So this is what Christians send each-other to keep their superstitions recharged? The most amusing question to ask a religious person is "What do you think of other religions, including the many dead ones."
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from variations produced having survival value. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, then that species is going to survive (be "selected'). That's all that natural selection is! It's a passive process in nature. Read my popular Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS.
WHAT ABOUT THE STARS? Gravity explains how the order found in the precise courses of trillions of stars is maintained, but gravity can't explain the origin of that order! Did all the trillions of stars agree to get out of each other's way? C'mon! Disorder in the universe is because of chance, but the order is because of design. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
SCIENCE DOESN'T EXPLAIN AWAY GOD: Natural laws may explain how an airplane or living cell works, but mere undirected natural laws cannot explain the origin of either. Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
DEBATE IS NOT OVER. In Darwin's time not enough science was known to refute macro-evolution. There was no understanding of genetics. Darwin thought the cell was just a simple glob. No one knew about DNA, RNA, proteins. Modern evolutionists now know but the theory is entrenched as gospel and a lot of personal motives are at stake as well. Just saying that something evolved doesn't make it so! Read my article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site.
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as flawed or useless.
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select," not produce. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
AMINO ACIDS CAN HAPPEN BY CHANCE BUT NOT PROTEINS: Read my popular Internet articles, "How Forensic Science Refutes Atheism," "Origin of Life Deception by Evolutionists," "Any Life On Mars Came From Earth."
INTELLIGENT DESIGN DEBATE: If you discovered a sand castle on a lonely beach, you can't prove it was made by either chance or design. No one observed its origins. Either it was designed or the random forces of wind and waves made the castle. There are no fingerprints. Did the wind wipe the fingerprints away? How do we know that there were fingerprints in the first place? By chance or by design? Both sides should present their case. Read the article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of transitional forms and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discusses mixed species in fossils (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum conveniently ignored by evolutionists).
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
NOT ALL EVOLUTIONISTS even agree on the fossils used to support and reconstruct human evolution. The bones are incomplete. There's no certainty of the bones belonging to the same creature. They can reconstruct whatever they want from these bones, and they have. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creature. Read my article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
THE LAW OF ENTROPY in science teaches that the net useful energy in the universe is becoming irreversibly useless and all the universe, if left to itself, will become totally useless energy. This is true whether the universe is an open system or closed system. This is proof that the universe is not eternal, otherwise it would have reached this point long ago. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator!
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Strawmen aside, there's quite a large inconsistency here: The claim @41 is that reliance on the human brain is an act of faith, and hence christian faith is justified. However, any christian who knows their bible should be arguing that faith is qualitatively different to believing some proposition. For christians who don't know their bible, have a look at the second half of James 2.
The funny thing is, this is exactly what dawkins and evolutionists believe in. Anything is ok as long as no god is involved, impossible chances and matter magically appearing, its okay if no god is involved. Life coming from aliens who seeded our planet (as stated by dawkins) is alright i no God is in the picture. lets face it, atheists dont WANT to believe in god. Quite sad really.
@Amritizcool66 Actually Fred Hoyle, who was quoted as an authority in the video against 'Dawkins', was a firm believer in panspermia (life arrived on Earth through extra terrestrial means).
There is no impossibility or magic in science's approach. With respect, you sound like someone who hasn't read the source material, only the theistic critique. (Unfortunately I suspect you are precisely the kind of person who finds this video, as well made as it is, convincing!)
@sadetec A 1 in 10^144 chance of spontaneous life is quite impossible. Plus the additional factors of nucleotides dissolving in the earths early atmosphere and the fact the cells would need to reproduce, which is hard when you have no means of doing so. We also know the simplest cells need 213 genes to exist. The first cell would have to go from 0 to 213 without going under, Its about as good as magic. I found this video hilarious and not informative. Don't kid yourself. Cheers!
@Amritizcool66 That 10^144 figure is made up nonsense though, isn't it? :) You might as well say a million squillion zillion, or some equally childish number. Work progresses, yet too much is inconclusive for odds (either way) to be estimated without vast vast allowances for ignorance.
Your twisting of abiogenesis etc in the name of faith is admirable, yet I fear what little we *do* know unfortunately doesn't point towards a magic wand in the hands of your Odin, Ra, Zeus, or whoever... :(
Thinking something is funny isn't a 'choice'... if the jokes relate to you (misunderstanding what the big bang is, what atheism is, what Dawkins' is all about) then this is funny to you, but it doesn't relate to me. This humour only relates to a certain niche of religious people who view atheism in a very narrow, specific way.
