...us not having separate holes for breathing and eating.
Didn't deGrass notice we use our breath and our tongue for speaking? The tongue doubles for tasting and moving food where the teeth can mash it. We use our nose for breathing and smelling and it also contributes to sense the food we are eating.
The most ridiculous (and yet his favorite) of NdGT's assertions here is that you "eat, breathe, eat (sic) and drink through the same hole in your body, guaranteeing that some percentage of us will choke to death every year."
If it's evolution that has seen fit to have us configured in this way, then I guess a necessary corollary to what he is saying is that evolution is stupid? Since we didn't turn out the way he thinks we should have.
Really?? I thought it was rather consistent with the theme of the universe and the things in it not being perfectly configured for "Us".
The title of his presentation, "STUPID Design", was a tongue in cheek reference to the irrationality of the belief in intelligent design.
No where in his presentation did I hear that we or anything else has evolved perfectly up to the period we live in. But here is the beautiful part. Evolution=Change Over Time. It is a process that continues.
The "objective scientists" of atheism have systematically silenced MsPerduta.
She posted amongst others:
...us not having separate holes for breathing and eating.
Didn't deGrass notice we use our breath and our tongue for speaking? The tongue doubles for tasting and moving food where the teeth can mash it. We use our nose for breathing and smelling and it also contributes to sense the food we are eating.
deGrasse wants us to have a separate lungs for talking and for breathing and separate tongues for tasting and talking and a separate noses for smelling or sampling the aroma of our food...
What a shame Tyson isn't in charge of evolution he would do a much better job than nature can do.
No all we need is to replace organic intelligence with artificial intelligence then scrap all the "stupid design" and let machine rule the cosmos till the end of time...
@MsPerduta hi babe, great comments. you are a smart women.
but i dont agree with: " If you want to see an intelligent atheist debunk religious myths then try something like this: /watch?v=bb1c9oLgWPwYou see she doesn't have to distort the facts to make her case" she doesn’t know any facts. it was far from anything intelligent.
@MsPerduta Atheist are not a political organisation with common goals for humanity. All we want is the freedom to discover the world by reason free from religious dogma.
Evidence suggests that atheism is rapidly becoming just as much abused as Christianity was. Don't believe what they tell you. Believe what you see. deGrasse is not being honest in this video and he knows that. I exposed several of his lies in comments I posted below and I could expose more,
He is a puppet of US politics that do not benefit humanity in any way.
The objective scientists of atheism have systematically silenced MsPerduta.
She posted:
us not having separate holes for breathing and eating.
Didn't deGrass notice we use our breath and our tongue for speaking? The tongue doubles for tasting and moving food where the teeth can mash it. We use our nose for breathing and smelling and it also contributes to sense the food we are eating.
Evidence suggests that atheism is rapidly becoming just as much abused as Christianity was. Don't believe what they tell you. Believe what you see. deGrasse is not being honest in this video and he knows that. I exposed several of his lies in comments I posted below and I could expose more...
Atheist censor ship and manipulation of the truth shows them for what they are.
@MsPerduta that has to be sarcastic right? I mean who would want the damnation of 70% of man kind based on the direct and indirect effects of free will that we are some how responsible for in spite of the fact that none of us had ever asked to be here in the first place right?
However we might not have asked to be here but we are all free to leave of our own volition. Zain844 suggested Cybernetic augmentation. Perduta was only taking it to it's logical conclusion... ditch the organic brain as well and then we'll have REAL intelligent design... We could ask Tyson to design it as he will do much better than evolution apparently.
I also want to say to some people who dont like it when athesits push their views onto them that at least when an atheist does it no one gets hurt. Unlike when the pope tells people in africa not to wear condoms or women are stoned to death for an "honor killing" in the islamic religion. I could go on but This page doesnt have enough room
Tyson isn't aiming his tirade at those practices. He is falsely representing the facts and he knows this. If you want to see an intelligent atheist debunk religious myths then try something like this: /watch?v=bb1c9oLgWPw
You see she doesn't have to distort the facts to make her case.
@MsPerduta On this we agree, and I did not mean to imply that this video was aimed at those practices, I was just talking about the differences between atheism being pushed onto people compared to religon. Personally I prefer sam harris when it comes to debunking religous myths. I like his calm cool deliveries.
The Creator has confirmed there is no design, no plan. The brief existence of the human species is due to serendipity.
The Creator has posted a video on YouTube. The message comes to you directly, without the need for transcription or interpretation by iron-age scribes, or analysis by Stephen Hawking.
The video tells you how you came to be here, outlines the meaning and purpose of your life, and gives you an insight into the future of humankind.
deGrass first presumes that God's purpose is to have a universe full of pampered people with easy lives and then he ridicules that.
The scientific facts he invokes are also falsely represented. e.g. there is nothing to suggest that our gravitational interaction with the Andomeda galaxy will harm people in 5 billion years time. You can read the Wiki about galaxy collisions and deGrass knows this.
His technique here is known in the trolling community as "strawman" and he phails :P
@MsPerduta you picked one argument that is indeed something you don't know 100% sure, but you don't undermine his whole presentation by picking that one argument with "i.e." in front of it
Neiol deGrasse lampoons us not having separate holes for breathing and eating.
Didn't Neil deGrasse notice we use our breath and our tongue for speaking? The tongue doubles for tasting and moving food where the teeth can mash it. We use our nose for breathing and smelling and it also contributes to sense the food we are eating.
Not "intelligent" design? How about "efficient" and "elegant" design then?
Would you like me to trash the rest of his troll comedy show?
also I think you should consider we are talking about 5 BILLION years into the future... look how different we are today from life 5 billion years ago... you are right... we can't be 100% that people won't get hurt but I'm 99.9% sure that if evolution hasn't produced anything better than people by then. It will be high time they are deleted. Like what our Goddess of nature did to the dinosaurs.
@MsPerduta It's not efficient design at all. We could be eating/talking/breathing all at the same time. THAT's efficient. Also, there are a lot more examples of inefficient/wasteful design. Look at certain veins that the giraffe has that follow huge detours, not efficient, not an aesthetical advantage, absolutely no use at all, just proof that there's no smart creator out there. Also "being 99.9% sure" is not an argument, it's merely a hunch. Also you fail horribly at spotting trolls.
You would need 3 mouths then and need separate lungs for talking and breathing and separate noses for smelling and for the aroma of your food... it would be over engineered . Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex... It takes a touch of genius to move in the opposite direction."
My 99.9 % sure is a lot better than your 100% unsure. If in 5 billion years this planet is still infested with stupid humans it deserves to be scrapped.
@MsPerduta The guys a renowed astrophysicist who has recived the NASA Distinguished Public Service Medal, the highest civilian honor bestowed by NASA, but yea he is a racist troll acording to you.....that statement says all I need to know about your intelect
The evidence for his trolling and racism is right here in this video.
His public performance here is a disgrace to the institutions that bestowed recognition on him.
There is nothing wrong with my intellectual abilities and I have no hesitation in denouncing this kind of behaviour. You fail to intimidate.
The number of thumbs up he gets gives an indication of a shallow mentality that permeates the atheist creed: The exact same bigotry that dominated religions in the past.
@MsPerduta Also you seem to have something against atheists and correct me if im wrong but it seems you lumped me in there as well off of what I dont know. For the record I consider myself to be a deist.
I have nothing against atheist... it's when they become fundamentalist bigots that I take exception.
People who see a need to cast aspersions on my "intellect" for daring to express my opinion and then feign innocence pretending they don't know what I'm talking about and telling me I fail to make sense don't get my respect either :P
@MsPerduta "sigh" fine here goes lets here your reason for thinking this man is racist and a troll? The trolling I get because you dont like what he is saying.... he only states facts by the way. The racist part I dont see at all
at 0:44 he makes a statement about people who don't have dark skin. Dark skin will not protect you from gamma rays so it's just a pointless racist remark.
I've already explained that our anatomy is efficient and elegantly designed and also that his notion of a God whose purpose is a universe full of pampered people is just a straw man and that Andomeda galaxy "collision" 5 billion years in the future is false threat to humanity.
@MsPerduta Think he was trying to be funny with the dark skin comment, maybee not as funny as he would of liked but still an obvious attempt at humor not racism. And yes you bodies are elgantly designed but evoultion could explain that just as easily.
This is an asinine line of reasoning. It's the equivalent of saying the iphone is a stupid design because it breaks if you drop it or if you submerge it in water. Or that the Bugatti Veyron is a stupid design because it can't cross a pond or drive through a muddy gully.
