Truth University : Does God Exist?

[tonycstech]

I go one problem with this video.

THEY SELL THEIR PROVE

[GodLovesUs100]

Is this a tv show or something?

[123columbo123]

steve c is a fucktard.

[13shadowwolf]

"Truth" university needs to be renamed to "Brainwashing People with Stupidity, Ignorance, and Deliberate Deceptions"

All concepts of god/gods that have been given by humans are self-contradictory.

[OstadJim]

Very erroneous conclusion, there... based on fallacioius premises too. Very poor science.

Although, the video was produced very nicely and professionally. It's just that the content was heavily flawed.

[tzephon]

Do you mean to say that the worldview of the person has no effect on the interpretation of evidence? I think that is what the video is saying.

[OstadJim]

The worldview of the person should not have any bearing on the interpretation of empirical evidence. If the individual drawing the interpretations is competent and honest, it is impossible for anything other than the data to draw a conclusion.

...According to the scientific method, that is. By creationist and Christian apologetics' standards however, the term "evidence" has a completely different definition, apparently.

[tzephon]

Let give you an example of what I mean: Fossils do not have anything to say about themselves; they are lifeless. A person who presupposes evolution is true interprets the fossils as evidence for evolution. When someone who presupposes creation sees fossils they interpret them as evidence for the flood.

The fossil itself cannot say that it is evidence for anything. The facts (fossils) must be interpreted (worldview) as to what evidence it provides (flood/evolution).

[OstadJim]

Fossils say quite a bit. They can be dated independently of what anybody thinks, because radiometric decay rates don't care what you think about them.

Neither do the strata in which they are found. Neither do their anatomical features. Neither does the fact that there is no geological evidence that supports a flood and neither does the fact that there is a wealth of other evidence including molecular genetics and direct observation that supports evolution.

[tzephon]

To say that fossils say anything is an error known as reification. The evidence in not actually able to tell you anything at all. You have assumption about what evidence should mean and that is why to come to the conclusions that you do. The same can be said of Creationists who say that geological structures like the Grand Canyon prove a worldwide flood.

You don't see a flood, not because there's no proof, but because your worldview excludes that interpretation. Vise-versa for Creationists.

[OstadJim]

Absolutely wrong. You have controls and statistical analysis that tell you whether or not the observations support the hypothesis. This is called the "scientific method."

If you want to make wild speculations without empirical testing, then yeah, your conclusions will be based on assumptions. But if you take the time to demonstrate the principles of reality by objectively testing them, you would soon realize why creationist hypotheses are false and certain other explanatons are true.

[tzephon]

You have assumed reification in saying that controls, etc "tell you" anything. You must interpret data. If I hand you a sheet of papers with some numbers on it, you must have an understanding about the numbers in order to interpret them. If you did not assume 'evolution' then you wouldn't see evolution in the data. You must assume 'evolution' in order to 'test' for it. You must interpret data from your world view.

[OstadJim]

If you hand me the a sheet with the number 5 on it, I don't get to interpret it as being the number 7. It is the number 5 regardless of what I want it to say. And anybody can confirm this. Hence, my "interpretation" is irrelevant. The sheet of paper tells me what the number says. Creationists are looking at the sheet of paper with the number 5 on it and calling it a rabbit.

[OstadJim]

...scratch that, creationists are looking at a sealed envelope containing the sheet with the number 5 inside, and concluding that the image on the sheet is a rabbit.

[tzephon]

A number on the paper is data. It only has value as information is there is some assumption about what the data is for. Your world view is that assumption about the number '5'.  Perhaps it is the number of people who are expected to attend a meeting, or the number of hours you are expected to apply to some project. Without a world view regarding the number there is no way to make an interpretation of the number '5'.

[OstadJim]

Who said anything about interepreting what the number refers to? That's impossible to do with the available information. All you can objectively do is to conclude that the number is 5.

That's what you do in science. The data speaks for itself. You don't get to speculate about anything beyond what the data says. Everything needs to be confirmed empirically so that questions are answered and not contrived. Have you heard of the term "empirical evidence?"

[tzephon]

You said it when you said that objectively you could only conclude that the number is '5'. The same goes for a fossil.  Without an assumption of what data represents it isn't possible to draw a conclusion about the data.

