Ha! I just watched that guys video 'A God that will not judge you' & made a comment criticizing it. Guess what? He judges them! Yep HE plays God & judges whether or not he is happy to let other people pick holes in his claims. Personally I would WELCOME criticism -if I'm wrong I can adjust my beliefs e.g. Find there IS evidence for a God. Why would I willfully NOT want to see my own errors in my arguments? Then I can LEARN!
I am still not sure how anyone can be an athiest. You cannot "disprove" as you cannot "prove" the existence. Quantum physics are suggesting a lot, about this universe. Scientists who were once "athiest" understand that something is holding this existence together. I'm not making the wager, I am simply suggesting to have an open mind to the science.
I am still not sure how anyone can be an a-fairyist. You cannot "disprove" as you cannot "prove" the existence. Quantum physics are suggesting a lot, about this universe. Scientists who were once "a-fairyists" understand that something is holding this existence together. I'm not making the wager, I am simply suggesting to have an open mind to fairy tales.
Exactly what this proposed (interpretation of) god does?
It exists.
Exactly how does it influence our lives?
By its existence it enables/causes you to exist.
(I'm not a theist and i don't want to get into argument, i just wanted to point out the pretty obvious answers. I am not trying to state anything about (in)validity of your/Cuan's reasoning, i just wanted to point out those two questions have obvious answers, nothing more.)
Btw i love your and QualiaSoup's videos, keep up the good work.
@MidnightSt No, not obvious — redundant. The question of what gods do is asking: given that gods existed, what are they supposed to do. To answer 'they exist' is restating what's already been invited in the question. That's no answer. Similarly, as gods are intrinsically defined as our creators, to say they influence us by enabling/causing us to exist is merely stating a definition. There is absolutely no informational content in these answers.
@TheraminTrees Yes, it is redundant. But it is also obvious :-D. And you're right, i didn't mean to imply anything about the meaningfullness of those answers, and honestly, if i thought about it for a second, i'd hopefully come to the conclusion you explain and wouldn't write the comment. BUT, they really are obvious - that they doesn't bear any meaning is another issue, and you're right in that.
@TheraminTrees I have encountered this before, a guy was arguing that the universe is contingent on the existent of what he called an "exnihilating" force. That God is the reason there is something rather than nothing. Why does this argument persist when the holes are so obvious?
MR . THERAMIN SIR , WHY DID YOU ADD [ PEACE AND HARMONY MY FRIEND ]? WHY NOT AN INSULT, OR A FINAL REMARK? PROOF THAT YOU ARE CONTROLLED BY A WAY OF THOUGHT . ONE THAT YOU HAD TO LEARN. WHO WOULD UNLEASH SUCH THOUGHT ? WHOMEVER DID ALSO HAD TO LEARN IT. WHERE DID THEY LEARN IT FROM? PEACE AND HARMONY MY FRIEND .
@9493760 I ALSO LIKE TO TYPE IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS AND NOT MAKE ANY SENSE. WHY DID YOU ADD [ PEACE AND HARMONY MY FRIEND ] AT THE END OF YOUR REPLY INSTEAD OF THE PROOF OF FINALLY REMARKING THE THOUGHT YOU WANTED TO UNLEASH FROM WHOMEVER YOU LEARNED IT FROM ? PEACE AND HARMONY MY FRIEND.
HENRY "FONZI THE FONZ" WINKLER SEPTEMBER /19 / 2011
@JoeJunk9289 I AM THE FRONZ, I DIDN'T PROFESS ANYTHING SO THE THOUGHTS ARE MINE. I MERELY WANTED TO EXPRESS HOW A WAY OF THOUGHT, COUPLED WITH A BRITISH ACCENT, GETS ACCEPTED . BELIEVE ME I WILL NEVER USE SOMETHING AS SOGGY AS , PEACE AND HARMONY MY FRIEND , IN MY OWN WRITING. BUT EVERYTHING WE EXPRESS HAD TO HAVE BEEN LEARNED, HOW YOU LEARNED YOUR VIEWPOINT , CAN BE VERY DIFFERENT THAN BILLIONS OF PEOPLE . ARE YOU TRYING TO TEACH OR DEFEND? KEEP IT UP.
To grow up as a rationally thinking agnostic atheist in an environment conducive to free thought and intellectual growth is good and all, but for you to spend your childhood being indoctrinated with unsubstantiated religious teachings and then turn that all around and think as clearly and critically as you do, Theramin...damn man, i'm jelly. ;D
When your clients tell you jokes to know that you can laugh and not over analyze everything; were you ever tempted to point out that's what they're doing?
Ok. You fall in love, you feel a high. You take a drug, you feel a high, that same "love" feeling. If it were a taste, it would be pancake syrup. If it were a color, it would be gold. If it were a temperature, it would be warm. What is the correlation between love and these things? Why do they excite one another? Is it just a question of personal perspective, or is there a more universal correlation/explanation? An interesting meditation.
Hi theramin. what do you say at 1:35? I like your accent but I coudn't get that sentence. (english is not my first language) hey have you seen lorax2013 videos? In "consciousness, science, suffering, & duality" there is a... reasonment?... in wich a big consciousness existence is .... errr.... concluded?.... It's just that I'm not sure if the reasonment is correct. would you give it a look? by the way I love your uploads (despite having not subscribed yet) and qualiasoup's too. Peace
—I say: It's almost like I've just said to you, 'I think the whole of the Star Wars hexalogy was fiction. And you've said to me, 'Ah, but I think you really believe in Darth Vader don't you.'
How astonishingly detached from the real argument would one need to be to actually feel that religious believers needed to come within the world of science and show where an intuitive connection to a spiritual sense has scientifically testable elements. Actually, no one needs to do that - it's a conceit that rigs the debate to exclude the essential features of what it means to be a religious believer. Challenge it.
Equally, although it's valid to pose the idea of 'can you prove God', as an interesting challenge, no one should ever think that any failure to scientifically prove God in any way undermines any of the many theological positions on God. It simply doesn't, and we need to be very wary of skewing perceptions in to making it seem like God 'needs' to be proved or demonstrated. Actually, no one can justifiy that assertion without resorting to an appeal to their own conclusions.
Just to be clear - I'm not talking from a religious perspective. The very idea that intuitive senses require scientific proof is academically unjustifiable. There's actually no academic reason why intuitive belief in God should ever be classed as inferior or inadmissible or irrelevant knowledge 'just because' it's not scientific evidence. Nor is it justifiable academically to assert the scientific method as primary, in any way inherently truthful, or free from metaphysics.