@ReitersBlock Why is it asinine? You've drawn radical and simple parallels but didn't explain why. Those items you listed were designed to do specific things and were not built to withstand certain outside influences. If we're created by intelligent design why include radioactive isotopes that destroy man physically? Why is it important for religion to be able to explain the way the world works? Isn't it more important for religion to take care for us spiritually and act as a moral compass?
@ReitersBlock Asinine analogy, a better one would be that humans are more like a Morse code telegraph line instead of an IPhone. We are a primitive wheelbarrow in comparison to a Bugatti Veyron. The POINT is human beings in 2012 are not what the universe was created for, nor are we the apex of anything. All available scientific evidence points to this clear fact, and your are Asinine with a capital A if you believe in 'Intelligent' design.
Dr. Tyson is the best. Totally brilliant and definitely a warrior for intelligence and humanism. But he sounds a little jacked on yayo here, though. He musta been smokin' hubbas in the Hayden Planetarium bathroom stalls again...
Tyson only confirms how much of a miracle it is we even exist. Even though science has come a long way, its still young and has yet to answer what caused the Big Bang. I understand there are multiple theories but none are definite or conclusive. I still don't understand how the Universe was simply created out of nothing. So then why is it a stretch to say there is a higher being? We haven't even charted a fraction of the entire Universe.
@ProphetsofGod Neil addressed this as well, stating that if you use god to fill in the gaps that we do not understand, that "God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance"
@ProphetsofGod That's where the pursuit of knowledge through science to develop and prove/disprove theories is important. Some religions, emphasis on the word some, choose to ignore science and teach nonsensical ideas about man riding dinosaurs or humans existence starting 5000 years ago. The problem is religion passing unproven stories as fact to discredit scientific evidence because, "God told me so it must be true". Religion should focus on spirituality rather than false facts.
@Mazdem I completely agree with you. But you have to understand that people interpret religious doctrine in different ways. Just because a bigot claims to have found evidence in their book of faith to support some nonsensical, illogical opinion doesn't mean that the religion itself is at fault. In all honesty I believe that science merely proves the existence of God by establishing the mechanisms behind nature, as opposed to concluding that everything is random in its concoction.
@ProphetsofGod The problem occurs when radical religious factions gain popularity and lead society as in parts of the U.S. known as the "Bible Belt" or "Red States". Religion = people and evolves as a living organism. I respect your opinion about the proof of the existence of God through science however one can infer an opposite conclusion that God doesn't exist using the same logic. People are better off leaving religion to taking care of spirituality and science to understand the world.
So question, who is this guy? I have been watching this guy over and over (this video) and quite honestly, as a Philosopher and that is the only opinion I will give, he sounds more like a comedian. First off I get the whole, "stupid design" hes trying to make a pun. Honestly, that is a poor choice in name, insulting shows bad edict and even makes you look bad so right off the back he looks weak. After listening to this a few times and if this is the only source I used I'd believe in design.
@kodyandchris to add on to that. I'd believe in design for one reason. He points out over and over how bad this universe is and not suitable for life and yet here we are, alive. This video says the odds of life are so small so then how are we here and not only here, but evolving and getting better and weve been here for what? ten thousand years or so? This guys argument is poor so I am going to have to side with intelligent design if this guys argument was my source.
He has some goo points, but the main problem I have with the other side of the argument of the beginning of life is the inorganic to organic. How am I expected to believe that by chance or the ever more popular, "on the backs of crystals" life was made? The complexity of what it takes to make one protein is about you need DNA to line up just right to make one and to make the most basic single-celled organism you need about 250 portions. This sounds to high to happen by chance. Food for thought.
@kodyandchris Organic molecules are found everywere , even in meteors and comets , aminoacids are organic molecules , and they formed naturally , even in space .
Inorganic material become organic by natural quimical reactions , and that was proven .Juan Oro replicates the Adenine in a laboratory , what makes you think the life can not begin naturally?
The Creator has confirmed that we are not here by design or privilege.
The Creator has posted a video on YouTube. The message comes to you directly, without the need for transcription or interpretation by iron-age scribes, or analysis by Stephen Hawking.
The video tells you how you came to be here, outlines the meaning and purpose of your life, and gives you an insight into the future of humankind
evolutionist & creationist can argue until they turn blue in the face & get absolutely nowhere. it has nothing to do with a lack of evidence on either side. we see the same evidence...we just interprete it differently. he talks of the instability in our solar system & how man could not survive outside our planet. to me he's making a case for creationism...not against.
@whiskeredtuna "we see the same evidence...we just interprete it differently". Evidence is defined as a fact or set of facts that point to a certain conclusion. Evidence by definition can not point to two seprate conclusions. You are simply lying, deluded, or uneducated. Either way you are wrong.
" Definition of EVIDENCE. 1. a : an outward sign : indication b : something that furnishes proof " Merriam-Webster Dictionary
@MaelMenoret Dr. Tyson says look at the volume of the universe where you can't live. My question is...why are we a privileged planet at all? He see's tornado's, volcanos, & death & concludes intelligent design is absurd. Creationist see natures fury as well. We believe this is a fallen world
@whiskeredtuna first off I would like to start off with the fact you failed to address the point I was making in my previous comment. that your notion that a piece of evidence can point to two seprate conclusions is absuard as it contradicts the very definition of "evidence". (cont)
@whiskeredtuna (cont) Now adressing your point. The diffrence between Dr. Tyson's position that intelligent design is an absuard concept due to the many flaws of the design for it to have been intelligent and your position, of this being a "fallen world" (whatever that means) is that Dr. Tyson uses facts and evidence to support his idea while you use well nothing, unless you count poetic phrases.
@whiskeredtuna "Could be...maybe it was created with the appearance of age & maturity." Yes that COULD be true. It also COULD be true that the universe was created from a gigantic alein fart, hey anything is possible. One needs to deal with what is probable and not what is possible.
@PitchBlack696 "To all ATHEISTS/AGNOSTICS. I heavily recommend looking into Secular Humanism. It's basically a philosophy founded on reason, happiness and love. "
I've been with you for the last 6 years. Glad to see others.
@airsoftmanic It's funny because secular humanism believes in love and compassion as good things. This goes forth to prove of objective moral values. Atheists can be moral and know objective moral values because they are created in Gods image.
@airsoftmanic " if secular humanism is believing in the person next to you, I'm all for it."
To me, I have this one life, and our greatest banes are poverty, illness, and ultimately death. Empathizing as a conscious being, and having learned all of the things required for them to truly flourish, I contend that the most noble aspiration in life is the reduction of physical and emotional anguish in conscious beings. I'm vegan, though many aren't, and they focus on the "human" part of humanist.
What people fail to realize is that IF the christian God exists he designed the universe to directly contradict the bible, as christianity is based on faith. There is no faith in fact.
Right, it is the evolutionists that believes in unicorns. Heard they are growing them in some lab right now. Richard Dawkins is the main sponsor as well as his great great great great great great great great great grand uncle Kermit The Frog.
@DisprovingEvolution Really, you're trying to bolster you position by calling him a clown? You don't see how that only serves to discredit any opinion you may have?
"For the record I am agnostic not atheist because god is neither provable nor disprovable"- that logic make no sense. Zeus, Hercules, trolls, wizards, loch ness monster, are all neither provable nor disprovable. That's the case for anything that has not been seen nor leave any trace of its existence. That does not make it plausible or logical to assume either-or. Otherwise all of them are on the same level with god.
@rooio3 ? You can't prove god nor disprove god with the scientific method. God is a theory people get obsessed over. Why can't Zeus and loch ness monster be on the same level as the christian god. They are the same thing except less people pray to them.
NOBODY knows what existed before the universe as it NOW exists. Therefore, NOBODY can say there was NOTHING before it.
It all comes down to this: Either life (God) existed before Matter & Energy, or Matter & Energy existed before life. I can give MILLIONS of examples supporting the second premise, I challenge ANYONE to give JUST ONE example supporting the first.
Yes, ever hear of Santa Claus? There is absolutely NO proof of "the multiverse", other dimensions, God(s), Heaven and Hell, Nirvana, and many other things thought up in the imagination. As soon as I see some verifiable evidence, I'll start to take them more seriously.
However, it is important that human beings keep asking questions :-)
Obviously if you think that their could ever be anything but mathematical evidence of the multiverse, then you don't under stand the basic premise of the theory. You can make a very long list of things that are unproven, nevertheless your actions, or believes have no impact on reality. Go ahead and make a long list of false gods, and I can answer back with an equal list of debunked scientific facts. Man makes stuff up, we are endlessly wrong, as are you now.