No one ever dug up a fossil and had it say "Hello, I'm a ammonite fossil, I'm from the Upper Cretaceous, and I'm evidence of evolution." You believe the fossil provides of evolution in support of your world view because of your world view. The data doesn't speak for itself.

[OstadJim]

Actually, the fossils say something very similar to that. They wouldn't be concluding these things without objective evidence. Didn't you learn about the scientific method?

Do you have a deep grasp of vertebrate anatomy, geology and physics? Or do you just assume that if you are unaware of such evidence, then no scientist could possibly be aware of it either?

By the way, evolution is supported by way more things than just fossils. Fossils don't even begin to scratch the surface.

[tzephon]

Actually fossils don't say anything. You interpret the various fossil features and draw conclusions about the fossils based on what you understand about the world. If you believe that the fossils 'say anything', then you are attributing your intellect to the fossils. That would put you in the position being a machine and the fossil in the position of doing the thinking. I don't believe that you are a dull, lifeless machine. And I don't believe that fossils think or talk.

[OstadJim]

In the same way that you attribute your intellect to the number 5 when you identify it as the number 5.

I'm sorry, but this is going nowhere. I don't think you actually understand how fossils are identified. The combinations of "features" aren't as "interpretable" as you think. They are what they are, and the "interpretation" can only be evolution. I don't know why you are making such bold assertions about something that you don't know about. Even though you know that you don't know.

[tzephon]

I'm using fossils to try to explain epistemology (theory of knowledge) to you. And you keep falling back to reification (applying an abstract (knowledge) to a concrete (fossils)). I don't know why you are making such bold assertions about something that you don't know about. The features of anything are only interpretable. Everything is interpreted from what is held in your world view, knowledge, beliefs, opinions, etc. Look up Epistomolgy

[OstadJim]

If you had a book and you gave it to 2 people to transcribe, and they each gave it to 2 people to copy, and each of them gave it to 2 people, and each person made a typo along the way and copied any typos before them, and you knew the order that the books were written, and you saw this still happening and you knew that all the books were transcribed from an earlier version, would you not be able to determine which copies other copies were derived from? Or are there other "interpretations?"

[tzephon]

What can we assume about the original language? Was it early English where the sounds conveyed by the letters were more important than the spelling? Is it a technical book or poetic. What may we assume about the copyists. What sort of epigraphical assumption can we make. How many generations separate each copy. If the language in question is a dead language then we may not be able to draw any conclusions. There's a lot that goes into a world view in order to say anything about the books.

[OstadJim]

The language is modern English. All known copies were written within the last week. The copies can all be perfectly assorted into a nested heirarchy without any anomolies. This heirarchy also matches the known dates that each was written.

Your questions are irrelevant to the analogy, which means that you didn't understand what I said. Would you like me to elaborate?

[OstadJim]

oldest: AAAAA

2nd oldest: BAAAA and AAAAZ

3rd oldest: BBAAA, AAAZZ, BCAAA, AAAYZ

most recent: BBBAA, AAZZZ, BBDAA, AAXZZ, BCCAA, AAWYZ, BCEAA, AAUYZ

Can you tell in which order these 15 sequences arose? Can you tell which ones share a more recent common ancestor? Which ones share a more distant common ancestor?

[OstadJim]

You could "interpret" the number 5 as anything, but you would have to be an idiot interpret it as a rabbit. The number 5 is what it is no matter how you wish to interpret it. Likewise, a femur is a femur and a tibia is a tibia no matter how you wish to interpret it. Science, by DEFINITION, is based on OBJECTIVE evidence. Your lack of understanding of basic scientific principles is the problem here. Maybe you should consider the possibility that you don't understand the implications of fossils.

[tzephon]

Does the number 5 represent the number of people who are to attend a meeting or the number of hours you are to commit to a project? The number '5' is objective. The answer to that question is dependent on your world view. Do you understand the nature of 'world views'? If the concept of a 'world view' eludes you then simply say so.

[OstadJim]

Nothing eludes me. Science is not a "world view." What part of "science is objective" do you not understand?" I've repeated it multiple times and your rebuttal is to reaffirm my point by saying the "number 5 is objective??"

You don't want to answer that question because you know that it demolishes your position. It's very straight forward. There is nothing about that question that depends on ideology. If there is, then why don't you provide an example of an alternative answer?

