I love how my brain can grow from watching this and still have its spacial recognision software confused by a young woman holding up a wire shape that represents a chemical/element/etc.
@LaoGahn The person who made this is not the maker of normal symphony of science, it is just a person who wanted to add to the collection of science music.
@gumme1234 It is in fact the work of John Boswell, the fella who does Symphony of Science. It's just not a part of the main series, this is a commisioned work that he's done.
This is fast becoming my favourite art form at the moment. Adding the subtitles and attribution is icing on the cake. Science-bite karaoke :D. Live as if you were to die tomorrow and learn as if you were to live forever? What a couplet. What a noble legacy for future generations!
As an atheist I dislike this hyper-reductive argument propagated by New Atheism- particularly Dawkins & the late Hitchens, that somehow it is a choice between science and religion. This is a false dichotomy as nothing in science prohibits the existence of a deity (interventionist or laissez-faire), and nothing in religion prevents science from being equipped to advance human understanding. Increasing advances provide confidence allowing us to think the existence of a god an unlikely proposition.
@cjbriggs88 You have to remember that Dawkins and Hitchens were focusing on Creationism - the part of religion that thinks that what happened in the book was what actually happened in real life. We know that that is not true, yet the creationists persist on denying the evidence, and that is what they try to get people to realize.
@DarthSatoris Ah, thank you for responsing to my post, if only because it has highlighted my failure to sufficiently target my comment. I was aiming it particularly at the users 'gtas321' and 'Licmycat' who were mutually deriding each other in an invectide-laced diatribe that I don't think is productive for anyone, ever. But as an addition to my original post, I don't like the 'fire-brand' flavour of N.Atheism that is every bit as arrogant as their identified opponents.
@cjbriggs88 Interesting. All I know for sure is that if I were a deity, and wanting to create a universe, I would definitely make it completely self sufficient through whatever processes seem convenient, whether science or magic, acts of God or the force of nature. Sometimes when people consider the concept of deities, they completely fail to grasp at true power that is associated with the word.
Maybe atheists would accept to be experimented on so they could become tin-men. Sorta. Become plastic....reminds me of when we used to call rotten people 'plastic people' back in the 60s. lol....
@Qniversal We bellive most things without evidence, but beliving in a god is allso without hard arguments, we bellive in general relativity, it is not proven with complete certainty but it is the only one that explain gravity the best at the moment, mabye tomorrow a genios come up with a better theory that allso explain black holes peopperly, but untill then we stick with relativity.
But yes we are beyong the earth centered tribal belief of the jewish god of war.
this is one of the coolest melodies on SoS. Always forget about it because it doesn't come up as often as the others...
people on both sides of the religion debate who want to learn more can check out yale college's open lectures on youtube and the yale site where they have entire classes posted that show our best evidence for in formation of the hebrew bible and the new testament. Educate yourselves then bicker!
If people were to stop deluding themselves with nonsensical religions and looked into Deism then Atheism would die out quickly. Atheism is ignorance and sometimes arrogance.
@Shuffle2dMax No! What do you speak of? Atheism is the absolute belief that there is no god. There is no further philosophy on that. Should I say that I don't believe in The Big Bang because it is not fully proven? That logic is seriously flawed.
@gtas321 No, actually it isn't. Even though the two definitions are similar, an atheist is someone who finds the evidence in God(s) insufficient and therefore a deity doesn't feature among things they believe exist. It is possible for someone to be Buddhist AND Atheist, because atheism isn't a faith, it's lack of belief in gods. Buddhism, and several other religions, have no gods, and therefore don't conflict with atheism.
@RavingDragoon That is your own personal definition of god. Although the majority of atheists share this definition the real definition is to believe that god simply does not exist. Absolutely. Without a doubt. Just as theists believe god does exist absolutely. And once again, by the logic that you showcase, atheism is inferior to agnosticism (Which it is).
The question "Is there a god" has three answers, gnostics answer yes or no and from this to we can determine that they are respectively theists and atheists, agnostics answer "I don't know". The beliefs of the agnostics are then still undetermined and we must ask the next question. The question "Do you believe there is a god?" has three answers, theists answer yes, atheists answer no, those who don't know have no label.
@Quintinohthree Those who don't will usually say "I would like to". I admit there are certain questions that cannot be answered by agnostics but this is good because they do not believe absolutely. When not believing absolutely, their mind is more open than atheists or theists.
Deism is no better than religion. It just says, there is a god, but nobody has ever come so far as proving even that true. The religious are just a little worse in that they make the next step and describe the god or gods they say exist, but in the end both steps are made in the absence of evidence or rationality, not just the second.
@Quintinohthree Such stupidity cannot be tolerated. You seem to be debating something that you obviously don't have a decent understanding of. Now tell me, all knowing being, of the evidence you seem to have against god. My evidence for god lies in science and basic logic. Your evidence is based off of nothing. I will tell mine if you are able to provide yours.
"I will tell mine [evidence] if you are able to provide yours."
By doing nothing at all I have already provided all evidence that could ever exist against the existence of a non-specific god and thereby all evidence you requested. Now you do your job and I'll take on the burden of disproof.
Given that we need a definition of god before we can actually discuss whether one exists I propose "a sapient, supernatural being or entity with power over some or all parts of reality".
If you choose to use a completely different definition of god such that all of nature or any part of it by itself can be considered a god then I will simply not continue given that I am an atheist only with regard to those gods that conform to that definition.
You may argue for a god that is what it controls, so panENtheism is possible even if I won't accept pantheism.
If you are already convinced beyond argumentation that I know yet somehow won't connect the dots, then claiming stupidity on my part when this would only indicate closed mindedness on your part becomes quite ironic. You have the benefit of the doubt though. Show that you can sustain sound argument or that your own argument can sustain sound criticism.
@Quintinohthree There is more indirect proof of god than there is direct, but this indirect proof still has meaning, similar to the big bang theory.
1. The majority of the top scientists admit that the universe was created perfectly, and that such perfection COULD NOT be achieved in a random reaction.
2.If you were to connect the majority of the religions in the world you would find a number of similarities that could NOT have been a coincidence, especially since different religion developed..
@Quintinohthree on completely different parts of the world, and the transfer of information in those days simply did not stretch far enough for religions on different continents to have effect on other religions. This similarity thus cannot be due to this. The similarity that I speak of is the human soul, and most have some sort of heaven.
1:The fine-tuning argument. I love this one. Chance is used for prediction of future events, not to look back at past events. When I roll a die I have a 1/6 chance of getting any of the six symbols, however there is a 1/1 chance that I will have a symbol. Similarly there was only a small chance that this universe would be the one (or only one of many), but a 1/1 chance that there would be a universe. All your argument says is if the universe were different, the universe were different.
@Quintinohthree I believe that our universe is one of many myself. But you must understand that even so, this could still be used as loose proof that god exist. I admit, it could possibly definitely be wrong, but it is very likely.
2: You would be surprised to hear that I agree, religions have universal similarities. This is not because they arise from the same god or soul, but because they come from very similar variations of the same human brain. Dprjones recently did an interview of Andy Thompson, author of "Why do we believe in god(s)", in which this was explained on the basis of real neurological findings.
@Quintinohthree I must admit that you are quite the challenge. You bring me back to my logic that the only way for complete understanding is just to simply admit that you do not know. Agnosticism is truly the only way that you could actually "understanding" the universe. Although I am Deist myself, I believe that everything, when it comes to science, must be looked at as a possibility. I suppose you could say that I am a mixture of agnostic and deist.
2: "[Y]ou do not know. Agnosticism is truly the only way"
Surprise, surprise, I am agnostic. An agnostic atheist to be precise. Much like you're an agnostic deist. I just think that believing something extraordinary while admitting you don't have any way of knowing to any degree whether it's true or false is simply absurd.
"I suppose you could say that I am a mixture of agnostic and deist."
I'd say you're both because they aren't mutually exclusive.
@Quintinohthree As of now I am 16 and still learning about the theories that scientific deists use as an underpinning of their beliefs. I do admit that you've beaten me in this debate, but this still does not rule out the possibility that there is a god. Also, why be an agnostic atheist? Why not just be an agnostic?
"[T]his still does not rule out the possibility that there is a god"
Agreed.
