ATHEISTS - DEBUNK THIS !!! Atheists Nightmare Is NOT Debunked !!! Part 1 / 6

[MadocDoyu]

So, the argument is that speciation cannot have occurred because nobody was there and observed it. (How do you want to observe something that takes hundreds of thousands of years anyway?)

If that reasoning were valid, we might just as well say that god cannot have created the universe, because no one observed it. Now, if someone would argue that god observed his creation of the universe, we might counter that in that case, he would also have observed speciation in the past.

Total bullshit!

[AdamHimself69]

I can't believe I watched this whole thing.

[MidnightSt]

In the beginning, there was nothing. NOT EVEN vacuum, because vacuum is empty space. Before big bang, there wasn't even that what we percieve as space.

[Kalevala87]

Sorry, I knew I was dealing with crap at "fireball." How can some people be allowed an internet connection?

[scarletharlot69]

epic fail. first 3 minutes are fine. the origin of species is explained by the theory of evolution. Creationism explains nothing.

[MyNameIsBob212]

I disagree with the explanation of the universe presented in the beginning of this video, because I think the big bang is more likely.

[torturelabs]

banana

[odinata]

Bogus Strawman description of Cosmology--there was no "empty space" before the big bang.....

[Madkevin88]

Neither the Big Bang or a God creathed the Universe. Not everything can be created. At least one thing or more has to not be created and therefore is just there. For instance if everything had to be created we could infinitly trace creation backwards and never reach a starting point so we would have never gotten to our current point in time. Now we have proof that the universe is there, but no proof of a God or a Big Bang. Big bang might have just been a small event in the universe. Thats my 2¢.

[Hufflewaffle]

evolution caused the big bang?

it must be true because an author and lecturer said so!

[Mauler85]

Apparently the poster of this video has no idea what chess is or what a checkmate is.

[flamifer1]

Intelligence requires a brain, something that is made of matter. How then could god been an intelligent being before the existence of matter?

Knowledge itself, on the other hand, is the only thing fulfills the three requirements adhered to god: Omnipresence, omnipotency and omniscience.

I believe, that god is knowledge.

[AvalanchCXVII]

@flamifer1

Nope. Knowledge of events does not grant ability to interact with said event. No Omnipotence for you.

Nope. Knowledge of events does not mean being directly present at said event. No Omnipresence for you.

Nope. Knowledge is a familiarity with anything that can be familiarised, it is not a disparate concept.

If you were to say god is familiarity, that is saying human memeories are God, which is impossible to disprove, but is is quite clearly not worth pursuing.

[flamifer1]

@AvalanchCXVII

Only pure abstract data, like mathematics, is Omnipresent. Information is Omnipotent, because even a most intelligent being needed to know HOW to create a universe. And knowledge is Omniscient, of course. We human beings are not god, because we do not possess absolute knowledge. However, through research and experiments we can learn and thus come closer to god. Whatever we do or not, we will receive what we deserve immediatly. There is no "good" or "evil" - only smart or stupid.

[flamifer1]

@AvalanchCXVII

>> If you were to say god is familiarity, that is saying human memeories are God

Absolutely true. For this very reason any human description for a creative God must be faulted. An intelligent AND omnipotent being is a contradiction but can not be disproven like any other product of fantasy.

>> Knowledge is a familiarity with anything that can be familiarised, it is not a ...

Nothing happens without a cause and a consequence. Therefore "chance" and "free will" do not exist.

[AvalanchCXVII]

@flamifer1

I'm not actually too sure what you're trying to say in your first point, are you implying because something cannot be disproven, it must exist?

As for your second point, that isn't actually true. E.g. try pinpointing an electron. There is something called quantum uncertainty theory, it doesn't manifest on a macro scale, but it happens.

[flamifer1]

@AvalanchCXVII

>> because something cannot be disproven, it must exist?

No, I am saying, that an intelligent being requires matter to exist. Therefore it can not be god. And that religion can not be disproven, because it is based on assumptions based on ignorance.

>> Quantum uncertainty theory

I believe, that not being able to measure something does not mean that the event does not have a cause. With all the data necessary and the ability to calculate it, everything is predictable.

[AvalanchCXVII]

@flamifer1

I agree with your ignorance point.

But I must insist on chaos theory, the only reason computers work is because we can't predict where electron show up. Just look up how transistors work.

Woah there, being smart doesn't grant you a morality licence, intelligence doesn't garuntee empathy after all, and individual interests rarely coincide with greater good after all.

As for your point about free will, I am very aware of the fact that if it exists, that God would be a bastard.

[flamifer1]

@AvalanchCXVII

>> the only reason computers work is because we can't predict where electron show up ???

>> being smart doesn't grant you a morality licence

I know this to be provocative. But let us face the truth: Nobody likes a selfish prat and on the other hand: Some people let themselves abuse by others. Both types of personalities will not succeed in the end. Cooperation is the intelligent way of life and that requires the highest morale values.

>> part 2

[flamifer1]

@AvalanchCXVII part 2

>> I am very aware of the fact that if it exists, that God would be a bastard. ???