[tzephon]

Saying science is not a "world view" shows me you don't know what constitutes a world view.

You said "book", "transcribe", and "typos". When I read this, my world view said manuscripts. So I asked for clarification from your world view to illuminate my world view. You said "modern English". You gave a list of letter sequences which are not English. You have fail to convey sufficient information about your world view in order for us to interpret the thought experiment in the same manner.

[tzephon]

In the early 20th century the scientific world went through a paradigm shift in its world view from Maxwellian electromagnetics to Einsteinian Relativism. Both side had empirical data to support their worldviews. Since Relativism has generally won out scientists now interpret the data differently then they did in the Maxwellian era.

[tzephon]

AAAAAA, AAAAAA, AAABAA, AAWAAA, AAWBAA

What is the correct order of this branch of 5 generations. Since any error is as likely as any other error, then this is an order which is as likely as any other.

[OstadJim]

You have no idea what the term "paradigm shift" even refers to, do you? Moreover, you have no idea what the term "worldview" refers to in this context, either. It has nothing to do with ideology. It is to do with competing evidence-based theories. You're mixing and matching concepts and you are ending up with gibberish. Please put in some effort on your own to understand science. I can't teach you over youtube.

Those aren't the 15 sequences I presented. Take a closer look at them & try again

[tzephon]

You are mistaken.  To keep it very simple for you, your worldview is composed of all the assumptions and beliefs you have. This is not a limited context. Your inability to generalize concepts is rather startling. You cannot teach what you do not know.

However, why should I care about your letter sequence which is not English.

[OstadJim]

There are words in the English language that can have different meanings when used in different contexts. For instance, the word "right" can mean "correct" or it can refer to a direction. Similarly, the term "worldview" has two connotations, which you have tried to use interchangeably.

If you can figure out the answer to my question, you will see the relevance. Hint: think paternity testing and genetic inheritance. Try to make a family tree out of it and see what happens.

[tzephon]

I hope that we are discussing worldviews here, and not genetic drift.

[OstadJim]

I'm trying, but you keep dodging my question. Will you ever decide to answer it, or are you content with just insisting that you know everything?

[tzephon]

I have no interest in discussing genetic drift.

[OstadJim]

Ah, so I see that you are opting to dodge it. That was a poor excuse, given that the question has nothing to do with genetic drift.

The quesion is a simple analogy to demonstrate the objectivity in identifying common descent, whether it be through fossils or molecular genetics.

Are you really that threatened by the concept of evolution that you would try to mask your refusal to look at reality by coming up with these silly excuses?

[tzephon]

Your discussion of evidence has a fundamental problem. The problem has to do with personal worldviews. That's the point that I'm trying to get you to recognize. If evidence were as convincing as you believe then everyone would be in the same boat. But with different people having differing worldviews "evidence" is not interpreted uniformly. There is an underlying structure that must be perceived and dealt with before the evidence can be viewed commonly. Does that make sense to you?

[OstadJim]

why do you feel so threatened by this simple question? Just answer it.

[tzephon]

Which question? One pertaining to worldviews, or one pertaining to evidence?

[OstadJim]

No. The Definition of "scientific evidence" requires it to support one stance or group of stances by proving that other explanations are wrong. You can't use the word "evidence" to define something if its implications are dependant on one's personal bias. If this "evidence" of yours can support anything, then it supports nothing and cannot be called evidence. This is science 101. Science starts with a hypothesis, and this hypothesis must be proven or disproven empirically and OBJECTIVELY.

[tzephon]

It is exactly my point that interpretation of evidence is dependent upon one's personal bias, even amongst atheists. Stephen Gould found the lack of "intermediate" fossils so non-conforming with standard ideas of evolution that he and Niles Eldredge came up with 'punctuated equilibrium'.

What you say about hypothesis is true, expect that the evidence is interpreted withing a framework of assumptions, which are not objective; they are presuppositional.

[OstadJim]

The evidence supports evolution nonetheless. The evidence is not sufficient to confidently conclude ALL of the exact mechanisms, but it unequivocally shows that it occurs. You need to look up the definitions of "hypothesis" and "scientific theory." You are very confused about this.

