There is not little evidence, there is no evidence. Only personal experience. Experience is not a form of evidence no matter how much you nor anyone else believe it does.
I think the more we advance in Science we will find that this universe and many more of them, are not part of a random accident cause by an explosion from nothing. Mind you, I am no longer religious and believe in a man made deity, but the exact order and motion of our planets around a shining star that gives life seems to be more than chance. How does everything move in such a precise way? Where does motion come from? I think a deist approach is way more logical and correct than atheism.
@oldno74 Most things in this life and outside of our own comprehension seem like they're more than chance, but it's best to assume the lack of answers to the questions we have are just that- the lack of an answer; an unknown.
@oldno74 Here's a hyperbolic example to justify this reasoning: Peter was making toast for breakfast. He went out of the kitchen for a few minutes. When Peter returned, he saw he left the toaster on for too long. But, he noticed something funny... The toast burned in the precise shape of a Unicorn horn! He assumed a unicorn must have galloped into the kitchen while he was gone and etched the shape of its own horn into the toast with its sparkle power.
@oldno74 That example was exaggerated to illustrate the basic concept. Peter jumped to conclusions to how the burnt figure on his toast formed. Peter's either highly imaginative, knows little to nothing about the science behind toasters, believes in unicorns, or something else that I can't think of. Whatever his case is, I digress. When one doesn't have the answer to something, it's best to not assume what it is. The answers are out there whether someone has discovered them or not.
@ceciliarrrg I understand exactly what you are saying. We have just begun to scratch the surface of what science is revealing to us. I have no problem saying I don't know how some things have came into being. I look at our universe, the planets, the stars, human beings, countless animals and insects, it's all too beautiful for it to happen by a grand explosion with no creative force behind it. I have no problem if science can prove me wrong. I love science!! Thanks! :-)
Diety seems more logical if you think about it from subjective, human perspective, WITHOUT any knowledge about the REAL thing, just Newton's equations can show you how and that it's far from precise!!! Einstein's work can show you the why of this motion, but it's far beyond you. :P
Look into chaos theory, especially Turing's equations from his paper about morphogenesis, simple rules produce extremely complex patterns.
@YY4Me133 incorrect. The reason everything exists in reality is that it was created by an intelligent being. atheists say everything came around by 'random chance' from dust and matter simply colliding together -totally mathematically impossible it may be they don't have a solution as to where all this matter and energy came from in the first place. the fact everything exists is evidence in our favour as we have a reason as to 'why' it is there. atheists do not have any logical argument already
@TheMunkmeister Your belief in a god isn't evidence that a god exists. That you don't understand cosmology or the Theory of Evolution isn't evidence that a god exists. Your lack of understanding of mathematical probabilites isn't evidence that a god exists. The fact that science doesn't have, and may never have, all the answers isn't evidence that a god exists. That you think you know "why" everything exists is meaningless without evidence, and you have none.
@YY4Me133 Never said it was. on the contrary the mathematical probability that life is all chance is incomprehensible to the human mind- it is you my friend that has a lack of mathematical understanding. survival of the fittest and adapting to ones environment is entirely different to evolution. please respond to my comment about where the origin of matter and energy came from. I have an answer whereas you do not although you expect others to give more credence to your point of view. regards
@TheMunkmeister Your "answer" is meaningless if it's not based on evidence. I said science may never have all the answers, but that's not evidence a god exists. Not knowing the origin of matter and energy is not evidence a god exists. Even if all the evidence for the TOE were thrown out today, that would not be evidence that a god exists. I want evidence *for* the existence of a god, not arguments *against* other things. My atheism is based on there being no evidence for any gods, not science.
@YY4Me133 The ''answer'' IS evidence. Everything that is in existence comes from something that was there before it- be it a plastic tub from oil, oil from creatures millions of years ago, creatures from 'primordial soup' soup from gasses and elements. but when you go back to the very beginning these elements do not owe their existence to themselves. There has to be something that owes its existence from itself or it was created- logically there is NO OTHER EXPLANATION. our existence IS evidence
@YY4Me133 You seem to be skirting the point again.why do we exist and what brought about our existence. Its the same as if an alien came down to earth and came across a car. the car isn't just evidence that cars exist - but also that it had a designer and maker. The car is the evidence that something made it. Our universe is a lot more complicated+beautiful and more designed than a simple car. It cannot be random because of the immense ORDER within it....the order is also evidence for creation
@TheMunkmeister A god is a lot more complicated than our universe, therefore, it must have been created. The problem with postulating a god in the first place is, there's no evidence that such a thing exists. Your, or even scientists', inability to understand and/or explain everything is not evidence for something for which there is no evidence.
@YY4Me133 You have once again avoided answering the point made. Evidence has been provided in a logical and reasoned manner. Your refusal to accept a reasoned and logical approach does you no credit in putting your point across. The first sentence is not what I said and the reasoning is flawed anyway. 3rd sentence-just because I don't know everything doesn't mean I don't know something. 4th sentence - is that your best reasoned approach and evidence? in which case my counter is 'no they cant'
@TheMunkmeister You wrote: "Evidence has been provided in a logical and reasoned manner."
I'm not refusing to accept it. I haven't seen any. I have nothing to prove. I merely reject unfounded claims. I have no emotional attachment to atheism. I don't care if one god or millions of gods exist. Show me actual evidence that a god exists, and I won't be an atheist anymore.
@YY4Me133 Everything that is either owes its existence to something else OR it exists in its own right and of its own right. If there is another line of reasoning then PLEASE blow me out of the water with it! But to say that 'It just exists because it can' is totally ludicrous and illogical.ORDER is also the proof. If the world is totally without design then why does such perfect order come from disorder? Logically it CAN NOT do so. If you don't want to open your mind to reason then dont.regards
@TheMunkmeister You wrote: "If the world is totally without design then why does such perfect order come from disorder?"
That's special pleading, not evidence. I can ask: "If your god is totally without design how did such a perfect being come into existence?" I don't expect you to see it because you've got blinders on. You probably don't even see you're exempting your god from your own standards of "evidence," but I do so I see your "evidence" for what it is: rhetoric.
@YY4Me133 It is clear from your response that you do not have a clue what you are talking about and your refusal to even logically reason through a debate shows that you have an agenda and a closed mind which is exactly what you accuse creationists of having. That is the whole premise of 'God'-he isn't created but exists of his own right. i'll have to end this conversation now - I will have more success banging my head against a brick wall. no offense intended and best regards for the future.
@TheMunkmeister You wrote: "That is the whole premise of 'God'-he isn't created but exists of his own right."
You're funny. I point out that that argument is special pleading (look it up), yet you continue to make it. Perhaps you're too far gone to see the fallacy inherent in your baseless assertion.
@YY4Me133 Ultimately, there is no evidence that god exists, but there's also no evidence that he doesn't. Though, it seems more probable that God doesn't. I say this only because things that have been thought impossible , have happened in this world before. Like the day it snowed in miami, florida. (look it up)
No one really knows. BUT I don't see the issue of God existing or not as a big issue. There are simply much more dire issues closer to home than to argue about that.
@RedCrescentDemon There's no evidence that invisible garden faeries don't exist, either. Unless there's evidence a thing exists, there's no reason to believe it does. We know snow exists, so snow in Florida, while unusual, is not impossible. If you told me Miami was infested with invisible garden faeries, I'd want evidence to back up that claim.
Belief in gods is a problem when it's used to justify interefering with civil rights, science, education, etc.
@YY4Me133 Yes, there is no reason to believe something unproven. But there's also no reason to discard the possibility because there's a lack of evidence stating it cannot happen. I'm just saying that, by keeping possibilities open,one does not surprise oneself when making a discovery and can mentally brace themselves hardier by accepting that it CAN happen, but it most likely won't.
You are correct on belief in gods being a problem with all those things.
@RedCrescentDemon There's no reason to discard what possibility? Any silly idea humans come up with, including gods (thousands of them), invisible garden faeries, the Bogeyman, monsters under the bed, anal-probing extraterrestrials...? I don't have to "brace" myself to deal with new information. I simply have to be open to it. I'm open to evidence for anything, including gods, I just haven't seen evidence that any god(s) exist(s).
@YY4Me133 Yes that's the point I was trying to make. Being open to any new evidence that arrives without letting bias cloud your judgment. Couldn't have said it any better myself.
@YY4Me133 Since those issues are related to human beings and what is the real in which we can interact, the sole basis for decisions based upon those topics should stay within the realm of the human, not on the realm of the gods, myths, campside stories, misc beliefs unrelated to our world.
If more people were to base decisions upon those standards, we would be receiving some REAL positive change in this world.
@YY4Me133 Strictly speaking, the definition of evidence, as defined through a general consensus of online sources, is; "The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." The keyword here would be "or". To further and more precisely illustrate, evidence is the available body of facts OR information. Therefore, theists DO have evidence (however much they have). I think it is more accurate to say they have no EMPIRICAL evidence.