"Why not just be an agnostic?"
You know you believe there is a god, that's why you are a theist despite being agnostic as well. I am an atheist because I know I don't believe there is a god, and an agnostic because I know I don't know whether there is a god or not. I can't choose to not be an atheist because I'd have to believe something I don't yet which would require convincing.
By the way, would you mind if I turn the question around a bit? Why be a deist when you are only beginning to discover the arguments that deists use to support their beliefs? Why commit even tentatively to a position for which you do not know a good argument? Or do you think even one of the pair of arguments you presented is valid and based on accurate premises? If you don't even think the arguments are valid, isn't it better not to hold a certain position untill and as long as you do?
@Quintinohthree I do not use arguments that I do not understand. Say I may have tried to use one of the principles of Quantum Theory to underpin my argument, but since I do not fully understand it, I would not use it. I am an Agnostic Deist because the definition fits my belief.
"I do not use arguments that I do not understand."
So these are your best if not also the only arguments for deism you understand? No other arguments. As far as I can see you don't have good reason to believe that there is a god, so why won't you stop believing there is?
"I am an Agnostic Deist because the definition fits my belief."
I am asking you to re-examine your beliefs, not what they make you. Are your beliefs really justified, or should you abandon them for time being.
@Quintinohthree No, I have many many arguments, but many of those arguments simply do not appeal to this debate. As of now I cannot think of any other arguments for the debate, thus I have lost. But this does not mean that god does not exist, I simply am disadvantaged due to my new conversion to Deism. I used to use Christian arguments a couple of months ago.
So you have many other arguments but they didn't even convince you? And somehow deism is a disadvantage? As a deist you can use arguments for every possible god, how's that for a disadvantage. On the first note, shouldn't you stop believing right about now given that you have no arguments for deism, or do those two arguments convince you?
@Quintinohthree I cannot use my arguments for any religious gods because this would be using theistic logic. And if you knew the philosophy of the two you would know just how different they are from each other. I have arguments for Deism but most of my arguments are for theists. As I stated before, I am agnostic deist, thus my belief cannot be disputed and debunked. Over the course of a few days I have become literate in basic quantum mechanics, I could use...
@Quintinohthree this new knowledge that I have learned to defend the existence of god but I simply choose not to, because until you have mastered the concept you cannot use the concept. Similar to using big words that you don't have a completely clear understanding of.
"I cannot use my arguments for any religious gods because this would be using theistic logic."
So? You want an argument for the truth, not an argument for what you already believe unless that is the truth. Or do you think these arguments are simply invalid? I agree if so.
"And if you knew the philosophy of the two you would know just how different they are from each other."
"I have arguments for Deism but most of my arguments are for theists."
So why aren't you a theist? If you think the arguments for theism are invalid then why mention them. It's like me saying that I have arguments for racism but it's not even good enough for myself.
"my belief cannot be disputed and debunked."
In other words it's unfalsifiable: unscientific. Are you supposed to be a scientific deist?
@Quintinohthree I suggest you learn exactly what scientific deism is before calling it unscientific. Something that is not provable cannot be disputed nor debunked. This is the case when considering the existence of god.
"I have become literate in basic quantum mechanics"
Unless you've done a study at a real university, I'm not impressed. Not because it's easy, it's so hard that it's been said that if you think you understand it you really don't.
And have you noticed that nobody who has really studied it has ever claimed that it proved the existence of a god?
But clearly you don't even understand the argument, so why does it matter? I don't even use any arguments I don't understand to convince myself.
@Quintinohthree Doing study at a "real university" doesn't mean anything. I could learn more from basic research than any university could ever teach me. Even a 16 year old knows that. As I just said, "in BASIC quantum mechanics". The very basics are understandable... And please do research on uneducated statements such as "nobody who has really studied quantum mechanics has ever claimed that it proved the existence of god". Your arguments up to this point have actually all failed.
"I suggest you learn exactly what scientific deism is before calling it unscientific."
I suggest you learn that something is unscientific if it is unfalsifibable. You've said your supposed "scientific" theism can't be debunked, therefore it can't be falsified, therefore it's unscientific. Unless your deism makes testable and falsifiable claims which haven't been falsified it's nothing more than a self-consistent idea not worthy of the label "scientific".
"Something that is not provable cannot be disputed nor debunked."
I'd say we needn't even consider such claims because if false they are indistinguishable from the truth and if true they are indistinguishable from what's false.
"This is the case when considering the existence of god."
Indeed, no need to even consider a god who's existence is indistinguishable from his non-existence.
"I could learn more from basic research than any university could ever teach me."
Tell me when a paper you've written about quantum mechanics has been published in a respectable peer reviewed magazine. More seriously, this statement is not just absurd, it's ludicrous.
As for any quantum physicists claiming quantum mechanics proved the existence of any god, you provide me one and I'll concede.
@Quintinohthree Didn't see this comment. Did you really just say that I could learn more from a university than from doing research and learning on my own? -_-. Explain why not.
Why must I explain this? At a university you have all the materials and knowledge available for you. At home, you still have to get all of it. It's really that simple. And besides, at a university you work structurally towards a goal.
@Quintinohthree The only materials that someone would need are a few textbooks and the internet... Why pay a couple of thousand when you could pay a couple of hundred to learn it in your own time and at your own pace at home? Face it, the only reason an aspiring scientist would go to a university is not only to learn (Which you could easily do at home) but primarily to be official and actually get a career along that path. You would have to be insane to think learning by yourself is inferior.
With mathematics I could see what you mean because it's completely independent from reality. Science is connected to reality. Every science you study at a university requires you to do experiments, to actually do something. Those cost a fortune to do just once. Those are things you can't do at home for a couple hundred dollars.
@gtas321 Honestly Deism is about as intellectually unsound as strict A-theism, to say there is NO God, or to say there IS a God, both are unsubstantiated and illogical to campaign for. Therefore the best argument for your Deism would be Agnosticism. We honestly don't know whether or not there is a God, there could or couldn't be. Strict Deism v. Atheism debates are nothing but philosophical playthings and should be viewed as such.
@b33p3rz Scientific Deists tend to believe that there is a god but are open the the possibility that there may not be. The reason they are coined "Scientific" because they tend to use quantum mechanics to support their arguments. If one did understand just the basics, then even you would seriously consider that there is a higher chance of their being a god than not.
There being evidence of non-coincidental similarities between religions is evidence only of the origin of all religions being the same, not necessarily of there being a god.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I feel so sad for all of you who don't know Him... :( If only you could experience the joy that comes from knowing God.... you would NEVER want to go back. One day it will be too late... and you will be accountable to God for rejecting Him.
"Seek the LORD while He may be found, Call upon Him while He is near.
Let the wicked forsake his way, And the unrighteous man his thoughts; Let him return to the LORD, And He will have mercy on him; And to our God, For He will abundantly pardon."
@romas323 Your joy may be overwhelming and understandable, but some people were born to see diferently, and when i say that, i mean how they where raised. When people are introduced to somthing at an early age, they will follow it through to the end, or they will avoid it like theres no 2morrow. Some people also just think differently from the very day they where born. "God" they think is a fake person with false promises, making them stray from it, and/or they see no satisfaction from it.
@romas323 I would rather be an intellectually honest person than submit to a comfortable delusion. I think it is inherently preferable to seek the truth, and I get great satisfaction in my attempts. Besides, even if the God of the Christian Bible were real, I could never love him. His character is a capricious, racist, abusive dictator.
I'll jump in here; and say that I agree with Dawkins and others, In that Religion and Science will never coexist peacefully because Science enforces empirical ideologies where morality is an implicit value and an intrinsically human value. Independent of Religion.
@IronicAtheis and @RaveCrow3 after reading both of your back and forth comments you're both missing the big picture here, we are alive, in this place and this time, at this very instant, God and the Devil, good and evil are inventions of one thing, mankind. They didn't exist before we made them up, there is no way to know the after, so assume no punishment except what is doled out in the hear and now, every moment is an opportunity, and you are wasting yours by arguing points that don't matter.
@IamZren89 We were debating. It's something that some people actually like to do. You can even take classes in high schools and colleges in debate. We weren't arguing. Arguing assumes that there can't be a winner while a debate can be won by outwitting your opponent. It's like a game of chess but with a topic and it's played with words.