[tzephon]

Don't consider whether those two competing worldviews appear to support evolution or not. That misses the point. Consider the "standard model" vs "punctuated equilibrium". Both cannot be true. Why two such very different models? How can that happen?

[OstadJim]

I already explained that to you. You're not paying attention.

You need to ask yourself whether you actually care about what is true. If you're wrong, would you want to know, or would you go out of your way to ignore reality so that you can cling onto your beliefs? So far, it seems like you want to shove away anything that threatens your beliefs so that you can keep believing. I don't think you're open to anything that disagrees with you, even if it is the truth. In that case, this is pointless

[tzephon]

Why are there two competing worldviews within evolution? Why is there gradualism and punctuated equilibrium? According to each side the empirical evidence supports their view. One set of facts and two interpretations, within evolution.

It is because there are two worldviews here.

What should that mean to you?

[OstadJim]

It means that you don't understand ANYTHING about science and that you don't know how to comprehend English. I've explained this and you keep asking.

Step 1. Learn to read.

Step 2. Find a dictionary.

Step 3. Look up the definition of "worldview" and "scientific theory"

Step 4. Read the answers I've already given.

I've done my job of answering your questions. If you have difficulty comprehending, that's something you have to work out on your own. I can't help you there.

[tzephon]

You haven't answered the question at all. If you don't know how to answer the question, then say so. You appear to be woefully ignorant of the importance of worldviews. It should strike you as particularly significant that two such interpretation of the facts exist even within the broader 'evolutionary' worldview. I'll state it once again: You haven't answered the question at all. The question is about the worldviews that go into interpreting data, not about the data itself.

[OstadJim]

If you bothered to follow my very simple instructions, you would see how wrong you are. Gradual evolution and punctuated evolution are two theories in evolutionary biology which are not mutually exclusive. There is insufficient data at this point to conclude the relative contributions of each to the evolution of species. As further evidence is discovered, more light will be shed on the role of these mechanisms. Noone is interpreting any data differently. Everybody is interpreting it the same

[tzephon]

Gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are exclusive. If you have gradualism, then you don't have punctuated equilibrium. If you have punctuated equilibrium, then you don't have gradualism. You do have two differing interpretations of the data.

[OstadJim]

You know, there IS such a thing as not having enough information to come to a confident conclusion, but having enough to propose probable explanations. That is why there are competing theories. Eventually, enough information is found that the it becomes obvious whether a given theory is correct or not. Such is the case with evolution. Seriously, look up the definition of theory. You are incredibly confused about all of this. In science, it is not possible to draw conclusions based on worldviews

[tzephon]

So which conclusion are you not confident of, and which was Gould not confident of.

It is only possible to draw conclusion about data from a worldview. You are confused on this point, and the punctuated equilibrium (PE) vs gradualism should be sufficient to illuminate you on this point.

So instead of trying to talk around the issue, tell me why Gould has PE instead of gradualism. Generalize here and tell me why his worldview required it over gradualism.

[OstadJim]

In science, everything must be shown OBJECTIVELY. That is the definition of the word. That should be the first clue to you that maybe you don't understand this as much as you think you do. Why don't you read through a research article or two before concluding what they contain? You have lost all credibility by proclaiming to speak with such authority on a matter that you REFUSE to take any time to actually investigate.

[tzephon]

The definition of the word "science" is "knowledge", not 'objectively'.

[tzephon]

I'll try to get you started: There was something in Gould's worldview that caused him to be unsatisfied with gradualism. Something that caused him to consider it incomplete. What was it?

[tzephon]

It only takes one assumption to change from gradualism to PE. One difference in a worldview can result in such a different interpretation of the data. The assumption, by the way, is that a theory of evolution must explain why there are gap in the transitional forms in the fossil record.

One assumption leading to two worldviews, leading to two non-complementary theories.

If you still don't understand then try reading the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Philosophy of Science.

[OstadJim]

Wow, it's like you didn't read anything I wrote. Gould never claimed that punctuated equilibrium was definately how evolution happened. He only proposed it as a potential mechanism. Others have pointed out some of the issues with his theory. The theories are being discussed but all conclusions are on hold until enough data exists to make a conclusion.

There are these things called theories. They are evidence-based explanations. Their degree of confirmation varies. Did you fail science?