@YY4Me133 Chrysippus of Soli (who was famous for changing the focus of logic from single subject-predicate statements to complex ones) states that the "or" connective and only the "or" connective can be used in the following way: "A cup of tea OR coffee"; "Are you coming out OR not?". With this understanding, one can see how the "raw" definition of the word, "evidence", can be changed to suit its manipulator. (Cont'd)
Based on the aforementioned, a typical theist might assume the definition of the word, "evidence", to instead mean; "The available body of information indicating whether a belief is valid." Therefore, a typical argument for the theist, and a strong one at that (as admitted by Christopher Hitchens himself), would be the "fine tuning" argument. The "evidence" for that argument (in this case), would be the incredible life permitting conditions of the universe. (cont'd)
@metalshredhead1 While I like Christopher Hitchens, if he "admitted" that the "fine tuning" argument is a "strong" one, I have to disagree. Even if the universe seems "fine tuned," that's not evidence that a god had anything to do with it. Theists start with assumption that a god exists, then interpret evidence in such a way as to support their position. That's not following evidence, that's manufacturing evidence.
@YY4Me133 You make a good point, namely that; "Theists start with assumption that a god exists, then interpret evidence in such a way as to support their position." But remember, "evidence" can be defined as, "The available body of information indicating whether a belief is valid." So for example, Derren Brown is able to induce a state of suggestibility where the subject is made to believe he or she is intoxicated and experiences the well known side effects of said state. (cont'd)
Precisely, the fact that if the distance between the earth and the sun were changed as much as a hairs breath, life would cease. This, for the theist, is evidence. Not empirical evidence. But nonetheless, evidence.
@metalshredhead1 Earth's orbit around our sun is elliptical; the distance varies by approximately 3,110,000 miles. That's a bit more than a hair's breadth.
@YY4Me133 Good point. I correct myself in previously stating that "if the distance between the earth and the sun were changed as much as a hairs breath, life would cease." This statement is untrue. I meant to take into account the gravitational constant, not the distance between the earth and sun. Since I am uncertain, I ask the question; would life be permitted if this constant were to change by a hairs breath?
@metalshredhead1 Things exist because they can. If a planet can't support life, it won't. If tholins are, indeed, the precursors of life, and are as abundant as they seem to be, all that's required for life to begin is conditions conducive to the interactions that lead to life forming. That scientists don't have all the answers doesn't make the baseless assertion that an amorphous intellect "spoke" things into existence a valid argument.
@belladonna5012 No projecting...there was a sockpuppet impersonating me which is illegal. I reported him for it. I can cite case after case after case of atheists and evolutionists blatantly lying about creationists/IDers (some are ignorant and duped, but some like PZ Myers, Dawkins, etc. are responsible to know better and are intentional deceivers). Here's an especially despicably dishonest lies by one of the top evolutionists in the country, PZ Myers.
The only group that is constantly searching for their spiritual home are Europeans. The rest of the indigenous world were fine with their spirituality for thousands of years, until they were demonized, displaced and suppressed by Westerners who came with their religious dogma. When the West collapses, the indigenous people will simply resurrect their systems. they are innate within their DNA. You are welcome to come as long as you respect them this time.
Atheists and evolutionists are so scared of facts that they have to impersonate creationists and spew streams of falsehoods to falsely malign them. The below is TruthLsLife7 trying to deceitfully impersonate me, TruthIsLife7. Acts like this are attacks on integrity and hinder truth, rational thought, knowledge and science itself. But, this is what atheism is entirely based on: fallacies, distortions of its rivals, and repression of free thought+emotional reasons to reject evidence.
@belladonna5012 Then go watch my creation-evidence for the flood playlist, the 1st 9 videos (by a former atheist&evolutionist, Dr. Veith with a Ph.D. in zoology and Dr. Wise, Ph.D. from Harvard on what creation science ACTUALLY can and does teach.
@CeaselesslyCurious Atheists consistently reject using accepted standards of rational investigation. Atheism is built almost entirely on fallacies.
EX 2: Almost all religions,even false ones,have far more evidence than atheism. Yet atheists choose to follow the LEAST evidence,not the weight of evidence.
EX 2: When God acts with justice,atheists complain. When God in mercy delays justice.they also complain and condemn. Very immature.
When you read something superficially without understanding
the context or situation, you can misunderstand almost anything.Much that God does in the Bible is because He gave people freedom of choice&so must meet people where they are with their immaturity&misconceptions&lead them step by step closer to His ideal. To slaves, he had to speak quite severely or they would just laugh.Many ancient cultures gave women NO rights&practiced infanticide on girls. God gave Israeli women PHENOMENAL rights comparatively. Very little in the Bible is God's ideal.
@naguleader No, this is not the best video ever. Not even close. The author may be sincere, but to say that we have no physical evidence for the Bible is utter poppycock. We have more evidence for the Bible than many figures and ideas in history. See this playlist on my channel for a TINY bit:
playlist?p=PL4B6FE4A75F8F727E
Countless times the skeptics have condemned the Bible as wrong..and archaeology has confirmed it as right. There is almost nothing with a worse track record than atheism.
@naguleader Um...you need to stop living in a pollyanna fantasy world...I work in academia myself and there is censorship in many fields and it's done to both liberals and conservatives and many academics agree on this...stop living in fantasies.
@BigLundi Of course I know there's a difference...but 2 points:
1) The stance of naturalism, an A PRIORI position that science can never test or point to God when the reality is that there are things we can test about God, is extreme prejudice and bias and censorship, far worse than the wedge document or any creation science position EVER has been.
2) Because of the extreme bias of naturalism, Christians/creationists who do hard science just like others are irrationally banned from publishing.
@TruthIsLife7 1) science isn't naturalism. Science doesn't presume god's nonexistence, nor that there's any impossibility of the supernatural, it just doesn't comment on that. Science focuses on evidence and facts. The Wedge document is an example of doing exactly NOT that.
2) You haven't demonstrated the 'bias' of naturalism. And you're completely wrong. Christians are allowed to publish whatever they want...provided they have evidence to back up their claims.
@BigLundi There may be Christians in govt. but if you hadn't noticed, the views of the founders of America have been direly perverted to ban all religion in govt. and education (something they NEVER EVER intended and this is indisputable).
1) Atheist science explicitly removes evidence and conclusions about God A PRIORI. The wedge document is only trying over come this insane, anti-rational, anti-science bias and get a fair hearing for evidence.
@TruthIsLife7 The founders were mostly deists, not Christians. The separation of church and state is our first amendment. If you think we should live in a theocracy, then that's your opinion. But do not make the claims that this country was founded as such. Freedom is the bedrock of this nation, and that includes freedom from religious oppression.
@BigLundi Anyone who thinks that people can publish whatever they want if they have evidence is either ignorant or intentionally dishonest. Many academics from ALL perspectives agree that there is bias and that good hard evidence is not allowed to be published at times in many fields...as well as people getting demoted,fired, persecuted, etc. This goes for liberals as well as conservatives in fields ranging from linguistics to ID. Anybody who doesn't know this has been badly duped by fantasies.
@TruthIsLife7 Lol, I'm not saying there isn't bias. The peer review process, however, does a very good job of removing that bias from keeping evidence supported works from being published.
Did you watch Expelled? Are you aware that the entire movie is lie after lie?
@BigLundi Peer review is helpful to REDUCING bias...it does not and has never removed it. There's even quite good evidence of prejudice against scientists from 3rd world nations being allowed to publish.
Yes, I watched Expelled,but I knew it's main ideas long before it came out and there is not the slightest truth that it is made up of lie after lie.I have even had personal contact with one of the people mentioned in the film to verify it.Don't just swallow whatever atheist sites say so easily.
Don't worry, their stupid shit always pops up here on the internet for everyone else to test anyways. Science marches on. With the internet, it takes an awkward, but long stride forward.
"Like maggots they had swarmed defilingly over the mystery of Linda's death. Maggots again, but larger, full grown, they now crawled across his grief and his repentance. ...."How many goodly creatures are there here!" The singing words mocked him derisively. "How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world..."
@Evid3nc3 Why do you say NOTHING about the 1-200 million who died at the hands of atheist regimes? When religion uses a govt. to control people's minds that's harmful for sure. But, separating atheism from govt. is FAR more important than separating religion from the state. This is a fact of history.
It is absolutely false that religion has little physical evidence, esp. in contrast to atheism. This is one of the worst misrepresentations of fact in all history.
I'm going to read all of the books you recommended here, even the opposing side. I hate to sound like a broken record, but THANK YOU for all of your hard work on all of your amazing videos. my simple words do not give you justice.
@CeaselesslyCurious If you're going to be objective and rational, you should read the best experts on both sides. That would mean reading the best arguments of atheists as I have done for 1000s of hours...see if their arguments are valid (most are not because if applied consistently to history, science, etc. they would destroy much modern knowledge). Read/watch also the best arguments of theists. See my channel for some good arguments, starting with the channel video&Dr. Hannam's new book.
