Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism

Foundational Falsehoods of CreationismEver wonder why creationism sounds like limp science? Wonder no more. Sit back & enjoy the ride as AronRa takes you on a Magical Mystery Tour of Blunderland.

The U.S. population seems pretty evenly divided over whether the human species is biologically related to other animals or whether we were "specially-created" as part of a flurry of miracles.

Even our collective politicians - seemingly all of them - are wrapped up in this controversy. Yet its hard to find even one of them who knows what its about.

Why is it that there is such concern in so many grade schools (K thru 12) about teaching evolution, yet there is still a complete consensus among scientists all over America and the rest of the world - that evolution is the backbone of modern biology, and a demonstrable reality historically as well?

Most people really don’t understand science; what it is, how it works, what hypotheses and theories are, or even the purpose behind it. Sadly even those on your school faculty or state Board of Education often need an education themselves before they can be trusted to govern how or what our kids will be taught.

Watch the full documentary now (playlist)

1.2k
8.77
12345678910
Ratings: 8.77/10 from 48 users.

More great documentaries

Comments and User Reviews

  • Greywall

    Just started watching it but I think that perhaps it's going to be a one of the much commented about doco both from atheists and anti-atheists...

  • Greywall

    I recommend that comments at youtube must be referred by the debators but my request to all that for a healthy discussion, such comments should not be 'copied and pasted' rather participants should conduct their own research... that's the way we can learn from and teach each other...

  • Epicurus

    Greywall, we all stand on the shoulders of giants. there is nothing wrong with using info from another source as long as you understand it and can source it.

  • Epicurus

    PS. Aronra is one of the most brilliant people on youtube.

  • Greywall

    @Epicurus
    "we all stand on the shoulders of giants".
    I already recommended referring that source so there's no harm in 'REFERRING' that source but my message was something beyond that. To your point, Yes, I agree that we are standing at the shoulders of giants, but does that reduce our size in any way? When you stand st the shoulders of giants, that's the sign of your greateness...
    Standing at the top of Mount Everest doesn't reduce your height in any way rather it increases it beyond the heights of Mount Everest. Can't you feel? Why climbers go to climb up the Everest or K2 (although it's actually 'Karakoram 2' but also called by the mountaineers 'Killer Too' as it has killed hundreds of climbers)?
    Another point: Sometimes, don't you say somewhere deep down in your heart that 'Down with the Darwinism'..?? Even after having reduced to ashes, after decades of decades, Darwin is still consuming millions of productive hours of our genation in useless debate?? Why shouldn't we let Darwin and his theory burried alone now...?? BTW what difference would it make if 'He' is proven to be right or wrong??
    Don't you think that we keep on debating Darwin, probably we don't have something else productive to discuss...? (Is it somekind of another conspiracy???) Where are the conspiracy theorists?
    Have you ever researched that online posts also cause an increase in 'greenhouse affect' to our Mother Earth and reduction in it's life? So, Mr. Darwin, even now is polluting our environment un-necessarily...??

  • Epicurus

    lol greywall the reason it is debated is because religious people are too simple to understand that it has all the evidence and has been shown to be true.

    evolution is a fact. things evolve. we know this. we have all the evidence needed.

    if anyone is polluting it is the religious people who cant bring their mentality out of the stone age and into the modern world with the rest of us.

    if you want to talk about shelf life what about jesus...been dead for 2000 years and still the topic of debate...

    Darwin has enabled our population to sustain itself in such large numbers. without darwins amazing theory we wouldnt understand how viruses evolve thus our medicine would be obsolete, we wouldnt understand how selective breeding for crops and animals worked so our food sources would be greatly reduced. without darwin and his theory we would still be thinking humans of different races are fundamentally different, however evolution showed us that we are all the same species just slight evolutionary differences have adapted us for our particular environments.

  • Insomniac

    @greywall - "(...) perhaps it’s going to be a one of the much commented about doco both from atheists and anti-atheists…"

    Probably. However, this doc is extremely thorough. Any argument against it I can possibly think of is discussed (and proven wrong) in it. Arguing against it here would mean you haven't watched the whole thing and therefore shouldnt comment, and any counter argument would be something along the lines of "watch between minutes X and X". For those reasons I will not take part in this bible bashing. Have fun everyone ^^

  • Curious

    I love the hard science in this documentary. I am deeply spiritual and scientific. I see no distinction as both in my mind seek out Truth.

    For a lighter side on this argument (and the counter-argument) please check out the Season Six Episode 9 of Futurama.

    Too bad it wasn't out when he wrote this doc, it would have made great cut scenes.

    "How about the fact we're still apes right now?!" Great end line to one of the sections.

    I also recommend the Dalai Lama's "Universe in a grain of sand." Excellent analysis of science from a religious leader with strong scientific reasoning and references.

    Thanks so much for putting these up for us to think and debate.

    Enjoy :)

  • Ante

    A quote from another great movie seems very appropriate before all hell breaks loose /*my assumption, hope I'm proven wrong*/ in the comments area of this move.

    The 3 stages of truth:
    1.) ridicule
    2.) violent opposition
    3.) acceptance

  • magarac

    Wonder if that guy could talk any faster and still not take a single breath.

  • http://kool-invention.mine.nu doc-fan

    Too much information in one movie time :P I'll finish later but I like this video. Anyway...

    @ Greywall:

    So true :)

  • Matar

    As a born Swede and living in Sweden I have never lived in a society where creationism has opposed science in this manner. However, I can imagine the pure frustration and fear if someone ever got this close to impose it on my children. I am supporter of science, witch feels strange to say, but still search within myself for any kind of spirituality.

    Even though subjects that are thought to children are put to the test on higher levels there is lack teaching kids about scientific theory. In other words, criticizing everything you are told or tough. In my view it is introduced too late. Lastly I agree with the doc. There is no such thing as evolutionalism (it is not even in my spelling tool here), as we only use it for successful outcomes. Therefore it is wrong to have creationism in there. If it were, we would be wasting time modifying a tomato with pure belief and mind power.

  • Doug

    I find this video disingenuous. It starts by saying that Evolution and belief in a higher being are compatible. The video also states that most scientists believe in a creator. Then the video further sets Creationists as a fringe by stating that most Christians support Evolution including quotes from three Popes and other Christian leaders.

    The video then takes a hard atheist turn and attacks all religious beliefs and specifically Christian beliefs. The narrator has a overt condescending tone and attitude toward anyone with faith.

    This video is deceptive. It is really an atheism recruitment video. While such a video is perfectly fine, it is disingenuous to claim compatibility between Evolution and religious beliefs, then to spend the rest of the video attacking religious beliefs.

    Note, this video does not go into very much scientific theory or facts. It spends the bulk of its time attacking all religions and Christian faith in particular.

  • Doug

    Also, it is unethical to use a picture of the Pope for this video considering that the Pope stated that he supports Evolution and rejects Creationism.

  • judas

    All I wanna know, does anyone have the links
    where I can download this video.

    Totally love it, inspite of all the comments made
    above mine in here, Id like to download it for safe
    keeping.

    THx Top Doc , for puttin this one up!!

    Judas.

  • Somethin

    This Doc made my day. A work of genius. And hillarious to. :P

  • Insomniac

    @Doug

    "I find this video disingenuous. It starts by saying that Evolution and belief in a higher being are compatible."

    Plz expain why it doesn't (preferably without refering to scriptures, it does no good to your credibility)

    "The video also states that most scientists believe in a creator."

    No it doesn't. It simply says that many (neither most nor all) scientists believe in a higher power. Most (if not all) scientists do not believe in a "creator" in the sense you mean it.

    "Then the video further sets Creationists as a fringe by stating that most Christians support Evolution including quotes from three Popes and other Christian leaders."

    Thats is a verifiable fact. Those quotes we're not falsified.

    "The video then takes a hard atheist turn and attacks all religious beliefs and specifically Christian beliefs."

    The video doesn't attack beliefs, it disprove false claims. The narrator clearly admits that the existence or non-existence of God is unverifiable.

    "The narrator has a overt condescending tone and attitude toward anyone with faith."

    The narrator's tone and attitude are not arguments agaisnt his message.

    "This video is deceptive. It is really an atheism recruitment video."

    This video has nothing to do with atheism. I'm not even sure the word atheism is said once.

    "Note, this video does not go into very much scientific theory or facts. It spends the bulk of its time attacking all religions and Christian faith in particular."

    It does go into a lot of scientific facts and theories. It simply doesn't bother to vulgarise it for you.

  • Swytch

    Piltdown man all I gotta say

  • Epicurus

    @swytch....what about Piltdown man?

    that was a hoax that was shown to be a hoax by science. that doesnt mean all the evidence for evolution is wrong. if anything, it shows that the scientific process is very hard to fool and science is willing to crap on any idea that cant verify itself.

    what was the point of saying piltdown man? were you trying to help evolution by pointing out the times it has weeded out the frauds?

  • Epicurus

    @swytch….what about Piltdown man?

    that was a hoax that was shown to be a hoax by science. that doesnt mean all the evidence for evolution is wrong. if anything, it shows that the scientific process is very hard to fool and science is willing to $hit on any idea that cant verify itself.

    what was the point of saying piltdown man? were you trying to help evolution by pointing out the times it has weeded out the frauds?

  • Achems Razor

    Read all the posts, now will watch the doc.

  • Insomniac

    Im sorry I lied...Doc says the words atheism 3 times before going into details about how it has nothing to do with this particular argument.

  • ez2b12

    @ Swytch

    Why do you bother watching these types of docs when it is so obviouse that you are determined to believe in creationism and the judaeo christian God? You have made up your mind already and refuse to see anything to the contrary. You have this right and are wasting your time and ours by pretending to be objective.

    By the way, Piltdown man was proven long ago to be a fake by evolutionary science. This proves that unlike the misrepresenting, lieing, immoral creationists evolutionary scintists do not misrepresent or jump on some false assertion or fake fossil to make thier point. They do not have to, the evidence for evolution is all around us and very real and easily identified. Creationist on the other hand have been caught in one lie after another, known to intentionally misrepresent the facts, and have used one trick after the other in order to fool the scientifically illiterate. Is this what you call christian behavior?

    If you want to believe just believe. Don't try and distort the world to fit your ideals. I've seen first hand on this site that you misrepresent history, science, and theology to try and justify your belief system- stop doing it. It is not helping your case but hurting it.

    @ Doug

    Are you seriousely trying to say that this documentary doesn't go into much scientific theory or facts? Did you even watch the doc? Thier was so much scientific theory and fact that it is overkill. Too much info for one documentary. This guy is spitting out theory and fact so fast that he doesn't even have time to breath. After watching about three quarters of it I had to stop for awhile as my brain was burning from overload. I liked it any way but I am just saying, if you did not think thier was enough theory or fact you must not know the definition of theory or fact.

  • Doug

    Attack on the Bible
    8:10
    "As a moral guide it [the Bible] utterly fails. Why? Because much of the Hebrew scriptures were written by ignorant and bigoted savages who condoned and promoted animal cruelty, incest, slavery, abuse of slave, spousal abuse, child abuse, child molestation, abortion, pillage, murder, cannibalism, genocide and prejudice against race, nationality, religion, sex and sexual orientation."

    Part 3
    Attack on the Divinity of Jesus Christ
    5:20
    " Jesus only did what Akhenaten did. Promote himself as the sole prophet of the sun god. At one point he says he is one with God but clarifies he is only referring to his purpose, and he says that any of us can become one with God just as he is and that we may perform even greater miracles than he did. But throughout the Bible, regardless whatever else he may claim of himself, Jesus only ever described himself as separate from and subordinate to "el Abba Allah Yahweh"(sic). And he said that the God of Abraham and the bringer of the flood was someone else, somewhere else, who knows things Jesus doesn't know, can do things Jesus can't do and who did things Jesus didn't do but only witnessed like creating the world. Jesus also spoke of God in 3rd person, spoke to God in 2nd person, and in one scene, God talks about Jesus in 3rd person too, when he introduced his son to the Jews. Then the Holy Ghost showed up and led Jesus to somewhere he didn't already know. None of this could be if Jesus was an avatar or a god in the flesh because then Jesus and God and the Holy Ghost would all still share the same knowledge, power, identity and position in space and time. It is pretty clear that Jesus did not believe he was the same God has he and the Jews both worshiped."

    This video is more religion than science. The documentarian is clearly not a theologian and is speaking well outside of his expertise. His understanding of Christian and Jewish theology is at best a surface understanding.

    Ironically, this is the very thing that he accuses creationists of doing: speaking outside of their expertise. The proper way to fight creationists is with science. A Darwinist attacking religion using a surface understanding of religion (as was done in this documentary) is just as laughable as a creationist attacking science with a surface understanding of science.

    Stay in your area of expertise. Don't try to make a documentary as some authority on something you are not. Your understanding of religion is severely lacking.

  • Achems Razor

    I'm up to 12 of 17 will watch rest tomorrow.
    This doc. is presented in a rapid machine gun style, you have to be quick on the draw, and a fast reader, I love it!

    Creationists will be bent out of shape with this doc. I wager. If they even watch it. Actually I challenge the religious creationists to watch this doc.

  • mikey

    Yes i was the same way i had to take a few breaks there was so much scientific theory and fact that it is was total overkill , very well done .. hard fact science in this documentary , no stone unturned ,

    saying that Evolution is right or attacking all religions is how a new theory grew out of the centuries-old idea , that life exists on other planets, and that humans were planted on earth by extraterrestrials and that alien interaction was a human spices of the past . It is obvious that we don’t know the whole story of our history so to count this out is no better or worse then evolutionary science or God?

    we have to ask ourselves, Where would we be without god ? spiritual ? without evidence ? There has to be evidence , explanation not Assumption , concieved not speculating , not understanding the importance of true data with no question . the hallmark of civilisation !

    never question ourselves our society will never advance.the hallmark of civilisation !

  • eireannach666

    I liked this doc.

    I point , evolution should be taught because of its factual impact on understanding how life works. 3eligion has no evidence or factual proof in which to base its ridiculous claims and would only confuse students and teach nothing of value to them. It would only restrict students from engaging into the deeper sciences of life and the cosmos.

  • 420 Vision

    Finally a doco that dares to tell the truth about the great deception,.. kudos

  • Dr. Dunkleosteus

    *Pause*

    Okay, this could be very good or very bad. So far, he's off to a good start: great points, love his speed (keeping up just fine), but I'm afraid he might spin this in a negative way or into some tangent soon. I withold judgement until the end though.

    Dr. Dunkleosteus
    Atheist
    Proponent of Evolution and the enlightening of dumb people everywhere.

  • agares

    How many million years human still have to evolve until we don't anymore buy this god b@##$%^&. -.-

  • Dr. Dunkleosteus

    Okay, the segment after the one opening with a head shot of george harrison and before the one opening with the dollar bills won't load for me. Any body else?

    Lovin' it so far, I'll skip over it for now.

  • Dr. Dunkleosteus

    *pause again*

    Yep, he just referenced a dunkleosteus.

    I'm sold. Great doc, can't wait to send it to all my lofty, opinionated (yet in one aspect or another misinformed) friends.

    Bangarang, Vlatko!

  • 420 Vision

    If you were stuck in an elevator with the narrator of this film along with a fully fueled chainsaw, and the narrator dude started in on that interogating narrative, continuing over and over and over again, would you stand there soaking in the info and be dazzled, or would you reach for that Huskavarna, let that baby roar, and paint some walls ?

  • Ante

    @judas
    You can download it from Youtube with the Firefox addon DownloadHelper

  • Olu

    Science laughs at the face of idiocy, and it is always so justified!

  • http://newzealand3720 rachael imhof

    let us watch !!

  • SimonTheSorcerer

    This documentary is GOOD I start a new religion btw. :)
    We believe in the power of the one ring ( All hail the glory of the one ring !) and that we are elves only Sauron stole our pointy ears with a magical curse. I'm of course the Pope/CEO of this new religion. Membership fee is only 5 USD per annum (for that you recieve a personalized greeting from me Simon the Pope and a promise of prayer for your damned soul and stolen pointy ears. Join now or FACE DAMNATION! :DDD
    (The first 30 who joins recieve free membership !!!)

  • SimonTheSorcerer

    @roachinkansas Yeah you are right :) So now we declare war with the unholy followers of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and perhaps the Discordians too! :D All hail Eris !
    JIHAD!!! :)

  • Echo-echo

    Oops - I see that I missed the start of the race and that Team Science with its 1000 hp state of evolution cerebrums has the lead and Team Creation with its 1000 HP (read Hope and a Prayer) ethereal engines is lagging behind by a millennium.

    Vlatko - gotta love it huh. Well done dude.

  • Reasons Voice

    Not a bad doc. overall. Good science and well laid out principles of scientific fact. However sadly the doc. is laid out in a derogatory fashion toward spiritual beliefs. In my opinion if one wants to reach the "sheep" it is better not to dress as a wolf. Insulting those that you claim to be addressing rarely wins over converts. There are some examples of the doc going off base just to deliver the anti- religion motiff rather than sticking to the topic and supporting facts. Such as in minute 1.10 of second part when showing the picture of the ten commandments being written. What does that have to do with evolution? And honestly wether you believe in it or not one realy can not refute the quality of the ten commandments message. IE don't kill don't steal etc. etc. Even the most hardened atheist holds such moral codes up as sound judgement. There are many other such examples in the doc. Why not deliver the message without the patronizing undertones?

  • i am become death

    i have just spoken with god and he tells me you've all got it wrong, i am his living son, everyone before me was wayward and sinful and will suffer for this- but you can correct your folly- my father tells me you must bring all of the beautiful women of the earth to me, for the lord your god made them for me. if you falter in this commandment you shall wither and burn for eternity.
    eloi eloi sabachthani....

  • Cliff

    Good doc. The guy's speaking pattern is a little annoying for sure. I was hoping to listen to this while going to sleep but the voice isn't working for me. Maybe Charlton Heston could do it...."damn dirty apes!"

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    Team Creation with its 1000 HP (read Hope and a Prayer) ethereal engines is lagging behind by a millennium.

    @Echo-echo well said. LOL.

  • over the edge

    before this gets silly . instead of complaining about the way it was presented tell me what the presenter got wrong. I am not arguing the right to believe in religion (and neither is the presenter ) the argument is on creationism claim to be scientific . so dispute the scientific claims presented or give us your scientific proof of creationism. you can't argue rational facts with irrational people (stole and screwed up quote lol)

  • bob

    Sorry, but where is his evidence for evolution? just babbling on without any scientific bases. Bashing Christians. Why is evolution still only a theory?

  • SimonTheSorcerer

    bob's comment was funny :) I know this is a joke but seriously no trolling. Religious nuts are insulted enough by the documentary (and real life). :D

  • bob

    fossils don't show any evidence of progression of species, or else Darwinism would not be a theory, it would be fact. The real sheep follow the men in the white coats without question just because they wear white coats.

  • bob

    funny Simon there are no sorcerers in real life.

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    Bob did you watch the video? Watch it and you'll see what the word theory really means. The answer to your question Why is evolution still only a theory? is in the documentary above and in many others on this site. Your question only shows that you don't understand simple scientific terms.

  • over the edge

    @ bob
    u don't understand science or evolution. evolution is a fact darwins theory is an explantion of how evolution works. but evolution has been accepted as fact by both scientists and religions. please show a grade 5 level of education before posts.

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    Or even better @Bob. Type: what is theory in Google Search.

  • over the edge

    i have to go so i will leave discussions in Vlatko 's capable hands. btw ty vlatko for the site

  • Reasons Voice

    Also the frequent referral to ancient texts (torah, koran, etc.) as promoting pedo@#$%&@ is just i@#$%&*. These are scientists they should know that average age expectancy in the dark ages was 30-35.

    If people waited till they were in their 20s to reproduce it would be a waste of 5-7 reproductive years. People were married in their early teens as recently as the 1800s.

    It is only through the eyes of modern society that we make a distinction as to what is OK and what is not on that matter. I agree with modern ideas on the matter as it pertains to our developed society but to apply that to ancient cultures in order to demonize them is facetious and self serving.

    The speaker makes the correct and logical statement that the holey texts were created by man and are therefore falable and subject to interpretation. He then proceeds to use the word he already stated were subject to interpretation as literal unarguable points that if debunked by science invalidates belief. That is a blatant contradiction.

  • bob

    It seems that we are all scientists here now! Evolution is not a fact my dear friend or we would not be having these types of debates. Try a BA in Biology and Mathematics from Glasgow University over the edge, before making assumptions. You still did not provide the evidence of progression within fossils, perhaps this little detail is key to your whole argument. Without it you are basing your theory on what observation? Because monkeys are similar to man, then we must have evolved from monkeys? Tell me, is the after effects of splitting an atom a scientific theory or a scientific fact? And one other thing, just because you watch a few docs, doesn't make you all scientists.

  • bob

    Google! OK i see. Type everything in Google, Google has all the answers
    Over the edge, Darwin is the father of evolution.

  • bob

    There are two lines of fossil evidence for evolution. The first line of evidence concerns the order in which fossils are found buried. Fossils are generally found buried in a sequential order. The first fossilized fish appear buried below the first fossilized amphibians which appear below the first fossilized reptiles which appear below the first fossilized birds and mammals. This is consistent with the Darwinian model of origins which says that birds and mammals evolved from reptiles which evolved from amphibians which evolved from fish. The acronym to remember is FARM: Fish to Amphibian to Reptile to Mammal (and bird).

    Not everything about the order in which fossils are found supports Darwin’s theory however. Near the bottom of the fossil record we find the Cambrian explosion, the sudden appearance of at least two-thirds of all known animal phyla (28 out of the 42), all within a very brief period of geological time. There is some debate as to how many of the remaining 14 phyla also appear during the Cambrian (some scientists say as many as 13 of the remaining 14). Regardless, it is clear that many of the major innovations to the basic structure of known animal forms occurred during this very brief, enigmatic period. This does not support Darwin’s theory of gradual innovation.

    Darwin’s interpretation of the fossil record is by far the most well known perspective. There are alternatives however. For example, while Darwinists emphasize the order in which fossils are found buried, Traditional Catastrophists emphasize where they are found buried. The vast majority of all fossils are found buried in sedimentary rock layers. Sediments are known to be sorted and layered naturally through hydrologic sorting and liquefaction. Traditional Catastrophists believe that these natural sorting mechanisms are largely responsible for the sequential ordering of fossils, contrary to the Darwinian view which denies large scale fossil sorting.

    Fossil Evidence for Evolution – Transitional Fossils
    The second line of fossil evidence for evolution concerns transitional fossils. Transitional fossils are fossils which are thought to document the evolutionary change, or transition, of one species into another. The orohippus, mesohippus, miohippus, merychippus, and pleshippus are all thought to be transitional fossils, documenting the evolution of the hyracotherium into the modern horse.

    The hyracotherium was a small fox-sized four-toed creature, similar to the modern day hyrax. The orohippus had four toes on its front two legs and three on its back, as if it were transitioning from a four-toed to a three-toed creature. The significantly larger mesohippus had three toes all the way around. The mesohippus was followed by the slightly larger miohippus which was followed by the merychippus. Two of the merychippus’ three toes were smaller than those of the mesohippus and the miohippus, as if it were transitioning to a single-toe. The merychippus was followed by the slightly larger single-toed pleshippus which was finally succeeded by the equus (the modern day horse). The equus has two splint bones which appear to be all that remains of the merychippus’ smaller two toes. And so we see a progression from a smaller four-toed creature to a larger single-toed creature with slight structural progression throughout, including the elongation of faces and change in tooth shape.

    This second line of fossil evidence for evolution is no less controversial than the first. For example, consider the ostensive evolution of the horse as described above, undoubtedly the single most popular and widely known sequence of transitional fossils. Critics point out that the fossils used to create the hyracotherium-to-horse sequence are found on opposite sides of the planet, oceans apart. This geographical discontinuity is an obstacle for advocates of the sequence. Those fossils which actually do appear on the same side of the ocean cause some difficulties as well. A species of three-toed horses were found together with a species of single-toed horses in the same rock formation in Nebraska, indicating that they lived side-by-side. As for the fossils’ progressive increase in size, this is a mute point. Modern horses vary greatly in size, from small dog-sized miniatures to massive Belgians, Clydesdales, and Percherons.

    And so the debate rages on. Darwinists interpret geological and biological data in a manner consistent with their theory. Critics dispute these interpretations, citing incongruities.

  • charlesovery

    This will be the third time I have watched this documentary. I feel that I will be watching it more and more though cause I always laugh through parts. Anyway, Keeping notes on this doc is interesting for research. He goes so fast but I am keeping up and I love it. For sure one of my top five on this site.

    Vlat- You never seem to lose my interest in docs on your site. Thanks man!

  • Reasons Voice

    I address only the presentation of the facts since I do not disagree with the facts. I don't support creationism at all. My point is that, as stated in the doc., only a very small percentage of religious people believe in this. And of those believers only a small fraction of them are of christian faith. So why is ti that both in the doc and in these comment spaces that we then find rampant bashing of all religion especially christian. Perhaps I have been somewhat sheltered from it but I have never been brow beaten by any religious person about creationism or any other belief. And heck I attended catholic run grammar and secondary schools. Ohh which by the way taught me genetics and evolution without the slightest hint of creationist theory.

  • Cliff T

    @Bob You seem to be the very definition of ignorance. Did you even watch the documentary?

    Theory
    - A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories CAN INCORPORATE FACTS and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

    A theory is falsifiable as is all science.

    Here's one for you. Creationism is just faith, not fact. No part of it has ever been proven and to date has no evidence to back it up.

    You know, if any God is real, he is sitting round a table with his buddies. Yeah, Santa, The Tooth Fairy and some leprechauns probably laughing his ass off at creationists. Why not eh, if I believe it, it must be true.

  • over the edge

    @ bob
    my evidence is based on scientific tests run which in the lab prove evolution . if you want get a petri dish expose it to a bacteria then introduce enough poison to kill most of the medium. continue to expose to expose it and you will end up with bacteria that love the poison and will thrive in it . this is repeatable and a fact that proves evolution. if you dismiss this then please give me your arguments against evolution because the top scientists for the last hundred and fifty years HAVE tried to disprove it.

  • bob

    Still talking with out providing the fossil evidence that i asked for! Babbling on, evolution is also faith based. The bible is also laced with historical facts and some people theorize that evolution is the mechanism in which God created the universe. Seems your contradicting yourself. Big bang theory is just as equal as believing in GOD, you also believe the universe was created from nothing.

    I take it your one of those Al Gore types, i bet you also believe that we only use 10% of our brain!(probably in your case). Theories can incorporate fact 'ooh' still doesn't make them fact(where is the facts in regard to fossils, still waiting?).

  • bob

    @ over the edge please, reference your clam. You must also learn the difference between adaptation and evolution. The bacteria are still bacteria.

  • over the edge

    @ bob i have a response in moderation but until then evolution Never states that one species changes to another only that it is a gradual change that over time may change enough to no longer be compatible with another . did you even watch the doc or are you tring to deny what it said. i again after answering three of your questions (maybe not to your satisfaction) ask you to answer my 1 i will not respond to you til you do

  • over the edge

    @ bob you said
    "@ over the edge please, reference your clam. You must also learn the difference between adaptation and evolution. The bacteria are still bacteria." darwin states that evolution is by means of adaptation so thank you for proving my point

  • bob

    Evolution is the transition from one spices into another. Talk about grade 5! still waiting!

  • john

    @Reasons Voice

    I wish you were right about the Christian faith and its role in society but times are changing and as there are fewer and fewer believers in religion in general the fundamentalist leaders of these stone-age sects are fighting back both in the USA and around the world (look at what has happened to the USA since the religious right has asserted itself, it is now for basically a theocracy)

    I@#$%& (George.W Bush, Bobby Jindal, Jeb Bush etc, all republican but there are as many nut jobs on the democrat side) elected by i!@#$@ (45% of Americans reject evolution) trying to indoctrinate our kids without our permission or knowledge.

    Its a war pure and simple between humanity and bigotry. this is the front line where the future of human civilization and progress will be decided. ALL religion is POISON for the human mind and stifles progress with its "i know the truth, gods truth" attitude.

    We need people like Aronra, they are doing a great service to humankind by showing these cults for what they really are. mankind will never be free while we bear the yoke of slavery to a mythical god. God is dead. long live humanity.

  • john

    @bob08/31/2010 at 03:27 Still talking with out providing the fossil evidence that i asked for! Babbling on, evolution is also faith based. The bible is also laced with historical facts

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA...historical facts...where.....the jews were never slaves in egypt, no garden of eden, no moses, no 900 year old men, no flood...its ALL bogus. i'm ashamed if you are a product of the british education system and i dont know who was teaching you biology or into how much detail the lecturers went but my a level biology was detailed enough for me to get a good handle on how random mutation leads to differences in species over time. we are similar to apes because we had a common ancestor...NOT BECAUSE WE EVOLVED FROM APES...WE ARE APES!!!!

  • bob

    evolution Never states that one species changes to another only that it is a gradual change that over time may change enough to no longer be compatible with another .

    What does that mean? isn't that not what i just said: Evolution is the transition from one spices into another. Species; (biology) taxonomic group whose members can interbreed. So still no fossil evidence of such a claim then, you answered nothing. A reptile is a reptile, a bird is a bird, a monkey a monkey, Coelacanth a Coelacanth. Coelacanth: a fish thought to be extinct for over 70 million yeas but found alive and well in 1938. And guess what! still exactly the same after all those years.

    But of course you wont find the truth in your basic text books, too many reputations at risk. They also used to say smoking is good for you. They say aspartame is safe and there is nothing wrong with Mercury fillings even though they emit vapor. Oh and James Watson co-discoverer of the sequence of DNA also says that Black people are less intelligent according to their DNA.

  • Doug

    @John

    Comment FAQ

    "8. How do I write a good comment?

    You write a good comment by not insulting others, by not using CAPS LOCK, by not using repetitive punctuation, and by sticking to the argument if you don’t agree with someone. Remember, the minute you insult a person in a debate, you lose."

  • john

    doug, sometimes you have to shout to be heard.

  • bob

    John, then go and sleep with an Ape and see if you will produce offspring! just joking don't, by how you write I'm sure you probable would try such a thing. We are not talking about the validity of the bible but evolution. Jumping to conclusions again insinuating that i am religious. If i was, then watching this doc suggests open mindedness.

  • jim

    Religion is a primitive concept holding Humanity back...
    Worship the sun, moon or stars... Its all the same thing.
    Creationism... LOL What a joke. Stop smoking crack.

  • over the edge

    @ bob i never said that evolution is"Evolution is the transition from one spices into another " read my posts they are there for all to see. if you want a crocaduck i can't help you . the fossil evidence is overwhelming but if you refuse the evidence of the top scientists then i can't help you . what do you believe please explain it to me and i will compare my evidence to yours but give repeatable verifiable evidence from top scientists and i will do the same or else we will have to agree to disagree

  • john

    @bob

    historical accuracies from the bible, lets be havin them. there is ample proof in the fossil record for evidence of transitional species from 500mya on up to now for all animal groups including our own primate group. i agree with you on the aspartame and the mercury..but thats all.

  • john

    i dont think a chimp and a gorrila can interbreed either..so your point is mute. hybridisation through genetic splicing and manipulation is the very proof of evolution.

  • bob

    You keep mentioning "top scientists". If you cannot produce evidence of a transition within the rich fossil banks accumulated then you have no bases for your claim. Please don't take offense that is why this area exists and debate is good. Its OK by me to agree to disagree.

  • Philonous

    @Cliff T
    I'm not very impressed with that criticism, unless you actual present evidence on your part that Bob's arguments are not significant criticism against Evolution.

    @Bob, Evolution is not "Progression" in a teleological sense...Evolution is perpetual change of all biological life forms (anything that pertains RNA or DNA) into multiplicities of species through speciation and common ancestry. You don't find "progression" in fossils, you find evidence of subtle and gradual change.

    Also your argument that the model in which one proves evolution through the statra model in which the earliest species is found below the rocks as the latest are found above, is not the only way to test the theory of evolution. Anthropologists found the skeleton remainings of a type of anthropithicus "Lucy"(early humanoid) but did not have to dig deeper to find earlier humanoids.

    There is a DNA testing that proves one of Evolution Theory's basic assumption (or principle), namely Common Ancestry. By comparing the DNA sequences between two difference species one can measure the closeness of their relation by finding how close the sequence are similar to each other. The differences or discrepancy correlates how far apart they are in terms of common ancestry, meaning they may 1) come from different ancestor species or 2) come from the same ancestor species but in different times. The similarity, on the other hand, indicates that species recently speciated from the same ancestor. This is basically homology in the DNA level; not convinced? It turns out that the same DNA testing resulted in confirming the evolutionary taxonomy of how species are related. In other words it can't just be a coincident that the DNA testing some how empirically confirms a taxonomic tree-system of how species relate to each other in terms of common ancestry.

    Also another reason why Evolution is the most favorable theory (theory as in a set of fundamental propositions that describes a specific aspect of the natural world, that is either verifiable or falsifiable, and predicts its behavior in past and future) is because it explained the classification of species that was already established before Darwin. Most biologists at the time had no idea why taxonomy was the way it was, all they knew is that the hierarchical structure was simply there. Darwin simply provided a convincing empirical interpretation of that system.

    The fact that one finds Kangaroos in Australia but fail to find any in other parts of the country is another evidence for the concept of biodiversity in Evolution which also supports Common Ancestry (and indicates that the continental shifts are plausible explanation for this, and continental shifts had a tremendous impact on the history of evolution of biological life) If Evolution is not a fact, then I think it would have been seriously falsified by majority of scientists. However the counter-evidence you're pointing out is not a falsification of evolution (although it appears that way) but the limits and flaws of one of many methods that tests evolution.

    Really, even of Evolution is falsified that doesn't entail that Creationism must be true. If you think that criticizing Evolution successfully does prove Creationism then you trapped yourself in a logical fallacy of false dichotomy (since there can be more natural or empirical explanation) or false dilemma. I think any reasonable person who found out that evolution is falsified wouldn't opt for creationism anyways, they would just find a better theory (just like how physicist opted for Einstein's theory of gravity over that of Newton's) so you're criticism, even if true, is trivial to support your assumption (if you're assumption is that of Creationism).

  • bob

    Genes, which are composed of DNA, directly specify the sequences of RNA molecules and indirectly, the amino acid sequences of proteins. Before there were multicellular forms, single-celled organisms evolved for as much as two billion years driven, in part, by genetic change, as well as by establishment of persistent symbiotic relationships among simpler cells. During this entire period no cellular structure or function was specified exclusively by a cell’s genes. The protein and RNA molecules produced by cells associate with each other in a context-dependent fashion or, in many cases, catalyze chemical reactions (generating lipids, polysaccharides and other molecules), whose rates depend on the temperature and composition of the external environment. So the population of molecules inside the cell can vary extensively even if the genes do not. the rate at which a protein is synthesized, which depends on factors internal and external to the cell, affects the order in which its different portions fold. So even with the same sequence a given protein can have different shapes and functions. Furthermore, many proteins have no intrinsic shape, taking on different roles in different molecular contexts. So even though genes specify protein sequences they have only a tenuous influence over their functions.

    The deployment of information in the genes, moreover, is itself dependent on the presence of certain RNA and protein molecules in the cell. Since, as described above, the composition of the cells interior and the activity of many of its proteins depend on more than just the genes, the portion of the genes information content that is actually used by the cell is determined, in part, by non-genetic factors. So, to reiterate, the genes do not uniquely determine what is in the cell, but what is in the cell determines how the genes get used. Only if the pie were to rise up, take hold of the recipe book and rewrite the instructions for its own production, would this popular analogy for the role of genes be pertinent.the gene is nothing close to how evolution envisioned it. The gene myth is yet another example of evolutions failed expectations. It seems that inevitably evolutions interpretations turn out to be wrong as it has produced a steady stream of false predictions. Evolution is certainly the best counter indicator in the life sciences.

  • over the edge

    @bob my evidence is the fossil record . now the above doc explained this very well so instead of repeating the doc i will ask you to tell me where it is wrong but here is 1 example for you Homo habilis 1.6 to 2.2 mil years ago Homo erectus .4 to 2 mil years ago Homo sapiens archaic 200-400 thousand years ago Homo sapiens neandertalensis 200 to 30 thousand years ago Homo sapiens sapiens 200 thousand years ago to present these are all different species that evolved to the other. this info is in most scientific textbooks. now i have answered another of your questions please answer my only question of you. and top scientists how about ( taken from wikipedia ) a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.[6] Additionally, US courts have ruled in favor of teaching evolution in science classrooms, and against teaching creationism, in numerous cases.

  • over the edge

    @ bob i have two responses in moderation but when passed they will shoe you as a copy and paste artist incapable of an origional thought. i on occasion copy but i at least have the respect to tell people when i do it. if you don't have enough "faith " in your own words and you have to resort to plagerism i feel sorry for you

  • bob

    Homo habilis ,Homo erectus, Australopithecus, the reconstruction of such are mearly the interpitation of the artist/forensic anthropologists reconstruction of the physiognomy. They are merely an extinct species of ape reconstructed to look human.

  • bob

    stick to the point, are you loosing the argument?

  • over the edge

    it is a one sided argument i have given my side (agree or not) and repeatedly asked for yours i have shown u nobel prize winners and the courts that agree with me now show me yours or are you scared (in you own words please i will check)

  • bob

    Why does everyone keep wavering from the argument at hand? Why do they get upset when challenged? Is that not what the religious are supposed to do? Are you that insecure that you shun confrontation and resort to personal insults? Do you see Peer review papers laden with insults rather than pointing to evidence that refutes the authors claim.

  • over the edge

    i have given my side now a debate requires two sides if you do not want to share i will leave you alone but i have given you ample chance to refute my views but i can't agree or disagree with yours if you do not state them. again if you wish not to i will leave you alone and wish you all the best

  • bob

    What is a Nobel Prize worth these days, Obama has one! Not to mention the war criminal Henry Kissinger.

  • i am become death

    i love it how religious people hang onto the fact that evolution is only a theory, well practice what you preach and burn everything you own. don't go asking for medecine you ingrateful sods cause everything science produces are just theories- theory of the atom, germ theory, theory of gravity there's no absolute fact just the best educated answer for what causes the phenomena that we observe. evolution is older than germ or atom theory and most others,so stop your hypocritical non sense and return to the bronze age we're your child killing idols belong.

  • Dr. Dunkleosteus

    Why does this topic create such hostile debate? As stated clearly and repeatedly in this documentary, in others, and throughout the scientific world: There is no alternative theory for evolution... other than creationism.

    If we can agree that creationism is a dismal disgrace at explaining, well, anything, (and we really should, since it seems to be bending over backwards to prove it to us) we could then focus on all the achievements science and theories such as evolution have provided us and realize that science is the best tool that man ever created.

    The fact that a vast majority of you (including myself) are sitting on your butt, breathing air, should be an overwhelmingly compelling reason to appreciate science. Without modern medicine (developed through scientific methods) the vast majority of us would be dead. Period. I almost died as a young boy from a serious tetanus infection. I'm sure a lot of you, if not all of you, have a similar story about a time in your life.

    The fact that you're staring into a computer screen, powered by electricity, enjoying this great website should again be an overwhelming reason to appreciate science. The vehicles that transport your butt all around the world, the conveniences which we've all been so lucky to take for granted, virtually everything that surrounds you in your life can be attributed to science.

    Let's keep things extremely basic:

    What has science (recognizing evolution being a theory within science) provided you in your life?

    What has creationism provided you in your life?

    Also, stop with the hang-ups on the word theory. There are so many other "theories" (as the documentary plainly and repeatedly pointed out) that are accepted without the slightest protest. The fact that creationists use evolution (and only evolution) to wave the red flag of "it's a just a theory!!!" shows that it isn't the theory part that they have issue with... it's the evolution part. Thus it should be painfully obvious that it is because evolution collapses their ability to control people. Period.

  • Dr. Dunkleosteus

    @i am become death: Agreed.

  • Achems Razor

    Yep! so far the religee's or pseudo-religee's have added nothing in their favour. "0" for religion.

  • Achems Razor

    Dr. Dunkleosteus:

    Right on! If it was not for blood transfusions, and scientific medical advances, would have died from a bleeding ulcer way back in my life.
    Wow! am still here because of science/scientific method! And cured by the way, from "Helicobactor Pylori" the cause of my medical malaise. Again thanks to science/scientific method!

    Religion and praying and all that jazz wouldn't have done it! Complete fail.

  • Amoeba

    I have always noticed the word "evolution" tends to ignite people. Perhaps the word should be updated to better describe the science it represents. Living things do not just change by "evolution". More often, animals changes happen rapidly, in the form of mutations, although examples of completely unique and new species are quite rare since humans created this concept. The only example of a new "species" I can think of is the morel mushroom. But to see how adaptation may occur, you can find examples all around you. The lionhead rabbit is a good example of a mutation, although the breed was encouraged by man, of a mutant gene giving rise to a new "breed" of rabbit. While it is easy to find examples of new breeds and like animals with rapid mutations giving rise to other variations, find one that has created an entirely new species is, well, quite a rare find in nature, all though you can find some possible examples. All though changes can be noted among modern life-forms, these evolving creatures still can breed with each other. This is one of the reasons that the science community is still debating evolution on a huge scale. They can see animals change and adapt, but changes into new species happens on such a slow scale that science cannot pin it down and provide clear links and evidence that are 100%. Dna is a picky thing, and does not hybrid easily into viable forms of life that reproduce between organisms of different make-ups, therefore, evolution is the only logical theory to explain how all life on the planet started from the smallest cells. Yes it has holes, but as all good theories always do, and as of now, its the theory that has the most evidence to support it. If it was possible to dna all the fossil bones, mankind would certainly get more positive answers. The most intriguing thing is, not all species evolve for the best survival. As a matter of fact, many accidents happen all the time and, lets say, humans, we got lucky and dna recoding gave us a break and we get a good brain with nothing else going for us. Physically we are de-evolving for nature, a strange side-effect of having a advanced intellectual brain, and being physically lazy. Our immune systems are not evolving to fight diseases, we are losing our hair, which is protection from sun and cold, our eye sight is sh**. The only reason we survive is our brains. And through our modern chemical miracles, suppression of our own natural selection, and downfall of societies, are brains too will soon de-evolve into a mass of jelly. On the flip side, religions stating they are right and the answer to the world, well, sorry I will not believe any man that says the highest power told him what to write in the name of the all mighty, so using the Bible for godlike or real "evidence" is a sure sign that religion has already de-evolved some brains into jelly.

  • Epicurus

    bob what is your claim? i dont see anything you have said make much sense. your rant about genes actually was one of the most nonsensical things i have read on this site (no wonder since it was copy and pasted from a creationist site)...do you even understand what it is you copy pasted? do you know what that is explaining? if so could you please explain it in your own words?

    what is your evidence that the other hominids that we have discoevered are just made up? why would scientists continue with a theory that was wrong as you say? what would be the point in that? where else in science do they do that?

    what is your level of education?

  • Dr. Dunkleosteus

    @Amoeba, very well spoken. @Achem, always a pleasure.

    I too feel that the word evolution is a "hot-button" word. Most likely from the period in human history that the word has come to be associated with and the huge upset it caused (and continues to cause) in peoples' belief structures... and rightfully so, as religion has had how many centuries to convince them of the validity of their fables and myths?

    I picture the word as having a profound ripple-capacity for human consciousness. Although it made a big splash when the theory first debuted, the ultimate ramifications can't even be measured yet. Currently, we are still riding the undulating motions of the wave as it carries us towards the shore.

    As whimsical as my little metaphor is, ponder the true consequences for a moment: As time goes by, scientific data will continue to accumulate and correct itself. The old vestiges of religion will continue fade into the past as new generations grow up in the science-surrounded world and those clinging to the myths and fables of religion continue to age and die off. There have been no new scriptures written, no new miracles witnessed, no new messiahs, revelations, or prophets.

    If the human race is to continue to exist, at the current level of sophistication or higher, we will be increasingly dependent on science. As you stated so spot on, Amoeba, our bodies are becoming weaker and weaker to the natural world. Our brains have sealed our fates. We have reached a level of complexity with our brains that has literally necessitated science and technology to sustain them.