The idea of God as an "intelligent being" and "free will" are the two major logical fallacies of christian religion. The two dogmas fall with these simple questions:

"Doesn't intelligence require a brain?" and

"Do we have control over the sources of our decisions?".

It usually mutes intelligent creationists and you can imagine the answers of not so smart creationists.

[AvalanchCXVII]

@flamifer1

Ah. I agree with your last point completely, I am an nay-theist after all.

As for my statement, I'm was just restating points other Aetheists have said about God's actions, eg Jews outta Egypt, where God made the Pharoah refuse Moses so it could kill lots of Egyptians.

So either the Bible lies, or God is a dickhead.

Not convincing either way.

I like keeping my arguments down to Earth :)

Becasue asking a theist to think logically is beating a 2000+ year dead horse.

[flamifer1]

@AvalanchCXVII

>> 2000 year dead horse

True. Most creationists think, that they have control over their thoughts and feelings because they can suppress them. But they forget to take into consideration, that the decision to suppress a feeling comes from conditioning or the knowledge of a better alternative. And nobody has control over that.

A hard core creationist insisted, that god puts thoughts in his head to DEFEND the dogma of "free will". To be remote controlled is "free will"?

[flamifer1]

@AvalanchCXVII

>> 2000 year dead horse

True. Most creationists think, that they have control over their thoughts and feelings because they can suppress them. But they forget to take into consideration, that the decision to suppress a feeling comes from conditioning or the knowledge of a better alternative. And nobody has control over that.

A hard core creationist insisted, that god puts thoughts in his head to DEFEND the dogma of "free will". To be remote controlled is "free will"?

[AvalanchCXVII]

@flamifer1

Ah. I agree with your last point completely, I am an nay-theist after all.

As for my statement, I'm was just restating points other Aetheists have said about God's actions, eg Jews outta Egypt, where God made the Pharoah refuse Moses so it could kill lots of Egyptians.

So either the Bible lies, or God is a dickhead.

Not convincing either way.

I like keeping my arguments down to Earth :)

Because asking a theist to think logically is beating a horse dead for over 3000 years.

[flamifer1]

@AvalanchCXVII

If we assume, that everything has a cause and a consequence, then the whole christian world view comes crashing down:

If we see ourselves as the result of a number of events and that all our decisions are based on what we are and what we have experienced in our lives, then we recognise, that "free will" is an illusion. In this light, a creative, omniscient being would be fully responsible for all actions of its creation. Another logical contradiction in christian faith.

[dotmadhack]

So someone somewhere found a video that looks like it's dated from the 1980's, thought it disproved atheism, then gloated about it on youtube. I can't honestly say I'm surprised.

[alive4ever1]

This what happens when people want to talk about things they don't understand. Study the Big Bang theory, evolution, science in general. Really, try to understand what the evidence is and what is claimed. Don't make silly associations as "Big Bang" = explosion. That is an analogy, even a poor one. Go and understand the theory in details and then we talk. In the meanwhile just learn and shut up.

[Nazarus8]

supernova's triggering the formation of new stars~ observed no? order from chaos as this video puts it ~ and this video seriously confuses evolution with other theories X (

[Quintinohthree]

The intro was nice but it's ultimately a strawman. If you're gonna make a decent argument, at least know what you're talking about. I know creationists have only one "theory" but us "evolutionists" have many theories: big bang theory, abiogenesis theory, theory of evolution et cetera.

[FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7]

haha, it starts with a stawman.

[Pinage]

Could this nonsence possibly be more biased?

[rainyreflections]

@AbeleWong

Of course they don't represent a whole religion. However they do represent that those religions are corrupt, and that religion is no better than any other religion no matter what they preach. Atheism is based on a moral code and an atheist that does something morally wrong doesn't present an argument against atheists, but since religion is based on being moral there are arguments against them.

[Inovocre12]

well, I know this vid was made by a creationist... At 1:16 the narrator says that "cosmic and particulate evolution", evolution has to do with biology, not astrophysics!

Fail, and fail again! And by the comments, it seems, it's debunked!

[LoopQuantumGravity1]

what a load of crap. I have yet to meet an honest creationist. They lie to preserve their 'truth", so it can't really be the truth, can it?

Here's a good example - KENT HOVIND. Creationist currently serving a 15 - year sentence for income tax evasion. Christians, are these the kind of people you really want representing you? Your faith is under attack - not by the atheists, but by charlatans like Hovind, Comfort, Cameron,etc.

[AbeleWong]

@LoopQuantumGravity1 said:"KENT HOVIND. Creationist currently serving a 15 - year sentence for income tax evasion."

First of a, Kent have not ask me if he can represent me.

If I thinking the same way, Mr. Mao ZeDong is an evolutionist and an atheist too, shall I blame all the evolutionist and atheist because of Mr. Mao cause millions death in China, and hence, so I can prove evolution and atheistic are both wrong because of him?

[DETPower]

/watch?v=r7hXHMco7tU

[AlexisCapri]

It seems to me that an atheist is someone who seeks truth through factual information and science.