@sgapplebee Well first you are wrong in your understanding of agnosticism - you seem to be just another YouTube Atheist propaganda drone using the same old childish arguments, so that Atheist can claim to be a larger community than it really is. Further, this moment in time is not unique, man (you) make things up, and say "this is fact", when historically man is, wrong. Also you must define god before you state opinion, as to belief. A flat denial without definition, or attributes is ridiculous.
Ok then, first off, define Agnostic and then define God.
Next, if you really want to know my position, watch my short videos 'Applebee on 'Why Agnostics should be Atheists' parts 1&2 (only 15 minutes total time). And then refute what you can. I would love to hear it :-)
Also, you said I claimed things to be "facts" that are not. Please name them.
Also, I have already done the things you ask for in my book on Ethics. In fact, probably half of it is devoted to the subjects of God(s) and Religion. So just because I haven't done it on this site, doesn't mean I haven't done it at all.
He talks about malevolent "forces in the universe" that are far distant from Earth. Further, he makes no mention of any convicting evidence against intelligent design outside the material world. :shrug:
Entertain the following thought for me (at least metaphorically): The world is not Heaven. Because the world is not Heaven, it is often seen as a Hell of sorts. Thing is, the world isn't Hell, either. The world is the world.
@egeusz Metaphors, dude. Also, until you die and come back to life, you have no definitive knowledge of the afterlife whatsoever. You're free to speculate all you want, but if you authoritatively believe in your own speculations you're just putting faith in your own judgment rather than a higher power, the existence of the soul, etc. I happen to be aware that my judgment is pretty bad a lot of the time, so I put my faith in God instead. :shrug:
@RyanMatthias I agree. I just don't see the logic in: "I don't know what the answer is -> God is the answer". You're putting your judgment in the fact that he does exist. That isn't any more valid than my argument that he doesn't. You can't yell at me for doing what you do too. lol.
For the record I am agnostic not atheist because god is neither provable nor disprovable, but I do not believe in the christian bible.
@egeusz Right, both are valid, that's why I don't mind agnosticism as it's the only truly logical choice. I just made the "leap of faith" so I get really tired of hearing the same old arguments I've made a reasonable case against/debunked.
@sgapplebee I couldn't find that video but I agree with your "knowing vs believing" one.
That depends on your definition of "god" and "alive". I think the general criteria list is that to be alive it has to consume energy, reproduce and react to its surroundings. the Christian god would qualify for the reproductive part because of that jesus fellow, but I don't think god would require energy to exist. lol
Sorry about that, it's called 'Applebee on Why Agnostics should be Atheists'. I ask questions and make points anyone who considers themselves to be Agnostics truly must answer..I think you'll like the challenge :-)
The problem with a "living" God are many fold. How can something be "alive" that was never born, will never die, not a member of a species (by definition "Monospecies" do not exist), has no parents, everywhere at all times...etc.
@sgapplebee My understanding is that God is not "alive," nor is he a "being" in the conventional sense of the word at all.
Rather, He is the Source of All Being.
I have given up on atheism after realizing how foolhardy and shortsighted of a stance it is. The God of the Old Testament is all most atheists seem concerned with. Thing is, the Old Testament is a document human beings compiled for human purposes. Says nothing about the existence of an eternal and atemporal verity/infinite Creator.
"My understanding is that God is not "alive," nor is he a "being" in the conventional sense of the word at all. Rather, He is the Source of All Being"
But you can't have it both ways. You cannot say "God is not alive", and then say "He is the Source of All Being". Any "He", "She" or "Them" AUTOMATICALLY implies a living being. In essense, this is what ALL believers in a God or Gods do. They want to have their cake and eat it too.
....as to you "giving up on atheism", have you also given up on not believing in Santa Claus, Unicorns, Leprechauns...etc? Atheism is simply the LACK OF BELIEF in a God or Gods...that's all. It's not a religion, it's not a philosophy, it's not a political system...etc. It says NOTHING about a person EXCEPT they don't believe.
If I say I don't believe space aliens have come to earth, what else does that say about me?..................................nothing.
@RyanMatthias "Thing is, the Old Testament is a document human beings compiled for human purposes. Says nothing about the existence of an eternal and atemporal verity/infinite Creator."
The eternal God is your refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms.
He will drive out your enemies before you, saying, ‘Destroy them!’ - Deuteronomy 33:27
@RyanMatthias If this is intelligent design then you must concede that the designer was either quite limited in what he could create (not all powerful), unbelievable inept (not all knowing), or wicked and cruel (not all good). Or we must change our definition of what we usually mean by good. Things such a disease, death, and destruction we should no longer describe as bad but rather good, which is a bit psychotic if you ask me. Now matter how you look at it somethings gotta give.
@spammyadvertising Gnostic traditions contend that the creation of the physical universe was an evil act performed by a demiurge (Platonic philosophy), who separated us from the fullness of the true Godhead.
I'm still figuring out what I believe in theologically, but I know God—whatever He/She/It is—exists, and that Jesus was an amazing dude whose message has been bastardized and twisted by idiots and scumbags.
@RyanMatthias I agree with you here, but the whole argument over God's existence is far too speculative to take seriously. In order for a theist to even make an argument for God he must start by assuming his existence to begin with, and this assumption is based on the fact that there is something rather than nothing which begs the question: Could God still exist without the universe existing? And in answering this question the theist's argument degenerates into a circular argument.
@RyanMatthias Einstein was an atheist but mentioned "God" quite often. Probably because it's just the word he used to answer questions like "Where did the laws of physics come from?" Or perhaps look into what, in theoretical physics is known as, the "Mind of God" which is described as "cosmic music resonating in eleven dimensional hyperspace." These are, I believe, much closer to your view and are still held by brilliant atheists who believe in science and reason.
@JeremiahCrow That does not mean ATHEIST. An Atheist DENIES that God exists. An Agnostic says that we cannot be sure and a Deist denies a personal God, but a creator at that. If you make such a claim provide me quotes of him denying the existence of God.
@xchampx "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." This right here backs what I am saying... If you want to look further go to PositiveAtheism-dot-org and look at the quotes listed there, complete with an Einstein historical index.
@xchampx That's not what Atheist means. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any kind of deity. Most atheists DO NOT DENY that a God could exist, they only affirm that there is no reason to believe in one. Many atheists are agnostic.
@TheJataka That's an incorrect definition. This is what new Atheists like to do. They like to re-define atheism to something else. I can do that about anything but in reality it means not what you said. Let's see how the dictionary (ditionarydotcom) defines atheism.
a·the·ism [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
@xchampx I am not incorrect because that definition matches exactly what I said, specifically number 2. It's obvious that you don't know what is means to disbelieve. Here; let me show you the same way you showed me:
dis·be·lieve [dis-bi-leev] Show IPA verb,
to have no belief in; refuse or reject belief in
We're both looking at the same definition of atheism. The only difference I apply it accurately to describe the position of most atheists, your interpretation is just misconstrued.
@TheJataka That is still an incorrect definition. There is a large difference between a "lack" of a belief in God as to a rejection of God. Atheism is a rejection of the belief in God (pertaining to the contrary of holding an actual belief). Let me give you an example, according to your definition a cat or a dog or a plant is an atheist too because it "lacks a belief in God" so your definition is ridiculous.
@xchampx A cat, a dog, and ARE ALL technically atheists. Newborn infants are also atheists. What about this appears ridiculous to you? Rejection and denial (which your stated in an earlier comment) are two different things. Atheists reject most existing versions of a deity because there is no evidence, hence no belief. That does not mean that they deny (<--keyword) the possibility of there being a god, since denial implies the positive assertion of the non-existence of something.
@TheJataka haha oh boy, are you serious? that is pretty funny. Do Cats and Dogs reject the belief in God? Can they disbelieve in God? No. You are playing semantic games. They lack a belief in God and they aren't atheists! lol. Oh and by the way there is a lot of evidence but you just reject it. Let me ask you this, what evidence is against the existence of God?
@xchampx First of all, you started this "semantics game"; so don't pin this on me. Secondly, the very fact that one lacks a belief in a god qualifies that individual to be an atheist. Thirdly, there is no real evidence for a god that I know of; If you know any feel free to convert me. The only thing I "reject" are religious outlandish claims. And fourthly, I do not need evidence against the existence of a god because that is not my position. I could certainly be swayed by a convincing argument.
@TheJataka You still hold a belief that there is no God. There is a difference between Holding a belief in nothing as opposed to lacking a belief. Lacking a belief would be to be leaning more on the agnostic side of things but rather being ignorant. Find a dictionary that says Atheist means "lacking" a belief in God.
