WARNING - 120minous is a TROLL, won't let you go until you tell him he is RIGHT and beg for forgiveness, so... Please, please please-- dude get a life, and please get it far away from my email inbox. Cheers.
thats great, atheism exposure for children, its so good to get these kids thinking at this age, i diddnt start questioning religion till my senior year in highschool
Can't believe you actually believe your statement and have that mindset!!!. Truth is what it is, like it or not. If you have a problem with truth then you got a problem with the entire human race, and that includes you and your genes, like it or not.
@DrErkencho Well believe it. Individuals don't have to value truth in the same way they don't have to value anything. If it is true that I was made in a lab or shit out by aliens, is this really worth knowing or even pursuing? By not knowing the truth, humans have the ability to create the truth and become what they created. How did you draw that conclusion?
@_@ - I guess you never read Orwell, never voted, never had a job or got married, live in a cave in the Himalaya eat humus and drink snow. Sorry, yeah the world and the truth are of no interest, yeah you are right. Good luck with that, and -hey!- don't ever be affraid anyone will want to deceive you for their own interest! -that's just something NOBODY will ever dear to do... (-sigh-)
Hahaha-- so silly... Quote "pick the TRUTH they like the best" as oposed to what?... the "TRUTH" they don't like? everything is truth? what do the words LIE, FALSE and the expression BULL SHIT mean to you? hahahahaha... so pathetic! Ahhhh-- religious people man, you guys really try ha!? I've met people like that too, I give them antipsychotic drugs and order treatment...
@DrErkencho You don't like people who won't even acknowledge the ideal that you've willingly chained yourself to. Projection bias it is known as in Psychology. Cry and suffer in your own shackles that you happily embraced.
@DrErkencho By reducing humans to genetic mutations, humans limit themselves and what they can be. It is very harmful to the human race to perceive one another as just random occurrences. It will and already has to some degree lead to nihilism and the devolution of humanity. Ignorance is bliss as they say.
You OBVIOUSLY know nothing about genetics OR argumentation. Your strawman won't fly in a tornado. Second, yeah, ignorance is bliss, it certainly is, for people like you that USE and ABUSE of the benefits produced by other people that works and studies pretty hard and devout their lives to know how the natural world works, just so that you religious "blessed" ignorants can get a free ride...
@DrErkencho Correct, I don't and I don't care to. Their devotions are wasted and futile unfortunately. It is their choice to embark on such meaningless endeavors. We gain nothing from such knowledge.
I only hope you are consecuent then and for one thing quit using internet, and seclude yourself in a cave in the Himalayas, just like described above. Regards. ;)
@DrErkencho You're putting words into my mouth. I'm not persuaded by your attempts to stigmatize my position. You value useless knowledge, I don't. If I don't value it, who are you to say that I must?
Hitchens actually got ruined by his brother Andrew Hitchens, a theist, it was quite remarkable. A really good debater can defend any position. Someone seeming to lose or win a debate doesn't really say as much about the positions they're defending as it does about the wit and intellect of the individuals involved.
"We want you to find the TRUTH... using SCRIPTURES as our guide". The doublethink is amazingly gobsmacking. I suggest they read the God Delusion... or also pick up Alain De Botton's new book "Religion for Atheists" . . . i think it will be a fascinating read.
How dare they try to take down this video! Again religious zealots trying to change history. THIS HAPPENED > LET IT BE SEEN. Hitchens was a better mind than any the bible could procure. THe wit, the brilliance, the integrity... we can ALL learn to be better people through his example, someone who really was real and human. We might all be mortal BUT we can make this world a better place. Thank God for Hitchens. (ironic wink)
they're presenting this to middleschoolers? seriously? The nutjobs at Prestonwood must be pretty screwed up in the head to think children need to get involved in such matters.
I get that some people have to believe in a god in order to feel secure or like they have purpose, so I don't think people should be as acerbic as Hitchens.
But seriously... having a religion is like having a dick. It's fine that you have it, it's fine that you're proud of it, but don't wave it around in public and don't shove it down my throat.
"don't video tape this for personal use because we have a good feeling Christopher will be wiping the floor with Dr. Demski.. we cant have too much evidence." is what the blowhard meant to say in the intro.
- if our senses came to be through the process of evolution which is orientated around survival then we have no reason to trust our senses because for them to be accurate they need to be based on truth (not survival)
The debunk:
- You've created a false dichotomy between truth and survival ie. if our sensory input were not MOSTLY true then we wouldnt survive.
- Nothing in evolutionary theory says traits cannot be co-opted for novel purposes in times of plenty
- you have as much reason to accept it as you atomic theory, germ theory and heliocentricism.
"So far it does seem frustrating. Evolutionists have given themselves so many concessions to allow the storyline to work"
- incorrect, once again, you havnt identified a single one of these alleged 'concessions' my statements. it's pretty clear your just bitching because your claims have been shown to be illogical.
"When evolutionists admit the process is blind, and unintelligent it seems cowardly to hide behind a supposed logical error as though it came down from Mt Sinai "
- we arnt relying on logical errors, no part of my statement mentions a logical error.
"when I ask why it seems that evolution has elevated us beyond what it is supposed to do."
- i've already debunked this by showing how your assertion regarding evolution only being about survival is faulty
"How do scientists know they are not being deceived by these organs?"
because of:
a). independent verification between the senses and other individuals.
b). testable predictions and the logically consistent way the universe works.
Is it possible that a given senses or senses could report inaccurate information? sure. However what you purpose is a conspiracy between senses that rivals the matrix (and is against the presumption of science - the universe exists and we can learn)
"That I meant about evolution only caring about survival, and not accurate senses&beliefs is it doesn't matter what I see or hear, it only matters that the output is consistent with survival"
- no, the component of evolution that relates to survival is natural selection and it only serves to eliminate the least denominator. btw i have already addressed why this is incorrect ref. "the fact our mental faculties can be co-opted for different things in times of plenty..."
"If evolution is true we are putting a task on our senses"
- EVERY science puts a task on your senses - that's how you learn about the universe.
"a task on our senses they were never meant to do..This discussion isn't helpful for survival."
- incorrect, your deduction commits the is-ought fallacy. ie. a descriptive statement about the evolutionary origin of our senses (the IS) CANNOT be used to make prescriptive statements about how our senses OUGHT to be used.
"How do we construct the scientific method? With our senses? How do we trust our senses?"
- YES, the assumption is that the universe exists and we can learn about it, the latter part of that statement refers to the independent verification of information gained through sensory input.
"Evolution doesn't care about accurate sense, or true beliefs! It only cares about survival"
- yeh, just like how gravitation relates doesnt relate to accurate senses either (that's irrelevent)
"That tells me how to become a scientist, but what is a scientist? How do we know it is a credible discipline? The first scientists set sail on their own with no accreditation, and had to invent the wheel on their own out of their irrationality, "
- The first scientists didnt have academic accreditation, they also didnt have the title of 'scientist' - that's something that we attributed to them later based on their findings.
"That tells me how to become a scientist, but what is a scientist?"
- no, that tells you WHAT a scientist is, if i were telling you how to become a scientist i would have said 'demonstrate/prove your understanding of the field through academic accreditation'
"How do we know it is a credible discipline? "
- that's a completely separate topic ie. they're findings would need to pass the burden of proof of the scientific method
"YUP! Science is the best tool available to us at the moment. Hopefully it is logically applied, and defined. I gotta ask you. How do YOU define science?"
- a mechanism for acquiring knowledge that presupposes methodological naturalism and utilizes and ongoing process of peer review to identify faulty claims.
"Finally some truth. Although operationalists, and those involved in scientism would disagree. They think the only way to prove anything is through science. Frankly I don't know how their head doesn't explode."
- science is the best and most effective mechanism in all of human history for identifying what is true, it is however not THE ONLY way of identifying something as true; you could also do it by demonstrating logic.
