video : believers and nonbelievers talking about Gods

2016

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditShare on TumblrPin on Pinterest

70 replies :

  1. liked on youtube.com

    Before I was born, I didn’t exist. After I die, I won’t exist. What’s the difference?

    If god exists, then why does he work so hard to convince us that he doesn’t?

  2. This is all such laughable nonsense. They don’t understand that this is control of the people and mere wishing that results in nothing. There is only dirt or ash after death though there will be nothing to experience the dirt or ash. Lol Whatever depends on faith is Bullshit.

  3. liked on youtube.com

    WORLD WIDE WEB — THE KILLER OF GODS
    One of these days, people will find it hard to believe that people used to believe in gods in 2016 with such easy access to global information through the internet. Happy is the internet that dashes gods against the rocks.

    1. there is just as much bullshit on the web as truth…if one doesn’t know discernment he will be believing in a flat earth and the mandela effect. the web isn’t needed to build faith in a CREATOR why are no new authors writing books with the impact of the brililant writers centuries ago? lower your EGO and you wiil be surprized what lies beneath your dirt and ash…

      1. THE BIBLE IS GARBAGE
        I agree with Jack bassman about the “brilliant?” part. I read the bible after reading two and a half feet of the Harvard Classics Five Foot Shelf of Books, and read the King James version of the bible because there were so many references to the stories and themes in the bible. When I read the words and the content in the bible I was extremely disappointed. I thought at least it would be great literature with amazing concepts that might be inspiring and even possibly convincing — but nope, it was like children who had not learned how to think wrote it. It is sort of embarrassing that people think it is such great piece of work when it is such garbage.

        In other news: It could be that the difficulty in discerning what is true and false on the internet will force people to develop better methods and education around critical thinking skills (thinking about thinking) and about human biases and countermeasures against human biases. Plus, apps may develop to help assure people that the moon landings really happened, while belief in god relies not of viable evidence, but instead on faith (belief without evidence).

    1. LOL What god? What spirit? Whatever you found, is all in your head. There is nothing but dirt or ash after death and nothing whatsoever to experience it.

      1. If you seek, and find that which does not exist anywhere in reality other than your mind, you are functionally delusional, lacking good critical thinking skills, or succumbing to naturally evolved human biases (such as confirmation bias, or the other naturally evolved cognitive mechanism that manifests as overactive agency detection).

        1. If you seek, and find that which does not exist anywhere in reality other than your mind, you are functionally delusional, lacking good critical thinking skills, or succumbing to naturally evolved human biases (such as confirmation bias, or the other naturally evolved cognitive mechanism that manifests as overactive agency detection).

          you say “If you seek, and find that which does not exist anywhere in reality other than your mind, you are functionally delusional”… what is your definition of reality? or exist, who are you ? are you the voice in your skull? if so which voice? what is causing your battle within your brain? i guess you generate your own thoughts from nowhere…i tell you this without seeking you are the delusional one. i bet if you were cornered by a lion or other deadly situation you will beg for something unseen to save your ass…

          LOL What god? What spirit? Whatever you found, is all in your head. There is nothing but dirt or ash after death and nothing whatsoever to experience it.

          i never used the word god, you did…if you don’t realize a spiritual truth within you are dead. of course the dust and ash is our physical makings but where does the thoughts of right and wrong come from? the CREATOR has installed a spirit along with our physical body to always remind you of a higher power. religion is not the CREATOR, so your beef with a certain religion is ok..seek within yourself…

  4. There is no need whatsoever for a deity, read Lawrence Kraus, forget mumbo jumbo shite supposedly written my primitive goatherds who didn’t know where the sun went at night.

  5. Sorry but not believing in god is NOT denying the truth.

    I personally don’t know if there is a god or not, I suppose that if quantum theory or multiverse theory has any truth to them, then it’s possible for anything to exist. I don’t believe what religion is trying to tell anyone about this “God” if there is one, is true. Religion is a group of people who are controlled by an ideal and that ideal is a man made control system .If there is a god I don’t think that it is any thing like what religion is trying to sell it as. It reeks of humanity too much and humanity is always wrong because they are sheep led by bad leaders.