@IamZren89 Now you're just implying things. I dunno about my opponent but I never said or implied that I thought I was debating well. I know I don't debate well because I have never taken a single debate class in my life. Just liking a subject or doing it often doesn't make me good at it.
@LavaSharkk Agreeing to disagree is ultimately a suspension of all reason, which creates the very impasse at which violent conflicts eventually erupt.
@LavaSharkk I agree that we disagree. As a human though I crave conflict, and if I didn't argue ideas, I'd have to combat someone physically. The internet, may yet be a force for pacifism.
@LavaSharkk For a lot of people, to debate is interesting and more mentally stimulating than just watching the video.
Some fools find that trolling achieves the same effect, but many individuals geniunely want to debate because it's a challenge.
Personally, I enjoy hearing other people's perspectives. I may not always agree with them, but I enjoy pitting my arguments against them and having people poke holes in my logic that I may not have seen by myself.
Agreement is boring. Disagreement is interesting. Only when people have ideas that don't match up is it possible for anyone to learn anything new. If everyone all thought the same, or, worse, never discussed differences, life would be boring. If you have nothing that inflames your passions, and know nothing worth talking about, good luck to you.
@LavaSharkk "agree to disagree" is one of the dumbest solutions to anything. It's tantamount to "Our opinions differ, but just accept mine as right, mkay?"
@harkashark I think the superiority of science is pretty selfevident. I think it would be healthier for society as a whole if more people came to that conclusion,but that's just life for ya.
The flood wasn't unnecessary killing because everyone was tainted (yes feel free to comment on this cause I know you will). Wars happen when two people fight for control and thus it is the humans who choose whether to kill their opponents or not. It is easily plausible for someone to merely injure every opponent to the point of incapacity than to merely kill them, so it was the soldiers choice to kill and not capture. Hating someone is bad. I said nothing of hating an idea...
@RaveCrow3 Oh yes, that's right it was about purging the unclean, even though Noah was a human who was a DRUNK, a sin in the bible and obviously god somehow wiped him of his sin, without killing him right? oooohhhh shocking revelation there god PURGED the evil from someone WITHOUT killing them. So somehow I'm supposed to believe Noah got "cleaned" without death but god couldn't do that for everyone else? he had to kill everyone even babies. respond to this one carefully and separately.
@IronicAtheist First if I see you use the word fail one more time I'm going to go crazy. You don't use the word fail in a debate. It doesn't help you prove a point at all. We may choose any choice we want. If we want to kill ourselves then we may. If we want to live our lives a certain way we can. Anyone can become the ruler of the world if they really wanted to. And I said that he can see all our possible futures. Just because there is a chance that someone might turn out to be...
@RaveCrow3 We do not have free will that is any different then free will amongst only good choices. both are limited free will. Your insisting evil came from NOWHERE, out of NOTHING, and it goes against god's goal. Ok so why did god kill EVERYONE but Noah to get rid of evil? that is like saying the idea that ridding your body of 99% poison will reveal results that show there is no longer poison...
@IronicAtheist the very embodiment of evil doesnt mean you obliterate them. That would be nonsense. It would be like setting fire to your crops before they're ripe because they might be rotten. I need a reference to prove that that Noah was a drunk as you say. And no Noah wasn't "cleaned". He just wasn't as impure as others. Babies go to heaven regardless anyway, so that is a null point.
@RaveCrow3 "doesnt mean you obliterate them" oh but that's what your god did in the Noah account. there is no less impure, god believes if your sin was theft, you deserve forever punishment. if you wear certain fabrics and that is the only sin you commit you deserve endless punishment. the idea of these things being equally punishable is one thing, but for them all to punishable with a punishment that takes the punishment their crimes deserve and multiplies it infinitely is infinite injustice.
@IronicAtheist Wearing certain fabrics has nothing to do with anything I believe. And as I said before good and evil arent entities exactly but are instead ways of doing things. No, neither God nor I said anything about getting completely rid of sin by flooding the world. It merely makes things much more manageable and simpler when you have less of a bad thing. Every sin is equal in God's eyes. Yes that is true. However not all sin have equal punishment. This is because some sins may be...
@RaveCrow3 I understand the word fail doesn't prove a point, but it just shows you any logical person would see your arguments as fail, because you don't fill alot of gaps with logic, you just build a bridge over the gaps and ignore it. If god is strong enough to rid the world of sin just by THINKING it, and he WANTS to get rid of it, anything else he does to remove sin from the world is not only unnecessary but if it's the stuff your god does he is immoral=FACT
@IronicAtheist compromised of more than one sin. Such as theft and murder for instance. Theft breaks two commandments. Thou shall not steal and thou shall not covet another's possessions. While murder may break any or all of them depending on the reasons. Punishment is dealt based on how many rules you crossed. Each rule broken adds an equal amount of punishment. So no unless you live off of thievery it isn't normal to be punished endlessly for theft.
@RaveCrow3 "it isn't normal to be punished endlessly for theft." your using an analogy that does not apply, and has no bearing, why? A humans lifespan is not infinite so when you get to the afterlife you did not commit an infinite amount of sin... no matter how much sin you committed it never adds up to an infinite amount in a humans lifespan so ergo it will not equal an infinite time sentence of punishment.
@IronicAtheist I was working on what you said. You said "God believes if your sin was theft, you deserve forever punishment." I proved you wrong and now you wanna complain. God gives us free will, but to permanently get rid of sin would be to take that unconditional free will away and replace it with what you call "limited free will". So you're just going in circles and stepping on your own toes. I'm in this for the debate. I don't want to argue. If that's what you want then I resign from this.
@RaveCrow3 "unconditional free will" first off this universe has a lot of grey area you cannot choose. Your claiming the limits of this universe as all encompassing of all possible ranges of choices, so basically a dual based universe is the highest it gets... let me ask you........ what about a TRIO based universe? or a QUAD based universe? and so on and so forth? Answer very carefully now, and try not to skip understanding any logical implications of what you might say.
@IronicAtheist I hope I understood what you were trying to say, but if I didn't please clarify. What i mean by unconditional free will is that there are an uncountable amount of universes that our particular time can branch off to. That would be based on who does what, when they do it, and how they do it. So technically, from what I personally believe, this universe only lasts for the moment we live in it. In the next second we will be in a different universe because of someone's decision, ...
im flummoxed, i went to the mygenewize site expecting detail about genetics and science, expecting it probably sells some sort of growth hormone stimulating supplement type of thing..
...but instead its just some sort of robo-marketing management program, thats right, no dna, no science, no research info, nothing but a bunch of monotonous meta-marketing madness, wha happen?
Very good, sounds like AS IF it comes from Symphony of Science, it sounds awesome, but what I don't like about it is that you said that it comes from Symphony of Science. Can you please tell me what software you used to make songs like this and for pitch correcting, as well as turning talking to singing?
I said create humans. Not life. You use methods and materials to create things. Evolution is a method and life is a material. I did not mix up my terms. They were right in my context.
Sadly though many of the famous scientists of whom we now know were absolutely correct were challenged in society. Even with the proof they had. I know that does not say anything for those without proof though, but having proof also doesn't necessarily mean you're right.
Science can be a religion. Everyone is free to choose their own beliefs whether or not their government allows them to publicly express it. With that said, some religions still coincide with science. Who's to say that God didn't use evolution to create man? It never says EXACTLY how he made us. Then the Buddhists' and Hinduists' view may not be wrong either. We are all really made up of recycled elements, so who's to say that we aren't reincarnated? Science does confirm religion in some cases.
@RaveCrow3 The Theory of Evolution is not to tell us how we got here, that is Abiogenesis. The Theory of Evolution only tells us what happens to life after it arrives here ;) Be careful not to mix up the terms ...