@CeaselesslyCurious I've done it for literally 1000s of hours..just finished reading Hawkings newest book and also "Your Inner Fish". Tell me, how many hours have you spent watching intellectuals with Ph.Ds. in science, history, etc. list the voluminous evidence for Christianity?
@TruthIsLife7 First of all, I've also read Hawkings,Sagan, Simon Singh and many more, but as far as christianity goes, all I need to do is read the holy bible to know it's completely flawed. Reading it is what made me lose my faith to begin with. Don't concern yourself with my endeavors. You can have your jesus, I can careless. I understand why the bible needs apologetics.
@TruthIsLife7 I've seen plenty of experts and those with PhD's and the like CLAIM that there is evidence for christianity's validity, but to be honest, the only valid evidence I've ever seen, even giving some rather liberal credences, amount to being able to conclude that Jesus probably existed. As far as anything else about Christianity goes, there really is nothing.
@BigLundi With all due respect, you may be intelligent, but since evidence for God is banned or falsely maligned in public life in at least 7 major different ways, you are simply not aware of the evidence. Watch some of the videos on my !Why be a Christian video playlist to see many evidences from science, health, history, logic, philosophy and more. I'm working on a video summarizing some of this. If you watch all ~500 videos on my channel, you won't even get to 1% of the evidence.
@TruthIsLife7 lol, let me ask you something. If evidence for god is banned or falsley maligned...then why aren't you being stopped from posting it up on youtube?
@BigLundi Govt, supreme court, academia&public education all ban religion based on distortions of separation of church&state. America's founders NEVER wanted to exclude religion from govt/schools. They just wanted to prohibit persecution of beliefs.Media ridicules religion, often falsely.Most pastors are not trained in science or history& so don't teach the evidence in churches. Many Christians don't know the evidence&share it. This boils down to a 7 fold dire suppression of evidence.
@BigLundi On youtube, unlike places where atheists are in control, there is no apriori banning of ideas that youtube doesn't like. ALL 22 states where atheism was in charge and many academic fields besides, ban rival evidence A PRIORI as well as persecuting those with different ideas...atheism in power is almost always an enemy of free speech and human rights. While there are admirable individual atheists, atheism in power has been extremely repressive.
@TruthIsLife7 You ARE aware you come off like a conspiracy theorist right?
I mean...I don't agree with that at all. In FACT...the majority of people that are against criticism and free speech seem to be the christians on youtube. All the people I've been blocked by are christians, and ony because I offer dissenting opinion, and I am then called a troll...get it?
@BigLundi There ARE real conspiracies that we have now documented conclusively and all agree...but some that aren't true as well
I've been blocked by quite a lot of atheists on youtube when they didn't like the things I was presenting. But, there are people in all groups who do it. The bigger issue is when systems and govts. ban indisputable and critical facts for THIS life from education. Atheists have done this more than ANYONE.
@TruthIsLife7 Yes, like the Wedge Document...ever heard of that one? Quite a doozy, and it's actually being applied...or at least people are TRYING to apply it.
Christians are in control of the United States...I've literally seen politicians justify their actions by usinng the bible, or god. So...your idea holds no merit that the atheists are in control.
Besides, aren't the Jews supposed to be the ones running the world?
We cannot remove religion from this world. It is a crutch for those with great emotional and mental voids in their life. It is the brain to think for those who do not know (or want) what is best for humanity and our home, the earth. It instills fear in psychopaths, who would kill their enemies at their will, without the judgment of the most high.
Our race cannot sustain free, rational thinking philosophies just yet; but I do admire your best efforts.
Evid3nc3 is quickly becoming my favorite channel on YouTube. It's going to take a while to go through all the videos, but I have yet to come across one that is not mind-blowingly good.
Wow, got a chill down my spine when watching the end of the video. I wonder if it inspires people to actually choose to "help the world" or to learn sciences.
I think.. as an atheist... that the only way for the human race to coexist in peace is if we convert everyone to buddhism... Or create a "religion" just like it and brainwash/teach our children that killing is wrong. Unlike muslims telling their children to kill nonbelievers. I think all religious people and nonbelievers could live in peace without Islam, but with Islam there will NEVER be peace.
you make some good points. at the same time, you seem to be engaging the topic with missionary type zeal. but, can't blame you. good luck. most religions are a real problem. they meet some difficult human needs, however, and people desperately in need of comfort, rules & explanations may never wish to give them up. but they do all to often teach social abuse & conflict, & pose many dangers to the well being of the human population.
Awesome video! My dad particularly liked the part about tyranny. It defeats the arguement that communism was so different from organized religion but still went really wrong.
if life is but perception, then why should this matter? in fact, why does Anything at all matter? it is not understanding this first realm that hurts a lot of the world so much
Pol pot , Lenen , Moa , All atheists that killed millions. There is evidence of creation Man gets into problems when people give others charge of their life , no matter their beliefs. Blaming these problems on a faith in a god is misleading at best.
God isn't the problem , greedy men are.
Get rid of greed and there would be no wars . Good luck with that.
you make some good points here about the negative things religion can sometimes amount to. Even I as a christian am amazed and horrified at some of the awful things that happen all for the sake of beleif which are standing on poor foundations for evidence. Yes I even admit I have litlle or no evidence for my beleifs, however I'm not prepared to part with them yet. we will all make some horrendous decisions religious or not.
@Sophiethefembot You are the first christian I have ever heard say " I even admit I have litlle or no evidence for my beleifs" That is the hardest part for christians. The rest of the magical mystery enlightenment tour bus will lead you to good places.
those that want to discount the fact of free will hate to be responsible for the life they live. I am accountable for the way I live for good or evil.
In my case it's not that I "want to discount the fact of free will", only I find no way to justify free will in a deterministic universe. Thus your irrational generalization does not apply to me.
No wonder it is not easy to understand! The established, eternal, immutable invariant to which all else is related or relative is God. God is the absolute, non-contingent Being. Christians need to understand that science and Christianity can be allies instead of antagonists, especially now as science is willing to admit the relativity, contingency and dependency of the universe. Einstein himself said that "science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."
The presuppositions of this “train of thought” are that all things start with man’s inherent ability and potential. The Humanist Bible (if there is such a book) must surely begin with a different rendering of Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning, man commenced to be everything he could be, and to do what he was convinced he could do. Man willed it all into being by his own self-determination. On the sixth day he created the concept of ‘god’, and the progressive sharing of human cultures
You have no proof the universe is determistic and you would still have to explain what caused the big bang. Who was the big banger? How did the univwerse come about?. Many theists and deists claim that it therefore has a finite age, pointing out that something cannot come from nothing
The philosophical argument here would be that the big bang triggered every single action, and possibly mental thought, through the system of cause and effect.
Thanks for the wall of text with a Wikipedia copy-paste and everything. I'll reply to the only comment that seems to actually be pointed at me. Why do I have to explain or prove how the universe came about? Obviously nobody knows, only some people are making guesses.
The thing is, almost everything we observe can be explained to be a result of the Laws of Physics. What can't be explained, well, the scientists are working on that.
As the Laws of Physics seem to apply to everything we know of, it's only logical to assume that the Laws of Physics apply to even what we can't observe. Note the word "assume". I'm not claiming to know anything for sure, I'm only taking the most logical stance I can think of.
The opposing variety of incompatibilism is indeed indeterministic: it assumes that free will is real and that determinism is false. The incompatibilist free will position is much harder to defend than compatibilism. One might argue in favour of an "agent-causal" with a mind that is metaphysically free. Such dualism risks an infinite regress however, since any overlapping reality is still subject to the standard argument against free will
Those in favour of determinism are variously known as "hard determinists", hard incompatibilists, free will skeptics, illusionists, or impossibilists. They believe that there is no 'free will' and that any sense of the contrary is an illusion.[23] Of course, hard determinists do not deny that one has desires, but say that these desires are predicted by various factors. They often add that, even if morality is incoherent, such an unfortunate result has no effect on the truth.
@noertti by definition, what if our free will is not our own? what if I am a series of perceptions you, and no one else sees? what if all I see is an illusion as well?
Then it is so. But there's no way to know if that's the case. You can only make guesses. I don't like guessing, I'll just stick to the most logical explanation.
In 2011, Dr. Hannam published, “The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution” which the New Scientist calls “Well-researched and hugely enjoyable”. Ruth Francis, Head of Press for Nature says,” It is engaging, informative and I heartily recommend it.” You have been duped by a few authors with severe bias who became popular. Read some articles Dr. Hannam at his site: jameshannamDOTcom (he also has a couple articles posted at infidelweb).
@Evid3nc3 Religion pioneered MOST of the good things you list above&directly led to numerous advances in knowledge and empowerment for human life. Dr. James Hannam with a a Ph.D. in history from Oxford &a Ph.D. in the history of science from Cambridge University wrote “Until very recently, almost everyone believed scientific progress has been held back by religion. But today's historians have realized that, if anything, the popular perception is the opposite of the truth.”
It would not be an exaggeration to say that this video changed my life.