      1. Yes it is.

        Proof: any evidence that establishes or helps to establish the truth. Law: The whole body of evidence upon which the verdict of a court is based.

        My belief is based on evidence or “proof”. Yours is not. Before you try to say “I do not have a belief”, if you have no belief then you can unreservedly accept that for all you know Christianity could be the truth. See how you cannot admit that? You have a belief and it is based upon no evidence and you were about to argue that you did not have a belief when you do. That is an indication of stupidity, and the Bible says that non-believers cannot figure out Christianity is the truth because God keeps them blinded with a blinding Spirit of Stupor (It literally says that). More proof of the Bible being the truth. You probably haven’t even read it but you have an opinion, that’s how I was. Stupefied.

        Your opinions do not matter. “Evidence is not proof”. Stupefied. You should base your beliefs on evidence, not opinions.

  6. Believing that God does not exist is a belief, and you should have evidence if you want to cling to it. There are 3 options. Believe God is real, believe God is not real, and no belief. If you have no belief you can agree “For all I know the Bible could be the truth.” Marcel has a belief, and it is not based upon evidence, yes?

  7. There is proof of God. 1) Goldilocks dilemma. 2) Intelligent design in biological systems (the problem of abiogensis, sudden arising of novel order such as visual cortex) 3) The hard problem of consciousness (you need to invent a soul type entity to explain consciousness). If you think you understand that this is not proof, you clearly don’t understand what is posited. The only alternative is random chance, which goes against our common sense. When you see the mona lisa, you don’t think there is a fair chance that this painting arose by accident. It is the same way with the order and harmony of the universe.

    1. So science doesn’t explain it fully yet, therefore god? That’s the god of the gaps argument, which is a dead horse beaten again and again. Watch some debates on the subject in YouTube – your argument has been answered already. You demonstrate this fallacy perfectly in this quote: “””The only alternative is random chance, which goes against our common sense.””” So when looking at any phenomena our two possible answers are: 1. random chance, 2. god/soul? This is a really simple minded position. If you really want to learn how evolution works, search in YouTube playlists: “stated clearly evolution” It’s not about random chance or god.

      1. It is the God of the gaps argument but it’s back with a vengeance. We have spent 60 years of organic chemistry trying to struggle with how DNA arose from organic matter, but all we’ve done is disprove every hypothesis that we’ve come up with. There comes a point when you have to think “it might have been something else” or dare I say “it was probably something else.”
        I’m not retarded I understand how natural selection works but the novelty of complexity is supposedly created by random mutations which are akin to blind chance or typing letteres into a keyboard at random. Evolution is guided by blind chance and that’s just 1/3 of the argument.

        1. Evolution is not guided by blind chance. If you say it is, you don’t know how natural selection works. Mutations are random, but which mutations get passed on is not random at all.

          No, the god of the gaps argument isn’t coming back and it is still a fallacy. How many hypotheses about lightning were disproved before the current understanding of electricity? How many times would you have said the Thor hypothesis is coming back with every incorrect hypothesis about electricity? How many times would you have said god causes disease, before we figured out it was the invisible bacteria and viruses?

          60 years of organic chemistry to figure out something which happened once in a billion years of early Earth conditions. The abiogenetic hypothesis should be about an improbable event, because with that huge time interval pretty much anything that could happen in the early Earth conditions had time to occur.

          1. According to the theory of evolution, novel order arises because of genetic mutation. But all you see in the lab is either gene duplications, reshuffling of existing genes, or defective genes (with a loss of information). . . . But you never see any new information arising in a cell . . . we just don’t observe it happening. It’s hard to see how any serious scientist could believe that real information can arise just by itself.

            You make your own logical fallacy in believing you have proven me wrong. It is called false equivalency. Just because their arguments were incorrect doesn’t mean mine is. That’s like saying because science in the past was proven wrong that our current understanding is wrong. It’s a different time with a different understanding and therefore a more enlightened argument.