@funincluded I think it would be more true to say that it relates to a certain niche of atheism. And I don't see why that should be a weakness - I can't imagine any sketch like this that would relate to all shades of atheism, or even very many at once.
@funincluded There is a definite niche of atheism where people think science has somehow disproved what they call religion, and I think that's what is being sent up here.
This video appeals to a certain kind of ignorant religious person.
This is not about only one "niche" of atheism- it attacks many facets of science, which is what most atheists base their views on. If it is about 'one niche'- then it's a HUGE niche.
@funincluded I suppose it depends what you call an atheist. In my experience most atheists have a sort of "soft" kind of atheism born out of a mixture of apathy and a vague apprehension that the idea of God is obviously preposterous. I have much more respect for an atheist who has good reasons for being an atheist (presumably like yourself) but I actually think you're in the minority among atheists. Or maybe I just know the wrong people!
@LCScampi There is a big stigma against being an atheist, and few people label themselves as such. If someone refers to themselves as an 'atheist' it's likely because they have thought about it and come to the conclusion that theism has failed its burden of proof.
labeling yourself an 'atheist' is very unlikely to result from 'apathy.' Technically, if you're apathetic, you are an atheist... but you wouldn't call yourself that.
@funincluded That's interesting what you say about the stigma. Yes, I think it is deeply unfashionable to consciously take much of a position one way or another, but like you say, atheism is about believing there's no god, rather than simply about labelling yourself an atheist. So I think this is directed against maybe a lot of conscious atheists, but not against the majority of, er, non-god-believing people.
My view is that this is against the "Ivory Tower, Holier than Thou" atheist that exists mainly in fundamentalist Christians' minds... but really this isn't aimed AGAINST anyone, in that atheists are not the intended audience.
Rather, it's red meat for morons.
btw; it takes less than "believing there is no god" to be an atheist. Instead, it takes "believing there is a god" to be a theist, and everything is an atheist
@funincluded Maybe we're seeing it from different viewpoints. I'm seeing it as a (rather lame) critique of the sort of "rationalist" atheist who makes arguments which are themselves logically fallacious. It's aimed against them in the same sort of way that many atheists love Marcus Brigstocke's stand-up... perhaps I listen to too much Radio 4.
My mum is keen to say that she has no view on God whatever, and that she is definitely neither an atheist nor religious...
@funincluded Well - for example I heard a man (on Premier, as it happens) recently claiming that belief in miracles was irrational. I can't remember if he said it, but at least I understood that he meant that science has somehow proven this. Whereas in fact science can't possibly prove such a thing, and the evidence for miracles - of the medical kind, say - is so vast, numerically, that it seemed to be a case of selecting evidence to fit theory rather than the reverse.
@funincluded Well, start with the fact that miracles are not magic (magic being when you do something, and there is a definite result - miracles being when you pray for something, and God may answer it or not). And the point I'm making is that, in all the cases I'm talking about, there is no better explanation, or rather no explanation that doctors (for example) can't find.
@funincluded Or, to put it another way, miracles are known to happen, so it's irrational to say "I have no system which makes room for miracles, therefore belief in them is irrational". That would be like a caveman coming into the modern world and saying "I have no system to understand how cars work, therefore belief in the existence of cars is irrational".
@funincluded Important to note that "rational" is not the same thing as "scientific". It's rational for me to believe that my mother loves me, but it's not a scientific fact.
Miracles are absolutely known to happen, and saying they don't is another bit of irrationality, which I can only ever attribute to people putting theory before evidence. Look at "video stories" in blaconlife dot o r g for some examples.
I don't confuse the rationality and science. That's called a red herring.
The only difference between magic and miracle is that you go from "there is no natural explanation" to "there is no explanation, therefore God did it"
Miracles are absolutely believed in. I'm sure that website has tons of evidence of that.
@funincluded The point of a miracle is that it's something you've asked God for, usually specifically, and then it happens. Magic is quite different, although it might look the same (if it exists). Miracles are no more than us asking someone to do something, and that someone being God.
That website shows miracles happening. Please do have a look. People so often, wrongly, say "fuck you" to claims that evidence exists, but that's just because they know of no examples. Have a look!!
Answered prayers are not the same thing as miracles... You are arguing that if a bus is about to save a baby, and God swoops down and stops the bus (before anyone prays for such) there was no miracle.