Also yes people are free to believe what they want but will be challenged by society if they can't give good reasons for why what they believe is true ;)
By the looks of it this SoS was sponsored by GeneWize, hence the advert at the end and the fact that the lyrics are remixed from Genewize speakers. I have been doing a few web searches on GeneWize and it is one strange company. I don't know if they're legit or not so if anyone knows anything I'd love to know.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
Religion is a set of beliefs that attempt to explain the nature of the universe. This is what science is as well. Me being a scientific man myself, I still have a religion, although I'm not very religious and am almost atheist, and I think that religion doesn't necessarily have to be organized. I in fact do not like organize religion, as I believe it has diluted the morals taught by Buddha and Lao Tzu and Muhammad, but I can still respect those morals, despite being scientific.
If you were to put 4600 million years on a 12 hour clock, you'll see that we are living but a second on this planet. I find it arrogant that some people disregard the beauty of life 3500 million years ago. We are not the beginning nor the end. If something really goes wrong then it's not us that has the highest chance of survival but the 'primitive' organisms some people don't even notice or care about. Bacteria
@Rellics in what way were people referring to primitive organisms? because technically primitive is a scientific term for something like an ancestral species.
@miragescience Well even if human didn't exist. Science would still exist without them, since if some creature evolve and get enough intelligent to ask question about how does the world work. They will find out science, they may not use the same word. Science is priceless for evolution of a species. So it has a price, in some way.
@xSnapper26x Religion and learning aren't directly related. You can be very religious and yet be a scientist who is always learning. You make the choice to learn or not to learn. (As far as I know there isn't a single religion that prohibits learning.)
@RaveCrow3 "As far as I know there isn't a single religion that prohibits learning" Is it not the will of MOST religions to push a certain doctrine about the universe, morality, life etc down peoples throats and discourage skeptical enquiry and free thought. In the time of Galileo and also in the times of the Inquisition, people were burned at the stake for opposing the church and would still be today if the church had their power, and your saying that religions doesn't prohibit learning, WOW
You were quite free to learn all you wanted, so long as it was information the religious authority deemed "appropriate." It isn't that religion prohibits learning, but that it suppresses critical thinking.
@Xeno426 "You were quite free to learn all you wanted, so long as it was information the religious authority deemed "appropriate."" Thats my exact point, it is restrictive learning so therefore not really proper learning. I agree with you that religion does suppress critical thinking ...
@xSnapper26x No. True Christians/Jews who actually follow the Torah/Bible would never have done that. True Christians/Jews do not exist in high numbers. True Christians/Jews will not kill for any reason because that is what God commanded. Any Christian/Jew who did that were in themselves a heretic. The "Church" you speak of is nothing but a false image. You cannot condemn the true believers for the wrongs of the false. It's like saying that every American is stupid, every Britain is stuck-up,...
@xSnapper26x or that every Australian rides a kangaroo to school or work. If groups were to be judged purely by all the bad in them then all of humankind should be sentenced to death. There are more humans that choose to swing towards the bad side then the good. We are all individuals. That in itself proves that groups do not all share the same opinions, thoughts, and beliefs. Even among major religions like Islam and Christianity everyone believes in their religion differently...
after hearing "learn as If you were to live forever"... I started studying lol
YINGAI1995 1 day ago
I love how my brain can grow from watching this and still have its spacial recognision software confused by a young woman holding up a wire shape that represents a chemical/element/etc.
Areyourealythatdumb 1 week ago
I didin't know Mendel was a DJ?
drwaxmax 2 weeks ago
Is this downloadable anywhere?
LaoGahn 2 weeks ago
@LaoGahn Go to Symphony of Science's website. They have downloads there.
GrowTheTruth 1 week ago
@GrowTheTruth THey don't have THIS song. DNA & Life is missing from the list of songs. I've already been to the website.
LaoGahn 1 week ago
How come this song isn't included on the Symphony of Science website? Is it fanmade or something?
LaoGahn 2 weeks ago
@LaoGahn The person who made this is not the maker of normal symphony of science, it is just a person who wanted to add to the collection of science music.
gumme1234 2 weeks ago
@gumme1234 It is in fact the work of John Boswell, the fella who does Symphony of Science. It's just not a part of the main series, this is a commisioned work that he's done.
synyster86 2 weeks ago in playlist SoS
please make more of these.
quzishen 2 weeks ago
Where the lyricks at?
MrDJPPR 3 weeks ago
Which documentary would this happen to be? I'd love to watch it.
Sizednochi 3 weeks ago
"Live as if you were to die tomorrow.
Learn as if your were to live forever." - Gandhi
DrMadolite 4 weeks ago 20
This is fast becoming my favourite art form at the moment. Adding the subtitles and attribution is icing on the cake. Science-bite karaoke :D. Live as if you were to die tomorrow and learn as if you were to live forever? What a couplet. What a noble legacy for future generations!
intermender 4 weeks ago
As an atheist I dislike this hyper-reductive argument propagated by New Atheism- particularly Dawkins & the late Hitchens, that somehow it is a choice between science and religion. This is a false dichotomy as nothing in science prohibits the existence of a deity (interventionist or laissez-faire), and nothing in religion prevents science from being equipped to advance human understanding. Increasing advances provide confidence allowing us to think the existence of a god an unlikely proposition.
cjbriggs88 1 month ago
@cjbriggs88 You have to remember that Dawkins and Hitchens were focusing on Creationism - the part of religion that thinks that what happened in the book was what actually happened in real life. We know that that is not true, yet the creationists persist on denying the evidence, and that is what they try to get people to realize.
DarthSatoris 4 weeks ago
@DarthSatoris Ah, thank you for responsing to my post, if only because it has highlighted my failure to sufficiently target my comment. I was aiming it particularly at the users 'gtas321' and 'Licmycat' who were mutually deriding each other in an invectide-laced diatribe that I don't think is productive for anyone, ever. But as an addition to my original post, I don't like the 'fire-brand' flavour of N.Atheism that is every bit as arrogant as their identified opponents.
cjbriggs88 3 weeks ago
@cjbriggs88 Interesting. All I know for sure is that if I were a deity, and wanting to create a universe, I would definitely make it completely self sufficient through whatever processes seem convenient, whether science or magic, acts of God or the force of nature. Sometimes when people consider the concept of deities, they completely fail to grasp at true power that is associated with the word.
Battleturtleful 4 weeks ago
@Licmycat most Christians don't like science. it contradicts their beliefs completely.
gtas321 1 month ago
Maybe atheists would accept to be experimented on so they could become tin-men. Sorta. Become plastic....reminds me of when we used to call rotten people 'plastic people' back in the 60s. lol....
Licmycat 1 month ago
@Licmycat Dude, you're old..
gtas321 1 month ago
@gtas321 Yeah. I'm old and you're young and stupid. About history at the very least.
Licmycat 1 month ago
@Licmycat Nope, both historically and scientifically literate. I must ask why you, a Christian, is interested in Science?
gtas321 1 month ago
@gtas321 Clearly you know NOTHING about people. Ask an expert. I have nothing to do with gossipe Sociologists.
Licmycat 1 month ago
Dear Youtube, pls make all videos, contain an auto-replay button.
Thumbs up so they can see!
Woosabinladen 1 month ago
This wasn't a real symphony of science -.-
sMACkedaroundTV 1 month ago
there is no evidence for any god, yet alone the christian god. believing in something without evidence is just foolish.
btw. where can i find the original dialogue samples for this video?
Qniversal 1 month ago
@Qniversal We bellive most things without evidence, but beliving in a god is allso without hard arguments, we bellive in general relativity, it is not proven with complete certainty but it is the only one that explain gravity the best at the moment, mabye tomorrow a genios come up with a better theory that allso explain black holes peopperly, but untill then we stick with relativity.
But yes we are beyong the earth centered tribal belief of the jewish god of war.
gumme1234 2 weeks ago
this is one of the coolest melodies on SoS. Always forget about it because it doesn't come up as often as the others...
people on both sides of the religion debate who want to learn more can check out yale college's open lectures on youtube and the yale site where they have entire classes posted that show our best evidence for in formation of the hebrew bible and the new testament. Educate yourselves then bicker!
kelbykross1 1 month ago
amazing quote
kkevin369 1 month ago
0:21 my future wife
outlaw87100 1 month ago
Its not the godlike part of genetic modificcation I am afraid of. Its the cruel of some very big medicine concerns, goverments.
chrisliebaer 1 month ago
Thanks! This video made my day!!! Regards from Brazil!