So just stop a moment, and think very deeply. Who told you that God needed to be proved by the kinds of data that science works with? No one, actually, can justify that assertion - no one. It's a tautology that simply says, only the kinds of things I think exist exist, so anything that's a different kind of thing must prove that it's actually the kind of thing I think it is, or it doesn't exist. So - library cards out, Thomas Kuhn, Popper, Zygmunt Bauman, Peter Berger to start you off. Think!
So what can't be proved or at least studied by science? The only thing that I can think of is bullshit.
The point is God makes no contact whatsoever with anything, ever. You could say that something like ""law" could not be proved in a lab but it exsists", but ask yourself what the hell use in saying that. Even though its not wrong. You would be saying that because it is "an answer". What use is god to anyone realy? Its a bad lazy answer to a lot of serious issues .
Is it not concievable that one's nervous system is an integral part and in real sense, udifferentiated part of the universe? As Albert Einstein said, "There is no room in this new kind of physics for both matter and field, for the field is the only reality". If there is conciousness as an epiphenomenon of the cells of my nervous system, shouldn't this conciousness also be present in some manner or degree, within the molecules and down to the sub-atomic level if the phenomenon is to occur at all?
Your view count should be higher. Proves how stupid the public is. Lady Gaga has 1 billion hits. Set your arguments to music.. and wear funny costumes.
So, once they think they "proved" God's existence, they really didn't get very far. All they have is a God they know absolutely nothing about. The "proof" they had cannot logically apply to the attributes of the God. The God may very well be imperfect, all malevolent, unable to interact with anyones lives, wants to but cannot answer praryers and so on. So what value does the proof really hold? Why do you think no one ever mentions this? Or if there is a video out there, please let me know. Thx
I saw this oldie on your page. Like the rest, I enjoyed it. Of all the debates I have watched, no one ever address the following....What you could have pointed out is even if you grant someone their "proof" of the existence of their God, they still can never prove the qualities of that God. If this so called proof was legitimate (which it is not as you described), it still in no way confirms that God is omnipotent, all powerful, all loving, all merciful, and all the rest.
Brilliant video! Especially the difference between atheism and agnosticism (I honestly never thought of it that way) and whether or not your house is conscious. (I personally believe it is, and it hates it when you vacuum. Beware the wrath of House!)
Christianity really makes no since. Everything contradicts itself. So I decided that I won't stress myself out over it, and just be atheist and live my life (By the way, if I am living a video game, that would be awesome.) There is no proof for the existance of a god, and if there WAS a man that lived on earth by the name of Jesus Christ, there is no proof that he wasn't making it all up.
IF the universe would be alive then it would be a very very slow thinking since light cannot exceed the lighspeed. The closest star is 4 lightyears aware so it would take 4 years before the other star (neuron) is aware of something.
So the universe migth need 10.000.000 years to have one thought.
Look at human lifetime, the universe would probably not be aware of us, we would be just a blink of it's eyes before we dissapear again.
Btw, I've never had any proof that the universe or nature or the Solar System or my house are aware of my existence or of their own existence. I don't even think my body is aware of my existence, though I'm aware of my body's existence. But even though I'm aware of my body's existence, I don't really have any idea how my body works; it's just too complex. And if my pancreas cells began turning into toe nail cells, I wouldn't have pancreatic cancer, I'd have a toenail lodged in my pancreas!
Here's a little game: imagine one of the cells in a random part of your body suddenly becomes self aware. It looks around and sees the other cells busy with their ecstatic celebration of life, unaware. Its awareness gradually infects neighboring cells, and before long they create a movement. That original cell is tired of being a pancreas cell and toys with the idea of being a toe nail cell. Other cells agree. Riots ensue.
If you did this correctly, you should now have pancreatic cancer! =D
It's true that your house isn't aware of itself, since I wouldn't include in the definition of a house, the people who live in it. But the universe is defined as (and i'm paraphrasing here) all of the matter and energy in existence throughout spacetime. So some of this matter and energy (us folks) happens to be aware of the universe. That really does make the universe aware of itself, which I think is really cool. But not proof of a deity. And not by a long stretch, proof of Yahweh.
"So some of this matter and energy (us folks) happens to be aware of the universe."
—Absolutely agree. That we are aware, that we are part of the stuff of the universe, therefore part of the universe is aware — no problem. What CuanMarce did — which you don't — is extrapolate from a part to the whole, to say the whole universe is aware. That's where the problem arose in his argument — one of the problems.
The universe itself may, one day, be found to be made up of only one single substance which through feedback systems complex stuff appears from the feedback. Choas theory describes this phenomenon..Turin describes how complexity can come from something simple in an equation of his and for me nails any argument about a god being required to create complexity. The Mandelbrot is the same thing. I don't know where consciousness comes from but I do know its not from any deity.
if a human is conscious because part of that human is conscious (regardless of which part creates it) then in totality if the universe is made of stuff and some part of that stuff is conscious then you can claim that the stuff of the universe is conscious but not all the stuff of the universe. That is why a house is not conscious. I am an atheist myself and don't need gods. But in so far as I'm conscious and I'm part of the stuff of the universe then the universe is (for my part) conscious.
'If I am conscious and I am part of the universe, then that part of the universe which is me is conscious' — this logical truism is what I initially wondered if CuanMarce was presenting. It soon became clear that he was venturing far beyond that, into science-fiction ideas about how entanglement was sending thoughts through the universe. Starting out with the sensationalist claim of 'proof of god' was really a little naughty of him.
Seems like a cop-out really, likening their concept of "God" to what we call the universe. It feels like an attempt to bring an Atheist to the level where we can provide no answers either about our creation and beginnings.
However this is false, as they believe we were created.. past tense. The universe for as long as it has been, and for as long as it will be, is in a constant state of creation and self-destruction even.
So, if God is real, his contributions have been small. Pathetic even.
Therein lies a frequent and seemingly fundamental flaw in all vague, nebulous god concepts: their descibed as essentially inert and thus functionally non-existent. A god that does nothing is no god at all. It would seem that most gods are ontological projections.
It's one of the most tedious wastes of time when someone comes along arguing that 'god exists!' — and after some lengthy exchange, they reveal that 'god' is just their name for the universe.
@Humanist555 It seems to me that the very concept of god requires it to be unexplainable, i.e. have no reason. If we would discover some amazing phenomenon akin to the human consciousness that arises due to the processes in the brain then would that thing be called a god? Wouldn't it just be an amazing phenomenon?
Is it possible that something could exist and think for no reason? I believe there would have to be a godly brain for it to think and it needs inputs and outputs.
