Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 29)

This video is copyright free for educational purposes.
Feel free to copy mirror or distribute these videos with or without accreditation.

Why do people laugh at creationists (WDPLAC) is a series of videos exposing the funny stupidity of creationists and why they deserve to be laughed at. Typically creationist statements are shown to be outrageously stupid by even the most rudimentary knowledge of science.

In this episode the origin of morality is addressed, particularly with respect to arguments of the big time Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias. Zach is notably called out on his dishonest techniques.
These notably include the favorite of the creationist, the conversation with the Ivy League professor. Zach, just like the convicted frauster Hovind loves using this device.

-Naturally the honest approach would simply be to present ones argument.

However if your argument is shite, then this approach will likely be ineffective.

People like Zach make the play on the argument from authority. It is therefore essential to establish himself as an authority figure. This is why in the full interview Zach spends minutes building up the picture of how all these university students were keen to see him, and how electric the atmosphere was etc. Basically the only purpose of the story is to suggest to the audience that the man is an authority and his argument therefore probably has credibility- its basically a diversion to prevent harsh examination of his argument. Given the audience response the technique is clearly quite effective.

Zach is again called on his use of diversion when delivering his proof (basically listing points of agreement, saying god did it, then re-listing off the points of agreement). On close inspection it turns out that his entire argument is basically there are morals, so god must have made them.

This is of course a hopeless argument from ignorance, and EVEN IF IT WERE TRUE, its a immoral proposition that a divine being allows evil as a contrast agent.

It is then described how societies cannot exist without some form of morals (basically behavior towards other members of the society).
It doesnt take a very long look at nature to see these behaviors in other animals, or why such behaviors are naturally selected for.


For other videos of this genre check out

http://www.youtube.com/user/djarm67
http://www.youtube.com/user/thetaomega
http://www.youtube.com/user/dprjones
http://www.youtube.com/user/mikefoz
http://www.youtube.com/user/NonStampCollector
http://www.youtube.com/user/andromedaswake
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54
http://www.youtube.com/user/cdk007
http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa
http://www.youtube.com/user/DonExodus2
http://www.youtube.com/user/ExtantDodo
http://www.youtube.com/user/EdwardCurrent
http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Ravi
• Zacharias
• morality
• morals
• ethics
• ethical
• Creation
• fail
• Evolution
• Science
• scientific
• naturalism
• thunderf00t
• Theology
• Atheism
• creationism
• why
• do
• people
• laugh
• at
• creationists
• Dawkins
• Religion
• kirk
• stupid
• dumb
• killer
• whales
• wolf
• wolves
• piranhas
• piranha
• total
• war
• Proof
• Proving
• God
• Jesus
• Christ
• Lord
• Heaven
• Hell
• Evidence
• kent
• hovind
• Cameron
• amazing
• hypocrisy
• ungrateful
• godless
• answers
• in
• genesis
• pwned
• beautiful
• karma
• Discovery
• institute
• BBC
• Nature
• Life
• DNA
• Gene

[drscratchnsniff2]

i completely agree with you...now where in the holy hell is the red-head form the thumbnail?

[TheKimberRifleBloke]

That has to be the most well spoken and well thought out arguments Ive ever heard....... Of course creationists will just call it heracy :(

[daandedeen]

One of your best videos. The burden religion is to our society and our global development such as technology, infrastructure, medicine etc. is absolutely apalling. Cheers for putting that out there.

[OndskapensHersker]

@drscratchnsniff2

6:42..

[RequiemFear]

I think there's a really easy was to refute morality: Morals were around in the start of civilisation; there's written sources from 3500BC (If I'm remembering correctly) that have moral/judicial laws. That's several thousand years before Judaism was even conceived. Ask the Christian then how if those morals which are the same as today's, and were created from a different religion that is, according to the Christian, incorrect, how is it the work of the Christian God? Forgive the rambling there.

[kannibaal9]

These are probably the best arguments to argue against any hard-headed believer

Well done

[sulljoh1]

Thunderf00t, I recommend reading Dawkins on group selection (on the issues he pointed out when you spoke to him on your channel) and even more reading Steve Pinker the causes of violence. You're making quite a few controversial statements in this video and seem to be unaware that they are controversial. The common idea that violence is often caused by diminished resource is not supported by the evidence even though it sounds so plausible.

[Tamizushi]

@skewCZ That is correct. The problem of evil is only a problem for Omnipotent Omniscient OmniBenevolent gods, which means that it's perfectly valid against the classical definition of the Christian god but not against a god without one of these attributes.

[skewCZ]

@Tamizushi Well the Greek gods were not omnipotent and they were still gods. Just cause g/God is not omnipotent doesn't mean he's not worthy of worship.

People already (pretty much) worship other people, so the omnipotence doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

"And if you say that god is unknowable... ...in the first place."

Agreed.

[Tamizushi]

@skewCZ If God is omnipotent, he is necessarily able to make a world without evil. Your appeal to mystery doesn't solve anything. Saying that "this universe is the least evil universe possible"necessarily means that your god has some kind of limit one what he can do, not omnipotent by definition. And if you say that god is unknowable, you have effectively made your claim both unprovable and completely useless, meaning that there is no benefit it making this supposition in the first place.

[JustSiouxMe]

@drscratchnsniff2 6:42