Granted, I was ready to change. To embrace new priorities--critical thinking over subjective experience, finally understanding empirical evidence and the process by which it is evaluated.
But this video presented the ways I could change my life very clearly, reasonably, and beautifully. Thank you.
@ericon52168 I have watched every one of his videos, some of them twice! He is an amazing speaker, and I have never met someone so unflinchingly honest. I just wish I knew when the next installments will be available.
Wow. I am honored that you found the video so powerful and important. I enjoy almost all the comments I receive on videos but comments like these really drive home how much these videos are ultimately worth the effort I put into them.
@TruthIsLife7 Stalin's regime killed well over 20 million, Mao's 40 million for a total of over 60 million not 2 million. Heck you probably lumped Hitler (30 million) in there. Please do your research next time.
Also your comment implies they killed more people because they were more evil. The killers of the past were just as careless about "collateral damage", they didn't exactly stop on their own accord, and genocide is hardly new. The new guys just had almost unbelievably deadlier weapons.
@SuperMerlin100 Oops, meant to say 1-200 million. The latest figures I've seen are Stalin killing ~35 million and Mao about 70 million. Google godandscience atrocities for a summary of some of the research at the University of Hawaii's "Power Kills" project.
How deadly the weapon is doesn't matter much (esp. since most killed were civilians). A sword can kill almost as quickly as a gun. The only difference is a small difference in how much time it takes. The philosophy is what mattered.
@TruthIsLife7 "A sword can kill almost as quickly as a gun." This is nonsense and you know it.
With a sword first you have to get within a few feet of you target and then you might have to get past some defense. With a gun, BANG. Oh and sense this is the 20th century that includes MACHINE GUNS. Then you can add tanks, grenades, military aircraft, chemical weapons ect.
I already addressed the "philosophy". You are claiming that they were more evil and thus did something different. What?
Atheist blame God and religions for a world of war, hate and unjust but many things drive mans desires, would it not be 100% natures fault of mankind itself if you don't believe in God and religions are just another tool man uses within our natural design? I would also argue any strong belief opposing another could cause war and hate the very same, even science vs science.
@ericon52168 But if people did not believe In God or Allah the call for a Crusade or jihad on a nation would be ignored, making these conflicts either impossible or a lot more trouble to carry out for the attacking nation or group.
How do you justify this with logic, reason and science the concept of the basis of our American Freedom that; All Men are created equal? Does not science with evolution and natural selection disagree with this logic and show us it is in fact a dog eat dog world? Where does this assumed theory of all men being created equal come from if not from God? Is this true or just made up to make people be good?
@WILLTHEWGMAN Is that really a serious assertion? Where in any Christian or other Theist holy book does it say that all men are created equal?
Equality in terms of equal value is a philosophical and humanist perspective, not an evolutionary one, though the value of human cooperation is immense from an evolutionary perspective. Of course our skills and talents are not equal, but our rights are, because preserving individual rights is essential in any free society.
Awesome. A lot of people are seeing the same thing guys. It's time to resurrect the enlightenment. It's time for the rational to move beyond atheism and enunciate a clear set of shared values based on reason. An alternative to religion founded on Physical Evidence A Reasoned Logic and the belief that morality is inherent in humanity. Pearlism.
Repent superstition, and reason will set you free!
I agree with everything positive said, but the video needs a little work contrasting some of the lighter text on white backround sections, as it can be hard to read in some points.
In the UK there is a nationwide campaign going on that is promoting science and maths in order to get more young people into the field. And I tell you, this video trumps the ad agency stuff! Well done, superb job!
Comment removed
metalshredhead1 1 day ago
There is not little evidence, there is no evidence. Only personal experience. Experience is not a form of evidence no matter how much you nor anyone else believe it does.
chachee99 4 days ago in playlist Conceptual
I think the more we advance in Science we will find that this universe and many more of them, are not part of a random accident cause by an explosion from nothing. Mind you, I am no longer religious and believe in a man made deity, but the exact order and motion of our planets around a shining star that gives life seems to be more than chance. How does everything move in such a precise way? Where does motion come from? I think a deist approach is way more logical and correct than atheism.
oldno74 1 month ago in playlist Conceptual
@oldno74 Most things in this life and outside of our own comprehension seem like they're more than chance, but it's best to assume the lack of answers to the questions we have are just that- the lack of an answer; an unknown.
ceciliarrrg 1 month ago
@oldno74 Here's a hyperbolic example to justify this reasoning: Peter was making toast for breakfast. He went out of the kitchen for a few minutes. When Peter returned, he saw he left the toaster on for too long. But, he noticed something funny... The toast burned in the precise shape of a Unicorn horn! He assumed a unicorn must have galloped into the kitchen while he was gone and etched the shape of its own horn into the toast with its sparkle power.
ceciliarrrg 1 month ago
@oldno74 That example was exaggerated to illustrate the basic concept. Peter jumped to conclusions to how the burnt figure on his toast formed. Peter's either highly imaginative, knows little to nothing about the science behind toasters, believes in unicorns, or something else that I can't think of. Whatever his case is, I digress. When one doesn't have the answer to something, it's best to not assume what it is. The answers are out there whether someone has discovered them or not.
ceciliarrrg 1 month ago
@ceciliarrrg I understand exactly what you are saying. We have just begun to scratch the surface of what science is revealing to us. I have no problem saying I don't know how some things have came into being. I look at our universe, the planets, the stars, human beings, countless animals and insects, it's all too beautiful for it to happen by a grand explosion with no creative force behind it. I have no problem if science can prove me wrong. I love science!! Thanks! :-)
oldno74 1 month ago
@oldno74
One word - gravity! :)
Diety seems more logical if you think about it from subjective, human perspective, WITHOUT any knowledge about the REAL thing, just Newton's equations can show you how and that it's far from precise!!! Einstein's work can show you the why of this motion, but it's far beyond you. :P
Look into chaos theory, especially Turing's equations from his paper about morphogenesis, simple rules produce extremely complex patterns.
Vejita12 2 weeks ago
@oldno74
"If you want to know about the world, the physical world, to not know mathematics is a severe limitation." - Richard Feynman :)
Vejita12 2 weeks ago
Theists don't have "little evidence," they have *no* evidence.
YY4Me133 5 months ago 21
@YY4Me133 incorrect. The reason everything exists in reality is that it was created by an intelligent being. atheists say everything came around by 'random chance' from dust and matter simply colliding together -totally mathematically impossible it may be they don't have a solution as to where all this matter and energy came from in the first place. the fact everything exists is evidence in our favour as we have a reason as to 'why' it is there. atheists do not have any logical argument already
TheMunkmeister 3 months ago
@TheMunkmeister Your belief in a god isn't evidence that a god exists. That you don't understand cosmology or the Theory of Evolution isn't evidence that a god exists. Your lack of understanding of mathematical probabilites isn't evidence that a god exists. The fact that science doesn't have, and may never have, all the answers isn't evidence that a god exists. That you think you know "why" everything exists is meaningless without evidence, and you have none.
YY4Me133 3 months ago
@YY4Me133 Never said it was. on the contrary the mathematical probability that life is all chance is incomprehensible to the human mind- it is you my friend that has a lack of mathematical understanding. survival of the fittest and adapting to ones environment is entirely different to evolution. please respond to my comment about where the origin of matter and energy came from. I have an answer whereas you do not although you expect others to give more credence to your point of view. regards
TheMunkmeister 3 months ago
@TheMunkmeister Your "answer" is meaningless if it's not based on evidence. I said science may never have all the answers, but that's not evidence a god exists. Not knowing the origin of matter and energy is not evidence a god exists. Even if all the evidence for the TOE were thrown out today, that would not be evidence that a god exists. I want evidence *for* the existence of a god, not arguments *against* other things. My atheism is based on there being no evidence for any gods, not science.
YY4Me133 3 months ago
@YY4Me133 The ''answer'' IS evidence. Everything that is in existence comes from something that was there before it- be it a plastic tub from oil, oil from creatures millions of years ago, creatures from 'primordial soup' soup from gasses and elements. but when you go back to the very beginning these elements do not owe their existence to themselves. There has to be something that owes its existence from itself or it was created- logically there is NO OTHER EXPLANATION. our existence IS evidence
TheMunkmeister 3 months ago
@TheMunkmeister Our existence is evidence we exist, not evidence a god exists.
YY4Me133 3 months ago
@YY4Me133 You seem to be skirting the point again.why do we exist and what brought about our existence. Its the same as if an alien came down to earth and came across a car. the car isn't just evidence that cars exist - but also that it had a designer and maker. The car is the evidence that something made it. Our universe is a lot more complicated+beautiful and more designed than a simple car. It cannot be random because of the immense ORDER within it....the order is also evidence for creation
TheMunkmeister 3 months ago
@TheMunkmeister A god is a lot more complicated than our universe, therefore, it must have been created. The problem with postulating a god in the first place is, there's no evidence that such a thing exists. Your, or even scientists', inability to understand and/or explain everything is not evidence for something for which there is no evidence.
Things exist because they can.