The arguments put forth by most faithful believers deserve nothing less than this sort of overkill. How can people learn to think truly rationally otherwise?
I think someone said of this exchange that I brought a tank to a gunfight — or something like that. While I eschew the violence in the imagery, I do acknowledge the scale. And, for me, it keys in to what you're saying. People sometimes kid themselves that poor arguments are robust because they keep them afloat in shallow waters — ie superficial discussion. I say take those arguments out to deep waters, and show how easily and thoroughly they will be torn to shreds.
@TheraminTrees I don't think it was 'overkill', particularly, so much as making sure the other person didn't bring a spoon to a gun fight. Your response was thoughtful and intelligent, without dipping into fallacy.
By the way, have you thought of the behaviourist account of consciousness? After all, the examples you gave often fall into the trap of being 'beetles in boxes' (apart from the moral reasoning example - a Kantian account, or Aristotlean?).
Yep, behaviourism's a strand in my psych background — and its criterion of observability is something that's being addressed, using sophisticated scans to observe brain states, with fascinating results. Like predictions of someone's choice, seconds before they've consciously chosen. Also, 'out of body' experiments, with video cameras/TV goggles, show how easy it is to de-centre someone from their own body — even into someone else's. Observability is as much about the tools as the subject.
but I suppose one could put forth other theories as to the state of the universe involving such things as gravity being the item that creates the sentience of the universe...
but that one starts on shaky ground and just gets more actively... tectonic? :D
CuanMarce certainly put out an attention grabber, claiming he had 'proof of god'. A shame he fell into one of the follies Paul Valery warned about: 'mistaking metaphor for proof'.
i always considered consciousness as a very loose term,what are the mechanisms that process our environment and experiences of it, into thought?is consciousness merely the ability to observe and to know our surroundings, or to actively alter our interactions with it? maybe a combination of both, the idea behind "i think therefore i am" seems flawed to me, computers can "think" in that they can evaluate and interpret information,but can they ever gain sentience?but then can we definine sentience?
Your body is the same body the universe uses to perceive itself. Unless you are not the universe? Terms like "Universe" and "reality" refer to, as you said, notions of totality. Reality meaning everything that exists, or what is. Each one of us is part of that collectively and individually. The existence of one thing emerges by contrast with other things. Which is perhaps why it might appear as if we are outside of reality, universe, nature, god, etc..
Does it appear to you that you're outside reality/the universe/nature? Oh — well, then that's your business. I don't see myself as outside of reality/the universe so your comments are misapplied if addressed to me. The discourse with CuanMarce was trying to clarify what he usefully meant by calling god the conscious universe. That wasn't acheived.
It doesn't have to provoke any discussion IMHO. According to my criteria of knowledge and truth, it doesn't necessarily have to lead to further insights or conversation for it to nevertheless be true. But I think it does within the context of religious parlance, or rather, egocentricism and conflict.
Ah — then I don't need to respond. From the questioning tone in your initial comment it appeared you were presenting it as if it was something being debated between me and CuanMarce, or that you were revealing to me as some counter-argument to something I'd said. If you merely wished to state the obvious, you're of course welcome to do so.
I watched the entire exchange between you and CuanMarce just now. It seems plainly obvious thats what you were arguing about. If not then I dunno what I just spent 30 mins listening to.
We weren't arguing about whether I was part of the universe or not. Cuan thinks I am, I think I am, I plainly am, so that was never a point of contention. It's where CuanMarce went from there — claiming that was 'proof of god' — that was the issue we were discussing, with his ideas about entanglement being methods of thought transmission across the universe, etc. That's what we were addressing.
While I completely agree with your reasoning here, I'm going to play the devil's advocate and ask: could one not say that quantum entanglement might be the mechanism by which the parts of the universe communicate with its central consciousness?
other than that, great video, and thanks for voicing everything I've been thinking, but never been able to find the words for
quantum entanglement can not be used to convey information across the universe. thats the one thing it can NOT do.
The effect happens instantaneously but the information conveyance travels at the speed of light (it's weird but it's how it works).
IE you can say 'something' happened to the other particle but only by measuring and CAUSING an effect on the other (collapsing the state) or you can say AN effect occurred....but your not sure when how and what effect (no information conveyance).
All of these Bible codes that are being revealed today.What is it?Every verse from Alpha to Omega is a geometric riddle.Man could not pull that off?What on earth did?See for yourself.Look some of these sights up?I'm going back to playing the piano!LOL!I dig your vids.PEACE.
Thanks for your comments arusebud. And for the trip down memory lane: haha — those old bible wheel and theomatics claims were a great sideshow for a while weren't they?! I guess books like the bible will always inspire those kinds of quasi-scientific theories/assertions. I guess it's just one of many responses to religion — eg: 1) accept without question 2) accept provisionally but search for real evidence 3) construct quasi-evidence, and 4) reject as scientifically unfounded. Peace ;8)
In order to survive in a hostile environment, the ability to see patterns has been hardwired into the human brain. That is why we see animal shapes in clouds, the Virgin Mary in the burn patterns on toast, Barbra Streisand's profile in a cornflake. If you search hard enough for patterns you will see them.
The Bible codes are no different. Starting with the answer it's possible to reverse engineer the pattern you are looking for.
Who or what created the earth,God? What created the Bible?Is the bible God inspired?Is it the word of God?What is the interior strcture of the Bible?What is Theomatics?Is every verse of the Bible a Geometric,or Theomatic riddle?What is the Bible Wheel?
A fine demonstration of how anyone who claims to be able to prove the existance of god can expect to be pulled over by the weight of their own balls, metaphorically speaking.
Solid, irrefutable logic - and, as always, presented with great eloquence and humour. Some people's 2 minute videos feel like an eternity, they take so long getting to the point. Your 10-minuters seem to zoom by and always leave me wanting to listen to more. Great video! ('v')
Hey Opterigon! I do try to shy away from doing long vids, and this was originally going to be very short, but I just thought what the heck — I'll use the time to address a couple of the more peropheral points as well as just the main thrust — I think in response videos, more feedback can be useful. Thanks for your very kind comment — it gives me very valuable feedback! ;8)
You're quite right Luke — I am a monster. It's just I was afraid that fire might've found its way to my polyester gusset. If I'd had some of your lovely anarchy lemonade within reach, with which to dowse the flame, I'd never've been driven to such extreme measures! ;8)
You are a tough master! As we both know- your challenge can't be met as defined by your rules. I find it interesting that people keep trying. If such proof existed it would make the headlines of every newspaper in the world.