Lima547 1 month ago
Comment removed
farlib13 1 month ago
Viva como você fosse morrer amanhã e aprenda como você fosse viver para sempre.
SuperJeanpaulo 1 month ago
If people were to stop deluding themselves with nonsensical religions and looked into Deism then Atheism would die out quickly. Atheism is ignorance and sometimes arrogance.
gtas321 1 month ago
@gtas321 stop being stupid, atheism can't be ignorance because they believe in what is proven, how can believing in the proven be ignorance ?
Shuffle2dMax 1 month ago
@Shuffle2dMax No! What do you speak of? Atheism is the absolute belief that there is no god. There is no further philosophy on that. Should I say that I don't believe in The Big Bang because it is not fully proven? That logic is seriously flawed.
gtas321 1 month ago
@gtas321 no that's not atheism, that's stupid atheists.
Shuffle2dMax 1 month ago
@gtas321 No, actually it isn't. Even though the two definitions are similar, an atheist is someone who finds the evidence in God(s) insufficient and therefore a deity doesn't feature among things they believe exist. It is possible for someone to be Buddhist AND Atheist, because atheism isn't a faith, it's lack of belief in gods. Buddhism, and several other religions, have no gods, and therefore don't conflict with atheism.
RavingDragoon 1 month ago in playlist Best of Symphony of Science
@RavingDragoon That is your own personal definition of god. Although the majority of atheists share this definition the real definition is to believe that god simply does not exist. Absolutely. Without a doubt. Just as theists believe god does exist absolutely. And once again, by the logic that you showcase, atheism is inferior to agnosticism (Which it is).
gtas321 1 month ago
@gtas321
"[A]theism is inferior to agnosticism"
The question "Is there a god" has three answers, gnostics answer yes or no and from this to we can determine that they are respectively theists and atheists, agnostics answer "I don't know". The beliefs of the agnostics are then still undetermined and we must ask the next question. The question "Do you believe there is a god?" has three answers, theists answer yes, atheists answer no, those who don't know have no label.
Does that help?
Quintinohthree 1 month ago
@Quintinohthree Those who don't will usually say "I would like to". I admit there are certain questions that cannot be answered by agnostics but this is good because they do not believe absolutely. When not believing absolutely, their mind is more open than atheists or theists.
gtas321 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gtas321
"Those who don't will usually say "I would like to"."
Who don't what? Know? I agree. Believe? Definitely not.
"[T]here are certain questions that cannot be answered by agnostics"
Agnostics can answer the latter question, so what questions would these be?
"When not believing absolutely, their mind is more open than atheists or theists."
Unless they know whether they believe there is a god or not, then they are atheists or theists.
Quintinohthree 1 month ago
@gtas321
Deism is no better than religion. It just says, there is a god, but nobody has ever come so far as proving even that true. The religious are just a little worse in that they make the next step and describe the god or gods they say exist, but in the end both steps are made in the absence of evidence or rationality, not just the second.
I'd love to be proven wrong though.
Quintinohthree 1 month ago
@Quintinohthree Such stupidity cannot be tolerated. You seem to be debating something that you obviously don't have a decent understanding of. Now tell me, all knowing being, of the evidence you seem to have against god. My evidence for god lies in science and basic logic. Your evidence is based off of nothing. I will tell mine if you are able to provide yours.
gtas321 1 month ago
@gtas321
1)
"I will tell mine [evidence] if you are able to provide yours."
By doing nothing at all I have already provided all evidence that could ever exist against the existence of a non-specific god and thereby all evidence you requested. Now you do your job and I'll take on the burden of disproof.
Given that we need a definition of god before we can actually discuss whether one exists I propose "a sapient, supernatural being or entity with power over some or all parts of reality".
cont...
Quintinohthree 1 month ago
@Quintinohthree There is no such thing as supernatural, that is a fairytale invented by the religious to excuse basic scientific happenings.
gtas321 1 month ago
@gtas321
What about metaphysical? The word means exactly the same but derived from different languages.
Quintinohthree 1 month ago
@gtas321
2)
If you choose to use a completely different definition of god such that all of nature or any part of it by itself can be considered a god then I will simply not continue given that I am an atheist only with regard to those gods that conform to that definition.
You may argue for a god that is what it controls, so panENtheism is possible even if I won't accept pantheism.
Quintinohthree 1 month ago
@Quintinohthree By the way, I meant stupidity in the aspect that you have the information but you refuse to learn it.
gtas321 1 month ago in playlist Symphony of Science
@gtas321
If you are already convinced beyond argumentation that I know yet somehow won't connect the dots, then claiming stupidity on my part when this would only indicate closed mindedness on your part becomes quite ironic. You have the benefit of the doubt though. Show that you can sustain sound argument or that your own argument can sustain sound criticism.
Quintinohthree 1 month ago
@Quintinohthree There is more indirect proof of god than there is direct, but this indirect proof still has meaning, similar to the big bang theory.
1. The majority of the top scientists admit that the universe was created perfectly, and that such perfection COULD NOT be achieved in a random reaction.
2.If you were to connect the majority of the religions in the world you would find a number of similarities that could NOT have been a coincidence, especially since different religion developed..
gtas321 1 month ago
@Quintinohthree on completely different parts of the world, and the transfer of information in those days simply did not stretch far enough for religions on different continents to have effect on other religions. This similarity thus cannot be due to this. The similarity that I speak of is the human soul, and most have some sort of heaven.
gtas321 1 month ago
@gtas321
1:The fine-tuning argument. I love this one. Chance is used for prediction of future events, not to look back at past events. When I roll a die I have a 1/6 chance of getting any of the six symbols, however there is a 1/1 chance that I will have a symbol. Similarly there was only a small chance that this universe would be the one (or only one of many), but a 1/1 chance that there would be a universe. All your argument says is if the universe were different, the universe were different.
Quintinohthree 1 month ago
@Quintinohthree I believe that our universe is one of many myself. But you must understand that even so, this could still be used as loose proof that god exist. I admit, it could possibly definitely be wrong, but it is very likely.
gtas321 1 month ago
@gtas321
2: You would be surprised to hear that I agree, religions have universal similarities. This is not because they arise from the same god or soul, but because they come from very similar variations of the same human brain. Dprjones recently did an interview of Andy Thompson, author of "Why do we believe in god(s)", in which this was explained on the basis of real neurological findings.
Quintinohthree 1 month ago
@Quintinohthree I must admit that you are quite the challenge. You bring me back to my logic that the only way for complete understanding is just to simply admit that you do not know. Agnosticism is truly the only way that you could actually "understanding" the universe. Although I am Deist myself, I believe that everything, when it comes to science, must be looked at as a possibility. I suppose you could say that I am a mixture of agnostic and deist.
gtas321 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gtas321
1: "I believe that our universe is one of many myself."
Then it's surprising that you would use an argument, refutable by simply saying "multiverse", to prove that there is a god.
"[T]his [the fine-tuning argument] could still be used as loose proof that god exist."
No it can't. The solution "god" is not the only solution to the problem, and I don't even accept that the problem presented is actually a problem.
Quintinohthree 1 month ago
@gtas321
2: "[Y]ou do not know. Agnosticism is truly the only way"
Surprise, surprise, I am agnostic. An agnostic atheist to be precise. Much like you're an agnostic deist. I just think that believing something extraordinary while admitting you don't have any way of knowing to any degree whether it's true or false is simply absurd.
"I suppose you could say that I am a mixture of agnostic and deist."
I'd say you're both because they aren't mutually exclusive.
Quintinohthree 1 month ago
@Quintinohthree As of now I am 16 and still learning about the theories that scientific deists use as an underpinning of their beliefs. I do admit that you've beaten me in this debate, but this still does not rule out the possibility that there is a god. Also, why be an agnostic atheist? Why not just be an agnostic?
gtas321 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gtas321
"[T]his still does not rule out the possibility that there is a god"
Agreed.
"Why not just be an agnostic?"
You know you believe there is a god, that's why you are a theist despite being agnostic as well. I am an atheist because I know I don't believe there is a god, and an agnostic because I know I don't know whether there is a god or not. I can't choose to not be an atheist because I'd have to believe something I don't yet which would require convincing.