YY4Me133 3 months ago
@YY4Me133 You have once again avoided answering the point made. Evidence has been provided in a logical and reasoned manner. Your refusal to accept a reasoned and logical approach does you no credit in putting your point across. The first sentence is not what I said and the reasoning is flawed anyway. 3rd sentence-just because I don't know everything doesn't mean I don't know something. 4th sentence - is that your best reasoned approach and evidence? in which case my counter is 'no they cant'
TheMunkmeister 3 months ago
@TheMunkmeister You wrote: "Evidence has been provided in a logical and reasoned manner."
I'm not refusing to accept it. I haven't seen any. I have nothing to prove. I merely reject unfounded claims. I have no emotional attachment to atheism. I don't care if one god or millions of gods exist. Show me actual evidence that a god exists, and I won't be an atheist anymore.
YY4Me133 3 months ago
@YY4Me133 Everything that is either owes its existence to something else OR it exists in its own right and of its own right. If there is another line of reasoning then PLEASE blow me out of the water with it! But to say that 'It just exists because it can' is totally ludicrous and illogical.ORDER is also the proof. If the world is totally without design then why does such perfect order come from disorder? Logically it CAN NOT do so. If you don't want to open your mind to reason then dont.regards
TheMunkmeister 3 months ago
@TheMunkmeister You wrote: "If the world is totally without design then why does such perfect order come from disorder?"
That's special pleading, not evidence. I can ask: "If your god is totally without design how did such a perfect being come into existence?" I don't expect you to see it because you've got blinders on. You probably don't even see you're exempting your god from your own standards of "evidence," but I do so I see your "evidence" for what it is: rhetoric.
YY4Me133 3 months ago
@YY4Me133 It is clear from your response that you do not have a clue what you are talking about and your refusal to even logically reason through a debate shows that you have an agenda and a closed mind which is exactly what you accuse creationists of having. That is the whole premise of 'God'-he isn't created but exists of his own right. i'll have to end this conversation now - I will have more success banging my head against a brick wall. no offense intended and best regards for the future.
TheMunkmeister 3 months ago
@TheMunkmeister You wrote: "That is the whole premise of 'God'-he isn't created but exists of his own right."
You're funny. I point out that that argument is special pleading (look it up), yet you continue to make it. Perhaps you're too far gone to see the fallacy inherent in your baseless assertion.
YY4Me133 3 months ago
@YY4Me133 Ultimately, there is no evidence that god exists, but there's also no evidence that he doesn't. Though, it seems more probable that God doesn't. I say this only because things that have been thought impossible , have happened in this world before. Like the day it snowed in miami, florida. (look it up)
No one really knows. BUT I don't see the issue of God existing or not as a big issue. There are simply much more dire issues closer to home than to argue about that.
RedCrescentDemon 1 month ago in playlist More videos from Evid3nc3
@RedCrescentDemon There's no evidence that invisible garden faeries don't exist, either. Unless there's evidence a thing exists, there's no reason to believe it does. We know snow exists, so snow in Florida, while unusual, is not impossible. If you told me Miami was infested with invisible garden faeries, I'd want evidence to back up that claim.
Belief in gods is a problem when it's used to justify interefering with civil rights, science, education, etc.
YY4Me133 1 month ago
@YY4Me133 Yes, there is no reason to believe something unproven. But there's also no reason to discard the possibility because there's a lack of evidence stating it cannot happen. I'm just saying that, by keeping possibilities open,one does not surprise oneself when making a discovery and can mentally brace themselves hardier by accepting that it CAN happen, but it most likely won't.
You are correct on belief in gods being a problem with all those things.
RedCrescentDemon 1 month ago
@RedCrescentDemon There's no reason to discard what possibility? Any silly idea humans come up with, including gods (thousands of them), invisible garden faeries, the Bogeyman, monsters under the bed, anal-probing extraterrestrials...? I don't have to "brace" myself to deal with new information. I simply have to be open to it. I'm open to evidence for anything, including gods, I just haven't seen evidence that any god(s) exist(s).
YY4Me133 1 month ago 8
@YY4Me133 Yes that's the point I was trying to make. Being open to any new evidence that arrives without letting bias cloud your judgment. Couldn't have said it any better myself.
RedCrescentDemon 1 month ago
@YY4Me133 Since those issues are related to human beings and what is the real in which we can interact, the sole basis for decisions based upon those topics should stay within the realm of the human, not on the realm of the gods, myths, campside stories, misc beliefs unrelated to our world.
If more people were to base decisions upon those standards, we would be receiving some REAL positive change in this world.
RedCrescentDemon 1 month ago
Comment removed
metalshredhead1 4 days ago in playlist Conceptual
This has been flagged as spam show
@YY4Me133 Strictly speaking, the definition of evidence, as defined through a general consensus of online sources, is; "The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." The keyword here would be "or". To further and more precisely illustrate, evidence is the available body of facts OR information. Therefore, theists DO have evidence (however much they have). I think it is more accurate to say they have no EMPIRICAL evidence.
metalshredhead1 4 days ago in playlist Conceptual
@metalshredhead1 What evidence? Feelings? "Personal experience?" Desire? Fear? I've seen no evidence of any kind that indicates a god exists.
YY4Me133 3 days ago
@YY4Me133 Chrysippus of Soli (who was famous for changing the focus of logic from single subject-predicate statements to complex ones) states that the "or" connective and only the "or" connective can be used in the following way: "A cup of tea OR coffee"; "Are you coming out OR not?". With this understanding, one can see how the "raw" definition of the word, "evidence", can be changed to suit its manipulator. (Cont'd)
metalshredhead1 3 days ago
@YY4Me133 (Cont'd)
Based on the aforementioned, a typical theist might assume the definition of the word, "evidence", to instead mean; "The available body of information indicating whether a belief is valid." Therefore, a typical argument for the theist, and a strong one at that (as admitted by Christopher Hitchens himself), would be the "fine tuning" argument. The "evidence" for that argument (in this case), would be the incredible life permitting conditions of the universe. (cont'd)
metalshredhead1 3 days ago
@metalshredhead1 While I like Christopher Hitchens, if he "admitted" that the "fine tuning" argument is a "strong" one, I have to disagree. Even if the universe seems "fine tuned," that's not evidence that a god had anything to do with it. Theists start with assumption that a god exists, then interpret evidence in such a way as to support their position. That's not following evidence, that's manufacturing evidence.
YY4Me133 3 days ago
@YY4Me133 You make a good point, namely that; "Theists start with assumption that a god exists, then interpret evidence in such a way as to support their position." But remember, "evidence" can be defined as, "The available body of information indicating whether a belief is valid." So for example, Derren Brown is able to induce a state of suggestibility where the subject is made to believe he or she is intoxicated and experiences the well known side effects of said state. (cont'd)
metalshredhead1 3 days ago
@YY4Me133 (cont'd)
Precisely, the fact that if the distance between the earth and the sun were changed as much as a hairs breath, life would cease. This, for the theist, is evidence. Not empirical evidence. But nonetheless, evidence.
metalshredhead1 3 days ago
@metalshredhead1 Earth's orbit around our sun is elliptical; the distance varies by approximately 3,110,000 miles. That's a bit more than a hair's breadth.
YY4Me133 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@YY4Me133 Good point. I correct myself in previously stating that "if the distance between the earth and the sun were changed as much as a hairs breath, life would cease." This statement is untrue. I meant to take into account the gravitational constant, not the distance between the earth and sun. Since I am uncertain, I ask the question; would life be permitted if this constant were to change by a hairs breath?
metalshredhead1 3 days ago
@metalshredhead1 Things exist because they can. If a planet can't support life, it won't. If tholins are, indeed, the precursors of life, and are as abundant as they seem to be, all that's required for life to begin is conditions conducive to the interactions that lead to life forming. That scientists don't have all the answers doesn't make the baseless assertion that an amorphous intellect "spoke" things into existence a valid argument.
YY4Me133 2 days ago
@belladonna5012 No projecting...there was a sockpuppet impersonating me which is illegal. I reported him for it. I can cite case after case after case of atheists and evolutionists blatantly lying about creationists/IDers (some are ignorant and duped, but some like PZ Myers, Dawkins, etc. are responsible to know better and are intentional deceivers). Here's an especially despicably dishonest lies by one of the top evolutionists in the country, PZ Myers.
watch?v=QsFVGCuZQe0
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
Comment removed
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
The only group that is constantly searching for their spiritual home are Europeans. The rest of the indigenous world were fine with their spirituality for thousands of years, until they were demonized, displaced and suppressed by Westerners who came with their religious dogma. When the West collapses, the indigenous people will simply resurrect their systems. they are innate within their DNA. You are welcome to come as long as you respect them this time.
seekingjustthefacts 6 months ago
@seekingjustthefacts Their spirituality is innate with their DNA *what the shit*
I don't think you know how DNA works and you should stop pretending you do
belladonna5012 5 months ago
The quality in these videos is unseen outside of videos you have to buy.