However your argument has neither science nor logic
"My argument is based on a trend, not a prediction."
- incorrect your argument is based on an induction fallacy ie. some past scientific explanations have been deposed therefore this specific scientific explanation will be deposed ; you dont actually provide any evidence.
"This doesn't give Christendom any credibility, but it gives you reason to think"
- none of what you've just said applies anymore to evolution than it does any other scientific field.
"I think the best argument you can really make is 'it is possible existence doesn't necessitate god..."
- incorrect, my best argument would be 'NOT believing in a god is the logical default until evidence of a god is presented' unless you can provide evidence you have no basis for belief
"Evolution has split into so many different factions. Some are non-Darwinian, others are even theistic...No one can say anything forsure"
a). Darwinism (evolution via the gradualistic model) hasnt existed since the 60's.
b). Theistic evolution is simply modern evolutionary theory with additional assertion that the process is guided (it does not contradict nor branch from evolutionary theory)
"No one can say anything forsure"
- science doesnt work in the realms of absolute proof
"The evidence for my assertion is that the evolutionary beliefs of today supercede the beliefs of yesterday"
- the fact that scientific explanations change in response to new observations is not evidence that there will be new observations, your argument fails.
"There is however enough ambiguity in nature one could not see design, and another equally qualified scientist could see design"
- the problem for you is that there isnt any evidence of design and that those are just unscientific opinions.
"I don't have faith for no reason, but it's tethered to the evidence."
- so far you've demonstrated the basis for your claim is logical fallacies of 'i dont know how else it could have happened...therefore magic' that's not a basis :)
- actually the abiogenesis experiments have provided evidence it can, however even if this werent the case it simply be another unknown and i just point-out you do not get to insert magic into an unknown (that is an argument from ignorance of the same variety as god of the gaps)
"I understand the definition of faith just fine. I cannot prove God exists like 2+2=4, but I know His revelation corresponds to reality and the clues to Him are sufficient"
- incorrect, that's just an assertion made by you, you'll need to provide evidence before anyone can take you seriously
"I know the supernatural does exist because matter does not come from nothing"
- incorrect, the origin of matter is an unknown, you dont get to use an unknown to assert magic :)
"Josephus wrote about the usual cruelty of Herod. What is in the historical biblical account is within the parameters of his character..."
- his character (while a completely separate problem) isnt really the issue....the fact Luke dates the event as occurring nearly 10 years after Herod's death, is.
"IF God does exist as I say, one would assume His general revelation (Nature) would match His special revelation. (Scripture.) "
- incorrect, this makes the unsubstantiated assumption that god wrote the scripture attributed to him.
We know humans exist and are inclined to makeup explanations for things they do not understand, a better explanation would be that humans wrote the scripture as a description of nature and simply attributed it to a god.
"How much more you believing matter appeared ex nihilo with no cause?"
- i do not know where matter came from ie. it is an unknown.
unless you have evidence a god is responsible then asserting one is, is not a credible explanation (you have no causal link and are hence commiting an argument from ignorance fallacy)
" say someday we will regress beyond the singularity, and therefore assume no god at all is also AFI"
- i have not done this, all i've done is point out how your unevidenced assertion is illogical.
"t is saying 'We are ignorant, but will someday lift ourselves out of our ignorance, so in the meantime let's pretend to be smart.' Assuming god as the final cause is reasonable"
- incorrect, you have no causal link, your just asserting without any evidence (which is illogical)
- what about it? an example of special pleading would be claiming everything requires a cause except for a god.
"I say falls..."
- no, i dont simply assert your arguments commit the argument from ignorance fallacy, i've explained why as well
eg. You've based your assertion that a god created the universe on the fact we dont know what created singularity., the fact you've based on an unknown means dont actually have a causal link and hence are commiting an AFI
"So whatever I have said before is invalidated because of a logical fallacy you are charging me with?"
- no, the REASON it is invalid is because it commits the logical fallacy.
ie.
as i already explained 'asserting a god is responsible because you cant think of how else it could have happened' is not logical. We describe this form illogical statement as an argument from ignorance logical falalcy.
"I have noticed god-of-the-gaps has become an intellectually lazy...A theist could give detailed proof of God's existence only to have it shot down by this"
incorrect:
- it's a particular variant of the argument from ignorance (logical fallacy). It occurs whenever you assert god as explanation for an unknown, just like a regular argument from ignorance there is no causal link between the subject (in this case the big bang singularity) and alleged cause (god)
"This is quite the miracle for nothingness to lift itself by it's own bootstraps, and be it's own progenitor."
- not at all, it simply highlights the fact you are using god of gaps the fallacy (your simple inserting god into where the actual explanation is unknown). Your claim isn t logical.
"If our intelligence is self-assigned it is arbitrary, no actual intelligence exists."
- incorrect, intelligence is a word that refers to an attribute.
"or have any competence to say with certainty that anything is true or not? This seems to be quite the inconsistency!"
- you dont have that ability.
ie. any deductions you make past 'i think therefore i am' are going to invoke some level of assertion eg. the assertion of science is that the universe exists and we can learn about it.
"We codify what we see in laws, and terms, but in order for us to test it, then it must be constant."
- incorrect, we KNOW we attribute order because what can be considered to contain order in one instance may not in another.
You may argue that the order is always there and we just havnt recognized it yet, but that explanation would be functionally the same whilst asserting an additional variable (hence not favored by occams razer)
"I believe as astronomers find no galaxies, solar systems, or planets capable of supporting life we will realize how unique we are and fine tuning is going to be realized"
- come back when you have some evidence, until then your making baseless assertion.
- the first part of my statement deals with the multiverse hypothesis while the latter part deals with a single universe.
"Since no actual infinite can exist how can an infinite amount of universes exist? We are left looking for the first cause of all causes, and effects."
- incorrect, the first case argument is incorrect here for the same reason it is with a single universe.
"If the universe had a beginning, then it had a cause which I believe to be volitional"
- sure, and as far as we know the cause of the universe was big bang singularity. We dont have any evidence of anything before it or that something needs to have caused it (much less something intelligent)
"Matter organizing itself without cause would..."
- incorrect, matter acting in correspondence with the laws of universe is very consistent with logic. Order is something we attribute.
"I however see the need for a prime mover who loads particles with information, and spent billions of years fine tuning the universe."
- the only universe we know about is our own which it impossible to determine whether the circumstances within it are unlikely or incredibly common; perhaps there is probability of 1 and it couldnt have happened anyother way. In anycase to assert that it's 'fine-tuned' is utterly stupid
"We definitely agree life was an inevitable result based on information in the particles"
- no, information is the subjective interpretation of data into a meaningful form, it is not 'in the particles'.
- if everything was deterministic from the BB onwards all that t would mean is the the origin of life from inorganic matter.etc would be predetermined, nothing to do with 'information'
"I however see the need for a prime mover who loads particles with information"
"How did life initially get started from non-life? ie: What were the pre-cursors to life? If all life evolved from the same conditions why is not all life the same rather than variant?"
- that is abiogenesis not evolution (we dont need to explain where life came from inorder to explain it's diversity anymore than we needed to explain the big bang before explaining gravity)
"So if life was not a true spontaneous random event, but an outcome beyond our ability to calculate, why did life in any way, shape or form appear at all?"
- why wouldnt it? if we live in a deterministic universe and (had we enough information) every event from the big bang onwards could be modeled and predicted then life was always going to arise.
"If it is not driven upwards then why not stay..."
- because certain attributes are favored under certain circumstances (whether the specific set of attrbiutes is simpler or more complex is irrelevant to the fact it is beneficial)
"species is supposed to take on the traits essential to promote itself making it the best fighter"
- NO: other things can take precedence ie. increased muscle mass requires more energy and hence would be selected AGAINST in lean conditions.