    I personally feel (others are completely entitled to disagree or perceive differently) that the current factioning of religions and the increasing unification of fields within science (theory of everything, anyone?) that we are currently experiencing (read: living through right now!) a fundamental shift in human mental evolution. Those people who are radically clinging to religion and fundamentalist teachings are, looking at it from a cellular perspective, the part of the whole human societal organism that is rejecting science and technology. The way a body might reject an implanted organ perhaps (I hold no formal background in biology, just attempting to portray a thought in an understandable vernacular).

    I too think our brains have alienated us from the natural world. I think the concept of religion was the first prototype solution to keep it (and us) tied to the natural world. For a while, it worked! It allowed our brains to evolve to the level that we could organize into societies and civilizations, living together in numbers we would have never achieved before! Removing all natural predators (except ourselves)! Ensuring a stable environment to further our mental evolution!

    However, as our brains continued to evolve, that prototype solution became less and less effective. The machine began to break down. The next version of this mental solution to our alienation therefor, is science.

    Those who say evolution isn't true, wake up and look around you! We are literally living it! Breathing it! Even our technology is evolutionary. Every year we get a new version of the same car, updated, refined, more specialized. Every year we get an updated computing device with more storage space, more capabilities, faster operations! Look down at the bottom right of your desktop where that little icon is telling you it's time to update your software! That is evolution!!!

    Arguing against the validity of evolution is becoming an increasing impossibility. It just is. The education debate (what to be taught in schools) is the last thread religion has to hold on to. Once the majority of the population is allowed to learn in a completely scientific setting, the accelerator will be figuratively to the floor (I do like the race analogy).

    Can you imagine the golden-age the human race would experience from such a unifying mental-movement? All that energy, all that drive, all that purpose... in one unified direction. The impact of such a concept is as unmeasurable as a looming continent on the horizon as viewed from the crest of a distant wave out to sea, it's increasing speed and power a signal of the impact to come.

  • Cliff T

    @Bob

    Why does everyone keep wavering from the argument at hand?
    Who's wavering? Except you it would seem.

    Why do they get upset when challenged?
    Again, who is getting upset? Well, I see one person.

    Is that not what the religious are supposed to do?
    Erm, no, unless they have something to protect or hide.

    Are you that insecure that you shun confrontation and resort to personal insults?
    If you look above you have personally made three insults to the scientific and free thinking community.

    All I will say is, you can't get your point across to someone who has already decided they are right and no amount of evidence will satisfy them.

    Basically what I'm saying is, you should never argue against an i@#$%, you may as well complain to the mirror.

    Bob, I think you should do some serious research before you utter another word.

  • Andrew Hunt

    I think its funny creationist keep saying evolution is just a theory, that it has never been proven, as if thier views have been. I think religon is dangerous, it is means of control. What good has ever come out of it? Only wars and genocide.

  • bob

    How do you go from 48 chromosomes to 46? How many possible combinations of gene expression are possible within 1% of coding?

  • bob

    I guess we are also more than half fruit fly since fruit flies share 60% of the human genes! Please! You just regurgitate what the mass media tell you too.

  • bob

    Read Propaganda by Edward Bernays. That would be a good starting point!

  • over the edge

    ok bob i read an overview of edward bernays work. he is a public relations expert that advocated "herd instinct" and promoted using third party unprovable information to sway the masses. sounds like religion to me

  • eireannach666

    Evolution is fact and has been tested over and over in nature and in labs worldwide. Theories are based on facts unlike hypotheses which are just ideas or concepts like religion. I don't know where you people get that garbage about evolution not being fact. Every living thing evolves.

    It doesn't happen over night but takes decades to millenniums to see the effects.(Depending on what it is.)

    @bob

    No we are not part fruit fly. That's ridiculous for you to say and shows you. Obviously don't understand evolution. At least study the topic before you speak on it.

    Also where do you think we came from? Magic dust thrown apon the universe by an invisable being in the sky? The only dust we are made of is star stuff. Every thing that is is made up of all the things given off after the big bang. We are just a inevitable chance meeting of matters, that if didn't occur here would of elsewhere in the universe and may have.

    Do a little research before you open your misimformed mind up to the rest of us.

  • Cliff T

    @Bob

    What part of Fruit Fly being 60% similar to human DNA can you not accept?

    How can I put it? Let's say the Fruit Fly is Pea soup and that a human is vegetable soup. Both share 60% of the ingredients but they are so different from each other. The basics are there in the Pea soup like the liquid part of the soup and some of the peas. But it would never be a vegetable soup because some parts of it would differ greatly from the mixture needed.

    Does that make sense to you?

  • bob

    @ eireannach666

    Also where do you think we came from? Magic dust thrown apon the universe by an invisable being in the sky?

    Very good sounds like big bang theory, an explosion from nothing!

    No we are not part fruit fly. That’s ridiculous for you to say and shows you. Obviously don’t understand evolution. At least study the topic before you speak on it.

    No we are not part fruit fly. Thats ridiculous for you to say and shows you. Obviously don't understand evolution. At least study the topic before you speak on it.

    We have 60% of the fruit flies DNA coding Numb skull.

    @ Cliff T a monkey would never be a human because parts of it would differ greatly from the mixture needed. Like i said earlier, even if strands are identical across species, it does not mean that they are expressed in the same way.

  • bob

    i can except that we are 60% i was the one who brought it up Muppet.

  • bob

    Talk to eireannach666 he is the one that cant except it

  • eireannach666

    Just so you know science isn't really a prove thing as you say but rather.*a fact based on all the tested *evidence*. Which by the way is massive when talking about evolution. Let's enlighten you a bit as this is a small list compared to All the evidence.

    1. Evolution brought up in the lab and in nature:

    a. Two strains of fruit flies lost the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring in the lab over a 4-year span ... i.e. they became two new species. (Easily repeated experiment.)

    b. A new plant species (a type of firewood), created by a doubling of the chromosome count from the original stock (Mosquin, 1967).

    c. Multiple species of the house mouse unique to the Faeroe Islands occurred within 250 years of introduction of a foundation species on the island.

    d. Formation of 5 new species of cichlid fishes that have formed in a single lake within 4,000 years of introduction of a parent species.

    2. Fossil evidence. Dating etc. Constant discovery of new transitional forms. E.g. reptile-birds, reptile-mammals, legged whales, legged sea cows.

    3. Genetic evidence. Such as the fact that humans have genes (around 96%) in common with other great apes .( 50%) with wheat plants and as you mentioned fruit flies. Which means only that we have a common ancestor with these species.

    4. Molecular evidencea. As most will see DNA. You see random mutations ( Like bigger eyes , longer legs etc) come to DNA at a known rate.(Were talking 1000yrs plus.)(molecular clock) This gives us a time frame along with backing from fossil evidence and dating as to when we. Branched away from apes..

    5.Protein evidence. The ones in our color vision are the same as the ones in primates of the old like the great apes but not in primates of newer origin like the ones in the rain forests of S.America and from all other mammals. There is one that does see color but uses a different protein set, and is in a different spot than ours.

    6.Anatomic evidence.- Leg and pelvic bones in whales, dolphins, and some snakes. Unused eyes in blind cave fish, unused wings in flightless birds..Homological evidence. the same bones in the same relative positions in primate hands, bat wings, bird wings, mammals, whale and penguin fins.

    7. Embryo evidence. Legs on dolphin embryos; tails and gill folds on human etc.

    8.Geographic evidence. The vast and different types of species on the planet and locations occupied by different variations unique to these "isolated areas. Like the devil in Tazmania for instance.

    10. Bacterial evidence.I mmunology, pest-control. Like when poisons lose their effect after a species adapts and immunizes against it after time. Or when diseases or virus' adapt and evolve over time. Like HIV or the flu.

    Do you want more , as these are just a few I gathered in 20 minutes? Do some research. Ill bet I could spend a lifetime as so many have done and failed to find 1 shread of evidence for a creator or god.

    Good luch Eienstein with the god search, he doesn't exist.

  • bob

    who said i believed in GOD? keep banging on i am not going to waste anymore time on you, with your skinny jean, coverse shoes, ipod, ipad(totally useless creation, but it looks good and everyone has one!) whats the next fad that you will follow, thinking that you are original. Blindly looking to fit in to society, asking no questions and letting others make-up your mind for you. You will get what you ask for soon, its around the corner, and don't complain when you get it.

  • eireannach666

    @bob

    You just don't get it do you. We are not fruit flies partly. We share some ancestory down the line but we have far branched off the other way on the evolutionary tree. You do not know what you are saying. We branched off in the direction of the old world apes etc. We have long since evolved far from these simple organisms. Your like talking to a wall. Stuck on your misinterpetation and failure to understand how this works. We bread that stuff out thousands of years ago. Our closest relative is the ape , which apes we are for sure. Selective breeding, natural selection and time have seen to us not being part fly, ok. We share similar DNA structure with wheat but we are not wheat. It goes back to star stuff. Of course we share molecules with everything that exists so of course similarities will be a consequence. Doesn't mean we are part rock. One could say we are all just worms. Mouth, hole for waste and intestinal track but this is not the case.

    Don't simplify evolution or be condescending with me. Don't resort to name calling as it makes your statements invalid and less effective. This just shows your lack of knowledge on the subject and failure to researh and/or learn from others as you are too stubborn to do so.

    Most religious people are this way. So are kids when they don't want to accept that they are wrong or don't get their way. Do research Bobby. Then come play with the big boys puppy dog.

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    @bob,

    So you want to see the actual transition of species in fossil records. The truth is you never will because of this:

    "It isn’t easy to become a fossil… Only about one bone in a billion, it is thought, ever becomes fossilized. If that is so, it means that the complete fossil legacy of all the Americans alive today – that’s 270 million people with 206 bones each – will only be about fifty bones, one quarter of a complete skeleton. That’s not to say of course that any of these bones will actually be found. Bearing in mind that they can be buried anywhere within an area of slightly over 3.6 million square miles, little of which will ever be turned over, much less examined, it would be something of a miracle if they were.

    Fossils are in every sense vanishingly rare. Most of what has lived on Earth has left behind no record at all. It has been estimated that less than one species in ten thousands has made in into the fossil record. That in itself is a stunningly infinitesimal proportion. However, if you accept the common estimate that the Earth has produced 30 billion species of creature in its time and that there are 250.000 species of creature in the fossil record, that reduces the proportion to just one in 4.000. Either way, what we possess is the merest sampling of all the life that Earth has spawned…"

    The above is a quote from A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson.

    So now you see why the fossil records will never give you a complete picture of a species transition. Fossils at best can give tiny bits of info that strongly support the theory of Evolution. And those bits of info combined with other facts from different scientific branches (biology, chemistry etc.) point to the theory of Evolution as the most logical explanation on how life on Earth is changing over great span of time.

  • eireannach666

    @Vlatko

    Nice stats and math. Never thought of it like that. Good point and food for thought.

    Once agaon, you da man!

  • Reasons Voice

    @Vlatko: Nice stats I do enjoy that you come to the table with concise info instead of insult and rage. Looking at stats like that can have both effects in this debate. At least for me since I believe yet allow for future revisioning in all scientific theory in lieu of new discovery. Given the rarity of focilized bones who knows what may be discovered. That kind of window could let in a huge breeze. Perhapse given that stat homosapiens has been around longer than we think perhapse overlapping other hominids. We have seen that in other species why not with us. That is my love of science not it's fundimental solid state but it's searching fluid state. I feel the same as regards spirituality. It's not the texts but the sociological, psychological, expanding of the mind it allows in true religious theorists.

  • Achems Razor

    @Bob:

    Am trying to figure out, what is it that you believe in? you are spouting like a creationist, and yet you say you do not believe in a god.

    You are not making yourself clear, what do you believe in? tell us, is it maybe supernaturalism? quantum theory? consciousness? eastern type religion? esoteric? what?

  • eireannach666

    @bob

    Geez bob you couldn't be further from the truth than that. Ill have you know I am not any of those things you listed above.I wear combat boots man I'm death metal. Dude I'm 30. I have two degrees and have studied all types of science and maths for years , so I don't really care what you assume. Just when you talk evolution don't talk out the a**. And be willing to learn instead of argue and be so defensive.

    Nobody said you were a jesux fan. I just said you were and are getting butt hurt like one.

    Horns , man!

  • bob

    "Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." (Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum)

    "I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete; because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long- deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man." (Dr. Albert Fleischmann, University of Erlangen)

    "By the late 1970s, debates on university campuses throughout the free world were being held on the subject of origins with increasing frequency. Hundreds of scientists, who once accepted the theory of evolution as fact, were abandoning ship and claiming that the scientific evidence was in total support of the theory of creation. Well-known evolutionists, such as Isaac Asimov and Stephen Jay Gould, were stating that, since the creationist scientists had won all of the more than one hundred debates, the evolutionists should not debate them." (Luther Sunderland, "Darwin's Enigma", p.10)

    "The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion... The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational." (Dr. L.T. More)

    "I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme... (Dr. Karl Popper, German-born philosopher of science, called by Nobel Prize-winner Peter Medawar, "incomparably the greatest philosopher of science who has ever lived.")

    "The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -- is it then a science or faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation..." (Dr. L. Harrison Matthews, in the introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's "Origin of Species")

    "What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events... An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle... (Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel Prize-winner, codiscoverer of DNA)

    "Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics, on which life depends, are in every respect DELIBERATE... It is therefore, almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect higher intelligences.. even to the limit of God." (Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, co-authors of "Evolution from Space," after acknowledging that they had been atheists all their lives)

    "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein... I am at a loss to understand biologists' widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious." (Sir Fred Hoyle)

    "I don't know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the combinatorial arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the earth. Astronomers will have a little difficulty in understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that it is not so, the biologists having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so. The 'others' are a group of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles. They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology). This curious situation sits oddly on a profession that for long has been dedicated to coming up with logical explanations of biblical miracles... It is quite otherwise, however, with the modern miracle workers, who are always to be found living in the twilight fringes of thermodynamics." (Sir Fred Hoyle)

    (These "mathematical miracles" that must have occurred are summarized in my paper "The Second Law of Thermodynamics and Evolution")

    "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change..." (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, famous Harvard Professor of Paleontology)

    "I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we've got a problem." (Dr. Niles Eldridge, Curator of Invertebrate Paleontology at the American Museum)

    "The fundamental reason why a lot of paleontologists don't care much for gradualism is because the fossil record doesn't show gradual change and every paleontologist has know that ever since Cuvier. If you want to get around that you have to invoke the imperfection of the fossil record. Every paleontologist knows that most species, most species, don't change. That's bothersome if you are trained to believe that evolution ought to be gradual. In fact it virtually precludes your studying the very process you went into the school to study. Again, because you don't see it, that brings terrible distress." (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould)

    "To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without murmur of protest." (Sir Ernest Chain, Nobel Prize winner)

    "Evolution is a theory universally accepted, not because it can be proved to be true, but because the only alternative, 'special creation,' is clearly impossible." (D.M.S. Watson, Professor of Zoology, London University)

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    OK @bob, there is no problem with your quotes. As stated in the video above 95% of the scientists support the theory of Evolution which leaves 5% of them doubting.

    See every theory is falsifiable, including Evolution, which means able to be proven false, and therefore testable; as, most religious beliefs are not falsifiable, and are therefore outside the scope of experimental science.

    The point is why there isn't any scientific publication that tries to prove false the theory of Evolution? The only thing you have is quotes (possibly taken out of context) and vague presentations, silly videos and seminars by creationists who offer nothing but pseudoscience and wrong interpretation of given evidence, neglecting vast amount of other data pointing to real science. Again I'll ask you: Have you watched the video?

    Anyhow as @Achems said you haven't stated your clear position on this subject. You said you don't believe in God but from your comments we can see you're creationist. So what is it? What are you?

  • Epicurus

    PS a number of those dont support your position that evolution is false, only that certain workings of it are not well known.

    stephen j gould who you quoted for example was a STRONG proponent (possibly one of the most prolific) of evolution. he posited the theory of punctuated equilibrium. that is what that quote is about. he didnt believe there were slow gradual changes but big jumps in mutations...STILL EVOLUTION.

    ugh and the rest are terribly outdated....do you really think you can bring quotes from a group of bias people who all lived and made those statements before the mapping of the genome? before the discovery of chromosome 2?

    you are one of the worst people to come and argue against evolution...is this a joke?

  • Achems Razor

    I came to the conclusion that @Bob is of course a creationist, that is why he is so hysterical about proving himself right, even when there is no proof!

    I believe that he is a JC. fan! and all the rest of that childish nonsense!

  • bob

    "The theory of evolution is not merely the theory of the origin of species, but the only explanation of the fact that organisms can be classified into this hierarchy of natural affinity. Much evidence can be adduced in favour of the theory of evolution - from biology, bio-geography and palaeontology, but I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. If, however, another explanation could be found for this hierarchy of classification, it would be the knell of the theory of evolution. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition.

    Textbooks hoodwink. A series of more and more complicated plants is introduced - the alga, the fungus, the bryophyte, and so on, and examples are added eclectically in support of one or another theory - and that is held to be a presentation of evolution. If the world of plants consisted only of these few textbook types of standard botany, the idea of evolution might never have dawned, and the backgrounds of these textbooks are the temperate countries which, at best, are poor places to study world vegetation. The point, of course, is that there are thousands and thousands of living plants, predominantly tropical, which have never entered general botany, yet they are the bricks with which the taxonomist has built his temple of evolution, and where else have we to worship?"

    (Prof. E. J. H. Corner (Professor of Tropical Botany, Cambridge University, UK), 'Evolution' in Contemporary Botanical Thought", Anna M. Macleod and L. S. Cobley (editors), Oliver and Boyd, for the Botanical Society of Edinburgh, 1961, p. 97.)

    There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff.

    (Colin Patterson, a director of the Natural History Museum of England-- Colin Patterson, Harper's, February 1984, p.60)

    Dr. Niles Eldridge of the American Museum of Natural History admitted in an interview that the Museum houses a display of alleged horse evolution, which is misleading and should be replaced. It has been the model for many similar displays across the country for much of this century.

    (Bethel, Tom, "The Taxonomic Case Against Darwin," Harper Magazine, Feb. 1985, pp. 49-61. Niles Eldredge is quoted on page 60. Note that Dr Eldredge still believes in horse evolution, just not in the smooth sequence of horse evolution that is presented in the museum)

    On December 9 archeologist and paleo-anthropologist Mary Leakey died at age 83. Although Leakey was convinced that man had evolved from ape-like ancestors, she was equally convinced that scientists will never be able to prove a particular scenario of human evolution. Three months before her death, she said in an interview: "All these trees of life with their branches of our ancestors, that's a lot of nonsense."

    (Associated Press (AP) Dec. 10, 1996)

    "Eleven human skeletons, the earliest known human remains in the Western hemisphere, have recently been dated by this new accelerator mass spectrometer technique. All eleven were dated at about 5,000 radiocarbon years or less! If more of the claimed evolutionary ancestors of man are tested and are also found to contain carbon-14, a major scientific revolution will occur and thousands of textbooks will become obsolete."

    (Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 95)

    Dr. David Pilbeam an anthropologist at Harvard seems to have come to similar conclusions. In a 1978 review of Richard Leakey's book ORIGINS, he said that it was, "a clear statement of our current consensus view of human evolution and remarkably up to date" but he concluded with the following sobering thoughts: "My reservations concern not so much this book but the whole subject and methodology of paleoanthropology. But introductory books - or book reviews - are hardly the place to argue that perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark: that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy."

    (David Pilbeam, Review of Richard Leakey's book ORIGINS, American Scientist, 66:379, May-June 1978)

  • bob

    "The evidence points to an intelligent designer of the vast array of life, both living and extinct, rather than to unguided mindless evolution." (Nancy M Darrall, Speech Therapist at the Bolton Community Health Care Trust in the UK. She holds a PhD in Botany from the University of Wales.)

    "Evolutionary theories of the universe cannot counteract the above arguments for the existence of God." (John M Cimbala, Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Pennsylvania State University. John holds a PhD in Aeronautics.)

    "The correspondence between the global catastrophe in the geological record and the Flood described in Genesis is much too obvious for me to conclude that these events must be one and the same." (John R Baumgardner, Technical Staff Member in the Theoretical Division of Los Alamos National Laboratory. John holds a PhD in Geophysics and Space Physics from UCLU.)

    "We have already seen that no such system could possibly appear by chance. Life in its totality must have been created in the beginning, just as God told us." (John P Marcus, Research Officer at the Cooperative Research Centre for Tropical Plant Pathology, University of Queensland, Australia. John holds a PhD in Biological Chemistry from the University of Michigan.)

    "The fossil record is considered to be the primary evidence for evolution, yet it does not demonstrate a complete chain of life from simple forms to complex." (Larry Vardiman, Professor from the Department of Astro-Geophysics for Creation Research, USA. Larry holds a PhD in Atmospheric Science from Colorado State University.)

    "I … have no hesitation in rejecting the evolutionary hypothesis of origins and affirming the biblical alternative that 'in six days the Lord God created the heavens and earth and all that in them is'. (Dr Taylor is senior lecturer in Electrical Engineering at the University of Liverpool. Dr Taylor has a PhD in Electrical Engineering and has authored over 80 scientific articles.)

    "I believe God provides evidence of His creative power for all to experience personally in our lives. To know the Creator does not require an advanced degree in science or theology." (Timothy G Standish is an Associate Professor of Biology at Andrews University in the USA. Dr Standish holds a PhD in Biology and Public Policy from George Mason University, USA.)

    "At the same time I found I could reject evolution and not commit intellectual suicide, I began to realise I could also accept a literal creation and still not commit intellectual suicide." (AJ Monty White, Student Advisor, Dean of Students Office, at the University of Cardiff, UK. Dr White holds a PhD in the field of Gas Kinetics.)

    "So life did not arise by natural processes, nor could the grand diversity of life have arisen through no-intelligent natural processes (evolution). Living things were created by God, as the Bible says." (Don Batten, a research scientist for Answer in Genesis in Australia. Dr Batten holds a PhD in Plant Physiology from the University of Sydney and worked for 18 years as a research scientist with the New South Wales Department of Agriculture.)

    "In the words of the well-known scientist, Robert Jastrow, 'for the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story [of the quest for the answers about the origin of life and the universe] ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (Jerry R Bergman, Instructor of Science at Northwest State College, Archbold, Ohio. He holds a PhD in Evaluation and Research from Wayne State University and a PhD in Human Biology from Columbia Pacific University.)

  • bob

    GOD loves you all!

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    Ok @Bob enough with the quotes. It is clear you copy/paste from some poor creationist site. Tackle some of the arguments presented by the commentators. Yes God loves us all... but which God. Choose from one of the thousands introduced so far. I choose Zeus.

  • bob

    Scientists don't lie:

    Tuesday August 31 2010
    Have your say(40)

    THE world’s leading climate change body has been accused of losing credibility after a damning report into its research practices.

    A high-level inquiry into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found there was “little evidence” for its claims about global warming.

    It also said the panel had emphasised the negative impacts of climate change and made “substantive findings” based on little proof.

    The review by the InterAcademy Council (IAC) was launched after the IPCC’s hugely embarrassing 2007 benchmark climate change report, which contained exaggerated and false claims that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

    *** DEBATE: IS CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING JUST A CON?...***

    The panel was forced to admit its key claim in support of global warming was lifted from a 1999 magazine article. The report was based on an interview with a little-known Indian scientist who has since said his views were “speculation” and not backed by research.

    Independent climate scientist Peter Taylor said last night: “The IPCC’s credibility has been deeply dented and something has to be done. It can’t just be a matter of adjusting the practices. They have got to look at what are the consequences of having got it wrong in terms of what the public think is going on. Admitting that it needs to reform means something has gone wrong and they really do need to look at the science.”

    Climate change sceptic David Holland, who challenged leading climate change scientists at the University of East Anglia to disclose their research, said: “The panel is definitely not fit for purpose. What the IAC has said is substantial changes need to be made.” SEARCH UK NEWS for:

    The IAC, which comprises the world’s top science academies including the UK’s Royal Society, made recommendations to the IPCC to “enhance its credibility and independence” after the Himalayan glaciers report, which severely damaged the reputation of climate science.

    It condemned the panel – set up by the UN to ensure world leaders had the best scientific advice on climate change – for its “slow and inadequate response” after the damaging errors emerged.

    Among the blunders in the 2007 report were claims that 55 per cent of the Netherlands was below sea level when the figure is 26 per cent.

    It also claimed that water supplies for between 75 million and 250 million people in Africa will be at risk by 2020 due to climate change, but the real range is between 90 and 220 million.

    The claim that glaciers would melt by 2035 was also rejected.

    Professor Julian Dowdeswell of Cambridge University said: “The average glacier is 1,000ft thick so to melt one at 15ft a year would take 60 years. That is faster than anything we are seeing now so the idea of losing it all by 2035 is unrealistic.”

    In yesterday’s report, the IAC said: “The IPCC needs to reform its management structure and strengthen its procedures to handle ever larger and increasingly complex climate assessments as well as the more intense public scrutiny coming from a world grappling with how to respond to climate change.”

    The review also cast doubt on the future of IPCC chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri.

    Earlier this year, the Daily Express reported how he had no climate science qualifications but held a PhD in economics and was a former railway engineer.

    Dr Pachauri has been accused of a conflict of interest, which he denies, after it emerged that he has business interests attracting millions of pounds in funding. One, the Energy Research Institute, is set to receive up to £10million in grants from taxpayers over the next five years.

    Speaking after the review was released yesterday, Dr Pachauri said: “We have the highest confidence in the science behind our assessments.

    “The scientific community agrees that climate change is real. Greenhouse gases have increased as a result of human activities and now far exceed pre-industrial values.”

  • over the edge

    @ bob

    Dr. Etheridge
    The widely touted “Dr. Etheridge, of the British Museum,” who always appeared in creationist literature without a given name, was quoted by Townsend as saying, “In all this great museum there is not a particle of evidence transmutation of species. Nine-tenths of the talk of evolution is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by fact. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views.” The content of Etheridge’s statement varied from work to work, and its source remained unidentified, except for Alexander Patterson’s comment that Etheridge was answering a question put to him by a Dr. George E. Post. When curious parties in the 1920s inquired about the identity of Etheridge, the director of the British Museum surmised that the man in question was “Robert Etheridge, Junr., who was Assistant Keeper of Geology in this Museum from 1881 to 1891,” at which time he left for Australia, where he died in 1920. The director hastened to add that “Mr. Etheridge’s opinion on this subject should not be considered as in any way representing scientific opinion in this Museum.

    quote from Dr. Stephen Jay Gould "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists--whether through design or stupidity, I do not know--as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled 'Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax' states: 'The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge...are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible.'"

    Dr. Albert Fleischmann his quote is correct but he was an addmitted creationist who through all of his efforts he could not convince any of his peers his position.

    Luther Sunderland was an aerospace engineer not an evolutionist and lost his creationism fights in the courts for twenty years

    dr francis crick believed in evolution and i quote "Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, Gregor Mendel’s genetics and knowledge of the molecular basis of genetics, when combined, revealed the secret of life"

    now quit copy and pasting if i want to argue with the people who actually wrote them i will go to the creationist sites that they are given and argue there. and quote mining is a well known tactic of creationists. now you said what you don't believe in how about what you do

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    Please do not copy/paste such a big amounts of text.

    So what @bob. You proved nothing. Some guy Pachauri gave false, exaggerated report full of speculation and IPCC lost the credibility. The key point in you copied text is that other independent scientists and skeptics (not creationists) raised their voice against those claims.

    Science is in the constant process of reviewing what is published out-there and if something is wrong the science itself will be the first to correct the wrong info.

  • Insomniac

    Wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text

    I didn't watch the Doc

    wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text

    science is a fraud

    wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text

    "quote taken out of contect"

    wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text

    scientist make mistakes to, they must be wrong about everything I don't understand

    wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text

    there is no evidence for anything as long as I don't look for it

    wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text

    The Lord is my shepherd Amen.

  • nino

    all you so called scientists dont know anything about the scientific method. Here´s how its done:

    There are ways of telling whether
    She is a witch.

    CROWD: Are there? What are they?
    BEDEMIR: Tell me, what do you do with witches?
    VILLAGER #2: Burn!
    CROWD: Burn, burn them up!
    BEDEMIR: And what do you burn apart from witches?
    VILLAGER #1: More witches!
    VILLAGER #2: Wood!
    BEDEMIR: So, why do witches burn?
    [pause]
    VILLAGER #3: B--... 'cause they're made of wood...?
    BEDEMIR: Good!
    CROWD: Oh yeah, yeah...
    BEDEMIR: So, how do we tell whether she is made of wood?
    VILLAGER #1: Build a bridge out of her.
    BEDEMIR: Aah, but can you not also build bridges out of stone?
    VILLAGER #2: Oh, yeah.
    BEDEMIR: Does wood sink in water?
    VILLAGER #1: No, no.
    VILLAGER #2: It floats! It floats!
    VILLAGER #1: Throw her into the pond!
    CROWD: The pond!
    BEDEMIR: What also floats in water?
    VILLAGER #1: Bread!
    VILLAGER #2: Apples!
    VILLAGER #3: Very small rocks!
    VILLAGER #1: Cider!
    VILLAGER #2: Great gravy!
    VILLAGER #1: Cherries!
    VILLAGER #2: Mud!
    VILLAGER #3: Churches -- churches!
    VILLAGER #2: Lead -- lead!
    ARTHUR: A duck.
    CROWD: Oooh.
    BEDEMIR: Exactly! So, logically...,
    VILLAGER #1: If... she.. weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood.
    BEDEMIR: And therefore--?
    VILLAGER #1: A witch!
    CROWD: A witch!

  • eireannach666

    O Father why have you forsaken me! Lol

    I'm with Achems and Vlatko on this. Bob is jacked up on jesux. That's why he is so insistent on denying the facts before denying his godly views on evolution. A person of science would concede and accept his views were distorted and rejoice in the newly found knowledge.

  • Epicurus

    bob is just trying to get banned from the site by doing something inproductive to the conversation and then he can leave feeling like he accomplished something with the attitude that he was banned because he was right.

    bob stop acting like a child and try having a discussion like a man.

    and now you jump from evolution to climate change. well you failed at the evolution debate because you quoted people not only that were out dated but people that didnt support your position...NOW you post a report about some numbers being smudged so you think THE ENTIRE THING IS WRONG.

    that is impressive. I would put money on the fact that you didnt do very well in school and probably dont have a postgraduate degree.

    how about check this NEW article out that was released after the "climate gate" scandal

    "Global warming is undeniable," and it's happening fast, a new U.S. government report says.

    An in-depth analysis of ten climate indicators all point to a marked warming over the past three decades, with the most recent decade being the hottest on record, according to the latest of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's annual "State of the Climate" reports, which was released Wednesday. Reliable global climate record-keeping began in the 1880s.

    The report focused on climate changes measured in 2009 in the context of newly available data on long-term developments.

    news . nationalgeographic . com/news/2010/07/100728-global-warming-noaa-climate-hottest-decade-science-environment/

    its funny that people like you disagree with the same few pieces of science...you accept ALL the other claims made by science, but anything that goes against your BELIEFS or IDEALS is dismissed. you even go so far as to say it is lies when you dont even understand it.

    your whole lifestyle and attitude is disturbing. i wonder how people like you are able to function in society...i honestly do.

  • Epicurus

    unproductive...not inproductive 'twas a typo. lol

  • Dr. Dunkleosteus

    @Bob:

    Why do you refuse to declare your position? That is usually the first step in debate.

    Your long, quote-ridden posts do nothing for you if you don't explain your point of view. Yes, you don't agree with evolution. We get that. So what do you agree with? What do you believe in? What theory do you follow?

    Otherwise you are merely attempting to "shake the branches".

  • Reasons Voice

    Wow it was actually quite amusing to watch Bob completely self destruct on here. Side note why all the hate with the "Jesux" stuff? I don't even believe in "divinity" etc. yet still it's just uncalled for. You guys slaughtered the opposition with fact after fact yet still insist on belittling and childish statements. I think you are better than that. Look at it from a skew of your own thoughts. You think Christians are like children believing in Santa? Well would you then push a little child around saying where is your buddy Santass now? You cross a fine line between educator and school-yard bully.

  • Epicurus

    @reasons voice, you are absolutely right that sometimes the belittling gets out of hand and is unneccessary, however, if the child was an adult then yes i would be telling it there is no santa.

    but of course, the theists often dont see past the insults to actually look at the evidence. i think the insults are a result of frustration with the theists. especially when they act as smug as they do.

    but you are right and i for one am sorry for acting like that.

  • over the edge

    @ reasons voice absolutely right and if any of my posts came across as insulting it was the frustration talking and i apologise

  • Reasons Voice

    Thanks guys. I knew that my opinion of you was not illfounded. And I too have caved in to frustration, so again I thank you.

  • Insomniac

    @reasons voice: "why all the hate with the “Jesux” stuff?"

    I think its simply because most people posting in here are from a christian background. The "attacks" are agaisnt all religions, people simply tend to comment on what they allready know.

    What constitutes an insult here is debatable. Many would consider a statement to be blasphemous and insulting while other simply regard it as stating facts. Many would consider quoting embarassing parts of sciptures as an attack on Religion which is obviously absurd. Many would also say that responding childishly to a childish comment is only appropriate.

    Let's test your sensibility: I was baptised and had my first communion. I didnt ask for either. No one asked me if i wanted to. I was a baby who didnt yet understand that those strange objects coming in and out of my field of view we're my own hands for the first and a naive little boy unaware of the world outside my house/school for the second. I consider this to be forced endoctrination and a blatant attack on my develloping intellect and I personnaly think it should be viewed the same as marketting cigarettes to children.

    Was that an attack on Christiannity?

    Note: if you are merely referring to statements like this:

    "Yep! so far the religee’s or pseudo-religee’s have added nothing in their favour. “0? for religion."

    then I agree, it is the wrong tone to use, no matter how RIGHT it is ^^

  • Achems Razor

    @Insomniac:

    Tone? Since it is my quote you are using, What would you like me to do? apologize? forget it! The religee's seem to dish it out, then they should be able to take it, I was only stating a fact! Poor baby's that get their feelings hurt and go crying to mommy, should not be on the forum.

  • Reasons Voice

    @Insomniac: Since my background is the same as yours, No I would not consider the first statement as insulting. It simply states your opinion based on your own experience and how you perceive it. My perception of the same experience differs from yours. My statement would be more like; "while I know that events such as my baptism and confirmation were indoctrinating events, I have had the mental fortitude to go past that indoctrination. While I have cast aside the strict practices and more esoteric beliefs I still hold the moral teachings of that past. I also hold no ill will toward those who pressed me through those events as to their way of thought it was out of kindness. Where no malice was intended I cannot hold anger." I don't think that insults you either.
    As to the second statement quoted from Achems, I find it churlish and spiteful. He is a very smart guy and he makes very good posts on here for the most part. I think it is regrettable that he also make posts like that. However, I do not know his background where religion is concerned and perhaps his bile is warranted by his experiences. And no Achems I am far from hurt by those statement I just find they they detract from your otherwise intelligent postings.

  • SimonTheSorcerer

    @bob Hey bob have you even looked at the links I send you? Yesterday you've been complaining about the lack of evidence about transition then I just send you about 200 transitional fossils as a birthday gift. Well it is no need to try to convince anyone like you I think you are crazy or very high on something or plain schizophrenic. The things you keep sending here make no sense post a link where these things come from I would love to get to the bottom of it.

  • Achems Razor

    @Reasons Voice:

    Yes, I concede, in a way you are right, I am mostly spiteful towards religee's, the ones that are smug, and have the cat ate the canary type attitude.
    I suppose that I just take it for granted that it is always battle time with them.

    But, lecture time is over!

  • eireannach666

    @Reason
    Well I see the way I refer to the jewish zombie jesux has raised some brows hmm? Well I will tell you this, I'm an atheist and could care less about any so called god. However, I spell it as such because it has a nice ring and double meaning. So technically it wasn't an attack on anyone inparticular but just an attack on the man of myth himself and that which he brings with his name. I say that in real life as well. Its just an inside thing for me since I despise religion so. Heck I'd crucify him again if I saw him just for fun. No matter, that is off topic sorry.

    @b
    ooby or bobby wait bob

    I'm serious man, I'm with Achems and every one else, inquiring minds would like to know, what is your stance on how things came to be an our existence. What religion are you if any? Are you Atheist , agnostic etc? Be specific as the Dr said above it helps your argument in this or any debate. After all its not a debate until everyone chooses their stance. Enlighten us all please.

    Also , its ok to quote or restate but try to do so if you really understand what you are saying. We all have and do learn from others and have all usef another's quotes but try to explain it in your view and try and break it down so you are not misunderstood

  • eireannach666

    @Achems

    LOL dUde. I know how you feel. There are some religees who can debate something without starting a war but I'd say 99percent will automatically start on the defensive when approached with fact supporting their beliefs failure to be correct. Its a trait only jesux can love I guess. Like the ugly kids mom says they are beautiful , so is it with them and their bible. A lot of it is low self esteem so they act smug and put their fingers in their ears and shout ,"La La!" I'm not listening " I'm right god loves me and I'm pretty and smart." Ahh the christ illusion or whatever religion. Its definitely for the weak and needy.

    Hey you know what JC said ," The meak shall inherit the earth." Lol. Yeah right, not if evolution has anything to say. But its feel good stuff like that , that makes them so babyish in a lot of ways , ya know?

    But if you can't take the heat as they say is my moto. If they want to dish but not eat then they can kick rocks!

  • Achems Razor

    Ha,HA, true stuff @eire666,

    It is basically an ongoing war with religee's, is their any other way? (LOL)

    They seem to try to use anything and everything in their power to gain new converts, it is almost? should say is! a prerequisite with them, and if they deny that, then they are lying. So to the ones that seem that some of us atheists are condescending, well what can I say?

  • Juancho

    I only have 1 thing to say after reading most of the comments on this thread.

    Bob is the text-book example of someone who is ignorant.

    He copies/pastes everything he says, because when you read his posts that are a sentence or two long, there are always grammatical errors ...

    But when you read his lengthy posts ... they use a vocabulary and grammar that you can tell is a huge contrast to what he says when he is typing his own words.

    Bob, you cant sit here and debate with people by just posting quote after quote after quote, even not quoting just pasting and taking credit for other people's work.

    Go do some research into the subject and come back and join the banter when you actually have something to contribute that comes from YOU.

    If the people in this community wanted to argue with quotes and and completely invalid points you've borrowed from creationists, they would go to said creationist's website and spark a debate on their own.

    For anyone to argue with Science and Fact is beyond me.

    Even in middle school I was taught about carbon dating and the evolution of man.

    Even if one doesnt believe in evolution, it's beyond me how anyone can even SAY that the earth is no older than 6,000 years old without laughing.

    Religion is a mental illness. And the more you sit here and post your nonsense that cant be backed up, then more we realize that arguing with people like you is a waste of time.

    God loves you.

    Gnight.

  • Insomniac

    @A.R : This "us vs them" attitude is the reason why they are so close-minded. You're trying to extinguish a fire by throwing gasoline on it. What do you want, an atheist crusade? Defending scientific facts and theories tooth and nail against willfull ignorance is one thing, but atheism isn't a fact nor a theory, it's a belief system. You are pushing a belief system on people. GJ. Its getting really hard to defend "our side" when smart people say such stupid things.

    And once again, THIS DOCUMENTORY HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ATHEISM. Just thought that oughta be clear.

  • eireannach666

    @insomniac

    If the religees want to jump into a conversation on science then they should be prepared to back up what they say and answer some questions. They know going in what is going to happen when they argue their cas with no proof or validity. They always want to bring god into the subject. Now given this doc is about creationism but I was referring to other incidences when this applies. But this doc was about that issue so pushing one side or the other was expected in my opinion.

    I'm not trying to start nothing but the religees come to every thread about science and try to merch their wares on us that have already chosen fact over make believe.

    But if they want to debate that's on them.

  • Dr. Bianca Alvarez Harris

    After watching the documentary i hardly think that it is the type that would be shown in a classroom or on the Discovery channel. I have to agree with Bob when he states that it is Christian Bashing without taking a neutral approach towards the topic. Even if he is a Christian he did watch a documentary on a topic he opposes, very few of us atheists watch documentaries on Christianity.

    Childishness is expressed by those who are disrespectful to others through abusive language. You don't laugh at people and poke fun out of people with different cultures unless you are prejudice in some way. Its the same with a persons religion, a little courtesy and respect goes a very long way. If we did not have any opposition in any arena then progress would be slow.

  • over the edge

    @ Dr. Bianca Alvarez Harris
    i never attacked christian views (i did attack creationist views) bob never stated hie views and at no point gave anybody any evidence of his beliefs/facts. i do not know your personal views so i am not attacking you but if someone does not have enough belief in their views to post them (aka bob) then how do the rest of us take them seriously

  • eireannach666

    @Dr Bianca

    You make a valid point but actually most of the commenters on this thread know more on the christianity topic than most christians. I know this because I've had a lot of chat with a few. The reason I don't watch the docs is because I can't bare to hear all the garbage or see all the cultist views and activity going on.

    I like to poke fun sometimes at them yes, but after they have shown to be the type to just relentlessly argue without any backing and to never weigh the side of evidence..

    But as I said your point does apply to a few. Thanks for commenting so respectfully.

  • Insomniac

    @Dr. Bianca Alvarez Harris: This documentory IS the neutral approach. This documentory states facts and disproves false statements beyond reasonnable doubt. Doesn't get any more neutral then that. Besides, the religious side will always be bias by definition. There cannot be a neutral approach in the sense you intend it. There is no "christian" bashing, anytime he talks about religion in a wider sense he means all religions. You simply tuned out those parts. The only reason why christiannity has the main role is because this particualr debate takes place mostly in a christian nation. I'll admit some of the clips might not have been very tastefull but ultimately he didnt make them he simply sampled them and commented.

    I (and most here) do watch many docs on any and all religions, so long as they are documentories, not stories.

  • TonyBeauX

    Great playlist. His points were grounded in fact and to the point. This is probably the best video of this kind. The creator of the video was very honest and I think any christian who feels their toes were stepped on is missing the point. The author was very careful to make the distinction between creationism vs Evolution. Which does not equal science vs God. He didn't say it was impossible for God to exist, but that it IS impossible to believe that God created the world in six days given the evidence we have. He tried his best to point out what science is how the method is used and why untestable hypothesis cannot be verified and therefore no one can "know" supernatural forces are real. If this truth that he clearly and carefully exhibits would shake your faith and therefore you cannot take the what he says as truth, their lies our problem.

  • Achems Razor

    @Insomniac:

    With respect, the reason religee's are so close minded has nothing to do with atheists whatsoever, they are close minded period, no ifs and no buts.
    I am not trying to push atheism on the religious, couldn't care less.
    They are the ones that are pushing their religion.

    Atheism is not a belief system, nor is it a theory. I do not focus on any beliefs on a null god or any higher power, pay no allegiance to stuff like that.

    We do not go knocking on their doors or I, for example literally have to run from the Mormons in my neighborhood. JW's is another story.

    They are the ones that are compelled to push their religion on everyone, they are supposed to! Ask our friend @Charles B: on these forums, who is the most religious person I have met, we fight like cats and dogs, we disagree 99% most of the time, yet I have utmost respect for him.

  • eireannach666

    Yeah chuck B is cool. He just doesn't like my name but he's a rational debater and a firm believer for sure. Sup chuck!

  • mike senyck

    Please my good friend, have you ever sat back and realized that your devotion to athiesm & evolution has became in of itself a religion? Infact, one that i believe to take more blind faith to follow than creation itself. You can be objective, but don't cheat yourself from the truth because of false conceptions and ego.

  • Doug

    The statements posted since I pointed out that this video is atheist propaganda have all proven my point.

    I thank all of you atheists for sharing. None of you bothered to address my points that the video is disingenuous and IMO unethical in its presentation. I transcribed two specific attacks on both the Bible and the divinity of Jesus in my previous post. Clearly, none of you can put the mask back on the video once it was removed.