[tzephon]

PE and gradualism are meant to illustrate to you that the same facts can result in two interpretations. It isn't important in this discussion if either one is true.

Have you read the Encyclopedia Britannica article yout?

[OstadJim]

Sigh...

No, isufficient data results in different theories. When evidence is overwhelming for one theory, it results in one theory. i.e. evolution. Do you really think I haven't already explained any of this to you?

[tzephon]

"No" What are you saying "No" to?

Yes, you really haven't explained anything, because you are starting from a false premise. Not only are you starting from a false premise in regard to scientific inquiry, your whole worldview is irrational. You have no explanation for the existence of logic, moral, uniformity, the senses, etc, much less an understanding that science works from the worldview down, not the evidence up.

[OstadJim]

I'm saying no" to you and your absurd assertions that are in complete opposition to reality.

[tzephon]

Actually my "assertion" is an actual logical argument. Perhaps you are having some extended form of this discussion in your head, and that is why you think you've actually explained anything.

Evidence is something that is interpreted. It never speaks for itself.

[OstadJim]

No. Evidence by definition, must speak for itself. Otherwise, you cannot call it evidence.

What you are talking about is casual observations that are not evidence for anything.

[tzephon]

To say that evidence must speak for itself is actually an error called reification. The value of any "evidence" is only relevant to the presuppositions that rely upon it.

I'm definitely not talking about casual observation.

[OstadJim]

Scientific evidence is objective. Do you know what that word means?

[tzephon]

To be "objective" is a concept. Something without a "mind" is not capable of carrying a concept. You have once again committed the error of reification. And your bald assertion does not change that problem.

I'm thinking Detective "C" is on to something. But how do we prove it? How would you justify the interpretation of Detective "A", "B", or "C"?

[OstadJim]

"Interpretation" of objective evidence is not dependent on who studies it. It gives the same interpretation no matter what. You are committing the error of not knowing what you are talking about.

Do you know what the word "proof" means? It requires objective evidence.

[OstadJim]

For instance, if you walk into a crime scene and find evidence to show that the event took place yesterday, you will have enough evidence to show that people who were in a different city at the time could not have been responsible, but you may not have evidence to show which of of the suspects are responsible. Having multiple suspects and thus, several possible explanations doesn't mean that there are multiple "viewpoints." It just means that there's insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion.

[OstadJim]

In any case, if there is enough evidence to show that a crime took place, the fact that you don't have enough evidence to show who is responsible doesn't change this. Similarly, if you have enough evidence to show that evolution took place, the fact that there exist more than one theory explaining how evolution may have taken place does not change the fact that we have enough evidence to know for certain that evolution DID and still IS taking place.

[OstadJim]

Let me explain this again, since I know you have reading comprehension difficulties. When something is not entirely known, there can be multiple potential explanations. People can discuss the case for each, but NOBODY concludes which is right until enough evidence exists to do so.

For evolution, enough evidence exists. It has as much evidence as the most strongly supported theories such as atomic theory and germ theory. Do you think it's a worldview or an assumption that atoms and germs exist?

[OstadJim]

And finally, you said that PE and gradualism are "non-complementary." I already explained that they are NOT mutually exclusive. It is obvious now that not only do you not know what you are talking about, but you also fail to read anything I write.

[tzephon]

Have you read the Encyclopedia Britannica article yet?

[OstadJim]

When a scientist calls something evidence, it means that it supports a single stance. Evidence for evolution from fossils then, necessarily support descent with modification and common ancestry. Honestly, it is arrogant of you to suggest that scientists are so much more oblivious than you about their own area of expertise. It is akin to you arguing with your doctor's diagnosis and telling him how to do his job.

Answer the question about the sequences.

[tzephon]

A scientist will call something "evidence" if he believes that his interpretation of the "evidence" supports his hypothesis. But the existence of fossils may be interpreted in more that one way. In one interpretation it's believed to support 'evolution', in another it's believed to support Creation. This is not because either side is 'stupid'. It is because of the worldviews. Lets talk worldviews.

[OstadJim]

You're wrong. I'm assuming you've never experienced a day of research in your life or seen how hypotheses are empirically tested. Yet you put forward these laughable assertions and bluntly ignore reality. Your constant refusal to answer a straightforward question highlights the fact that you simply ignore anything that your beliefs cannot stand up to. It shows that you have no interest in critical thinking. You're only interested in maintaining your beliefs regardless of what's true.