"If it is a favorable gene that is passed on then it is not driven by random mutation, but is an inevetable result"
- no, in science the word 'random' refers to things based on numerous interconnected circumstances whose outcome is beyond our ability to calculate, NOT a spontaneous event with no explanation or cause.
"How have we proved evolution is driven upwards anyway?"
- it's not 'driven upwards' the fact some complex organisms tend to survive better than some simpler organisms is incidental at best. In terms of evolution there is only diversification and whether this diversification is useful, if it is then it is selected for if not then doesnt propagate.
"If you keep personifying the process by saying natural selection "ensures" you will have to call the process God..."
- incorrect, no part of the process requires intelligence or the supernatural, it's simply a reference to the almost tautological fact that organisms with traits best suited to their environment tend to survive and those less suited tend not to.
"One last point and I am leaving you to your rhetoric. A mutation sufficient to cause evolution would have caused extinction first unless the species had 'test subjects' in the ballpark of a quadrillion"
- incorrect, natural selection ensures that beneficial mutations accumulate and detrimental mutations do not.
"DNA via mutation can never produce new genetic information"
"Birds remain birds, dinosaurs remain dinosaurs, etc. "
Given that evolution is driven by random mutation and natural selection and what point would you say it has accumulated enough to mutation to be called anything other than a bird?
the answer is never because 'bird' is a colloquial reference to a taxonomic classification IMPOSED on nature by humans based on ESTABLISHED characteristics. If it grew arms and a fucking dragon tail, we would still have to call it a bird.
"It's statistically impossible. While mutation can create variants within a species it does not serve to cause total transition from one type to a totally different type. "
- type just 'kind' is an attempt at a purely artificial distinction that doesnt infact exist.
@colinb890 i actually deny the reality of evil. There was a dude named Hitler that did horrible thing to many people but it was not driven by evil but by a twisted view of the world. Being of jewish birth doesn'T make anyone better than others or a sickness to the world but Hitler thought that and he convinced the nazis of it. There is no evil in the world, only people doing bad things on big scales. worst: they think they are doing good things. that and mad people
Hahaha, oh wow. It's that easy to tempt you back into a debate you can't possibly win?
You haven't retracted your statement. You said "Besides, Modifying the DNA via mutation can never produce new genetic information to drive upward evolution..." Studies of E. Coli bacteria have seen this happen. You made a mistake because you didn't do your research. Retract your mistake before scurrying off to hide behind petty distinctions between the small and the large.
Wow, you must have spent a lot of time typing all these comments. And then you went and said mutation has never produced "new genetic information." This has in fact been observed to happen. Finding out that this has been observed to happen would have taken minutes on Google. Well done, your parting rejoinder serves only to show that you'd rather talk that learn.
@colinb890 So now you're allowed to just interpret however you want? Lol. I love how religion changes with science. The more science discovers and learns the more religion must change itself to fit it's views. Just 300 years ago if you asked anyone if Genesis was literal they would say YES and then say they also believed it happen. You would be killed for mentioning evolution. It's funny how not it's just "metaphors" and even the Pope has acknowledged evolution. lol.
@colinb890 You said you read the bible literally. It has talking snakes, people coming from dirt, virgin births, people walking on water, unicorns, and turning water into wine. Lol. I do think that's kind of funny.
@colinb890 You are obviously not trying to gain knowledge or acknowledge when you are wrong on a subject. You are clearly here to express your point of view and that is it.
@colinb890 i personnally don't acknowledge evil as existing. Nothing is good or bad unless you add a point of view. I can sometimes use the word evil to describe something that has bad repercussion to many people and barely and good for anyone but not as in "it comes from satan". you might be tempted to say death is bad but you were not mourning the death of my grand-ma 2 years ago because from your point of view, its a neutral event. Its all based on ponts of view.
Thou shalt not kill' nor the Golden Rule are christian inventions but logical, reasonable positions that automatically follow from the process civilization. Fish have no morality but even they have developed ways to defend the individual and the group against deadly attackers. Humans are more sophisticated than fish, so we can develop all kind of laws to deter violence and to remove immoral or amoral behaviour (by religious or non-religious people) out of the system. Right?
@colinb890 My justification would be to live. Live your life. Be happy. If they really want to kill themselves then go ahead. Who am I to tell people what they can do with their OWN lives? I'd hope that their family or loved ones could talk them out of it. But if not then that's completely their choice not mine. I wouldn't WANT them to kill themselves and I would try to stop them but I can't FORCE my will over theirs.
@colinb890 Yes it is an OPINION. Lol That's why it's subjective morality. Everyone deserves to live because they are alive. Life is precious. The simple fact that you are breathing is enough for me. I think all people deserve to live. Murder is wrong because you are taking someone else's life. It's that simple. It's completely independent of any god. Lol. It's funny because the majority of murderers believe in a god. Atheist countries have much lower crime rates than America.
@colinb890 Do I really have to tell you that? Lol. It's wrong because all human beings deserve to live. Not because a book says so. Sweden is a Atheist country and they have a lower crime rate than America.
@colinb890 I can't tell if you're just joking now. Lol. Based on MY world-view. I would NEVER kill someone because I can't take someone else's life away. Life is precious and everyone deserves to live their life. By me killing someone who doesn't want to die is mean imposing my will on to them. I have no right to impose my will onto anyone who doesn't want it. Even if they want to, I'm not going to take another human beings life, seeing as this is the only one they have.
@colinb890 Now you are justifying murder. This is what religion does to you. You are so deeply rooted that you can see no wrong in the actions of your god. He could kill babies and you would still be "He sinned and he deserved it." I have more respect for human life than that. I don't care if they "sinned" they don't deserve to die. That's sick. No one has an objective standard of good. It's different everyone where you go. I base mine off of reality and facts.
@colinb890 So your saying he CHOOSES not to prevent it? Malevolent. No matter how you put it. There is no sin besides murder that you can justify him allowing billions of people to die. Even though I know you're going to try to defend him like a battered housewife. "My husband was angry, he was made because I didn't have dinner on the table at the time he liked, that's why he hit me. He's warned me before but I didn't listen. It's all my fault." That's what it sounds like.
@colinb890 You just said god "cannot" when ever that is said. You are implying there are things that god can not do. Which means he is not omnipotent. So why worship him? “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” Think about it.
@colinb890 So now your god is confined to mere HUMAN logic? Lol. What happened to all powerful? Your god created the universe correct? Logic applies to the natural universe as we know it correct? So your god created logic correct? Which means he's the one who created evil along with good. So why didn't he just created a world of good? Why would he allow us to suffer? He either likes toying with us or he just doesn't give a fuck.
@colinb890 Why not? Your god did. He sends people to hell. For something they didn't even do. Your god is an evil sadistic asshole. He FORCES you to praise him otherwise you go to hell. If are a great person who has never harmed anyone, never done anyone any wrong, and lived your life correctly but you don't praise him. You STILL go to hell. He sounds like he has low-self esteem. What kind of all-powerful being would even care about praise? I would never worship such a being.
@colinb890 So you're saying god offered his kids weed? What a GREAT fucking parent. The problem with your argument is your assuming that good can't exist without evil. But this is not true for your all powerful god correct? So he could have created good without evil. He CHOOSE for their to be evil in the world.
@colinb890 Do you punish him after the cat has scratched him? Lol. THIS would make you equal to your god. You put him in danger, allow him to hurt himself, then you punish him for hurting himself after you allowed him to do so.
@colinb890 That's the same thing as Christianity. Which runs on faith. Your religion is no more special than any of the others. You just believe it is. You've obviously been indoctrinated from an early age. I'm guessing your parents were Christian. You're probably going to say "No. My parents were Atheist." knowing it was a lie. But it's OK. Brainwashing isn't something that you can get rid of in a day. Hopefully, you will someday.