            I’ll assume you haven’t done much research into abiogensis theories, but they were looking for a ubiquitous mechanism which could produce many RNA strands because RNA coding by itself has an error rate of 20%, meaning that any life that did arise had a great chance at failure. If youre talking about the metabolism first theory of abiogensis, you run into the problem of statistical implausibility. Yeah you can say we got 1 in a 10^100 chance lucky…. but that is ridiculuous as you could wait for the entire universe to expand into heat death before life would ever probably arise. Saying that it must have happened that way is an excercise in faith just like the Christians exercise faith in a cult of wild Jews.

            1. Failures of science are no more evidence for god than they are evidence for leprechauns and magic.

              I’m not claiming “it must have happened that way”. I’m saying we don’t know currently, further research is needed.

              But every time something unknown has been attributed to magic and supernatural and science manages to produce an evidence based answer, it’s completely natural and follows the laws of physics.

              Your first paragraph suggests you didn’t watch the playlist I recommended: “stated clearly evolution”.

              1. No, clearly the teleological argument presents an argument for an omniscient, omnipotent deity behind creation. Leprachauns are irrelevant.

                Anyway, claiming there is no evidence of God is a bold assertion. I found plenty evidence which you can use to make a strong inductive argument for the existence of God. Is it empirical proof? No. But you simply believe in blind chance and undiscovered coincidences of nature. It makes much more sense to me that there are no unbelievable coincidences and that there is a divine order instead.

                Btw I understand evolution. I see the truth of evolution and it’s untestable flaws. We can use evolution to explain how bats or whales exist (through “tinkering”) but to me it fails to account for sudden arising of order such as the cambrian explosion. It is a current dilemma for the theory as I view it as statistically implausible.

                1. You really are an evolution denier. Evolution is not a debate, it’s a fact. The debate ended decades ago, because now there are multiple different scientific methods, which all back it up. If you don’t believe in evolution, you are simply not educated in the subject. It is one of the most tested theory of all time.

                  Saying “god did it” is not an explanation, because it assumes more than it explains. Who created god? If god is eternal and just is the way it is, and created the universe, Occam’s razor cuts that and it’s is a better hypothesis to say that the universe is eternal and just is the way it is. Even if the latter hypothesis is better than the first one, they are both hypotheses, and require evidence, which they don’t have.

                  Truth is, you didn’t look at the evidence and arrive at the god hypothesis, but you assumed the god hypothesis and then desperately tried to get evidence for it.

                  1. I don’t deny evolution in some aspects(it explains where bats and whales came from) but the hierarchy of evolution is too coincidental for me.

                    That’s a poor example of Occam’s razer. It’s simpler to say God, who is self-existent, did it, then claim that there are an infinity of universes which need further explanation.

                    Wrong I started out as an atheist who had hopes of the technological singularity producing immortality in my life time, but through research into cosmology, biology, neurology and chemistry have come to notice a divine order.

                    1. Infinite number of other universes is just one hypothesis that we have arrived to when studying physics and mathematics. That is just one hypothesis out of many. Again, we don’t know and may never know.

                      I did not say infinite universes. I said

                      “””Saying “god did it” is not an explanation, because it assumes more than it explains. Who created god? If god is eternal and just is the way it is, and created the universe, Occam’s razor cuts that and it’s is a better hypothesis to say that the universe is eternal and just is the way it is. Even if the latter hypothesis is better than the first one, they are both hypotheses, and require evidence, which they don’t have.”””

                      “Notice a divine order” like what? I hope you are not making an erroneous probability calculation by mistaking prior probability to posterior probability.

                    2. Yeah, but you’re missing an important fact. The universe appears fine-tuned for life, the fact of which should require an explanation, of which there are only two possibilities. There is an intelligent deity or there is a multitude of universes. Occam’s razer should apply to an infinitude of parallel universes who would need further convoluted explanations.

                      I don’t believe I am.

                      It’s really quite simple : you believe that behind all the order and harmony of the universe is pure chaos or accidental causation. But I think this goes against common sense, as if you try looking for it you can see a grand order of things instead of seeing coincidences piled on top of coincidences. Sometimes these coincidences are just a little too much to believe in and require more faith than God.

                      I think the major hurdle of the skeptic is believing in a cruel God. But its true, God is not benevolent, he purposefully helps humans as little as possible which is quite different than helping them as much as they want(omnibenevolence).