TheBiAtheist 6 months ago
Atheists and evolutionists are so scared of facts that they have to impersonate creationists and spew streams of falsehoods to falsely malign them. The below is TruthLsLife7 trying to deceitfully impersonate me, TruthIsLife7. Acts like this are attacks on integrity and hinder truth, rational thought, knowledge and science itself. But, this is what atheism is entirely based on: fallacies, distortions of its rivals, and repression of free thought+emotional reasons to reject evidence.
TruthIsLife7 6 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 projecting much boyo
belladonna5012 5 months ago
@belladonna5012 Then go watch my creation-evidence for the flood playlist, the 1st 9 videos (by a former atheist&evolutionist, Dr. Veith with a Ph.D. in zoology and Dr. Wise, Ph.D. from Harvard on what creation science ACTUALLY can and does teach.
/user/TruthIsLife7#g/c/14FDE276E5C97E24
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
Comment removed
TruthIsLife7 6 months ago
Comment removed
aciddmc 7 months ago
@CeaselesslyCurious Atheists consistently reject using accepted standards of rational investigation. Atheism is built almost entirely on fallacies.
EX 2: Almost all religions,even false ones,have far more evidence than atheism. Yet atheists choose to follow the LEAST evidence,not the weight of evidence.
EX 2: When God acts with justice,atheists complain. When God in mercy delays justice.they also complain and condemn. Very immature.
When you read something superficially without understanding
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
the context or situation, you can misunderstand almost anything.Much that God does in the Bible is because He gave people freedom of choice&so must meet people where they are with their immaturity&misconceptions&lead them step by step closer to His ideal. To slaves, he had to speak quite severely or they would just laugh.Many ancient cultures gave women NO rights&practiced infanticide on girls. God gave Israeli women PHENOMENAL rights comparatively. Very little in the Bible is God's ideal.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
whats the soundtrack to this video?
vitalinful 8 months ago
best video ever
naguleader 8 months ago
@naguleader No, this is not the best video ever. Not even close. The author may be sincere, but to say that we have no physical evidence for the Bible is utter poppycock. We have more evidence for the Bible than many figures and ideas in history. See this playlist on my channel for a TINY bit:
playlist?p=PL4B6FE4A75F8F727E
Countless times the skeptics have condemned the Bible as wrong..and archaeology has confirmed it as right. There is almost nothing with a worse track record than atheism.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 haha no, good try
naguleader 7 months ago
@naguleader Um...you need to stop living in a pollyanna fantasy world...I work in academia myself and there is censorship in many fields and it's done to both liberals and conservatives and many academics agree on this...stop living in fantasies.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Censorship and not letting demonstrably wrong things be published in credible journals are two different things. You know this, right?
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi Of course I know there's a difference...but 2 points:
1) The stance of naturalism, an A PRIORI position that science can never test or point to God when the reality is that there are things we can test about God, is extreme prejudice and bias and censorship, far worse than the wedge document or any creation science position EVER has been.
2) Because of the extreme bias of naturalism, Christians/creationists who do hard science just like others are irrationally banned from publishing.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 1) science isn't naturalism. Science doesn't presume god's nonexistence, nor that there's any impossibility of the supernatural, it just doesn't comment on that. Science focuses on evidence and facts. The Wedge document is an example of doing exactly NOT that.
2) You haven't demonstrated the 'bias' of naturalism. And you're completely wrong. Christians are allowed to publish whatever they want...provided they have evidence to back up their claims.
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi There may be Christians in govt. but if you hadn't noticed, the views of the founders of America have been direly perverted to ban all religion in govt. and education (something they NEVER EVER intended and this is indisputable).
1) Atheist science explicitly removes evidence and conclusions about God A PRIORI. The wedge document is only trying over come this insane, anti-rational, anti-science bias and get a fair hearing for evidence.
2) Sorry, but you are unaware of reality.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 The founders were mostly deists, not Christians. The separation of church and state is our first amendment. If you think we should live in a theocracy, then that's your opinion. But do not make the claims that this country was founded as such. Freedom is the bedrock of this nation, and that includes freedom from religious oppression.
NinetytoFirst 7 months ago
@BigLundi Anyone who thinks that people can publish whatever they want if they have evidence is either ignorant or intentionally dishonest. Many academics from ALL perspectives agree that there is bias and that good hard evidence is not allowed to be published at times in many fields...as well as people getting demoted,fired, persecuted, etc. This goes for liberals as well as conservatives in fields ranging from linguistics to ID. Anybody who doesn't know this has been badly duped by fantasies.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Lol, I'm not saying there isn't bias. The peer review process, however, does a very good job of removing that bias from keeping evidence supported works from being published.
Did you watch Expelled? Are you aware that the entire movie is lie after lie?
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi Peer review is helpful to REDUCING bias...it does not and has never removed it. There's even quite good evidence of prejudice against scientists from 3rd world nations being allowed to publish.
Yes, I watched Expelled,but I knew it's main ideas long before it came out and there is not the slightest truth that it is made up of lie after lie.I have even had personal contact with one of the people mentioned in the film to verify it.Don't just swallow whatever atheist sites say so easily.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Didn't say it DID remove bias.
I'm not talking about 'atheist sites' which one did you meet?
BigLundi 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7
Don't worry, their stupid shit always pops up here on the internet for everyone else to test anyways. Science marches on. With the internet, it takes an awkward, but long stride forward.
BeBoBli 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 What are you even talking about? lol
I'll go watch your playlist bro, and if they are dumb then I will comment on them and say they are dumb :)
naguleader 7 months ago
All hail Ford day!
"Orgy-porgy, Ford and fun,
Kiss the girls and make them One.
Boys at one with girls at peace;
Orgy-porgy gives release."
-A brave new world, page 84
"Like maggots they had swarmed defilingly over the mystery of Linda's death. Maggots again, but larger, full grown, they now crawled across his grief and his repentance. ...."How many goodly creatures are there here!" The singing words mocked him derisively. "How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world..."
brave new world 209
filmjunkie998 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Evid3nc3 Why do you say NOTHING about the 1-200 million who died at the hands of atheist regimes? When religion uses a govt. to control people's minds that's harmful for sure. But, separating atheism from govt. is FAR more important than separating religion from the state. This is a fact of history.
It is absolutely false that religion has little physical evidence, esp. in contrast to atheism. This is one of the worst misrepresentations of fact in all history.
TruthIsLife7 9 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Stalinist killed (misguidedly) in the names of communism, the state, and themselves. They thought theism was in the way.
The NAZIs killed in the names of racial purity, and the state. (NAZI Germany was mostly Catholic at the time.)
The communist party of China more or less the same as the Stalinists.
SuperMerlin100 9 months ago
As an agnostic, I thought I had everything figured out...but this made me really think...
SteroidMcbeefy 9 months ago
Excellent!
Largo64 9 months ago
I'm going to read all of the books you recommended here, even the opposing side. I hate to sound like a broken record, but THANK YOU for all of your hard work on all of your amazing videos. my simple words do not give you justice.
CeaselesslyCurious 10 months ago
@CeaselesslyCurious If you're going to be objective and rational, you should read the best experts on both sides. That would mean reading the best arguments of atheists as I have done for 1000s of hours...see if their arguments are valid (most are not because if applied consistently to history, science, etc. they would destroy much modern knowledge). Read/watch also the best arguments of theists. See my channel for some good arguments, starting with the channel video&Dr. Hannam's new book.
TruthIsLife7 9 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Yeah, that's what i meant about reading the opposing side. You should do the same.
CeaselesslyCurious 9 months ago
@CeaselesslyCurious I've done it for literally 1000s of hours..just finished reading Hawkings newest book and also "Your Inner Fish". Tell me, how many hours have you spent watching intellectuals with Ph.Ds. in science, history, etc. list the voluminous evidence for Christianity?
TruthIsLife7 9 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 First of all, I've also read Hawkings,Sagan, Simon Singh and many more, but as far as christianity goes, all I need to do is read the holy bible to know it's completely flawed. Reading it is what made me lose my faith to begin with. Don't concern yourself with my endeavors. You can have your jesus, I can careless. I understand why the bible needs apologetics.
CeaselesslyCurious 9 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 I've seen plenty of experts and those with PhD's and the like CLAIM that there is evidence for christianity's validity, but to be honest, the only valid evidence I've ever seen, even giving some rather liberal credences, amount to being able to conclude that Jesus probably existed. As far as anything else about Christianity goes, there really is nothing.
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi With all due respect, you may be intelligent, but since evidence for God is banned or falsely maligned in public life in at least 7 major different ways, you are simply not aware of the evidence. Watch some of the videos on my !Why be a Christian video playlist to see many evidences from science, health, history, logic, philosophy and more. I'm working on a video summarizing some of this. If you watch all ~500 videos on my channel, you won't even get to 1% of the evidence.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 lol, let me ask you something. If evidence for god is banned or falsley maligned...then why aren't you being stopped from posting it up on youtube?