Hi Featherdude! To take on the burden of proof of God is quite a task isn't it, although I like the fact I can still get intrigued about the prospect. But really, I'm very happy to just look at arguments — there's so much available to discuss below the, as you very rightly indicate, much more demanding level of 'proof'.
Hey Rob! I admit I was a little irked by some of CuanMarce2's subtle and misplaced psychoanalysing of me in his videos — but I do find him very likable. Hope you're well!
I didn't know you were into snuff films, this is quite a perverse side... that's mostly seen in Martin. You should cut down on your time with him :P Excellent video, spot on as always.
Hey Companionable! Yes, these repressed types can get one wondering: exactly what dark matter are they repressing? — and is it contagious?? By the way I was wondering if you heard anything about your Graphics job?
Keep the metaphorical ass-kicking up , your biggest criticism comes from the time it takes between each video: always far too long. This won't do for my favourite subscription.
Resonating a merry hue of pink as well, I'm overwhelmed.
Ha! I just watched that guys video 'A God that will not judge you' & made a comment criticizing it. Guess what? He judges them! Yep HE plays God & judges whether or not he is happy to let other people pick holes in his claims. Personally I would WELCOME criticism -if I'm wrong I can adjust my beliefs e.g. Find there IS evidence for a God. Why would I willfully NOT want to see my own errors in my arguments? Then I can LEARN!
sitemountain 1 month ago
I am still not sure how anyone can be an athiest. You cannot "disprove" as you cannot "prove" the existence. Quantum physics are suggesting a lot, about this universe. Scientists who were once "athiest" understand that something is holding this existence together. I'm not making the wager, I am simply suggesting to have an open mind to the science.
racerxj220 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@racerxj220
I am still not sure how anyone can be an a-fairyist. You cannot "disprove" as you cannot "prove" the existence. Quantum physics are suggesting a lot, about this universe. Scientists who were once "a-fairyists" understand that something is holding this existence together. I'm not making the wager, I am simply suggesting to have an open mind to fairy tales.
javaskin 1 month ago
Perhaps the cells in your body that are unaware of you are debating your existence. LOL
tony2495 1 month ago
what does Theramin Trees mean exactly? inside joke?
lordofdawhopperz 1 month ago
I loved the "snuff film" joke ^_^ .
Jaybird196 1 month ago
nice video, made me think of Diogenes, Socrates and Plato, and the definition of man
AlucardNoir 1 month ago
DAAAAAIIIIIIMMNNN uhot!
rareisalive 1 month ago
We need more of these face-to-face videos, TheraminTrees. Your wit is funny enough, but some of your faces just make me giggle even more.
Imperiused 1 month ago
Exactly what this proposed (interpretation of) god does?
It exists.
Exactly how does it influence our lives?
By its existence it enables/causes you to exist.
(I'm not a theist and i don't want to get into argument, i just wanted to point out the pretty obvious answers. I am not trying to state anything about (in)validity of your/Cuan's reasoning, i just wanted to point out those two questions have obvious answers, nothing more.)
Btw i love your and QualiaSoup's videos, keep up the good work.
MidnightSt 1 month ago
@MidnightSt No, not obvious — redundant. The question of what gods do is asking: given that gods existed, what are they supposed to do. To answer 'they exist' is restating what's already been invited in the question. That's no answer. Similarly, as gods are intrinsically defined as our creators, to say they influence us by enabling/causing us to exist is merely stating a definition. There is absolutely no informational content in these answers.
TheraminTrees 1 month ago 3
@TheraminTrees Ah — the game.
TheraminTrees 1 month ago
@TheraminTrees Yes, it is redundant. But it is also obvious :-D. And you're right, i didn't mean to imply anything about the meaningfullness of those answers, and honestly, if i thought about it for a second, i'd hopefully come to the conclusion you explain and wouldn't write the comment. BUT, they really are obvious - that they doesn't bear any meaning is another issue, and you're right in that.
MidnightSt 1 month ago
@TheraminTrees I have encountered this before, a guy was arguing that the universe is contingent on the existent of what he called an "exnihilating" force. That God is the reason there is something rather than nothing. Why does this argument persist when the holes are so obvious?
lazerbeam134 1 month ago
Verga!, soy hispano hablante y mi nivel de ingles es muy bajo, pero hablas tan claramente que entendí cada una de tus palabras!...
Genarian 4 months ago
MR . THERAMIN SIR , WHY DID YOU ADD [ PEACE AND HARMONY MY FRIEND ]? WHY NOT AN INSULT, OR A FINAL REMARK? PROOF THAT YOU ARE CONTROLLED BY A WAY OF THOUGHT . ONE THAT YOU HAD TO LEARN. WHO WOULD UNLEASH SUCH THOUGHT ? WHOMEVER DID ALSO HAD TO LEARN IT. WHERE DID THEY LEARN IT FROM? PEACE AND HARMONY MY FRIEND .
GIANFRANCO FRONZI SEPTEMBER /2 / 2011
9493760 5 months ago
@9493760 I ALSO LIKE TO TYPE IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS AND NOT MAKE ANY SENSE. WHY DID YOU ADD [ PEACE AND HARMONY MY FRIEND ] AT THE END OF YOUR REPLY INSTEAD OF THE PROOF OF FINALLY REMARKING THE THOUGHT YOU WANTED TO UNLEASH FROM WHOMEVER YOU LEARNED IT FROM ? PEACE AND HARMONY MY FRIEND.
HENRY "FONZI THE FONZ" WINKLER SEPTEMBER /19 / 2011
JoeJunk9289 5 months ago
@JoeJunk9289 I AM THE FRONZ, I DIDN'T PROFESS ANYTHING SO THE THOUGHTS ARE MINE. I MERELY WANTED TO EXPRESS HOW A WAY OF THOUGHT, COUPLED WITH A BRITISH ACCENT, GETS ACCEPTED . BELIEVE ME I WILL NEVER USE SOMETHING AS SOGGY AS , PEACE AND HARMONY MY FRIEND , IN MY OWN WRITING. BUT EVERYTHING WE EXPRESS HAD TO HAVE BEEN LEARNED, HOW YOU LEARNED YOUR VIEWPOINT , CAN BE VERY DIFFERENT THAN BILLIONS OF PEOPLE . ARE YOU TRYING TO TEACH OR DEFEND? KEEP IT UP.
GIANFRANCO FRONZI SEPTEMBER
9493760 5 months ago
To grow up as a rationally thinking agnostic atheist in an environment conducive to free thought and intellectual growth is good and all, but for you to spend your childhood being indoctrinated with unsubstantiated religious teachings and then turn that all around and think as clearly and critically as you do, Theramin...damn man, i'm jelly. ;D
onesevenfiveone 7 months ago
Wait, QualiaSoup is your bro?
newecreator 7 months ago
@newecreator He is, yes.