    If you are going to attack all religion, then make an honest documentary and say that it is against all religions. Don't deceptively say it is only attacking creationists and then attack all religions.

    This documentary is just as dishonest about its motives as its cover. The Pope, as I pointed out earlier and is pointed out in the documentary, is not a creationist and he accepts evolution.

    Have a good day bashing religion, you atheists. Your venom condemns you side worse any anything I can write.

  • Epicurus

    Doug, you are just angry that the information in the movie shows your belief system to be silly.

    the person in the video states the the bible was written by immoral savages...which is true. you didnt show how it wasnt true you just cried that someone would say it....yes he said it, what is your point?

    yes he also said that jesus wasnt god AND THEN he backed it up with instances in scripture where it clearly shows jesus is NOT god.

    so rather than crying about what the movie is about, let us know why you disagree with it and show how he is wrong.

    this documentary doesnt JUST cover creationism...that is just the first part. it is an attack on religion, mainly christianity since that is the dominant one in our culture.

    every problem you have just seems to be because it insulted your beliefs...well, defend them...he wasnt trying to hide the fact that he disagreed with christianity.

  • Doug

    Thank you, Epicurus. You confirm the video is dishonest in its presentation.

    That was my point. I don't feel I need to defend against any of the opinions voiced in the documentary. They are exactly that, opinions.

    It just needs to be pointed out the dishonesty in the documentary and the unethical nature of it.

    That is all. :)

  • Epicurus

    what was the presentation? do you mean in the description of what it was at the top of the page?

    also they arent opinions as much as they are keen observations based on the religions own claims. very different from opinion.

    i have the opinion that steak is better than chicken...but i know that scripture never states jesus is god, and i KNOW that the bible was written by people that had less evolved morals than we do now. these are not opinions.

    also it is in no way unethical. you have not shown how it is at all.

  • Doug

    What a shame. You continue to dodge the major point and try to derail the debate into a religious debate.

    I am not taking your red herring.

    The fact that you try to do so reinforces my point. The documentary is dishonest and unethical. :)

  • eireannach666

    Ill attack religion as it attacks humanity so F your god you sheep. Your ignorance is irritating and you will never meet your maker bwcause he exists only in myths and legends.

    Death to jesux.

  • eireannach666

    Your religion as all are dishonest, unethical and crimes against humanity. God should be tried and executed. If he was real.

    Take a look in the mirror.

  • eireannach666

    Calling atheism a religion is like calling balding a hair style. Nice try though. In response to earlier post.

  • SimonTheSorcerer

    @eireannach666 Loved your comments :) Totally agree but we shouldn't be like this. This is not rational debating or discussion. Somewhere along the lines it all turned ugly. I myself apologize for my rude comment earlier and would like to state, that I'm supportive 100% towards religous freedom/choice of religion or lack of it, which is atheism.

  • grigs3469

    I think Dr. Bianca Alvarez Harris is really bob wearing a dress (could be slacks, I'm not sexist)

  • Epicurus

    @Doug, i am only responding to the comments you are making.

    i have actually asked you twice what the main point is that you want to discuss...you arent making any sense, and trying to play the victim is silly.

    how is the documentary dishonest and especially unethical. you make a claim you must support it.

  • eireannach666

    No hard feelings Simon. I react quickly when I get a chance to speak what I don't say. peAce

  • D-K

    Hey now, when was this put up..?

    *puts it on the watch-list*

    Alás, D-K can't play now, must work on thesis.

  • charlesovery

    @Doug

    Um....can you please explain to us what makes this doc unethical? I would love to see your answer on this.

  • SimonTheSorcerer

    Me too and why dishonest? How can a documentary based on facts be dishonest??? Maybe you meant simply offensive, that one I could understand. I'm surprised that none of the creationist mentioned so far, that perhaps the Big Bang was created by a god like entity . That would lead to interesting discussions...

  • bob

    eireannach666 long haired, combat wearing anarchist type who wouldn't stand out from the rest of the metal/rock lovers! thinks its cool to associate anything he can with the devil. No different from the skinny jean, converse wearers, same type of person, different clothes. I bet you wouldn't wait outside of a Mosque and say the same thing about the Muslim prophet as you just did with regards to Christ. All big and bad hiding behind his computer. After the things you said and those that big you up exposed yourselves as mere degenerates, the dregs of society, with no respect, even if the bible turns out to be false, its still a good way to live; thou shall not steal, love thy neighbor, thou shall not kill. The bible can teach morels in a morels world. All caught up with your selfish and materialistic views on life with no regard to philosophy. Tell me, would academics want to rub shoulders with such a sub-class!

  • bob

    eireannach666 further more, man should be on trial, for it is mans deviant interpretation of religion for his own selfish gains that leads to problems. For those intellectually stable, would not follow such a path.

  • bob

    is This the quality of men that you all have become? It seems each generation gets worse, with fewer core values, no moral fiber and honer non-existent. Wont be long before the evolution of man back-fires extincts every living organism on the planet, due to his wickedness and self-preoccupation.

  • bob

    eireannach666 atheism is a faith! if you cannot prove GOD does or does not exist, then you must come to the conclusion that you have to have faith in either. And if you are in between then you are agnostic; not sure of either.

  • bob

    Finally, i asked at the beginning for fossil evidence and all of you started banging on until Vlatko gave the most reasonable answer after 20 posts not addressing my only question, There is no evidence of transition within fossil records. Thats all i asked in the beginning. Doesn't matter what my personal views are, i posed a question that only one of you was able to answer.

  • eireannach666

    Ahh bobby. Again with the put down and analysis. Yet you fail again. I have a shaved head and actually live down the street from a mosque and I will say if asked about islam I assure you muhammad can would be on the cross head ti toe with jesux in my book.

    An satan, lol , e doesn't exist either my friend so go hump your jesux and ask him to cuddlw so you feel better about yourself.

    Atheism is not a religion. An atheist is someone who needs no invisible means of support and has to allegiance to any nonexistent source.
    I thought you would have given up with the anysis by now since youe attempts failed.

    You sound like a little girl with a skinned knee. Go get your bible nd prey for a band aid and go have jesux kiss it and make it better.

    I feel sorry for your kind man. All that timespent on yoyr knees and ytouy didn't even get paid. Wipe the staon off you collar though, it looks un proifessional.

  • i am become death

    i think its about time beelzebob actually watched this documentary. and to say that the bible is a good moral guide, maybe you should read that too, killing pregnant woman,suckling infants offering daughters up for rape and countless other moral violation. to consider love thy parents although they may rape and beat me. just after thou shalt not kill the jews committed genocide- on command of their god. assuming it was a rape/murder fest prior to the 10 commandments do you think the jews would have gotten that far let alone the rest of the world who still dont have these but figured out there own moral code through civilisation.

  • i am become death

    each generation getting worse, you say? Well, slavery has been abolished in large parts of the world, gay rights are slowly but surely getting to where they should be, no witches burnt to death recently, women have rights, apartheid is mostly behind us, the people have the right to choose their own leaders, many countries allow freedom of - and from - religion, education is mandatory for children, public forums for discussion exist rather than independently minded people being thrown in gaol and tortured....yes we have a long way to go but we have come so far, and most of it IN SPITE OF RELIGION. Gentle jesus meek and mild is a recent character, the church of the inquisition called upon the very same god, we would do well to remember that.

  • Cool E Beans

    @Bob

    Imagine you found a Monsanto tomato and tried to connect it to a natural tomato...you couldn't do it directly either just like evolutionists can't connect one adaptation to another, especially the dramatic leaps found.

    We are the Monsanto tomato.

    I also liked the chart showing the inability of similar but different species from breeding with lions and tigers on one side...look up Liger to see the possibilities.

  • i am become death

    ***=homosexual, they blanked it out

  • Charles B.

    Ok. Ok. I'll add my words of wisdom for all . . . "Jesus said it, I believe it, and that settles it!"

    There, I feel much better in a "circular" kind of way as Epic is always harping about; sorta full, and round, and not lacking in the middle. I like it that way. :-)

  • SimonTheSorcerer

    Well I have some time now in the afternoon so I decied to post my lenhty comment and my accumulated thoughts so far. In the faint hope of constructive contrubution perhaps even valuable...

    First of all I would like to thank Vlatko for this wonderful site or as the marketing guys (including myself :)) would say this wonderful "experience". It is comparable to one of the better lectures at my university. I feel intelectually stimulated and it broadens my horizon but enough off topic.

    So I observed not just in this thread but in others well, that a majority opinion forms very quickly and then every other opinion, advise even pure data not supportive of the majority opinion gets ridiculed, harassed agressively doubted and scrutinized. I call it for lack of a better word "the wagon effect". The wagon being the majority opinion and the others (including myself ) just jump in , when it starts. The more the people on the wagon the faster it rides doen the slope into youtube style sometimes even 4chan style "discussion". Don't get me wrong ! i found it extremly amusing and i enjoy the ride but it's only good in the "wagon".

    As it seems it comes down to convincing the creationist by the evolutionists in this thread so I will write in the spirit of this. My two cents in this matter is as follows.
    I adress the religion, the need for religion and religous experience in a broader manner.

    The need for religion: As Charles B. put it very good dtability, safety, happines can come from religion and justifiable for those who are true believers. Think placebo-effect. If you believe, that prayer helps you it will. Also to illustrate this I would like to quote from Emanuel Kant's book The Critique of Pure Reason. Forgive me if it is not 100% correct I'm quoteing by heart now: "There are two ways in which we can account for experiences. Either experiences make concepts possible or concepts make the experience possible. " Therefore a religous mindset is complete in it's own way round, spherical as Charles B. put it. Therefore convincing is only possible if doubt breaks the circle, which can come only from inside.

    Religious experience: Many people claim true nad intense religious experiences rightfully so. I myself know the power of the mind as i have suffered from sleep paralysis as a kid
    the vivid, convincing, horrid, "real" nightmares still linger on the peripherie of my consciousness. More on that maybe later. I will send @Vlatko a link about a very good, shocking documentary about SP later on. I would like to refer to a previous documentary here it is called "Phantoms in the Brain" it is here on TDF. In that it is stated, that the stimulation of the frontal lobe can lead to intense profound, sudden revelation/religous experience. An experience, that can be recreated under controlled circumstances and it is quantifiable, recreatable, describable just like a good scientific experiment should be. Sorry @Charles B. I found peace and solitude in this. :) Also meditational techniques can have the same result. I also had intense "religious"/meditational experiences, where I fell down to my knees and cried, sheed tears , because I felt the beauty of creation, life intensly, all at once. I witnessed the birth of a sun, then I was the sun "the source of all life" the warming intense rays joined with me till I was them and they were me. I understood them the mystery of life, the universe and everything. (It's 42 we all know it :D) But this doesn't mean I will worship the sun. This experience can be controlled and recreated with some experience in meditation.
    It has some lingering side-effects also you will feel like "insubstantial" for days and like not anchored in reality. More etheric...

    And as for @Bob Atheism is by definition is not a religion. As for Evolution requires faith no once again by definition it is wrong but trust. It does require trust for I have never seen the fossils with my own eye nor I've seen a strand of DNA myself. You arre right you never said you are Creatonist it just stuck on you the "wagon effect" as I mentioned. About the late answer to your request of evidence I did post it instantly when you asked/demanded but comments containing links have to await moderation, which takes time.

  • SimonTheSorcerer

    forgive me for the insane amount of typo in my comments I have a german keyboard and german spelling checker only sorry

  • Achems Razor

    Ha,Ha, love waking up in the morning and checking the TDF e-mails, what do I find? the religious children all crying the blues. The big bad atheists are picking on them again,their mommies all have to wipe away their tears.

    The religee's again will go to their books and cherry pick only the passages that they deem relevant, to further justify there bronze age myths, carefully omitting the utmost vile, deplorable and comprehensible acts ever performed on poor human creatures, men women and children, but no, the religee's pretend that such things are not written in their books. and never even happened, only the good stuff that they cherry pick ever happens, or happened!

  • ez2b12

    @ Bob
    Man you need some help, really. I am not trying to be mean or joking around here. Have you read your obscenely long and purely ficticiouse rant? You just go on and on refusing to accept the very facts you asked for, insulting person after person, and totally destroying your own credibility. Again I am not being mean and I do not want to argue with you over something that is so apparently the facts of life (evolution). But I do think you should seek some help man, for your own good.

    I am from a very religiouse back ground though I am an athiest myself. My grandfather was a baptist preacher, you are not helping the creationist case at all. I do not believe in creationism, and neither do the vast majority of christians that I know. But if you are going to try and argue a point you can't set about it by being an insulting, neurotic, fool. By the way my grandfather is off limits as he died a few years back and I loved and miss him more than I can say. Please do not turn your insulting pathetic rant toward him.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    "The religee’s again will go to their books and cherry pick only the passages that they deem relevant, to further justify there bronze age myths, carefully omitting the utmost vile, deplorable and comprehensible acts ever performed on poor human creatures, men women and children, but no, the religee’s pretend that such things are not written in their books. and never even happened, only the good stuff that they cherry pick ever happens, or happened!"

    -- With respect to Christianity, there is a very sophisticated version on offer. Sadly, atheists love getting it on with the nit-wit version. It's easier I guess. Plus, it makes them sound soooo smart.

  • eireannach666

    @bobby boy

    Let me expain somelthing to you son. I don't care what you believe , ok. Fact is , could care less. You stated your piece and I along with others responded. If you didn't like what you heard because it destroyed your case , then that's too bad. Your case was weak and false. Now that you are proven wrong you start with the insults. Classic religee immaturity and realy just funny. You need to step back and analyze yourself instead of others. You can't fix others or help them if yourself is as confusef and delusionl as youyrself. No offense intended either. You can't even say what it is you believe in and can't argue your point with out someone elses help.

    Find yourself , it sounds like you have some growing to do with in and you won't find ir in no bible but in yourself.

    Don't insult me again or I will have to unleash my full hatred for such idea as god. And I might just conjure up Dr. Randy and let him have a crack at cha.

    Where's HM or Epi Log? Hmmm.

  • Achems Razor

    @ilove myself:

    You mean there are versions? nit wit version? sophisticated version? so again all you and religee's are doing is cherry picking, making up new versions as you go along, something more presentable to the masses, Right?? Anything is better then your original OT horror book!! I presume. You religee's are phony.

  • Achems Razor

    @erie666:

    Me thinks that @Bob, is a scientologist...Hmmmm.

  • eireannach666

    @Achems

    Oh sh**! Maybe , so. They are quite the delusionists indeed and he didn't really want to say what he was either. Also he would of almost had to say what he was of any of the jesux based religions along with a few other major ones. Plus that would explain his problem with evolution and all the outdated quotes and references. And also his mentality. He's a F'in cultist!

    Man those scientologe or cryintologists as I say ( I don't want to mix science with those loons) are worse than the JWs the Moemons or any other sect.

    You may very well have nailed it man.
    I haven't ran into one on here yet. You?

    So what do you say bobby?

  • Achems Razor

    @erie666:

    I don't think that scientologists are supposed to push their cult, especially on forums,unless given permission from their cult-master.

    But bobby-O is some kind of cultists, that is a given.

    Anyway, everything that he says is "Moot" unless he tells us what he is referring to. Not worth the effort to reply to him.

  • SimonTheSorcerer

    maybe Westboro Baptist Church.... :) GOD HATES F*GS! just joking

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ Achems

    Well, I meant that it's more nuanced than you make it out to be. You see Christianity as any child would --Hell is a hot place, Heaven is a theme park, etc. And that's the kind of Crayon Christianity that you argue against. It really is a bit more sophisticated than that.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @Achems

    "You religee’s are phony."

    -- I'm not.

  • SimonTheSorcerer

    @ilovemyself
    You never reply to a insult like that it is just internet basicss. It is called trollbait (don't know it type it in youtube) You will be torn apart by these able, intelligent, full of hate people. Do yourself a favour don't be infantile and DONT FEED THE TROLLS!

  • Achems Razor

    @ilove myself:

    No matter how you cut it, the OT is a man made horror novel! and it is the original.
    And any "new" man made novels are just cherry picking from the original, plain and simple!

  • Achems Razor

    @Simon:

    I do not hate religee's, I feel pity for them. After all they are just children (child like) (LOL)

    If I was a Troll, I wouldn't be allowed on TDF. Nice try though.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ Simon

    Me? Torn apart? I don't think so.

    @ Achems

    "No matter how you cut it, the OT is a man made horror novel!"

    -- Whether the O.T. is a horror novel, or whatnot, I don't really care. Being a Christian, I try to be a follower of Jesus. Bashing the O.T. just gives you one up against the rabbis.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ Achems

    You pity "religees", why exactly? They pity you too, albeit mostly for the wrong reasons. Fundamentalism cuts both ways I guess. Ironically, your chosen words show that you want to foster intolerance towards faith, potentially as damaging as the religious fanaticism which you so deeply despise.

  • eireannach666

    @ Ilovemyself

    You said"– With respect to Christianity, there is a very sophisticated version on offer. Sadly, atheists love getting it on with the nit-wit version. It’s easier I guess. Plus, it makes them sound soooo smart."

    Now you want to take it there huh? Sophisticated how? Please elaborate for us silly misinformed atheists.

  • Achems Razor

    @ilove myself:

    Don't really care what you believe in, whatever floats your boat, I have no argument with you. You are not pushing your religion like some.

  • Achems Razor

    @ilove myself:

    Well, I was going to let it go, but apparently you are not, yes faith should have no tolerance at all, they hold back any scientific advancement at all times. I am a fundy? yes! in science!

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ eireannach66

    "Now you want to take it there huh? Sophisticated how? Please elaborate for us silly misinformed atheists."

    -- No, I don't want to "take it there" --that will take a long time, and we won't be breaking new ground. Just letting you know that it's not as Crayon as atheists make it seem. I can suggest some reading though, if your serious about understanding real Christianity.

    And yeah, you could at least use strawmen a little more covertly. That was a bit too obvious.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ Achems

    "Well, I was going to let it go, but apparently you are not"

    -- Well, I didn't really see your response when I posted that. Fine, I'll let it go.

  • eireannach666

    @Achems /Ilovemyself

    Now fellas let's not rehash this again on this thread.

    @ Ilovemyself

    However briefly explain sophisticated christianity.
    No offense but that sounds a little of an oxymoron to me.

    I'm not saying all christians are dumb but You should at least clarify your definition of that statement.

  • Epicurus

    I have a question for IlovemyselfmorethanI, who i have to admit is my favourite opposition thus far.

    when you say
    "your chosen words show that you want to foster intolerance towards faith, potentially as damaging as the religious fanaticism which you so deeply despise."

    i wonder why you think it is AS damaging? why would it be so damaging to speak out fundamentally against something that is clearly a superstition. something that has no actual evidence (at least no more than any other religion)?

    im not saying that if i could i would get rid of all religion (i dont think humanity could handle that yet) but i dont think its AS damaging...what the fundamental theists of all faith are doing to this world is inexcusable and i just dont see how being fundamentally atheist is as bad.

  • Reasons Voice

    I won't be posting on this doc anymore after this because it would be pointless. I just wanted to point out a few things.
    Religion was/is responsible for some of the worst events in human history. One would have to be a complete loon not to admit so. Yet to use that as a platform from withc to attack all religion is specious, when coming from one whose beiefs reside in the realm of science. In the realm of human suffering throughout the ages Science has played as big a role ash has religion. Without the inventions of weapons and torture devices by science no war or enslavement would ever have taken place. Without industrialization no polution. Without progress no people would be left behind to starve while others have abundance. You can say the grand inquisitor was evil incarnate and I could say that Mengela was. Science has some very dirty hands as well. Both foundations are rife with good and bad just as all men are. Secondly, to argue about cherry picking to suit ones need. That happens in science as well as we all know that there are contradictiory theories in all branches of science. Just as in religion was knowledge grows the theory evolves.
    Thats all I am done. Well one last thing. To say if given the chance you would go back and crucify Jesus yourself is just antagonistic. Fine you don't like what has come of Christianity ok. Well is it right to say one should go back and shoot Martin Luther King because of the actions of the black panthers? Or closer to home shoud I go back and assasinate Alber Einstein because of The A Bomb?

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ Epicurus

    "i wonder why you think it is AS damaging? why would it be so damaging to speak out fundamentally against something that is clearly a superstition. something that has no actual evidence (at least no more than any other religion)? "

    -- I actually think it's more damaging. But I could be accused of bias there. I would make the case that it isn't a superstition, that Christianity is real --but isn't that exactly what's in dispute.

    If you follow an atheist's worldview to it's logical end, morality becomes a socio-biological spin-off, we essentially become no more important than animals, no objective purpose or meaning -- thus life is objectively meaningless, etc.

    Now, obviously, I'm not saying all atheists believe these. But I think these notions are inescapable if you follow that worldview to it's logical conclusion. For me at least, a society leaning toward these beliefs, will tend to not value human life.

    Can you show me how a fundamentalist Christian would be worse? And don't make the mistake of showing fundamentalists who *think* they're Christian. The keyword is Christ here. You would have to show that that's indeed what Jesus would want/do.

  • eireannach666

    @Reason

    You say that's antagonistic? Well I was antagonized. And I would do as such if the time arose and presented itself. Remember this topic started on an evolution stage and then here come the bible thumpers with their bibles waving insulting the rest of us specifically bobby. So I say tit for ta and if you want to judge than go ahead. But your statement comparing that to MLK was horrible. He never claimed to be divine nor is he relevent on a large scale today.

    Good riddance to you my friend.No hard feelings on my end.

  • Reasons Voice

    My point exactly thank you. My comparrisson to MLK broken down for you. MLK And Jesus preached peace and equality among men. They both died for their beliefs. The message of bothe overall was a unifying and understanding one. Since the death of both men have used their name in acts of violence and biggotry. Look up the black panthers, the new black panthers, the african muslims in Rewanda etc. Many of these croups claim inspiration from MLK. You say horrible. I agree. Also watch the Doco again. According to all biblical quotation Jesus never claimed divinity either.
    Again thank you for prooving my point so concisely.
    Take care now. bye

  • over the edge

    all i want is for a creationist to give their facts FOR creationism. now if someone does and wants my response please make your claims scientific and fact based. the evolutionists here have given their views ,responded to attacks proven outright lies , or tried to explain to people who refused to either read or understand answers. Creationism claims to be a science that wants to be taught in school so if it is a science it can be proven scientifically.

  • Achems Razor

    @Reason:

    Your last blog was so full of holes that you could drive a truck through it,

    But I do not have the patience nor the inclination to rebuttal.

    Have a good day.

  • Abrahams Son

    Reason, Religion is not responsible for any of terrible things done in history. The peversion of religion by man is the reasons these things are done. Do you really believe all the jealousy, hatred, hypocrisy, genocide, zealots and psycopathic dictators would just fade away if the worlds population suddenly all became Atheist? These are all the traits and tendencies which are the makeup of humans. Religion is simply used as a tool of those who look methods to exploit others. When Catholic priest molest children this is not Gods work gone awry, it is mans true nature being revealled. There can be no true natural law for Atheist because no basis exist for such. When an Atheist says they believe in a code of ethics they only profess a belief in somthing created by the electrical waves in their brain which is always influenced by the base nature of the evolutionary process. You cant blame God or a belief in God for inhumanity to man as this is only human nature finding a way to manipulate religion for gain. People will always abuse other people over sex, money or anything they want and use religion or any other excuse to do so. Faith only says you believe in a being greater than ourselves which does not seem like a very high standard.

  • Achems Razor

    @Reason:

    I should say your post...09/01/2010 at 20:30

  • young

    @Abrahams Son

    Replace the word "religion" with the word "drugs" or "drug addicts", then read over theparagraph you just wrote. It's really quite comical, but sad.

  • young

    also...your code doesn't come from the bible, unless of course you agree with killing people who cheat on their spouses. Do you?

  • Reasons Voice

    @Abrahams: That was my point. That the core of religion is as much responsible for those things as is science today. Man is fallable and capable of both good and ill. They are also able to use any tool be it science or theologhy to harm others.
    @Achems Thats fine if you don't wish to debate it. However, I feel that while it could be elaborated on in depth this is not the proper forum. I keep my posts short and try to be concise. Who needs those big wall of text rants. The premis, if you alow a lapse in your fundamentalism, Is sound. Science in the hands of men has harmed just as much as has religion.

  • SimonTheSorcerer

    @young
    You Sir are cool! This comment must be the highest value per letter around here... :) Loved it and it was really comical you were right.

  • ez2b12

    @ Ilovemyselfmorethani

    First of all you speak of Christ or Jesus as if it is a given fact that he even existed at all, this is not the case. I have studied this more than I truly care to as I have a degree in theology. We do have some very brief mentions of someone called Christ but this only meant the anointed one and could refer to many different people. I am not telling you not to believe as i am sure that would do no good what so ever, only to stop misrepresenting what you obviously do not understand.

    Second, to say that to follow atheism to its logical conclusion ends one up looking at a society without morals tells me one thing. Your morals are only dictated to you by some man made book, not something you actually feel or hold dear in your heart. I for one do not need any book or religion to tell me what is right and wrong. I also have no need of some savior to give my life meaning. To admit that you do need these things in order to remain moral and have purpose is to admit your own short comings and lack of imagination.

    Also, how do you decide what to follow from the bible and what not to. I mean in the old testament morality is pretty savage, in fact it is horrible. So you are obviously cherry picking what to believe in and follow and what seems wrong to you- not Christ. I mean if your brother died and he had yet to produce a male child with his wife would you feel you must now have sex with her and produce said male to carry on his blood line, I didn't think so. Would you have sex with your maid if your wife turned out to be unable to have children, I didn't think so. Do you leave a certain amount of your income for the poor to benefit from, I didn't think so.Face it you do not follow all the old testament or new testament laws do you? So you are cherry picking what to follow and what not to follow. In other words you are deciding what morality is and then condemning those that do not agree with you. You want me to take you serious, cut a goat in half and walk between the pieces while reciting your covenant with god. Any thing less is Christianity 102 and not dictated by the bible but man.

    Christianity is nothing but an extension of older pagan religions wrapped up in a prettier package and forced down the throats of western civilization by politicians and sheeple alike. You don't see the harm of fundamentalist bs, come to the US and you will. It has blinded our citizens to the real issues at hand, corrupted politics and every other corner stone of western society, and divided our populas for the benefits of the rich and powerful that know better than to believe this c@#$- they simply use it too get people like you behind them so they can get more power and take more of your/our civil rights away. You stay on your knees with your head down long enough and when you look up you'll finally see what they were really up to- too late now. Its time to grow up and move on. What we are witnessing right now is the death cries of a long extinct and pointless fantasy- now I'll say Amen to that brother.

  • Juancho

    ez2b12, very well said.

  • Insomniac

    @Reason:

    "(...)when coming from one whose beiefs reside in the realm of science."

    You know science, you don't "believe" it.

    "Without the inventions of weapons and torture devices by science no war or enslavement would ever have taken place."

    Sticks and stones are very effective killing tools, as many who are no longer with us may testify. Jaws, claws, stingers, toxins and mandibles also do a fantastic job as the animal kingdom shows us on a daily basis.

    "Without industrialization no polution."

    Industrialisation couldn't have happened without scientific advancement but it's purpose (monetary gain) has nothing to do with science. If anything polution today is more about the industries not accepting new scientific realities. It's politics and economics not science.

    "Without progress no people would be left behind to starve while others have abundance."

    There was always rich and poor people. It's because of our outdated "tribal" way of politics and our class system. Again, not science.

    "Both foundations are rife with good and bad just as all men are."

    We are not fundamentaly good and/or bad, we are results of our environment. Yours has proven to be detrimental in most cases, if not for the individual(at least not from HIS point of view) then for the society he lives in.

  • Achems Razor

    @Insomniac:

    I agree, my sentiments exactly, thank you.

  • ez2b12

    @ Insomniac

    Well done mate, bravo!!

  • Reasons Voice

    You see insomniac you also assist in proving my point. I am all for science. I am all for intellectual progress. My statement was to show what one could say about science to show it's evils. And you offered the same defense (and rightly so) of science. That it is mans choices of how to used that knowledge and society that are to blame. That is the same argument that the religious have. I am not talking old testament here as it is not applicable to the modern world.
    Your argument in defense of science was very well made. I agree with each and every point of it. Now just stand back and without malice or grudge place the same logical perspective of defense onto religion.

  • Reasons Voice

    pardon my use of a second name. i used it a while back on a separate thread and it filled in automatically.

  • Reasons Voice

    I simple played the devils advocate. Hopefully in order to broach some understanding that the vast majority of religious people are not fanatical in any way. They are logical reasonable intelligent people who simply find beauty and harmony in an ancient philosophical story. I used to rail against religion myself. These days I am what you would call an agnostic. However I too see some beauty in many of the ancient religions. I was raised in a Roman catholic home and was sent to catholic based schools. For the most part those schools were quite liberal and never tainted science with religion. I had never heard of creationism until years after graduating. In my sophomore year of HS I finally did come across one like you dislike. The professor (if one could call her that) tried very hard to sway my wayward mind. I was assigned a voluminous research project to complete over my summer break, the failing of which would seal my fate in the school. I instead researched and wrote a 57 page paper on the life and experiments of Nicola Tesla that I turned in before the new year began. I was removed from the school under the new administration and completed my secondary ed at the local public school. I submitted that same paper to the science department at the public school and as a result was enrolled in advanced science classes at the local university. So to say that my environment harmed me in some way is very presumptuous.

  • eireannach666

    @ reason

    You think you entrapped someone? You merely made a very weak an obvious statement and not to mention a poor comparison of historical figures.
    Truth is , the panther party's admiration for MLK to the following and church of JC is like comparing steak to bologna. In time kids will say who is MLK but JC will and has lasted for thousands of years and beyond unfortunately. We might as well go one step further and compare the UAB and nazi sects admiration for Hitler to the christians or the fanatics of any cultural divide. In fact we could go on forever about extremists. You name it , there is someone who take it to the extreme thing is, is that the panthers, the UAB etc have such a minor impact on the world as a whole that only local impact is felt but JC has a grip on the entire globe and has through out the ages.

    Its not so much jesux the man that is the issue but jesux the scam , the lie , the idea ,the dumbing down of society , the greedy, the sham ,the, concept and the manipulation/corruption etc. Could go on forever And don't get me wrong , you see I feel the same about all religion. All do the same. Maybe a little differently or maybe another name for their deity/deities and a different funny hat, but the objective of the powers are all the same.
    I'm what you call a polyatheist. I can't stand any of it.

    When discussing topics of science with a religee. One always tries to stick to the issue but they never can. But where I'm from its tit for tat and if I'm attacked , I bite back and I mean what I say. No take backs or apologies.

    Not trying to stir things up or offend either but tit for tat as I stated before.

  • Achems Razor

    @Reason:

    I hate even writing anymore on this stuff, but I guess have no choice. For one thing seems that you are back pedaling, You say you want defense for religion, what defense? the wonderful inquisition, and so on, and so, I don't even want to get into it!

  • Dr. Bianca Alvarez Harris

    This will be the last time i participate in this so called debate. Most of you are talking out of your depth, pretending that you know all there is to know about the topic and life. The language and behavior is pathetic and merely confirms your lack of up-bringing and education.

    Your contempt for religious text further shows your failure to grasp philosophical perspectives on life and how to live it, based on the premise that you all have even read any! A true scholar has a thirst for all forms of knowledge and to study throughly both sides of existing arguments and all avenues of interpretation.

    You also fail to separate mans desire for power and control and the messages in religious text. Basic stuff.

    I was foolish to think i could find competent minds (with exception of a few!)within such a forum after watching this you tube posting, not documentary.

    The gentleman going by the name eireannach666, i am shocked that at 30 years of age and with two degrees, this is the level as to which your mind has arrived. Disgusting!

  • eireannach666

    @dr

    Well I'm sorry you feel that way but not everyone is as passive as you try to be. I see things in a different light than you obviously. I hate. That's what I do. Everyone equally but trust me when I say my knowledge on religion uis vast and I have been biting my lip with some of these people for a long time. I don't care if your disgusted. It makes me laugh that you see yourself as Mr Morals and manners. You don't know me at all. I am actually very moral and principle based. I don't see how you can feel so smug as to call me out when I was simply dishing out what was given. Play along, don't be so stuck up.

    Also my upbringing was more than likely a 180 from yours and yoy must realize. That some of us don't care about a lot of things hippies like yourself do. A persons feelings mean nothing as long as the truth come out, in my opinion.

    You think you are something special don't you? Well you are the only one my friend and your arrogance and smugness is equally disgusting to me.its people with that attitude that makes society weak and too compassionate.

    Just to be clear, you also need to ease up on the analysis a bit because you have no idea who I am or why I am.

    Keep your nose in the air man that way you don't have to see the evils in real life.

    Man, what is it now , get eire riled up day or something$

    I must ask Dr of what? I'd gues some kind of psychiatry or something to that nature , if really a dr of anything?.

  • Reasons Voice

    @Achem: You apparently don't get it. That's fine. I was not backpedaling simply wrapping it up. Then you go on to mention the inquisition. I know this will not get through at all but one last time without frills. The inquisition was conducted by MEN, just men, with corrupt objectives. They used religion as both tool and excuse to facilitate their atrocity. It was not the faith that did that it was not Bibles falling from the sky to kill thousands it was men. They were not following some scripture they were using books like the Maleus Malifacarum which is not a holy book in any established religion. The use of religion as a weapon to control the masses is no different than the use of a socio-political meme such as socialism, capitalism, Marxism etc. It does not imply that the message is evil but that men who intend harm misuse it to their ill designs. Much like a terrorist can use fertilizer and diesel fuel to murder thousands by making a bomb. The fuel and the cow s@#$ are not to blame.

  • Insomniac

    @Reason: I will and have before defended SPIRITUALITY in of itself since it probably was the first truely unifying force on which many civilisations we're founded, I simply don't think its relevant anymore. A RELIGION is an organisation which preys on spirituality and promotes ignorance which does not diserve to be defended, and I wouldn't do so if you put a gun to my head.

  • Insomniac

    @Dr.:

    "Most of you are talking out of your depth, pretending that you know all there is to know about the topic and life. The language and behavior is pathetic and merely confirms your lack of up-bringing and education."

    I think most people here actually do know what they are talking about. Atheist do tend to know more about theology then most believers (as sad as that may sound) since they will actually bother to learn about other religions then the prodominant one in their life and are usually more interested in the history of religion simply because said history doesn't come into conflict with their belief system. "Know thy enemy..." (you're not my enemy im sure you're a nice guy ^^)

    "Your contempt for religious text further shows your failure to grasp philosophical perspectives on life and how to live it, based on the premise that you all have even read any!"

    Scriptures we're written (and edited) a very long time ago by people with a very limited understanding of the world and questionnable morals. That is a FACT. Quoting embarassing parts of scriptures is not an attack on them. You might see it as one simply because SCRIPTURES ARE OFFENSIVE. Showing contempt for them is as meanningless and perhaps NORMAL as showing contempt towards mein kampff or the little engine that could. I did read the old and the new testament and the coran as many here also have, not all religious.

    "A true scholar has a thirst for all forms of knowledge and to study throughly both sides of existing arguments and all avenues of interpretation."

    Define knowledge..? This particualr argument (evolution) doesnt have 2 sides. It has opposing views based on fact or on fiction. The only possible "discussion" will always be the same: One side proves the other wrong beyond any reasonnable doubt, and the other side gets pissed.

    "You also fail to separate mans desire for power and control and the messages in religious text. Basic stuff."

    The message in religious text can be absolutely whatever you could possibly want it to be, which is why it SERVES "mans desire for power and control" so well.

  • eireannach666

    @dr

    I'd like to ask , what are. You referring to anyways? I mean, you are disgusted by what statements? The ones that had a middle finger attached to them? Well that's me. One big middle finger pointing at society. Who says if your educated and older that you have to be nice and sweet? Life isn't nice and sweet, so why be so fake?.

  • Jay

    I found the comments as important as the documentary itself. I enjoyed reading them all.

  • ez2b12

    @ the good Dr.

    Alright pal you want a intellectual show down? I have a degree in theology and have studied many religiouse texts extensively the old and new testaments, the Qur'an, the Bhagavad Gita, the Dhammapada, the Torah and Ketuvim. I doubt you know what all these text are or which religions they belong to, do you. No don't google it thats cheating. I'll gladly match wits with someone so condescending and arrogant. I spend a lot of time here and though these guys are down to earth and sometimes a little vulgar they are very intelligent. You have no business busting in here with your holier than thou nose stuck up in the air. Yes true intellectuals do often like to know both sides of a subject they are studying, did any of these guys claim to study religion? I didn't think so. One does not have to study religion to see the fact that it is fantasy and delusion, needed only by small minded men who want to segregate. Yes thier is a lot of beauty in religiouse texts and they are important works of literature. The problem comes in when people like you try and take them for fact and not fiction, for science and not conjecture, as if they have the only moral authority in life.

    The tdf family doesn't need another prick, back off. You are welcome to discuss or defend your opinion just like everyone else, if you can. But you are not welcome to come and insult obviousely capable people that are very intelligent. It's not up to you to judge what is approporiate or deemed worthy.

    Maybe history is your game, I hold a degree in that as well- western civics to be exact. I find it very hard to believe that you are a Phd. If you are, and that i would have to see to believe, you are the most condecending and small minded one that I have ever had the displeasure to run across. maybe you should just move on since no one here is up to your parr. Or maybe you would like to put your money were your mouth is and fire away at someone that has studied these texts and religion in general and knows that these guys are right.

  • Galloway Grumblefield

    I am not worthy, oh Master!

    This will become one of my most replicated links ever. Fantastic doc!

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ ez2b12

    "First of all you speak of Christ or Jesus as if it is a given fact that he even existed at all, this is not the case. I have studied this more than I truly care to as I have a degree in theology. "

    -- Then this puts you at odds with the consensus of Bible scholars who believe Jesus was an actual man that lived. In fact, I don't know of ANY serious bible historian who claims that Jesus is a fictional character. (there could be some, but obviously part of the fringe). And yeah, a degree in "theology" won't educate you on the historicity of Jesus.

    "I am not telling you not to believe as i am sure that would do no good what so ever, only to stop misrepresenting what you obviously do not understand."

    -- Funny. I think YOU do not understand. 'The Davinci Code' is not a good place to get information, buddy boy.

    "Second, to say that to follow atheism to its logical conclusion ends one up looking at a society without morals tells me one thing. Your morals are only dictated to you by some man made book, not something you actually feel or hold dear in your heart. "

    -- Huh? Expound and don't just assert. How does one lead to the other? Can you argue that following an atheistic worldview to it's logical conclusion will NOT lead to subjective morality, subjective purpose and meaning, specie-ism? You say atheist morality won't lead to those, then assert theists get morality from a book without making any sensible arguments whatsoever.

    "for one do not need any book or religion to tell me what is right and wrong....To admit that you do need these things in order to remain moral and have purpose is to admit your own short comings and lack of imagination."

    -- Where did I admit any of this? I don't need a book or any religion to tell me what is right or wrong. Precisely why I say NONE of you atheists here have any grasp of what REAL Christianity is about. Where did you even get that we believed our morality comes from some 'book'?

    "Also, how do you decide what to follow from the bible and what not to. I mean in the old testament morality is pretty savage, in fact it is horrible. So you are obviously cherry picking what to believe in and follow and what seems wrong to you- not Christ...."

    --Blah blah blah.. more ignorant arguments about me having to derive morality from a book.

    "Christianity is nothing but an extension of older pagan religions wrapped up in a prettier package and forced down the throats of western civilization by politicians and sheeple alike... (and more allegations that fundamentalist Christian will be worse than their atheist counterparts)"

    -- First of all, Christianity is not an extension of older pagan religions. You could at least get your information from credible sources and not 'ZeitGeist' documentaries which are laughed at by serious scholars --even atheist ones.

    And YOU WILL HAVE TO SHOW, that these 'fundamentalist Christians' are indeed Christians, because a Christian follows the teachings of Christ --hence the phrase 'what would Jesus Do'.

    I have argued that following atheism to its logical conclusion entails certain dangerous beliefs -- you haven't even attempted to refute this.

  • Epicurus

    @ilove,

    my issue with your statement about atheism leading to a society which doesnt value human life or basically lacks objective morality is two fold.

    first whether a completely atheist society lead to that position or not offers nothing about its validity. atheism COULD lead to the breakdown of society due to a lack of morals BUT that doesnt mean there is a god.

    second, all morals are subjective even yours. actually even if you could show god to be real morality would still be subjective to his whim depending how he felt as we can see in scripture his opinions on things change (ie slavery, child abuse, capital punishment etc.)

    your morals are subjective in the sense that you pick and choose which morals in the bible actually suit the time and place you live in. you would never kill your children for speaking back or kill homosexuals like certain parts of the bible condone. you have a basis outside of the bible and god to tell you what is moral and that is society mostly.

  • Epicurus

    now should we discuss what morals REALLY are and where they come from.....how the evolve?

  • eireannach666

    @EZ

    Well since you used all those pretty words... Didn't know you had it in you.
    But yes your post is correct. I've studied independently on all religions all my life. Just to be aware of what else was out there and then to know what it was it was I disagreed with. Not to mention being brought up around it all. (Irish family both catholic and christian) but I really never cared for any of it.Even dabbled in Dhaoism/0taoism a bit but I see your stats would out weigh mine on that.

    The dr up there just has a smugness that she is on a higher level because the peace and love is running out the drs ears. I'm faced with opposition everyday for being a non believer and I get tired sometimes. Plus dingleberry up there asked for it.

    But yeah, nice post. Made me smile and gain a lot of respect for you man.

    Slainte.

  • young

    @ilovemyself

    As an Atheist I agree with what your saying. Well, some of it. I think the beautiful part of atheism is precisely that it makes you examine questions like whether or not any or this has a point and meaning and the beauty of life is finding that purpose and meaning as your life goes on. It's a dark world, but reality - no matter how gloomy - is always more beautiful than fiction.

    What you seem to believe is the "belief in belief". Please check out Daniel Dennet for further explanation on this topic.

    As for - Can you show me how a fundamentalist Christian would be worse? - check out red states vs blue states in comparison of things like; crime, murder, execution, rape etc etc..

  • Achems Razor

    @ilove myself:

    What dangerous beliefs? I was never dangerous even though have never believed in any religion. Well, maybe to women (LOL)

    Christianity "is" an extension of pagan beliefs. Prove otherwise.

    What bible scholars are there that claim Jesus existed?
    Josephus are you saying? try again. The onus is on you to prove that a person called Jesus existed. Modern Bible scholars? (biased)

    What would Christ do? you have no idea, don't know why you even say that, if you do know, tell us. Again the onus is on you.

    All you know is what you read in a book. Give us unadulterated substantiated viable proof, per the scientific method. Or forever hold your peace.

  • ez2b12

    Look buddy I am not going to sit an entertain someone so obviousely mislead. I have not gotten any of my opinions from Zietgiest I got them form studying the formation of Judaism and the writings of the old testament. Jesus shares so many characteristics with other pagan dieties it is unreal. If you do not believe me look up the word Elohim in the Hebrew dialect, not Yiddish but Old Hebrew. It is based from the word El, the pagan god of the Cannannites. It also means Sir, so to speak, as it is a term of respect. The pagan god Mithra shared the same birthday, same virgin birth, walked on water, was crucified and rose on the third day. Don't believe me, do some research before you make such a fool of your self.

    Yes many bible scholars THINK that Jesus was a real person, but they have no proof. If you can find more than the two brief mentions by greek historians of someone called christ, post them. You say real christians follow the teachings of christ, and were do they come by these teachings? The bible thats were and the bible is a man made book. This is were you and all the religees get your morality, or from some secret voice that talks to you in your head (even worse). Neither is a very credible source in the opinion of many.

    You guys make such fools of yourself by denying the proof that sits right in front of you. If you want to believe do it, dont justify it by seeming to be so ignorant as to not see what everyone else does. You might actually win someone over if you did not seem so pathetic and desperate. Stop denying your worship of a man made book, its known to everyone that you guys hold the bible to be the ultimate word of god, so pathetic. How about the Qur'an or the Bhagavad Gita, why are they not the real word of the one god? Because you believe it in your heart? Get real pal.