@colinb890 That's different. Allowance and a car have the potential to be GOOD. Giving someone the potential to sin has NO good connotation. Here's a more accurate analogy. If you were to give him drugs and then call the police on him because you gave them to him. If this was the case why would you give him the drug. Just don't give it to him. There was nothing good in that. Only an evil narcissistic dick would do that to his own child.
WARNING - 120minous is a TROLL, won't let you go until you tell him he is RIGHT and beg for forgiveness, so... Please, please please-- dude get a life, and please get it far away from my email inbox. Cheers.
DrErkencho 4 days ago
Go play football then... your head is hard enough you won't need a helmet dude!
DrErkencho 5 days ago
thats great, atheism exposure for children, its so good to get these kids thinking at this age, i diddnt start questioning religion till my senior year in highschool
Trudragon88 1 week ago
Religion will start ww3
MrAtheistUK 1 week ago
Extract everything Hitchens said.... and your left with bullshit.
hawkinscraig05 1 week ago
Truth is only valuable if it aids the individuals. If it is pernicious to individual growth and development, it is not worth acknowledging.
12Ominous 1 week ago
@12Ominous
Can't believe you actually believe your statement and have that mindset!!!. Truth is what it is, like it or not. If you have a problem with truth then you got a problem with the entire human race, and that includes you and your genes, like it or not.
DrErkencho 5 days ago
@DrErkencho Well believe it. Individuals don't have to value truth in the same way they don't have to value anything. If it is true that I was made in a lab or shit out by aliens, is this really worth knowing or even pursuing? By not knowing the truth, humans have the ability to create the truth and become what they created. How did you draw that conclusion?
12Ominous 5 days ago
@12Ominous
@_@ - I guess you never read Orwell, never voted, never had a job or got married, live in a cave in the Himalaya eat humus and drink snow. Sorry, yeah the world and the truth are of no interest, yeah you are right. Good luck with that, and -hey!- don't ever be affraid anyone will want to deceive you for their own interest! -that's just something NOBODY will ever dear to do... (-sigh-)
DrErkencho 5 days ago
@DrErkencho People just pick the truth they like the best, always have, always will, deal with it.
12Ominous 5 days ago
@12Ominous
Hahaha-- so silly... Quote "pick the TRUTH they like the best" as oposed to what?... the "TRUTH" they don't like? everything is truth? what do the words LIE, FALSE and the expression BULL SHIT mean to you? hahahahaha... so pathetic! Ahhhh-- religious people man, you guys really try ha!? I've met people like that too, I give them antipsychotic drugs and order treatment...
DrErkencho 5 days ago
Comment removed
12Ominous 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DrErkencho You don't like people who won't even acknowledge the ideal that you've willingly chained yourself to. Projection bias it is known as in Psychology. Cry and suffer in your own shackles that you happily embraced.
12Ominous 5 days ago
@DrErkencho By reducing humans to genetic mutations, humans limit themselves and what they can be. It is very harmful to the human race to perceive one another as just random occurrences. It will and already has to some degree lead to nihilism and the devolution of humanity. Ignorance is bliss as they say.
12Ominous 5 days ago
@12Ominous
You OBVIOUSLY know nothing about genetics OR argumentation. Your strawman won't fly in a tornado. Second, yeah, ignorance is bliss, it certainly is, for people like you that USE and ABUSE of the benefits produced by other people that works and studies pretty hard and devout their lives to know how the natural world works, just so that you religious "blessed" ignorants can get a free ride...
DrErkencho 5 days ago
@DrErkencho Correct, I don't and I don't care to. Their devotions are wasted and futile unfortunately. It is their choice to embark on such meaningless endeavors. We gain nothing from such knowledge.
12Ominous 5 days ago
@12Ominous
I only hope you are consecuent then and for one thing quit using internet, and seclude yourself in a cave in the Himalayas, just like described above. Regards. ;)
DrErkencho 5 days ago
@DrErkencho You're putting words into my mouth. I'm not persuaded by your attempts to stigmatize my position. You value useless knowledge, I don't. If I don't value it, who are you to say that I must?
12Ominous 5 days ago
Hitchens actually got ruined by his brother Andrew Hitchens, a theist, it was quite remarkable. A really good debater can defend any position. Someone seeming to lose or win a debate doesn't really say as much about the positions they're defending as it does about the wit and intellect of the individuals involved.
12Ominous 1 week ago
These debates are kind of pointless, but very entertaining.
12Ominous 1 week ago
dude in the beginning just dont shut up
wobber17 2 weeks ago
Athiests have SKEEEEEMS apparently XD
Brengmathew 2 weeks ago in playlist Hitchens-Dembski Debate Nov 2010
9:21, you're welcome
TheShaitanjr 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
i dont understand america. how does a highschool, have the money to hold a debate like this, on a stage with blue backlighting like that
ILIKEWALLS 1 month ago 3
@ILIKEWALLS Really, you don't understand?
brainsmoothy 2 weeks ago in playlist More videos from PrestonwoodCowards
"We want you to find the TRUTH... using SCRIPTURES as our guide". The doublethink is amazingly gobsmacking. I suggest they read the God Delusion... or also pick up Alain De Botton's new book "Religion for Atheists" . . . i think it will be a fascinating read.
tayzlor 1 month ago 2
Hitchens made several errors when discussing modern cosmology. :c
None of them actually make a difference in this debate, but I'm a physics major, so I still care.
jaimesthesaint 1 month ago
OMG who the hell names thier kids Kayleb... wtf...
V0nAnglesmith 1 month ago
Hitchen's was a genius of the written and spoken word... and a rarity among journalists, he was not a yes man, but a free thinker.
hawkinscraig05 1 month ago 3
They are taking down the video so they can make money off of it. I don't think it's about hiding a loss
MauricXe 2 months ago
How dare they try to take down this video! Again religious zealots trying to change history. THIS HAPPENED > LET IT BE SEEN. Hitchens was a better mind than any the bible could procure. THe wit, the brilliance, the integrity... we can ALL learn to be better people through his example, someone who really was real and human. We might all be mortal BUT we can make this world a better place. Thank God for Hitchens. (ironic wink)
tayzlor 2 months ago 6
@tayzlor Well said, and seconded.
Jbear9 1 month ago
mmm, I am partial to the stench of Theistic bullshit in the afternoon ...
smells like Atheistic victory.
fornasettidream 2 months ago 2
lol training for their students. this was just Hitchslap after Hitchslap enjoy
RAMSEY1987 2 months ago
You know that phrase "I'm going to beat you like a red-headed step child."
McLarenF1God 2 months ago in playlist More videos from PrestonwoodCowards
Haha, "practicing against Hitchens"...
Because when I pop in a new video game, I like to warm up by fighting the final boss first
Taraalcar 2 months ago 11
@Taraalcar i keep expecting the song one winged angle to play each time hitch talks
rustyshafthammer 2 months ago in playlist Dembski/Hitchens Debate
they're presenting this to middleschoolers? seriously? The nutjobs at Prestonwood must be pretty screwed up in the head to think children need to get involved in such matters.
Lolyusomadbro 2 months ago in playlist More videos from PrestonwoodCowards
@Lolyusomadbro i think its awesome anyone of any age gets exposed to hitch
rustyshafthammer 2 months ago in playlist Dembski/Hitchens Debate 3
"practicing" to play football is akin to "practicing" to be wrong about how you understand reality? Fail.
sklikizos 2 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
'please refrain from responding'
MrRevelationsxxx 2 months ago
Comment removed
MrRevelationsxxx 2 months ago
lol Practicing against Hitchens... Hitchens OWNED this debate.
sinatrabooth89 2 months ago 2
"Practicing" against Christopher Hitchens was their biggest mistake.
LuckilyHeDied 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos 8
9 minutes of bull... But at least it starts with Hitch...
shade9592 2 months ago
I get that some people have to believe in a god in order to feel secure or like they have purpose, so I don't think people should be as acerbic as Hitchens.
