277 1 year ago
@INYO121277
One should keep an open mind, but not so much that your brains fall out.
middlekk 1 year ago 2
I never realized how much Ned Flanders looks like Ray Comfort until I watched this video!
Priceless!!
slycotto66 2 years ago
Good stuff mate. This video is wonderful.
ChoujiMan 2 years ago 5
nice vid.
3L3M3NTO 2 years ago
Don't be absurd.
fonna 2 years ago
Worth saying in description, even the title. Matt Dillahunty -wrote- it .. He didn't just post it.
jameshanley40 2 years ago
Sadly, this type of interchange is all-too common here in YouTube land.
middlekk 2 years ago
this is brilliant
jameshanley40 2 years ago 3
Repentorburbaby, Your statement is hollow.
Where is the evidence that "god" has actually shown himself? By your standards, i can safely say:
The flying spaghetti monster flew down to Earth last night and spoke to me. If you dont believe in him, then you are going to burn in hell.
Do i need evidence? not by your standards.
doctorsnugglepants 2 years ago 2
Heretic!!!
The FSM does not talk to people.
As evidenced by one of the fundamental tenets of Pastafarianism- the list of "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts."
#7. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Go Around Telling People I Talk To You. You're Not That Interesting. Get Over Yourself. And I Told You To Love Your Fellow Man, Can't You Take A Hint?
You don't burn in FSM hell. Instead, the beer is stale and the strippers have STDs.
RAmen.
middlekk 2 years ago
hes only a heretic if hes been baptised
ArkhonDhuum 2 years ago
Great clip! I particularly liked the inclusion of the self-righteous "agnostic" at 6:45.
geezerbill 2 years ago 2
Why thank you :)
This was done exclusively using Keynote from Apple.
askegg 2 years ago
i love it
sowutifmahsnsux 2 years ago
oh so true about religeon
silverwolfpacora 2 years ago
OMG funny
silverwolfpacora 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
God has revealed himself to all men. So repent or burn baby burn.
repentorburnbaby 2 years ago
Izzybel100, there is just one major flaw in that entire post:
there IS evidence for evolution, and ALOT of it.
doctorsnugglepants 2 years ago 2
Ha! This was brilliant! Wonderful script and double kudos to the animation...you have no idea how much I resemble that goat. All in all, a perfect representation of the modern atheist, theist and agnostic.
GinXYZ 2 years ago
Comment removed
Towedwart 2 years ago
i never said it had to do with his exsitence of god im just saying that evoution is dun b and i cant belive u poeple think we evolved from fish is dats so how come fish today arent evolving into humans?!
izzybel100 2 years ago
u dun tink we cum from fish r u retard
Towedwart 2 years ago
Typical idiot with no idea of what evolution actually says. We are a modern species who did not evolve from another modern species. Progressive and additive changes over long periods of time lead to vastly different organisms - common ancestry. There is nothing to suggest what any species might evolve into.
Jesus, if you are going to attack an idea at least have one clue what's it's about first.
askegg 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
wut the fuck god does exsit i no theres no proof but is there any proof about evolution NO there isnt so u know i woulndt be talking if i were you and if u dont believe in god in thats ok because god doesnt believe in force and hes NOT gonna send u to hell because you dont believe in him !
izzybel100 2 years ago
What does evolution have to do with the the existence (or otherwise) of a god?
askegg 2 years ago
Good Job
FightingAtheist 2 years ago
5* and favved.
deconverts 2 years ago
agnostics simply say, that there is a probability value for the existence of god, based on our current knowledge. biblical god almost certainly does not exist, but some more panteistic theories might have higher values of probability. it is completely unwise to rule them all out. strong atheism is therefore just a very crude approximation of real situation.
velesk 2 years ago
Technically you are correct - and many people are agnostic atheists or agnostic theists. Given there is no evidence for leprechauns in the box (or gods) then the probabilities for both are much the same - should we go around saying leprechauns might exist?
askegg 2 years ago
agnostics are seriously misunderstood in this video. in fact, agnostic approach is the only one compatible with current scientific point of view. no observation of the object does not make it nonexistant. this was shown for example in the discovery of neutrinos, when we had no sensory data, but we did not considered them to be imaginary. now the same situation is with higgs boson. no one saw one yet, but that does not mean, there are none.
velesk 2 years ago
Not quite. The skeptic here wishes to investigate the box and its contents - the agnostic simply declares it cannot be known. While this is a characterisation of the agnostic position, many take this stance without realising the debate is not about knowledge - it's about belief.