The point is that you can't determine that there was a miracle, you can only fail to find a natural cause.
This is exactly the same for magic. No natural cause = GOD DID IT!
@funincluded True, miracles do happen which no-one has prayed for, and not all answers to prayers are miracles, well done. But I hope you can take my point. Some answers to prayers are miraculous, and that is where it becomes evidence.
To put it another way, if someone prays for people with injuries, and there and then they are mostly healed in a medically inexplicable manner, is it really more rational to say "we don't know how that happened"?
Further, it is more likely that natural causes lead to that healing than the explanation that "Grandma's prayers were telepathically communicated to an extra-dimensional being with perfectly benevolent attributes and super-cosmic healing powers, and that being decided to swoop in and use magic to heal you, but not the guy across the hall"
You won't accept "I don't know" yet you'll accept "God works in mysterious ways." It seems like you just want to believe in God.
@funincluded Or, to put it another way, God did just what Grandma asked him to?
Surely Occam's razor in this case works in favour of it being God. Either you believe that God does it, or you believe:
"When I pray to God for someone to be healed, that causes nature to work in an entirely different way to normal, accomplishing what I want despite not having a mind."
I think when you get to the point of thinking the second is the more rational, you are deep into irrationality.
The prayer is irrelevant. If you don't understand that that is my point, this conversation is done.
If you can't understand my basic points, then either I am incapable of articulating these basic points, or you are incapable of understanding them. The former is unlikely.
Feel free to have the last word, but I won't be responding.
@funincluded I do understand Occam's razor. The assumptions you would have to make about nature to believe the latter option below are much more radical than any belief in a god.
And if the prayer is irrelevant, you are denying the possibility of there being a listening god in the first place, which means you are begging the question from the start.
It's a very good example of what I mean by rationalists arguing in a way that is logically fallacious.
@funincluded I'm also rather sorry to say that (sorry Premier) I found the video a little bit toe-curling and couldn't watch to the end. I am always enormously irritated by people who make comedy out of some caricature of Christianity (Marcus Brigstocke is a particular bête noire of mine), and I'm afraid this is doing the same thing the other way. There are one or two pertinent arguments in there, but...... argh
I like most of what you do, Premier, just not this
@LCScampi Thanks for the feedback - there's some more similar stuff coming in other areas of objections to Chrsitian belief -see what you think of those.
@officialpremiertv I'm sorry, I sort of feel as if I maybe need to grow a sense of humour or something - particularly as a lot of work has obviously gone into this. But it is basically a rehearsing of a few arguments in the context of some impression-doing; and the arguments aren't themselves funny, so it all comes out a bit weird.
I don't agree with the comment about straw men, as far as I've watched it, but then comments like that have to be expected.
So this is what Christians send each-other to keep their superstitions recharged? The most amusing question to ask a religious person is "What do you think of other religions, including the many dead ones."
meadowsirl 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from variations produced having survival value. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, then that species is going to survive (be "selected'). That's all that natural selection is! It's a passive process in nature. Read my popular Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT ABOUT THE STARS? Gravity explains how the order found in the precise courses of trillions of stars is maintained, but gravity can't explain the origin of that order! Did all the trillions of stars agree to get out of each other's way? C'mon! Disorder in the universe is because of chance, but the order is because of design. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE DOESN'T EXPLAIN AWAY GOD: Natural laws may explain how an airplane or living cell works, but mere undirected natural laws cannot explain the origin of either. Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DEBATE IS NOT OVER. In Darwin's time not enough science was known to refute macro-evolution. There was no understanding of genetics. Darwin thought the cell was just a simple glob. No one knew about DNA, RNA, proteins. Modern evolutionists now know but the theory is entrenched as gospel and a lot of personal motives are at stake as well. Just saying that something evolved doesn't make it so! Read my article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as flawed or useless.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select," not produce. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
AMINO ACIDS CAN HAPPEN BY CHANCE BUT NOT PROTEINS: Read my popular Internet articles, "How Forensic Science Refutes Atheism," "Origin of Life Deception by Evolutionists," "Any Life On Mars Came From Earth."
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
INTELLIGENT DESIGN DEBATE: If you discovered a sand castle on a lonely beach, you can't prove it was made by either chance or design. No one observed its origins. Either it was designed or the random forces of wind and waves made the castle. There are no fingerprints. Did the wind wipe the fingerprints away? How do we know that there were fingerprints in the first place? By chance or by design? Both sides should present their case. Read the article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of transitional forms and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discusses mixed species in fossils (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum conveniently ignored by evolutionists).