TheraminTrees 7 months ago 4
@TheraminTrees Thank you for clearing it up.
newecreator 7 months ago
@TheraminTrees your voices sound very similar.
Vegasgodless 1 month ago
When your clients tell you jokes to know that you can laugh and not over analyze everything; were you ever tempted to point out that's what they're doing?
Snagabott 8 months ago
@Snagabott I only questioned humour when it appeared to be conveying a message, or maybe felt evasive
TheraminTrees 8 months ago
@taylomi7 Thanks. Qualia and I just speak as we find ;8)
TheraminTrees 8 months ago
Oh you, you would have a purple candelstick.
Nice video, as ALWAYS.
KonijNx2 9 months ago
@KonijNx2 Thanks! Purple candles are de rigueur in this house, with it big dark beams and wrought iron chandeliers — über gothic.
TheraminTrees 9 months ago
@TheraminTrees
Stop making me jealous, you posh git. ;D
KonijNx2 9 months ago
pure ownage... this guy and thunderf00t need to broadcast their videos across the globe!
barbarash 1 year ago
Ok. You fall in love, you feel a high. You take a drug, you feel a high, that same "love" feeling. If it were a taste, it would be pancake syrup. If it were a color, it would be gold. If it were a temperature, it would be warm. What is the correlation between love and these things? Why do they excite one another? Is it just a question of personal perspective, or is there a more universal correlation/explanation? An interesting meditation.
skytrooper1980 1 year ago
PROOF is impossible, but EVIDENCE is EEEEVERYWHERE!
skytrooper1980 1 year ago
Hi theramin. what do you say at 1:35? I like your accent but I coudn't get that sentence. (english is not my first language) hey have you seen lorax2013 videos? In "consciousness, science, suffering, & duality" there is a... reasonment?... in wich a big consciousness existence is .... errr.... concluded?.... It's just that I'm not sure if the reasonment is correct. would you give it a look? by the way I love your uploads (despite having not subscribed yet) and qualiasoup's too. Peace
alphabotomega 1 year ago
@alphabotomega 'Hi theramin. what do you say at 1:35?'
—I say: It's almost like I've just said to you, 'I think the whole of the Star Wars hexalogy was fiction. And you've said to me, 'Ah, but I think you really believe in Darth Vader don't you.'
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
How astonishingly detached from the real argument would one need to be to actually feel that religious believers needed to come within the world of science and show where an intuitive connection to a spiritual sense has scientifically testable elements. Actually, no one needs to do that - it's a conceit that rigs the debate to exclude the essential features of what it means to be a religious believer. Challenge it.
EatSoupforbreakfast 1 year ago
Equally, although it's valid to pose the idea of 'can you prove God', as an interesting challenge, no one should ever think that any failure to scientifically prove God in any way undermines any of the many theological positions on God. It simply doesn't, and we need to be very wary of skewing perceptions in to making it seem like God 'needs' to be proved or demonstrated. Actually, no one can justifiy that assertion without resorting to an appeal to their own conclusions.
EatSoupforbreakfast 1 year ago
Just to be clear - I'm not talking from a religious perspective. The very idea that intuitive senses require scientific proof is academically unjustifiable. There's actually no academic reason why intuitive belief in God should ever be classed as inferior or inadmissible or irrelevant knowledge 'just because' it's not scientific evidence. Nor is it justifiable academically to assert the scientific method as primary, in any way inherently truthful, or free from metaphysics.
EatSoupforbreakfast 1 year ago
So just stop a moment, and think very deeply. Who told you that God needed to be proved by the kinds of data that science works with? No one, actually, can justify that assertion - no one. It's a tautology that simply says, only the kinds of things I think exist exist, so anything that's a different kind of thing must prove that it's actually the kind of thing I think it is, or it doesn't exist. So - library cards out, Thomas Kuhn, Popper, Zygmunt Bauman, Peter Berger to start you off. Think!
EatSoupforbreakfast 1 year ago
@EatSoupforbreakfast
So what can't be proved or at least studied by science? The only thing that I can think of is bullshit.
The point is God makes no contact whatsoever with anything, ever. You could say that something like ""law" could not be proved in a lab but it exsists", but ask yourself what the hell use in saying that. Even though its not wrong. You would be saying that because it is "an answer". What use is god to anyone realy? Its a bad lazy answer to a lot of serious issues .
IKNOWALLABOUTALL 10 months ago
@DevonAnon72 ... Good morning.
BornEnLighTeneD 1 year ago
Hi T~Trees. Happy Hope Filled New Year to you, hun.
It's me...TheBornAnnoyed. I disabled my channel and created this new one.
Keep Up the Good Work. ....Peace.
BornEnLighTeneD 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BornEnLighTeneD ** ANNOUNCEMENT**
The results have been tabulated and it's official :
TheBornAnnoyed aka TheBornEnlightened aka TheBornAnnoying aka TheBornUnenlightened aka Mensa Moron
Is the Winner of the YouTube ATTENTION WHORE of the Year Award for 2010 !!!
Also TheBornAnnoyed is the Winner of the MOST HATED Person of the Year Award on YouTube for 2010 !!!
Hated by Anonymous
Hated by $cientologists
Hated by ALL
LADIES AND GENTLEMAN WE GIVE YOU....THEBORNANNOYED !!!
aristotle9000 1 year ago
What font do you use for the quotes? It's pretty.
saizai 1 year ago
@saizai The font in this video is 'Bickham Script Pro'.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
@TheraminTrees I was actually planning on asking you to change the font. Its hard to read :(
purplederple 1 year ago
Is it not concievable that one's nervous system is an integral part and in real sense, udifferentiated part of the universe? As Albert Einstein said, "There is no room in this new kind of physics for both matter and field, for the field is the only reality". If there is conciousness as an epiphenomenon of the cells of my nervous system, shouldn't this conciousness also be present in some manner or degree, within the molecules and down to the sub-atomic level if the phenomenon is to occur at all?
MrSteveSpears 1 year ago
Your view count should be higher. Proves how stupid the public is. Lady Gaga has 1 billion hits. Set your arguments to music.. and wear funny costumes.
DrDeist 1 year ago
Nicely argued. You're good. Not perfect.. but good.
DrDeist 1 year ago
Brilliant.