[odinata]

Focus on your own inbred family.

Want some real "truth"/

Christianity is an opinion, not a fact.

[odinata]

If there were any real evidence for Christianity, they would have said it already, instead of giving us a flashy commercial.

All Christianity holds for people is the promise of taking their money.

[FBIRyan]

This TrueU thing looks impressive.

It's a shame it costs money, as I can't pay up right now, but I understand why they need it to make other videos.

(They probably pay the students to sit there and listen. xD Although, I'd do that for free. You hear that TrueU? ;D)

[tzephon]

Try "The Ultimate Proof of Creation". I think it deals with the some topics as TrueU.

[FBIRyan]

I find it funny how atheists are watching your videos.

If they were so sure about their own belief, they wouldn't be watching videos that said so other-wise.

This just proves that, whether they know it or not, there's still hope for them. =)

[Criticallyincorrect]

Bigwhammyrocks If they wish to teach this in a private school is fine by me. I just hope they don't lie and distort things. A lot of big time evangelicals have lied to mislead people giving facts that are not correct. But this is none of my business for it is a private school.

[bigwhammyRocks]

Some people seem to have a misunderstanding. This is not an attempt to teach religion in public schools, it is a private effort to educate young Christians in the evidence for Christianity before they attend secular Universities. Basically a crash course in apologetics for high school students.

[alianchild]

@bigwhammyRocks Sounds like brainwashing with lies to me.

[tonycstech]

@alianchild Its a preview. Watch the whole thing then judge

[alianchild]

@tonycstech No theist has ever, I repeat, EVER, presented any actual logical evidence to support the existence of anything that could be interpreted as a god. This mans "evidence" will be nothing but a rehash of the same tired lies and misdirection that theologians have been using for centuries to bilk people out of their money.

[Criticallyincorrect]

Now i am not against your religion so don't go throwing your bible verses at me. I am all for your pursuit to prove that their is a god and you want your creation in schools. BUT only if you do it the way the educational system has set it up. That means scientific method. Find your evidence, present it and don't get mad if peer review is harsh it is for everything not just your inquires. Then start again and look for more evidence until it is proven.

[Criticallyincorrect]

Science is valid to finding knowledge that leads to many medicines and comforts that we can enjoy today. Truth is something else as it can mean one thing to one person and something different to another. Truth is what we believe it to be.

[diamy00]

re: "Truth is what we believe it to be."

Well, I believe you are incorrect. So according to your belief, my belief or your error is true...which means my truth (according to you) has just undermined your "truth" and so your "truth" has just been proven false because of self-contradiction

for this purpose I (Jesus) have come into the world--to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.

Pilate said to him, "What is truth?" -John 18:37-38

[Criticallyincorrect]

but your statement contradicts itself as well because i just say the same thing about your truth.

[Criticallyincorrect]

You mistook what i ment by that statement anyways. Ex. You look at the grand canyon with evidence before hand. There is evidence of it forming slowly so you see that as truth as it formed slowly. Then there is evidence it was cause by a great flood, others see it is truth as far as biblical flood.

[bigwhammyRocks]

"Truth is what we believe it to be. "

Is that an absolute statement or just your opinion? rofl

That definition would destroy math, science and all of logic and reason. You are embracing anti-reason. This is a prime example of why this program by Focus is so needed. You might believe 1+1 = 3 but it would not be true.Truth is when belief and reality match up. Truth is absolute.

[Criticallyincorrect]

big its my opinion on what truth would me philosophically rather than absolute truth as it can mean many things to different people.

[rolynstone48]

The endless go round between believers and non-believers can theoretically go on for e v e r -

Its time to stop this debate, and realize its not a question of either / or, but a question of who and what you are as a person in this life ! assemble a blend of , theism , a dash of atheism, a pinch of creationism, science and high alchemy, and this world would be more like a democracy, and free of the fascism of religion and/or atheism !

[eph414]

@rolynstone48 Isn't that what we have; a dash of this and a dash of that.  I don't think your suggestion will bring about your stated result - it hasn't yet.