@xchampx Again, as I've said before: No, I'm not. I don't know what you have a hard time understanding. Apparently you don't know what agnosticism means, because that is a belief itself: The belief that a god's existence in unknowable and unprovable. The atheism you are referring to is called "Strong Atheism", which posits that there is no god. This applies to very few atheists. Most atheists are "Weak Atheists", which is, like I said before, the lack of belief in any particular god. Look it up.
@TheJataka Look it up? I did and couldn't FIND it. Now find me a definition of atheism that describes it being a LACK of a belief in God? I did try and look it up and its a declaration. So please show me in the dictionary where it says its a "lack" of a belief in God because its silly to think that Cats and trees are atheists since a they cant make a choice to disbelieve. I am sorry but you are wrong. I proved it to you in the dictionary.
@xchampx And with that same dictionary entry, plus the one about disbelief (because you're obviously confused about what disbelief actually means), I already showed you. And you're either blind, or lying about looking up "strong and weak atheism" as well as the real definition of agnostic.Because the first results on Google are very comprehensive. Again, just because it's silly to think that animals are atheist, doesn't make it not technically true.We just don't use the term because it's a given
@TheJataka Ugh....you are obviously not understanding me even though i literally spelled it out for you. "dis·be·lief [dis-bi-leef] Show IPA
noun
1.
the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true. this is from dictionarydotcom uhhhh so please stop trying to defend you clear nonsense. My point is that Atheist is a dishonest definition that you are claiming. Why not call yourself something different because you clearly are ignoring the classic definition.
@xchampx Again using that definition, I would lean towards more of the "inability" to believe in a god because...wait for it... There is no evidence! Therefore, I do not believe. It's unlikely, but not impossible. I am open to the possibility. If you can show be some compelling evidence, I might believe. But until then, I have NO BELIEF.
@xchampx I think most things can be explained naturally, though I wouldn't resign myself to that notion. And to answer the first question, I must first know the nature of the god in question before I look for how he can be proven, since there are so many versions. How would you define God(s)?
@TheJataka So you are givng yourself up for the possibility of God existing? God can be defined in multiple ways but regardless this doesn't back up your atheist point of view. Atheist will always fail at this. All powerful, All knowing, all loving entity who is the creator of all things.
@xchampx Giving myself up? You make it seem like there was a conflict involved. And yes, (ohmygodforthehundredthtime) It backs up the atheist point of view perfectly, at least for "weak atheists" who make up the majority of all atheists. Why do you think that atheists will fail at this?
@TheJataka Why are you New Atheists so arrogant? Dude, why can't you just admit your definition is wrong. I showed you both the definition of disbelief AND Atheist "the belief that there is no God" There is no way around these two unless you play a semantics game. There is NO "LACK" of a belief in God since a disbelief and a belief are both AFFIRMATIVE declarations.
@xchampx I'm sorry that your frustrated; but think of how I feel! I can just as well ask you the same thing: Why can't you just admit your definition is wrong? Your interpretation is just inaccurate. I can see why you might be against what you see to be "atheism". But in the end, it's only a straw-man that only accurately applies to the very fringe.
@TheJataka How is it straw man? I used the definition of the dictionary lol and i certain never straw-maned you. If anything you straw man the definition of atheist
@xchampx You may have used the dictionary definition, but you didn't apply it correctly. Ergo, creating a distortion of the common atheist worldview. But no worries :), now you know (at least I hope).
This has been flagged as spam show
...us not having separate holes for breathing and eating.
Didn't deGrass notice we use our breath and our tongue for speaking? The tongue doubles for tasting and moving food where the teeth can mash it. We use our nose for breathing and smelling and it also contributes to sense the food we are eating.
How about "efficient" and "elegant" design then?
PerdiePerduta179 3 days ago
The most ridiculous (and yet his favorite) of NdGT's assertions here is that you "eat, breathe, eat (sic) and drink through the same hole in your body, guaranteeing that some percentage of us will choke to death every year."
If it's evolution that has seen fit to have us configured in this way, then I guess a necessary corollary to what he is saying is that evolution is stupid? Since we didn't turn out the way he thinks we should have.
I hate seeing a worthy cause argued badly.
kphag 3 days ago
@kphag
Really?? I thought it was rather consistent with the theme of the universe and the things in it not being perfectly configured for "Us".
The title of his presentation, "STUPID Design", was a tongue in cheek reference to the irrationality of the belief in intelligent design.
No where in his presentation did I hear that we or anything else has evolved perfectly up to the period we live in. But here is the beautiful part. Evolution=Change Over Time. It is a process that continues.
phenomenon717 3 days ago
i love you mr. tyson, you are an intelligent and intellectual scientist
masoodusa 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@masoodusa
You forgot to write
/sarcasm
MsPerduta 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@masoodusa
You forgot to write
/sarcasm
PerdiePerduta179 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The "objective scientists" of atheism have systematically silenced MsPerduta.
She posted amongst others:
...us not having separate holes for breathing and eating.
Didn't deGrass notice we use our breath and our tongue for speaking? The tongue doubles for tasting and moving food where the teeth can mash it. We use our nose for breathing and smelling and it also contributes to sense the food we are eating.
How about "efficient" and "elegant" design then?
Wasn't that on topic?
PerdiePerduta57 3 days ago
@PerdiePerduta57
deGrasse wants us to have a separate lungs for talking and for breathing and separate tongues for tasting and talking and a separate noses for smelling or sampling the aroma of our food...
What a shame Tyson isn't in charge of evolution he would do a much better job than nature can do.
/sarcasm
PerdiePerduta2 3 days ago
@MsPerduta ........Maybe.....
marineooo5 5 days ago
dawkins is fucking loving it
cfall234 6 days ago
Cybernetic augmentation improving on what nature gave us. Make us faster, stronger, more intelligent, etc. that's what we need.
Zain844 1 week ago
@Zain844
No all we need is to replace organic intelligence with artificial intelligence then scrap all the "stupid design" and let machine rule the cosmos till the end of time...
That's what you atheists want isn't it? :P
MsPerduta 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MsPerduta hi babe, great comments. you are a smart women.
but i dont agree with: " If you want to see an intelligent atheist debunk religious myths then try something like this: /watch?v=bb1c9oLgWPwYou see she doesn't have to distort the facts to make her case" she doesn’t know any facts. it was far from anything intelligent.
1spiders1 5 days ago
@MsPerduta Atheist are not a political organisation with common goals for humanity. All we want is the freedom to discover the world by reason free from religious dogma.
Morgenster 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Morgenster
Evidence suggests that atheism is rapidly becoming just as much abused as Christianity was. Don't believe what they tell you. Believe what you see. deGrasse is not being honest in this video and he knows that. I exposed several of his lies in comments I posted below and I could expose more,
He is a puppet of US politics that do not benefit humanity in any way.
MsPerduta 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Morgenster
The objective scientists of atheism have systematically silenced MsPerduta.
She posted:
us not having separate holes for breathing and eating.
Didn't deGrass notice we use our breath and our tongue for speaking? The tongue doubles for tasting and moving food where the teeth can mash it. We use our nose for breathing and smelling and it also contributes to sense the food we are eating.
How about "efficient" and "elegant" design then?
wasn't that on topic?
PerdiePerduta 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Morgenster
MsPerduta replied:
Evidence suggests that atheism is rapidly becoming just as much abused as Christianity was. Don't believe what they tell you. Believe what you see. deGrasse is not being honest in this video and he knows that. I exposed several of his lies in comments I posted below and I could expose more...
Atheist censor ship and manipulation of the truth shows them for what they are.
PerdiePerduta57 3 days ago
@MsPerduta She knows too much.
KillaTequilla83 4 days ago
@MsPerduta that has to be sarcastic right? I mean who would want the damnation of 70% of man kind based on the direct and indirect effects of free will that we are some how responsible for in spite of the fact that none of us had ever asked to be here in the first place right?
warangel87 3 days ago
@warangel87
Sam Harris claims free will is an illusion.
However we might not have asked to be here but we are all free to leave of our own volition. Zain844 suggested Cybernetic augmentation. Perduta was only taking it to it's logical conclusion... ditch the organic brain as well and then we'll have REAL intelligent design... We could ask Tyson to design it as he will do much better than evolution apparently.
PerdiePerduta179 3 days ago
Does anyone have the whole even somewhere that i can watch?
draggonhedd 1 week ago
aborted feces... lol
RavingDissension 1 week ago
aborted feces
ozzymanni4 1 week ago
'Crockodiles'?!