    You assert that atheism will lead to subjective morlaity, thats a load and you know it. Atheist will look to social sciences that follow a completely OBJECTIVE method of forming truth. We also do something very simple, we listen to our heart. Mine tells me what is right and wrong without any god at all involved. Look you want to believe then believe but when you deny the obviouse you reinforce the failure of your religion and highlight your own denial. By the way to tell someone that has a degree in theology that they have no concept of christianity, yeah thats real smart man. I give up, thier is no talking since to a two thousand year indoctrination. Now dance for us monkey, dance.Give us some more of your christian insults and show us just how much inner peace god has given you.You don't believe it yourself, thats why you are trying so hard to convience-who? You thats who. My degree is solid and not up to your interpretation and needs none of your petty recognition.

  • ez2b12

    To be clear i was trying to say that our morality may have a subjective tone, all does, but it is primarily formed by studying the effects of social norms and beliefs with social sciences.This is much more objective than a morality dictated to you from some fake god or man made book. Yes social scientists write books as well but they are based on scientific experiments and observations. Not the rantings of some uneducated people that lived thousands of years ago and have NO relevancy in the present.

  • ez2b12

    @ eireannach666

    Don't sell yourself short man. I have been really impressed with a lot of you guys, especially you and Achem. Bravo!! And yes the Dr. was definetly asking for it and you gave it to her, well done. I may have butted heads with HM one time but he knows his stuff as well, we just have different styles. A formal education is often over rated, inspired people like yourself and others here have made the biggest contributions to society in large. I am proud to be counted amongst you guys.Your real people and when the chips are down its the real people that get the job done.

  • over the edge

    I have watched the creationists go from asking questions and ignoring the answers to them (or worse calling them false with no proof),misquoting or quote mining, trying to change the subject, sending walls of nonsense (thinking ignorance can be ignored with enough volume) insulting us. and now complaining that our tone hurt their feelings. not 1 has given their arguments for their view backed up with evidence (real evidence that can be tested and proven) all i ask for is this at least two claimed to have this evidence but will not share

  • Louis VonKronberg

    I believe this is a wonderful documentary piece and should be shown to as many people as possible. Even if some of the references are slightly off most of the facts stated in this can be researched and substanciated by all those that doubt them.

  • My Mama says I'm Precious

    I wish I had more time to read all the comments. 250+ in just a few days! This is wildly entertaining. Most of my favorite commentators have posted a little something. I'll try and check back tomorrow after class. And of course get started on the doc.

    "Religion consists in a set of things which the average man thinks he believes and wishes he was certain of." Mark Twain

  • Atrophy

    AronRa is pretty awesome and recommend checking his other videos out on youtube.

  • OhSo

    @curious I agree about the episode of futurama...woulda been sweet...*sigh*

  • SimonTheSorcerer

    @OhSo
    Yeah I watched it too it was a blast. I love futurama check out the season 6 episode 9 on futurama-stream "The clockwork origin" it is relevant to the discussion here so this is not off-topic

  • Charles B.

    Mr. Razor:

    You said:

    "What bible scholars are there that claim Jesus existed?
    Josephus are you saying? try again. The onus is on you to prove that a person called Jesus existed. Modern Bible scholars? (biased)

    What would Christ do? you have no idea, don’t know why you even say that, if you do know, tell us. Again the onus is on you.

    All you know is what you read in a book. Give us unadulterated substantiated viable proof, per the scientific method. Or forever hold your peace."

    Oh, come on! That's pretty weak, Mr. Razor. I'm embarrassed for you in that one. Usually you're pretty sharp! Pun intended. :-)

    Most if not all movements have basis in fact from a leader of some kind. Buddha, Jesus, Alexander the Great, Socrates, Aristotle, etc. All most likely real people. No one had to argue their "realness" for hundreds of years after their lifetimes until modern minds think they can discredit the whole gambit or religion by saying "prove he was real!"

    A stronger argument would be that we are misinterpreting His original message or adding information etc. but to say that Jesus never existed is the the epitome of insult. Who isn't biased? If you want information, the best place to get it is from the followers of that particular person. If you discredit that, then the options are few for a 2,000 year old figure, as I'm sure that is your reason for doing so.

    Whom might I ask came up with "Achem's Razor"? Which philosopher? What proof, besides, the argument, is there that he ever existed? Perhaps in modern times, we have his own writings, but for such as Socrates, we have to rely on historical records. Such is the case with Christ, and the Bible is indeed a historical record, even if you don't like the message it contains.

    Peace to you.

  • Reasons Voice

    @Insomniac: Believe it or not you and I share the same idea. I am not pro organized religion per say either. Like you said The organizing structure has prooven itself too prone to corruption and subsequent destructive actions. It is spirituality that I defend. I see little difference in a person looking into the sky and seeing great beauty occuring out of a spontaneous explosion of matter, and one who sees that same sky and thinks of a benevolent power. In my mind a man/woman stands on their own two feet. Whatever their beliefs are it is their actions in this world that should be judged, not their beliefs. I left a comment just prior to yours to sum up my stance but it remains in moderator limbo since I used a colorfull term for feces in the text. All of you comenters on here can take one thing from this. As poster Jay said "I found the comments as important as the documentary itself. I enjoyed reading them all." that is a statement we can all be proud of. Keep sharing those ideas guys.

  • eireannach666

    @EZ

    You're right on that one. I've met a lot of PHDs in my time and find a lot of them seem to be on this "I'm better than you" trip,and seem to think that nobody can be right without the degree they have. And when you mix that with a little hippieism, then you get what we saw from the dr up there. Arrogence is my least favorite trait in a person. Right up there with a liar, a theif and smugness7m all very bad characteristics.

    Plus most people like that lack life experience and ard are told that we should turn the other cheek or not get violent. Well ill say this, viokence and aggression are last resort but often the only way to deal. And I personally am an aggressive person. But hey, as we all know the dr and others should be happy HM or Randy didn't get in on this. If they think I was offensive...I was holding back too. I didn't want vlatko to get upset with me.

    On another note. Just because you have knowledge on paper doesn't mean you can apply it to the real world. And a lot of over achievers wouldn't have a chance in some of the life situations the normal everyday joe has to deal with or the under privileged lower class. I've worked hard to acheive what I have and to get where I'm at. To live comfortably. I can't stand people like some of the ones I've met on this thread.

    I'd like to take them on a reality check. Throw them in a ghetto somewhere for a year or a prison for a year and see how they cope.

    I've studied for years on numerous topics to understand where we are from and going and why things are the way they are. I've spent a lot of time around all kinds of people and this is why I hate most.

  • Achems Razor

    @Charles B:

    Well howdy Charles, how is my favorite religee? You did not give any proof Charles that a person as Jesus existed, all you gave where meaningless words. You figure that is proof? There is not even any Roman records of Jesus,

    The bible is not a historical record, I'm trying to think who else said that, I think it was the religious Chris that said the same thing Charles.

    And the onus is on you religee's to show proof, atheist's do not have to prove there are no god's, so the next time you come on here I presume you will be in your full battle regalia? With some substantiated evidence?

  • eireannach666

    Yeah right Achems. That won't happen. But I will say that I don't actually agree that he didn't exist but I am on the fence. Either way he still was not a deity and gods are for fairy tales and myths. As far as his miracles go I think Chris Angel, David Blain, Harry Hudini etc. Then there is the changing of a story over time and retelling it, then the whole manipulation of the masses to keep things in check and the money is a big part etc. Its hard to bare. Its evil. Sorry charles. It is.

    And all this with out proof. Its insanity!

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    Yes I've just read about it today @Galloway. Good old Hawking publishes a new book. Great.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ All atheists

    Hmmm.. That's a lot of questions.. That would take some time.

    Theists are always outnumbered in these forums..

  • coyote03

    Firstly, watch this entire documentary before making comments, it is FULL of amazing information!

    ez2b12 - I love reading your responses, having majored in religious studies and anthropology in university I couldn't agree more with your points! The idea that Jesus is a historically accurate figure is backed by no more evidence then the idea that Odysseus is also a historically accurate figure. While they MAY have existed, their is no real proof that they were more then myth; and to further suggest that they had divine assistance, well that takes A LOT of proof/evidence, and there simply is NONE!

    My biggest problem, sorry for the generalization, is that you 'religees' keep suggesting we need to read more (you apparently just mean the books you're reading). Posters like ez and myself spent our years at university studying different religions, we have read plenty! You 'religees' (sorry for the use of the term) on the other hand claim to have all this knowledge, but rarely do you branch out beyond the word of the bible. Go take evolutionary biology in university and then we'll have a bit of a more balanced conversation. I've spent years studying your beliefs, go spend years studying what I believe! I bring this up because you need to practice what you preach, their is so much evidence out there that shows evolution to be fact, read it! Start by actually watching this entire documentary also!!!

    Frankly, I don't care how the information is delivered, I'm not here to spoon-feed anyone the truth so it doesn't hurt them as bad and neither is science.

    Amazing documentary! Amazing posts by the always amazing posters! And AMAZING job Vlatko, both in running the site and your posts on this thread! (sorry for this rant :D )

  • LMFAO

    Lovely, great and wonderful doc, mainly since it keeps focus on the facts and keeps it kind of objective. At some parts, though, it feels (the narrator voice and religion bashing) a bit like propaganda wich imo is unnecessary since the facts is there

    Im Swedish and Im really surprised that ~40% of the americans believe in creationism, that's really bizarre.

    The evidence is there, people that subjectively manipulate and control the free mind with old culture as a resource should be discussed.

    Without science we would be almost nothing compared to what we are, that's why I get really frustrated and mad at people that reject and prevent science. Science has no obvious bias

    Cheers

  • ez2b12

    @ Charles

    See this is what I mean Charles when i say you guys defeat your own arguement. The Bible is absoluteldy NOT a historical text and was never intended to be. It does have some historical facts in it, but very few. Religion by its very definition is faith based- for a reason, thier is no proof and it is not historically verifiable. In my opinion you belittle your own faith when you start saying you have proof or that the Bible is a historical text. Many that might have stopped and listened immediately dismiss your arguement when you make such a obviousely false claim.

    When you deny the simularities between Jesus and other pagan saviors and/or dieties you do the same thing. None of these facts make the christian faith untrue or pointless, but they absolutedly do exist and must be recognized for what they are if you want to have any credibility in a intellectual disscusion. Many christians believe that insted of christianity being modeled after other pagan beliefs that it happened the other way around, pagans copied christianity. This does not fit the time line and therefore can not be the case but, at least it is a way of trying to deal with the problem insted of just denying it.

    I'm not trying to be mean or belittle your ideals or faith, you haven't gotten petty or abusive like others on here yet. I hope you do not and find a way to accept these issues and argue your point in a fair and informed manner. I will say that I have seen you in the past make some really general and insulting posts and then just dissapear from the thread, seems like trolling in a way. That said I am willing to take each case as it comes and not judge your intensions based on past arguements. Take my advice, if you want to have an impact on those that do not share your faith admit the obviouse and find away to argue your point form an informed perspective. Many will listen and give your ideas a chance if you do so, in my opinion. They may still disagree but they will have to respect you any way and your point of view. To deny the obviouse that is layed out in black and white and not subject to interpretation kills your arguement before it starts. Good luck man.

  • ez2b12

    @ Coyote

    Thanks man, I enjoy your posts as well. I enjoy everyones posts, even those I disagree with are entertaining- most of the time. But of course I really like reading certain people like Achem, Coyote, eireannach666, and yes even Hate Machine as different as we may be.I miss hearing from Connie as well, she had some really insprired things to say. Where are you Connie, I'm ready for some more pop corn. I'm sure I've missed sombody but suffice to say i am proud to be on this site and part of this disscussion.I'm glad I took your advice Vlatko, thanks.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ez2b12

    On your accusation of the similarities of Mithraism (Pagan) to Jesus's life:

    It is most probable that the Mithraism of the second and third centuries, A.D., copied Christianity, not the other way around. There is no evidence that the earlier forms of Mithraism taught that Mithra was born of a virgin (he was apparently born of a rock), was considered mediator between God and mankind (he was apparently mediator between light and darkness), or was a historical person. Instead, he was a personification of light (not the Light of the World), and was created before the world was made. He did not offer himself for the sins of the world; rather, he killed a bull (after doing battle with the sun) to save mankind. There appear to be few similarities between Christ and the early Mithra.

    Given the fact that Mithraism (unlike Christianity) was not exclusivistic, but openly accepted other gods and beliefs into its system, it is most likely that the Roman Mithraism to which Christianity is most often compared drew many of its beliefs from Christianity, giving its Mithra titles and attributes that rightfully belong to Christ.

    You say:

    "Yes many bible scholars THINK that Jesus was a real person, but they have no proof. "

    -- You cannot have proof of anything that has happened this so far back in the past. We can only have evidence. And the evidence for the historicity of Jesus is remarkably strong. In fact: most historical Jesus scholars who have written on the subject agree that (1) Jesus' burial by Joseph of Arimathea, (2) the discovery of Jesus' empty tomb by some of his female followers, (3) the post-mortem appearances of Jesus to various individuals and groups, and (4) the original disciples' coming sincerely to believe that God had raised Jesus from the dead despite their strong predisposition to the contrary are historical. I know the literature and assure you that what I have reported is correct.

    You say:

    "You say real christians follow the teachings of christ, and were do they come by these teachings? The bible thats were and the bible is a man made book."

    -- Yes they learn the teachings through reading the Bible. Yes it's man-made in the sense that publishing houses --where 'men' work-- have produced the copies for us to read. The story of the Man Jesus, though, is not fictional. The majority of critics accept the four facts (I've listed above) but remain agnostic about the resurrection. I suspect that their reasons are fairly typical: : the miraculous character of the resurrection is an obstacle to many historians.

    You say:

    "This is were you and all the religees get your morality, or from some secret voice that talks to you in your head (even worse). Neither is a very credible source in the opinion of many."

    -- Like I've been saying. You are a typical atheist who knows nothing of what he so vehemently bashes. Have you heard of the parable of the Good Samaritan? It's about a gentile (non-jewish) who, despite not being educated in any jewish code of conduct, knew what the moral thing to do was. Jesus told this parable. Why would he, if he thought that our morality will only come from whatever he is about to say? I guess you really got Christianity figured out!

    You say:

    "Stop denying your worship of a man made book, its known to everyone that you guys hold the bible to be the ultimate word of god, so pathetic. How about the Qur’an or the Bhagavad Gita, why are they not the real word of the one god? Because you believe it in your heart? Get real pal."

    -- Hahaha, seems you have NOTHING. So you put words in my mouth, so you'll have something to attack. And you call me pathetic? Is this how you debate? C'mon..

    You say:

    "You assert that atheism will lead to subjective morlaity, thats a load and you know it. Atheist will look to social sciences that follow a completely OBJECTIVE method of forming truth."

    -- No it isn't "a load". Go ask your fellow atheists here. Epicurus and D-K agree that morality is subjective. So does Richard Dawkins. And what does looking at "social sciences" do that makes morality objective? And are you equating morality with "truth"? Can you expound on HOW you are able to get to moral truth, given your atheism? Is your answer 'looking at "social sciences"? Seems like you don't even have a clue of what you believe!

    you say:

    "We also do something very simple, we listen to our heart. Mine tells me what is right and wrong without any god at all involved."

    -- Wow. So that's the way? Your heart tells you what's right and wrong? What about Hitlers heart, it told him killing Jews was right, why do you think your "heart" knows better? Really, you recently bandied about all your intellectual achievements to someone else in this forum, and that's all you can come up with? You're "heart" tells you what's right and wrong? Hundreds of years of philosophers grappling with meta-ethics, and you have the answer: "my heart tells me what's right and wrong!" Lol

    you say:

    "By the way to tell someone that has a degree in theology that they have no concept of christianity, yeah thats real smart man."

    -- You don't have any concept of Christianity. Yes, it's a real smart retort, since you obviously don't have any concept of Christianity. I can understand though why it would make you feel Oh So Good to keep telling people that you do. But all your ignorant posts is all the evidence one needs.

    You say:

    "My degree is solid and not up to your interpretation and needs none of your petty recognition."

    -- Saying "I'm so smart and I have a degree!" doesn't seem like an argument at all. In fact, I haven't heard any sound one from you. Just statements about how smart you think you are.

    Go ahead, dance monkey, dance.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ epicurus

    Let's not go into the morality debate again.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ Achems

    "What dangerous beliefs? I was never dangerous even though have never believed in any religion. Well, maybe to women (LOL)"

    -- No, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying atheists are dangerous. I'm saying fundamentalist atheists are-- Just as Fudamentalist Christians/muslims/etc are.

    "Christianity “is” an extension of pagan beliefs. Prove otherwise."

    --Read my refutation of the purported similarities between 'Mithraism' and the life of Jesus. I posted it up, as a response to ez2b12

    "What bible scholars are there that claim Jesus existed?
    Josephus are you saying? try again. "

    --Josephus is not a Bible scholar. I assert that most Bible scholars agree that Jesus was an actual man that existed. What proof do you want and maybe I'll try to get it. There will be many things impossible to provide in this format, I'm sure you can appreciate.

    "What would Christ do? you have no idea, don’t know why you even say that, if you do know, tell us. Again the onus is on you."

    --See Charles B's response to this.

    "All you know is what you read in a book. Give us unadulterated substantiated viable proof, per the scientific method. Or forever hold your peace."

    -- Historians have already done this (about the historicity of Jesus). I don't quite know if it uses conventional scientific methods. I don't think you can have this for historical events and figures. What proof would you want? Suggested reading?

  • over the edge

    @ creationists
    this is only directed at those who wish creationism should be taught in science class (according to the creationist web sites i have visited this is their claim). I have no problem with beliefs and you are free to believe what you wish, but if you wish to be included as a viable alternative to evolution within science there are requirements. repeatable verifiable proof is a start. I would love to go to Harvard but if i don't meet the requirements i will not be included no matter how much i want to (not claiming i went to Harvard)

  • Insomniac

    @ilovemyself(you certainly do...):

    ...Allright..here we go...

    "It is most probable that the Mithraism of the second and third centuries, A.D., copied Christianity, not the other way around. There is no evidence that the earlier forms of Mithraism taught that Mithra was born of a virgin (he was apparently born of a rock), was considered mediator between God and mankind (he was apparently mediator between light and darkness), or was a historical person. Instead, he was a personification of light (not the Light of the World), and was created before the world was made. He did not offer himself for the sins of the world; rather, he killed a bull (after doing battle with the sun) to save mankind. There appear to be few similarities between Christ and the early Mithra."

    All this symbolism can easily be reinterpreted into the Christ story as long as you dont lose yourself in semantics, which would be a silly thing to do when talking about hazy translations of ancient languages. But tbh I dont know much about Mithra. Do Horus now plz?

    "You cannot have proof of anything that has happened this so far back in the past. We can only have evidence. And the evidence for the historicity of Jesus is remarkably strong. In fact: most historical Jesus scholars who have written on the subject agree that (1) Jesus’ burial by Joseph of Arimathea, (2) the discovery of Jesus’ empty tomb by some of his female followers, (3) the post-mortem appearances of Jesus to various individuals and groups, and (4) the original disciples’ coming sincerely to believe that God had raised Jesus from the dead despite their strong predisposition to the contrary are historical. I know the literature and assure you that what I have reported is correct."

    Name some "Jesus scholars" and their credentials. Explain which evidence their consensus is based upon. Show said evidence. You've proved nothing whatsoever. That they all agree on those 4 points tells me they might be a bit biased.

    "Yes it’s man-made in the sense that publishing houses –where ‘men’ work– have produced the copies for us to read."

    The print was invented several hundreds of years later. There we're no "publishing houses". Men WROTE the bible. They did not copy it from some original made by God that fell from the sky.

    "The story of the Man Jesus, though, is not fictional."

    This statement is a blatant lie. Next time say MIGHT NOT BE fictional and save your credibility.

    "The majority of critics accept the four facts (I’ve listed above) but remain agnostic about the resurrection."

    You have no stated any facts. (except maybe that Mithra was a petrogenic god, which some might still interpret as a virgin birth anyway. You wiki skills are impressive.)

    "Go ask your fellow atheists here. Epicurus and D-K agree that morality is subjective. So does Richard Dawkins. And what does looking at “social sciences” do that makes morality objective? And are you equating morality with “truth”? Can you expound on HOW you are able to get to moral truth, given your atheism?"

    Your point (if I remember correctly) is that an atheist system would (still) have morals which most may find questionnable, as if only a religious upbringing could make you a "good persom" (at least in most cases). The funny thing is you proved yourself wrong with that "parable of the good samaritain" just above so I wont bother to do so.

    "Your heart tells you what’s right and wrong? What about Hitlers heart, it told him killing Jews was right, why do you think your “heart” knows better?"

    Hitler was a dangerous sociopath who isn't representative of 99.999% of the population. The list of all religious sociopaths in history would be so long it would make my post longer then this page allready this so I'll just skip it. The mere fact that you are bringing Hitler into this tells me you are out of things to say.

    "You don’t have any concept of Christianity. Yes, it’s a real smart retort, since you obviously don’t have any concept of Christianity."

    I think he clearly not only understands but knows most facets of christiannity much better then you do. Saying otherwise makes you sound silly unless you also happen to be a theologian, in which case you still need to prove him wrong before being taken seriously.

    I'm sure I must've made no sense somewhere in there...just got up and haven't had my coffee yet...If I did plz point it out and I'll rephrase, but I'm sure one of my fellow "big bad atheists" will answer you as well.

  • coyote03

    ilovemyself - It is quite easy to use scientific methods to confirm historical events and figures. You simply need evidence! Evidence of Jesus' existence is hearsay, passed along and then written down much later. Other figures such as Vlad the Impaler, we can trace back and say definitively have lived. Why? Because there are so many different accounts about him written while he was still alive, from the view points of his own people, other peoples, etc. They've found mass skeletal remains that can be linked to the exact time he ruled and areas in which he slaughtered people. The accounts of his existence are corroborated by mountains of supporting evidence! Much the same way that we know King Herod was a real figure as his life and story can be corroborated by many different accounts all during his lifetime, such as decrees made by the Roman Emperor directed towards him, etc. The story of Jesus on the other hand has no such corroborating evidence written down during his lifetime or even close to it. We do however know that many people were crucified around this time, not evidence that Jesus existed, but certainly proof that people died on the cross.

    Someone even made the assertion that because we get our information from books written by man, that is the same as religious people getting their information from the bible (which was also written by man) and therefore we are just as bad. The point is that 'our' books are put through rigorous methods to test their validity based on the scientific method. The peer review system in the scientific community prevents complete and total craziness from being put into books. The point is, when biblical scholars look for the 'truth', it can only be found in the bible. Whereas real 'truth' can be corroborated by looking at ALL the evidence, not just in the bible.

    I am not sure of the real 'truth', anyone that claims they know, which basically all religions do, are just crazy!

  • Andrew C

    Excellent documentary.

    I highly recommend this video if you have any questions about evolution vs creationism. It lays out over many hours so much data that you have to hit pause 100 times just to read over the info that is presented since he flies through SO MUCH of it. A great watch and very intelligently done.

    If, after watching this video you still believe WITHOUT DOUBT that creationism (God creating life out of thin air), from any religious text is accurate... you are beyond stupid. You are a danger to your children and your mental capacities should be reviewed by clinical psychologists.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ Insomniac

    "All this symbolism can easily be reinterpreted into the Christ story as long as you dont lose yourself in semantics, which would be a silly thing to do when talking about hazy translations of ancient languages. But tbh I dont know much about Mithra."

    -- No it can't. You've got to be kidding if you're saying those symbolic things about Mithra can be reinterpreted into Christ's story.

    "Name some “Jesus scholars” and their credentials. Explain which evidence their consensus is based upon. Show said evidence. You’ve proved nothing whatsoever. That they all agree on those 4 points tells me they might be a bit biased."

    -- examples of neutral scholars: Pinchas Lapide, Geza Vermes. Atheist scholar: Bart Ehrman. Google for their credentials.

    "The print was invented several hundreds of years later. There we’re no “publishing houses”. Men WROTE the bible. They did not copy it from some original made by God that fell from the sky."

    --Completely misses the point I was making. And NO, Christians don't believe that God wrote it and dropped it from the sky.

    "This statement is a blatant lie. Next time say MIGHT NOT BE fictional and save your credibility."

    -- Why is it a blatant lie? Because you say so? Next time, give an argument for your assertion and "save your credibility".

    "Your point (if I remember correctly) is that an atheist system would (still) have morals which most may find questionnable, as if only a religious upbringing could make you a “good persom” (at least in most cases). The funny thing is you proved yourself wrong with that “parable of the good samaritain” just above so I wont bother to do so."

    -- No I didn't. The parable of the Good Samaritan was to show that Christians do NOT get their morality from a book. You seem so lost. You think that the 'Good samaritan' character has adopted an 'atheist system'? Lol! And NO, I didn't argue that an "atheist system" would have questionable morals. I know atheists can just be as moral as Christians because they are both humans. But following a worldview to its logical conclusion entails certain beliefs --I've already mentioned above.

    "Hitler was a dangerous sociopath who isn’t representative of 99.999% of the population. The list of all religious sociopaths in history would be so long it would make my post longer then this page allready this so I’ll just skip it. The mere fact that you are bringing Hitler into this tells me you are out of things to say."

    -- I actually do not know what this has to do with anything. I never said he represented "99.999% of the population". And what does a list of sociopaths have anything to do with what I just said that you quoted? And why does "bringing Hitler on this" tell you that I have nothing? What you said is just completely odd. I take it you didn't understand what I meant, and for the sake of being able to say something, you came up with that..convoluted nonsense.

    "I think he clearly not only understands but knows most facets of christiannity much better then you do. Saying otherwise makes you sound silly unless you also happen to be a theologian, in which case you still need to prove him wrong before being taken seriously."

    -- O.K. your argument here is: 'You sound silly, because EZ is a theologian, so he knows better than you' Why do I get the feeling that you 2 are one and the same.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ coyote 3

    All what you've just said about our knowledge of the historicity of vlad the impaler, apart from the bones thing, can be said for Jesus. Which is amazing since Vlad the impaler lived during the 1400's, and Jesus lived before the 4th century--which puts him alongside ancient figures. And another thing, we have more evidence for the historicity of Jesus than any other ancient figure. Google it.

  • Insomniac

    "Do Horus now plz?"

    "Explain which evidence their consensus is based upon. Show said evidence. You’ve proved nothing whatsoever."

    Still waiting.

    "And NO, Christians don’t believe that God wrote it"

    Yes. A lot (if not most) of them do. You dont seem to be in touch with the community your defending.

    "Why is it a blatant lie? Because you say so? Next time, give an argument for your assertion and “save your credibility”."

    It's a lie because you state it as a fact.

    "And NO, I didn’t argue that an “atheist system” would have questionable morals. I know atheists can just be as moral as Christians because they are both humans. But following a worldview to its logical conclusion entails certain beliefs –I’ve already mentioned above."

    Is your point that it wouldn't be better because I cannot possibly see how you could argue that. Science is the great equaliser. It has no room for biggotery. Removing all religion from politics can only result in a more stable system.

    "I actually do not know what this has to do with anything. I never said he represented “99.999% of the population”. And what does a list of sociopaths have anything to do with what I just said that you quoted? And why does “bringing Hitler on this” tell you that I have nothing?"

    You brought Hitler in the mix to point out that the heart isn't always right. The point isn't that your wrong or right about it, the point is thats a horrible example which doesn't help your case at all.

    "O.K. your argument here is: ‘You sound silly, because EZ is a theologian, so he knows better than you’"

    No. My argument is you sound silly for saying a theologian doesn't know theology.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ Insomniac

    "Explain which evidence their consensus is based upon. Show said evidence. You’ve proved nothing whatsoever"

    -- Here we confront the very crucial question of the burden of proof. Should we assume that the gospels are reliable unless they are proven to be unreliable? Or should we assume the gospels are unreliable unless they are proven to be reliable? Are they innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent? I think the evidence is in the writings. Now with respect to the historicity of Jesus, the burden is ON YOU to prove that they are unreliable. (Ofcourse we have independent attestations, but, let's see you do the above first)

    How exactly can I show you the evidence in this format? I get it, ask me to do something you KNOW I cannot do-- given the format we are in-- in the hopes of making it seem like you won.

    "Yes. A lot (if not most) of them do. You dont seem to be in touch with the community your defending."

    -- No they don't. You don't seem to be in touch with the community you're bashing --but that's typical.

    "It’s a lie because you state it as a fact."

    -- If we cannot say it's a "fact" Jesus was an actual man that lived, then we cannot use the word for anyone who lived before the 4th century. Since we have more evidence for Jesus than anyone who lived before this time. We cannot say it's a fact that Socrates was a man that lived? A bit restrictive now, don't you think?

    "You brought Hitler in the mix to point out that the heart isn’t always right. The point isn’t that your wrong or right about it, the point is thats a horrible example which doesn’t help your case at all."

    -- It's a "horrible example" because he's a sociopath? What does his sociopathology have anything to do with it? His "heart" is his "heart", and it tells him something else. And if morality IS subjective, than whatever your "heart" tells you is an *opinion* --was the point, which seems to have eluded you.

    "No. My argument is you sound silly for saying a theologian doesn’t know theology."

    -- I said no such thing. But many theologians do not know certain kinds of theologies, what's so silly about that? And besides, his identity as a theologian is suspect, because it really seems he doesn't know much about Christian theology.

  • coyote03

    My goodness ilovemyself, there is not one piece of actual evidence! You touched on Vlad, but what about Herod and all the Roman Emperors? We have corroborating evidence from the actual time these events happened, as well as archaeological evidence that can be dated. There are NO objects that can be verifiably tested to prove and corroborate Jesus' existence. Please send me the link!!!

    Here is another example for you. We know that Ramesses II was an actual Pharaoh, there is lots of evidence corroborated by other cultures and civilizations of the time as well as documented Hieroglyphs and buildings from Egypt. On the other hand, Moses is not a figure we can say for sure existed, there simply is no empirical evidence!

    The bible itself is a group of several different gospels that couldn't all quite agree on the story of Jesus, the reason is because most accounts were written far after his death (if he ever even lived), thus making the story open to interpretation and embellishment. The council of Nicea got rid of over 20 gospels! These gospels provided so many differing accounts of important details of Christianity, from Jesus' divinity: was he human? god? son of god? holy trinity? To his personal life: was he married to Mary Magdalene? What did he do between the ages of 8 and 30? That is not historicity!!!!!!!

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @coyote03

    I'm a bit tired, seriously. Read the work of Bart Ehrman, who is an atheist by the way. Google him. Lots of evidence for you.

    The other things you said are just way-off, about the gospels written decades after the actual events etc.

    Anyway read Ehrman's, and Habermas' work. The contention you are opening up will be a very long one, and something we both won't have time for.

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    Damn... I need a better commenting system.

    I've cleared the things up. The troll was trying to confuse you guys. Solved that.

    And one more note: Please do not heat up the discussion, although I know it is virtually impossible when religion and creationism are the topics. Anyways, lets keep this civil.

    OK one more thing: @Reasons Voice you're using several nicks across the site. Do not do that. I'm changing them all to @Reasons Voice.

    P.S. Tell me one reason why I shouldn't ban you @Reasons Voice, although you were not responsible for messing this thread up.

  • coyote03

    The gospels WERE written decades after the actual events! What are you talking about? No one alive during the supposed time of Christ wrote about him. The Gospel of Mark from around 70 CE is the first, all others took from Mark. This is widely accepted and is what's taught in Universities world wide.

  • Atrophy

    Lets put it in this frame of mind.
    It will probably fuel a furnace of religious hate, but I'm growing sick of the nonsense.

    If evolution is false, then God is a liar because he created everything in 7 days then buried the fossils so we could find them as they are.
    God is not perfect, else hes lying like a cheap rug, all the fossil evidence points to many evolutionary plateaus and failed species. God would not waste time creating creatures that would fail then bury the evidence... would he ?

    Science vs religion will be a war waged for a very very long time.

  • coyote03

    Ehrman is no atheist, it's laughable that you'd even site his work :)

  • coyote03

    sorry for being rude, just agnostic and atheist are different :)

  • coyote03

    there's always one guy that believers choose to use as an example to prove their points, it's really quite hilarious since I throw back at you countless other examples that you simply ignore.

  • coyote03

    Galloway Grumblefield - nice post :D

  • Reasons Voice

    Just want to take a moment on the thread to thank Vlatko for his hard work and diligence with the FREE doco. site. You sir are a good man.

  • Insomniac

    @Ilovemyself:

    "Here we confront the very crucial question of the burden of proof. Should we assume that the gospels are reliable unless they are proven to be unreliable? Or should we assume the gospels are unreliable unless they are proven to be reliable? Are they innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent? I think the evidence is in the writings. Now with respect to the historicity of Jesus, the burden is ON YOU to prove that they are unreliable. (Ofcourse we have independent attestations, but, let’s see you do the above first)"

    I dont have to prove you wrong. I cant prove your evidence is wrong if you show no evidence at all. You are wrong untill you prove otherwise. This is science not a court of law.

    "No they don’t. You don’t seem to be in touch with the community you’re bashing –but that’s typical."

    Are you serious? Most doesnt mean a few scholars, most means THE MASS OF BELIEVERS. And YES, they do.

    "If we cannot say it’s a “fact” Jesus was an actual man that lived, then we cannot use the word for anyone who lived before the 4th century. Since we have more evidence for Jesus than anyone who lived before this time. We cannot say it’s a fact that Socrates was a man that lived? A bit restrictive now, don’t you think?"

    WHAT EVIDENCE??!! I'm still waiting.

    "It’s a “horrible example” because he’s a sociopath? What does his sociopathology have anything to do with it? His “heart” is his “heart”, and it tells him something else. And if morality IS subjective, than whatever your “heart” tells you is an *opinion* –was the point, which seems to have eluded you."

    Our moral standards are a result of our upbringing. Our "hearts" dont think, our brains do. Hitler's mind was unstable at best, and hes a bad example simply because hes not representative of the majority. The "opinion" your "heart" tells you will be affected by your belief system, and it is way too easy for it to go wrong with a religious upbringing because once again, God can tell you whatever you may want to hear. Keep in mind that if you manage to tell the difference between fact and fiction I have no problem with spirituality, but willfull ignorance is a dangerous thing, especially when it starts affecting politics and education.

    "I said no such thing. But many theologians do not know certain kinds of theologies, what’s so silly about that? And besides, his identity as a theologian is suspect, because it really seems he doesn’t know much about Christian theology."

    You identity as someone who knows what the hell he's talking about is also quite suspicious, unless of course you gave us your credentials before, in which case sorry I missed that post please refer to it.

  • D-K

    A lot of people seem to mistake/lump in agnostics for/with atheists, I've had it happen to me on more than one occasion on this very site.

    I've also discussed with a person who repeatedly stated that there is only religious belief, atheism or apathy. It's disturbing.

  • coyote03

    @ Insomniac - Wish I had written that, GREAT post :)

  • eireannach666

    @Vlatko

    So does that mean John whatever, you know the guy who wanted to bring my unfortunate past ordeals into the discussion to discredit me was a troll?

    Well then I feel silly even responding. I was getting ready to get it on since I have time to sit down and read. LOL.

    Or was it just deleted for moderation purposes?

    Doesn't matter really, just curious.

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    Yes @eireannach666. John whatever was a troll since he was commenting on behalf of others and all his comments, including the fake ones and those answering to him were deleted.

  • ez2b12

    @ ilovemyselfmorethangod

    First of all Vlatko obviousely does not allow the type of deception you are reffering to to take place on his site, me and Insomniac are different people. We may share simular beliefs but thats as far as the comparison will stand up. I have nothing against you Insomniac I'm just clearing up the misinterpretation. Second, if this is what you call morality accusing others of lieing (to post under two names and compliment yourself in the process would be a lie), insulting people, and refusing things layed out in black and white- well I rest my case.

    Maybe one day you will understand that denial of obviouse facts, like the fact that Jesus fits the archeatype profile of all saviors practically, makes your case weak and causes others to simply tune you out. These simularities do much less damage to the believability of christianity than the fact that christians constantly deny they exist. i.e. The denial makes your case seem very weak and misguided, more so than the problems you deny.No one can prove he did not exist or that god does not exist. No one can prove that they do either.No one can prove that a huge spaghetti monster didn't create us all, do you believe that as well?

    And if i have to explain to you how studying the conclusions of social sciences leads to a objective aproach to morality, justice, and education- well whats the point. Yes my morality in the end is largely subjective as science is only needed in the most complex of moral questions that have complicated and often covert impacts on society. Most moral questions can be solved very easily without any religion or science or education, just by listening to your own consciousness. No need for fancy philosophical concepts or theories. Morality is relative to the context of the situation.

    For example; If your wife was dying and needed a pill to live, just one pill and thats all, but said pill costs one million dollars and the pahrmacists is unwilling to budge or offer credit. Is stealing this medicine moral in this context? I think so and so do most other people. That said, is stealing immoral as a rule- yes in most situations. See morality is a relative concept.

    As far as the rest of it goes I am tired of argueing with someone that simply refuses to accept what is not up to interpretation. You may say that Jesus was a real person or that he had no simularities to the savior acheatypes all day long, it doesn't prove anything and makes it no more true than untrue.You can post all the so called bible scholars you want, most are going to be christians and therefore biased from the start. I have layed out my case in a way that others seem to have no problem accepting or finding factuall, does this not at least make you think? Probably not so I will agree to disagree with you and bid you a nice day.

    One more thing, and this is to every one else as well. I am not a theologian. Yes I have a degree in theology. But I do not write, lecture, or study theology any longer. I was interested in it years ago and i got a degree but i feel like I am misrepresenting myself somehow if I call myself a theologian. I know I have called myself this in the past but after thinking about it even though it technically fits me- it is misrepresentative of who i am.I have an outdated and incomplete knowledge of the modern standards required to call yourself a theologian and it suggests someone that is still actively involved in the study of theology.Many others that hold this title make me look like I never even heard of the word religion. So thanks for your support I am proud to be counted amongst you, but no more with the theologian stuff.

  • eireannach666

    @Vlatko
    Nice catch once again on your part! Thanks for saving everyone , myself especially, the headache.

    Good looking out.

    Slainte.

  • ez2b12

    @ Vlatko

    Good job man, and a very quick responce as well. What a cheap thing to do, trolling under assumed names. I knew it was either him or- well I wont go thier. Thanks Vlatko!!

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    Not a problem guys. Cheers.

  • eireannach666

    @Ez regarding your post above

    Yeah , I was going to say something to you about that but your post above kinda was your response to my un asked question.

    I was going to say why the theology degree and all talk of non-belief? I was going to assume you kind of were as I was when I first figured out that there were too many gods being worshiped and it appeared that no sect was doing better or worse tgan the other, so I decided that it was all superstition that is what drove me into a lot of research and study on religion at first. But knowing the opposition kept me going. Later and presently , I developed such a distaste for the idea.

    So do you get to use your degree in any way?

  • Achems Razor

    Wow! a genuine troll!

    First time that I saw one. Heard rumors, but never though that they existed.
    Back to the blogs, where where we? Ah, yes , still no proof of what the religee's say, no empirical evidence, of Jesus even existing, read the links put on here by commentors, still no proof. Didn't really expect any.

  • eireannach666

    Ill say this , the reality of it is that the only proof of jesux is the lack there of(proof) meaning that based on what we have as opposed to what the church says means that its their word with no evidence against him not even existing with the evidence of there being none.

    I wouldn't put it past some greedy holy man to make up such a ta$e and may e pay some people off to spread the word , forge some papers etc.

    But nowhere throughout documented history do you find any record of this guy who supposedly had a huge following and a even greater impact.

    I don't know , score one to zero for not existing.

    Heck there has been plenty of heroes throughout history mad up and spread so well that some thought they were existed.

  • Achems Razor

    Just thought I would put this on again for the religee's.

    16 crucified saviours other than Christ.

    1-Krishna,(India)...2-Sakia,(Hindu)...3-Thamiz,(Syria)...4-Wittoba,(Telingonese)...5-Iao,(Nepal)...6-Hesus,(Druidic Celts)...7-Quexalcote,(Mexico)...8-Quirinus,(Rome)...9-Prometheus,(Greek)...10-Thulis,(Egypt)...11-Indra,(Tibet)...12-Alcestos,(Greek)...13-Atys,(Phrygiua)...14-Crite,(Chaleea)...15-Bali,(Orissa)...16-Mithra,(Persia)

  • ez2b12

    @ eireannach666

    Well sort of. I now assist the theology professor at the college I attend, Bevill State. I am now working on a degree in physics. I do not get paid per say, I get credit toward an elective and a discount on my tuition for the help i provide the school. I enjoy the work though and it does help save some of my pell check, whatever I do not spend is given to me in a check three weeks into the quarter. Weird isn't it. It would seem more fair to the tax payers to just provide whatever the students tuition, books, and other fees is and no more. But the way it works is I qualify for so much and whatever I can avoid the college getting I can have in cash. This means a lot of kids are there just for the cash, not an education. I usually end up getting about five hundred dollars every three months or so, depending on what books and fees are involved each quarter.

    I have thought about trying to write a book on the foundations of Judaism and Jewish Mysticism as I find this a facinating subject. But i would need lots of help.Besides I have had an unfortunate back ground myself and would probably never be accepted as a author of such a work. I was never a believer i simply find the fact that man creates gods and myths and why he does so very interesting. When i was a kid I was forced to go to baptist church and my grandfather was preacher, but I never bought it.

  • eireannach666

    @Achems

    Nice one. I knew quite a few but you made me step back and laugh at that. Ill contribute to this. There are a lot of things in the bible that confirm that the author or maybe authors made it all up for the purpose of monetary gain. Or humor.

    My favorites are as follows

    The virgin Mary and the magical conception, because I doubt she was not a virgin in fact the concept was already done over before by pagans about their goddesses.

    The town Nazereth did not exist in the 1st century AD – the area was a burial ground of rock-cut tombs.

    Following a star would lead you in circles.

    The disciples have no real evidence supporting their existence either.

    The real kicker is that everything in jesux's life story are the same acts and events in the stories of other fable characters predating jesux by many generations even centuries.

    Plus as we have discussed, there is no backing of any kind of evidence to support the story of jesux. But still his story of contradictions and absurdities lives on. WTF?

    Like when mary and joe were to be on their way to the town of Bethlehem for a Roman census, Galilee itself wasn't even in roman control at all. Judea was but not this town. So mary and joe could not have gone there for this reason. And roman records showh no census that Augustus had ordered at all or anyone else for that matter. Plus the romans counted houses not people for their census.

    It is mentioned not at all in the Old Testament nor by Josephus, who waged war across the length and breadth of Galilee (a territory about th

    Jesux never really visits documented provinences well none credible. Most are questionable at best. These places were so small that most maps did not even have them on there at the time. And probobly only locals new of them. But through all his travels all the major cities and towns show no record of a jesux of nazerath (which didn't exist yet)

    Sounds like the authors didn't do their homework. But how could they decades later with the limited technoloby? Doesn't seem possible to me.

  • Achems Razor

    Okay, a new book by Stephen Hawking, called "The Grand Design" that will be published on Sept. 9th. 2010.

    Who says in the book, that it was "not necessary to invoke any gods"
    "The Universe can and will create itself from nothing" Hawking wrote.

    "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something, rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist"

    I have been saying the same thing on countless of blogs on TDF before this book. I hate being right all the time! (LOL)

  • ez2b12

    @ eireannach666

    You said ," Following a star would lead you in circles." and i haven't quit laughing since. Thats halariouse man. I never thought about it that way but that's absolutedly correct I suppose. Of course this I dont think they take as literal, the star thing I mean. Thats funny in its self, of all the fantastical stuff they take literal this they say is a metaphor- at least the christians I know do. They say it was actually a comet or a planet that moved into a certain constellation.Of course when you say o.k. thats something science can work with as we can know what planet or comet was were at anytime in the past or future- they hush up real fast.Keep going man, some of that stuff had me rolling in the floor.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ coyote03

    The gospels were based on oral tradition, which was practiced only a few years after the events. The earliest gospels were written (if I remember correctly) just 30 years after, and were based on oral tradition practiced much sooner. Considering their content, it would have been impossible for it to survive, considering the very strong Jewish context.