[errskin]

the stats in the beginning coincide with the general fact that the more educated you are the less likely you are to believe in invisible supernatural entities controlling the universe. how is this vid not propoganda? i mean, truth university? the name alone is a dead giveaway that its complete bullshit. anybody claiming their ideas are "the truth" is always peddling bullshit.

[torax]

I really feel sorry for you people who needs this kind of propaganda to make them self feel better.

Is your faith to your god so weak you need this close-minded bullshit?

[fightforfair]

God Bless America is true

Without God America will lose to China and Russia~~~

[Designmimetics]

Signature in the cell and now this from Stephen Meyer!!??  CAN'T WAIT!! All for God's Glory

[HerrSchnabeltier]

I am a Christian but I really don't like seeing this kind of propaganda.

[BassP86]

Well how is it propaganda exactly? It provides answers to questions that people ask about Christianity. Every person longs for truth, so this series was created to offer an explanation that accounts for the evidence, not to say that Christianity is trying to increase its number of believers or to say that atheism seeks to do the same.

[torax]

It is as much propaganda as hitler saying that jews are evil is propaganda. That also provides an answer for a question.

[HerrSchnabeltier]

It is propaganda because instead of actually getting people thinking it is brainwashing them and telling them to not think.

I watched a bit of it and then got annoyed and turned it off after hearing some students say how horrible school was for making them question there beliefs and giving stupid made up stories that try to make it seem like Christians get picked on severely all the time in college. I much rather see an education video that promotes thought instead of saying thinking is bad.

[BassP86]

HS, universities bombard Christianity moreso than any other religion. I agree that they should promote critical thinking, but that is not what you see in every college. You see more professors whose goal in their course is to knock ANY notion of God out of you. Critical thinking? I think not. That is what students are upset about. No other religion is given equal treatment, only Xtianity. Don't believe me? Go to one of the major universities near D.C. near my birthplace and see this. I lived it.

[HerrSchnabeltier]

I highly doubt there are many cases of it, if anything like that does happen in school I am pretty sure they were very exaggerated in that video.

The worst parts about the video were the anti-thinking parts and the anti-science crap.

[JAMRAND]

The only propaganda is all the atheist calling it propaganda.

Have you seen the newest pew stats.

only 1.6% of americans consider themselves athiests .

I think the responses on this thread from atheists is the reason most people dont want to be associated with them.

[errskin]

this isn't some educational video about christianity, its about attempting to make religious beliefs seem like valid science and its about making people believe that religious beliefs have and are supported by empirical evidence.

[BassP86]

Actually, the REAL propoganda is in books like the God Delusion, which WANT you to think that Christianity has no evidential support whatsoever.

I challenge you and any other atheist to look at artifacts like the Shroud of Turin, the Tomb of Lazarus, etc, and still tell Christians that there is no evidence for their faith. Errskin, what you're trying to say is really nothing more than unsubstantiated bologney. No offense to you of course.

[errskin]

evidence for faith? you can call it evidence if you want, but it falls far short of proving anything your religion claims. thats why you need faith. your "artifacts" dont prove anything supernatural.

[BassP86]

"thats why you need faith." - What is faith then?

[errskin]

you tell me

[theman77777777232]

Faith is synonymous with trust.

[Criticallyincorrect]

Bass reason for Christianity getting hit so hard is because they are the ones that are trying to put their religion in schools. Remember extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence and like any good science peer review it must be hit hard like all claims. Christianity just doesn't have the evidence to support it in a setting of Truth. The God Delusion is one side where as Evangelicals are the other. I prefer logic over faith and evangelicals also throw propaganda and lies.

[Criticallyincorrect]

The book that which you say is propaganda uses reasoning to find its answer were as the other side uses faith. Its like the coin of using rational thinking and trying to rationalize. Yes i will say some claims are aimed at destroying religion but the other side is bad if not worse violating their 9th commandment. Who is right or wrong know one living knows that answer.

[BassP86]

"because they are the ones that are trying to put their religion in schools." - CI, that's completely false. Go to any university that was previously considered an evangelical or Christian-based school and you will realize that before the secular professors were brought in, the counter perspective was taught. Now that they are secular universities, the evangelicals are blocked out. Secondly, the media focuses more on Christians like Westboro Baptist than the true Christian. (cont.)

[BassP86]

"Remember extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence and like any good science peer review it must be hit hard like all claims." - 1) Isn't that an extraordinary claim in itself?