Quintinohthree 1 month ago
@gtas321
By the way, would you mind if I turn the question around a bit? Why be a deist when you are only beginning to discover the arguments that deists use to support their beliefs? Why commit even tentatively to a position for which you do not know a good argument? Or do you think even one of the pair of arguments you presented is valid and based on accurate premises? If you don't even think the arguments are valid, isn't it better not to hold a certain position untill and as long as you do?
Quintinohthree 1 month ago
@Quintinohthree I do not use arguments that I do not understand. Say I may have tried to use one of the principles of Quantum Theory to underpin my argument, but since I do not fully understand it, I would not use it. I am an Agnostic Deist because the definition fits my belief.
gtas321 1 month ago
@gtas321
"I do not use arguments that I do not understand."
So these are your best if not also the only arguments for deism you understand? No other arguments. As far as I can see you don't have good reason to believe that there is a god, so why won't you stop believing there is?
"I am an Agnostic Deist because the definition fits my belief."
I am asking you to re-examine your beliefs, not what they make you. Are your beliefs really justified, or should you abandon them for time being.
Quintinohthree 1 month ago
@Quintinohthree No, I have many many arguments, but many of those arguments simply do not appeal to this debate. As of now I cannot think of any other arguments for the debate, thus I have lost. But this does not mean that god does not exist, I simply am disadvantaged due to my new conversion to Deism. I used to use Christian arguments a couple of months ago.
gtas321 1 month ago
@gtas321
So you have many other arguments but they didn't even convince you? And somehow deism is a disadvantage? As a deist you can use arguments for every possible god, how's that for a disadvantage. On the first note, shouldn't you stop believing right about now given that you have no arguments for deism, or do those two arguments convince you?
Quintinohthree 1 month ago
@Quintinohthree I cannot use my arguments for any religious gods because this would be using theistic logic. And if you knew the philosophy of the two you would know just how different they are from each other. I have arguments for Deism but most of my arguments are for theists. As I stated before, I am agnostic deist, thus my belief cannot be disputed and debunked. Over the course of a few days I have become literate in basic quantum mechanics, I could use...
gtas321 1 month ago
@Quintinohthree this new knowledge that I have learned to defend the existence of god but I simply choose not to, because until you have mastered the concept you cannot use the concept. Similar to using big words that you don't have a completely clear understanding of.
gtas321 1 month ago
@gtas321
"I cannot use my arguments for any religious gods because this would be using theistic logic."
So? You want an argument for the truth, not an argument for what you already believe unless that is the truth. Or do you think these arguments are simply invalid? I agree if so.
"And if you knew the philosophy of the two you would know just how different they are from each other."
One is just a single step further than the other.
cont...
Quintinohthree 1 month ago
@gtas321
"I have arguments for Deism but most of my arguments are for theists."
So why aren't you a theist? If you think the arguments for theism are invalid then why mention them. It's like me saying that I have arguments for racism but it's not even good enough for myself.
"my belief cannot be disputed and debunked."
In other words it's unfalsifiable: unscientific. Are you supposed to be a scientific deist?
cont...
Quintinohthree 1 month ago 3
@Quintinohthree I suggest you learn exactly what scientific deism is before calling it unscientific. Something that is not provable cannot be disputed nor debunked. This is the case when considering the existence of god.
gtas321 1 month ago
Comment removed
Quintinohthree 1 month ago
@gtas321
"I have become literate in basic quantum mechanics"
Unless you've done a study at a real university, I'm not impressed. Not because it's easy, it's so hard that it's been said that if you think you understand it you really don't.
And have you noticed that nobody who has really studied it has ever claimed that it proved the existence of a god?
But clearly you don't even understand the argument, so why does it matter? I don't even use any arguments I don't understand to convince myself.
Quintinohthree 1 month ago
@Quintinohthree Doing study at a "real university" doesn't mean anything. I could learn more from basic research than any university could ever teach me. Even a 16 year old knows that. As I just said, "in BASIC quantum mechanics". The very basics are understandable... And please do research on uneducated statements such as "nobody who has really studied quantum mechanics has ever claimed that it proved the existence of god". Your arguments up to this point have actually all failed.
gtas321 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gtas321
"I suggest you learn exactly what scientific deism is before calling it unscientific."
I suggest you learn that something is unscientific if it is unfalsifibable. You've said your supposed "scientific" theism can't be debunked, therefore it can't be falsified, therefore it's unscientific. Unless your deism makes testable and falsifiable claims which haven't been falsified it's nothing more than a self-consistent idea not worthy of the label "scientific".
cont...
Quintinohthree 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gtas321
"Something that is not provable cannot be disputed nor debunked."
I'd say we needn't even consider such claims because if false they are indistinguishable from the truth and if true they are indistinguishable from what's false.
"This is the case when considering the existence of god."
Indeed, no need to even consider a god who's existence is indistinguishable from his non-existence.
cont...
Quintinohthree 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gtas321
"I could learn more from basic research than any university could ever teach me."
Tell me when a paper you've written about quantum mechanics has been published in a respectable peer reviewed magazine. More seriously, this statement is not just absurd, it's ludicrous.
As for any quantum physicists claiming quantum mechanics proved the existence of any god, you provide me one and I'll concede.
Quintinohthree 1 month ago
@Quintinohthree Didn't see this comment. Did you really just say that I could learn more from a university than from doing research and learning on my own? -_-. Explain why not.
gtas321 1 week ago
@gtas321
Why must I explain this? At a university you have all the materials and knowledge available for you. At home, you still have to get all of it. It's really that simple. And besides, at a university you work structurally towards a goal.
Quintinohthree 1 week ago
@Quintinohthree The only materials that someone would need are a few textbooks and the internet... Why pay a couple of thousand when you could pay a couple of hundred to learn it in your own time and at your own pace at home? Face it, the only reason an aspiring scientist would go to a university is not only to learn (Which you could easily do at home) but primarily to be official and actually get a career along that path. You would have to be insane to think learning by yourself is inferior.
gtas321 1 week ago
@gtas321
With mathematics I could see what you mean because it's completely independent from reality. Science is connected to reality. Every science you study at a university requires you to do experiments, to actually do something. Those cost a fortune to do just once. Those are things you can't do at home for a couple hundred dollars.
Quintinohthree 6 days ago
@Quintinohthree Yeah I never thought of that. Hands on experience is very important.
gtas321 6 days ago
Comment removed
Quintinohthree 1 month ago
Comment removed
Quintinohthree 1 month ago
Comment removed
Quintinohthree 1 month ago
@gtas321 Honestly Deism is about as intellectually unsound as strict A-theism, to say there is NO God, or to say there IS a God, both are unsubstantiated and illogical to campaign for. Therefore the best argument for your Deism would be Agnosticism. We honestly don't know whether or not there is a God, there could or couldn't be. Strict Deism v. Atheism debates are nothing but philosophical playthings and should be viewed as such.
b33p3rz 1 month ago
@b33p3rz Indeed, strict deism is about as unsound as strict atheist. Any form of strict belief is really. This is why I am Scientific Deist.
gtas321 1 month ago
@b33p3rz Scientific Deists tend to believe that there is a god but are open the the possibility that there may not be. The reason they are coined "Scientific" because they tend to use quantum mechanics to support their arguments. If one did understand just the basics, then even you would seriously consider that there is a higher chance of their being a god than not.
gtas321 1 month ago
@b33p3rz Don't think I saw your comment. If you noticed I said "scientific deism". Agnostic Deism is within scientific deism.
gtas321 1 week ago
@gtas321
There being evidence of non-coincidental similarities between religions is evidence only of the origin of all religions being the same, not necessarily of there being a god.
Quintinohthree 1 month ago
Live as if you were to die tomorrow
and learn as if you were to live forever ...
LuxuryDigitalAgenci 1 month ago
Oh my baaaaallls XD
kheffah 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I feel so sad for all of you who don't know Him... :( If only you could experience the joy that comes from knowing God.... you would NEVER want to go back. One day it will be too late... and you will be accountable to God for rejecting Him.
"Seek the LORD while He may be found, Call upon Him while He is near.