    Bart Ehrman, is an agnostic, sorry I said he was an atheist. But the obvious point there was that he agrees with our point of dispute that Jesus was an actual man that lived. I also mentioned Gary Habermas. You were contending that Jesus was not an actual historical figure, remember. That's why I mentioned Ehrman.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ Insomniac

    "I dont have to prove you wrong. I cant prove your evidence is wrong if you show no evidence at all. You are wrong untill you prove otherwise. This is science not a court of law."

    -- Reread what I just said. I said the gospels are evidence. Prove them unreliable. Don't pass on the burden to me.

    "Are you serious? Most doesnt mean a few scholars, most means THE MASS OF BELIEVERS. And YES, they do."

    -- No they don't. They believe it was inspired by God. But do you seriously think God wrote it, and dropped it from the sky? Because that's what you actually said, unless you were trying to be funny. There may be a few who believe that, but yes, we agree that those people are nutcakes. God drops bibles from the sky, and then aptly puts 'King James Version'? Hilarious.

    "Our moral standards are a result of our upbringing. Our “hearts” dont think, our brains do. Hitler’s mind was unstable at best, and hes a bad example simply because hes not representative of the majority. "

    -- So what? An opinion is an opinion. If he isn't representative of the majority, what right do you have to say his opinion does not count? Are you representative of the majority? Therefore who cares what your "heart" tells you. You are completely missing my point. Now you seem lost because you followed your own tangents.

    "You identity as someone who knows what the hell he’s talking about is also quite suspicious, unless of course you gave us your credentials before, in which case sorry I missed that post please refer to it."

    -- Like you said, this is not a court of law. This is the internet. I don't tell people how smart I am and they should respect what I say --much like what your friend does, and what you want to do. Anyone can invent credentials here. Not that people have, but you are smart enough to know how liberal people can get over the internet. Or aren't you?

  • eireannach666

    @Achems

    I'm excited about the book. I wonder how much it is.

    @EZ
    Oh so now the christians are astrologists now?! Nice.

    Yeah some of that got cut off somehow.

    I read this paper the other day on that topic and they raised some good points about it. Ill have to see if I can remember where I saw it and get it to you guys. But if you research it enough you find that there is really no proof at all for his life.

    There is some shroud they use as evidence, I think its supposed to be what they buried him in. It is said to have a face print of him on it or something. I forget its name. But it could have came from anyone. It doesn't prove anything really. Anyone know what I'm talking about?

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ ez2b12

    "Second, if this is what you call morality accusing others of lieing (to post under two names and compliment yourself in the process would be a lie), insulting people, and refusing things layed out in black and white- well I rest my case."

    -- Hmm.. I seem to be getting this a lot from you atheists. First, make fun of the theist, tell him how delusional and out of touch with reality he is, use condescending words and etc. And then when showed up, call him immoral for doing so. You don't see the hypocrisy here?

    "Maybe one day you will understand that denial of obviouse facts, like the fact that Jesus fits the archeatype profile of all saviors practically, makes your case weak and causes others to simply tune you out."

    -- Oh now he fits the archetype of most saviours? I thought he was Mithra? Don't you think all "saviours" will have some similarities to other "saviours", since they..uh.. save? Funny you change your stance, since I was able to completely obliterate your 'Mithra' comparison.

    "No one can prove he did not exist or that god does not exist. No one can prove that they do either.No one can prove that a huge spaghetti monster didn’t create us all, do you believe that as well?"

    -- Yay! you finally were able to fit the "spaghetti monster" phrase into your line of argumentation!

    "And if i have to explain to you how studying the conclusions of social sciences leads to a objective aproach to morality, justice, and education- well whats the point. Yes my morality in the end is largely subjective as science is only needed in the most complex of moral questions that have complicated and often covert impacts on society. "

    -- Huh?? But you said atheism leading to subjective morality is "a load"! And then go on a rant about how we are able to 'look into social sciences' and get objectivity. What happened to your "it's a load!" statement? So now you say it's not "a load"? You change your stance way too much.

    "For example; If your wife was dying and needed a pill to live, just one pill and thats all, but said pill costs one million dollars and the pahrmacists is unwilling to budge or offer credit. Is stealing this medicine moral in this context? I think so and so do most other people. That said, is stealing immoral as a rule- yes in most situations. See morality is a relative concept."

    -- Come on now.. You think this example shows morality is subjective? The motivation for a moral act is also what's important. How shallow can you get, 'stealing a pill can sometimes be moral, so morality is subjective', oh wow. You think motivation is chopped liver when it comes to the determination of whether an act is moral or not? Let me give you an example of morality being objective: 'stealing pills for personal gain' is and always will be immoral.

    "As far as the rest of it goes I am tired of argueing with someone that simply refuses to accept what is not up to interpretation. You may say that Jesus was a real person or that he had no simularities to the savior acheatypes all day long, it doesn’t prove anything and makes it no more true than untrue.You can post all the so called bible scholars you want, most are going to be christians and therefore biased from the start. I have layed out my case in a way that others seem to have no problem accepting or finding factuall, does this not at least make you think? Probably not so I will agree to disagree with you and bid you a nice day."

    -- I see. People like you ask for names and links and evidence. But when shown, they simply assert "well those people are biased!". Very common tactic. Which is why I'm passing on the burden to insomniac.

    "One more thing, and this is to every one else as well. I am not a theologian. Yes I have a degree in theology. But I do not write, lecture, or study theology any longer. I was interested in it years ago and i got a degree but i feel like I am misrepresenting myself somehow if I call myself a theologian."

    -- That explains it.

  • Achems Razor

    @eire666

    Yes, the shroud of turin. it is a fake.

    Watch here on TDF... "Leonardo: The Man Behind The Shroud"

    Don't know yet, the price of Hawking's book.

  • eireannach666

    @Achems

    Yeah that's it. I saw some pics and read all the testing they did on it. The spent a lot of money on that. I kept thinking , the whole time I was reading about it, about the people that see Elvis in their pancakes and poo! Elvis , now that's the king right there!

    Or the statues bleeding. Stigmatic claims etc. Crazyness.

  • Epicurus

    im sorry ilovemyself, but you have lost the morality debate a long time ago. give that part up. he is absolutely right on morality in this instance. he explained it very well here:
    "...our morality may have a subjective tone, all does, but it is primarily formed by studying the effects of social norms and beliefs with social sciences."

    what he is saying is that as a SOCIETY (that is why only social animals evolve morals) we have realized that the BEST WAY to live easily and happily and productively for the greatest number of people is based upon certain rules of behaviour and conduct...when someone follows these rules/ethics, that person is what we call moral.

    Some sociobiologists contend that the set of behaviors that constitute morality evolved largely because they provided possible survival and/or reproductive benefits (i.e. increased evolutionary success). Humans consequently evolved "pro-social" emotions, such as feelings of empathy or guilt, in response to these moral behaviors.

    In this respect, morality is not absolute, but relative and constitutes any set of behaviors that encourage human cooperation based on their ideology to get ideologic unity. Biologists contend that all social animals, from ants to elephants, have modified their behaviors, by restraining selfishness in order to make group living worthwhile. Human morality, though sophisticated and complex relative to other animals, is essentially a natural phenomenon that evolved to restrict excessive individualism and foster human cooperation.

    Also saying that stealing a pill for your own personal gain is always true therefore morality is objective is completely wrong. the act in question there would be STEALING, taking something that isnt yours, whether it is for you or someone else is not part of the moral action...also what if it was stealing the pill so YOU could survive? that is stealing for your own personal gain...what if it was stealing from someone who poisoned you to watch you die?

    this is exactly how and why morality IS subjective.

    what about this one...?

    Mass murder of men involved in inter-faith relationships:
    Numbers 25:1-9:

    "And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab. And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods...And the LORD said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the LORD against the sun...And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation...And when Phinehas...saw it, he rose up...and took a javelin in his hand...and thrust both of them through...So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel. And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand."

    or the mass murder of Babylonian babies in Psalms 137:8-9, God is asked to bless those who would bash Babylonian babies against stones in an act of mass infanticide.

    god acts one way in the past and is said to behave a different way now. like why instead of telling people how to beat and keep slaves, he just told them that slavery was immoral? or sending your daughters out to be raped by a village of people is wrong? in fact it is said like its a good thing.

    why did god send out bears to kill kids who insulted a man? is it moral to kill someone for insulting you? is it moral to kill homosexuals or children who speak back or family members that try to make you worship other gods?

    IF god is real even HIS morality is subjective to the zeitgeist.

  • ez2b12

    @ ilovemyselfmorethani

    No I haven't changed my stance at all, are you really that slow. I am saying that not only does he resemble Mithra, well resemble is an understatement. He actually resembles most of the false saviors for a reason- their all man made and not real. You are hopeless buddy and lost for ever obviously. I said morality was relative, you said atheism led to subjective morality? You do remember what you said right.

    Atheist look to science for most of their answers, again are you really this slow. I think you are obviously. And you in no way disproved Jesus and Mithra being very similar. Just because you found some Christian that has his time line all screwed up- you are slow for sure. The links you posted proved absolutely nothing and how dare you, a creationist, talk about people denying evidence. I give up man.

    GO AWAY PLEASE!! I am tired of you and your twisted views. They are in no way true, verifiable, sane, or productive. Now I have tried to be nice and tried to let you just move on.

  • ez2b12

    Now that i look at it fomr a distance, you are trolling aren't you. Well you got a reaction fomr me thats for sure. My bad it will nto happen again.Done even looking at this thread.

  • eireannach666

    @EZ

    Ahh come on now man. Your bigger than that.don't let him win by default.
    But hey its your call.

  • Insomniac

    @Ilovemyself yet again..:

    "I said the gospels are evidence. Prove them unreliable. Don’t pass on the burden to me."

    No matter if some parts of the gospels are historically accurate or not, the fact remains that the earliest ones we're written decades after Christ's alleged death and have been translated and edited countless times. Calling them reliable evidence is absurd. The burden IS on you, you are the one making wild claims here.

    "There may be a few who believe that, but yes, we agree that those people are nutcakes."

    Those people are in large enough numbers to affect the political agendas of entire countries. Call it a majority or not, I still think it's alarming.

    "God drops bibles from the sky, and then aptly puts ‘King James Version’? Hilarious."

    The King James bible is an edited version which came hundreds of years later and I dont't see it's relevance here. The fact is many do believe that the bible is the actual word of God.

    "So what? An opinion is an opinion. If he isn’t representative of the majority, what right do you have to say his opinion does not count? Are you representative of the majority? Therefore who cares what your “heart” tells you. You are completely missing my point. Now you seem lost because you followed your own tangents."

    Forget about defending Hitler's opinion for a second here and please explain why you completely ignored the rest of that paragraph. I'll post it again so you can comment: "The “opinion” your “heart” tells you will be affected by your belief system, and it is way too easy for it to go wrong with a religious upbringing because once again, God can tell you whatever you may want to hear. Keep in mind that if you manage to tell the difference between fact and fiction I have no problem with spirituality, but willfull ignorance is a dangerous thing, especially when it starts affecting politics and education."

    "Like you said, this is not a court of law. This is the internet. I don’t tell people how smart I am and they should respect what I say –much like what your friend does, and what you want to do. Anyone can invent credentials here. Not that people have, but you are smart enough to know how liberal people can get over the internet. Or aren’t you?"

    The simple fact that you are attacking someone who's arguing against you by calling them a fraud without backing it up in any way as if it serves your cause is what I see as the issue here, but I will no longer comment on this point.

  • ez2b12

    Oh alright I'll try one more time. See if you can keep up Ilovemyselfandamtooslowtogetit. First of all you have showed whom up? All you did was post more of the same old tired christian arguements that where wrong the first time and will be wrong forever. I am not changing my view at all, surely you are not that simple. I am saying that he is simular to more than just Mithra, which you admitted was the case- not sure how that is showing me up. He fits the same archeatype as many other fake saviors, why because they were all created by the same entity-man.You do know what archeatype means right?

    If your morality is dictated to you by some book or supernatural being then you have no choice in the manner do you.If it is not then it is subjective, right. Therefore if your god says stealing is immoral it is and thats it. I argued that morality is relative, not subjective-though it is also subjective as we all know. If it were not you would follow all the rules in your holy book and not the ones that are convenient for you. Athiest look toward science for most of there answers and that means they are far more objective than someone religiously indoctrinated.That being said it is only objective to a point as i have already said. Pure objectivity in moralities case is impossible.This needs no further explanation as I refuse to believe anyone is that simple as to not get what I mean. It in no way contradicts what i have been saying.

    Saying that pagan religions copied christianity is the oldest defense christians have for this problem. The problem is the time line doesn't allow for this in most cases.Maybe modern day pagan religions copy christianity, who knows. But the ones I reffer to came long before your fake savior ever got dreamed up. Zoanastrinism, sun worship, worship of Baal and El, and many more heavily influenced the Jewish people when they laid the foundations that later became christianity.

    Now I really believe that you are trolling and trying to get me angry. I have tried to let it go and be nice but you don't want that, so what is it you want? If you do not agree thats fine but don't get angry because the majority of others on this thread do. Where is all your faith, seems you would not need petty victories if you had some god to grant you inner peace. Like I have already said, I laid my case out in a way that no one else seems to have trouble getting or believing. Thats good enough for me as I have no need to pick on someone that is obviousely incapable of critical thought or original expression.Now i will ask you again nicely to leave me alone and move on. i am tired of the same arguement that was completely mute in the first place as you are not objective about anything. you came here with your mind made up and you will leave just as you came, a very common thing for christians. By the way i believe you are turning it over to someone else because you know you are in over your head.

    Sorry I flamed at this guy Vlatko. You may delete the post that is in moderation if you like, like you need my permission huh. I really should not have gotten so angry with a child like mind but I have tried to let this go and now its getting old.

  • eireannach666

    Now I know its hard for you religees to use logic or reason but try please.the gospels are very unreliable. First of all we don't even know who actually wrote the books. And the diciples if they even existed were not really straight laced fellows from what I can gather from the information available.

    The gospels were first written in greekk,and like 9 out of 10 people at this period in history were 100percent illiterate .

    Now, the gospels were pretty well written for the time, meaning skilled, literate people had to have written them. Meaning the writers would of needed training. Major training. Expensive training, and limited traning. Not to mention the luxury of time in order to study. Now these guys weren't equipped with ant of these options.

    Plus the would have been older senior citizens. quite elderly by that time assuming they didn't die off. And the gospels were produced long after the actual events. So these guys heard it passed on three or four genrations. So you know the story was twisted. At best the stories were 30percent accurate. Not enough to base your life on or to worship and submit to.

    Seems to me like a sham or a sceme that ended up global.

    We can go furthe in depth if need be. There are so many it might take a while though.

  • Joe_nyc

    @eireannach666

    "And roman records showh no census that Augustus had ordered at all or anyone else for that matter. Plus the romans counted houses not people for their census."

    Can you provide some sources for this statement?

  • ez2b12

    Good job eireannach666, very true deductions. Heres some more food for thought. The original Jewish priests thought that only the high priest was allowed in the most sacred of rooms in the temple. They where so frightened of this so called merciful, moral, and understanding god that they tied a rope around the waist of this priest when he entered this room. Why, because they where afriad that God would strike him dead for saying his name wrong or some other tiny unintentional mistake of worship. Then they could pull him out because if he would strike down the high preist for something so unintentional and small he might very well kill them just for entering the room to get the dead guy.Also something to think about is the fact that directly across from the room supposed to hold the ark of the covenant was the temple of Horus. Nopw thats weird isn't it. If thier is only one God and no others should be put before him, who is Horus and why does he get a room in the temple? Because the Cannanites where opriginally poly theistic and paganm and refused to give it all up at first. Moses, whom never really existed either from what we can tell, had to continually get at them for worshipping the golden bull or Baal. (no bad jew, worship only this fake god not that one or youll get no mana for supper)

    They had several names for God YHWH, Adonai, and Elohim are just three. Why have so many. Well the original name given them by God supposedly was YHWH. Given to Moses on Mt. Sinai this name menat the becoming one. It was a fancy way of saying, its none of your business what my name is just watch what I do. Whta was God preparing to do? Well thats another crazy tale. he was going to deliver the Jews form the Egyptians, a place that history has absolutedly no reference of them ever being, by performing the plagues. Now he sayas sevral times that Moses should aproach Pharoah, funny how they never say which pharoa as this would tell us when they where supposedly thier and they do not want that, and ask him to release his people (the Jews). Then he says I wil harden Pharoah's heart, basically meaning I will make it so that he will not grant what you ask of him. This menas God is responsible for the captivity of the Jews, which is a lie and never happened, in order that he may show his power to his people. now lets think abouut that. the Egyptians where killing these people, torturing them, denying them worship of thier one God- and God himself is responsible. Much like the politiicans of today that create a deepression so they can offer us solutions we would normally never accept and that only benefit them. Now is this indicative of a forgiving and merciful God I ask you?

    The true historical account of this whole thing is as follows. The Cannanites turned out to be the Jews and where never taken into captivity according to Egyptian and Cannannite records. Insted they where at this time fighting to keep thier identity as they where sandwiched between two super powers, Egypt and Mesopatamia. The Cannanites as a result of thier location and small size where really scared they would get absorbed into one of these two super powers and no longer be a seperate people. A small group of Cannanites in the south was taken into slavery in Egypt for a short time, this we are not so sure of. This small group upon thier escape came upon a small village where they worshipped a god named YHWH, this did not reffer to the christian god we now know but to a collection of dieties worshipped in Cannan at the time- Y represented El the Father; H was Asherah the Mother; W corresponded to He the Son; and H was the Daughter Anath (this we are very sure of). They then made up the story of the exodus and used this god for the one and only diety to be worshipped in a new religion that would pull the Jews together and give them thier own seperate identity. So the Judaic tradition was born out of a desire to hold a people together and give them something in common. It also provided one God wich made it much easier to control the people with religion, so next we get the laws off the Torah. If you do not believe this stuff go look it up it is very easy to find. Break down the name Israel- ISis, RA, EL a combination of all three predominate pagan gods. Isis was Greek, Ra was Egyptian, and El was Cannan or Jewish.

    I could go on and on but as I am sure this will not make a dent in the genuises here that feel so superior and have no concept of history or theology whats the point. I was off my game last night as I was tired but I'm back now and find this very facinating. Lets continue please.

  • Achems Razor

    @ez2b12:

    Have read with great interest what you had written, I can tell that you are very voiced in your field. Not so like the religee's where they grasp at straws and get completely off subject, and get hysterical because they have run out of things to say. and only repeat what they have read in there antiquated books, or what they hear from their priests.

    Still waiting for some kind of proof that a person as Jesus ever existed.
    Or even any proof that there is a God, even one out of the 28,000,000 gods in recorded history!

  • Reasons Voice

    eireannach666 09/03/2010 at 03:48 :
    Not gonna argue wether or not christ existed but some of your arguments there are weak and others downright scientifically wrong. It's cool that you don't believe he existed. To each their own but really.
    ""Following a star would lead you in circles."
    You were joking here right? You don't actually believe that? Because if so you must think that Columbus,and all other navigators before the compass, was just going in a series of circles untill he bumped into a new continent.
    "Plus as we have discussed, there is no backing of any kind of evidence to support the story of jesux. But still his story of contradictions and absurdities lives on. WTF?"
    Quite simply because many people want to believe in something good in an otherwise crappy world. Perhapse you have found a way to live life surrounded by misery and personal rage that you find tollerable, but for most a silver lining onthe cloud is a welcome thing.
    "Sounds like the authors didn't do their homework. But how could they decades later with the limited technoloby? Doesn't seem possible to me."
    Believe it or not people managed to know where a town was in their country prior to the advent of google earth. Even decades later. We still know where Toumbstone NM is and it has been a few years since the OK corrall.
    Like I said, I'm an agnostic so don't even believe most of any of this but perhapse it is that agnostic vs. atheiest difference that makes me more resonable. Or perhapse simple personality differences. Yet you seem more stuck on a man who you believe didn't exist than most Christians are.

  • over the edge

    in those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. All went to their own towns to be registered. Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David. He went to be registered with Mary, to whom he was engaged and who was expecting a child. Luke 2.1-7.

    i will try to point out the inconsistency .
    Luke states that it was while mary was with child and quirnius was governor but he was appointed governor in 6ce after the birth. luke states that all went to their own towns but joseph wasn't from bethleham. Now you can argue that he meant ancestral home but that would entail all Romans to go to ancestral home the sheer logistics of this would be destructive to rome as it could take weeks or months to travel each way if everyone knew their ancestral home at all. and how would this be even possible if someones ancestral home is outside of the empire. the main point of a roman census is taxes so why would such a seemly impossible and if possible expensive requirement be put on the people . they would spend a great deal of money traveling (not to mention not make any while traveling ) and less taxes would be collected.

  • Reasons Voice

    Food for thought for those that believe only religion leads to human rights violation and atrocities against other men. "mass murder".

    From 1948 to 1954, Johns Hopkins conducted an experiment on 582 third graders, testing the effects of Nasal Radium Irradiation. Although it is now known that this procedure places the participant at greater risk for cancer.

    1950s and 1960s, mentally r@#$%&*% children between the ages of 3 and 11 at Willowbrook State School were intentionally infected with hepatitis. The early test subjects were fed extracts of the feces of an infected patient.

    Fernald School in Waltham, Mass., in which mentally r@#$%&* students were fed cereal containing radioactive iron in order to trace iron absorption.

    Vanderbilt University Hospital from 1945-49, nearly 830 poor, pregnant Caucasian women were given a drink containing radioactive iron. They were told the drink would be good for their fetuses. Within an hour, the radioactive material was circulating in the blood of the unborn babies.

    The EPA had approved a two-year study in which families who use pesticides in Duval County, Fla., would be paid to continue using them and to monitor their children’s exposure. Each family would be paid $970 in order that scientists might discover how children’s bodies absorb hazardous chemicals.

    As recently as 1989-1991, Kaiser Permanente of Southern California and the Centers for Disease Control treated 1,500 poor black and Latino inner-city children in Los Angeles with experimental measles vaccines. The same vaccination was given to infants in Mexico, Haiti and Africa by the World Health Organization. It was discontinued after a large number of those tested died.

    That was all from one page of documentation so please get off your klidesdale. Also Since it is your assertion that the bible is fake and untrue, why site it as source to demonstrate evil acts of religious people. That would be like me siting the Lord of the Rings in a thesis on obesity in the troll community.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ Insomniac

    "No matter if some parts of the gospels are historically accurate or not, the fact remains that the earliest ones we’re written decades after Christ’s alleged death and have been translated and edited countless times. Calling them reliable evidence is absurd. The burden IS on you, you are the one making wild claims here."

    -- The were written a few decades after his death. But again, they were based on oral tradition --which happened almost right after the events being described. And they are reliable evidence. We are still talking about the historicity of the man Jesus right? What "wild claims" are you talking about? What's so wild about believing that Jesus was an actual man that lived? Don't stray away from the topic, I wasn't arguing about the truth of the resurrection (yet). You were contending that Jesus was not an actual person, remember?

    "The King James bible is an edited version which came hundreds of years later and I dont’t see it’s relevance here. The fact is many do believe that the bible is the actual word of God."

    -- Again this is what happens when tangents are followed. What the other guy suggested was that the bible was a "man-made book". So I said 'hell yeah', just like any other book. Why would God write the bible and put names of bible authors. Christians believe it was inspired by God. But you see how easy it is to make people look ridiculous with a few changes; by saying God wrote the book and dropped it from the sky -- which was essentially what you said.

    "The “opinion” your “heart” tells you will be affected by your belief system, and it is way too easy for it to go wrong with a religious upbringing because once again, God can tell you whatever you may want to hear. "

    -- I purposefully ignored this because it is another tangent. My point was that if morality is subjective, you will look like a fool by saying you follow your heart, and that will lead you to some kind of objectivity --which was essentially what the other man suggested. You argue his ignorant points for him, and then go off on tangents.

    "The simple fact that you are attacking someone who’s arguing against you by calling them a fraud without backing it up in any way as if it serves your cause is what I see as the issue here, but I will no longer comment on this point."

    -- No. I was attacking him in what he says. And since he backs up what he says with nothing but statements like: 'I have a degree in theology, so I know more than you', then I will have to attack that too. It would be helpful if you are able to follow the arguments that have been made. You answered for him, but you seem to have only posted responses to me without considering what your buddy has already argued.

  • Joe_nyc

    @ilovemyselfmorethani

    Hey dude sorry for being critical on your writing but I have to tell you that it's very hard to follow what you are trying to say.

    for example:

    “The King James bible is an edited version which came hundreds of years later and I dont’t see it’s relevance here. The fact is many do believe that the bible is the actual word of God.”

    – Again this is what happens blah blah blah....and dropped it from the sky — which was essentially what you said.."

    What are you trying to say?

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ez2b12

    "First of all you have showed whom up? All you did was post more of the same old tired christian arguements that where wrong the first time and will be wrong forever."

    -- And all you've done is argue that you're smarter because you have some imaginary degree in theology. Oh, and you also argue by saying "you're wrong!". I am now doubting if you are actually half as smart as you purport yourself to be.

    "He fits the same archeatype as many other fake saviors, why because they were all created by the same entity-man.You do know what archeatype means right?"

    -- Yes. I know what it means. And therefore using your logic, we can find similarities between Spiderman and Jesus. The Ghost busters might as well have similarities with Jesus. I mean, they save people right?

    "If your morality is dictated to you by some book or supernatural being then you have no choice in the manner do you.If it is not then it is subjective, right. Therefore if your god says stealing is immoral it is and thats it."

    -- I thought you studied theology? Then you must know that in the Christian worldview, morality is NOT dictated, nor is it derived from any book.

    "I argued that morality is relative, not subjective-though it is also subjective as we all know. If it were not you would follow all the rules in your holy book and not the ones that are convenient for you."

    -- Probably missed the course on Christian theology.. More of this 'morality being derived from a book' thing.

    "Athiest look toward science for most of there answers and that means they are far more objective than someone religiously indoctrinated."

    -- I agree with this. But we are talking about morality. Do you think a scientist is more moral than a religious person? Any evidence to back this up? Being a bit A-historical aren't you?

    "That being said it is only objective to a point as i have already said. Pure objectivity in moralities case is impossible.This needs no further explanation as I refuse to believe anyone is that simple as to not get what I mean. It in no way contradicts what i have been saying."

    -- Only, that's not what you were really "saying". You said you follow your heart, and that leads you to some kind of objectivity. Which is ridiculous, since you already admit that morality is "relative/subjective". Your buddy says that it's O.K to follow your heart if you represent the majority. Funny thing is, we both think it will be a bad idea to have creationists have their way with the educational system if, hypothetically, they have the majority.

    "Zoanastrinism, sun worship" (and a long rant about the similarities between Christianity and Pagans)

    -- These are very general ideas. Are you really this narrow? Can you give me specific, irrefutable similarities?

    "Thats good enough for me as I have no need to pick on someone that is obviousely incapable of critical thought or original expression.Now i will ask you again nicely to leave me alone and move on. i am tired of the same arguement that was completely mute in the first place as you are not objective about anything."

    -- In other words: "please leave me, coz I can't remember what they taught me in theology school.."

    "I really should not have gotten so angry with a child like mind but I have tried to let this go and now its getting old."

    -- The only "child like mind" is your own. Read what you said. You seem to have argued absolutely nothing.

    Wow, how much did you pay for your theology classes? You should ask for a refund.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ joe nyc

    "What are you trying to say?"

    -- Well you really won't get it unless you follow all the way up.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ epicurus

    I largely agree with most of what you said. Except for a few things.

    "the act in question there would be STEALING, taking something that isnt yours, whether it is for you or someone else is not part of the moral action…"

    -- I thought we've already established in our previous debate that morality is dependent on an agents ability to grasp right from wrong? Are you arguing here that only the act itself is what should be gauged? So, hypothetically, IF I got something that I *thought* was mine, this would be the same as getting something that I know is not mine? Since in both cases, I'm getting something that isn't mine.

    This is where we depart, since I believe that the motivation for doing an act is more important than the act itself, and this is what should be gauged.

    Morality is not subjective. It just seems that way throughout history, because 'acts' change. But notice that the motivations are largely the same. People who stole during ancient times were killed, because they didn't have the tools that we do, and that was the best way to dis-incentivize stealing --which was the motivation. We no longer resort to those barbaric things, because today people have much more to live for, that a few years in prison will already be hellish --and thus dis-incentivizes stealing. If the people back then treated criminals the way we do, then most of those people would be criminals.

    Back then, People sacrificed all sorts of things (or humans) to their Gods, because they sincerely believed that the rest of the tribe would be better off. The motivation here was to help people. Which is no different from the way we go about bombing places, knowing full-well that there will be collateral damage -- we think everyone else will be better off.

    Acts do change, but motivations don't (at least not much)

    Maybe my 'pill-stealing for personal gain' example was a bit half-baked.

    Here's another one: Killing people for fun is always immoral. If you remove the motivation 'for fun', then you can envisage a host of moral reasons for doing the act. So I don't agree that motivation has nothing to do with the moral dimension of an act.

  • ez2b12

    @ blockhead (im out of variations on your very revealing nick name but, i'm willing to guess everyone will know who I am reffering to)

    I have no idea what i paid for my education in theology as I didn't pay for it, you did if your a tax payer- and that tickles me to death.Then again I would venture you to be somewhere between about five or ten years old considering your intelligence level and inability to have an impact so i doubt you do pay taxes. Or are you from somewhere other than the US, this would explain why you do not see the danger of your fundamentalism.In the US the types of beliefs you describe have done irreparable damage to our political system, our monetary system, our medical system, and much much more.

    Now since you say you do not get your morality from God or the Bible, where does it come from and why is it exclusive to christians or theists?You say following your heart is wrong, you scoff at useing social sciences as a guide, you say it is not dictated though from any book or from any divine diety- so where does it come from?

    I am really tired of your childish attempts to call me a liar. I have laid out in black and white what they taught me in theology and what I gleaned from doing my own research and thinking, say that slowly, T_H_I_N_K_I_N_G- get it. I know it is an alien concept but you should try it sometime. Just because you cant win this debate or prove anything I have said wrong, well then i must be lieing about my degree right- typical christian hog wash and denial. If I where lieing you would be able to show me up,.... I'm waiting.

    You may verify my degree(s) at the University of North Alabama (theology) and Bevill State University (History- western civics to be exact) My real name is John Seals and I graduated in 1994 from UNA and then in 1996 at Bevill State University.Do not call me a liar again, you may disagree with me all day. You can even say I'm dumb or whatever but do not call me a liar again if you want to continue this discussion.

    Do not tell me what i am saying either, I now what i mean a little better than you do I think. I said very clearly that science leads most athiests to objective thought processes. I also said very clearly that most morality questions are not that complicated and do not require science, you can follow your heart or consciencness to get to the proper way to act or react. This is subjective to a large degree, I never said it wasn't.But this does not mean that all athiest follow thier hearts or think of morality as subjective.This means I do, to some degree. Mostly I think of it as relative and judge situations within thier own context, thats not very complicated surely you can follow. Your morality is subjective just like everyone elses, to a large degree.If not the explain where it comes from and how it is supposedly objective please.

    And yes I am being a lot "historical" though i'm sure you meant hysterical- not attacking you for spelling mistakes though as I am horrible at it. i just think maybe you had a Fruedian slip thier.No a scientist is not necessarily more or less moral than a religiouse person per say.Well in that they do not get out and spread lies and personal interpretations as fact like christains seem to live for they are more moral- but that is only one aspect of life.

    All religiouse people interpret thier religion and morality in a subjective way in my experience, except for a lot of Jews and Muslims. These guys are very seriouse about thier religion and tend to follow the set laws and guidlines of thier religiouse texts as interpretted by priests and Rabbi's. They do not tend to pick and choose as much as chrsitians. I do believe that following social sciences and trying to derrive your morality from thier insted of your own biased feelings is more objective than religiouse people though. And though i fail at doing this much I try any way. Like I said many times I turn to my heart and I suppose then it is subjective.

    But this is off the subject at hand. You made the assertion that atheists where less moral than religiouse people and that following thier beliefs through to logical conclusion leads to a immoral society. Now the burden is on you to prove that, not on me to prove they are more moral than religiouse people- I never made that assertion.You asked me to explain where my morals come from, I did. From a combination of science and personal reflection, I feel this to be much less subjective than a religiouse person who- wether you want to admit it or not, gets thier morals from either a immaginary diety or a man made book called the bible. If this is not true explain why and where you get your morals if not from god, the bible or "any book" you said, your heart, your consciencness, or science- all of which you have denied already.Seems to leave no where to come up with any morality to me.

  • ez2b12

    As far as giving you specific examples, Im not doing your research for you. Get up and do it your self.I know the simularities are thier already, it is you that is ignorant and I am not in the business of educating christians.

  • eireannach666

    @Reason and the others.
    I never said - believed he didn't exist or that he did either. Read the other postings above not just the end of a conversation. I said I can't call it and was on the fence about it. There is a lot of evidence towards him not being nothing more than one of the first really admired super heros. Of course he could have lived and been just a scholar of buddhism and a really nice guy. Or perhaps just a normal joe. Heck here is some evidence that says he didn't even die on the cross and lived to be 80trs oild and spent his days after the ordeal in India where he had studied as a youngster. They even claim to have his body. Never know, but I know heis and was no god and if he did exist he is now less than fertilizer.

    @EZ
    Hmm. Nice man. Wait until I go pay my bills I got some things to add. I didn't lat night because I thought the simple and logical fact of the times and and lack of evidence plus the time lines , would suffice but I guess ill have to pick on the diciples a little today. Fun!

    Reason,What I can't throw a little humor of my own in on an already halarious story. But still the other statements are as true as can be. This arguement is weak by no means as some try and say. Just becayse it is not filled with all the padding a lot of people add to their pints, does not make the logic any less valid.

    I mean look at the time period we are talking about! Theses men , if they ever existed, were by no means middle or upper class citizens, and to think that they had public school systems in the middle of the desert 2000yrs ago is nuts. Plus the whoile bible is full of contridictions on times, places and events. Ill bring some to the table when I return. I gotta pay rent.

    This goes to the other repliesd as well. Be patient and like jesux said , I shall return! LOL

    Horns.

    (Sorry guys and gals for my typos. Those that know me know I don't usually make so many but my computer is down and I'm typing on a blackberry with these little button. My fingers are too big.)

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ ez2b12

    "The links you posted proved absolutely nothing and how dare you, a creationist, talk about people denying evidence. I give up man."

    -- I'm not a creationist. Why did you even think I am? Oh that's right, you don't think.

  • over the edge

    @ ilovemyself
    i think this quote was yours
    “I said the gospels are evidence. Prove them unreliable. Don’t pass on the burden to me.”
    now the quote was passed back and forth so if it is not yours i stand corrected.
    in my previous post i not only showed it to contradict itself but historical facts and logic as well. I chose this gospel because the conversation was on the topic of Jesus birth and the census at the time. even if i concede that he was born and a census was preformed the (that hasn't been proven to me) in less then 100 words luke makes claims that cannot possibly be true according to history and the bibles claimed birth date . if you don't believe that i have proven it false at least it shows it unreliable as per your request

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ ez2b12

    "Now since you say you do not get your morality from God or the Bible, where does it come from and why is it exclusive to christians or theists?"

    -- Mr. Theologian. What? You don't know? You think Christians believed morality is exclusive to them? Seriously, get a refund!

    "You say following your heart is wrong, you scoff at useing social sciences as a guide,"

    -- I never said anything of this sort. What I did say was, if you believed morality was subjective/relative, WHY WOULD YOU THINK THAT following your heart would lead you to anything important? Social sciences may very well be a good guide, TO CURRENT MORAL TRENDS AND NOT MORAL OBJECTIVITY. Wow you really are dense.

    "you say it is not dictated though from any book or from any divine diety- so where does it come from?"

    --You should know. You said you have a degree in theology, remember?

    "I am really tired of your childish attempts to call me a liar. I have laid out in black and white what they taught me in theology"

    --Your blood pressure! Hahaha

    "Do not call me a liar again, you may disagree with me all day. You can even say I’m dumb or whatever but do not call me a liar again if you want to continue this discussion."

    -- Do you practice the same kind of restraint on "religees"? Are you sure you haven't called anyone a liar here? If you say so, then I'll take your word for it. Looking for a quote would be tedious.

    O.K. I will leave aside a lot of things you said, since I don't think we should get tangled up on those unimportant issues.

    But here are the important ones:

    "You made the assertion that atheists where less moral than religiouse people and that following thier beliefs through to logical conclusion leads to a immoral society."

    -- No I didn't. I said Atheists can just be as moral as Theists. I've also said that in other docs, I try to be as consistent as possible. My argument was that Fundamentalism is what is the problem. And I believe that an Atheist fundamentalist would be more dangerous than a Christian fundamentalist. All you have to do is follow the worldviews to their logical conclusions. This was my argument. You followed up on so many tangents that it got obscured.

    "If this is not true explain why and where you get your morals if not from god"

    -- I'm sure you've heard of the Christian belief that God created man in his image and likeness. Thus, for Christians, man has the ability for reason which allows him to grasp the moral dimension. It is NOT dictated, or derived from any book.

    Look, man, I'm sorry for the insults. I didn't know it would bother you that much.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    Hmm.. O.K. You can make some more insults and then we'll call it quits. I realized I just called you "dense" and then said "sorry" in the same post.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ over the edge

    Where is your post about it? Is it in your blog or something? I will obviously need to have a looksy at it, before I can respond.

  • over the edge

    @ ilovemyself it is up approx 14 posts or so i will repost if you cannot find it

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    @Reasons Voice,

    That is all true and nobody is saying science is perfect, knowing, almighty, always morally right and so on. It can be misused, abused and twisted by evil minds as everything can be from time to time in hands of humans. However science nowhere says: experiment on retarded children, intoxicate people and observe the effects, expose innocent people on radiation and see what happens. You'll never find any public scientific document with that.

    On the other hand the Bible explicitly promotes slavery, sexism, child abuse, war, various forms of discrimination and so on. When people say the Bible is fake and untrue they mean it is not the word of God and is full of contradictions. Simply it is a book written with precise intention, by greedy, manipulative bastards in order to control the masses. It was and still is the most effective political weapon devised so far and those quotes are there and used as justification for the crimes committed by the rulers many times over the history. It is the same with almost all other religious books.

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    OK @ilovemyselfmorethani, now we know what you're saying. After many of your comments with: I said that, I didn't say that, who said that, no I didn't, you're a liar and so on, we can safely and finally assume that you claim the following: Atheist fundamentalist would be more dangerous than a Christian fundamentalist.

    Soooo... do you have any examples from the past 2000 years or so to back that up.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @Vlatko

    You could have "safely and finally assume[d]" that just by reading my initial comments.

    And why would my evidence have to be from history? Considering that, historically, most people who've ever lived were theists.

    Like I said, all you have to do is follow the worldviews to their logical conclusions. Do I have to, once again, spell them out for you?

  • Insomniac

    @You there who wont go away:

    "The were written a few decades after his death. But again, they were based on oral tradition –which happened almost right after the events being described. And they are reliable evidence. We are still talking about the historicity of the man Jesus right? What “wild claims” are you talking about? What’s so wild about believing that Jesus was an actual man that lived? Don’t stray away from the topic, I wasn’t arguing about the truth of the resurrection (yet). You were contending that Jesus was not an actual person, remember?"

    Stop will your silly walls of text that mean nothing, the gospels are NOT reliable evidence and the burden is on you to prove otherwise which you still fail to do.

    "Again this is what happens when tangents are followed. What the other guy suggested was that the bible was a “man-made book”. So I said ‘hell yeah’, just like any other book. Why would God write the bible and put names of bible authors. Christians believe it was inspired by God. But you see how easy it is to make people look ridiculous with a few changes; by saying God wrote the book and dropped it from the sky — which was essentially what you said."

    What I said is that people believe the Bible is the actual word of God, and that will remain true no matter how much you argue about it.

    "I purposefully ignored this because it is another tangent. My point was that if morality is subjective, you will look like a fool by saying you follow your heart, and that will lead you to some kind of objectivity –which was essentially what the other man suggested. You argue his ignorant points for him, and then go off on tangents."

    You purposefully ignored the rest because it's true and you have no arguments against it. I do not believe I was going off tangents, in fact I believe you try to suddely change the subject when it goes in a direction you can't follow.

    Why do I bother? As far as I know your just a 12 year old kid who doesn't even believe in God having a good laugh by pissing people off with your obvious trolling.

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    @ilovemyselfmorethani,

    OK the history is not important. So your statement should be: Today Atheist fundamentalists are more dangerous than a Christian fundamentalists. Why didn't you say so in the first place. Alright we can skip 2000 years of bloodshed, pretend as nothing happened, and take a look at what is going on today. But wait a minute. The Bible is the same as it was 2000 years ago. Never mind we can skip that too.

    Sooo... can you give me an example to back up your (now modified) claim? Where is this Atheist Fundamentalist who is making such a problems. Maybe he is hiding at CERN. Who are they, where are they? Hmmmm...

    And please spell those world-views again so we can all understand.

  • Reasons Voice

    @ Vlatko: Agreed totally. Religious texts may well be the most missused tool in the realm of manipulation/exploitation of the masses. Followed closely by political ideologies and monetary controll. I just find i hard to swallow the theme that due to this fact faith and religion should be demonized. Religion and faith has also led to many positive things in the world. The vast majority of charitable organization that help those less fortunate are funded through organized religions. Also exemplar individuals throughout history such as mother Teresa and Ghandi were driven by faith based motivations.
    Ohh well we all just agree to disagree. Ty again Vlatko for you great work with the site and level headed discourse.

  • over the edge

    forget world views or speculation how about hard facts. in 1997 the federal bureau of prisons broke down population by religion (us). it would seem logical that a morally neutral group would have a ratio to population of 1:1 a morally superior group would have a lower ratio and a inferior group would have a greater ratio. Judeo- Christian 83.761% of inmates us general pop 80.1% or a ratio of 1.045:1 atheists .209% of inmates and 1.6% of pop or a ratio of .013:1

  • Achems Razor

    @Reason:

    Mother Teresa?? she was classed as the whore of Calcutta, do some research.

    Religions do benefit to charity? after they line there own pockets first, another mislead person.

  • Reasons Voice

    @Vlatko: Not trying to interject into someone elses debate here but. Would you not considder the German National Socialists or the Bulshevics to be non religious fanatics? I agree not atheist in the case of germans they were pagan occultist but Bulshevics definately had a air of atheism. Just wondering.

  • Reasons Voice

    @Achems: I'm sorry you are just too jaded and beligerent to respond to in depth at this point.

  • Achems Razor

    @Reason:

    Beligerent? Jaded? not me man, just stating the facts!

  • Achems Razor

    Also I would like to know, from, he loves himself: what is a "Fundamentalist Atheist"

    Is that the same as praise the lord, holy rolling on the floor, speaking in tongues, hands on, faith healing type of people??

  • Reasons Voice

    Facts? Ok is a portion of funds raised for charity filtered out to pay costs of staff etc.? Yes obviously. Have there been abuses? Most likely in both religious and secular.
    As to the whore of Calcutta. My friend calls his ex the C... (rhymes with runt) of NY. But actually she is a nice girl.

  • Reasons Voice

    @Vlatko: Ok granted I don't spend a ton of time looking into the lives of deceased nuns. Perhapse she was a poor example yet if I wanted to replace her I am sure I could with a large number of names.

  • Reasons Voice

    And now that ya post it I'll check that vid out. Do you have like some room sized central mother computer with magical endless docos on it? Lord man you keep busy!

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    Hahaha... no I just have one small lap-top.

  • over the edge

    @ everyone
    i can't seem to get my posts answered. i try to be respectful and show facts but never get a response. if someone can tell me what i am doing wrong it would be appreciated. i am not being sarcastic i am serious. i have been coming to this site for a while but only started posting recently

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    OK cool @over the edge, nice stats. I thought @ilovemyselfmorethani should answer why so few Atheists are in jail compared to Theists, in regards to subjective/objective morals.