                    3. Here is an example of closed mindedness: “””there are only two possibilities. There is an intelligent deity or there is a multitude of universes. “”” NO! Science has shown us that the explanations are often really surprising and no-one could have thought of them before making the experiments.

                      Before the theory of evolution you would have said: “””either there are infinite amount of universes and the animals formed via random chance, or god created every species of animal.”””

                      Here are three hypotheses off the top of my head to demonstrate your closed mindedness: 1. The universe could be infinitely large and the parameters change over distance. 2. The universe could be as small as we can observe, but the parameters change over time with every big bang. 3. Different parameters could have produced different kinds of worlds beyond our imagination.

                      These three hypotheses don’t assume an intelligent and powerful deity, which needs more explanation than the universe itself.

                      There could be an infinite amount of hypotheses that make sense. But arguments and making sense are not evidence.

                      The only intellectual position to have is: “I don’t know, no-one knows, further research is needed.”

                      “””you believe that behind all the order and harmony of the universe is pure chaos or accidental causation.”””

                      No I don’t believe that, nor did I say I did.

                      “””God is not benevolent, he purposefully helps humans as little as possible”””

                      Do you really think the hypothetical god/gods care about what humans do? In a universe of I000 000 000 stars? I thought you were making a deist argument, but you are getting into theist territory here. I can consider a deistic hypothesis, but not theistic hypotheses.

                    4. Perhaps I misspoke, but there are only two alternatives. A Single universe or a multiverse. The multiverse can come in 3 flavors : an Infinitude of Parallel Universes like in String M-Theory or Inflationary Model, a Cyclic Universe, or Poincares Recycling Universe. It’s all the same basic idea.

                      There aren’t an infinite amount of surprising hypothesis, we really are limited by how we define our reality…

                      Alright, so you aren’t a true atheist, you’re more like a skeptical agnostic which is a more tenable position. But in my mind it’s more like 50/50 there is a deity or a multiverse… although if you look more closely you can see how intelligent design is favored by webs of coincidences.

                      I think humans are essential to God’s plan, as he designed the universe around them. There may be a trillion trillion stars, but there are still a trillion worlds that are hospitable to life. The excess baggage is merely a by-product of an teleological design.

                      You don’t trust theology? May I ask why? Don’t think that any of the religions are logically coherent or consistent? If you remove the Gospel from the bible you will find no contradictions in it, although I do believe much of it was edited. Same can be said of the Upanishads, they make logical sense.

                    5. There is not one shred of evidence for any of the thousands upon thousands of deities, all of who’s devotees declare that theirs is the only true one. Deities are a construction of ancient primitive men who were scared of earthquakes, thunderstorms, disease, crop failures etc, in other words natural phenomena. The clever religious leaders further developed and prayed upon those fears to put themselves in a position of power over the gullible, just like the medicine men today in primitive tribes.

                    6. Given two critical issues: 1) there is not one shred of evidence for the supernatural 2) Science, which makes new discoveries every day, without doubt to the rational thinker has and continues to provide by far the most likely evidence for evolution, whether a group of religious zealots like it or not.

                    7. blah blah baseless rhetoric. my spiritual explanations are more detailed than “scientific” ones. I suppose that doesn’t matter though, even though back in the day darwins theory of evolution was accepted based on its explanatory power without any experimental evidence.

                    8. I don’t deny evolution in some forms like the evolution of bats or whales from their ancestors, but I don’t agree that the sudden arising of novel order is adequately explained by evolution. Random mutations doesn’t cut it for me.

                    9. I have studied evolution and can determine where God would act to produce complex structures which are too complex to arise by chance in a timely manner.

                      Maybe you should learn about evolution and see how our system is a system of grand coincidences that all fit together cohesively to make a nice miracle.

                    10. great debate guys. I’ve been trying to look at both sides without bias and I too, am leaning on intelligent design. Not necessarily religious beliefs, but an order to this creation, with laws and rules. Just like a computer program, you can’t perform excel formulas in Adobe reader. We are limited by the design. Or similar to when you look at all the microorganisms in our body. They make us, but we identify as one being. We can be part of the organism called Earth and the combination of everyone’s conciousness forms earth’s conciousness. It’s all fractal reality, infinite, and beautiful. especially when you realize there is a design, a genius design. Try some ayahuasca.