Let the wicked forsake his way, And the unrighteous man his thoughts; Let him return to the LORD, And He will have mercy on him; And to our God, For He will abundantly pardon."
romas323 2 months ago
@romas323 Your joy may be overwhelming and understandable, but some people were born to see diferently, and when i say that, i mean how they where raised. When people are introduced to somthing at an early age, they will follow it through to the end, or they will avoid it like theres no 2morrow. Some people also just think differently from the very day they where born. "God" they think is a fake person with false promises, making them stray from it, and/or they see no satisfaction from it.
WetBoxOnTheStreet 2 months ago
@romas323 I would rather be an intellectually honest person than submit to a comfortable delusion. I think it is inherently preferable to seek the truth, and I get great satisfaction in my attempts. Besides, even if the God of the Christian Bible were real, I could never love him. His character is a capricious, racist, abusive dictator.
GenghisKant 2 months ago 10
@romas323 since you said that on a science video ill go to a video about god and say you dont understand:)
kaylerick 2 months ago
Awesome exam music.
EngineerAdams 2 months ago
I'll jump in here; and say that I agree with Dawkins and others, In that Religion and Science will never coexist peacefully because Science enforces empirical ideologies where morality is an implicit value and an intrinsically human value. Independent of Religion.
bobusboy 2 months ago
Genetic Bio Science
DrawBeyond 2 months ago
@IronicAtheis and @RaveCrow3 after reading both of your back and forth comments you're both missing the big picture here, we are alive, in this place and this time, at this very instant, God and the Devil, good and evil are inventions of one thing, mankind. They didn't exist before we made them up, there is no way to know the after, so assume no punishment except what is doled out in the hear and now, every moment is an opportunity, and you are wasting yours by arguing points that don't matter.
IamZren89 2 months ago 2
@IamZren89 We were debating. It's something that some people actually like to do. You can even take classes in high schools and colleges in debate. We weren't arguing. Arguing assumes that there can't be a winner while a debate can be won by outwitting your opponent. It's like a game of chess but with a topic and it's played with words.
RaveCrow3 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
@RaveCrow3 You may have thought you were debating well, but neither of you are doing it well.
IamZren89 2 months ago
@IamZren89 Now you're just implying things. I dunno about my opponent but I never said or implied that I thought I was debating well. I know I don't debate well because I have never taken a single debate class in my life. Just liking a subject or doing it often doesn't make me good at it.
RaveCrow3 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
Oh cool, another Science vs Religion discussion. I haven't seen one of those in a while.
harkashark 3 months ago 49
@harkashark Internet = "agreeing to disagree" doesn't happen, maybe debating gets these guys off or something.
LavaSharkk 2 months ago 15
@LavaSharkk Agreeing to disagree is ultimately a suspension of all reason, which creates the very impasse at which violent conflicts eventually erupt.
MogofWar 2 months ago 5
@LavaSharkk I agree that we disagree. As a human though I crave conflict, and if I didn't argue ideas, I'd have to combat someone physically. The internet, may yet be a force for pacifism.
pkemrin 2 months ago
@LavaSharkk For a lot of people, to debate is interesting and more mentally stimulating than just watching the video.
Some fools find that trolling achieves the same effect, but many individuals geniunely want to debate because it's a challenge.
Personally, I enjoy hearing other people's perspectives. I may not always agree with them, but I enjoy pitting my arguments against them and having people poke holes in my logic that I may not have seen by myself.
GrowTheTruth 1 month ago
@LavaSharkk
Agreement is boring. Disagreement is interesting. Only when people have ideas that don't match up is it possible for anyone to learn anything new. If everyone all thought the same, or, worse, never discussed differences, life would be boring. If you have nothing that inflames your passions, and know nothing worth talking about, good luck to you.
AdNeeb 1 month ago
@LavaSharkk "agree to disagree" is one of the dumbest solutions to anything. It's tantamount to "Our opinions differ, but just accept mine as right, mkay?"
b33p3rz 1 month ago
@harkashark a discussion requires competition
incaugnito37 1 month ago
@incaugnito37 An arguement requires competition, a discussion simply requires two or more people and a vocalized thought.
TheMasterXIII 1 month ago
@harkashark I think the superiority of science is pretty selfevident. I think it would be healthier for society as a whole if more people came to that conclusion,but that's just life for ya.
KingCondorIII 1 month ago
The flood wasn't unnecessary killing because everyone was tainted (yes feel free to comment on this cause I know you will). Wars happen when two people fight for control and thus it is the humans who choose whether to kill their opponents or not. It is easily plausible for someone to merely injure every opponent to the point of incapacity than to merely kill them, so it was the soldiers choice to kill and not capture. Hating someone is bad. I said nothing of hating an idea...
RaveCrow3 3 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
@RaveCrow3 Oh yes, that's right it was about purging the unclean, even though Noah was a human who was a DRUNK, a sin in the bible and obviously god somehow wiped him of his sin, without killing him right? oooohhhh shocking revelation there god PURGED the evil from someone WITHOUT killing them. So somehow I'm supposed to believe Noah got "cleaned" without death but god couldn't do that for everyone else? he had to kill everyone even babies. respond to this one carefully and separately.
IronicAtheist 3 months ago
@IronicAtheist First if I see you use the word fail one more time I'm going to go crazy. You don't use the word fail in a debate. It doesn't help you prove a point at all. We may choose any choice we want. If we want to kill ourselves then we may. If we want to live our lives a certain way we can. Anyone can become the ruler of the world if they really wanted to. And I said that he can see all our possible futures. Just because there is a chance that someone might turn out to be...
RaveCrow3 3 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
@RaveCrow3 We do not have free will that is any different then free will amongst only good choices. both are limited free will. Your insisting evil came from NOWHERE, out of NOTHING, and it goes against god's goal. Ok so why did god kill EVERYONE but Noah to get rid of evil? that is like saying the idea that ridding your body of 99% poison will reveal results that show there is no longer poison...
IronicAtheist 3 months ago
@IronicAtheist the very embodiment of evil doesnt mean you obliterate them. That would be nonsense. It would be like setting fire to your crops before they're ripe because they might be rotten. I need a reference to prove that that Noah was a drunk as you say. And no Noah wasn't "cleaned". He just wasn't as impure as others. Babies go to heaven regardless anyway, so that is a null point.
RaveCrow3 3 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
@RaveCrow3 "doesnt mean you obliterate them" oh but that's what your god did in the Noah account. there is no less impure, god believes if your sin was theft, you deserve forever punishment. if you wear certain fabrics and that is the only sin you commit you deserve endless punishment. the idea of these things being equally punishable is one thing, but for them all to punishable with a punishment that takes the punishment their crimes deserve and multiplies it infinitely is infinite injustice.
IronicAtheist 3 months ago
@IronicAtheist Wearing certain fabrics has nothing to do with anything I believe. And as I said before good and evil arent entities exactly but are instead ways of doing things. No, neither God nor I said anything about getting completely rid of sin by flooding the world. It merely makes things much more manageable and simpler when you have less of a bad thing. Every sin is equal in God's eyes. Yes that is true. However not all sin have equal punishment. This is because some sins may be...
RaveCrow3 3 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
@RaveCrow3 I understand the word fail doesn't prove a point, but it just shows you any logical person would see your arguments as fail, because you don't fill alot of gaps with logic, you just build a bridge over the gaps and ignore it. If god is strong enough to rid the world of sin just by THINKING it, and he WANTS to get rid of it, anything else he does to remove sin from the world is not only unnecessary but if it's the stuff your god does he is immoral=FACT
IronicAtheist 3 months ago
@IronicAtheist compromised of more than one sin. Such as theft and murder for instance. Theft breaks two commandments. Thou shall not steal and thou shall not covet another's possessions. While murder may break any or all of them depending on the reasons. Punishment is dealt based on how many rules you crossed. Each rule broken adds an equal amount of punishment. So no unless you live off of thievery it isn't normal to be punished endlessly for theft.
RaveCrow3 3 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
@RaveCrow3 "it isn't normal to be punished endlessly for theft." your using an analogy that does not apply, and has no bearing, why? A humans lifespan is not infinite so when you get to the afterlife you did not commit an infinite amount of sin... no matter how much sin you committed it never adds up to an infinite amount in a humans lifespan so ergo it will not equal an infinite time sentence of punishment.