But seriously... having a religion is like having a dick. It's fine that you have it, it's fine that you're proud of it, but don't wave it around in public and don't shove it down my throat.
googlymoogly64 2 months ago
just don't take a philosophy course johnny, you might cry. they don't tolerate this anti-reason you call faith.
dopeasfuckk 2 months ago
Is it me, or does this ginger look like the type that a Priest or 2 had their way with?
CookieWalka 3 months ago in playlist Hitchens vs. Dempski Prestwood Debate
lol "those people"
CookieWalka 3 months ago in playlist Hitchens vs. Dempski Prestwood Debate
Why is that black shirt dude winking at me?
socialisticdemo 3 months ago
ID is an industry, "a fool and his money are soon parted". What is scary is when bullshit becomes policy
Direnaar 3 months ago
Maybe that guy should pray to have his involuntary wink straightened out
RilloRacer 3 months ago
"don't video tape this for personal use because we have a good feeling Christopher will be wiping the floor with Dr. Demski.. we cant have too much evidence." is what the blowhard meant to say in the intro.
theartofnotbeingseen 3 months ago 4
caleb is a real creep. check out how he looks at his buddy... you know he's fighting sin.
theartofnotbeingseen 3 months ago
He's gonna go to college, forget what he learnt here, and get (or want) lots of pussy!
TooPhatProd 3 months ago 13
@TooPhatProd He's gonna get and want a lot of penis by the look of it... in the Football Room of Penn State or a nice Catholic University perhaps.
tayzlor 1 month ago
the intro to this video is the most garbage i've ever seen.
JaredJMyers 3 months ago 46
@JaredJMyers I don't think it's garbage, I think it shows their process of how they see it as a game that they must win.
AngryKeegan 2 months ago 2
@AngryKeegan dogmatic indoctrination is always garbage.
JaredJMyers 2 months ago
i don't understand "using scriptures as guide" to find what is true, a fairy tale to find the true, can some one explain to me this please!
legolasgreenleaff 3 months ago
@legolasgreenleaff It's called "Using the bible to prove the bible." Circular logic.
Can you say "Insular Cult(ure) of Willful Ignorance?"
jjobie 3 months ago
@jjobie thanks for the explanation, is sad that people see the evidence willfully deny it and that is ignorance by choice, keep in contact
legolasgreenleaff 3 months ago
@jjobie thanks,live long and prosper.
legolasgreenleaff 3 months ago
I guess he didn't know what he was up to against Hitchens
dirtleg27 3 months ago
@colinb890
"Keep writing the story...Maybe it will compare, instead of contrast with the reality around you. I doubt it."
- your only basis for calling it story telling is your own ignorance. co-option and exaptation are well documented biological processes, dumbass
types10000 3 months ago
@colinb890
Your argument:
- if our senses came to be through the process of evolution which is orientated around survival then we have no reason to trust our senses because for them to be accurate they need to be based on truth (not survival)
The debunk:
- You've created a false dichotomy between truth and survival ie. if our sensory input were not MOSTLY true then we wouldnt survive.
- Nothing in evolutionary theory says traits cannot be co-opted for novel purposes in times of plenty
types10000 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@colinb890
"I do not see reason to accept it"
- you have as much reason to accept it as you atomic theory, germ theory and heliocentricism.
"So far it does seem frustrating. Evolutionists have given themselves so many concessions to allow the storyline to work"
- incorrect, once again, you havnt identified a single one of these alleged 'concessions' my statements. it's pretty clear your just bitching because your claims have been shown to be illogical.
types10000 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@colinb890
"ID's have prep'd a horse for a race, and everytime we try to enter it the non ID's seem to change the rules slightly to not allow that horse to run"
- it only seems that way if your too stupid to look-up the rules to begin with :)
Logical fallacy isnt invented in response to your claims (they already exist) all i've done is demonstrate how your claims commit them.
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"When evolutionists admit the process is blind, and unintelligent it seems cowardly to hide behind a supposed logical error as though it came down from Mt Sinai "
- we arnt relying on logical errors, no part of my statement mentions a logical error.
"when I ask why it seems that evolution has elevated us beyond what it is supposed to do."
- i've already debunked this by showing how your assertion regarding evolution only being about survival is faulty
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"How do scientists know they are not being deceived by these organs?"
because of:
a). independent verification between the senses and other individuals.
b). testable predictions and the logically consistent way the universe works.
Is it possible that a given senses or senses could report inaccurate information? sure. However what you purpose is a conspiracy between senses that rivals the matrix (and is against the presumption of science - the universe exists and we can learn)
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"That I meant about evolution only caring about survival, and not accurate senses&beliefs is it doesn't matter what I see or hear, it only matters that the output is consistent with survival"
- no, the component of evolution that relates to survival is natural selection and it only serves to eliminate the least denominator. btw i have already addressed why this is incorrect ref. "the fact our mental faculties can be co-opted for different things in times of plenty..."
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"I am wasting valuable time here when I could be out foraging for berries, or swinging from a vine to tackle a mouth watering monkey to eat!"
incorrect, the only problem is with your deduction:
- The fact our senses evolved in response to a specific selective pressure says nothing about how we ought to be using them (ref. is-ought gap)
- the fact our mental faculties can be co-opted for different things in times of plenty does not run against evolutionary theory
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"If evolution is true we are putting a task on our senses"
- EVERY science puts a task on your senses - that's how you learn about the universe.
"a task on our senses they were never meant to do..This discussion isn't helpful for survival."
- incorrect, your deduction commits the is-ought fallacy. ie. a descriptive statement about the evolutionary origin of our senses (the IS) CANNOT be used to make prescriptive statements about how our senses OUGHT to be used.
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"How do we construct the scientific method? With our senses? How do we trust our senses?"
- YES, the assumption is that the universe exists and we can learn about it, the latter part of that statement refers to the independent verification of information gained through sensory input.
"Evolution doesn't care about accurate sense, or true beliefs! It only cares about survival"
- yeh, just like how gravitation relates doesnt relate to accurate senses either (that's irrelevent)
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"That tells me how to become a scientist, but what is a scientist? How do we know it is a credible discipline? The first scientists set sail on their own with no accreditation, and had to invent the wheel on their own out of their irrationality, "
- The first scientists didnt have academic accreditation, they also didnt have the title of 'scientist' - that's something that we attributed to them later based on their findings.
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"That tells me how to become a scientist, but what is a scientist?"
- no, that tells you WHAT a scientist is, if i were telling you how to become a scientist i would have said 'demonstrate/prove your understanding of the field through academic accreditation'
"How do we know it is a credible discipline? "
- that's a completely separate topic ie. they're findings would need to pass the burden of proof of the scientific method
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"We cannot discredit an intelligent designer. "
INCORRECT:
- a claim made without evidence can (AND SHOULD) be dismissed without evidence
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"Care to elaborate on your definition of scientist?"
- the people who have demonstrated/proven their understanding of the field through academic accreditation.
"If you discredit those of the ID persuasion you are special pleading."
- incorrect, ID is discredited because it doesnt have any evidence - science isnt based on opinion.
"There you go. We only know as much as we know. To assert beyond the realms of empirical evidence is presumptious"
- science doesnt require us to :)
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"If science allowed for unknowns then deism would be a possible option"
- claims made without evidence can (AND SHOULD) be dismissed without evidence.
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"Who give science it's parameters? The evolutionists?"
- i think you mean THE SCIENTISTS.
" If science claims to disprove 'god' it could just be the way it is framed. "
- incorrect, you cannot say this anymore than you can for heliocentricism/geocentricism.
"The problem of science is it works in a vacuum. It doesn't allow for anything it can't prove"
- incorrect, SCIENCE DOESNT WORK IN THE REALM OF ABSOLUTE PROOF. there is simply evidence that supports a position.
types10000 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@colinb890
"YUP! Science is the best tool available to us at the moment. Hopefully it is logically applied, and defined. I gotta ask you. How do YOU define science?"