TheDawnybeck 1 week ago
I also want to say to some people who dont like it when athesits push their views onto them that at least when an atheist does it no one gets hurt. Unlike when the pope tells people in africa not to wear condoms or women are stoned to death for an "honor killing" in the islamic religion. I could go on but This page doesnt have enough room
thisismikesalajc 1 week ago
@thisismikesalajc
Tyson isn't aiming his tirade at those practices. He is falsely representing the facts and he knows this. If you want to see an intelligent atheist debunk religious myths then try something like this: /watch?v=bb1c9oLgWPw
You see she doesn't have to distort the facts to make her case.
MsPerduta 1 week ago
@MsPerduta On this we agree, and I did not mean to imply that this video was aimed at those practices, I was just talking about the differences between atheism being pushed onto people compared to religon. Personally I prefer sam harris when it comes to debunking religous myths. I like his calm cool deliveries.
thisismikesalajc 1 week ago
I guess being affilated with Harvard requires one to believe that he/she is at the very *top* of the heap.
listerone 2 weeks ago
God, noah's ark, talking snakes...we humans are SILLY creatures.
dkthg 2 weeks ago
The Creator has confirmed there is no design, no plan. The brief existence of the human species is due to serendipity.
The Creator has posted a video on YouTube. The message comes to you directly, without the need for transcription or interpretation by iron-age scribes, or analysis by Stephen Hawking.
The video tells you how you came to be here, outlines the meaning and purpose of your life, and gives you an insight into the future of humankind.
See ' God says sorry. '
lacontrabasse 2 weeks ago
@lacontrabasse Stephen Hawkings is an atheist.
TheSaintsrow3rd 2 weeks ago
"What's this going on between our legs?"
twiggy120 2 weeks ago
deGrass first presumes that God's purpose is to have a universe full of pampered people with easy lives and then he ridicules that.
The scientific facts he invokes are also falsely represented. e.g. there is nothing to suggest that our gravitational interaction with the Andomeda galaxy will harm people in 5 billion years time. You can read the Wiki about galaxy collisions and deGrass knows this.
His technique here is known in the trolling community as "strawman" and he phails :P
MsPerduta 3 weeks ago
@MsPerduta you picked one argument that is indeed something you don't know 100% sure, but you don't undermine his whole presentation by picking that one argument with "i.e." in front of it
janmorez 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
MsPerduta 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@janmorez
Neiol deGrasse lampoons us not having separate holes for breathing and eating.
Didn't Neil deGrasse notice we use our breath and our tongue for speaking? The tongue doubles for tasting and moving food where the teeth can mash it. We use our nose for breathing and smelling and it also contributes to sense the food we are eating.
Not "intelligent" design? How about "efficient" and "elegant" design then?
Would you like me to trash the rest of his troll comedy show?
MsPerduta 2 weeks ago
@janmorez
also I think you should consider we are talking about 5 BILLION years into the future... look how different we are today from life 5 billion years ago... you are right... we can't be 100% that people won't get hurt but I'm 99.9% sure that if evolution hasn't produced anything better than people by then. It will be high time they are deleted. Like what our Goddess of nature did to the dinosaurs.
MsPerduta 2 weeks ago
@MsPerduta It's not efficient design at all. We could be eating/talking/breathing all at the same time. THAT's efficient. Also, there are a lot more examples of inefficient/wasteful design. Look at certain veins that the giraffe has that follow huge detours, not efficient, not an aesthetical advantage, absolutely no use at all, just proof that there's no smart creator out there. Also "being 99.9% sure" is not an argument, it's merely a hunch. Also you fail horribly at spotting trolls.
janmorez 2 weeks ago
@janmorez
You would need 3 mouths then and need separate lungs for talking and breathing and separate noses for smelling and for the aroma of your food... it would be over engineered . Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex... It takes a touch of genius to move in the opposite direction."
My 99.9 % sure is a lot better than your 100% unsure. If in 5 billion years this planet is still infested with stupid humans it deserves to be scrapped.
deGrasse is a troll and a racist.
MsPerduta 2 weeks ago
@MsPerduta sure brah whatever makes you sleep at night, enjoy your ignorance
janmorez 2 weeks ago
@janmorez
I see... so when we fail to prostrate our selves in adulatory sycophancy before this high priests of atheism you resort to insulting us.
It's a sad day for objective science.
MsPerduta 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
thisismikesalajc 1 week ago
@MsPerduta The guys a renowed astrophysicist who has recived the NASA Distinguished Public Service Medal, the highest civilian honor bestowed by NASA, but yea he is a racist troll acording to you.....that statement says all I need to know about your intelect
thisismikesalajc 2 weeks ago
@thisismikesalajc
The evidence for his trolling and racism is right here in this video.
His public performance here is a disgrace to the institutions that bestowed recognition on him.
There is nothing wrong with my intellectual abilities and I have no hesitation in denouncing this kind of behaviour. You fail to intimidate.
The number of thumbs up he gets gives an indication of a shallow mentality that permeates the atheist creed: The exact same bigotry that dominated religions in the past.
MsPerduta 1 week ago
@MsPerduta When did I try to intimidate and what evidence are you speaking of? you fail to make sense
thisismikesalajc 1 week ago
@MsPerduta Also you seem to have something against atheists and correct me if im wrong but it seems you lumped me in there as well off of what I dont know. For the record I consider myself to be a deist.
thisismikesalajc 1 week ago
@thisismikesalajc
I have nothing against atheist... it's when they become fundamentalist bigots that I take exception.
People who see a need to cast aspersions on my "intellect" for daring to express my opinion and then feign innocence pretending they don't know what I'm talking about and telling me I fail to make sense don't get my respect either :P
MsPerduta 1 week ago
@MsPerduta "sigh" fine here goes lets here your reason for thinking this man is racist and a troll? The trolling I get because you dont like what he is saying.... he only states facts by the way. The racist part I dont see at all
thisismikesalajc 1 week ago
@thisismikesalajc
at 0:44 he makes a statement about people who don't have dark skin. Dark skin will not protect you from gamma rays so it's just a pointless racist remark.
I've already explained that our anatomy is efficient and elegantly designed and also that his notion of a God whose purpose is a universe full of pampered people is just a straw man and that Andomeda galaxy "collision" 5 billion years in the future is false threat to humanity.
MsPerduta 1 week ago
@MsPerduta Think he was trying to be funny with the dark skin comment, maybee not as funny as he would of liked but still an obvious attempt at humor not racism. And yes you bodies are elgantly designed but evoultion could explain that just as easily.
thisismikesalajc 1 week ago
@MsPerduta Right after the dark skin comment people with a sence of humor are heard laughing I might add.....
thisismikesalajc 1 week ago
@thisismikesalajc
racist jibes for cheap laughs are not humor and people who find them funny are showing bad taste and a very shallow mentality.
MsPerduta 1 week ago
@MsPerduta not humor by your standards you mean? are you trying to push your standards on me? :)
thisismikesalajc 1 week ago
Comment removed
thisismikesalajc 1 week ago
Thank you Neil for talking the straight dope!
donkeykongnumber9 3 weeks ago
38 people were stupidly designed
blindedby2monkeys 3 weeks ago 2
@blindedby2monkeys Or, alternatively, have a different opinion to you.
ZanimaDeepkoreX 3 weeks ago
"... of this aborted feces... fetuses" LMAO hahahaha
AnObviousFailure 3 weeks ago
This is an asinine line of reasoning. It's the equivalent of saying the iphone is a stupid design because it breaks if you drop it or if you submerge it in water. Or that the Bugatti Veyron is a stupid design because it can't cross a pond or drive through a muddy gully.
ReitersBlock 3 weeks ago
@ReitersBlock Why is it asinine? You've drawn radical and simple parallels but didn't explain why. Those items you listed were designed to do specific things and were not built to withstand certain outside influences. If we're created by intelligent design why include radioactive isotopes that destroy man physically? Why is it important for religion to be able to explain the way the world works? Isn't it more important for religion to take care for us spiritually and act as a moral compass?
Mazdem 3 weeks ago
@ReitersBlock so what you are saying is that god is on the same level of creation as a tech company and that god is a bad designer...got it
blindedby2monkeys 3 weeks ago
@ReitersBlock Asinine analogy, a better one would be that humans are more like a Morse code telegraph line instead of an IPhone. We are a primitive wheelbarrow in comparison to a Bugatti Veyron. The POINT is human beings in 2012 are not what the universe was created for, nor are we the apex of anything. All available scientific evidence points to this clear fact, and your are Asinine with a capital A if you believe in 'Intelligent' design.
donkeykongnumber9 3 weeks ago
Dr. Tyson is the best. Totally brilliant and definitely a warrior for intelligence and humanism. But he sounds a little jacked on yayo here, though. He musta been smokin' hubbas in the Hayden Planetarium bathroom stalls again...
dme257 3 weeks ago
Don't know how he could have possibly forgotten Smallpox which is responsible for 500 million deaths until WE stopped GOD from killing US.
xxFortunadoxx 3 weeks ago
"we're nothing special"? The human brain is pretty damn special if you ask me. Doesn't mean it was designed or anything but it's pretty cool.