AlwaysSunni 1 year ago
You seem like a very smart guy.
procritic09 1 year ago
So, once they think they "proved" God's existence, they really didn't get very far. All they have is a God they know absolutely nothing about. The "proof" they had cannot logically apply to the attributes of the God. The God may very well be imperfect, all malevolent, unable to interact with anyones lives, wants to but cannot answer praryers and so on. So what value does the proof really hold? Why do you think no one ever mentions this? Or if there is a video out there, please let me know. Thx
roaminn 1 year ago 2
I saw this oldie on your page. Like the rest, I enjoyed it. Of all the debates I have watched, no one ever address the following....What you could have pointed out is even if you grant someone their "proof" of the existence of their God, they still can never prove the qualities of that God. If this so called proof was legitimate (which it is not as you described), it still in no way confirms that God is omnipotent, all powerful, all loving, all merciful, and all the rest.
roaminn 1 year ago
Brilliant video! Especially the difference between atheism and agnosticism (I honestly never thought of it that way) and whether or not your house is conscious. (I personally believe it is, and it hates it when you vacuum. Beware the wrath of House!)
beetlecommathe 1 year ago 3
YOU FIRE MURDERER!!!!!!! How could you kill an innocent flame!! what did it do to you!! lol
iscay666 1 year ago 14
Comment removed
metapunker 1 year ago
Christianity really makes no since. Everything contradicts itself. So I decided that I won't stress myself out over it, and just be atheist and live my life (By the way, if I am living a video game, that would be awesome.) There is no proof for the existance of a god, and if there WAS a man that lived on earth by the name of Jesus Christ, there is no proof that he wasn't making it all up.
xoblivion123 1 year ago
Sounds like CuanMarce2 is a pantheist or deist of some sort, maybe.
patricknelson 1 year ago
IF the universe would be alive then it would be a very very slow thinking since light cannot exceed the lighspeed. The closest star is 4 lightyears aware so it would take 4 years before the other star (neuron) is aware of something.
So the universe migth need 10.000.000 years to have one thought.
Look at human lifetime, the universe would probably not be aware of us, we would be just a blink of it's eyes before we dissapear again.
obaeyens 1 year ago
Btw, I've never had any proof that the universe or nature or the Solar System or my house are aware of my existence or of their own existence. I don't even think my body is aware of my existence, though I'm aware of my body's existence. But even though I'm aware of my body's existence, I don't really have any idea how my body works; it's just too complex. And if my pancreas cells began turning into toe nail cells, I wouldn't have pancreatic cancer, I'd have a toenail lodged in my pancreas!
Asxhmoula 1 year ago
Gosh, is this the only 'proof' someone has put forward to you for the existence of God??? Pretty lame. Gives us Deists a real bad name! =P
Asxhmoula 1 year ago
Here's a little game: imagine one of the cells in a random part of your body suddenly becomes self aware. It looks around and sees the other cells busy with their ecstatic celebration of life, unaware. Its awareness gradually infects neighboring cells, and before long they create a movement. That original cell is tired of being a pancreas cell and toys with the idea of being a toe nail cell. Other cells agree. Riots ensue.
If you did this correctly, you should now have pancreatic cancer! =D
Chaos876 1 year ago
It's true that your house isn't aware of itself, since I wouldn't include in the definition of a house, the people who live in it. But the universe is defined as (and i'm paraphrasing here) all of the matter and energy in existence throughout spacetime. So some of this matter and energy (us folks) happens to be aware of the universe. That really does make the universe aware of itself, which I think is really cool. But not proof of a deity. And not by a long stretch, proof of Yahweh.
NavinJohnson90 1 year ago
"So some of this matter and energy (us folks) happens to be aware of the universe."
—Absolutely agree. That we are aware, that we are part of the stuff of the universe, therefore part of the universe is aware — no problem. What CuanMarce did — which you don't — is extrapolate from a part to the whole, to say the whole universe is aware. That's where the problem arose in his argument — one of the problems.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
haha someone's trippin' @
5:54
GodlessHippie 2 years ago
The universe itself may, one day, be found to be made up of only one single substance which through feedback systems complex stuff appears from the feedback. Choas theory describes this phenomenon..Turin describes how complexity can come from something simple in an equation of his and for me nails any argument about a god being required to create complexity. The Mandelbrot is the same thing. I don't know where consciousness comes from but I do know its not from any deity.
FranklyLate 2 years ago
if a human is conscious because part of that human is conscious (regardless of which part creates it) then in totality if the universe is made of stuff and some part of that stuff is conscious then you can claim that the stuff of the universe is conscious but not all the stuff of the universe. That is why a house is not conscious. I am an atheist myself and don't need gods. But in so far as I'm conscious and I'm part of the stuff of the universe then the universe is (for my part) conscious.
FranklyLate 2 years ago
'If I am conscious and I am part of the universe, then that part of the universe which is me is conscious' — this logical truism is what I initially wondered if CuanMarce was presenting. It soon became clear that he was venturing far beyond that, into science-fiction ideas about how entanglement was sending thoughts through the universe. Starting out with the sensationalist claim of 'proof of god' was really a little naughty of him.
TheraminTrees 2 years ago
I don't like the font
gotler 2 years ago
Seems like a cop-out really, likening their concept of "God" to what we call the universe. It feels like an attempt to bring an Atheist to the level where we can provide no answers either about our creation and beginnings.
However this is false, as they believe we were created.. past tense. The universe for as long as it has been, and for as long as it will be, is in a constant state of creation and self-destruction even.
So, if God is real, his contributions have been small. Pathetic even.
teddybeardustin 2 years ago 3
Therein lies a frequent and seemingly fundamental flaw in all vague, nebulous god concepts: their descibed as essentially inert and thus functionally non-existent. A god that does nothing is no god at all. It would seem that most gods are ontological projections.
Humanist555 2 years ago 19
It's one of the most tedious wastes of time when someone comes along arguing that 'god exists!' — and after some lengthy exchange, they reveal that 'god' is just their name for the universe.
TheraminTrees 2 years ago
@Humanist555 It seems to me that the very concept of god requires it to be unexplainable, i.e. have no reason. If we would discover some amazing phenomenon akin to the human consciousness that arises due to the processes in the brain then would that thing be called a god? Wouldn't it just be an amazing phenomenon?
Is it possible that something could exist and think for no reason? I believe there would have to be a godly brain for it to think and it needs inputs and outputs.
drandersw 2 years ago
The arguments put forth by most faithful believers deserve nothing less than this sort of overkill. How can people learn to think truly rationally otherwise?
ShallowThoughts 2 years ago 3
I think someone said of this exchange that I brought a tank to a gunfight — or something like that. While I eschew the violence in the imagery, I do acknowledge the scale. And, for me, it keys in to what you're saying. People sometimes kid themselves that poor arguments are robust because they keep them afloat in shallow waters — ie superficial discussion. I say take those arguments out to deep waters, and show how easily and thoroughly they will be torn to shreds.