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NOT ALL EVOLUTIONISTS even agree on the fossils used to support and reconstruct human evolution. The bones are incomplete. There's no certainty of the bones belonging to the same creature. They can reconstruct whatever they want from these bones, and they have. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creature. Read my article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE LAW OF ENTROPY in science teaches that the net useful energy in the universe is becoming irreversibly useless and all the universe, if left to itself, will become totally useless energy. This is true whether the universe is an open system or closed system. This is proof that the universe is not eternal, otherwise it would have reached this point long ago. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 5 months ago
Strawmen aside, there's quite a large inconsistency here: The claim @41 is that reliance on the human brain is an act of faith, and hence christian faith is justified. However, any christian who knows their bible should be arguing that faith is qualitatively different to believing some proposition. For christians who don't know their bible, have a look at the second half of James 2.
navanrij 7 months ago
the guy playing the interviewer makes me cringe. such a slimy man
josspretty 8 months ago
That strawman sure took a beating.
This video is wilfully dishonest and / or further evidence that scientific ignorance is the only tool remaining in the apologist repertoire.
gilbertn 8 months ago
The funny thing is, this is exactly what dawkins and evolutionists believe in. Anything is ok as long as no god is involved, impossible chances and matter magically appearing, its okay if no god is involved. Life coming from aliens who seeded our planet (as stated by dawkins) is alright i no God is in the picture. lets face it, atheists dont WANT to believe in god. Quite sad really.
Amritizcool66 8 months ago
@Amritizcool66 Actually Fred Hoyle, who was quoted as an authority in the video against 'Dawkins', was a firm believer in panspermia (life arrived on Earth through extra terrestrial means).
There is no impossibility or magic in science's approach. With respect, you sound like someone who hasn't read the source material, only the theistic critique. (Unfortunately I suspect you are precisely the kind of person who finds this video, as well made as it is, convincing!)
sadetec 8 months ago
@sadetec A 1 in 10^144 chance of spontaneous life is quite impossible. Plus the additional factors of nucleotides dissolving in the earths early atmosphere and the fact the cells would need to reproduce, which is hard when you have no means of doing so. We also know the simplest cells need 213 genes to exist. The first cell would have to go from 0 to 213 without going under, Its about as good as magic. I found this video hilarious and not informative. Don't kid yourself. Cheers!
Amritizcool66 8 months ago
@Amritizcool66 That 10^144 figure is made up nonsense though, isn't it? :) You might as well say a million squillion zillion, or some equally childish number. Work progresses, yet too much is inconclusive for odds (either way) to be estimated without vast vast allowances for ignorance.
Your twisting of abiogenesis etc in the name of faith is admirable, yet I fear what little we *do* know unfortunately doesn't point towards a magic wand in the hands of your Odin, Ra, Zeus, or whoever... :(
sadetec 8 months ago
Lame humour on an easy target.
z8000783 8 months ago
LOL
lilrat489 9 months ago
If you are strongly religious, I bet this was a rip-roaring riot
funincluded 9 months ago
@funincluded If think it is enough to have a sense of humour to be able to enjoy this.
leidenhag 9 months ago
@leidenhag
That isn't a sentence.
Thinking something is funny isn't a 'choice'... if the jokes relate to you (misunderstanding what the big bang is, what atheism is, what Dawkins' is all about) then this is funny to you, but it doesn't relate to me. This humour only relates to a certain niche of religious people who view atheism in a very narrow, specific way.
funincluded 9 months ago
@funincluded Zzzzz
stephjh2006 9 months ago
@stephjh2006
Jesuuuuuuuuuuuuus
funincluded 9 months ago
@funincluded I think it would be more true to say that it relates to a certain niche of atheism. And I don't see why that should be a weakness - I can't imagine any sketch like this that would relate to all shades of atheism, or even very many at once.
LCScampi 8 months ago
@LCScampi
The only ''niche of atheism" on display is the one that exists inside certain religious people's head.
If you think this is funny, or a is a good 'gotcha!' video, you are religious and don't get the science
funincluded 8 months ago
@funincluded There is a definite niche of atheism where people think science has somehow disproved what they call religion, and I think that's what is being sent up here.
LCScampi 8 months ago
@LCScampi
This video appeals to a certain kind of ignorant religious person.