ApertureScience27 3 weeks ago
"Aborted Feces" would be a great band name.
phism 3 weeks ago
Tyson only confirms how much of a miracle it is we even exist. Even though science has come a long way, its still young and has yet to answer what caused the Big Bang. I understand there are multiple theories but none are definite or conclusive. I still don't understand how the Universe was simply created out of nothing. So then why is it a stretch to say there is a higher being? We haven't even charted a fraction of the entire Universe.
ProphetsofGod 4 weeks ago
@ProphetsofGod Neil addressed this as well, stating that if you use god to fill in the gaps that we do not understand, that "God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance"
andypants1000 4 weeks ago
@ProphetsofGod That's where the pursuit of knowledge through science to develop and prove/disprove theories is important. Some religions, emphasis on the word some, choose to ignore science and teach nonsensical ideas about man riding dinosaurs or humans existence starting 5000 years ago. The problem is religion passing unproven stories as fact to discredit scientific evidence because, "God told me so it must be true". Religion should focus on spirituality rather than false facts.
Mazdem 4 weeks ago
@Mazdem I completely agree with you. But you have to understand that people interpret religious doctrine in different ways. Just because a bigot claims to have found evidence in their book of faith to support some nonsensical, illogical opinion doesn't mean that the religion itself is at fault. In all honesty I believe that science merely proves the existence of God by establishing the mechanisms behind nature, as opposed to concluding that everything is random in its concoction.
ProphetsofGod 3 weeks ago
@ProphetsofGod The problem occurs when radical religious factions gain popularity and lead society as in parts of the U.S. known as the "Bible Belt" or "Red States". Religion = people and evolves as a living organism. I respect your opinion about the proof of the existence of God through science however one can infer an opposite conclusion that God doesn't exist using the same logic. People are better off leaving religion to taking care of spirituality and science to understand the world.
Mazdem 3 weeks ago
So question, who is this guy? I have been watching this guy over and over (this video) and quite honestly, as a Philosopher and that is the only opinion I will give, he sounds more like a comedian. First off I get the whole, "stupid design" hes trying to make a pun. Honestly, that is a poor choice in name, insulting shows bad edict and even makes you look bad so right off the back he looks weak. After listening to this a few times and if this is the only source I used I'd believe in design.
kodyandchris 1 month ago
@kodyandchris to add on to that. I'd believe in design for one reason. He points out over and over how bad this universe is and not suitable for life and yet here we are, alive. This video says the odds of life are so small so then how are we here and not only here, but evolving and getting better and weve been here for what? ten thousand years or so? This guys argument is poor so I am going to have to side with intelligent design if this guys argument was my source.
kodyandchris 1 month ago
He has some goo points, but the main problem I have with the other side of the argument of the beginning of life is the inorganic to organic. How am I expected to believe that by chance or the ever more popular, "on the backs of crystals" life was made? The complexity of what it takes to make one protein is about you need DNA to line up just right to make one and to make the most basic single-celled organism you need about 250 portions. This sounds to high to happen by chance. Food for thought.
kodyandchris 1 month ago
@kodyandchris Organic molecules are found everywere , even in meteors and comets , aminoacids are organic molecules , and they formed naturally , even in space .
Inorganic material become organic by natural quimical reactions , and that was proven .Juan Oro replicates the Adenine in a laboratory , what makes you think the life can not begin naturally?
EdyMar77 3 weeks ago
The Creator has confirmed that we are not here by design or privilege.
The Creator has posted a video on YouTube. The message comes to you directly, without the need for transcription or interpretation by iron-age scribes, or analysis by Stephen Hawking.
The video tells you how you came to be here, outlines the meaning and purpose of your life, and gives you an insight into the future of humankind
.
See ' God says sorry. '
lacontrabasse 1 month ago
evolutionist & creationist can argue until they turn blue in the face & get absolutely nowhere. it has nothing to do with a lack of evidence on either side. we see the same evidence...we just interprete it differently. he talks of the instability in our solar system & how man could not survive outside our planet. to me he's making a case for creationism...not against.
whiskeredtuna 1 month ago
@whiskeredtuna "we see the same evidence...we just interprete it differently". Evidence is defined as a fact or set of facts that point to a certain conclusion. Evidence by definition can not point to two seprate conclusions. You are simply lying, deluded, or uneducated. Either way you are wrong.
" Definition of EVIDENCE. 1. a : an outward sign : indication b : something that furnishes proof " Merriam-Webster Dictionary
MaelMenoret 1 month ago
@MaelMenoret Dr. Tyson says look at the volume of the universe where you can't live. My question is...why are we a privileged planet at all? He see's tornado's, volcanos, & death & concludes intelligent design is absurd. Creationist see natures fury as well. We believe this is a fallen world
whiskeredtuna 1 month ago
@whiskeredtuna first off I would like to start off with the fact you failed to address the point I was making in my previous comment. that your notion that a piece of evidence can point to two seprate conclusions is absuard as it contradicts the very definition of "evidence". (cont)
MaelMenoret 1 month ago
@whiskeredtuna (cont) Now adressing your point. The diffrence between Dr. Tyson's position that intelligent design is an absuard concept due to the many flaws of the design for it to have been intelligent and your position, of this being a "fallen world" (whatever that means) is that Dr. Tyson uses facts and evidence to support his idea while you use well nothing, unless you count poetic phrases.
MaelMenoret 1 month ago
@whiskeredtuna Oh and your question "why are we a privileged planet at all?" is far too broad and subjective for me to answer directly.
MaelMenoret 1 month ago
And too much for comfort continue to think the earth is 6000 years old.
Beadwindow2020 1 month ago
@Beadwindow2020 Could be...maybe it was created with the appearance of age & maturity.
whiskeredtuna 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@whiskeredtuna "Could be...maybe it was created with the appearance of age & maturity." Yes that COULD be true. It also COULD be true that the universe was created from a gigantic alein fart, hey anything is possible. One needs to deal with what is probable and not what is possible.
MaelMenoret 1 month ago
To all ATHEISTS/AGNOSTICS. I heavily recommend looking into Secular Humanism. It's basically a philosophy founded on reason, happiness and love.
PitchBlack696 1 month ago 2
@PitchBlack696 "To all ATHEISTS/AGNOSTICS. I heavily recommend looking into Secular Humanism. It's basically a philosophy founded on reason, happiness and love. "
I've been with you for the last 6 years. Glad to see others.
themediocrenontheist 1 month ago
@themediocrenontheist if secular humanism is believing in the person next to you, I'm all for it.
airsoftmanic 1 month ago
@airsoftmanic It's funny because secular humanism believes in love and compassion as good things. This goes forth to prove of objective moral values. Atheists can be moral and know objective moral values because they are created in Gods image.
xchampx 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@airsoftmanic " if secular humanism is believing in the person next to you, I'm all for it."
To me, I have this one life, and our greatest banes are poverty, illness, and ultimately death. Empathizing as a conscious being, and having learned all of the things required for them to truly flourish, I contend that the most noble aspiration in life is the reduction of physical and emotional anguish in conscious beings. I'm vegan, though many aren't, and they focus on the "human" part of humanist.
themediocrenontheist 1 month ago
What people fail to realize is that IF the christian God exists he designed the universe to directly contradict the bible, as christianity is based on faith. There is no faith in fact.
themixedarts 1 month ago
Comment removed
themixedarts 1 month ago
He is so much fun to watch. Love his lectures. Who knew facts could be so entertaining?
Jackalbits 1 month ago
Updated scoreboard after this video:
Atheists: 999,999,999,999
Creationists: 0
MrTimJr 1 month ago
Right, it is the evolutionists that believes in unicorns. Heard they are growing them in some lab right now. Richard Dawkins is the main sponsor as well as his great great great great great great great great great grand uncle Kermit The Frog.
dannywizz 1 month ago
God grow me a pair of wing for Xmas plz. I want to fly to work that's very convinient for me with the high gas price
onehand8god 1 month ago
anybody hear that at 3:12 he called the fetuses, feces? hahaha
oniyama80 1 month ago
This clown is a DISGRACE to real science.