- a mechanism for acquiring knowledge that presupposes methodological naturalism and utilizes and ongoing process of peer review to identify faulty claims.
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"Finally some truth. Although operationalists, and those involved in scientism would disagree. They think the only way to prove anything is through science. Frankly I don't know how their head doesn't explode."
- science is the best and most effective mechanism in all of human history for identifying what is true, it is however not THE ONLY way of identifying something as true; you could also do it by demonstrating logic.
However your argument has neither science nor logic
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"My argument is based on a trend, not a prediction."
- incorrect your argument is based on an induction fallacy ie. some past scientific explanations have been deposed therefore this specific scientific explanation will be deposed ; you dont actually provide any evidence.
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"the brevity of Genesis"
-What should worry you is the fact genesis is inconsistent with reality -as determined through scientific evidence.
"Cake comes from flour, milk...they see all things coming from one intelligent sourc"
- Yes, however there is no evidence humans can come from dust...
- However cakes are not analogous to humans - there is no evidence of intelligence or that humans come from dust.
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"This doesn't give Christendom any credibility, but it gives you reason to think"
- none of what you've just said applies anymore to evolution than it does any other scientific field.
"I think the best argument you can really make is 'it is possible existence doesn't necessitate god..."
- incorrect, my best argument would be 'NOT believing in a god is the logical default until evidence of a god is presented' unless you can provide evidence you have no basis for belief
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"Evolution has split into so many different factions. Some are non-Darwinian, others are even theistic...No one can say anything forsure"
a). Darwinism (evolution via the gradualistic model) hasnt existed since the 60's.
b). Theistic evolution is simply modern evolutionary theory with additional assertion that the process is guided (it does not contradict nor branch from evolutionary theory)
"No one can say anything forsure"
- science doesnt work in the realms of absolute proof
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"The evidence for my assertion is that the evolutionary beliefs of today supercede the beliefs of yesterday"
- the fact that scientific explanations change in response to new observations is not evidence that there will be new observations, your argument fails.
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"You yourself said you don't know the origin of matter."
- correct, and it may remain an unknown forever, however the fact it is an unknown does not make your explanation anymore credible.
"So if matter has always existed....you will be retro-actively wrong. All of the evolutionary sciences will have to be thrown out."
- incorrect, evolutionary theory relates ONLY to biology; it is completely impartial to the origin of the universe
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"The evolutionary paradigm of today will be thrown out by the paradigm of tommorow, and you will be retroactively wrong."
- you provide no evidence for this assertion.
types10000 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@colinb890
"'im throwing my hands up in this discussion. It's just circular reasoning, and dogmatic assertions"
-incorrect, it's a matter of evolution having credible scientific evidence and your assertion of design having none.
- inspite of this you try to frame them as being equally credible.
- unless you can produce evidence of design then you have no argument., so far all you've been able to produce are logical fallacies.
types10000 4 months ago
They had no idea what they were doing when they invited Hitchens
Str4ng3F0lk 4 months ago
@colinb890
"There is however enough ambiguity in nature one could not see design, and another equally qualified scientist could see design"
- the problem for you is that there isnt any evidence of design and that those are just unscientific opinions.
"I don't have faith for no reason, but it's tethered to the evidence."
- so far you've demonstrated the basis for your claim is logical fallacies of 'i dont know how else it could have happened...therefore magic' that's not a basis :)
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"and life cannot come from non-life"
- actually the abiogenesis experiments have provided evidence it can, however even if this werent the case it simply be another unknown and i just point-out you do not get to insert magic into an unknown (that is an argument from ignorance of the same variety as god of the gaps)
types10000 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@colinb890
"I understand the definition of faith just fine. I cannot prove God exists like 2+2=4, but I know His revelation corresponds to reality and the clues to Him are sufficient"
- incorrect, that's just an assertion made by you, you'll need to provide evidence before anyone can take you seriously
"I know the supernatural does exist because matter does not come from nothing"
- incorrect, the origin of matter is an unknown, you dont get to use an unknown to assert magic :)
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"You are putting your faith in a science that presupposes a logic it cannot prove"
- logic is what science uses, not something justified in terms of it.
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"Evolution is a 'pseudo-science' based on ambiguity"
- incorrect, evolution is a scientific theory (of the same standard as gravity). The fact you dont understand it doesnt make it pseudoscience :)
"Because this supernatural has been written on as a plausible explanation it now becomes the only reasonable option because of calvin-ball rules"
- incorrect, the fact someone wrote it down does not indicate it as true or give it credibility
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"Josephus wrote about the usual cruelty of Herod. What is in the historical biblical account is within the parameters of his character..."
- his character (while a completely separate problem) isnt really the issue....the fact Luke dates the event as occurring nearly 10 years after Herod's death, is.
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"I don't think faith is always blind"
- then you dont understand the definition of faith
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"IF God does exist as I say, one would assume His general revelation (Nature) would match His special revelation. (Scripture.) "
- incorrect, this makes the unsubstantiated assumption that god wrote the scripture attributed to him.
We know humans exist and are inclined to makeup explanations for things they do not understand, a better explanation would be that humans wrote the scripture as a description of nature and simply attributed it to a god.
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"You claim the Bible is an un-testable story cut from whole cloth"
- not at all, it's factual claims have been tested against atual history and it is quite frequently wrong eg. Herod's massacre of the innocents.
There is however no way of testing it's supernatural claims.
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"How much more you believing matter appeared ex nihilo with no cause?"
- i do not know where matter came from ie. it is an unknown.
unless you have evidence a god is responsible then asserting one is, is not a credible explanation (you have no causal link and are hence commiting an argument from ignorance fallacy)
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"I am going to make the charge against you of evolution-of-the-gaps. Just because God cannot be seen"
- you wouldnt be able to, evolution is a science based on evidence.
"and the Bible has some things we cannot perfectly explain does not mean we should say naturalism is true"
- we know the natural world exists, it is the default explanation until evidence of the supernatural is presented.
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"I use both explanations whereas you say all that flows from science is good, and acceptable, and all that flows out of religion is primitive."
- no, you use the explanations of science and try insert magic into wherever science hasnt explained.
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"I am not arguing from ignorance"
- incorrect, your claim objectively commits the argument from ignorance fallacy; i've already explained how/why.
"God is infact the cause of all causes"
- where is your evidence?
"Science tells me how the water is boiling. (Because heat is being transferred through the element moving the molecules causing"
- no, science explains the how and why, religion just provides unevidenced assertion your claim being a case-in-point
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
" say someday we will regress beyond the singularity, and therefore assume no god at all is also AFI"
- i have not done this, all i've done is point out how your unevidenced assertion is illogical.
"t is saying 'We are ignorant, but will someday lift ourselves out of our ignorance, so in the meantime let's pretend to be smart.' Assuming god as the final cause is reasonable"
- incorrect, you have no causal link, your just asserting without any evidence (which is illogical)
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"How can this be since the knowledge we posess today will be traded in for new knowledge which supercedes what we know today?"
- Whether something is actually true only has one answer
- YOUR statements are about providing EVIDENCE for what is true because WE DONT know the answer.
Irrespective of whether the conclusion of your statements is true any statement that commits a logical fallacy can NEVER be used as EVIDENCE.
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"special pleading?"
- what about it? an example of special pleading would be claiming everything requires a cause except for a god.
"I say falls..."
- no, i dont simply assert your arguments commit the argument from ignorance fallacy, i've explained why as well
eg. You've based your assertion that a god created the universe on the fact we dont know what created singularity., the fact you've based on an unknown means dont actually have a causal link and hence are commiting an AFI
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"So whatever I have said before is invalidated because of a logical fallacy you are charging me with?"
- no, the REASON it is invalid is because it commits the logical fallacy.
ie.
as i already explained 'asserting a god is responsible because you cant think of how else it could have happened' is not logical. We describe this form illogical statement as an argument from ignorance logical falalcy.