  • Reasons Voice

    @over the edge: Well if addressing an individual do the "@so and so" it helps to draw attention to your post. This may not have been the best doc to start with lol. Got a little heated in here and hit close to 300 replies so easy to get lost. Glad to have ya here keep in there.

  • over the edge

    @ reasons voice ty

  • over the edge

    and ty vlatko shouldn't ignore the 1 in charge lol

  • Reasons Voice

    Also as to the stats they are good but a stat like that has allot of variables. Social class being one major one. Many of your Atheistic scientific minded people are at the least middle to upper middle class financially so not as prone to incarceration or crime for that matter. Also many of the lower class people who identify themselves as belonging to one religion or another are far from practicing theists. you average gang banger may say they are baptist, muslim, or christian and have never once attended any type of religious service. I would say that morality is far more dependent on economic strata than on a theist/atheist basis.

  • over the edge

    @ reasons voice
    agreed that economic factors play a major role but the assumption that atheists had better economic upbringing cannot be substantiated as many atheists were brought up in religious households. (i am not complaining in the least but we were dirt poor Catholics growing up) i feel that these conclusions are at least based on facts available where the other comment was not supported on any facts at all

  • Reasons Voice

    Agreed. The stats are substantiated facts. And i wasn't trying to imply a totalitarian fact as regards economic structure of Atheists one of my best friends (who reminds me of the more ornery ones like Achems can be) is of humble means. I was referring to the majority. Thus the Educated atheist. Many of that type may have started out with little but the advanced education has granted them a more affluent income status as well.

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    @Reasons Voice,

    You've mentioned Bolsheviks as Atheist Fundamentalists. They were ignorant villagers fed with misinterpreted Marxism and brainwashed to kill aristocrats. The word science was unknown for them. At least at the beginning.

  • over the edge

    @ reasons cannot argue the last post i believe you might be right.

  • Achems Razor

    @Reason:

    There you go again, Ornery?? now I will be flagged as ornery, Oh well, have been called worse (LOL)

  • Reasons Voice

    @ Achems: haha yea Yer a good guy from what I see here that was the best term I could think of to describe ya.
    @Vlatko: True about the Bolsheviks (pardon my previous spelling). However if all I have read on the Russian revolution can be believed there was a definitive atheist undercurrent involved. Most likely due to the anti-establishment sentiment than any science based belief or education.

  • ez2b12

    @ over the edge

    Sorry man i did not mean to ignore your posts. I have been tangled up with someone that was very insulting and shifty (changes what he "means" every time someone gives evidence to the contrary) and I wanted to get my point across to him.In the end he basically said he agreed with me about the morality thing, even though he had been argueing for hours about how "following your heart was no good". Then he finally said we are all created in gods image so following our hearts was fine.This is the same thing as saying that god granted us our sence of morality. Which it then follows that god dictates his morality through his own thoughts and feelings.This is what i had been saying all night and this morning "religees get thier morality from god/the bible." I suppose I had to phrase it in crayon (exactly as religees phrase it) for him though or he thought it was wrong.In my opinion god has nothing to do with it at all as he doesn't exist. In the end though we think the same thing in a way, man is capable of forming his own morality fomr following his consciecness, we only disagree about who puts it thier in his mind.Oh yeah and about all the stuff about the bible being a historical book and Jesus being proven to exist etc. etc. Of course he had no idea that i would be offended by being called a liar (yeah right) so maybe god was taking a break when he said that, hmmm.

    Welcome to TDF man. Interesting stats. Seems everyone i know that goes to jail "finds god". They must have him in cell block C. Funny when I went i couldn't find him any where, unless that was him in the shower wanting to "get to know me better". Thank god I got out before lover boy got to infatuated- he was a huge man and scary as a religee full of the holy ghost. Ahahaha !!

  • Reasons Voice

    To round up my thoughts on the morality issue: My belief is that morality is entirely in the hands of the individual and that outside influences may affect them but do not in any way determine them. The morality of an atheist may be guided by a more social element. meaning that they place moral strictures based on how an action effects others in society. The theist may get their moral premises from a religious text and construct their moral base more internally. Such as doing this will harm my soul. For me as (well polytheistic agnostic or whatever I am) I take it on a concensus. Where most major religions overlap as well as social considerations. For instance murder is wrong as it will hurt those I harm an who they care about but also damage some intangible part of myself. I cast aside many of the "moral strictures" of many religions as they are either not applicable today or were based upon ignorance of the past. Like not eating pork or shell fish. It's easier to just say pork is evil don't eat it than to figure out what trichnosis is. Or with shell fish anaphalaxia.

  • over the edge

    @ ez lol and ty btw if you drop your soap in the shower don't bend over to pick it up lol

  • Epicurus

    killing someone is morally wrong is only the case based upon the standards and rules that humanity has set up.

    it is not universally moral. there is no outside code deeming it immoral. just people realizing that killing others for our pleasure is not something we would personally want to happen to us and not something that will help our society.

  • Reasons Voice

    That's my point Epi. Your personal moral compass is based within yourself as opposed to within ancient writings. Nothing wrong with that. Just as there is nothing wrong with the morals of a theist who arrives at the same conclusion due to his religious beliefs. Thus the consensus type that I feel.

  • Achems Razor

    @ez2b12:

    "scary as a religee full of the holy ghost" priceless! (LMAO)
    Will be using your phrase.

  • eireannach666

    Ok I'm back and will pick up where I left off. Where was I oh yes the diciples and the credibility of the gospels as proof or even being written by these so called apostles.

    First @Achems
    LOL Yeah she was refered to that way. Had forgoten until you said something. Nice. Sorry people its true. I also asked that question at one time about a fundy atheist. So I second that question.

    Now for the fun part. Sadly I've been waiting for this one so bare with me. Let's start with the infamous john the babtist. Mr. Revelation and the supposed author of the fourth gospel.

    Some religious scholars feel that there were two Johns but either way who's to say that John even wrote a gospel? Quote the Catholic Encyclopedia:

    "The historical genuineness of the Fourth Gospel is at the present time almost universally denied outside the Catholic Church."

    Why does almost everyone but a committed Catholic believe that the fourth gospel is a fake?

    It totally contridicts the other gospels. Like  the duration of Christ's public ministry is extended by John from one year to over three years, during which time John recounts three visits by Jesus to Jerusalem, not just one; within this extended time frame, John moves the so-called ‘purification of the temple’, which the synoptics put at the end of the Christ's ministry, to the beginning.
    He doesn't even give the same day of the week for the day of the crucifixion! I mean come on that's crucial to the whole divinity and paying for sins conceptt? John says Christ held his last supper with his apostles on Thursday; bit the others state it happened Friday.

    OK, so maybe he was just old and had a senior moment. Bull , he sure had to problem remembering all the words jesux ever said during their time together.

    Also look at what he is supposedly writing about and its context. Not really what you'd think about the story of jesux as seen by a true apostle and holy man.
    The others seem toi be talking more about gods kingdom and refer to jesux as son of man, but mr john here almost seems to have a crush on jesux.

    But he refers to him as, the actual son of god and king.
    He also goes on about what most religees seem to lie to do and that's conversion. Or as they call it evangelical duties . Which is really the task of convincing others that jesux was for real..
    And you mean to tell me that this old man remembered all of this stuff at a really ripe age after more than 65yrs or so have passed?

    Johns book was written by someone who wrote in really clean greek but Acts 4.13 says that John was illiterate.

    – John never says squat about Galilee. His home town and center of the jesux fan club so it is said.
    And what about his bro brother James? He never mentions it once. You'd think if he wrote this ten at least a shout out would of been appropriate right?

    What's funny is he makes comments about the jews, like they are aggressive "as I said unto the Jews" (John 13.33) jesux said to a group of Jews. But wasn't he a Jew as well?

    Heck john doesn't even say anything about the ridiculous claim about when jesux hooked up with moses and elias on a mountain and was said toi have talked to them. Funny he failed to mention this since the others put him there . I'd think that would be a crucial piece to forget since he remebered so much more. See Mark 9.2,9.

    And what about the daughter jesux brought back tov life? He doesn't say anything of this either. If john wrote this then why not? After all, was he not one of the few that were allowed to see this happen? Mark says so in his book.
    See Mark 5.37,42.

    He doesn't even say a word of jesux ascending. Which would have to be extremly important tov the jesux story. Mark and luke talk about it and they weren't even there. Why didn't the author if it was john? See Luke 24.33,51
    All of the gospels are like this and the people who wrote these books were more than likely not the same as the names put on these fake documents of filth and garbage. Which one shall we do next.

    Achems want to pick one? Want to do luke next?

    Refrencs include the one and only and best selling lie and fiction book of all time, the christian bible .Prof.Humphry and misc anti religion text and lectures.

  • Achems Razor

    Well why not, The gospel of Luke claims that Jesus was born during a census (2:1-2) that we know from a historian named Josephus which took place after king Herod died. But Matthew claims (2:1-3) that the big J was born when Herod was still alive-2 years before Herod died.

  • ez2b12

    @ achem

    Your welcome to it. Have you ever witnessed someone hyped up on religion (full of the holy ghost). Man it is scary as anything i can imagine just about. Well the way Marilyn Manson looks may be a close tie. He is very intelligent though, I saw him talk one time on a Micheal Moore documentary and he made more sence than anyone else in the whole film, it suprised me but just goes to show you should judge a book ....

    @ reasons voice

    I'm not sure you meant that context has no place in morality but if that is the case i beg to differ.Maybe you meant that outside opinions should not play into it, that it is purely up to the individual to judge context, impact on others and self, and direct or indirect consequences. If that is what you meant I suppose I agree to some extent.

    Some moral issues are very complicated and have impacts above and beyond the ability of the individual to judge. In these cases I think we should turn to social sciences as they give us an objective view of these consequences and impacts on others, ourself, and future generations. For instance lets consider the morality of certain economic, industrial, or political practices. I feel that the average individual is not able to make wise moral choices here without industry experts, scientific research, and even some social commentary.I dont think that you menat to include these situations in your comment though. What i am saying is that i agree with you but we must admit that thier are always exceptions to any rule.

  • ez2b12

    @ eireannach666

    Good stuff man, you are more studied in the actual bible than I, or most christians I must add. Do Mark next if you please.

  • ez2b12

    Its one of the synoptic gospels (so it should save us some time seeing that the synoptic gospels all cover the same stories), concentrates on the last week of Jesus life.It goes from his baptism by John to the resurrection.

  • ez2b12

    I think were just entertaining ourselves at this point though. All the opposition seems to have dissapeared.

  • Epicurus

    @reasons, i will agree that how you arrive to that moral position doesnt matter as much as if you do.

    but in the grand scheme of things, when speaking about how morals developed, the idea is that they evolved from basic rules we follow as social animals. all social animals show morality. we just have a bigger frontal lobe enabling us to understand more complex problems and formulate complex rules/ethics/morals for them.

    plus the person reading the holy book is not just reading it and thinking everything that is said in it ought be the way to behave, or he would be stoning homosexuals and children that disobey their parents, or people who dont observe the sabbath. People read the holy books and pick and choose which moral stories to follow. if a stranger going through town came to your house and the village people came to your house to rape him you dont think the right thing to do would be to offer your daughters...its in the bible.

    we pick and choose the morals we like from the holy books, based upon morals instilled into us by the societies we live in.

    and @ilovemyself, you have not shown how atheism would logically lead to a society where people are immoral.

    PS if you can, i say you write a dissertation on it, because that would be very very impressive.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ ez2b12

    "In the end he basically said he agreed with me about the morality thing, even though he had been argueing for hours about how “following your heart was no good”. Then he finally said we are all created in gods image so following our hearts was fine."

    -- I didn't agree with you about anything. And "following your heart" is NOT "good" if you already believe from the onset that morality is relative/subjective. If you believe that God created us in his image and likeness, then "following your heart" may not always be good, but the knowledge that you have it in you to make the right decision does matter. After all of that, and you still don't get it.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ Vlatko

    "OK the history is not important. So your statement should be: Today Atheist fundamentalists are more dangerous than a Christian fundamentalists."

    -- Rather odd that you've been able to infer that from my simple question. I'll ask it again, and *hopefully* it will be clearer to you; Why do I have to give you an example from history, like you asked? I've already posted the inescapable conclusions an atheist will be led to if he follows this worldview to it's logical conclusion. Why don't you try and refute that first.

    "Why didn’t you say so in the first place. Alright we can skip 2000 years of bloodshed, pretend as nothing happened, and take a look at what is going on today. But wait a minute. The Bible is the same as it was 2000 years ago. Never mind we can skip that too."

    --Well if you're going to be tearful about it, by all means, don't make my question --that has nothing to do with what you seem to be implying-- restrict you. Lay on me any evidence you have from the past "2000 years" that contradicts my assertion.

    "Sooo… can you give me an example to back up your (now modified) claim? Where is this Atheist Fundamentalist who is making such a problems. Maybe he is hiding at CERN. Who are they, where are they? Hmmmm…"

    -- Ah, humor.

    "And please spell those world-views again so we can all understand."

    -- Nah, I don't think I will. I've posted them more than once on this thread. Find it if you care to.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ Insomniac

    "Stop will your silly walls of text that mean nothing, the gospels are NOT reliable evidence and the burden is on you to prove otherwise which you still fail to do."

    -- They are reliable evidence for the historicity of the man Jesus. The miracle claims may be another thing for debate. But you were saying Jesus wasn't an actual man that lived. You don't even KNOW what you and your buddy have been previously arguing? I wasn't saying the gospels prove Jesus is God. And I cited Bart Ehrman --an agnostic-- as evidence that the gospels are reliable evidence that Jesus was an actual man that lived. But with respect to the miracle claims and others, he will disagree, hence he's an agnostic. You've IGNORANTLY strayed so far from the topic that you forgot what you were arguing, now you try to make it seem like I was saying the gospels prove Jesus' divinity. And you say you don't go off on tangents?

    "What I said is that people believe the Bible is the actual word of God, and that will remain true no matter how much you argue about it."

    -- No. People believe that it was inspired by God. And don't try to worm your way out of your own imbecilic statement; you said God wrote the bible and dropped it from the sky. Must I show you what you actually said?

    "Why do I bother? As far as I know your just a 12 year old kid who doesn’t even believe in God having a good laugh by pissing people off with your obvious trolling."

    -- If I was a 12 yr old kid, that would be embarrassing for you. Since you haven't gotten to the point of accepting that 12 yr old kids are way smarter than you.

  • D-K

    Quote Epicurus: "and @ilovemyself, you have not shown how atheism would logically lead to a society where people are immoral"

    @Ilovemyself:

    I also couln't make out where you went into detail on that, perhaps you could quote the part. Unlike me, you have an idea where you said this or referred to it on this page.

    But what I'm guessing you're getting at is that a fundamentalist atheist is a nihilist, as to where a religious fundamentalist is still guided by religious morality? If this is so, I'd like to pose that a nihilist is not of inherent malicious intent, he is indifferent, as opposed to religious fundamentalists, who inherently harbours negative feelings to whomever disagrees with their particular worldview.

    Still, I have no idea if this is what you meant, maybe you could clarify. You know you want to ;)

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @epicurus

    "you have not shown how atheism would logically lead to a society where people are immoral."

    -- Not atheism per se, but militant atheism. Or if you prefer. atheist fundamentalism.

    I've shown that, in it's militant form, it will lead people to undervalue human life. Doesn't atheism necessarily (or just in most cases) lead to materialism?

    "different beliefs about the universe lead to different behavior." --C.S. Lewis

  • D-K

    Ok, militant atheism. How does it logically lead to a society where people are immoral?

    What is the ratio of atheists to militant atheists?
    Are they demographically clustered? Group-forming? Because from where I stand, unlike religion, atheism is a purely individual mindset.

    "I’ve shown that, in it’s militant form, it will lead people to undervalue human life"

    Could you maybe quote where you elaborated on this? And don't you feel that the value of a human life is entirely subjective, thus not subjective to gradations that are deemed proper or socially acceptable? Is indifference immoral? I personally don't think so.

    Your statement raises a multitude of philosophical questions, to avoid confusion and the familiar "so what you're sayin..." I'd suggest posting the comment to end all comments. Just make it extremely clear what you mean.

    I'm not one to toot my own horn, but I made a similar comment in the "trouble with atheism" page, that was equally provocative, but it was very clear and concise. The discussion didn't break up in tangents and misenterpretations. Seeing as I find controversial statements and worlviews a lot of fun to study and break down, I'd like to see you make yourself as clear as possible.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @D-K

    "Ok, militant atheism. How does it logically lead to a society where people are immoral?"

    -- To take one aspect: Morality; When you have a society that believes that moral and ethical principles are purely ephemeral.. not good.

    "What is the ratio of atheists to militant atheists?"

    -- I believe there is a very small number of militant atheists. I don't even think Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens is one, because deep down inside, I think they don't hold moral and ethical principles to be subjective --although they will argue that it is. Just listen to the issues they raise; If morality is subjective and dependent on current moral trends, then they just bite themselves on the tail when they demonize O.T. barbarism. I don't think a lot of atheists actually follow their worldview to it's logical conclusions. But with the popularity of materialism gaining steam, I think a lot would be going this route soon.

    "And don’t you feel that the value of a human life is entirely subjective, thus not subjective to gradations that are deemed proper or socially acceptable? Is indifference immoral? I personally don’t think so."

    -- The value of oxygen is entirely subjective as well, but I think everyone will agree that it is somewhat important. I might value oxygen more than you would, but to that slight extent it wouldn't really matter. We may not agree on how much value to give oxygen. But there is an obvious theshold; at some point, we can call a person crazy for not giving oxygen the level of importance that would necessitate his survival.

    "I’d suggest posting the comment to end all comments. Just make it extremely clear what you mean."

    -- In a nutshell: Atheism will logically end in materialism. And a fundamentalist materialist will have certain views about the world. Worldviews matter. The way one deals with the big questions about life (e.g., Why am I here? What is my purpose?) will have an impact on the way we live. If we are convinced that life has no ultimate meaning, that only matter matters, and that there is nothing special about homo sapiens, then that will have some bearing on the way we live and the way we view and treat other people.

  • D-K

    "– To take one aspect: Morality; When you have a society that believes that moral and ethical principles are purely ephemeral.. not good"

    Please flesh this out, why is it not good? I assume you mean by ephemeral that morality and inherent consequence is limited to the material world? Most, if not all, atheist and agnostic alike feels this way, morality is simply an instrument to maximize the probability for relatively harmonious co-existance. It's goal and purpose is clear, there need not be any divinity to it.

    "The value of oxygen is entirely subjective as well, but I think everyone will agree that it is somewhat important. I might value oxygen more than you would, but to that slight extent it wouldn’t really matter. We may not agree on how much value to give oxygen. But there is an obvious theshold; at some point, we can call a person crazy for not giving oxygen the level of importance that would necessitate his survival"

    Hmm, interesting point.

    "In a nutshell: Atheism will logically end in materialism. And a fundamentalist materialist will have certain views about the world. Worldviews matter. The way one deals with the big questions about life (e.g., Why am I here? What is my purpose?) will have an impact on the way we live. If we are convinced that life has no ultimate meaning, that only matter matters, and that there is nothing special about homo sapiens, then that will have some bearing on the way we live and the way we view and treat other people"

    You can't logically deduce the outcome of future events without having discounted all the variables to the equation. Technological advances are breaking strides trying to decipher phenomena that seem to transcend the fundamental laws (seemingly spiritual/supernatural). Atheism is a good motivator for scientific advancement, mind you not the only one, just a good one and the search for materialist answers has yeilded materialist answers, facts.

    This does however, not mean that materialism is the unifying dogma of the future, it's certainly not the (only) logical outcome. You'll still have your dualist pantheists, your deists and the garden variety of "unconventional religions" that fall outside of the regular theist-atheist-agnostic tesselation. So I don't agree. Not only is it not the only logical outcome, it's not the only outcome to begin with. Atheism in and of itself isn't as restrictive as any given organized religion (albeit more restrictive than agnosticism) and there's a certain flexibility to it.

  • eireannach666

    @Ilove

    So you are trying to say that if one has to have religion to be moral and civil? So we need god to keep things on an even cue?

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    @ilovemyselfmorethani,

    Here is your argument:

    If you follow an atheist’s worldview to it’s logical end, morality becomes a socio-biological spin-off, we essentially become no more important than animals, no objective purpose or meaning — thus life is objectively meaningless, etc.

    Now, obviously, I’m not saying all atheists believe these. But I think these notions are inescapable if you follow that worldview to it’s logical conclusion. For me at least, a society leaning toward these beliefs, will tend to not value human life.

    Can you show me how a fundamentalist Christian would be worse? And don’t make the mistake of showing fundamentalists who *think* they’re Christian. The keyword is Christ here. You would have to show that that’s indeed what Jesus would want/do.

    This is why I mentioned the 2000 years period but you seem to jump strait into the future. If we judge from the past, Religion brought really nasty stuff to humanity. Religion brought segregation, wars, slavery and was a great hindrance to scientific and technological development. And with those facts in hands SO FAR Theism is not carrying more objective/subjective morality than Atheism or Militant Atheism. That was if we're judging from the past. The belief system over the past was proven to be full of hatred, reason for wars etc. and every belief system is giving a birth of another one. People easily misinterpret given scriptures and form smaller religious systems. And that goes on and will go on until humans find ETI somewhere in the universe or eventually they figure out how everything works. With this pace that would be in the far future.

    Now you argue that since Science equals man with animals and in future societies that lean to this will not value human life. I'm wondering how did you formed this opinion? A world-view to it's logical conclusion? That is simply vague. What lead to you to believe that mankind will not value human life anymore? Without any data from the past or present which indicates that will exactly happen in future your argument lacks support and stays as your opinion which may or may not be true. I can simply say that from the evidence which you can see in everyday life, human life is valued as never before. I think Science takes care and values human life and animals more than Religion does and ever will, if we follow worldview to it's logical conclusion.

    In short you don't have any facts to support your argument. If you look into the Medicine, Social Science, Technology you'll see thousands of examples how Science (atheists) value human life. Human life doesn't have to be counted as something superior over animals to be valued. Your argument only shows the stand of Religion as is: "Humans are superior over animals thus Human life has to be valued", which is wrong.

    Now you want Christian Fundamentalist to be equaled with Jesus himself and the fact is that there isn't such a person. Basically you ask how can any person who honestly believes in Christ (who supposedly sheared love and compassion) be worse than a man who thinks that animals and humans are the same?

    See... most of the eastern religions do not treat animals nor plants as something separate from humans. They put almost the same value on every leaving creature as on humans. Of course according to Christianity and Jesus himself they are crazy and totally wrong since God places enormous emphasis on man. But if you study a little bit the eastern religions you'll see that they have stunningly higher moral levels then Christianity will ever have. And without believing in omnipotent God or Jesus.

    Easterners say everything is connected and man has to show compassion to all life forms on earth. Jainism goes even further: Because they value so much the life on Earth they cover their mouths not to unintentionally harm an insect while walking. Are they wrong because they do not follow Jesus and they equal human life with the life of an insect? Of course not. By your reasoning this guys could turn us into immoral animals if they somehow gain power. Ridiculous isn't it.

    Buddhism has no God. There is no belief in supernatural deity in this religion. Many scholars see Buddhism as nihilist teaching. In essence they preach working on self with some techniques (meditation) until enlightenment or in other words reaching the ultimate universal collective consciousness. They have no deity with ten commandments to whom they have to bow to achieve their goals. In the same time they are teaching love and compassion for all living forms. They even give a respect to a stone.

    See.. it is not only about Militant Atheism nor Fundamentalist Christianity. You can argue whole day who is more dangerous. You have to understand that there are lot of other people who live in this world. They don't believe in Jesus, they equal humans and animals, and still they have high moral values. And they live for centuries with this attitude.

  • Achems Razor

    @Vlatko:

    Well said, I wholeheartedly agree!

  • Epicurus

    @ilovemyself, you still have not shown why atheism or a strictly materialist view would lead to a neccessarily immoral world view. and as a matter of fact you wont be able to assume that.

    i will just plainly say i take the position of utilitarianism.

  • eireannach666

    @IwetmyselfmorethanI

    Ok now I'm just stunned to see someone use that statement and logical all at once! You stated," Atheism will logically end in materialism."

    Not only is it not logical but is a huge assumption and assertion of bile. It is slimly possible , yes but logical no. I wouldn't even say it was a legitimate guess.

    First of all you make the huge assumption that atheists are materialistic, which is wrong for sure. In fact I'd say a little bit of everyone is. Its what drives the economy so don't bite the had that feeds you. Also I'd rather be stuck on an island with an atheist whod start helping with the task at hand instead of some religee who was gonna consult his biblical garbage with every decision or waste his time praying to nothingness to save us. He'd eventually make me mad enough to use him for fishing bait.

    Morals don't come from a book, dude , they are instinctive and taught. I don't need any invisable anything to tell me that stealing is wrong. Or to tell me that no matter how I feel its not ok to rub off the ones I don't like or that have done me wrong. If a person needs a book to tell them that respect has to go both ways then maybe those people have something wrong with that illogical individual. And if it came down to a type or world where it was take and kill or get taken from god wouldn't save someone from a bullet. I guarantee you. To think that being civil in a world of the uncivil is illogical as well. People only do it so that they feel that smug ,arrogance that comes with being devout.

    And I shouldn't have to bring this up but come on man, we all saw what happens when the fundy religees get upset because the other fundy religee got drunk and said something slick a out hit dumb little pointy hat. Do the crusades come to mind? Yeah real moral and civil huh? Both sides acted as you said barbarians.

    A true person of logic and reason would deduce that not murdering everyone and helping others and taking care of their family would be mor beneficial to him , his family and the species more so than acting rediculous. I'd rather let a man plow a field than have to dig his grave.

    You ae talking about some of the most irrational garbage I've seen in a long while on here. I'm not trying to start nothing so don't get your panties in a bunch. I'm just talkin Richard Dawkin.

    Then you so comically say,"
    t there is nothing special about homo sapiens, then that will have some bearing on the way we live and the way we view and treat other people."

    You are right about it changing somne alright but not like ytou think. Its Motha F-ing liberating evry time I see a person say they have to go to church instead of the park or when they say I can't because its against my religion and its just pork or fish we are talking about. Or when they pray and nothing changes then they say it must have been gods plan. Well if its his plkan then who the heck are you to be screwing around with his plan? The sad thing is I live every bit as much a clean and sobor life as the religee across the street except the difference is my time isn't wasted on a collection of science fiction magazines from the bronze age. I spend it however I want and I keep my ten percent tithes for beer.

    What's worse is pastor bob and twenty years of having jesux rammed in him , he actually feels like he's happy and living a full one! He's full of somthing alright and it isn't logic.

    D*'+ christians. that goes for all of you. Devout believers of any god.

  • eireannach666

    You know its really funny to see the last five posts or so go up so quickly.

    Someone struck a logic nerve didn't he?

  • Insomniac

    @You know who:

    "They are reliable evidence for the historicity of the man Jesus. The miracle claims may be another thing for debate. But you were saying Jesus wasn’t an actual man that lived. You don’t even KNOW what you and your buddy have been previously arguing? I wasn’t saying the gospels prove Jesus is God. And I cited Bart Ehrman –an agnostic– as evidence that the gospels are reliable evidence that Jesus was an actual man that lived. But with respect to the miracle claims and others, he will disagree, hence he’s an agnostic. You’ve IGNORANTLY strayed so far from the topic that you forgot what you were arguing, now you try to make it seem like I was saying the gospels prove Jesus’ divinity. And you say you don’t go off on tangents?"

    I have a book here that speaks of a King Arthur. The era kinda fits and England does exist...I guess so did he. And btw citing someones opinion is not and has never been proof of anything whatsoever.

    "No. People believe that it was inspired by God. And don’t try to worm your way out of your own imbecilic statement; you said God wrote the bible and dropped it from the sky. Must I show you what you actually said?"

    SOME people believe it was inspired by God while OTHERS believe it is the actual word of God. I did not say God wrote the bible and dropped it from the sky. That was an obvious vulgarisation of many peoples ACTUAL beliefs. You can keep saying on and on that it's not what YOU believe, the fact that OTHERS DO will not change.

    "If I was a 12 yr old kid, that would be embarrassing for you. Since you haven’t gotten to the point of accepting that 12 yr old kids are way smarter than you."

    It wouldn't be embarassing for me. You haven't made any sense at any point in your argument so far as I can tell.

  • Reasons Voice

    My take on the materialism-atheism point is this. When one does not believe in an afterlife it places all import onto the hear and now. The material. Those who believe life is but a step toward a secondary existence would be less prone to cling to the material world by theory.

    As to weather Christ existed or not and the beliefs of Christianity / Catholicism. I can't prove the man existed. I'm not gonna try. I believe he did, as a man not god/son of god. I have read and reviewed the gnostic gospels and find that a running theme in them is the humanity of Christ not devinity. My feeling is that the man did exist and that he did preach peace and morality. That he did make statements such as "I am the son of god" but when placed in context with quotes like "you are all my brothers and sisters" he is saying he is no deity he is one like us. Simply a man who chose a path of goodness in the world. Thereby inferring that all that he did was equally attainable by anyone else with the will to do so. I believe, for the purpose of control, the message was butchered by men who desired power and has never been what it was intended to be. If one reviews all of the testaments (be it the book of Judas) or the other omitted texts you will see that the pattern does not point toward a unified one church. But rather the religion to end all religion. That religion being the elevation of the self and the coexistence of society. Few people know that that message led many Buddhists to consider Christ as an incarnation of Buddha.

    To that end I believe that the underlying meaning in the beginning of the christian church, as well as many other organized faiths, is not all that different than the way an atheist sees the world. As a social strata in-which the individual is equal to all life including and that "God" is simple the representative of the collective life energy in the universe. Thus we are all brothers and sisters and part of god. To the scientists we have discovered so much but the answer to basically WTF? is still there. A wild collection of atoms coalesced into cells into structures into organs into tissues into beings can all be understood fundamentally but the why and the how is still there. The idea of the living spark.

  • D-K

    @Vlatko, you vastly elaborated on what I (arguably overly optimistic) tried to condense into a single sentence, my thanks.

    Also, is that a direct quote from him or a summary, because I haven't seen him make that argument. If so, I could add the following to your counterargument:

    Life IS objectively meaningless, because there is no way to infer an objective purpose for any life and have it validated beyond subjective reasoning. Meaning and purpose derive from the self and the set of goals one sets, and strides to achieve. Goals can be set on an intellectual level, biological level, spiritual level, philosophical level or societal level. Achievements are objective, the interpretation of their implications are subjective.

    @Ilovemyself: Side point, do you believe in an afterlife, a soul and heaven and such?

  • eireannach666

    @Insomniac

    I sure hope you are not directing that at me. If not sorry but if so then I will have you go reread above posts in which I said I'm on the fence about it and really could crae less since just the idea of a living god , even as an idea alone is enough to make me laugh at him. I was just entertaining the thought once again as there is tons of small details that all point in that direction. The only thing that I can say for sure that vouches for his existence is a couple buddhist scrolls that refer to a man such as him but dnt really prove anything , just maybe could be interpreted that they were referring to jesux as was referenced above. And maybe some islamic text that refers to him. That is even sketchy as jesux never really went thgat far east as far as the christian bible is concerned

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    @DK,

    Yes that is a direct quote from him. I'm honored that such an eloquent, intelligent person as you finds my comment valuable.

  • D-K

    If that is sincere; I thank you for your kind words.
    If it's sarcasm; Well played.
    If you meant to direct that comment to someone else; no harm done.

    The internet, the ego's fickle mistress..

    For the record, I had Buddhism in mind when I wrote "unconventional religions", in the paragraph refuting the only logical "outcome" for atheism to be materialism.

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    It is sincere @D-K.

  • D-K

    Then I am flattered. Thank you.

  • Insomniac

    @eireannach666

    Obviously my comment was directed at ilovemyself. Im sorry I should've made this more clear.

  • eireannach666

    @insomniac

    Yeah I wasn't for sure . I remember someone misusing my words in the sane way so I was just making sure and adding on I guess. Thanks. for the clarification man.

    Does any one recall the quran stating that the commandments were given to moses by was it muhammad? I need to go take some notes I think unless I'm corrected by one of use guys. The specifics escape me for the moment.

  • D-K

    @Reasons voice: Your question boils down to how organic matter came to be, basically.

    NH2CHRCOOH amino acids, and polypeptide compounds are "the spark of life" The answer to the question of life lies incrypted in the enigma that is biochemistry.

    There simply MUST be a certain set of conditions in which particular inorganic compounds rearrange molecular structure to become organic materials, my personal guess is immense pressure and heat. I also think the answer to many questions of the emergence of life lies in the biochemistry of extremophiles, I'd study them but I'm short a lab, equipment, funding and a highly acidic environment, possibly a volcano.

    The Netherlands is topographically lame.

  • ez2b12

    I can't believe this guy, you all know who i mean.Not only is saying that following your heart (conscience) is alright for him but not me but, he thinks only christians have a conscience worth listening to.You can't really argue with something so blatantly predjudice and simple, anyone that would think such a thing and then say it for the world to know is past logic or disscussion and into pure insanity.Insane people can not change thier mind or entertain any empathy- it is beyond thier means.

    Dude you really should see a doctor or something, seriousely, what a sad way to live.I'm sorry I insulted you as you obviousely have been all bent up or something by someone.Good luck man, they do make medicine that could help you I think.Heck even talking to your priest might help.I very seriousely doubt he would think this is a healthy way to feel.What if some atheists heart started telling him that maybe god existed, would you want him not to listen in that case?

  • ez2b12

    @ Reasons voice

    You said: "My take on the materialism-atheism point is this. When one does not believe in an afterlife it places all import onto the hear and now. The material."

    This is exactly why a lot of atheists would not be materialistic. We see that we have only this life to live and no other and therefore it makes sence to experience as much as possible, both emotionally and physically.I wouldn't want to waste all my time on materialistic things and achievements at all.I love nature and enjoy children, want someone to love and to feel loved, and spend a lot of time experiencing other states of conscienceness (through meditation now days the seventies are over). I cry when I see certain movies and study philosophy, religion, and science. I would not dare waste the one time i get to live on materialistic values and things prercisely because I know when I die thats it- show over.I'm sure people of faith do a lot of these same things even though they feel they are going to live for an eternity, in the spirit.I think all of us know that even if we think we are going to some other world when we die this is the only time we will be here and experience these things.

  • ez2b12

    That sounded wierd, I don't cry when i study philosophy or science- just when I see certain scenes in certain movies- yall know what I meant right?

  • ez2b12

    @ D-K

    I somewhat understnd how the physical structures cam to be. I am no bio-chemist by a long shot though and am not claiming that i understand the details as it seems you do. I wonder if you have any theories on how that physical structure first aquired consciousness. Or where consciousness really resides, what physical systems in the body comprise/control it?I take consciousness to mean the recognition of yourself as a seperate independant entity and all that follows this revelation.You are a very interesting person to listen to, I don't mean to put you on the spot though. You may be busy or just not feel like going into it- if so i understand. Anyone may reply that feels like it, even you I love myself (lets call a truce man).

    @ Ilovemyself

    I know my post above sounded very condescending but, I was seriouse in a way. I'm sure you don't need medicine but that is a very restricted and unhealthy view in my opinion. To each his own I guess, it is just offensive to be told that you heart is worthless because you do not believe in the christian god.I can live with it though, no biggie i guess.

  • Reasons Voice

    @D-K: Surprisingly I do know a bit on organic chem also atomic physics. And perhaps we could one day know the factors involved in creating life from inorganic materials. But until that day come and man creates life from nothingness I like to believe in some amazing act of genesis (not biblical genesis guys). To me, having a sense that there is a "divine spark" or "spark of life" within myself and everyone else is a pleasant idea. Heck I may be wrong but i can live with not always being right.

  • Reasons Voice

    @ez2b12: Great comment man! I think I may have phrased wrong in a way. When I said materialistic I did not mean in the typical monetary/greed sense but in the material=tangible ans opposed to spiritual sense. By no means a criticism or implication of shallowness. My beliefs tell me that any man can achieve a sort of spiritualism even without any form of theism. Before there was an idea of god there had to be a feeling that created a need for god. I think that a form of enlightenment dwells in all people and can be reached by many means. Since most atheists I know are deep thinkers they are probably quite likely to experience such epiphany.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ez2b12

    "can’t believe this guy, you all know who i mean.Not only is saying that following your heart (conscience) is alright for him but not me but, he thinks only christians have a conscience worth listening to."

    -- Where did I say this?? I never said following the "heart" is alright for me but not for you! And I never said "only christians have a conscience worth listening to"!

    Again: If you believe morality is subjective, then you already believe that following "the heart" will not in any way bring you to any form of objectivity! And I said that in my worldview, Christians, Muslims, and Atheists are all the same in their capabilities as moral agents because they are all made in the image and likeness of God! I have always been saying that Everyone can be moral whatever the belief. If you change the worldview, you change the logical conclusion.

    This is the problem with you! No offense, but you cannot and have not been able to follow. Read what I said, and if you are able to prove I've been saying otherwise, I will concede defeat.

  • joe

    theres a big differebce between creator and creation all creation has a creator,you can build a toy truck and understand all its working but that truck can not understand you,rhis is the realation between the host and god so dumb with all it science science can hekp you unferstand its creator theres a great mind behind it all

  • Achems Razor

    @Ilove myself:

    You are a hoot! made in the image and likeness of God? Do you mean us little white boys? or are you referring to the source of man, out of Africa? Where we all originated.

  • D-K

    @Ilovemyself:

    You realize you skipped a bunch of comments by replying to his, don't you? Do you concede or are you working on a retort?

  • Charles B.

    Razor: "Created in the image of God" refers to our moral understanding and I believer our eteranl soul. It matters not our sex or physical characteristics.

    Peace to you.

  • D-K

    @Epicurus: While Abiogenesis seems viable, some questions do arise. Mind you, I haven't given this my full attention, and I'm going mostly on the tube and what basic information I already had on abiogenesis.

    The spontaneous forming of vesicles, to later incorporate the fatty acids are said to produce at a marked PH value. Current experiments can in fact create vesicles akin to those prevalent in the pre-biotic environment Now my question is this, if vesicles form at a PH level ranging from 3 to 6, how would the be able to function in a ph level of 8 (ph value of pro-biotic oceans)?

  • Gunnar Reiersen

    That was an excellent documentary. It did a good job of pointing out the fallacies and outright dishonesty of creationist arguments against evolution. As it clearly pointed out, evolution is a fact, like it or not. The Theory of Evolution is scientists' best effort to explain that fact and determine the precise mechanisms that drive it and make it possible. Religionists had better hope that the fact of evolution does not preclude the existence of God, because if that were true, then there IS no God!

  • D-K

    @Gunnar: Evolution is compatible with deism.. But I guess that'd count as "there IS no God!" so there really isn't a point to stating this.

    I'm still going to, though.

    *click*

  • Achems Razor

    @Charles B:

    What moral understanding and belief in the eternal soul could cave men and men preceding that possibly have?? Unless you believe in the 6000 year Earth?

  • ez2b12

    @ Ilovemyselfandrefusetostopargueing

    you said "– I didn’t agree with you about anything.
    Yes this is clear. Even after I apologise and extend an olive branch you want to argue.

    You said: "And “following your heart” is NOT “good” if you already believe from the onset that morality is relative/subjective."

    Earlier you argued that atheism would lead to a subjective morality, it then follows that it would not be o.k. for atheists to follow thier heart. I think I follow just fine. Others have also made the comment that you are either intentionally confusing or just plain wrong.

    You said: "If you believe that God created us in his image and likeness, then “following your heart” may not always be good, but the knowledge that you have it in you to make the right decision does matter."

    Notice the words "the knowledge that you have it in you". I assume you are talking about the knowledge that you have god in you means you will make correct moral choices. If this is not what you mean then please clear it up as I think anyone would think that is what you said.

    I do not want you to admit defeat by the way. I wanted you to stop feeling persecuted so you would stop trying to argue with me. I will apologize again, not for you but for me. I am usually not an arguementative or militant anything and this is getting exhausting. I will referr you to my post above to address your remark about atheists becoming materialistic.

    If I have misunderstood you it is because your arguements have been really heated and spent so much time insulting that you had little room for actuall content. It wasn't just me that needed clarification, does this tell you anything.

  • D-K

    @ez2b12:

    I'm not touching consiousness yet, at this point it's all synapses, neuroconnections and bio-electrics to me.

    I need to have a good long think before I go out on a limb.

  • ez2b12

    @ D-K

    I understand, not even the experts have a grip on consiousness yet. I think it is a very interesting subject myself but hardly anyone studies it- well no one that i ever hear anything from. I like to watch TED talks and David Lynch did a really good one on consiousness. He doesn't attempt to explain what it is or where it comes from but he did experiments with how it effects our preception of the outside physical world. It is amazing stuff.

    Apparently our consiousness kind of fills in the blanks when we look at something physical. For instance, if you draw a very common symbol, like the star of david maybe, and leave out one or two lines. Your consiousness will fill in the blanks and you will actually see a very faint line where thier is nothing.He had all kinds of examples and tricks for the audience, you should check it out if your interested.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ez2b12

    I already offered you an olive branch way up, but you poked yourself in the eye with it.

    I won't get into what you said anymore. Let me just clarify myself to you, and assert that this is what I've been saying

    (If you can prove I was saying otherwise, I will concede defeat, just as I have done many times in the past and on this very site.)

    No, I do NOT think atheists are immoral. No I do not think Christians are the only ones capable of morality. We are all the same. But what I believe (and please don't try and refute this anymore, unless you want the discussion to go on further. I KNOW you don't agree and probably have very persuasive arguments up your sleeve) is that on the atheist worldview, morality has no solid foundation, and therefore in adopting a militant stance, he will be very dangerous.

    Now allow me to thank you for putting up with me. I enjoyed this rather vitriolic exchange.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ Achems

    "You are a hoot! made in the image and likeness of God? Do you mean us little white boys? or are you referring to the source of man, out of Africa? Where we all originated."

    -- I'm a little Brazilian-Asian boy. Let's not go this route. This will bring us to the topic of the existence of God, which has been debated here ad nauseam.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ D-K

    Please give me some time. You do know that I'm outnumbered here. I haven't conceded.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ eireannsuck6969

    "First of all you make the huge assumption that atheists are materialistic, which is wrong for sure. In fact I’d say a little bit of everyone is. Its what drives the economy "

    -- I was pertaining to philosophical materialism. Genius.

  • D-K

    Very well, take your time.

  • ez2b12

    @ Ilovemyself

    I think you meant to say "...the knowledge that you have it "within" you..." That kind of changes your statement but not really. You are still at least insinuating that the knowledge that you have a good moral compass is somehow connected to knowing, "...God created us in his image and likeness,..." This is not the case at all. Even if you follow your logic and say we are all created in the likeness of god, knowledge of this simularity or likeness is not prerequisite to using the abilities you claim he instilled in us. Why would it be?

    Can you explain the mechanics of that? That is to say when I start knowing that I am created in his image, what changes in my brain or body to all the sudden release the huge store of moral fortitude? Are you really sayig that morality is not relative? Meaning that it has nothing to do with the situation at hand or the consequences of your actions? If it does depend on these things then it is relative, as these variables change with time, location, and many other factors. You can't have it both ways, either God is dictating your morality or you are making your own decisions. You seem to want to say it is both ways as you say it is not relative or subjective but then you say it is not dictated or set in stone.

    The definition of objective- undistorted by emotion or personal bias. I wouldn't think this is what anyone would want morality to be, undistorted by emotion. My emotions or the way i feel, guilt to be exact is what tells me what is moral ands what is not. Therefore emotions are definetly envolved and morality has to be subjective. Yes you may have emotions that push you in the wrong direction but you also have emotions that push you in the right direction- guilt, compassion, love, etc., etc. Do you really want to remove these emotions from your moral compass? I hope not, I hope you where just mistaken about the definition of objective.