This is not about only one "niche" of atheism- it attacks many facets of science, which is what most atheists base their views on. If it is about 'one niche'- then it's a HUGE niche.
funincluded 8 months ago
@funincluded I suppose it depends what you call an atheist. In my experience most atheists have a sort of "soft" kind of atheism born out of a mixture of apathy and a vague apprehension that the idea of God is obviously preposterous. I have much more respect for an atheist who has good reasons for being an atheist (presumably like yourself) but I actually think you're in the minority among atheists. Or maybe I just know the wrong people!
LCScampi 8 months ago
@LCScampi There is a big stigma against being an atheist, and few people label themselves as such. If someone refers to themselves as an 'atheist' it's likely because they have thought about it and come to the conclusion that theism has failed its burden of proof.
labeling yourself an 'atheist' is very unlikely to result from 'apathy.' Technically, if you're apathetic, you are an atheist... but you wouldn't call yourself that.
funincluded 8 months ago
@funincluded That's interesting what you say about the stigma. Yes, I think it is deeply unfashionable to consciously take much of a position one way or another, but like you say, atheism is about believing there's no god, rather than simply about labelling yourself an atheist. So I think this is directed against maybe a lot of conscious atheists, but not against the majority of, er, non-god-believing people.
LCScampi 8 months ago
@LCScampi
I don't really get what you're saying.
My view is that this is against the "Ivory Tower, Holier than Thou" atheist that exists mainly in fundamentalist Christians' minds... but really this isn't aimed AGAINST anyone, in that atheists are not the intended audience.
Rather, it's red meat for morons.
btw; it takes less than "believing there is no god" to be an atheist. Instead, it takes "believing there is a god" to be a theist, and everything is an atheist
funincluded 8 months ago
@funincluded Maybe we're seeing it from different viewpoints. I'm seeing it as a (rather lame) critique of the sort of "rationalist" atheist who makes arguments which are themselves logically fallacious. It's aimed against them in the same sort of way that many atheists love Marcus Brigstocke's stand-up... perhaps I listen to too much Radio 4.
My mum is keen to say that she has no view on God whatever, and that she is definitely neither an atheist nor religious...
LCScampi 8 months ago
@LCScampi
Tell me what "rationalist" arguments you are referring to.
funincluded 8 months ago
@funincluded Well - for example I heard a man (on Premier, as it happens) recently claiming that belief in miracles was irrational. I can't remember if he said it, but at least I understood that he meant that science has somehow proven this. Whereas in fact science can't possibly prove such a thing, and the evidence for miracles - of the medical kind, say - is so vast, numerically, that it seemed to be a case of selecting evidence to fit theory rather than the reverse.
LCScampi 8 months ago
@LCScampi
Keep in mind, the argument isn't "SCIENCE PROVED MIRACLES CAN'T HAPPEN!" but rather belief in them is not rational.
This is because magic isn't known to exist, but natural explanations ARE known to exist.
For this reason (along with others), there is always a better explanation than "It was magic."
funincluded 8 months ago
@funincluded Well, start with the fact that miracles are not magic (magic being when you do something, and there is a definite result - miracles being when you pray for something, and God may answer it or not). And the point I'm making is that, in all the cases I'm talking about, there is no better explanation, or rather no explanation that doctors (for example) can't find.
LCScampi 8 months ago
@LCScampi
Start over. Your definition of magic is unacceptable, as is your definition of miracles.
Magic= there is no natural explanation for what happened
Miracle= "there is no better explanation, or rather no explanation that doctors (for example) can find" thus God did it
funincluded 8 months ago
@funincluded Or, to put it another way, miracles are known to happen, so it's irrational to say "I have no system which makes room for miracles, therefore belief in them is irrational". That would be like a caveman coming into the modern world and saying "I have no system to understand how cars work, therefore belief in the existence of cars is irrational".
LCScampi 8 months ago
@LCScampi
"miracles are known to happen"
Fuck off.
funincluded 8 months ago
@LCScampi
How ironic is it for you to use an example where there is a known scientific explanation to prove that non-natural explanations exist.
answer: very
funincluded 8 months ago
@funincluded Important to note that "rational" is not the same thing as "scientific". It's rational for me to believe that my mother loves me, but it's not a scientific fact.
Miracles are absolutely known to happen, and saying they don't is another bit of irrationality, which I can only ever attribute to people putting theory before evidence. Look at "video stories" in blaconlife dot o r g for some examples.