Such a clueless buffoon.
DisprovingEvolution 1 month ago
@DisprovingEvolution Says the butthurt one who loves Pseudoscience.
MrAtheist1984 1 month ago
@DisprovingEvolution Moron.
TechMaven 1 month ago
@DisprovingEvolution Really, you're trying to bolster you position by calling him a clown? You don't see how that only serves to discredit any opinion you may have?
AMilitantAgnostic 1 month ago
@DisprovingEvolution,
So who are the "real" scientists?
sgapplebee 1 month ago
Aborted feces...er, fetuses.
fauxx82 1 month ago
SHORTEST COMMENT!!!
aJollyHobo 1 month ago
"For the record I am agnostic not atheist because god is neither provable nor disprovable"- that logic make no sense. Zeus, Hercules, trolls, wizards, loch ness monster, are all neither provable nor disprovable. That's the case for anything that has not been seen nor leave any trace of its existence. That does not make it plausible or logical to assume either-or. Otherwise all of them are on the same level with god.
rooio3 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rooio3 ? You can't prove god nor disprove god with the scientific method. God is a theory people get obsessed over. Why can't Zeus and loch ness monster be on the same level as the christian god. They are the same thing except less people pray to them.
egeusz 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NOBODY knows what existed before the universe as it NOW exists. Therefore, NOBODY can say there was NOTHING before it.
It all comes down to this: Either life (God) existed before Matter & Energy, or Matter & Energy existed before life. I can give MILLIONS of examples supporting the second premise, I challenge ANYONE to give JUST ONE example supporting the first.
sgapplebee 1 month ago
@sgapplebee Ever hear of the multiverse?
AMilitantAgnostic 1 month ago
@AMilitantAgnostic,
Yes, ever hear of Santa Claus? There is absolutely NO proof of "the multiverse", other dimensions, God(s), Heaven and Hell, Nirvana, and many other things thought up in the imagination. As soon as I see some verifiable evidence, I'll start to take them more seriously.
However, it is important that human beings keep asking questions :-)
sgapplebee 1 month ago
Obviously if you think that their could ever be anything but mathematical evidence of the multiverse, then you don't under stand the basic premise of the theory. You can make a very long list of things that are unproven, nevertheless your actions, or believes have no impact on reality. Go ahead and make a long list of false gods, and I can answer back with an equal list of debunked scientific facts. Man makes stuff up, we are endlessly wrong, as are you now.
AMilitantAgnostic 1 month ago
@AMilitantAgnostic,
Wrong about what?
sgapplebee 1 month ago
@sgapplebee Well first you are wrong in your understanding of agnosticism - you seem to be just another YouTube Atheist propaganda drone using the same old childish arguments, so that Atheist can claim to be a larger community than it really is. Further, this moment in time is not unique, man (you) make things up, and say "this is fact", when historically man is, wrong. Also you must define god before you state opinion, as to belief. A flat denial without definition, or attributes is ridiculous.
AMilitantAgnostic 1 month ago
@AMilitantAgnostic,
Ok then, first off, define Agnostic and then define God.
Next, if you really want to know my position, watch my short videos 'Applebee on 'Why Agnostics should be Atheists' parts 1&2 (only 15 minutes total time). And then refute what you can. I would love to hear it :-)
Also, you said I claimed things to be "facts" that are not. Please name them.
sgapplebee 1 month ago
@AMilitantAgnostic,
Also, I have already done the things you ask for in my book on Ethics. In fact, probably half of it is devoted to the subjects of God(s) and Religion. So just because I haven't done it on this site, doesn't mean I haven't done it at all.
sgapplebee 1 month ago
He talks about malevolent "forces in the universe" that are far distant from Earth. Further, he makes no mention of any convicting evidence against intelligent design outside the material world. :shrug:
Entertain the following thought for me (at least metaphorically): The world is not Heaven. Because the world is not Heaven, it is often seen as a Hell of sorts. Thing is, the world isn't Hell, either. The world is the world.
RyanMatthias 2 months ago
@RyanMatthias Totally, because Heaven and Hell don't exist.
egeusz 2 months ago
@egeusz Metaphors, dude. Also, until you die and come back to life, you have no definitive knowledge of the afterlife whatsoever. You're free to speculate all you want, but if you authoritatively believe in your own speculations you're just putting faith in your own judgment rather than a higher power, the existence of the soul, etc. I happen to be aware that my judgment is pretty bad a lot of the time, so I put my faith in God instead. :shrug:
RyanMatthias 2 months ago
@RyanMatthias I agree. I just don't see the logic in: "I don't know what the answer is -> God is the answer". You're putting your judgment in the fact that he does exist. That isn't any more valid than my argument that he doesn't. You can't yell at me for doing what you do too. lol.
For the record I am agnostic not atheist because god is neither provable nor disprovable, but I do not believe in the christian bible.
egeusz 2 months ago
@egeusz Right, both are valid, that's why I don't mind agnosticism as it's the only truly logical choice. I just made the "leap of faith" so I get really tired of hearing the same old arguments I've made a reasonable case against/debunked.
RyanMatthias 2 months ago
@egeusz,
If you can find the time, I would like your opinion on my video 'Why Agnostics should be Atheists'.
In the meantime, I have a question: According to believers, is "God" alive?
sgapplebee 1 month ago
@sgapplebee I couldn't find that video but I agree with your "knowing vs believing" one.
That depends on your definition of "god" and "alive". I think the general criteria list is that to be alive it has to consume energy, reproduce and react to its surroundings. the Christian god would qualify for the reproductive part because of that jesus fellow, but I don't think god would require energy to exist. lol
egeusz 1 month ago
@egeusz,
Sorry about that, it's called 'Applebee on Why Agnostics should be Atheists'. I ask questions and make points anyone who considers themselves to be Agnostics truly must answer..I think you'll like the challenge :-)
The problem with a "living" God are many fold. How can something be "alive" that was never born, will never die, not a member of a species (by definition "Monospecies" do not exist), has no parents, everywhere at all times...etc.
"God" is the antithisis of "Life".
sgapplebee 1 month ago
@sgapplebee My understanding is that God is not "alive," nor is he a "being" in the conventional sense of the word at all.
Rather, He is the Source of All Being.
I have given up on atheism after realizing how foolhardy and shortsighted of a stance it is. The God of the Old Testament is all most atheists seem concerned with. Thing is, the Old Testament is a document human beings compiled for human purposes. Says nothing about the existence of an eternal and atemporal verity/infinite Creator.
RyanMatthias 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RyanMatthias,
"My understanding is that God is not "alive," nor is he a "being" in the conventional sense of the word at all. Rather, He is the Source of All Being"
But you can't have it both ways. You cannot say "God is not alive", and then say "He is the Source of All Being". Any "He", "She" or "Them" AUTOMATICALLY implies a living being. In essense, this is what ALL believers in a God or Gods do. They want to have their cake and eat it too.
contiunued...
sgapplebee 1 month ago
....as to you "giving up on atheism", have you also given up on not believing in Santa Claus, Unicorns, Leprechauns...etc? Atheism is simply the LACK OF BELIEF in a God or Gods...that's all. It's not a religion, it's not a philosophy, it's not a political system...etc. It says NOTHING about a person EXCEPT they don't believe.
If I say I don't believe space aliens have come to earth, what else does that say about me?..................................nothing.
sgapplebee 1 month ago
Comment removed
themediocrenontheist 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RyanMatthias "Thing is, the Old Testament is a document human beings compiled for human purposes. Says nothing about the existence of an eternal and atemporal verity/infinite Creator."
The eternal God is your refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms.
He will drive out your enemies before you, saying, ‘Destroy them!’ - Deuteronomy 33:27
themediocrenontheist 1 month ago
@RyanMatthias If this is intelligent design then you must concede that the designer was either quite limited in what he could create (not all powerful), unbelievable inept (not all knowing), or wicked and cruel (not all good). Or we must change our definition of what we usually mean by good. Things such a disease, death, and destruction we should no longer describe as bad but rather good, which is a bit psychotic if you ask me. Now matter how you look at it somethings gotta give.
spammyadvertising 1 month ago
@spammyadvertising Gnostic traditions contend that the creation of the physical universe was an evil act performed by a demiurge (Platonic philosophy), who separated us from the fullness of the true Godhead.
I'm still figuring out what I believe in theologically, but I know God—whatever He/She/It is—exists, and that Jesus was an amazing dude whose message has been bastardized and twisted by idiots and scumbags.