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi Govt, supreme court, academia&public education all ban religion based on distortions of separation of church&state. America's founders NEVER wanted to exclude religion from govt/schools. They just wanted to prohibit persecution of beliefs.Media ridicules religion, often falsely.Most pastors are not trained in science or history& so don't teach the evidence in churches. Many Christians don't know the evidence&share it. This boils down to a 7 fold dire suppression of evidence.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TruthIsLife7 So you think that Christianity is true. Great. What parts specifically?
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi On youtube, unlike places where atheists are in control, there is no apriori banning of ideas that youtube doesn't like. ALL 22 states where atheism was in charge and many academic fields besides, ban rival evidence A PRIORI as well as persecuting those with different ideas...atheism in power is almost always an enemy of free speech and human rights. While there are admirable individual atheists, atheism in power has been extremely repressive.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 You ARE aware you come off like a conspiracy theorist right?
I mean...I don't agree with that at all. In FACT...the majority of people that are against criticism and free speech seem to be the christians on youtube. All the people I've been blocked by are christians, and ony because I offer dissenting opinion, and I am then called a troll...get it?
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi There ARE real conspiracies that we have now documented conclusively and all agree...but some that aren't true as well
I've been blocked by quite a lot of atheists on youtube when they didn't like the things I was presenting. But, there are people in all groups who do it. The bigger issue is when systems and govts. ban indisputable and critical facts for THIS life from education. Atheists have done this more than ANYONE.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Yes, like the Wedge Document...ever heard of that one? Quite a doozy, and it's actually being applied...or at least people are TRYING to apply it.
Christians are in control of the United States...I've literally seen politicians justify their actions by usinng the bible, or god. So...your idea holds no merit that the atheists are in control.
Besides, aren't the Jews supposed to be the ones running the world?
BigLundi 7 months ago
Excellent.
naguleader 11 months ago
We cannot remove religion from this world. It is a crutch for those with great emotional and mental voids in their life. It is the brain to think for those who do not know (or want) what is best for humanity and our home, the earth. It instills fear in psychopaths, who would kill their enemies at their will, without the judgment of the most high.
Our race cannot sustain free, rational thinking philosophies just yet; but I do admire your best efforts.
GAFC
GetAFuckinClue 11 months ago
Loved the video, want to see more like this!
anthonyhiscox 11 months ago
According to laws of conservation of everything universe must be equal to zero.
whatever you make if pow make equal amounts of positive and negative value.
this means it is absolutely not important what you do everything is completely meaningless as whole.
deltaxcd 11 months ago
@deltaxcd
Nonsensical assertion a.
If a, nonsensical assertion b.
Therefore, erroneous conclusion.
Sounds good to me.
Juhsayngul 11 months ago
@Juhsayngul
then you do not accept energy momentum charge and other conservation laws?
if you think energy conservation law is correct universe as whole must have zero mass or else it cant pop into existence.
deltaxcd 11 months ago
Evid3nc3 is quickly becoming my favorite channel on YouTube. It's going to take a while to go through all the videos, but I have yet to come across one that is not mind-blowingly good.
Keep it up :D
Polymeron 1 year ago
Wow, got a chill down my spine when watching the end of the video. I wonder if it inspires people to actually choose to "help the world" or to learn sciences.
BjornSeverinLarsen 1 year ago
*feels hyped* ... Ok tomorrow ill get my lazy bum up and help the world by developing a cure for cancer.... ya right xD
Dasmaster1 1 year ago
Fantastic video, the music hits just the right note.
Pushtrak 1 year ago
Why did you forget Judaism?
Forkroute 1 year ago
I think.. as an atheist... that the only way for the human race to coexist in peace is if we convert everyone to buddhism... Or create a "religion" just like it and brainwash/teach our children that killing is wrong. Unlike muslims telling their children to kill nonbelievers. I think all religious people and nonbelievers could live in peace without Islam, but with Islam there will NEVER be peace.
FreedomResistance 1 year ago
you make some good points. at the same time, you seem to be engaging the topic with missionary type zeal. but, can't blame you. good luck. most religions are a real problem. they meet some difficult human needs, however, and people desperately in need of comfort, rules & explanations may never wish to give them up. but they do all to often teach social abuse & conflict, & pose many dangers to the well being of the human population.
lamaddussa 1 year ago
bacon would be a better alternative
lefseleif 1 year ago
Awesome video! My dad particularly liked the part about tyranny. It defeats the arguement that communism was so different from organized religion but still went really wrong.
Choirathlete 1 year ago
my answer:
if life is but perception, then why should this matter? in fact, why does Anything at all matter? it is not understanding this first realm that hurts a lot of the world so much
darksminky 1 year ago
This would be even better with narration.
PeterRabbitTV 1 year ago
Pol pot , Lenen , Moa , All atheists that killed millions. There is evidence of creation Man gets into problems when people give others charge of their life , no matter their beliefs. Blaming these problems on a faith in a god is misleading at best.
God isn't the problem , greedy men are.
Get rid of greed and there would be no wars . Good luck with that.
hellavadeal 1 year ago
@hellavadeal "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" :)
spydrebyte 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@spydrebyte
Power corrupts and absolute power
Love one another and submit your life to God and you will not become corrupt.
SuperTruthlover 1 year ago
@hellavadeal
God isn't the problem , greedy men are.
When men have no reason to be good to their fellow man those men suffer!
SuperTruthlover 1 year ago
what happened during the violent missionaries?
OnePresidentOfPeace 1 year ago
awsome thankyou :)
spydrebyte 1 year ago
"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is its faithful servant.
We have created a society the honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."
Albert Einstein
How funny to me that it is the atheist that always deny the intuitive mind has value.
Free thinkers my ass LOL
SuperTruthlover 1 year ago
Two words on this: f*cking win.
Azotadeth 1 year ago
awesome video!!! I liked it a lot! great work! Please make more!
Pharaoh481 1 year ago
you make some good points here about the negative things religion can sometimes amount to. Even I as a christian am amazed and horrified at some of the awful things that happen all for the sake of beleif which are standing on poor foundations for evidence. Yes I even admit I have litlle or no evidence for my beleifs, however I'm not prepared to part with them yet. we will all make some horrendous decisions religious or not.
Sophiethefembot 1 year ago
@Sophiethefembot You are the first christian I have ever heard say " I even admit I have litlle or no evidence for my beleifs" That is the hardest part for christians. The rest of the magical mystery enlightenment tour bus will lead you to good places.
cvd316316 1 year ago
I'm curious as to what Evid3nc3 thinks of eastern religions like Buddhism or Taoism.
BigBobsh2o 1 year ago
@Evid3nc3 Very well done.
GodofCider 1 year ago
Wow, you have some sort of magnetism in you.
Well done.
I would like to translate some of your videos in Italian.
I will be searching for the books you propose hoping it will increase my knowledge.
saintpine 1 year ago
This is an excellent video.
ericaj58 1 year ago
Excellent vid, thanks for putting so much effort into it.
holzpusher 1 year ago
Great video.
goddom 1 year ago
I liked one question particularly:
"How can we justify free will in a deterministic universe?"
Do you have an answer to that? Because I don't.
noertti 1 year ago 3
@noertti
Simon Blackburn's answer in Think: A Compelling Introduction to Philosophy is pretty good, actually. Maybe I will present it someday in a video.
Evid3nc3 1 year ago
@noertti B/c technically free will is an illusion. There is no need for the concept of free will.
cvd316316 1 year ago
@noertti
those that want to discount the fact of free will hate to be responsible for the life they live. I am accountable for the way I live for good or evil.
How about you?
SuperTruthlover 1 year ago
@SuperTruthlover
How about me?
In my case it's not that I "want to discount the fact of free will", only I find no way to justify free will in a deterministic universe. Thus your irrational generalization does not apply to me.
noertti 1 year ago
@noertti
No wonder it is not easy to understand! The established, eternal, immutable invariant to which all else is related or relative is God. God is the absolute, non-contingent Being. Christians need to understand that science and Christianity can be allies instead of antagonists, especially now as science is willing to admit the relativity, contingency and dependency of the universe. Einstein himself said that "science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."
SuperTruthlover 1 year ago
@noertti
The presuppositions of this “train of thought” are that all things start with man’s inherent ability and potential. The Humanist Bible (if there is such a book) must surely begin with a different rendering of Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning, man commenced to be everything he could be, and to do what he was convinced he could do. Man willed it all into being by his own self-determination. On the sixth day he created the concept of ‘god’, and the progressive sharing of human cultures
SuperTruthlover 1 year ago
@noertti
You have no proof the universe is determistic and you would still have to explain what caused the big bang. Who was the big banger? How did the univwerse come about?. Many theists and deists claim that it therefore has a finite age, pointing out that something cannot come from nothing
The philosophical argument here would be that the big bang triggered every single action, and possibly mental thought, through the system of cause and effect.
SuperTruthlover 1 year ago
@SuperTruthlover
Thanks for the wall of text with a Wikipedia copy-paste and everything. I'll reply to the only comment that seems to actually be pointed at me. Why do I have to explain or prove how the universe came about? Obviously nobody knows, only some people are making guesses.