And a creationist is someone who seeks the ability to put their fingers in their ears and say "not listening" a lot.

[Nikgrillone92]

Its funny how often Christians will use "Checkmate" without winning the argument

[AstarothDeathSquirre]

Creationist propaganda. What more can I say. If you want to know about evolution, then study evolution and you will then see the flaws in this video

[Sabohaque]

This is a troll. Real theists never make "atheist" plural.

[MsCoralline]

"... and so the debate rages on."

And yet there is no debate among the biologists, chemists, geologists, cosmologists or physicists (you know -- those who actually understand the concepts, investigate them, and would be among the very first to know if they don't work or are wrong at all).

Disingenuous, vacuous crap.

[qwer4o]

That was the most moronic video I have seen for a long, LONG time :)

[chilleffect]

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhahahahahahahaha­. this must be the worst explanation about the origins of the universe that I have ever heard.

[chilleffect]

"In the beginning their was nothing. A vacuum, void, empty space. And, in this empty space their emerged a primordial fireball."

Who is this guy? and apparently he hasn't read the big bang theory because no where does it say that their was nothing.

[Ult1mateUltron]

Its parable you dipshits.Look up the word in the dictionary.

[cryotimber]

The Big Bang was far from an explosion. It was an expansion of matter. BIG difference. Also, the theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Creationists need to get their shit straight. Like, NOW.

[damillionmalania]

Does Richard Milton understand what evolution means? "First biological evolution and now cosmic evolution? OMG!!". You mean the universe has EVOLVED? Like...CHANGED??? The big bang does not explain the origin of life you stupid twats. And Michael Bowden (a GEOCENTRIST!!) should know that the big bang was NOT an explosion. If he had read anything by say Simon Singh, or even a high school science text book he would have known this! This is not in need of a debate or debunk, but a serious education

[Zebarbas]

Fail at 0:26 Unwilling to see the rest...

[MrTetris88]

oh no... wat is this crap. i hope the title is a joke. that bit about comparing explosions of building to the big bang and asking an engineer about evolution.... LOL!

[Chopstewie]

"Evolution brought about all things"

....that's it, full stop, I'm just gonna go...there is nothing I can do here.

Checkmate? more like kicking over the board after the first move.

[DocStrange0123]

were did you find this crap?... fireball? wrong (singularity); exploded? wrong (expansion)...

[Marrithegreat]

I don't think I can sit through this. The writer knows NOTHING about Darwin's finches! It wasn't beak size you insufferable simpletons! He didn't even know they were all finches until YEARS later! It was the fact they ARE all finches that is the important part!! STOP REGURGITATING THE SAME PROPAGANDIST ANTI SCIENCE TRIPE AS EVERYONE ELSE AND READ UP ON THE TOPIC YOURSELF!! If you can't do that, SHUT UP!

[harpo10]

Ignorant filthy fucking Christians. Fuck God.

[KentRigeI]

EPIC FAIL.

Biological evolution is not even remotely related to cosmic and stellar nucleosynthesis - AT ALL. Think you idiots, you are using Kent Hovind type arguments... Hovind! For God's sake, for your God anyway.

There is a reason no one sees one 'type' of animal turn into a different 'type' of animal - because they have a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution is. Cat species will never speciate a Dog. It will speciate multiple unique decendent species.

Gimme a break.

[DavidPirtle]

A vacuum of space is not nothing. And that is not what the theory of the big bang proposes. It proposes that there was a tiny point of existence which expanded. Whenever creationists attempt to discuss science they disagree with, they invariably get it wrong.

[draagon66]

Straight off - In the beginning there WAS something. Reputable science does not claim that there was nothing. It is only the religious who claim so.

Wow! Now we have someone who claims to have observable evidence of creationism.

Thereafter, so many face-palms that it began to hurt. Thus, I was glad to see the end of part 1.

Will I bother with part 2 and further. No, it's too painful to suffer the same old failed notions of creationism.

Besides which, what does evolution have to do with atheism?

[sakar181]

@draagon66 Yea, You hit the nail on the head. This is typical creationist rhetoric, which has already been debunked. The fact that the poster of this video thinks this is 'checkmate' goes to demonstrate a level of ignorance the likes of which hovind and ham would be proud.

[draagon66]

@sakar181

Thank you, kind sir.

Sadly, this clown, if it is seriously NOT a parody, has spent a lot of time putting this series together; time which could well have been spent doing something useful.

I'm off to bed, as it is 02:20.

G'night.

[sakar181]

@draagon66 I doubt that he put this together, he's just spreading the propaganda. It's sad to see this kind of ignorance in society today, but thats why I try to keep up the fight. I'll be damned if this kind of bs is gonna be taught in a school near me.

Rest well.

[draagon66]

@sakar181

I must guess that you are in the US.

Thankfully, I originate in the UK, to atheist parents. I never had a school problem, although I do remember there being Religious Education periods, which I recall nothing of. Neither did my two kids, who are, by their own volition, both adult atheists now.

The US has a major problem, being most backward among so-called civilised countries. I'm now in the Philippines, where it is even worse.

Better education of the young will mean progress.