TheraminTrees 2 years ago
@TheraminTrees I don't think it was 'overkill', particularly, so much as making sure the other person didn't bring a spoon to a gun fight. Your response was thoughtful and intelligent, without dipping into fallacy.
By the way, have you thought of the behaviourist account of consciousness? After all, the examples you gave often fall into the trap of being 'beetles in boxes' (apart from the moral reasoning example - a Kantian account, or Aristotlean?).
ScepticalAgnostic 2 years ago
Yep, behaviourism's a strand in my psych background — and its criterion of observability is something that's being addressed, using sophisticated scans to observe brain states, with fascinating results. Like predictions of someone's choice, seconds before they've consciously chosen. Also, 'out of body' experiments, with video cameras/TV goggles, show how easy it is to de-centre someone from their own body — even into someone else's. Observability is as much about the tools as the subject.
TheraminTrees 2 years ago
Excellent as usual, my compliments.
saintpine 2 years ago
I almost died at the snuff film bit.
Now, I believe that his argument was lacking...
but I suppose one could put forth other theories as to the state of the universe involving such things as gravity being the item that creates the sentience of the universe...
but that one starts on shaky ground and just gets more actively... tectonic? :D
Oh dear... I am much too tired for this.
dogoneshame 2 years ago
CuanMarce certainly put out an attention grabber, claiming he had 'proof of god'. A shame he fell into one of the follies Paul Valery warned about: 'mistaking metaphor for proof'.
TheraminTrees 2 years ago
Clever, funny, structured, original. 5/5
DavidMTRutten 2 years ago
"After all; Is this murder?" LOL - Subbed
MeltingPointYT 2 years ago
He does bring a tank to a gunfight, doesn't he? :D
shade1978x 2 years ago
Ha...please, TT. Spare us the "punishment."
Okay, that was equally terrible. I'll just get my coat.
ColAbernathy 2 years ago
Your skills at countering flimsy religious arguments are totally overkill- but very enjoyable to watch!
pikmindoctor 2 years ago 2
I had a very nervous moment when you said your could reproduce...
xkoenigseggx 2 years ago 4
TheraminTrees, You make me laugh man, I just love the way you are right (I follow & agree at least) BUT VERY CHEEKY ABOUT IT.
PEACE. Jonny
ancientbaby 2 years ago
I really liked this video.
Though on reflection I might want to take you up on your challenge, at least as far as the issue of sapience goes.
I'll have to give it some thought but I think I can produce an inductive argument argument that goes beyond mere word play.
P.S. would you care to recommend any books on the cognitive aspects of psychology
TheSameDonkey 2 years ago
Thought I had something for a while there, but.
Self awareness for existence fails, because it bottoms out in a circular definition of existence.
Setinence requires an outside that we cannot demonstrate, and the same goes for environmental interplay awareness.
I thought I had something on the issue of sapience though... but I can't infer intentionality without at least one of the other three.
Ah well.
TheSameDonkey 2 years ago
Hello TheSameDonkey. 'Cognitive Psychology' by MW Eysenck and MT Keane was a nice broad text as I recall.
TheraminTrees 2 years ago
Cheers
TheSameDonkey 2 years ago
"Sometimes... THEY DONT"
Hahahahaha
KwantumPsyentisd 2 years ago
6:12 I almost peed my pants. I love these videos!
theodensmama 2 years ago
i always considered consciousness as a very loose term,what are the mechanisms that process our environment and experiences of it, into thought?is consciousness merely the ability to observe and to know our surroundings, or to actively alter our interactions with it? maybe a combination of both, the idea behind "i think therefore i am" seems flawed to me, computers can "think" in that they can evaluate and interpret information,but can they ever gain sentience?but then can we definine sentience?
MattChez 2 years ago
Your body is the same body the universe uses to perceive itself. Unless you are not the universe? Terms like "Universe" and "reality" refer to, as you said, notions of totality. Reality meaning everything that exists, or what is. Each one of us is part of that collectively and individually. The existence of one thing emerges by contrast with other things. Which is perhaps why it might appear as if we are outside of reality, universe, nature, god, etc..
Rybot9000 2 years ago
Does it appear to you that you're outside reality/the universe/nature? Oh — well, then that's your business. I don't see myself as outside of reality/the universe so your comments are misapplied if addressed to me. The discourse with CuanMarce was trying to clarify what he usefully meant by calling god the conscious universe. That wasn't acheived.
TheraminTrees 2 years ago
Yea, I think what he was saying is that you and your consciousness are products of and part of, what we call "the universe".
Rybot9000 2 years ago
Such a simplistic philosophical point as the idea we are part of the universe provokes no discussion — no more than whether 1+2=3.
TheraminTrees 2 years ago
It doesn't have to provoke any discussion IMHO. According to my criteria of knowledge and truth, it doesn't necessarily have to lead to further insights or conversation for it to nevertheless be true. But I think it does within the context of religious parlance, or rather, egocentricism and conflict.
Rybot9000 2 years ago
Ah — then I don't need to respond. From the questioning tone in your initial comment it appeared you were presenting it as if it was something being debated between me and CuanMarce, or that you were revealing to me as some counter-argument to something I'd said. If you merely wished to state the obvious, you're of course welcome to do so.
TheraminTrees 2 years ago
I watched the entire exchange between you and CuanMarce just now. It seems plainly obvious thats what you were arguing about. If not then I dunno what I just spent 30 mins listening to.
Rybot9000 2 years ago
We weren't arguing about whether I was part of the universe or not. Cuan thinks I am, I think I am, I plainly am, so that was never a point of contention. It's where CuanMarce went from there — claiming that was 'proof of god' — that was the issue we were discussing, with his ideas about entanglement being methods of thought transmission across the universe, etc. That's what we were addressing.
TheraminTrees 2 years ago
You're a psychologist? That explains why you're so introspective. I'm sure your clients appreciate your calm, soothing demeanor as well.
I appreciate your work! Keep it up.
acertaingirl33 2 years ago
I tell this joke because I think it's hilarious:
A child who believes in God used to pray for a bicycle, then he realized God doesn't work that way, so he stole a bike, then prayed for forgiveness.
KemaTheAtheist 3 years ago 28
Just come back from holiday and this did make me chuckle! Cheers Kema.