We have evidence for neutrinos and Higgs, which is why we hold them to real (until evidence to the contrary comes along).
askegg 2 years ago
we don't have any evidence for the existence of higgs (we are waiting for lhc to provide some). in fact, with no evidence, the probability of higgs and god is the same, but you reject one concept and admit other. why is that?
agnotics says, that the existence of god is unknown to us, not unknowable. all agnostic writers used this definition (T. Huxsley, B. Russell, R.Ingersoll). Only strong agnosticism talks about unknowable and only in some concepts of god.
velesk 2 years ago
Have have mathematical models which predict the Higgs. We do not have equivalents for a god.
Strange you attack my definition of one type of agnostic, then admit to their being different types. A strong agnostic (as demonstrated here) says god is unknowable. A weak one says it's unknown.
If you have a problem with the fence sitters take it up with Matt Dillahunty who wrote the script. All I did was animate it.
askegg 2 years ago
Agnostics do not believe that there is no god. Atheist beleive that there is no god. Both do not believe there is a god. Both share the same scientific approach. Your approach is fine with feisabe things like neurons. But not so great with things like santa clause.
newexperiment 2 years ago
agnostic approach is feisable in all cases. the properties of santa claus (he should be living in north pole, but he isnt there, he should be seen flying in a sledges, but he isnt, his speed of travel is suppously unnatural) so we can easily conclude with our approach, that santa claus doesnt exist. we can say the same for many concepths of gods, but we cannot for some.
velesk 2 years ago
Sure, I guess I should have said leprechauns or fairies or something that you can't say the same for. If you really don't believe that fairies don't exist (neither that they do exist) There's something wrong.
newexperiment 2 years ago
why not? there may be intelligent beings, which are undetectable for our sensors (maybe occupying different dimensions, or other universes). many physicists consider multiverse, or multidimensional theories. some form of substance can be organized in those places in a form, that can be considered as an intelligence. calling those beings funny fairytales names does say absolute nothing about their existence.
velesk 2 years ago
I didn't call them funny farie tale names, I called them things that you can't say the same for.
No one says there can't be intelligent beings in other universes, or undetectable beings, or that we surely aren't in the matrix. What we say is we do not believe we are in the matrix and we believe we are not in 'the matrix'.
Is this really your only argument? To say that it's possible? How many times do we have to point out to you that this is a straw man?
newexperiment 2 years ago
yes, and what i say is that that is not a rational statement. in a scientific approach, the word "believe" has no point. when we don't know about things, we simply don't know. we do not believe one way or another. rational person does not have to have a strong opinion about everything. it is better to say "i don't know" then "i believe".
velesk 2 years ago
Show that it is better (or worse). Are you changing your position to "I believe that but there's no point in talking about it"?
There isn't 'no point' in using believe because it's a well defined position. If you don't believe that stem cells do not have a soul (and don't believe that they do) and a group of people believe they do, and no person believes they don't, guess what happens?
newexperiment 2 years ago
When someone says they believe X, it's equivalent to saying 'I'd voluntarily bet everything and anything that that is the case, although I don't know' (imagining that some magic would reveal the truth).
Put another way, the probability has become low (or high) enough, that it's actually foolish not to bet. (I'll pay you double your bet, the only way you LOSE is if tmw's lottery number IS the number you chose).
newexperiment 2 years ago
I can say with certainty that you would take the lottery bet for as much as you can afford(if nothing extra is added to the scenario). Why? Because It's the most wise thing to do.
So one (of many) uses for using believe is that it allows us to make predictions. I predict another abortion doctor will be murdered because of his profession alone. It's a consequence of belief, not of knowing. "The killer will believe that the the benefits will outweigh the consequences" <--no value in mentioning?
newexperiment 2 years ago
i'm not sure what are you trying to say. anyway, you can predict even without belief. in fact, prediction withot belief are usually much more precise. belief is a subjectional thing, you hardly persuade someone with other belief to yours. you need belief only when you have no evidence, therefore the computation of probability is a hard task. this fact make belief always unjustified.
velesk 2 years ago
I'm saying Susan is taller than jack. You are saying that Mark is the taller than either of them. But you aren't contradicting what I'm saying....
There is value in what I, you, and other's believe. One example of why Is that we can make predictions with such knowledge. Now you contradict or give up.
newexperiment 2 years ago