2) Is science the only valid method of attaining knowledge and truth? Your statement sure assumes that?

"I prefer logic over faith" - So what then to you is faith?

[Criticallyincorrect]

I Understand that it was taught but it was only Christian perspective of creation. Consider the many Indian tribes in my state that each have their own creation story you just can't teach them all and the proof for all creation is small.

[Criticallyincorrect]

I don't see how "Remember extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence and like any good science peer review it must be hit hard like all claims." - 1) Isn't that an extraordinary claim in itself? is a extraordinary claim please explain this .

[BassP86]

"please explain this" - I'd be glad to. If extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, then logically you must be able to distinguish an extraordinary claim from one that is not. Consider the claim "all claims can be proven." Now let us consider the negation, "all claims cannot be proven." Logically, that statement includes itself in its own criteria, and therefore cannot be proven. (cont.)

[BassP86]

When you say"extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence", then you are left w/ the problem of begging the question as to what criteria to use to determine what makes a claim extraordinary. This means that you are placing a higher standard for certain claims when all claims need to be supported at least with basic evidence. If that is the case, how can you be so sure that the claim "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" does NOT require extraordinary evidence to prove itself?

[BassP86]

In other words, CI, do you have any extraordinary evidence to prove that "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence"?

[Criticallyincorrect]

Bass if you were to see a outlandish claim that you feel is total BS you would want to see alot of proof on it. Ex in religion evolution seems to be a extraordinary claim and they call BS on it and want to see extraordinary evidence for it putting a high burden of proof on it. Even though Evolution has more evidence on it than gravity which Evangelicals seem to except.

[Criticallyincorrect]

Faith to me is similar to the idea of hope. You can hope that some is true but that necessary doesn't mean that it is no matter how much you believe it to be.

[BassP86]

"Faith to me is similar to the idea of hope." - Actually, that would be half-correct. Allow me to refer to a bit of scripture here: In 1Corinthians 15:3-19, Paul said that the death & resurrection of Jesus Christ are of the first importance to the Christian worldview. He says, "14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." If faith is just hope, then why did Paul say this? It was because faith is DEPENDENT on the occurrence of the resurrection. (cont.)

[Criticallyincorrect]

Now the only problem to this is what is consider extraordinary to people which can't possible be true.

[Criticallyincorrect]

Like i said many thing mean different things to different people. I said they were similar not both the same. He had faith it would happen. He hoped it would happen. According to the bible it happened so his faith or hope was valid. Of course it doesn't always work this way it may have not happened and his faith or hope would have been for naught. I will say this Faith is deeper and strong in a philosophical sense than hope.

[torax]

I admire you. I myself am an atheis. And that´s a road i choosed BECAUSE of propaganda and ignorance like this.

[HerrSchnabeltier]

Propaganda like this is frustrating.

I watched a bit of the video but got annoyed so I turned it off. Just more creationist propaganda. It is just sad -_-

[eph414]

@torax You are an atheist because of information like this? I am confused. Most people base their beliefs on what they presume to be true. If you base your believe on what you believe to be untrue and ignorant where does that leave your belief? Maybe you should give it a bit further investigation and see where you find things to be true.

[torax]

@eph414

You presume something is real without real evidence and i presume its not real due the lack of evidence. I dont call you Allah denialist because you dont believe in Allah. How am I ignorant if i dont believe in god. Would I be ignorant if I´d believe in Allah?

[eph414]

@torax, sorry for the misunderstanding; I wasn't calling you ignorant. Your statement - "And that´s a road i choosed BECAUSE of propaganda and ignorance like this." lead me to believe you based your decision to be atheist because you thought something was ignorant. I understand your position more clearly by your current statement. As for that, I guess that the propaganda you identify isn't ignorant, by your count, since it can’t be ignorant just because someone doesn't believe it.

[ronhudsonjr]

nice video

[justchemicalz]

Hey!

There you are...;-)

[ThisIsMySockAccount]

Cool! Thanks for the link bro. I don't have time to look for such things anymore. When someone like you shines a light on things like this, its always such a help. Love ya bro :o) (bakes cookies)

[diuryl]

GREAT VID!!! welcome back!!

[peilthetraveler]

First comment!