TheraminTrees 2 years ago
Lol!
pablovirus 2 years ago
You murderer! :-)
hannessnag 3 years ago
While I completely agree with your reasoning here, I'm going to play the devil's advocate and ask: could one not say that quantum entanglement might be the mechanism by which the parts of the universe communicate with its central consciousness?
other than that, great video, and thanks for voicing everything I've been thinking, but never been able to find the words for
TheTinkering1 3 years ago
quantum entanglement can not be used to convey information across the universe. thats the one thing it can NOT do.
The effect happens instantaneously but the information conveyance travels at the speed of light (it's weird but it's how it works).
IE you can say 'something' happened to the other particle but only by measuring and CAUSING an effect on the other (collapsing the state) or you can say AN effect occurred....but your not sure when how and what effect (no information conveyance).
addmoreice 3 years ago
Aaah. This is music to my being.
DrChimRichels 3 years ago
People don't get laid - duh.
grandpaegg 3 years ago
All of these Bible codes that are being revealed today.What is it?Every verse from Alpha to Omega is a geometric riddle.Man could not pull that off?What on earth did?See for yourself.Look some of these sights up?I'm going back to playing the piano!LOL!I dig your vids.PEACE.
arusebud 4 years ago
Thanks for your comments arusebud. And for the trip down memory lane: haha — those old bible wheel and theomatics claims were a great sideshow for a while weren't they?! I guess books like the bible will always inspire those kinds of quasi-scientific theories/assertions. I guess it's just one of many responses to religion — eg: 1) accept without question 2) accept provisionally but search for real evidence 3) construct quasi-evidence, and 4) reject as scientifically unfounded. Peace ;8)
TheraminTrees 4 years ago
In order to survive in a hostile environment, the ability to see patterns has been hardwired into the human brain. That is why we see animal shapes in clouds, the Virgin Mary in the burn patterns on toast, Barbra Streisand's profile in a cornflake. If you search hard enough for patterns you will see them.
The Bible codes are no different. Starting with the answer it's possible to reverse engineer the pattern you are looking for.
Google for: Moby Dick, Bible Code
You will have your answer.
thatgaybloke 3 years ago 2
Who or what created the earth,God? What created the Bible?Is the bible God inspired?Is it the word of God?What is the interior strcture of the Bible?What is Theomatics?Is every verse of the Bible a Geometric,or Theomatic riddle?What is the Bible Wheel?
arusebud 4 years ago
"Is this a snuff movie?" I lol:ed at that :D
Censeo 4 years ago
A fine demonstration of how anyone who claims to be able to prove the existance of god can expect to be pulled over by the weight of their own balls, metaphorically speaking.
WizardJim 4 years ago
You have a way with words WizardJim!! ;8)
TheraminTrees 4 years ago
Hey Dontbotherkids that's a very kind comment — Thanks! ;8)
TheraminTrees 4 years ago
No one does this with more style, stable, rational, unapologetic but respectful directness and logic, then you.
bCurious2 4 years ago 3
Wow bCurious2 — I'm really touched — thanks for your sweet message! ;8)
TheraminTrees 4 years ago
Another great video TheraminTrees
momoftwo99 4 years ago 2
Solid, irrefutable logic - and, as always, presented with great eloquence and humour. Some people's 2 minute videos feel like an eternity, they take so long getting to the point. Your 10-minuters seem to zoom by and always leave me wanting to listen to more. Great video! ('v')
opterigon 4 years ago 4
Hey Opterigon! I do try to shy away from doing long vids, and this was originally going to be very short, but I just thought what the heck — I'll use the time to address a couple of the more peropheral points as well as just the main thrust — I think in response videos, more feedback can be useful. Thanks for your very kind comment — it gives me very valuable feedback! ;8)
TheraminTrees 4 years ago
nice job
TheReapersPit 4 years ago
YOU MONSTER!!! Killing fire that you clearly proved was alive!...that could have been used to torch stinking bourgeois!!!
Other than that, wonderful combination of humor, intellect, and general human decadency. Favorited...
Luke12000 4 years ago 2
You're quite right Luke — I am a monster. It's just I was afraid that fire might've found its way to my polyester gusset. If I'd had some of your lovely anarchy lemonade within reach, with which to dowse the flame, I'd never've been driven to such extreme measures! ;8)
TheraminTrees 4 years ago
I just got smarter watching this video.
st4273 4 years ago
Wow St4273 — that's quite some compliment!! Thank you ;8)
TheraminTrees 4 years ago
You are a tough master! As we both know- your challenge can't be met as defined by your rules. I find it interesting that people keep trying. If such proof existed it would make the headlines of every newspaper in the world.
featherdude 4 years ago 2
Hi Featherdude! To take on the burden of proof of God is quite a task isn't it, although I like the fact I can still get intrigued about the prospect. But really, I'm very happy to just look at arguments — there's so much available to discuss below the, as you very rightly indicate, much more demanding level of 'proof'.
TheraminTrees 4 years ago
Once again, very well done.
brouhajoe 4 years ago
Hey Brouhajoe — thanks ;8) Looking forward to catching up with your output now I'm back.
TheraminTrees 4 years ago
...and another theologian lies stunned by the roadside....LOL
Bravo! Another victory for common sense.
RobNorthampton 4 years ago 3
Hey Rob! I admit I was a little irked by some of CuanMarce2's subtle and misplaced psychoanalysing of me in his videos — but I do find him very likable. Hope you're well!
TheraminTrees 4 years ago
DAMN your sharp!
KasparHauser4 4 years ago
Wonderful form.
Neonsolid 4 years ago
I didn't know you were into snuff films, this is quite a perverse side... that's mostly seen in Martin. You should cut down on your time with him :P Excellent video, spot on as always.
CompanionableIlls 4 years ago
Hey Companionable! Yes, these repressed types can get one wondering: exactly what dark matter are they repressing? — and is it contagious?? By the way I was wondering if you heard anything about your Graphics job?
TheraminTrees 4 years ago
Keep the metaphorical ass-kicking up , your biggest criticism comes from the time it takes between each video: always far too long. This won't do for my favourite subscription.
Resonating a merry hue of pink as well, I'm overwhelmed.
hoodwinky1 4 years ago 2
Hey Hoodwinky — I'm really touched! And as always, tickled by your turn of phrase ;8)
TheraminTrees 4 years ago
That was excellent.
Nasikabatrachus 4 years ago 2
OMG....MY NOSE BLEEDS.....you are an intelligent person. hehehe
great one man
jovic
jovic88 4 years ago
Hey Jovic. Thanks. ;8)
TheraminTrees 4 years ago
Oh boy you kick so much ass..
EntertainedWatcher 4 years ago 2
Theramin, your intellect brimmeth over!! Awesome, as usual. :)
2BME5 4 years ago 3