                    11. Nice to have an outsider perspective.

                      As I was reading your reply, I was simultaneously listening to a channel 9 news broadcast where a Hawaiian native was being interviewed and he said “You see we are all interconnected. It’s all the same life force.” Definitely a synchronous coincidence I think.

                      Anyway, I have a theory about God’s awareness. I think it is a self-repeating fractal pattern of infinite love that expands upon itself limitlessly. The ancient Hindus labeled it “Brahman.” You should check it out if you’re interested in mysticism. Fractals definitely have inherent beauty in them.

                    12. Intelligent design needs an intelligent designer, so it doesn’t explain anything. It assumes exactly as much as it explains. For example if you believe we live in a simulation on a 5-dimensional teenager’s computer, you haven’t answered the question “why is there something?”

                      There is no evidence-based reason to assume we live in a 5-dimensional teenagers computer simulation, or some other god-figure’s creation.

                    13. Well intelligent design implies an omnipotent, omniscient being. The only other alternative is that reality is an illusion produced by a vastly superior intelligence… but this interpretation goes against common sense. People live their lives believing that the world is real and meaningful.

                    14. No, you are incredibly closed-minded with that false dichotomy. “””The only other alternative is””” No. Please just say: “I don’t know”, because you clearly don’t. No-one does. There are millions of different hypotheses you haven’t thought about. Science has shown us again and again that people’s wild speculations about the nature of phenomena are really often incorrect. The truth is often something people would have never guessed.

                    15. Please show me some examples. 😛 By the way your argument dismisses ALL of science in favor of “unknowable truth”. Very empirically minded of you:

                    16. My argument is the scientifically sound position. Please talk to a scientist. You are making wild speculation claims without any evidence. I’m saying I don’t know, as should you. You don’t know. The burden of proof is on you. There are millions of ways the universe could be and your specific hypothesis is really improbable. This is the only empirically minded position to be in.

                      Here are some examples off the top of my head: 1. Universe is eternal and the fundamental constants change in time. 2. Universe is eternal and the fundamental constants change in space over huge distances. 3. Universe is not eternal and basic laws of physics necessarily end up to this outcome. 4. There are infinite number of universes and this one produces conscious creatures to perceive it. 5. There are infinite different ways conscious life could form in different universes and our universe got the DNA based life. 6. There are consciousnesses at every level from subatomic particles to galaxies and the only special things about brain level consciousness is that we are able to communicate our experiences.

                      I could go on 24/7 for the rest of my life and still couldn’t get a single hypotheses right, because human intelligence could be too limited to understand the universe.

                      If a hypothesis makes sense, that is not evidence. Arguments are not evidence. There are an infinite amount of hypotheses, which make sense, but are untrue.

                    17. Empiricism is founded in making conclusions based on sensory experience (technological advances included). Once you step outside of the realm of experience, things get muddy.

                      Okay, I thought we were talking about the assumption that there is a single universe that appears to be fine-tuned for life.

                      Otherwise there are only two possible scenarios. A single universe or a multiverse. The multiverse can come in 3 flavors : A) An infinitude of “single” universes, B) a cyclic universe or C) a recycling universe.

                      Option 1/2/3 are a “recycling” universe. Option 4 is A.

                      Option 5 is an interesting one. From our observations we see that life is a delicate complexity that only arises under very specific conditions. I suppose you could write new laws of physics to make different life(it would of course be more convoluted and not as elegant, which further validates Einstein/Spinoza’s Godhead), but the “dead” universe schematics would always vastly outweigh the “live” universe schematics.

                      Option 6 Another interesting take on consciousness, the problem is that we don’t experience awareness while we sleep. We don’t know what sleep is like. We don’t perceive a sleeping brain. It appears we are not based upon brain matter itself, but a peculiar activity of the brain.