  • over the edge

    @ ilovemyself
    you seem only to be interested in arguing opinion. you said the "gospels are evidence" and to prove them "unreliable". Myself and others have done that with no response from you. I just reread all the posts (man bob was angry sorry off topic). you have claimed to have evidence but never gave it , used quotes as if to say look someone else's opinion is the same as mine so i must be right. you made conclusions about morality but provided no actual facts. now i am not trying to say you are wrong in your opinions i prefer to argue facts so please provide some and if i disagree i will do my best to refute them.
    p.s if you are going to site Ehrman i can as well" At least 19 of the 27 books in the New Testament are forgeries" in a statement to CNN

  • ez2b12

    We posted at the same time, sorry. I promise I am not trying to get nothing going with you. Thanks for your civility and have a nice day.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @Insomniac

    "I have a book here that speaks of a King Arthur. The era kinda fits and England does exist…I guess so did he. And btw citing someones opinion is not and has never been proof of anything whatsoever."

    -- Your book that speaks of King Arthur, what kind of manuscript is it? It's Fiction. Don't you think there are distinctions between biographies and fictional manuscripts? Don't you think historians are able to put manuscripts into categories based on their content? Don't you think that if a manuscript has certain elements, historians will be able to say "Ah, this is a biography". What's that? Oh that's right, 12 yr olds don't know such things.

    And an opinion of someone who studied something extensively does matter and it IS evidence. Depending on what was said, and who's saying it can we then dispute whether it is strong or weak evidence.

    "SOME people believe it was inspired by God while OTHERS believe it is the actual word of God. I did not say God wrote the bible and dropped it from the sky. That was an obvious vulgarisation of many peoples ACTUAL beliefs."

    -- By the SAME TOKEN, when they say it is the word of God, they really mean it was inspired by God. Why would God write the names of Bible authors on something He himself wrote?! Obviously, people believe He inspired them to write such things. Do you have to take things so literally!? Oh right, you're 12, good job slugger.

    "It wouldn’t be embarassing for me. You haven’t made any sense at any point in your argument so far as I can tell."

    -- Doesn't seem you are able to tell anything from anything.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ over the edge

    I am not avoiding you or your queries. There is just a lot of people who I want to answer first, since they engaged me first.

    The Bart Ehrman thing was simply to show that the gospels and ancient manuscripts are good evidence that Jesus was an actual man that lived -- I'm not arguing that these Gospels and manuscripts prove Jesus is God and has resurrected from the dead. I'm taking it one at a time.

  • over the edge

    @ ilovemyself
    fair enough

  • ez2b12

    @ over the edge

    Yeah Bob was hot wasn't he. I thought it was kind of sad really, he seemed so angry and upset. I agree with you, someones opinion is just that an opinion. Ilovemyself doesn't value my opinions and I studied theology for five years, not claiming to be an expert or anything. I am just saying it looks as if opinions he agrees with are evidence to him but the ones he doesn't agree with aren't. I don't know how to say that without it sounding arguementative or unsulting- if I did I would say it that way. I am not an arguementative guy but I have to state what i believe and what things appear to be to me. In other words I am not trying to get another fight going Ilovemyself, just stating my "opinion".

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ ez2b12

    Someones opinion IS just an opinion. But if most people who studied the matter extensively, converge on the conclusion that there is good evidence that Jesus was an actual man that lived, then it does matter. Even a lot of atheist, or Jewish bible scholars agree on this. Obviously they don't believe in the divinity of Jesus, but that's beside the point.

    If you do not agree with the opinion of these people, then you're just asking others to rely on your gut. Who knows, you may be right, but it would be completely irrational to take your side in this instance.

    Let's forget about the virgin birth or the resurrection, the contention was if Jesus was an actual man that lived. And I assert that an overwhelming majority of scholars think so. This would be VERY VERY easy to confirm through google. And I don't think giving out names will be of any use, since you will just, once more, say "that's only his opinion, opinions don't matter..etc"

  • Achems Razor

    @iloveme:

    Still waiting for evidence of the Big JC existing, Just because you assert that an overwhelming, probably "biased" scholars agree, is no evidence at all, (Moot) The crux of the matter should be, irrefutable proof. Otherwise everybody is just talking in the wind.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ Vlatko

    "This is why I mentioned the 2000 years period but you seem to jump strait into the future. If we judge from the past, Religion brought really nasty stuff to humanity. Religion brought segregation, wars, slavery and was a great hindrance to scientific and technological development."

    -- I can cite historical evidence, but I think that would be a bit disingenuous; atheists today are different. In the past, you could have been an atheist and a believer in ghosts. Modern day atheists hold these beliefs because of a strong bent toward scientism. I could cite Stallin, Mao or PolPot, as there are some obvious similarities --but I don't think their atheism stems from scientism.

    And those atrocities you cite have very secular underpinnings. Justifying evil with religion has always been an excellent strategy, precisely because religion has always been seen as a good.

    "And with those facts in hands SO FAR Theism is not carrying more objective/subjective morality than Atheism or Militant Atheism. That was if we’re judging from the past."

    -- I think it will be futile to judge from the past, because all moral systems have been developed in the context of theism. When you remove this theistic perspective, the foundations for these moral systems will erode. New foundations, based upon a materialist worldview, would have to be erected. And I am arguing that this will be dangerous.

    "Now you argue that since Science equals man with animals and in future societies that lean to this will not value human life. I’m wondering how did you formed this opinion? "

    -- You just answered your own question: "will not value human life. I’m wondering how did you formed this opinion? " With your first statement: "you argue that since Science equals man with animals".
    Do you think people value the lives of animals? Maybe some do. But when we equate humans with animals, don't you think humans will necessarily be undervalued? Or will you argue that animals will now be valued more?

    "I think Science takes care and values human life and animals more than Religion does and ever will, if we follow worldview to it’s logical conclusion."

    -- Show me how.

    "Your argument only shows the stand of Religion as is: “Humans are superior over animals thus Human life has to be valued”, which is wrong."

    -- And yours is "Humans are animals", therefore O.K. to eat? If we do not value animals, and humans are just animals, why should we value humans?

    "Now you want Christian Fundamentalist to be equaled with Jesus himself and the fact is that there isn’t such a person. Basically you ask how can any person who honestly believes in Christ (who supposedly sheared love and compassion) be worse than a man who thinks that animals and humans are the same?"

    -- I don't agree with the grammar of this. But I take that you're saying that I'm wrong in requiring real Christians to be followers of Christ. Which I find odd. And I do believe that although Christian fundamentalism would be bad, it won't be as bad as atheist fundamentalism.

    "See… most of the eastern religions do not treat animals nor plants as something separate from humans. They put almost the same value on every leaving creature as on humans.. (and more comparisons of Christianity to other religions, as to imply that Christians are not morally superior)"

    -- I never said Christians are morally superior to other people who hold other beliefs. And other religions can still argue for moral objectivity. Buddhism still believes in a moral realm that transcends the material (karma, reincarnation, etc.). Therefore they are completely different from a worldview that holds morality to be socio-biological spinoffs.

    "Easterners say everything is connected and man has to show compassion to all life forms on earth. Jainism goes even further"

    -- Again I wasn't arguing Christian morals are better than other religion's morals.

    "See.. it is not only about Militant Atheism nor Fundamentalist Christianity. You can argue whole day who is more dangerous."

    -- I haven't seen any argument from you as to why it isn't more dangerous.

    "You have to understand that there are lot of other people who live in this world. They don’t believe in Jesus, they equal humans and animals, and still they have high moral values. And they live for centuries with this attitude."

    -- Never said that belief in Jesus is required for someone to be moral.

  • D-K

    @AR: Well to be fair, there aren't that much historical figures that have left irrefutable proof of their existance.

    On the other hand, the story of Hercules/Herakles is comparable to Jesus in a very large number of ways. From gospels to teachings to myths and stories of greatness, the divine aspect and many more characteristics. Interesting about his story is that he indeed existed, and the divinity ascribed to him followed his various exploits. What this means is that through inhuman-seeming achievements, he reached an inhuman status, as described by the revering populace. He became more than man, but only by the mind of man.

    One could argue it's quite likely that the story of Jesus has succumb to similar embelishments. This of course opens up a plethora of extrapolations, implications and side-roads, but I just thought it worth mentioning.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ Achems

    "Still waiting for evidence of the Big JC existing, Just because you assert that an overwhelming, probably “biased” scholars agree, is no evidence at all, (Moot) The crux of the matter should be, irrefutable proof. Otherwise everybody is just talking in the wind."

    -- How do you know Homer, Socrates, Buddha existed? From scholars right? Or have you seen the evidence of them having existed? Didn't think so.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @D-K

    Well, I'm tired. And since your response seems like the most weighty one at the moment. It's best to leave it for tomorrow with a well-rested mind.

  • Achems Razor

    @iloveme:

    Is that the best you can do? that was already covered here in these comments, I rest my case.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ Achems

    O.K. so you think it doesn't matter whether scholars form beliefs based on what they have been extensively studying. And people would be better off trusting your gut, when deciding on who's opinion matters.

    You don't have to rest your case, seems it's already dead.

  • Achems Razor

    @ilove myself:

    Well, you said it,"formulating beliefs" that is all it is, is "beliefs"!

    I do not trust any-body's gut, but only empirical evidence!

  • Reasons Voice

    @D-K: That was my point exactly! Quite similar to Hercules stories. Most likely what we have now is embelished stories of a simple man who did some things that made him stand out. I don't believe that divinity was ascribed to him while he was alive but after the fact both out of awe of what he taught and to give him more weight to the masses. In short just a great philosopher and teacher of social moralities.

  • Reasons Voice

    @ Achems: I see where you are coming from and yet 2000 years from now there may be absolutely no empirical evidence of you or I. And yet here we are.

  • Achems Razor

    @D-K:

    Exactly, plus all the other..."16 crucified saviours other than Christ"
    I have included as above...on 09/03 2010 at 02:08

  • Reasons Voice

    I just find it easier to believe that what we have now is an exagerated account of an actual man than a complete fabrication. I think that because it better explains the spontaneous arrival of many many stories in relation to this one man from numerous sources.

  • Achems Razor

    @Reasons Voice:

    You are right, only if we make an impact, like the supposedly JC made etc: then there should be evidence. No?

  • coyote03

    There is no historical proof of the Buddha's (an enlightened being) existence, I'd contend he's just as historically real as Jesus or Moses. While the proof of Homer's and Socrates existence was in their writings that they themselves did or were written by those who actually knew them. Socrates is mentioned in other texts from that era, his student Plato wrote down everything his teacher taught him. There are also records talking of Socrates' death. Even if Socrates himself was not real (just a pen name perhaps for Plato's own views), the writings on philosophy proved the existence of someone very intelligent right around his supposed lifetime. There aren't 30 different stories of the life of Socrates, there is generally but one account verified by all sources. Jesus however has many different stories about his origin, divinity, etc. bringing into question the whole validity, authenticity and purpose of the story.

    To accurately say someone existed you need lots of evidence, people such as Alexander the Great, Ramesses II, and other leaders have architecture, carvings, etc. during their lifetime all corroborating they in fact lived. The lives of Socrates and Homer are more verifiable then Jesus and Buddha, simply due to the nature of who they were. Divine beings are impossible to verify as really having existed because their religious followers use faith, not reason. There is no purpose in making up that Socrates or Homer existed, whereas making up the stories of Jesus and Buddha provides ground for doing what one wants in the name of or search for a higher power. Their may have been real life persons that went by the name of Socrates, Homer, Buddha (Siddharta Guatama), and Jesus who in fact believed and wrote the works we ascribe to them, however to claim any divine attributes is impossible to verify.

  • Reasons Voice

    That depends Achems. Evidence such as what? Statues of us? Paintings? The nature of the man himself precludes such things since he was not a conquerer who had the power to have such things made. Our evidence of the existence of men like Alexander are based on written account as well as statues and cities named after him etc. However he was a military ruler that could command these things be built. Jesus by all accounts was a humble man. Yes he was a figure that made impact. I believe that the sudden arrival of a faith based around his teachings is evidence. If it were not for European American people writing and depicting a figure such as say Sitting Bull what evidence of his existence would we have? Only the oral traditions of his followers and they were persecuted much as the early disciples of Christianity were.

  • D-K

    Without a tangible form, you can't relate to god as an individual.. You need an example, which is where jesus comes in.

    That's why living according to Christ, is to act godly/as god intended. Without tangible objects that depict, or relate to, divinity, God dies. On the one hand you can't know god, can't understand god, but on the other hand you rely on him for guidance and try to live according to his way.

    Not specifically directed at anyone, just thinking aloud, sorta.

  • Reasons Voice

    @coyote: See my response to Achems. Men like Ramses and Alexander had monuments and statues etc. erected of themselves because the could do so. If one looks at the story of Jesus in general, he was simply a moral philosopher to a conquered people. Those people who knew him were simple peasant class not scholars and artisans. And even if they had been erecting a monument to him at the time would have been tantamout to suicide by legionaire. Where as refusal of a sculptor or architect to build for Alexander or ramses would have gotten them killed. See the difference there. And as for Socrates he was educated as were his followers so therefore it is natural that more documentation was done. I think that there is room for doubt of course there is. But 30-50 years is not a long span to hold oral tradition before written text.
    A great example would be the Norse legends. Such as Erik the Red, Lief Erikson etc. The Sagas as they are called were not written anywhere near the time of the life of those depicted and yet those men did exist and other evidences have been found to substatiate them. Those men lived is a similar culture of nomads and herders with no formal education. and similarly their stories were exagerated by those telling them. And yet the men themselves did indeed exist.

  • Reasons Voice

    @D-K: To me applying an esoteric view to these theories gives it form. If God is the essence of life all those with life are it's offspring. Thus son of god and his "brothers and sisters". It is a statement of the indevidual carrying a small spark of the life essence that is "god". By that reasoning we find a unity between most if not all religions. I am scientific minded so I apply my type of reasoning to most religious texts. I know more about the bible than any other so will give example from that. Adam and Eve, No i do not believe we all came from two people in a garden. I simple insert more rational subjects. Adam=Atom/mater Eve=life God=time garden=primordial ooze or the place where all the needed events and materials are needed to spawn. By this reasoning Matter in the ideal surroundings first begets life thus the genesis of life. As to the tree of wisdom I liken that to the advent of conciousness which expelled us into a more complex world. That reduces what on the surface is a ridiculous theory of creation to an allegory for complex scientific processes unknown to the writers of the texts.

  • ez2b12

    @ Ilovemyself

    Once again we arrive at basically the same place, we do agree on a lot after all. You are basically saying, "No I can't prove it but thier is a lot of circumstantial evidence for his existance." I will totally agree with you on this, but we still should not treat it as a given fact- unless our purpose is faith. Right now our purpose is to disscuss religion and morality, not to maintaine faith.

    Now to get back to what we where really disscussing, wether morality is subjective/relative or objective. I have already gave the definition of objective- not distorted by emotions or personal bias. I noticed you never responded to this and still maintain, through your silence, that objective morality is somehow a good thing or even possible. My question was and still is, do you want to remove all emotions from moral decision making?

    I think that would be a catastrophe. Like I said it is emotions, guilt, shame, love, sympathy, etc., etc. that are the main factors in moral decisions. I would only replace these emotions with scientific facts when the moral question at hand is so complicated and multi-faceted that it is impossible for the average joe to make an informed decision. And really the science in this case only provides the factors that help shape, along with your emotions or feelings, your final moral choice on the matter. In both cases it has to envolve your emotions and is therefore by definition subjective or relative.

    You scoffed at my example about the guy having to steal a pill for his wife to live, why? This is an excellent example of how our emotions and the factors surrounding the decision make it subjective and relative to cirumstances.A subjective morality changes with the amount of knowledge that is available concerning the decision to be made, this is a good thing. If morality where objective we would still burn witches at the stake, behead criminals, and stone adulteres. This is not a moral society, it is one that is stuck in an objective morality.

    A subjective morality that tries to look at things objectively when gathering the factors that will influence the final decision is ideal. But this does not mean that morality should be objective, only the method for gathering data that influences the subjective decision. This may seem to be slicing things very thin but such is the nature of a complex idea such as morality.

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    What a vague response @ilovemyselfmorethani. Your arguments always start with: I didn't say that, I never said, wasn't arguing... etc. Well maybe I was expecting too much from you.

    No wonder people can't find the right answer for you since they can't understand what are you actually trying to say.

    Number of people tried to respond with vast elaborations on what you've said and you just respond with one or two sentences blatantly disregarding their massive arguments.

    And now with your comment:

    "I can cite historical evidence, but I think that would be a bit disingenuous; atheists today are different. In the past, you could have been an atheist and a believer in ghosts. Modern day atheists hold these beliefs because of a strong bent toward scientism. I could cite Stallin, Mao or PolPot, as there are some obvious similarities –but I don’t think their atheism stems from scientism."

    It is clear that there were no atheists in the past in the same fashion as they are now. I never said that, so I don't know why are you bringing that up. The past is important to tell as how Theism and Christ believers (fundamental or not) were behaving through the centuries. Mostly badly.

    "And those atrocities you cite have very secular underpinnings. Justifying evil with religion has always been an excellent strategy, precisely because religion has always been seen as a good."

    Those atrocities have all sorts of underpinnings. Economical, social, secular, territorial etc., but the religious component is the momentum and main reason. And it is only your opinion that organized religion was seen as good. I say it never was. Not after the Spanish Inquisition at least.

    "I think it will be futile to judge from the past, because all moral systems have been developed in the context of theism."

    If you think that it's futile to judge from the past how did you come up with this: "When you remove this theistic perspective, the foundations for these moral systems will erode."

    Again this is only your speculation based on thin air. You're refusing to take data from the past or the present but you're extrapolating predictions.

    New foundations, based upon a materialist worldview, would have to be erected. And I am arguing that this will be dangerous."

    You haven't seen modern atheism in action so far so you can't really form an opinion how it will behave in the future. The whole thing you trying to say is only one big assumption.

    Do you think people value the lives of animals? Maybe some do. But when we equate humans with animals, don’t you think humans will necessarily be undervalued? Or will you argue that animals will now be valued more?

    Equating people with animals doesn't mean undervaluing people nor overvaluing animals. Reread my previous comment. Only Abrahamic religions put enormous emphasis on man. Everyone else is doing fine without putting man on pedestal. Atheists included.

    "Show me how science takes care and values human life and animals more than Religion does and ever will, if we follow worldview to it’s logical conclusion."

    I've showed you in my previous comment. Reread it again. Look into Medicine, Social Sciences, Technology in general. Now you show me how Religion is taking care and values human life more than science. With prayer?

    "And I do believe that although Christian fundamentalism would be bad, it won’t be as bad as atheist fundamentalism."

    Yes that is only your belief. Show me some supportive clues why you think so. Ah yes... morality comes from the ten commandments and the teaching of Jesus and since atheists don't believe in that we are doomed.

    "I never said Christians are morally superior to other people who hold other beliefs. And other religions can still argue for moral objectivity. Buddhism still believes in a moral realm that transcends the material (karma, reincarnation, etc.). Therefore they are completely different from a worldview that holds morality to be socio-biological spinoffs."

    No you didn't. I was trying to show you that there are people out-there who don't believe in Jesus and they are doing fine for centuries. Buddhism believes in a moral realm but has no strict moral guidelines as Christianity which makes it perfect example here. It is a nihilist system in essence, that's why a brought it up. There is no soul, no God, no afterlife, nothing. And they are still good. Better than ever in fact.

    "Never said that belief in Jesus is required for someone to be moral."

    Not directly. But you are "true" follower of Jesus and would be extremely odd if you disrespect your God that way.

  • Reasons Voice

    @ez2b12: When dealing with morality yes ideally subjective morality would work. However that is allowing for all people to have similar if not identical moral baselines. In the real world we have to account for divergence from the norm. A serial rapist may well feel that what they do is ok, the same goes for a pedophile. We need to have some subjective morality to keep that type from harming the rest. Thus we have laws and moral codes of ethics etc. If you sat down and listened to a rapist speak about their crime I am sure they could give you many subjective excuses for what they did (the way she was dressed, she was all over me, a man has needs) That does not excuse his actions. The need for an element of subjectivity is due to the fact that one mans actions do not only effect themselves.

  • Achems Razor

    Does anybody really think it would matter in the grand scheme of things if the Human race became extinct? Our if the Earth suddenly vanished?

    It never ceases to amaze me how the religious seem to think everything was made for us humans. Humans who have only been here in the time span of things like the flicker of a hydrogen atom colliding with an ion. Our little tiny blue dot of a planet almost becomes invisible compared to the size and vastness of space, hardly little more that a pixel. "Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark".(Carl Sagan) We are like the water vapour on a glass, one swipe and then we are gone.

    And then some Humans have the arrogance to assume that from our almost invisible perch in the cosmos, everything revolves around us.
    That we have an exclusive pipeline to a god or gods.

    To put this into perspective watch...youtube-Pale blue Dot...it is only 4:02 minutes long.

    Just saying.

  • coyote03

    @ Reasons Voice - I get what you're saying, but Erik the Red can be confirmed because we have oral stories that can be collaborated by historical evidence as you said. While there is evidence such as the fact that people in the time of Jesus were crucified, there is no actual records or physical evidence he ever lived or was more then just a story. Then add on top of that claims of the divine, and it becomes near impossible to verify any claims of his existence whatsoever. And yes, 30-50 years is not that long of a time to hold a verbal legend. Which is why the incredible inconsistencies in the many different gospels about Jesus' life are quite shocking! They differ on whether or not he was man, god, divine son, holy trinity, and many many many more details including his personal life.

    This is just an idea I'm throwing out there: The story of Jesus could be a tale started by the Jewish people in 70 CE or so. All of the gospels in the Bible were written around this time (65-100 CE) Around this time they were expelled from the holy land, a new story/religion would be the perfect thing to explain what was happening as it would have seemed to them that god was abandoning them. So rather then abandon the old religion completely, add something new that already has similarities in other cultures of the time. Just my own opinion :)

  • Caedus

    So, I've been lurking on this site for some time without posting regularly but this documentary actually made me smile. I see so much ignorance in the people around me, because I live in the bible belt of America, and so I am so used to being disparaged by my interactions with normal people. Seeing this documentary made by a regular person on youtube actually gave me hope that there are other intelligent people who live in America. Others whom I respect and have watched from the shadows on this site are Achems Razor, Epicurus, Reasons Voice, and Insomniac. Your thought provoking comments and well argued points have inspired me to take heart in that there are other humans out there that think and look at everything with a critical eye. Keep up the good work guys and I'll probably start adding my two cents worth of thoughts when creationists and other i@#$%& I've seen on this site rear their uninformed heads.

  • Achems Razor

    @Vlatko:

    Yes, thank you Vlatko, highly recommended to watch full version on TDF.

  • over the edge

    @ achems
    carl is the man great suggestion. in my observation of people (20+ years bar tending) most people don't see beyond their own little world and if we are forced to we feel very small. I believe that is one of the lures of religion to feel connected to something bigger then ourselves and part of the vastness.

  • ez2b12

    @ Reasons voice

    I'm not sure what you are saying that I am not. I am saying that all morality is subjective in the end. Yes we may weigh objective facts, but the final decision is subjective. Of course that doesn't mean that we don't have people that clearly have some type of mental disorder- like a rapist. Surely you know that i wasn't saying these people are right for what they do because thier heart tells them so. I was saying that they listen to thier conciouseness just like the rest of us, wether that is good or bad. What you say only proves that once again all morality is subjective, even when that subjectivity tells us to do something really bad that may get us killed or put in jail- we do it anyway most of the time.

    The differnece between most people and a rapist is not that we restrain ourselves, it is that our conciouseness tells us that rape is wrong and detrimental to society. We act accordingly and do not rape. We can always find exeptions to the rule, just as I can show you horrible consequences to objective morality you can do the same for subjective morality. But i feel that none the less all morality is subjective in reality- wether we like it or not. And I for one think that works best, the system that provides for the least amount of immoral actions.

  • D-K

    I made a thread on morality on a different forum, the discussion grew quite large as I was effectively discussing with 10-15 people for about 8 pages. I'll give you my opening comment in that thread, because it's relevant here.

    Man needs morality, morality simply means rules.. rules that create restraints on pleasure to maximize probability of comfortable coexistence.

    It is this restraint, that limits the human quest for pleasure, to indulge our senses with positive impulses/influences, and it’s this inherent limitation that leads us to sacrifice personal gain for the greater good, the greater good being human evolution/progression. Our instincts may tell us to avoid pain, stress, conflictive situations, and confrontation in order to maximize pleasure, yet morality often flies right in the face of this, and pressures us to choose a route of more resistance, in order to be morally sound/righteous. Religion propagates morality, morality sustains society, society sustains and propagates progression, so far so good. Now let us examine morals themselves:

    Morals are by nature notions supported by emotional reasoning, often referred to as “the right thing to do” in cases where a human must decide to act on instinct or morality. I’ll add an example to simplify my point so that I don’t end up typing for 2 straight hours;

    You see a homeless man fall into a river, he cannot swim. Several equations (presumably) run through your mind at this point; “Should I save him” “What if I drown” “What if I get sick from the cold” “What if mouth-to-mouth ends up in me catching one of his diseases” “What if someone steals my phone and wallet while I’m saving this jerk who had the nerve to skip on swimming lessons as a child”

    Basically, your instinct tells you to let the id*ot drown, or to let someone else be a hero, it is morality that leads to you making the illogical decision to save him. This could result in the “hero” having to live with any of the consequences he considered, let’s say that he caught herpes in this example. Horrible, horrible face AND genital herpes (oh yes, piling it on) which results in the our poor hero finding it less likely to find a suitable mate to pass on his otherwise fine genes. This is an example out of 1000s of other (better) examples that illustrate how morality adversely effects human progression. The strong saving the weak is the actual opposite of say, natural selection, it is illogical, it is quite frankly, insane.

    Seeing as how morality is rooted in religion, and religion in itself does not advocate human progression, morality has been split off from religion. No longer does one have to be religious to be moral/righteous, yet the same negative consequences remain. Morals hamper and slow down human progression, example:

    Stem cells are a revolutionary breakthrough in medical science, they have the ability to improve overall quality of life, and to better our bodies that are riddled with genetic imperfections. Morality forces us to see it as wrong, immoral, bad, evil, but why?

    To recycle men and woman (once passed on) or unwanted fetuses makes perfect logical sense. We shouldn’t simply discard that which is useless, we should make it into something useful. Everywhere around the world, recycling is perfectly moral behavior, yet when it comes to humans, where it could have actual profound effects, it is considered immoral. It’s these inconsistencies, these emotional arguments that defeat the purpose of morality.. the purpose being to better the state of the entire species. It is the inherent flawed emotional reasoning that limits morality to attain the function it should have. It has been freed from religion, there is no voice guiding what is moral or immoral, there is no fixed pattern, no structure, it is RANDOM.

    With quantum computing and sub-atomic manipulation and gene-restructuring peeking around the corner, wouldn’t it be wise to have a societal frame of reference that is logical? Wouldn’t it be in the best interest of the species to make choices that are based on what is in the best interest of our species? Reinstating natural selection might be a bit harsh and unnecessary, but our moral system should at least be up to code when we’re on the verge of being capable to wield magnificent (godlike) powers. To be able to manipulate matter at a fundamental level is to be virtually omnipotent, and as our society is heading in that direction, I think our moral system could use a thorough re-evaluation

  • Achems Razor

    @over the edge:

    You are right, most people do not see beyond "there" little world. Especially beyond "our" little world, our little planet the Earth, into the vastness of the cosmos.

    And yes, most people seem to need a crutch, so some do lean to the greatest "story" ever told, per religion.

  • Reasons Voice

    @ez2b12: I think we are saying the same thing just with differing phraseology.
    @D-K: Perhaps in some ways morality can hamper human progress but not all progress is good. To your example of stem cell research I believe ignorance plays a roll. Banning all research is stupid in the extreme. Plenty of stem cells can be harvested from both the umbilicus and placenta both of which are discarded after each and every birth. As to fetus harvest, Inevitably people will have abortions and that being the case harvest should be allowed. But I feel restrictions should remain because if there are no restrictions people will become fetus farms for money. To me that is appalling. This is not because I overvalue human life but value all life. No species would ever engage in deliberate conception and abortion for some sort of gain, without having lost all moral fiber.

  • eireannach666

    @Achems

    Just sayin, Carl Sagan.

    Ahh yes. I have to agree with you there. Too often people think of our earth as the center of cosmic attention. Like the universe is somehow really giving a s+*# about our planet or ourselves. We are but one of the largest minorities in the universe right along with our planet and all its inhabitants. Right up to the molecules of the air we breathe amd the water we need to even exist.

    Like we have discussed before and as Sagan so simply put it before, we are nothing but star stuff, a chance meeting of matters. A random mathematically inevitable meeting of matter and anti-matter that just so happened here on this rock in this solar syatem instead of some other place on the vast cosmos.

    If we went extinct another species would just move right on in to take our place. We aren't even the dominate beings on the planet no in numbers or adaptability. And really its only a matter of time before we and perhaps everything on or including this rock cease to be. Heck there have been mass extinctions on this planet before and it won't be the last. So enjoy it while you can people. There are more than one natural way in which this rock could become as void and desolate as anyother planet around us. Not to mention the unnatural ways but that's a different topic.

    You think hed would save us from extinction? Why didn't he save all the other species on this planet that went? I mean what is the to your gid, a large living etch-a-sketch , where he just shakes it up and starts over? And if he was going to kill off some species and leave the rest deemed worthy why didn't he get rid of the HIV virus' or at least influenza. I mean this isn't the work of supreme divinity. More like an office temp with a bad attitude. Either there is no god or he doesn't care about you any more and has since moved on.

    Its funny that the fact of being so obsolete in the sceme of things scares someone enough to still believe in the god made up to explain the thing we have since proven not made by god bu natural circumstances.

  • Reasons Voice

    I think the greatest flaw in any theism or atheism in some forms is to assume that a God if there is one should give a crud about us. To me, when an earth quake hits, saying if there is a god why let that happen is silly. If there is a god it is simple a source not a guide. Just like nature it's self, it is childish to blame a hurricane for leveling your house. A hurricane is simple a force of nature and ambivalent.

  • Achems Razor

    @eire666

    Ah, yes, there have been 5 major mass extinctions in the past, and we are overdue for another mass extinction, could it be Yellowstone? which apparently is a giant volcano getting hot again. And then our magnetic field might stop and reverse itself, that is deadly. It is happening they say.

    Or another we are overdue on, is asteroid impact from space, "on the news", they are sending up a satellite to probe for that, because it will take ten years to deflect one if found. unless we all blow each other up before that. Food for thought! yes?

    Hopefully will not happen for a long time, but rest assured, will happen. Not how, but when!

  • ez2b12

    @ D-K

    I agree with what you are saying to some degree but I think this could be rectified by looking at the factors shaping our decision objectively. If we looked at the factors shaping our moral consciouseness about stem cell research for instance, maybe we could come to a different moral consensus.Insted we exaimine these facts in a subjective manner and then use our subjective morality to say "no thats bad". Again this is slicing things very thinly I understand, but their is a difference.

    Once you view the factors envolved in stem cell research in a truly objective way, things would be different. To view them subjectively is to say "o.k. why does this bother me. Well they are using human embryos like they grow on trees and have no value." Now lets look at it objectively. "They are using a fetus that is doomed wether they use it or not. The research is not causing the loss of the fetus, the person's decision not use the fetus for what ever reason is what makes it valueless in this case. So it follows that i should not be offended by the research but the decision to not use a fetus."

    Now this persons subjective moral compass has done two things. First it has changed his/her outlook on stem cell research. It has also identified what he/she is truly offeneded by and by doing so offered the the oportunity to try and do something about it.All because they looked at the factors that shape the decision in a objective manner. Once they had the objective facts they where able through thier subjectivity to make a wise moral choice, in my opinion. I know this is expecting too much, that most will always look at every thing subjectively and thier knee jerk moral responses will hold back progress. I am decribing an ideal situation. But the change i feel should be in how we glean the facts that shape our decisions not in the actuall decision itself which i think should remain a subjective process using objective data.

    You said: "Morals are by nature notions supported by emotional reasoning..." therefore at least I know we agree that morals are relative and subjective, though we may disagree on wether this is a good thing or not.Ilovemyself thinks morals are objective (I think he keeps saying I don't get it so maybe I just slow). That was my biggest point of contention with him not wether or not this is a good or bad thing. But it is a good thing to think about and you definitely have me thinking. Well done man, I enjoy talking with you. Earlier I think you said you had written a book, what was the title and where could I find a copy please? I would love to read it.

  • eireannach666

    Ill elaborate on star stuff if I may a bit . So I explain myself for the religees that believe we were created and have a planned purpose or that life has meaning. Here is some food for thought that I feel is relevant to
    The topic of creation and existence.

    And I agree with a lot of what has been said bere by some but I just felt like elaborating on what I said earlier. So starting from the "genisis" of the universe as @Reason put it , lol, bllions of years ago the conditions in the big bang started a chain of events that resulted in our existence today, but that is not a plan, that is just a natural reaction of those initial conditions.
    Life has evolved on this planet because the conditions just happen to be as they are. It did not require a divine plan. Pure chance. We just happened to have evolved into what we are by chance, natural selection, mutation, and just plain luck that we even exist. We were not the most likely result but the most unlikely. It just was a lucky shot so to speak. Since we are just a result of random events the thought that we are are here for a reason would be to me illogical.

    Even if you believe that a god created and/or designed the big bang, what was the point in interfering with our lives. I mean why would he want to? For fun? That's not very divine of him now is it.If you believe that a god created the universe and we are the reason for its existence riddle me this bat man, do we, on our planet really have a use for the other100 billion galaxies. We have more than enough then we need in our own galaxy alone. I mean the chance of us reaching even the nearest stars in our own galaxy are small as it is.. Why such over kill, and extreme over doing? God could have just made our galaxy alone then.

    We could all be gone at any time when an asteroid or comet finally gets a hit on us, just like the dinosaurs are said to have gone 65 million years ago. Its really only a time and law of averages issue anyways. So wtf god what would have been the point of our existence then? Seems like he didn't think that through very well or he finds humor in pain and death. Then the religees would just say that we will have served our purpose,and went to heaven or where ever. What purpose?

    If there was a god and he is supposed to be perfect and do anyrhing and is so all powerful and can impact our lives ,then why have us have to cope and deal with the horrible and immoral things that happen everyday? Since he is so bad a** why not just make us in our heavenly forms to start? Why make us with flaws and imperfections and then leave us all here to live and die and learn how to be good little sheep . Why not just make us perfect from the start? Spare us and him the BS.

    For there to be plan this large would means you bieve in a god. (Which is why religion got start to begin with, to explain why and how which led to what and who. I mean I see their logic and all,only god could make a plan like this on this scale. But they knew no better. What's your excuse today with the evidence we have?)

    We can and should just worry about working towards a goal that does not need help from a god. Like let's say the benefit of mankind, and working to make things better, which is a great purpose and reason for our existence for those of you that require one to be happy . Improve our existence, by all means.

    Heck a plan that would give us a reason for being here is ridiculous. I don't even see a logical point in having a 'plan'. A god is not responsible for the way we run our lives, that's up to us and chance.

    I would hate to think that He existed and he didn't enen make it so that nobody gets sick or starves? That's not very well thought out there god. C- on the whole deal and a Needs Improvement on the planning.

    He does not exist He plays no part in the workings of the universe at all. So without a plan and I am sure there isn't one , then we are not here for any reason at all. We just exist.

    We don't have any need to bring the idea of a god into things to understand how the universe came to be.. We are here not for any reason or purpose at all we just are here and exist and will die off eventually as a species. Whether it be disease or comet or whatever.

    Sorry for putting so much here but I got carried away.

  • D-K

    @Ez2b12: I fully agree morality to be subjective, it's part of its flexibility that is needed for it to evolve (and thus stay relevant) alongside culture and society. What I hope the human collective will achieve is to use objective reasoning to guide morality, rather than rules set with notion of an afterlife or a divine plan.

    Morality must be practical and efficient, it must maximize the probability for comfortable coexistance, as well as utilize our potential as a species and individuals to fit progression. Even moreso as we gain a greater understanding of what it is to be human, redefine it*, and take control of our own evolutionary trajectory, we need a sociological reconfiguration.

    I haven't written a book, I have been considering it though.

    *transhumanism, quantum revolution.

  • eireannach666

    @Achems

    We are LONG overdue for sure. I wouldn't doubt that us humans will more than likely nuke ourselves before nature takes its natural course. Leave it to us to speed up a natural process,lol.

    But I doubt in our life time though. And hey the sun will die eventually anyhow so our own and our planets life extinction is inevitable regardless. Ha!

  • ez2b12

    @ D-K

    OMG I have found the qoute that made me think you had written a book, this is a little embarassing. You wrote: "For the record, I had Buddhism in mind when I wrote “unconventional religions”, in the paragraph refuting the only logical “outcome” for atheism to be materialism."

    I took "Unconventional Religion" as the title of a book. Ahahaha! Read it and think of it as the title to a book, see it sound like you are talking about a book you wrote. i should follow things closer, need to quit smoking so much if you know what i mean. Man thats a good one, never forget this one.Stupid mistakes I mean. I collect them it seems. When I first started working in IT this lady told me that her light on cd drive was bad. I'm thinking, "what your light on your cd drive? Maybe she is talking about the little green light you know on the front that shows the drive is running or not." Finally i figure it out, liteon cd drive- lite-on its a brand name for certain cd drives. That was a good one to, i felt stupid as all get out. Oh well you live and learn.

    You should write one man, you seem very capable and eloquent. I knew when Vlatko complimented you that you must be intelligent- he has a good eye. i have thought about writing about the formation of the Judaic traditions and how that turned into christianity after growing out of polytheistic/pagan religion. Jewish mysticism is really rank with pagan ideas and symbols. The Jewish religon is worse than christianity as far as the copy of polytheistic and pagan practices. Its sort of like each religion moves in a straight line away from the old pagan beliefs, christianity being the newest and furtherest away.Its an interesting idea I think, I need a lot of help though. I'm not near as eloquent in expressing my ideas as you are.

    It looks like we agree completely about morality and what it needs to be and is. I'm sure ilovemyself will just tell me he meant something totally different than what i thought when he gets around to posting. If so i'll just have to let it go, you can't debate with someone like that. They are so caught up in winning they can't let themselves lose. Losing usually means you learned something, thats a good thing. I like losing to some degree.

  • eireannach666

    @EZ

    I was always told and say that if your not messing something up then your not trying hard enough and a will never learn anything. I guess that applies to a lot of things really.

    Also the most over rated thing on the planet is a piece of tail ,and pride and the most under rated , humbleness and a goo sh** !

  • D-K

    Well, to be fair he admitted "losing" to me once, but I guess he can be a bit difficult.

    I also enjoy having errors or inconsistancies in my logic having point out to me, nothing more than an integral part of the learning process. You'll find I'm quite rational.

  • ez2b12

    @ D-K
    I kind of thought that, that you where pretty rational. Not that it is a bad thing at all, I'm just saying. Your posts kind of hint at a very rational and practicle point of view. I am rational to a point but not always, not by a long shot. I am a musician and a artists(drawing)so I spend vast amounts of time in totally unrational spaces and states of mind. Trying to catch a glimpse of that which escapes rational and dictated perceptions, ideas, or moral framings. Sometimes i see it plainly and grasp it firm, then I get a truly inpired piece that I call real art. Of course most of the time I get garbage, mental trash and baggage, or just static ebbing from the confused masses of which i am usually a part. It can be a infuriating and exhausting process.

    I try to keep this where it belongs though and not bring it into objective discussions or let it influence my life too much. it is usually just a matter of keeping where I work and where I need to be rational and real seperated. My studio is in the basement so i don't post from their, in fact their is no computer in their. Well their is but it is dedicated to my sound board and processors and "stuff" and is not online.Music is just a hobby really so is drawing I suppose.

    i am studying physics right now, well taking some requirements that have popped up since my last degree first. But i should start classes toward my actuall major soon, and that is physics. Haven't decided what kind of physics yet, maybe nuclear. I have my work cut out for me thats for sure. My current degrees will not help me any in this field, its truly starting over for me. thats a heck of a priveledge I have to admit, at thirty eight I get to start over. You got to love America sometimes, not often this is true- but sometimes.I have a full pell that pays for all of it, all i have to do is show up and learn. You can't ask for better really.Of course I had to have a wreck and lose most of my abilities first, but still. I can walk and talk so who's complaining, not I. I miss the money i made welding but, a chance to go back and start over is hard to beat.

    Isn't that pathetic. I had two degrees theology and history and made more money welding than I could doing anything else in this area.The only other alternative was to teach what i had degrees in, I really did not want to do this in the past. i wouldn't mind now but I love physics so i would rather teach that- if I have to teach.

    See you can't always count on the good ole US of A for everything. The economy and job market here in the south east is pathetic. Low pay and no jobs with a future.No real technology or academic type work, all blue collar with a few exceptions. But these exceptions dont pay what the blue collar jobs do, they pay much less.Nothing wrong with blue collar work at all, I have done it most my life, but you are told in high school over and over to go to college. No one tells you that after you graduate you either have to move away or go to work in a job that you could have gotten straight out of high school with no degree at all. Besides once your all busted up like I am what then? i guess I will move away from my home when I graduate and try and find a job in my field.

    Actually i will break down and teach probably it is the only way i can stay home. I love this place, just not the job market and religiouse persecution all the time. Being an atheist in the bible belt means you need thick skin and a sence of humor, or a good shot gun and some rope- one of the two.

  • ez2b12

    Sorry yall that last post was completely off subject and a bunch of rambling- my bad.

  • eireannach666

    @vlatko or anyone who can answer.

    There is a doc on PBS right now called Ribbon of Sand and its got pretty decent pic quality so it seems to be newer or redone, but my question is , did Carl Sagan have anything to do with this doc? I'd swear its his voice on there.

    Ahh what a loss.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ Vlatko

    "What a vague response @ilovemyselfmorethani. Your arguments always start with: I didn’t say that, I never said, wasn’t arguing… etc. Well maybe I was expecting too much from you."

    -- Well, I was kind of expecting too much from you too, being the creator of this wonderful website. Unfortunately, I don't see much. If you show me where I've contradicted myself, I will be more than willing to concede. I won't say I've said something if I didn't.

    Your other words are simply strawmen. Here is an example:

    "Show me some supportive clues why you think so. Ah yes… morality comes from the ten commandments and the teaching of Jesus and since atheists don’t believe in that we are doomed."

    And that's the problem. I will not have things attributed to me, that I have never ever tried to argue for.

    "If you think that it’s futile to judge from the past how did you come up with this: “When you remove this theistic perspective, the foundations for these moral systems will erode.”"

    -- Logic. Moral systems HAVE been created in a theistic context. There is no sense in denying it.

    "Equating people with animals doesn’t mean undervaluing people nor overvaluing animals."

    -- Show me why it doesn't. Substitute 'Feces' with 'animals'. "Equating people with feces doesn't mean undervaluing people nor overvaluing feces. Can that seriously make sense? If you do not undervalue humans or overvalue animals, than you haven't equated them, you just think you have.

    "No you didn’t. I was trying to show you that there are people out-there who don’t believe in Jesus and they are doing fine for centuries. Buddhism believes in a moral realm but has no strict moral guidelines as Christianity which makes it perfect example here."

    -- I KNOW there are people out there who don't believe in Jesus and are moral. I NEVER argued otherwise. Show me where I argued that and I'll concede defeat.

    "Not directly. But you are “true” follower of Jesus and would be extremely odd if you disrespect your God that way."

    -- I mentioned the parable of the good Samaritan, it's fitting here. No, I don't think I'm disrespecting my God in any way at all, you just want to justify having mentioned this even though you now know It has nothing to do with anything I said.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ Eireansuck6969

    "I’m sure ilovemyself will just tell me he meant something totally different than what i thought when he gets around to posting. If so i’ll just have to let it go, you can’t debate with someone like that. "

    -- Nice tactic. Show where I've done that. You people just keep saying it, because it's easy to say, and it gets you a free pass from having to come up with an argument. Pathetic.