RyanMatthias 1 month ago
@RyanMatthias I agree with you here, but the whole argument over God's existence is far too speculative to take seriously. In order for a theist to even make an argument for God he must start by assuming his existence to begin with, and this assumption is based on the fact that there is something rather than nothing which begs the question: Could God still exist without the universe existing? And in answering this question the theist's argument degenerates into a circular argument.
spammyadvertising 1 month ago
@RyanMatthias Einstein was an atheist but mentioned "God" quite often. Probably because it's just the word he used to answer questions like "Where did the laws of physics come from?" Or perhaps look into what, in theoretical physics is known as, the "Mind of God" which is described as "cosmic music resonating in eleven dimensional hyperspace." These are, I believe, much closer to your view and are still held by brilliant atheists who believe in science and reason.
JeremiahCrow 1 month ago
@JeremiahCrow Einstein was a Deist. He never claimed there was no God.
xchampx 1 month ago
@xchampx Einstein was a firm denier in the idea of a "personal God".
JeremiahCrow 1 month ago
@JeremiahCrow That does not mean ATHEIST. An Atheist DENIES that God exists. An Agnostic says that we cannot be sure and a Deist denies a personal God, but a creator at that. If you make such a claim provide me quotes of him denying the existence of God.
xchampx 1 month ago
@xchampx "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." This right here backs what I am saying... If you want to look further go to PositiveAtheism-dot-org and look at the quotes listed there, complete with an Einstein historical index.
JeremiahCrow 1 month ago
@JeremiahCrow I believe in the power of Shazam.
MrBeautifulba1 1 month ago
@JeremiahCrow That still isn't atheism. lol
xchampx 1 month ago
@xchampx That's not what Atheist means. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any kind of deity. Most atheists DO NOT DENY that a God could exist, they only affirm that there is no reason to believe in one. Many atheists are agnostic.
TheJataka 1 month ago
@TheJataka That's an incorrect definition. This is what new Atheists like to do. They like to re-define atheism to something else. I can do that about anything but in reality it means not what you said. Let's see how the dictionary (ditionarydotcom) defines atheism.
a·the·ism [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
So as you see, you are incorrect.
xchampx 1 month ago
@xchampx I am not incorrect because that definition matches exactly what I said, specifically number 2. It's obvious that you don't know what is means to disbelieve. Here; let me show you the same way you showed me:
dis·be·lieve [dis-bi-leev] Show IPA verb,
to have no belief in; refuse or reject belief in
We're both looking at the same definition of atheism. The only difference I apply it accurately to describe the position of most atheists, your interpretation is just misconstrued.
TheJataka 1 month ago
@TheJataka That is still an incorrect definition. There is a large difference between a "lack" of a belief in God as to a rejection of God. Atheism is a rejection of the belief in God (pertaining to the contrary of holding an actual belief). Let me give you an example, according to your definition a cat or a dog or a plant is an atheist too because it "lacks a belief in God" so your definition is ridiculous.
xchampx 1 month ago
@xchampx A cat, a dog, and ARE ALL technically atheists. Newborn infants are also atheists. What about this appears ridiculous to you? Rejection and denial (which your stated in an earlier comment) are two different things. Atheists reject most existing versions of a deity because there is no evidence, hence no belief. That does not mean that they deny (<--keyword) the possibility of there being a god, since denial implies the positive assertion of the non-existence of something.
TheJataka 1 month ago
@TheJataka haha oh boy, are you serious? that is pretty funny. Do Cats and Dogs reject the belief in God? Can they disbelieve in God? No. You are playing semantic games. They lack a belief in God and they aren't atheists! lol. Oh and by the way there is a lot of evidence but you just reject it. Let me ask you this, what evidence is against the existence of God?
xchampx 1 month ago
@xchampx First of all, you started this "semantics game"; so don't pin this on me. Secondly, the very fact that one lacks a belief in a god qualifies that individual to be an atheist. Thirdly, there is no real evidence for a god that I know of; If you know any feel free to convert me. The only thing I "reject" are religious outlandish claims. And fourthly, I do not need evidence against the existence of a god because that is not my position. I could certainly be swayed by a convincing argument.
TheJataka 1 month ago
@TheJataka Let me ask you something? Do you believe there is no God? Yes or no.
xchampx 1 month ago
@xchampx I don't believe there is a god. Which is very different than declaring with positive assurance "There is no god!"
TheJataka 1 month ago
@TheJataka You still hold a belief that there is no God. There is a difference between Holding a belief in nothing as opposed to lacking a belief. Lacking a belief would be to be leaning more on the agnostic side of things but rather being ignorant. Find a dictionary that says Atheist means "lacking" a belief in God.
xchampx 1 month ago
@xchampx Again, as I've said before: No, I'm not. I don't know what you have a hard time understanding. Apparently you don't know what agnosticism means, because that is a belief itself: The belief that a god's existence in unknowable and unprovable. The atheism you are referring to is called "Strong Atheism", which posits that there is no god. This applies to very few atheists. Most atheists are "Weak Atheists", which is, like I said before, the lack of belief in any particular god. Look it up.
TheJataka 1 month ago
@TheJataka Look it up? I did and couldn't FIND it. Now find me a definition of atheism that describes it being a LACK of a belief in God? I did try and look it up and its a declaration. So please show me in the dictionary where it says its a "lack" of a belief in God because its silly to think that Cats and trees are atheists since a they cant make a choice to disbelieve. I am sorry but you are wrong. I proved it to you in the dictionary.
xchampx 1 month ago
@xchampx And with that same dictionary entry, plus the one about disbelief (because you're obviously confused about what disbelief actually means), I already showed you. And you're either blind, or lying about looking up "strong and weak atheism" as well as the real definition of agnostic.Because the first results on Google are very comprehensive. Again, just because it's silly to think that animals are atheist, doesn't make it not technically true.We just don't use the term because it's a given
TheJataka 1 month ago
@TheJataka Ugh....you are obviously not understanding me even though i literally spelled it out for you. "dis·be·lief [dis-bi-leef] Show IPA
noun
1.
the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true. this is from dictionarydotcom uhhhh so please stop trying to defend you clear nonsense. My point is that Atheist is a dishonest definition that you are claiming. Why not call yourself something different because you clearly are ignoring the classic definition.
xchampx 1 month ago
@xchampx Again using that definition, I would lean towards more of the "inability" to believe in a god because...wait for it... There is no evidence! Therefore, I do not believe. It's unlikely, but not impossible. I am open to the possibility. If you can show be some compelling evidence, I might believe. But until then, I have NO BELIEF.
TheJataka 1 month ago
@TheJataka The question I'd ask then is what would be sufficient evidence for you to believe? I am assuming you are a naturalist?
xchampx 1 month ago
@xchampx I think most things can be explained naturally, though I wouldn't resign myself to that notion. And to answer the first question, I must first know the nature of the god in question before I look for how he can be proven, since there are so many versions. How would you define God(s)?
TheJataka 1 month ago
@TheJataka So you are givng yourself up for the possibility of God existing? God can be defined in multiple ways but regardless this doesn't back up your atheist point of view. Atheist will always fail at this. All powerful, All knowing, all loving entity who is the creator of all things.
xchampx 1 month ago
@xchampx Giving myself up? You make it seem like there was a conflict involved. And yes, (ohmygodforthehundredthtime) It backs up the atheist point of view perfectly, at least for "weak atheists" who make up the majority of all atheists. Why do you think that atheists will fail at this?
TheJataka 1 month ago
@TheJataka So what is your "inability to accept" the existence of God?
xchampx 1 month ago
@TheJataka Why are you New Atheists so arrogant? Dude, why can't you just admit your definition is wrong. I showed you both the definition of disbelief AND Atheist "the belief that there is no God" There is no way around these two unless you play a semantics game. There is NO "LACK" of a belief in God since a disbelief and a belief are both AFFIRMATIVE declarations.
xchampx 1 month ago
@xchampx I'm sorry that your frustrated; but think of how I feel! I can just as well ask you the same thing: Why can't you just admit your definition is wrong? Your interpretation is just inaccurate. I can see why you might be against what you see to be "atheism". But in the end, it's only a straw-man that only accurately applies to the very fringe.
TheJataka 1 month ago
@TheJataka How is it straw man? I used the definition of the dictionary lol and i certain never straw-maned you. If anything you straw man the definition of atheist
xchampx 1 month ago
@xchampx You may have used the dictionary definition, but you didn't apply it correctly. Ergo, creating a distortion of the common atheist worldview. But no worries :), now you know (at least I hope).
TheJataka 1 month ago
@TheJataka How did I not apply it correctly? I copied and pasted the definition.
xchampx 1 month ago