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
'This is an example of a presumptuous statement"
- incorrect, it is a position supported by evidence
"The first organisms have a beginning, therefore a cause."
- yes and that cause was basic chemical reactions on a primordial earth.
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"To say we will know the answer, and god should not be appealed to is presumptuous."
- i didnt say this, i said, to assert a god is responsible without evidence is illogical.
your statement is basically 'i cant think of how else it could have happened therefore x' it's not logical.
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"I have noticed god-of-the-gaps has become an intellectually lazy...A theist could give detailed proof of God's existence only to have it shot down by this"
incorrect:
- it's a particular variant of the argument from ignorance (logical fallacy). It occurs whenever you assert god as explanation for an unknown, just like a regular argument from ignorance there is no causal link between the subject (in this case the big bang singularity) and alleged cause (god)
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"This is quite the miracle for nothingness to lift itself by it's own bootstraps, and be it's own progenitor."
- not at all, it simply highlights the fact you are using god of gaps the fallacy (your simple inserting god into where the actual explanation is unknown). Your claim isn t logical.
"If our intelligence is self-assigned it is arbitrary, no actual intelligence exists."
- incorrect, intelligence is a word that refers to an attribute.
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"The empirical data supports being comes from non-being?"
- the first organisms, yes.
"Can we regress beyond the singularity that spit us out, and say what caused that?"
- nop, however our inability to do this does not give any credence to the (argument from ignorance assertion) that a god is responsible.
"Was the energy/matter within the singularity infinitely old? Was it self caused?"
- those would be unknowns.
types10000 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@colinb890
"or have any competence to say with certainty that anything is true or not? This seems to be quite the inconsistency!"
- you dont have that ability.
ie. any deductions you make past 'i think therefore i am' are going to invoke some level of assertion eg. the assertion of science is that the universe exists and we can learn about it.
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"So you are saying explicitly 'life came from non-life, Intelligence came from non-intelligence?'"
- i'm saying that is what the evidence supports.
"If our cause is unintelligent, and our senses only exist to serve as life-preservation devices, how can we suppose we ourselves are intelligent"
- because intelligence is simply a feature of ourselves that we are labeling.
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"We codify what we see in laws, and terms, but in order for us to test it, then it must be constant."
- incorrect, we KNOW we attribute order because what can be considered to contain order in one instance may not in another.
You may argue that the order is always there and we just havnt recognized it yet, but that explanation would be functionally the same whilst asserting an additional variable (hence not favored by occams razer)
types10000 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@colinb890
"I believe as astronomers find no galaxies, solar systems, or planets capable of supporting life we will realize how unique we are and fine tuning is going to be realized"
- come back when you have some evidence, until then your making baseless assertion.
types10000 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@colinb890
"Are you hinting at a multiverse theory"
- the first part of my statement deals with the multiverse hypothesis while the latter part deals with a single universe.
"Since no actual infinite can exist how can an infinite amount of universes exist? We are left looking for the first cause of all causes, and effects."
- incorrect, the first case argument is incorrect here for the same reason it is with a single universe.
types10000 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@colinb890
@colinb890
"If you suppose we aren't caused by intelligence I would say then no one is truly intelligent"
- yeh...just like how humans (who cant fly) cant possibly build aeroplanes (that can)
- you seem to be employing some kind idiotic inductive fallacy
"and we cannot presuppose intelligence either"
- no, not 'coming from intelligence' doesnt in any way prevent us from defining what intelligence is.
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"If the universe had a beginning, then it had a cause which I believe to be volitional"
- sure, and as far as we know the cause of the universe was big bang singularity. We dont have any evidence of anything before it or that something needs to have caused it (much less something intelligent)
"Matter organizing itself without cause would..."
- incorrect, matter acting in correspondence with the laws of universe is very consistent with logic. Order is something we attribute.
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"I however see the need for a prime mover who loads particles with information, and spent billions of years fine tuning the universe."
- the only universe we know about is our own which it impossible to determine whether the circumstances within it are unlikely or incredibly common; perhaps there is probability of 1 and it couldnt have happened anyother way. In anycase to assert that it's 'fine-tuned' is utterly stupid
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"We definitely agree life was an inevitable result based on information in the particles"
- no, information is the subjective interpretation of data into a meaningful form, it is not 'in the particles'.
- if everything was deterministic from the BB onwards all that t would mean is the the origin of life from inorganic matter.etc would be predetermined, nothing to do with 'information'
"I however see the need for a prime mover who loads particles with information"
- refer to above
types10000 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@colinb890
"How did life initially get started from non-life? ie: What were the pre-cursors to life? If all life evolved from the same conditions why is not all life the same rather than variant?"
- that is abiogenesis not evolution (we dont need to explain where life came from inorder to explain it's diversity anymore than we needed to explain the big bang before explaining gravity)
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"So if life was not a true spontaneous random event, but an outcome beyond our ability to calculate, why did life in any way, shape or form appear at all?"
- why wouldnt it? if we live in a deterministic universe and (had we enough information) every event from the big bang onwards could be modeled and predicted then life was always going to arise.
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"ou being a software engineer would know a true/arbitrary random cannot exist. If I wish to randomize X I must choose a range"
- yessum and evolution doesnt posit that it does. again, i've already explained to you what the use of the word random means.
"What took place billions of years ago to cause these seemingly random events which produced X"
- are you asking for what causes random mutations? because you could probably spend 2 minutes googling it.
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"If it is not driven upwards then why not stay..."
- because certain attributes are favored under certain circumstances (whether the specific set of attrbiutes is simpler or more complex is irrelevant to the fact it is beneficial)
"species is supposed to take on the traits essential to promote itself making it the best fighter"
- NO: other things can take precedence ie. increased muscle mass requires more energy and hence would be selected AGAINST in lean conditions.
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"If it is a favorable gene that is passed on then it is not driven by random mutation, but is an inevetable result"
- no, in science the word 'random' refers to things based on numerous interconnected circumstances whose outcome is beyond our ability to calculate, NOT a spontaneous event with no explanation or cause.
types10000 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Caleb takes it up the ass.
neoyokokurama25 4 months ago
@colinb890
"How have we proved evolution is driven upwards anyway?"
- it's not 'driven upwards' the fact some complex organisms tend to survive better than some simpler organisms is incidental at best. In terms of evolution there is only diversification and whether this diversification is useful, if it is then it is selected for if not then doesnt propagate.
types10000 4 months ago
"If you keep personifying the process by saying natural selection "ensures" you will have to call the process God..."
- incorrect, no part of the process requires intelligence or the supernatural, it's simply a reference to the almost tautological fact that organisms with traits best suited to their environment tend to survive and those less suited tend not to.
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"Evolution is not random mutation"
- i never said it was, i said 'evolution is driven by random mutation and natural selection' which it is.
"It is a favorable gene, or mutation that is passed on to the next generation"
- yes, my statement does not contradict this.
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890
"One last point and I am leaving you to your rhetoric. A mutation sufficient to cause evolution would have caused extinction first unless the species had 'test subjects' in the ballpark of a quadrillion"
- incorrect, natural selection ensures that beneficial mutations accumulate and detrimental mutations do not.
"DNA via mutation can never produce new genetic information"
- bullshit, we've already OBSERVED it.
types10000 4 months ago
"Birds remain birds, dinosaurs remain dinosaurs, etc. "
Given that evolution is driven by random mutation and natural selection and what point would you say it has accumulated enough to mutation to be called anything other than a bird?
the answer is never because 'bird' is a colloquial reference to a taxonomic classification IMPOSED on nature by humans based on ESTABLISHED characteristics. If it grew arms and a fucking dragon tail, we would still have to call it a bird.
types10000 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@colinb890
"It's statistically impossible. While mutation can create variants within a species it does not serve to cause total transition from one type to a totally different type. "
- type just 'kind' is an attempt at a purely artificial distinction that doesnt infact exist.
types10000 4 months ago
@colinb890 i actually deny the reality of evil. There was a dude named Hitler that did horrible thing to many people but it was not driven by evil but by a twisted view of the world. Being of jewish birth doesn'T make anyone better than others or a sickness to the world but Hitler thought that and he convinced the nazis of it. There is no evil in the world, only people doing bad things on big scales. worst: they think they are doing good things. that and mad people
ErgoProxy12345 4 months ago
Hahaha, oh wow. It's that easy to tempt you back into a debate you can't possibly win?