                      Sure, hypothesis can be logical and still be wrong, but when a hypothesis is a good one is when it has both logic AND explanatory power on its side(as in it does a better job of explaining reality than competing hypotheses)

                    18. Intelligent design needs an intelligent designer, so it doesn’t explain anything. It assumes exactly as much as it explains. For example if you believe we live in a simulation on a 5-dimensional teenager’s computer, you haven’t answered the question “why is there something?”

                      if I stick to fractal reality, to answer “the why” for the 5th dimensional teenager, I would ask why the 3rd dimensional teenager is playing a video game. The intelligent design doesn’t have to be a good one. It could be a bad one, but still created by an intelligent source. I do agree, we don’t know, no one knows, but the same rule applies to science. Especially with the creation of something arising from nothing. There is no proof of that.

                    19. Why donn’t you just say “I don’t know”, because you don’t? It’s a lot more intelligent position than to attach to a specific hypothesis, which is most certainly wrong.

                    20. you’re right. That would be the most appropriate answer. If everyone did that there would be no religion or science. Everything would just be what it is and we would just be like our animal neighbors. We would, eat, poop, sleep. However, or nature is to question. The beauty is that we question architecture and not randomness. We ask about purpose, like a living red cell in you, would ask it’s purpose. The body is a masterpiece. Here is the kicker, the human body was one cell that divided itself and formed you eventually. You are a creation if those cells. Are your thoughts yours? or theirs? and who ate we creating?

                    21. You completely misunderstand the scientific mindset. If everyone did what I’m suggesting, we would have only the scientific method. Of course we should seek more data, gather evidence, ask every question, be curious.

                      But to make claims, which are not backed up by evidence is unscientific. Science tries to prove itself wrong, that’s how it progresses.

                      You shouldn’t stop thinking, because a specific hypothesis sound rational to you. You have to test it, doubt it, ask more questions. That’s what science is about.

                    22. True, I also agree. I love science, real science, not manipulated science. My view is just as you said, we don’t know where, how, why, etc… we came into existence. I am scientifically saying that both religion and the current scientific theory of the beginning are based on a miracle. Religion says from a God. Science says from an explosion. When you ask them both where God or the elements for the explosion come from, they can’t give a reasonable response. Since we can’t go back in time, I look around me to see the design of both theories, one random events, the other intelligent design. To me, at this point, I see more intelligent design within ourselves, within nature, and in outer space. This does not mean I believe in a God character as depicted by religion. I think we are doing great by simply looking for answers and it’s great that we all take different views and share them. I will without a doubt stop believing something if it can be proven to me.

                    23. But strong agnosticism isn’t necessarily an intelligent position.

                      Sure we don’t know some things for certain, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t believe in them. There are a lot of scientific truths that are established based upon inductive reasoning.

                      We can look at a group of hypothesis and proclaim that one is most likely based on the available evidence. Strong agnosticism that defies inductive reasoning is counter-intuitive to the progression of science. Of course even though was make an assumption of which hypothesis is correct, it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t remain open minded or skeptical, but not to an extreme.

                    24. My position isn’t even strong agnosticism. On the contrary you come off as very anti-agnostic. Why should you accept a hypothesis, which is true with an estimated 0,00000001 % probability?

                    25. I’m confused to as where you got that probability.

                      We have two options. There is a single fine-tuned universe or a multiverse. That’s 50/50 but with occam’s razor that leans toward a single universe.

                      There are many variations of the multiverse, but when we see a man has a vehicle or he doesn’t, we don’t include every type of vehicle possible when making our assumption. All the multiverses are subsumed under the category of multiverse.

                    26. I laughed out loud. Two options doesn’t mean it’s anywhere close to 50/50. You need evidence to assess probability. Also you don’t even know there are 2, 3 or 1000000 different options. No-one does. You have picked your favorite hypothesis without evidence and are going to defend it no matter what. Have a nice day.

        2. I’m not retarded I understand how natural selection works but the novelty of complexity is supposedly created by random mutations which are akin to blind chance or typing letteres into a keyboard at random. Evolution is guided by blind chance and that’s just 1/3 of the argument.

          Blind chance???? You’ve been hovin-ed.

          1. Eh? Evolutionary theory does state that the novel order you see is the product of random mutation.
            It took 1.4 billion years for bacteria to develop into mitochondria, but only 20 million for nervous system and brains, which are more complex, to develop? When bacteria have an accelerated rate of mutation due to plasmids? How does that make sense to you?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.