LCScampi 8 months ago
@LCScampi
I don't confuse the rationality and science. That's called a red herring.
The only difference between magic and miracle is that you go from "there is no natural explanation" to "there is no explanation, therefore God did it"
Miracles are absolutely believed in. I'm sure that website has tons of evidence of that.
funincluded 8 months ago
@funincluded The point of a miracle is that it's something you've asked God for, usually specifically, and then it happens. Magic is quite different, although it might look the same (if it exists). Miracles are no more than us asking someone to do something, and that someone being God.
That website shows miracles happening. Please do have a look. People so often, wrongly, say "fuck you" to claims that evidence exists, but that's just because they know of no examples. Have a look!!
LCScampi 8 months ago
@LCScampi
Answered prayers are not the same thing as miracles... You are arguing that if a bus is about to save a baby, and God swoops down and stops the bus (before anyone prays for such) there was no miracle.
The point is that you can't determine that there was a miracle, you can only fail to find a natural cause.
This is exactly the same for magic. No natural cause = GOD DID IT!
Argument from ignorance.
funincluded 8 months ago
@funincluded True, miracles do happen which no-one has prayed for, and not all answers to prayers are miracles, well done. But I hope you can take my point. Some answers to prayers are miraculous, and that is where it becomes evidence.
To put it another way, if someone prays for people with injuries, and there and then they are mostly healed in a medically inexplicable manner, is it really more rational to say "we don't know how that happened"?
LCScampi 8 months ago
@LCScampi
Yes.
Further, it is more likely that natural causes lead to that healing than the explanation that "Grandma's prayers were telepathically communicated to an extra-dimensional being with perfectly benevolent attributes and super-cosmic healing powers, and that being decided to swoop in and use magic to heal you, but not the guy across the hall"
You won't accept "I don't know" yet you'll accept "God works in mysterious ways." It seems like you just want to believe in God.
funincluded 8 months ago
@funincluded Or, to put it another way, God did just what Grandma asked him to?
Surely Occam's razor in this case works in favour of it being God. Either you believe that God does it, or you believe:
"When I pray to God for someone to be healed, that causes nature to work in an entirely different way to normal, accomplishing what I want despite not having a mind."
I think when you get to the point of thinking the second is the more rational, you are deep into irrationality.
LCScampi 8 months ago
@LCScampi
You don't understand occum's razor.
The prayer is irrelevant. If you don't understand that that is my point, this conversation is done.
If you can't understand my basic points, then either I am incapable of articulating these basic points, or you are incapable of understanding them. The former is unlikely.
Feel free to have the last word, but I won't be responding.
funincluded 8 months ago
@funincluded I do understand Occam's razor. The assumptions you would have to make about nature to believe the latter option below are much more radical than any belief in a god.
And if the prayer is irrelevant, you are denying the possibility of there being a listening god in the first place, which means you are begging the question from the start.
It's a very good example of what I mean by rationalists arguing in a way that is logically fallacious.
LCScampi 8 months ago
@funincluded But do look at that website.
LCScampi 8 months ago
@funincluded I'm also rather sorry to say that (sorry Premier) I found the video a little bit toe-curling and couldn't watch to the end. I am always enormously irritated by people who make comedy out of some caricature of Christianity (Marcus Brigstocke is a particular bête noire of mine), and I'm afraid this is doing the same thing the other way. There are one or two pertinent arguments in there, but...... argh
I like most of what you do, Premier, just not this
LCScampi 8 months ago
@LCScampi
Look up occum's razor.
funincluded 8 months ago
@LCScampi Thanks for the feedback - there's some more similar stuff coming in other areas of objections to Chrsitian belief -see what you think of those.
officialpremiertv 8 months ago
@officialpremiertv I'm sorry, I sort of feel as if I maybe need to grow a sense of humour or something - particularly as a lot of work has obviously gone into this. But it is basically a rehearsing of a few arguments in the context of some impression-doing; and the arguments aren't themselves funny, so it all comes out a bit weird.
I don't agree with the comment about straw men, as far as I've watched it, but then comments like that have to be expected.
Otherwise I love you, Premier
LCScampi 8 months ago
this is awesome
JesusxXxLovesxXxYou 9 months ago
2 atheists lacks a sense of humour
leidenhag 9 months ago
LOL! Love it!
drcraigvideos 9 months ago
It's the red socks I find most convincing.
Ruminator 9 months ago 5