The thing is, almost everything we observe can be explained to be a result of the Laws of Physics. What can't be explained, well, the scientists are working on that.
noertti 1 year ago
@SuperTruthlover
As the Laws of Physics seem to apply to everything we know of, it's only logical to assume that the Laws of Physics apply to even what we can't observe. Note the word "assume". I'm not claiming to know anything for sure, I'm only taking the most logical stance I can think of.
noertti 1 year ago
@noertti
The opposing variety of incompatibilism is indeed indeterministic: it assumes that free will is real and that determinism is false. The incompatibilist free will position is much harder to defend than compatibilism. One might argue in favour of an "agent-causal" with a mind that is metaphysically free. Such dualism risks an infinite regress however, since any overlapping reality is still subject to the standard argument against free will
SuperTruthlover 1 year ago
@noertti
Those in favour of determinism are variously known as "hard determinists", hard incompatibilists, free will skeptics, illusionists, or impossibilists. They believe that there is no 'free will' and that any sense of the contrary is an illusion.[23] Of course, hard determinists do not deny that one has desires, but say that these desires are predicted by various factors. They often add that, even if morality is incoherent, such an unfortunate result has no effect on the truth.
SuperTruthlover 1 year ago
@noertti
You have not any evindece the universe is deterministic and have no idea what caused th big bang, Do you?
SuperTruthlover 1 year ago
@SuperTruthlover
You didn't understand anything I wrote? I am disappoint.
noertti 1 year ago
@noertti
I am disappoint.
I know you are and that disappoints me.LOL
SuperTruthlover 1 year ago
@noertti by definition, what if our free will is not our own? what if I am a series of perceptions you, and no one else sees? what if all I see is an illusion as well?
darksminky 1 year ago
@darksminky
Then it is so. But there's no way to know if that's the case. You can only make guesses. I don't like guessing, I'll just stick to the most logical explanation.
noertti 1 year ago
@noertti How could we justify suppresision, deterministic universe doesn't relate to the human.
Alexon88 1 year ago
In 2011, Dr. Hannam published, “The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution” which the New Scientist calls “Well-researched and hugely enjoyable”. Ruth Francis, Head of Press for Nature says,” It is engaging, informative and I heartily recommend it.” You have been duped by a few authors with severe bias who became popular. Read some articles Dr. Hannam at his site: jameshannamDOTcom (he also has a couple articles posted at infidelweb).
TruthIsLife7 10 months ago
@Evid3nc3 Religion pioneered MOST of the good things you list above&directly led to numerous advances in knowledge and empowerment for human life. Dr. James Hannam with a a Ph.D. in history from Oxford &a Ph.D. in the history of science from Cambridge University wrote “Until very recently, almost everyone believed scientific progress has been held back by religion. But today's historians have realized that, if anything, the popular perception is the opposite of the truth.”
TruthIsLife7 10 months ago
It would not be an exaggeration to say that this video changed my life.
Granted, I was ready to change. To embrace new priorities--critical thinking over subjective experience, finally understanding empirical evidence and the process by which it is evaluated.
But this video presented the ways I could change my life very clearly, reasonably, and beautifully. Thank you.
KaraRvn 1 year ago 18
@KaraRvn you should watch Evid3nc3's "Why i am no longer a Christain" series
esp. the deconversion part
he tells stories so well that i really cannot describe the beauty of it percisely
ericon52168 1 year ago
@ericon52168 I have watched every one of his videos, some of them twice! He is an amazing speaker, and I have never met someone so unflinchingly honest. I just wish I knew when the next installments will be available.
KaraRvn 1 year ago
@KaraRvn
Wow. I am honored that you found the video so powerful and important. I enjoy almost all the comments I receive on videos but comments like these really drive home how much these videos are ultimately worth the effort I put into them.
Evid3nc3 1 year ago 10
@Evid3nc3 *smiles* "The work will be hard, the nights will be long, but the answers you find may change the world."
Sign me up! ;-)
KaraRvn 1 year ago
@Evid3nc3 Actually you made my life more worthy too. I feel very good since I saw your videos. It changed my life.
Alexon88 1 year ago
Comment removed
TruthIsLife7 10 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Stalin's regime killed well over 20 million, Mao's 40 million for a total of over 60 million not 2 million. Heck you probably lumped Hitler (30 million) in there. Please do your research next time.
Also your comment implies they killed more people because they were more evil. The killers of the past were just as careless about "collateral damage", they didn't exactly stop on their own accord, and genocide is hardly new. The new guys just had almost unbelievably deadlier weapons.
SuperMerlin100 9 months ago
@SuperMerlin100 Oops, meant to say 1-200 million. The latest figures I've seen are Stalin killing ~35 million and Mao about 70 million. Google godandscience atrocities for a summary of some of the research at the University of Hawaii's "Power Kills" project.
How deadly the weapon is doesn't matter much (esp. since most killed were civilians). A sword can kill almost as quickly as a gun. The only difference is a small difference in how much time it takes. The philosophy is what mattered.
TruthIsLife7 9 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 "A sword can kill almost as quickly as a gun." This is nonsense and you know it.
With a sword first you have to get within a few feet of you target and then you might have to get past some defense. With a gun, BANG. Oh and sense this is the 20th century that includes MACHINE GUNS. Then you can add tanks, grenades, military aircraft, chemical weapons ect.
I already addressed the "philosophy". You are claiming that they were more evil and thus did something different. What?
SuperMerlin100 9 months ago
Atheist blame God and religions for a world of war, hate and unjust but many things drive mans desires, would it not be 100% natures fault of mankind itself if you don't believe in God and religions are just another tool man uses within our natural design? I would also argue any strong belief opposing another could cause war and hate the very same, even science vs science.
WILLTHEWGMAN 1 year ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN
well i myself didnt blame religion for the war
it's merely a tool to mobilize poeple to join the war
and the real moltivation after those are actually the sins that Xian faith are shunning
ironic, eh?
there you go
i am an Atheist
i dont blame God and religions for a world of war
i do think religions are just another tool to blow your mind
and i cant understand your final statement... could be my fault, and if that is the case i am sorry...
ericon52168 1 year ago
@ericon52168 But if people did not believe In God or Allah the call for a Crusade or jihad on a nation would be ignored, making these conflicts either impossible or a lot more trouble to carry out for the attacking nation or group.
makka432 1 year ago
@makka432
a whole lot of troble yes
but when someone's in power covet things like wealth and power etc
the hell you can stop them!
hitler was NOT an atheist , right
but the cause of his war was about race , not about religion
but yes
religion did make all the proccess a hell lot easier , thats for sure
ericon52168 1 year ago
@ericon52168
How do you justify this with logic, reason and science the concept of the basis of our American Freedom that; All Men are created equal? Does not science with evolution and natural selection disagree with this logic and show us it is in fact a dog eat dog world? Where does this assumed theory of all men being created equal come from if not from God? Is this true or just made up to make people be good?
WILLTHEWGMAN 1 year ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN Is that really a serious assertion? Where in any Christian or other Theist holy book does it say that all men are created equal?
Equality in terms of equal value is a philosophical and humanist perspective, not an evolutionary one, though the value of human cooperation is immense from an evolutionary perspective. Of course our skills and talents are not equal, but our rights are, because preserving individual rights is essential in any free society.
KaraRvn 1 year ago
nice vid
i noticed how you avoid the term "science"
which probaly is a good decision for most (not all) religious poeple are basicly allergic to that specific word
not that they know what does that mean tho...
ericon52168 1 year ago
Amazing video. Just inspired me to kick myself into high gear to finish out this semester.
5 Stars.
Estexan07 1 year ago
one word. Amazing. Definately beats the ad-men
dzhao888 1 year ago
Awesome. A lot of people are seeing the same thing guys. It's time to resurrect the enlightenment. It's time for the rational to move beyond atheism and enunciate a clear set of shared values based on reason. An alternative to religion founded on Physical Evidence A Reasoned Logic and the belief that morality is inherent in humanity. Pearlism.
Repent superstition, and reason will set you free!
nothingUnrealExists 1 year ago
1:08 *when we base our greatest moral decisions
anthonzi 1 year ago
Wow, amazing video.
mikeyfbi 1 year ago
Sorry to be negative :(
I agree with everything positive said, but the video needs a little work contrasting some of the lighter text on white backround sections, as it can be hard to read in some points.
A++++++ though, You should have this as a job!
jaecp5 1 year ago
Amazing. Inspiring. Potentially life changing.
MrVikingKing 1 year ago 4
Seriously! You have some of the most badass videos on YouTube! Why isnt your shit on TV???
SteveIsTheMan1990 1 year ago 5
This was intense.. I love it.. is it weird that this gave me a little adrenaline rush?
JJtheJaxartosaurus 1 year ago
In the UK there is a nationwide campaign going on that is promoting science and maths in order to get more young people into the field. And I tell you, this video trumps the ad agency stuff! Well done, superb job!
happyidiottalk 1 year ago