IronicAtheist 3 months ago
@IronicAtheist I was working on what you said. You said "God believes if your sin was theft, you deserve forever punishment." I proved you wrong and now you wanna complain. God gives us free will, but to permanently get rid of sin would be to take that unconditional free will away and replace it with what you call "limited free will". So you're just going in circles and stepping on your own toes. I'm in this for the debate. I don't want to argue. If that's what you want then I resign from this.
RaveCrow3 3 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
@RaveCrow3 "unconditional free will" first off this universe has a lot of grey area you cannot choose. Your claiming the limits of this universe as all encompassing of all possible ranges of choices, so basically a dual based universe is the highest it gets... let me ask you........ what about a TRIO based universe? or a QUAD based universe? and so on and so forth? Answer very carefully now, and try not to skip understanding any logical implications of what you might say.
IronicAtheist 3 months ago
@IronicAtheist I hope I understood what you were trying to say, but if I didn't please clarify. What i mean by unconditional free will is that there are an uncountable amount of universes that our particular time can branch off to. That would be based on who does what, when they do it, and how they do it. So technically, from what I personally believe, this universe only lasts for the moment we live in it. In the next second we will be in a different universe because of someone's decision, ...
RaveCrow3 3 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
@IronicAtheist timing, and methods.
RaveCrow3 3 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
Comment removed
IronicAtheist 3 months ago
@RaveCrow3 Forgot to verify yes i am in it for debate, so read my actual response...
IronicAtheist 3 months ago
2:12 pure science.
CooperCarr87 3 months ago
Awesome video! Where is that clip of the world spinning in the persons hands from?
professorhandsome 3 months ago
This chorus has become a mantra. Mantra being a motto or expression that defines a person who takes it.
overusedoxymoron2003 3 months ago
Can christens give me some proof except from a book written by crazy old men? No.... well then my breath is wasted.
TheWaluigiman1 3 months ago
im flummoxed, i went to the mygenewize site expecting detail about genetics and science, expecting it probably sells some sort of growth hormone stimulating supplement type of thing..
...but instead its just some sort of robo-marketing management program, thats right, no dna, no science, no research info, nothing but a bunch of monotonous meta-marketing madness, wha happen?
atomoid 3 months ago
I love science, but my brain is being held back in a school where chemistry is a dirty word and we can't even touch a science book from 1998.
DDKRoblox 3 months ago
*Gregor Mendel!! =[
ScientificExperience 3 months ago
ohh my fuck'in god thats so crazy science o.O EARWIG <3
LscumS 3 months ago
Very good, sounds like AS IF it comes from Symphony of Science, it sounds awesome, but what I don't like about it is that you said that it comes from Symphony of Science. Can you please tell me what software you used to make songs like this and for pitch correcting, as well as turning talking to singing?
TheScienceguy1998 3 months ago
is this symphony of science? i thought melody sheep was the creator of this? on the official website this isn't mentioned there.
tiberiius 3 months ago
I said create humans. Not life. You use methods and materials to create things. Evolution is a method and life is a material. I did not mix up my terms. They were right in my context.
Sadly though many of the famous scientists of whom we now know were absolutely correct were challenged in society. Even with the proof they had. I know that does not say anything for those without proof though, but having proof also doesn't necessarily mean you're right.
RaveCrow3 3 months ago in playlist RaveCrow3's favorites
Science can be a religion. Everyone is free to choose their own beliefs whether or not their government allows them to publicly express it. With that said, some religions still coincide with science. Who's to say that God didn't use evolution to create man? It never says EXACTLY how he made us. Then the Buddhists' and Hinduists' view may not be wrong either. We are all really made up of recycled elements, so who's to say that we aren't reincarnated? Science does confirm religion in some cases.
RaveCrow3 3 months ago in playlist RaveCrow3's favorites
@RaveCrow3 The Theory of Evolution is not to tell us how we got here, that is Abiogenesis. The Theory of Evolution only tells us what happens to life after it arrives here ;) Be careful not to mix up the terms ...
Also yes people are free to believe what they want but will be challenged by society if they can't give good reasons for why what they believe is true ;)
xSnapper26x 3 months ago
By the looks of it this SoS was sponsored by GeneWize, hence the advert at the end and the fact that the lyrics are remixed from Genewize speakers. I have been doing a few web searches on GeneWize and it is one strange company. I don't know if they're legit or not so if anyone knows anything I'd love to know.
Nevertheless, an awesome video.
StatelessLiberty 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
Awesome video. Love it. Thanks, Cos
cosmosradio 4 months ago
Religion is a set of beliefs that attempt to explain the nature of the universe. This is what science is as well. Me being a scientific man myself, I still have a religion, although I'm not very religious and am almost atheist, and I think that religion doesn't necessarily have to be organized. I in fact do not like organize religion, as I believe it has diluted the morals taught by Buddha and Lao Tzu and Muhammad, but I can still respect those morals, despite being scientific.
godslittldude 4 months ago
live as if you were to die tomorrow, learn as if you were to live forever
skrapyard444 4 months ago
this music made me love genetics.
Leofox94 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Live as if you were to die tomorrow, and learn as if you are to live forever..." will be my motto from now on
AngelusGer88 4 months ago
Soo....Does someone want to sum up this video for me??
IfoundtheSoySauce 4 months ago
If you were to put 4600 million years on a 12 hour clock, you'll see that we are living but a second on this planet. I find it arrogant that some people disregard the beauty of life 3500 million years ago. We are not the beginning nor the end. If something really goes wrong then it's not us that has the highest chance of survival but the 'primitive' organisms some people don't even notice or care about. Bacteria
Rellics 4 months ago 3
@Rellics in what way were people referring to primitive organisms? because technically primitive is a scientific term for something like an ancestral species.
AussiePolitics 4 months ago
@miragescience Well even if human didn't exist. Science would still exist without them, since if some creature evolve and get enough intelligent to ask question about how does the world work. They will find out science, they may not use the same word. Science is priceless for evolution of a species. So it has a price, in some way.
Mephistolesss 5 months ago
science = learning your whole life
renske1642 5 months ago 20
@renske1642 religion = not learning your whole life
xSnapper26x 3 months ago
@xSnapper26x Religion and learning aren't directly related. You can be very religious and yet be a scientist who is always learning. You make the choice to learn or not to learn. (As far as I know there isn't a single religion that prohibits learning.)
RaveCrow3 3 months ago in playlist RaveCrow3's favorites
@RaveCrow3 "As far as I know there isn't a single religion that prohibits learning" Is it not the will of MOST religions to push a certain doctrine about the universe, morality, life etc down peoples throats and discourage skeptical enquiry and free thought. In the time of Galileo and also in the times of the Inquisition, people were burned at the stake for opposing the church and would still be today if the church had their power, and your saying that religions doesn't prohibit learning, WOW
xSnapper26x 3 months ago
@xSnapper26x
You were quite free to learn all you wanted, so long as it was information the religious authority deemed "appropriate." It isn't that religion prohibits learning, but that it suppresses critical thinking.
Xeno426 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Xeno426 "You were quite free to learn all you wanted, so long as it was information the religious authority deemed "appropriate."" Thats my exact point, it is restrictive learning so therefore not really proper learning. I agree with you that religion does suppress critical thinking ...
xSnapper26x 3 months ago
@xSnapper26x No. True Christians/Jews who actually follow the Torah/Bible would never have done that. True Christians/Jews do not exist in high numbers. True Christians/Jews will not kill for any reason because that is what God commanded. Any Christian/Jew who did that were in themselves a heretic. The "Church" you speak of is nothing but a false image. You cannot condemn the true believers for the wrongs of the false. It's like saying that every American is stupid, every Britain is stuck-up,...
RaveCrow3 3 months ago in playlist RaveCrow3's favorites
@xSnapper26x or that every Australian rides a kangaroo to school or work. If groups were to be judged purely by all the bad in them then all of humankind should be sentenced to death. There are more humans that choose to swing towards the bad side then the good. We are all individuals. That in itself proves that groups do not all share the same opinions, thoughts, and beliefs. Even among major religions like Islam and Christianity everyone believes in their religion differently...
RaveCrow3 3 months ago in playlist RaveCrow3's favorites