You haven't retracted your statement. You said "Besides, Modifying the DNA via mutation can never produce new genetic information to drive upward evolution..." Studies of E. Coli bacteria have seen this happen. You made a mistake because you didn't do your research. Retract your mistake before scurrying off to hide behind petty distinctions between the small and the large.
Dirdelius 4 months ago
Wow, you must have spent a lot of time typing all these comments. And then you went and said mutation has never produced "new genetic information." This has in fact been observed to happen. Finding out that this has been observed to happen would have taken minutes on Google. Well done, your parting rejoinder serves only to show that you'd rather talk that learn.
Dirdelius 4 months ago
@colinb890 So now you're allowed to just interpret however you want? Lol. I love how religion changes with science. The more science discovers and learns the more religion must change itself to fit it's views. Just 300 years ago if you asked anyone if Genesis was literal they would say YES and then say they also believed it happen. You would be killed for mentioning evolution. It's funny how not it's just "metaphors" and even the Pope has acknowledged evolution. lol.
KingWithoutaCause 4 months ago
@colinb890 You said you read the bible literally. It has talking snakes, people coming from dirt, virgin births, people walking on water, unicorns, and turning water into wine. Lol. I do think that's kind of funny.
KingWithoutaCause 4 months ago 5
9:00 <-- straight to the debate...save yourself 10min of blabber.
Dacurath 4 months ago 18
@Dacurath thanks!
MrSuperFilmBuff 4 months ago
@Dacurath I disagree! The blabber at the beginning pretty much shows that God created football!
tugboat2030 4 months ago in playlist More videos from PrestonwoodCowards
@colinb890 You are obviously not trying to gain knowledge or acknowledge when you are wrong on a subject. You are clearly here to express your point of view and that is it.
KingWithoutaCause 4 months ago
Is it the devil? Blinking behind that right eye of the guy who does the intorduction?
MrPapempo 4 months ago
@colinb890 i personnally don't acknowledge evil as existing. Nothing is good or bad unless you add a point of view. I can sometimes use the word evil to describe something that has bad repercussion to many people and barely and good for anyone but not as in "it comes from satan". you might be tempted to say death is bad but you were not mourning the death of my grand-ma 2 years ago because from your point of view, its a neutral event. Its all based on ponts of view.
ErgoProxy12345 4 months ago
Thou shalt not kill' nor the Golden Rule are christian inventions but logical, reasonable positions that automatically follow from the process civilization. Fish have no morality but even they have developed ways to defend the individual and the group against deadly attackers. Humans are more sophisticated than fish, so we can develop all kind of laws to deter violence and to remove immoral or amoral behaviour (by religious or non-religious people) out of the system. Right?
whauffend 4 months ago
@colinb890 My justification would be to live. Live your life. Be happy. If they really want to kill themselves then go ahead. Who am I to tell people what they can do with their OWN lives? I'd hope that their family or loved ones could talk them out of it. But if not then that's completely their choice not mine. I wouldn't WANT them to kill themselves and I would try to stop them but I can't FORCE my will over theirs.
KingWithoutaCause 4 months ago
@colinb890 Yes it is an OPINION. Lol That's why it's subjective morality. Everyone deserves to live because they are alive. Life is precious. The simple fact that you are breathing is enough for me. I think all people deserve to live. Murder is wrong because you are taking someone else's life. It's that simple. It's completely independent of any god. Lol. It's funny because the majority of murderers believe in a god. Atheist countries have much lower crime rates than America.
KingWithoutaCause 4 months ago
@colinb890 Do I really have to tell you that? Lol. It's wrong because all human beings deserve to live. Not because a book says so. Sweden is a Atheist country and they have a lower crime rate than America.
KingWithoutaCause 4 months ago
@colinb890 I can't tell if you're just joking now. Lol. Based on MY world-view. I would NEVER kill someone because I can't take someone else's life away. Life is precious and everyone deserves to live their life. By me killing someone who doesn't want to die is mean imposing my will on to them. I have no right to impose my will onto anyone who doesn't want it. Even if they want to, I'm not going to take another human beings life, seeing as this is the only one they have.
KingWithoutaCause 4 months ago
@colinb890 Now you are justifying murder. This is what religion does to you. You are so deeply rooted that you can see no wrong in the actions of your god. He could kill babies and you would still be "He sinned and he deserved it." I have more respect for human life than that. I don't care if they "sinned" they don't deserve to die. That's sick. No one has an objective standard of good. It's different everyone where you go. I base mine off of reality and facts.
KingWithoutaCause 4 months ago
@colinb890 So your saying he CHOOSES not to prevent it? Malevolent. No matter how you put it. There is no sin besides murder that you can justify him allowing billions of people to die. Even though I know you're going to try to defend him like a battered housewife. "My husband was angry, he was made because I didn't have dinner on the table at the time he liked, that's why he hit me. He's warned me before but I didn't listen. It's all my fault." That's what it sounds like.
KingWithoutaCause 4 months ago
@colinb890 You just said god "cannot" when ever that is said. You are implying there are things that god can not do. Which means he is not omnipotent. So why worship him? “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” Think about it.
KingWithoutaCause 4 months ago
@colinb890 So god is NOT all powerful. Conversation is over.
KingWithoutaCause 4 months ago
@colinb890 So now your god is confined to mere HUMAN logic? Lol. What happened to all powerful? Your god created the universe correct? Logic applies to the natural universe as we know it correct? So your god created logic correct? Which means he's the one who created evil along with good. So why didn't he just created a world of good? Why would he allow us to suffer? He either likes toying with us or he just doesn't give a fuck.
KingWithoutaCause 4 months ago
@colinb890 Why not? Your god did. He sends people to hell. For something they didn't even do. Your god is an evil sadistic asshole. He FORCES you to praise him otherwise you go to hell. If are a great person who has never harmed anyone, never done anyone any wrong, and lived your life correctly but you don't praise him. You STILL go to hell. He sounds like he has low-self esteem. What kind of all-powerful being would even care about praise? I would never worship such a being.
KingWithoutaCause 4 months ago
@colinb890 So you're saying god offered his kids weed? What a GREAT fucking parent. The problem with your argument is your assuming that good can't exist without evil. But this is not true for your all powerful god correct? So he could have created good without evil. He CHOOSE for their to be evil in the world.
KingWithoutaCause 4 months ago
@colinb890 Do you punish him after the cat has scratched him? Lol. THIS would make you equal to your god. You put him in danger, allow him to hurt himself, then you punish him for hurting himself after you allowed him to do so.
KingWithoutaCause 4 months ago
@colinb890 That's the same thing as Christianity. Which runs on faith. Your religion is no more special than any of the others. You just believe it is. You've obviously been indoctrinated from an early age. I'm guessing your parents were Christian. You're probably going to say "No. My parents were Atheist." knowing it was a lie. But it's OK. Brainwashing isn't something that you can get rid of in a day. Hopefully, you will someday.
KingWithoutaCause 4 months ago
@colinb890 That's different. Allowance and a car have the potential to be GOOD. Giving someone the potential to sin has NO good connotation. Here's a more accurate analogy. If you were to give him drugs and then call the police on him because you gave them to him. If this was the case why would you give him the drug. Just don't give it to him. There was nothing good in that. Only an evil narcissistic dick would do that to his own child.
KingWithoutaCause 4 months ago