  • eireannach666

    @IwetmyselfmorethanI

    Hey ret*#+ that wasn't me at all. You should open your ears and eye ore then you run that mouth of yours. Don't pop off at someone unless you know what your saying and make sure your talking to the one that you are quoting on saying something.

  • Epicurus

    if the argument is that a militant atheist will be a bad person again you still havent shown that to be the case. you keep saying it is but you havent shown that it will neccessarily follow.

    I think your first statements were along the lines that ANY fundamentalist is bad. im sure that would include someone who took the bible word for word. so this whole thing is pointless and ridiculous. any person who had a doctrine fact or fiction that took a "militant" stance about it obviously will be....militant which we consider immoral to our societal standards. fine...whats the point?

    silly conversation is silly...and fail.

  • ez2b12

    @ thearrogantbeastthatisspoutingnonsence

    I said: “I’m sure ilovemyself will just tell me he meant something totally different than what i thought when he gets around to posting. If so i’ll just have to let it go, you can’t debate with someone like that. ”

    Don't jump on others here becuase I said something. I stand behind it 100 percent as well. You need to learn how to debate. you do not continually deny what you have so clearly been saying and saying very rudely.And dont deny what you so clearly insunuated- which is mostly what your doing. When you speak the nuances of your tone and choice of words say a lot. No one is TRYING to attribute stuff to you that you didn't lead people to think- wether you said it in exact words or not. You do not adress your oponnents as "you people" either, it sounds desperate.

    You sound like you are about to pop a cork man, easy. It's all just a friendly arguement. If you did not say the things we think you did, maybe you should think about the fact that you are not being clear, obviousely. Now I know I addressed what you where argueing with ME about very plainly this time. So I suppose I will just let it go, since you are still angry, whew you sure get hot and stay that way a long time man.

  • ez2b12

    Not to step into your debate with Vlatko but, what exactly does a materialistic world view have to do with devalueing human life. It would seem to be more preciouse to me if this was the only life you thought you would ever have. I explained this earlier in a post to Reasons voice. I don't really see it as a materialistic veiw, but even if it was why does the question of wether human life is more valuable than animal even come up. A materialistic point of view would seem to merely say their is no afterlife, so make the best of now.Punishments for bad moral decisions would be more immediate, and therefore a better deterrent. As is we get punished here for bad moral choices and then if you believe in a afterlife, we get punish their as well. Double jeopardy isn't fair, according to our constitution any way.(US humor sorry if you dont get it.)

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ D-K

    "Please flesh this out, why is it not good? I assume you mean by ephemeral that morality and inherent consequence is limited to the material world? Most, if not all, atheist and agnostic alike feels this way"

    -- I actually mean that in the materialist worldview, morality is relative/subjective --which I've already established you agree with.

    "morality is simply an instrument to maximize the probability for relatively harmonious co-existance."

    -- I take it this is another way of you saying morality is subjective. Dawkins demonizes O.T. barbarism, and argues that those people were immoral. But don't you think killing people for stealing was the best way, during those times, to "maximize the probability for relatively harmonious co-existance."? What would happen if they treated those people like we modern societies do to our criminals? They wouldn't have been able to "maximize the probability for relatively harmonious co-existance." The motivation, though, is STILL the same: to disincentivize stealing. So then, do you agree that those barbaric people were being completely moral? Given that the motivation for doing an act does not change (most of the time), don't you think that morality can quite possibly be objective? Or do you think that 'motivations' are not important in the gauging of the morality of an act?

    "You can’t logically deduce the outcome of future events without having discounted all the variables to the equation."

    -- O.K. But the argument was that atheism necessarily leads to a materialist worldview. And a materialist fundamentalist will be a dangerous person. Obviously, in the future, people of all stripes and beliefs will still be around. But that's beside the point.

    "This does however, not mean that materialism is the unifying dogma of the future, it’s certainly not the (only) logical outcome. "

    -- It is the only logical outcome for an atheist. Other beliefs will have other logical outcomes.

  • ez2b12

    I'm the 500th post. (and the music plays lights flash bells ring) Thankyou all so much. I never thought I'd be the 500th post on this thread, it so flattering. (confetti falls) You may now continue you regulary scheduled programming.

  • ez2b12

    Argh! Someopne else goit it, posted at the same time. Oh well. Congrats ilovemyself.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    eireannach666

    Oh, sorry. You're right, I am a re_ard for making that mistake.

  • ez2b12

    You said: "– O.K. But the argument was that atheism necessarily leads to a materialist worldview. And a materialist fundamentalist will be a dangerous person."

    Yes and for one you haven't proven that atheism will lead to this world view.And I feel no one can prove this, it is impossible to know what atheists or anyone else in power "will" do. Secondly you haven't proven that if it does this will mean the devalueing of human life at all. Like I said why would it not mean respecting life to the fullest because it is so preciouse it only occurrs once for each of us? I mean I know what your opinion is but can you back it up in any way, other than more peoples opinions?

  • eireannach666

    @Ilove

    All good man. But please try and be more careful. I get hot easy too.

    You know there is a saying, "It costs to pay rent but its free to pay attention." Laterz guys I'm out,work tomorrow.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ epicurus

    "if the argument is that a militant atheist will be a bad person again you still havent shown that to be the case. you keep saying it is but you havent shown that it will neccessarily follow."

    -- I made the case that a materialist worldview will necessarily follow. Therefore a materialist fundamentalist will be more dangerous than a Christian Fundamentalist. Any other questions? Should I elaborate on this? I was kinda saving it for D-K's response.

    "any person who had a doctrine fact or fiction that took a “militant” stance about it obviously will be….militant which we consider immoral to our societal standards. fine…whats the point?"

    -- The point is some will be worse than others.

  • young

    @1lovemyself

    Just give up man. Any good point you made has been demolished a million times over. Take a step back, observe, and realize how ridiculous you look.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ young

    Care to show me how it "has been demolished a million times over"?

  • young

    I'll tell you how you can do it rather than show you directly and fuel the fire. "Take a step back, observe, and realize". Try and look through the wall of sleep you've put up. I'm not trying to start, just saying you've become redundandt and you're causing everyone else on these comments to do the same. Shame on you.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ young

    Go ahead show me directly. And if it seems to be the case, then I will step back. But I'm afraid you're only talking out of your as_.

  • Randy

    Here is something interesting:

    Joseph Campbell spoke a great deal about "The Masks of God" which was his original thesis, later published as "The Masks of Eternity" I don't know... marketing, I guess, to keep it out of the "Alternate Religion" section of the book store.

    IF and that is a HUGE "IF", there is some diety-- it is unknowable and incomprehensible to our meat-brains. These "masks" that we put on it, "Mary, jesus, Krisha, Allah, Attis, Mithra, Satan, Zeus, Isis, Azreal, Bhuddha, Nipples McGeee, etc...), mean nothing.

    The American founding fathers knew this, and realized that their new country would be a polyglut, so they decided, wisely, that government should ignore all religions, but keep the individuals' personal "Mask of God" sacred.

    I have my own beliefs about god/gods or the non-existence thereby, but I keep it to myself. It is like my genitals... you would NEVER want to see them, and it would be a crime to expose them to you!

    However, the embrace of pure Reason, rational thought, and maths, have proven themselves in real money and success. Whereas, any belief in mythology has only made money when conning people. Unethical. Immoral.

    The idea of god is far too silly and complicated, convoluted--- science has a very real and verifyable answer about life that produces real results.

    And if It, (god/gods/goddeses). exists, It certainly does not care if you believe in It.

  • Epicurus

    @ilovemyself. the problem is history and the animal kingdom shows there is morality and altruism without religion.

    there is still no reason to assume a fundamental materialist view is more dangerous than the fundamentalist christians.

    in fact there are many many fundamentalist atheists out there who are anti-theism and would argue they know (just like a theist would argue they know) that there is no god. however i dont know of one single case where one of those people have done anything as morally appalling as fundamentalist theists.

    I will say, the person who accepts reality and realizes that we are a byproduct of a universe and not the focus and is able to rationalize that behaving in a moral way is the best way to ensure their own happiness and pleasure will be a lot more appealing and peaceful than the fundamentalist theist who believes they are born sinful and this life is but a fraction of their eternity and are granted a free pass to heaven as long as they believe in a myth made up by people 2000 years ago, and anyone who doesnt subscribe to their fairy tale is going to burn in hell.

    lets talk about hell next!!

    you havent shown how a materialist worldview is more dangerous than a christian one.

  • Epicurus

    i agree with randy fully on the very last thing he said.

    IF a god exists, i dont think it would be too concerned weather humans believed in it or not, especially if the belief was based on such vague instances of "evidence"

    if there is a god that will send me to hell if i dont believe in him, he knows EXACTLY what i need to believe in him, he knows i wouldnt willingly choose to not believe, and he would know that if given the evidence my mind requires (not a double standard but the same standard one uses to judge any information given to them) then i would gladly accept what is fact. but if he doesnt provide me with that then he is morally responsible for me going to hell and is unjust and immoral.

    Galileo said it best when arguing with the church about the position of the earth in the universe, he said:

    “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”

    The reason i dismiss the christian god is the same reason a christan AND I, both dismiss all other gods.

  • Ciph3ro

    Owned! Finally someone with real expertise took the time to slap religion around a bit.

    It is actually seen as a critical thinking fallacy to consider belief as legitimate reason for knowledge. He shows much more than that in this video. I'm posting it everywhere.

    Try refuting this one... lol

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ Epicurus

    "you havent shown how a materialist worldview is more dangerous than a christian one."

    -- Let's not argue for a moment whether morality is objective or subjective, if God exists or not. Let's imagine first the counterfactuals of each.

    First: On the theistic hypothesis God holds all persons morally accountable for their actions. Evil and wrong will be punished; righteousness will be vindicated. Good ultimately triumphs over evil, and we shall finally see that we do live in a moral universe after all. Despite the inequities of this life, in the end the scales of God’s justice will be balanced. Thus, the moral choices we make in this life are infused with an eternal significance. We can with consistency make moral choices which run contrary to our self-interest and even undertake acts of extreme self-sacrifice, knowing that such decisions are not empty and ultimately meaningless gestures. Rather our moral lives have a paramount significance.

    (Far from being arbitrary, these commands flow necessarily from His moral nature.)

    So I think it is evident that theism provides a sound foundation for morality.

    An atheist fundamentalist --one who's worldview is predicated on scientism-- will necessarily be led to 2 things: materialism and determinism. Let me ask you: Do you agree with this last part?

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    The philosopher of religion John Hick invites us to imagine an ant suddenly endowed with the insights of socio-biology and the freedom to make personal decisions. He writes:

    "Suppose him to be called upon to immolate himself for the sake of the ant-hill. He feels the powerful pressure of instinct pushing him towards this self-destruction. But he asks himself why he should voluntarily . . . carry out the suicidal programme to which instinct prompts him? Why should he regard the future existence of a million million other ants as more important to him than his own continued existence? . . . Since all that he is and has or ever can have is his own present existence, surely in so far as he is free from the domination of the blind force of instinct he will opt for life—his own life."

  • Randy

    Also, if this creature you worship DOES actually care if I believe in It or not? Then I say it is as vain and vapid as any "American Idol" contestant...

    Certainly worthy only of my contempt, NOT worship...

    Certainly...

  • Epicurus

    i believe in determinism and materialism and am a very moral person. how does it follow that these world views will make one immoral?

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ Epicurus

    "i believe in determinism and materialism and am a very moral person. how does it follow that these world views will make one immoral?"

    -- I don't think you *feel* they are true. But you certainly believe them to be true. A fundamentalist will grow to have both. If you truly believed in determinism, then why think that everything religion has done in the past was wrong? It was determined.

    On a materialistic anthropology there is no reason to think that human beings are objectively more valuable than rats. Secondly, if there is no mind distinct from the brain, then everything we think and do is determined by the input of our five senses and our genetic make-up. There is no personal agent who freely decides to do something. And what moral value does a puppet or its movements have?

    Do you see now why a fundamentalist from your camp WILL be more dangerous than one from mine?

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ Epicurus

    "also there are many materialists who sacrifice themselves for the future…"

    -- I have no doubt that many have. But, in your worldview, why is it important to do such? I refer you back to John Hick's 'ant' example.

  • Randy

    Epicurus and I have stated and proved time and time again, on various threads on thse boards, that morality is a built-in process with social mammals of all kinds, primates, Canines, Pachaderms, aquatic mammals like whales and dolphines... etc, and etc... and etc...

    No bible is needed.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ Randy

    "Also, if this creature you worship DOES actually care if I believe in It or not? Then I say it is as vain and vapid as any “American Idol” contestant…"

    -- Randy, I actually really like you. You remind me of Randy the pineapple -- in a good way ofcourse. Which is why I said your grandkids must love you. But, like I said, let's just first imagine the counterfactuals.

  • Randy

    @Ilovemyself... etc.

    I like you, too. I do not know what Randy the Pineapple means, but I understand how old I am!

    I never had any kids. I thought, the genetic horrors that I must endure must certainly never be inflicted on some poor child. I found a woman, 25 years ago, that agreed with me. I am lucky.

    But, I have nieces and nephews that I try to be a cool uncle to, although their sex hormones are now turning them against me and their parents.

    That'll happen to people who do not understand the brain and its chemical processese...

    What are you gonna do?

  • ez2b12

    All morality is subjective in the end, unless you live by some manual. If we had robots we could then program them with this objective morality you speak of, hmmm. Doesn't seem that human to me, if we can just say o.k. heres is morality we know it is three hundred lines of code but we are working on a shorter list.If it isn't something told to us by some outside agent or something we all got together on and agreed to, then it is subjective. I think D-K said it best, "Morality by nature is controled by emotional reasoning," this is what tells us if something is right or wrong.Therefore morality is subjective in nature.

  • eireannach666

    I do believe even I have said on this thread somewhere that morality was an instinct built into us from birth. It has to do with survival of the species. Think about it man, humans were not the fastest, or strongest animal on the planet but why we survived was due to pur brains and us living in packs. It would be nonbenificial to the pack to loose a member whether it be do to murder or by out casting one so it was necessary for the pack to be moral to eachother and live principly based on morality. This has bee passed down for thousands of years in our species. Ill bet when you were a pup , you knew when you were doing wrong even of you weren't told so by anyone or caught. Its our conscience that allows us to have this trait. Its just some people have an instability and their malfunctions and they disregard it.

    Atheist are moral just as much so as any one else in the world. I think we get a bad rap because when you don't believe in a persons god and make them feel as if they are wrong they assume you as immoral and heathenistic for your lack of faith. But it has been like this witrh the religious forever. Attack their beliefs and you are deemed immoral and possibly get a death sentence. Neither religion nor the lack there of makes you moral its the persons reaction to the natural concience voice , if you will, that makes their actions and thoughts sway to one side or the other.

    Its not complicated man its quite simple. There is no need for a god or religious hand book to be moral. The religious have done more harm to this world than good and more than anyone else. You want to compare the two. It would take hours to list the things religion has bestowed on this planet and. Maybe a few minutes the other way.

    Whatever you will never concede.

  • Achems Razor

    One thing that has not been mentioned, there are people through no mistakes of their own that do not care if there are any consequences of bad and good, wouldn't care one iota about hurting other people to further there gains.

    Am taking about psychopath's, that are born without a conscience. About 4% of the population. Why if there is a all knowing bearded one up in the sky, what would be the reason be of making humans that have no recourse of having any semblance of your so called morality? Just likes to f...around maybe?? God stuff is a big joke!

  • Reasons Voice

    @Achems: You make a fine point. That is assuming that "god" gives a crud what we do. I think if there is a god it doesn't care about our creation let alone out actions. To me it would be more like a spiritual element if you will. The element of life. And just like other elements some of it is incorporated into all living things. Like carbon for instance, all known life contains carbon and when it dies that carbon returns to the soil to become a tree or whatever. So too when we die our piece of life returns to god which is really just source and not creator. Also like any other element it is not even sentient and therefore beyond indifferent.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ eireannach666

    "whatever you will never concede"

    -- Don't be so sure that I won't. I've already conceded to quite a few people here. But like I said, I'm not arguing that we need to believe in God to be moral. If morality is subjective then we can be just as moral as the next person. If there is a God, then we can still be as moral as the next person. This isn't my argument. What I'm saying is that an atheist fundamentalist, given his worldview will be more dangerous than a Christian one. As I've explained above.

  • Achems Razor

    @ilove myself:

    I disagree, me thinks that a "psychopathic" fundamentalist would be the most dangerous of all. Of which there are many, they have the gift, if you may, of hiding there true intentions from the general populace to further there nefarious intentions, and they can say in all sincerity that if there is a god, he made them in his image also.

    Therefore they are free to pursue there actions with impunity. They have there own version of heaven and hell, are you going to say they are wrong and you are right, because of general consensus. No, they feel free to do their stuff, since they have no conscience they can use all means to further their agendas. Again I say that if there is a knowing all loving god, why did he make them this way? knowing full well that it goes against the grain of further developing the human species?

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ Achems

    What exactly is a psychopathic fundamentalist? He is a fundamentalist about his own psychopathology?

    And yours is another argument that will lead us into a debate of whether or not God exists. I don't think we should go there.

    My contention is clear: Atheist fundamentalist is more dangerous than a Christian one. I'm not trying to debate about whether God exists or not.

  • eireannach666

    @Ilove

    I disagree. An atheists logic would dictate rational and reasonable courses of action to best deal with things as a religious person has the god factor to deal with and by that I mean that they are unreasonable when it comes toi god. Most are willing to sacrifice what would be rational or logical and pick up a totally ridiculous course of action due to their beliefs. I mean heck man think about all the wars fought for god. Most of the rulers of the fighting nations had political and monetary motivation behind it but religion is what drew the armies in. A jihad or crusade or whatever. Its what started the inquisition in the same manner and not to mention the countless other atrocities committed in the name of a god. What has the belief in no belief done that even compares to these things? And I'm not talking about the clinically insane people either.

    @Achems

    Very good point indeed. Can't forget about the lunatics and insane. No logic in creating them I'd say , if you were a god. That's my point as well. Why not just save the BS and make things right the first time. What is he lazy or did he have a hang over that day? Inefficient ill say for sure and perhaps has terrible work ethic. Maybe god is a pot head?

    Or maybe we can entertain there was a god who made everything and planned our lives, created the universe and big bang but is now deceased?

  • Achems Razor

    @ilovemyself:

    This doc is about god, about creationism, period. of whether there is a god or not. whether Jesus existed, If that can not be established first, than everything else is "Moot"

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ ez2b12

    Your robot example is a fundamental mis-understanding of the Christian perspective on morality. You are filled with indignation about the subject of Christian morality, as you probably should be, since you think of it in this way.

    It isn't "told to us" by an outside agent. It isn't a derivative of the bible.

    Anyway, enough of this. I've suddenly gotten bored of this topic.

  • ez2b12

    This guy just wants to make a bunch of assertions over and over and thinks that's winning the debate. When in reality he lost the debate a long time ago. Keep on putting a finer point on it and finally their will be no where left to hide, no way to say we didn't understand you. You argue morality to be objective, wrong. Objective would mean no emotions or other considerations have relevancy, morality would be stiff and inflexable.

    He then turned to how atheists would have a materialistic world view, which from what I can tell means they do not believe in an afterlife. He then extrapolates that not only would all atheists have this world view but they would as a result devalue human life and place it on an even keel with animal life. None of this makes sence, why would this view give us the consequences he reffers to?

    Definition of the word materialistic- A great or excessive regard for worldly concerns. Now what could be wrong with having a great and excessive concern about the here and now? Is it better to just shrug it off and worry about the etheral or some fake god and his jealouse, selfish, and juevenile behaviors? I like a materialistic world view it makes human life more preciouse.

  • ez2b12

    @ ilovemyselfmorethani

    No, you can't win so you run away. Fine your no fun anyway.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ Achems

    "This doc is about god, about creationism, period. of whether there is a god or not. whether Jesus existed, If that can not be established first, than everything else is “Moot” "

    -- You won't go far in Philosophy with this mindset.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ ez2b12

    "Definition of the word materialistic- A great or excessive regard for worldly concerns. Now what could be wrong with having a great and excessive concern about the here and now? "

    -- Oh geez. I was pertaining to philosophical materialism.

    "No, you can’t win so you run away. Fine your no fun anyway."

    -- Do you want to start all over? Fine. Ask me something. Because all of this:

    "He then turned to how atheists would have a materialistic world view, which from what I can tell means they do not believe in an afterlife. He then extrapolates that not only would all atheists have this world view but they would as a result devalue human life and place it on an even keel with animal life. None of this makes sence, why would this view give us the consequences he reffers to?"

    -- I've already explained. Do you want me to, once again, expound on something in particular?

  • Achems Razor

    @iloveme:

    Philosophy bakes no bread!!!

    Just saying! Thanks Randy (LOL)

  • ez2b12

    @ ilovemyself

    What you don't seem to get is just explaining fomr your point of view with out one shred of proof or evidence doesn't prove anything. Heres the philosophical definition- The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.

    Again a very pragmatic aproach that centers on the here and now. In no way does it follow that human life would be devalued. Thier are plenty of consequences for your moral actions right here in the real world, in fact its all thier is. Their is no eternal dawn to bask in, no wonderful god to exact poetical justice.If thats what you are counting on curbing peoples evil deeds it hasn't worked so far so why will it in the future? Face it you have an opinion but thats all it is, no more important or right than our opinions.
    .

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ ez2b12

    Let me quote what I said on that. Perhaps you didn't see it:

    "On a materialistic anthropology there is no reason to think that human beings are objectively more valuable than rats. Secondly, if there is no mind distinct from the brain, then everything we think and do is determined by the input of our five senses and our genetic make-up. There is no personal agent who freely decides to do something. And what moral value does a puppet or its movements have?"

    And:

    "On the theistic hypothesis God holds all persons morally accountable for their actions. Evil and wrong will be punished; righteousness will be vindicated. Good ultimately triumphs over evil, and we shall finally see that we do live in a moral universe after all. Despite the inequities of this life, in the end the scales of God’s justice will be balanced. Thus, the moral choices we make in this life are infused with an eternal significance. We can with consistency make moral choices which run contrary to our self-interest and even undertake acts of extreme self-sacrifice, knowing that such decisions are not empty and ultimately meaningless gestures. Rather our moral lives have a paramount significance. So I think it is evident that theism provides a sound foundation for morality."

    -- Could very well be my opinion. But, as you probably know, saying "it's just an opinion" isn't really a good counter argument. Why don't you gloss over that and try to refute something.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ ez2b12

    I forgot to add to the above:

    'therefore a Fundamentalist atheist will be more dangerous than a Christian one'

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ez2b12

    "Again a very pragmatic aproach that centers on the here and now. "

    There might be an obvious link between philosophical materialism and being "materialistic". But in no way are they identical. If you attribute to me something less than what I actually say, then I'm justified in correcting your misinterpretation.

  • ez2b12

    I have refuted what you asserted already in a very logical manner using the very definitions of your mwords, so i didn't get it again. Is that it. I'm done with this clown. Yall have at it, he will never get it. Its a totall waste of breath. At least you do admit that this is only your opinion, we did at least get that far.

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    @ilovemyselfmorethani,

    "Well, I was kind of expecting too much from you too, being the creator of this wonderful website. Unfortunately, I don’t see much."

    Well I'm sorry I've disappointed you in a way. Thats me. Anyways... enjoy the docs. Maybe you'll learn something along the way.

  • eireannach666

    @Achems

    Ahh you bas*+@! I was going to say that first but I guess you beat me to it.
    Fu*+er. Lol

    That was a good one Randy.

  • Achems Razor

    @eire666:

    Ha,Ha, yeah, we need a heavy hitter like Randy to put everything into perspective!! (LOL)

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ ez2b12

    "I have refuted what you asserted already in a very logical manner "

    -- Show it to me. Where have you refuted what I said? Where is it?

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ ez2b12

    I've started to talk to you as respectfully as I can after we've made peace. Yet it seems you are still as vitriolic as ever. Then you cry afoul when I say you seem to know NOTHING about Christian theology, after having bandied about your "theology degree". What a distasteful hypocrite. I was serious, you need to get a refund, as it is obvious that you either learned nothing, or were taught nothing.

  • Insomniac

    @ilovemyself:

    I have one last thing to sat to you...you have yet to demonstrate anything you've advanced and you have still not shown any of the evidence I repeatedly asked for. I will not ask you for it again because, obviously, it doesn't exist.

    Try to think about this entire conversation this way; either you are one of the greatest geniuses in the history of the world and everyone else on this site is a complete idiot who knows nothing about anything at all, OR, you are wrong.

  • ez2b12

    Look junior you can rant and rave all you want, you still haven't proven anything except that you like to change your mind and back down when someone starts showing you evidence you can refute.

    People have tried to tell you over and over that you are confusing and your points have been torn apart, you just say "where, where" just like a creationist trying to deny evolution. "Where are the fossils, where." The whole time their right in front of their face, it looks very desperate. Now you've been dancing on the end of our string for three days, three days. If you want to continue to pretend to have a valid point or that you have won some debate go ahead, your kind of entertaining.

    Maybe one day you will grow up and let go of your childish and narrrow views, maybe not- who cares.Now dance for us again, strut and spit all you want. You remind me of the little chuachua that runs out on the porch barking but is scared to get in the yard. But that's just my opinion, dont stop on account of little old me.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ ez2b12

    Funny you should say I back down. You said I was "running away" so I stayed on. And now, when I ask you for your "logical refutation", you're the one who runs away. Go ahead, show it to me.

    An atheist fundamentalist will end in a materialist and deterministic worldview, which will essentially make him dangerous. Where was your refutation of that? That's right. Chicken sh_t. Come on now Mr. Theology Man who want's to take up Physics Hahaha. Oh you really love telling people how smart you are and how big your brain is. Lol! A theologian who knows jack sht about theology.

  • ez2b12

    I said : "a very pragmatic aproach that centers on the here and now. In no way does it follow that human life would be devalued. Thier are plenty of consequences for your moral actions right here in the real world, in fact its all thier is."

    I was reffering to being a materialist. To which you replied by making phrases up "materialistic anthropology" what is that exactly. I never heard of it. So you think we "materialist" will just all the sudden be like, "o.k. we are in charge now so lets re-evaluate the value of all living things. Get real man, besides even if someone that is devalueing human life gets to be in charge the world will work much as it does now so others will take him out, just like we did Hitler.

    The consequences for your actions are here and now, not in some fantasy afterlife where you would answer to the very person you say controlled everything anyway. Which is another good point if god was their and omnipotent why would he let any one devalue human life in the first place? And if his wrath is such a good detterent why do plenty of people not value human life as we speak? Your arguement is full of holes, bias, and uninformed predjudice.

    Yeah, I did get you to come back, and for that i apologize. I should not have jerked your chain, i knew you couldn't walk away without feeling like you had won. Why is that so important to someone that is so clearly against materialism? Seems your pretty concerned with the here and now your self.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ ez2b12

    Uh.. You do know what Fundamentalism means right?

    Anyway..

    "I was reffering to being a materialist. To which you replied by making phrases up “materialistic anthropology” what is that exactly. I never heard of it. "

    -- Google it.

    "So you think we “materialist” will just all the sudden be like, “o.k. we are in charge now so lets re-evaluate the value of all living things."

    -- No. But YES a FUNDAMENTALIST materialist would.

    "Get real man, besides even if someone that is devalueing human life gets to be in charge the world will work much as it does now so others will take him out, just like we did Hitler."

    -- Nobody said anything about "someone that is devalueing human life gets to be in charge of the world". And in just the same way, a Christian Fundamentalist who "gets to be in charge of the world" would be "taken out" if his views are too much for normal people. What does this have to do with ANYTHING?

    "The consequences for your actions are here and now"

    -- Stallin killed many people, he died, relatively quietly. I don't think he suffered any consequences. "Aha! I can do the same!" says Mr. Atheist Fundamentalist. (you do know we are comparing fundamentalist atheists to Christian ones right?)

    "Which is another good point if god was their and omnipotent why would he let any one devalue human life in the first place? And if his wrath is such a good detterent why do plenty of people not value human life as we speak? Your arguement is full of holes, bias, and uninformed predjudice."

    -- Another digression. I am arguing that an atheist fundamentalist will be more dangerous than a Christian one, remember? Not whether God was omnipotent, or whether His "wrath was a good deterrent" or whether existed --These are completely different things! Can't you follow?

    "Yeah, I did get you to come back, and for that i apologize. I should not have jerked your chain, i knew you couldn’t walk away without feeling like you had won. Why is that so important to someone that is so clearly against materialism? Seems your pretty concerned with the here and now your self."

    -- More digressions that I will choose to ignore, so you can actually FOLLOW the topic of debate.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ ez2b12

    Now where is your "refutation" you "gave in a logical manner"?
    I still don't see it.

    You've just made a whole lot of digressions there. Maybe you should hold the physics for awhile, and continue the welding -- just a suggestion.

  • over the edge

    @ ilovemyself
    you stated
    “I was reffering to being a materialist. To which you replied by making phrases up “materialistic anthropology” what is that exactly. I never heard of it. ”

    – Google it.
    so i did. from what i gathered according to many sites is “materialistic anthropology” is defined as cultural materialism which is defined as

    Cultural Materialism - Organization, Ideology and Symbolism
    Cultural Materialism seeks to explain cultural organization, ideology and symbolism within a materialistic (Infrastructure/structure/superstructure) framework. Cultural Materialists believe society develops on a trial and error basis. If something is not beneficial to a society's ability to produce and/or reproduce, or causes production and/or reproduction to exceed acceptable limits, it will disappear from society altogether. Therefore, law, government, religion, family values, etc. must be beneficial to society or they will cease to exist within society. Cultural Materialists ignore "Emic" (society's opinion) in favor of "Etic" (observation of phenomenon via scientific method).
    that doesn't sound so bad to me

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    Well said @Insomniac. Apparently we are all wrong and @ilovemyselfmorethani is right.

  • Epicurus

    @ilovemyself

    you said:
    "I don’t think you *feel* they are true. But you certainly believe them to be true. A fundamentalist will grow to have both. If you truly believed in determinism, then why think that everything religion has done in the past was wrong? It was determined."

    i have come to the conclusion from my life experiences that they are the best way to live my life most grounded in actual reality rather than a delusion. no matter how charitable that delusion might make me.

    why do think everything religion has done in the past was wrong?? well actually i dont think EVERYTHING it has done in the past is wrong, in fact i have made the argument that religion has followed in our psychological evolution NECESSARILY due to the way our minds strive to make connections and our insistence on living socially. there certainly are bad things religion is responsible for but because they are necessary and determined by previous actions doesnt mean that i cant view them as unfavourable.

    you say:
    "On a materialistic anthropology there is no reason to think that human beings are objectively more valuable than rats."

    im sorry off the bat here but this is the most $tupid thing you have said to me...the reason a human would still value itself over that of a rat is because...THEY THEMSELVES are human. they will not employ a Rawlsian veil of ignorance on this subject. they may realize that in the scheme of the universe, whether they die or not is as consequential as if a rat dies or not but they will realize one thing. their central nervous system will implore them with the urge to stay alive and to maximize pleasure. they are not standing outside of the universe with an eternal consciousness and void from any consequences of their actions. so they will make the decisions that rationally lead to being happy.

    you say:
    "there are many materialists who sacrifice themselves for the future…”"

    and i told you to read The Selfish Gene.

    maybe you can ask the founder of the red cross (agnostic) why she did what she did...or possibly ask the biggest contributors of donations (Bill, Melinda Gates, and Warren Buffet, all atheists)

    a materialistic worldview teaches us that other people are REAL. that this is also the only life they have and that enabling them to be happy will help us be happy also. if people are having a hard time its possible that hard time could fall on us or a loved one, or possibly our future offspring who share our DNA. we are very concerned about this and again i refer you to the Selfish Gene book. its a great read.

    and on cultural materialism which is what you must be refering to (and is very different from the philosophical term)

    Cultural materialism is a scientific research strategy and as such utilizes the scientific method. Other important principles include operational definitions, Karl Popper's falsifiability, Thomas Kuhn's paradigms, and the positivism first proposed by Auguste Comte and popularized by the Vienna Circle. The primary question that arises in applying the techniques of science to understand the differences and similarities between cultures is how the research strategy "treats the relationship between what people say and think as subjects and what they say and think and do as objects of scientific inquiry" (Harris 1979:29). In response to this cultural materialism makes a distinction between behavioral events and ideas, values, and other mental events. It also makes the distinction between emic and etic operations. Emic operations, within cultural materialism, are ones in which the descriptions and analyses are acceptable by the native as real, meaningful, and appropriate. Etic operations are ones in which the categories and concepts used are those of the observer and are able to generate scientific theories. The research strategy prioritizes etic behavior phenomena.

    btw, anyone here make youtube videos???

  • D-K

    Damn you prolific bas*ards... better get to reading, I suppose..

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    @ilovemyselfmorethani,

    OK after 500 comments we found out IT IS YOUR OPINION that Militant Atheist would be more dangerous than Christian Fundamentalist. The only reasoning you offer along your opinion is that Militant Atheism undervalues humans, or equates them with animals, thus the Christian moral system will come to an end as we know it, which will be destructive upon society, that leans to this attitude.

    Not in one single comment you really showed how do you expect this to happen nor you gave wider reasons why do you expect this. It is a silly argument. Your OPINION is explained (if we can say so) with just one silly sentence and you ask to be refuted. In fact you maybe don't realize that there isn't any support in you short reasoning that supposedly holds your opinion. It is just wild guess and speculation.

    If you manage to elaborate the backbone of your opinion with data, examples, evidence, anything at all, everyone here will be happy to agree with you. If it's sound why not.

  • Randy

    Please do not site examples of communism including Marxism and Stalinism etc...

    These, like science, are human constructs and can go wrong. What is theocracy's excuse, exactly?

    Religion has had thousands of years of evil and no god has ever stopped this evil.

    Pope suffering or Stalin suffering? The Pope is god's represenative on Earth. Stalin was just a crazy dude...

    hmmmm....

  • D-K

    I'm taking the same position as Epicurus, I feel you have been a bit vague and circumstantial in your validations concerning the assertion of the inherent danger of militant atheists.

    I haven't met a single atheist or non-believer that positted morality to be objective, I think it's safe to say that a the majority of these groups deem morality relative to context. I am a very rational and logical person, subjectiveness bothers me, it's random and ambivalent. My moral compass has been describes as "warped" on occasion, mostly BECAUSE of my tendency to approach issues objectively. I'd argue typical christian morality to be subjective as well, as context dictates whether or not certain actions are warranted or moral.

    Morality is based on a facade of objectivity, and it's very foundations are rooted in objectivity, religious and non-religious alike. What I think you are forgetting, are unpurposefully omitting from the equation is the execution. Morality lacks the objective agent to be executed objectively, the very fact that it's not only based, but also guided by our frame of reference (which is inherently subjective) prevents it from being executed objectively. Objectivity of it's purpose "to maximize probability of relavively harmonious co-existance" is only possible by attributing moral conviction to whichever action is suited given the context, to maximize prob.. etc. etc.

    Context does not allow for an objective morality. A little example; Killing a man is wrong. Killing a man who poses an immediate threat to yourself and/or your loved ones is justified. Justified how? By context. You are instructed to value life. It is however, left unspecified which life is more valuable. This is where context comes in, which is where subjectivity comes in. At this point I hope I'm still making sense.

    I'd also like to argue that with instances in which a person is referred to as a militant atheist, the militant does actually not reflect on his fanatacism with his faith. You can be a fanatic and still express your faith to noone but yourself. Militant man or fundemantalist man or id*ot man would be more accurate than militant [insert whatever] because the key factor is intolerance, not expression of religious ideas or idealogies. Intolerance has no allegiance to any faith and doesn't subscribe to any philosophical belief structures, it stands on its own.

    "I don’t think a lot of atheists actually follow their worldview to it’s logical conclusions. But with the popularity
    of materialism gaining steam, I think a lot would be going this route soon"

    It's not so much as materialism gaining steam, it's more that religious persuasions and spiritualism seem outdated concepts in today's technology driven societies. It just doesn't apply in the way that it used to. Materialism is the default. I know you argued at some point that people are born believing in god but I like to think that I blew that argument out of the water and you've since described to people being blank slates, besides genetic imprint.

    --------------------------------

    Diatribes aside, allow me to take your response point for point. -I said: “Please flesh this out, why is it not good? I assume you mean by ephemeral that morality and inherent consequence is limited to the material world? Most, if not all, atheist and agnostic alike feels this way”

    To which you said:

    – I actually mean that in the materialist worldview, morality is relative/subjective –which I’ve already established you agree with.

    Is it safe to assume that you mean that you find a subjective morality to be "not good"? I refer you to that massive slab of words above.

    To your thief-killing example, i'd posit that 2 wrongs don't make a right. What's this!? D-K replying with cliché rhetoric? What mockery! But I'm serious, while it's logical to punish immoral behaviour, it seems counterproductive to do so with immoral behaviour. You don't wash dirt of a car with other dirt.

    Killing people is always the most effective way to keep them from stealing stuff, but we're talking morality here. Not the efficiency of homo habilis' legal system.

    I also don't really understand how a materialist fundamentalist would work.. instead of dismissing all input of non-material basis will he do it with a shirt that mocks religee's? Is he offered incentive to deprive religee's of their right to be religee's?

    Because I can account to things fundemantalist of any random religion have done that are considered dangerous. The only actual dangerous militant atheist I can recall is the unabomber. And it's quite a strech to link his activities to absence of faith.

    "– It is the only logical outcome for an atheist. Other beliefs will have other logical outcomes"

    An atheist can be a buddhist. It's actually quite logical for an atheist to be a buddhist.

    buddhism. about. com/od/ basicbuddhistteachings/a/ buddhaatheism.htm

  • coyote03

    awesome, learning so much from all these comments :)

  • D-K

    I will concede to you on one thing though, I may undervalue human life. By the absense of a universal human life valuemometer, and the fact that I don't have an objective scale to assess the value of any life myself, I'm forced to adopt yours.

    Yours states that humans are above other animals, seeing as I feel differently, logic dictates I undervalue human life.

    In the end you are correct in that atheists may undervalue human life, but they must first adopt a measurement of human life that is not only a logical fallacy, but also based on religion in order for you to be right. (which is another logical fallacy in its own)

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ Vlatko

    "The only reasoning you offer along your opinion is that Militant Atheism undervalues humans"

    -- You must have missed my point about Atheism leading to Materialism and Determinism -- or do you deny this? And therefore, we can all logically guess what a fundamentalist materialist/determinist will be like. I cited examples --The john Hick ant learning of his own socio-biological pressures , etc.

    I find it odd that you still say all I cited was my opinion. Is this some tactic of yours?

    (I am pertaining to New Atheism, I must say, because one can be an atheist and believe in ghosts. I'm talking here about the atheism predicated on scientism)

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ Vlatko

    "Well said @Insomniac. Apparently we are all wrong and @ilovemyselfmorethani is right."

    -- Which is another way of saying: 'Well we can't be all wrong, so we must be right, and he must be wrong!' There is a fallacy lurking in there somewhere, wouldn't you want to agree?

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ Epicurus

    "i have made the argument that religion has followed in our psychological evolution NECESSARILY due to the way our minds strive to make connections and our insistence on living socially. there certainly are bad things religion is responsible for but because they are necessary and determined by previous actions doesnt mean that i cant view them as unfavourable."

    --O.K. But do you agree that a 'determinist' who takes a rather MILITANT stance will think differently? Isn't it logical that he will, at least to some significant degree, believe that everything is determined, therefore nothing is unfavourable? We are all puppets, therefore, have no moral value, and etc. See, I'm not talking about you, or normal atheists.

    "im sorry off the bat here but this is the most $tupid thing you have said to me…the reason a human would still value itself over that of a rat is because…THEY THEMSELVES are human."

    -- Ah, which can lead a Fundamentalist to say "well, that's just specie-ism. You are simply biased in favour of your own specie. I can kill you just as I can any other animal". We are talking about fundamentalists here, remember.

    "they will not employ a Rawlsian veil of ignorance on this subject."

    -- Who are "they"? I'm talking about Fundamentalist materialists/determinists, you seem to be talking about completely sane people.

    "maybe you can ask the founder of the red cross (agnostic) why she did what she did…or possibly ask the biggest contributors of donations (Bill, Melinda Gates, and Warren Buffet, all atheists)"

    -- I don't think they are fundamentalists.

    "a materialistic worldview teaches us that other people are REAL."

    -- Or just blobs of matter, for the fundamentalist, since essentially, that's also true.

    "that this is also the only life they have and that enabling them to be happy will help us be happy also."

    -- Unless happiness will have to be at the expense of others, and since "this is the only life they have".. well you can see what's in train there.

    Look, man, you are describing how reasonable thinking atheists will behave --pretty much just like any reasonable thinking Christian. But it its pretty clear to me that, as I've explained above, an atheist fundamentalist will be more dangerous than a Christian one.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ Insomniac

    "Try to think about this entire conversation this way; either you are one of the greatest geniuses in the history of the world and everyone else on this site is a complete ***** who knows nothing about anything at all, OR, you are wrong."

    -- Those are the only 2 possible outcomes? Thank you, for showing how narrow are.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ D-K

    "Yours states that humans are above other animals, seeing as I feel differently, logic dictates I undervalue human life.
    In the end you are correct in that atheists may undervalue human life, but they must first adopt a measurement of human life that is not only a logical fallacy, but also based on religion in order for you to be right. (which is another logical fallacy in its own)"

    -- Without getting into whether it's a logical fallacy or not, if it was based on Christianity, then that would be setting the bar pretty high. And having said that, you now must concede that, at least ostensibly, a militant atheist will be worse than a Christian one. So do I have to go through each one of your previous points?

  • Randy

    @ilovemyselfmorethani

    You know, that will never heal if you keep picking at it....

  • over the edge

    @ ilovemyself
    what is a fundamentalist atheist anyway? my personal definition of a fundamentalist would be a strict adherence to a common set of beliefs. exactly what common set of beliefs do atheists have to be fundamentalist about. the only definition of a atheist is the non belief in a god or gods so a fundamentalist atheist really really doesn't believe in god? trying to define atheists any other way is to prove you do not understand what atheists are.because of our lack of belief in god we will form our own value and moral stances based on experience and the demands of the society we live in. if an atheist devalues human life it is because he/she is a s.o.b who happens to not believe in god. not because he has a twisted belief in a non existent set of atheistic guidelines

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ D-K

    “I haven’t met a single atheist or non-believer that positted
    morality to be objective, I think it’s safe to say that the
    majority of these groups deem morality relative to context.”

    – Well, there are a few actually. Moral acts ARE relative to context. But ‘Morality’ is a system of behaviour which in turn encompasses motivations.

    “I’d argue typical christian morality to be subjective as well, as context dictates whether or not certain actions are warranted or moral.”

    – “Context dictates whether or not certain actions are
    warranted or moral”. But the ‘act’ is different from the moral judgement that precedes it. The motivating force may be a distinguishing feature of normative judgments. Thus motivation is an integral part of morality. And I will make the case that, motivation does not change, as seen throughout history. Which, for me is evidence for some sense of moral objectivity.

    “What I think you are forgetting, are unpurposefully
    omitting from the equation is the execution.”

    – “What I think you are forgetting, or are unpurposefully omitting from the equation is the” ‘motivation’. Which I will argue holds MORE moral weight. What is the difference between (1) getting something I don’t know isn’t mine, and (2) getting something I know isn’t mine — the motivation. You can argue they are both the same, since in both instances,
    I got something that isn’t mine. The acts are the same, but one is ‘stealing’ and one isn’t; one is morally neutral, and one is immoral. And all that changes is the ‘motivation’ for the act.

    “I know you argued at some point that people are born believing in god but I like to think that I blew that argument out of the water and you’ve since described to people being blank slates, besides genetic imprint.”

    – Well, what I meant (now I can’t remember exactly what I said) was that most people who’ve ever lived do believe in a God, and there are persuasive arguments that suggest that belief in a God made societies more successful — a selection pressure, if you will. No I don’t believe in Tabula Rasa. A blank Slate with a genetic imprint would be an oxymoron.

    “Is it safe to assume that you mean that you find a subjective morality to be “not good”? I refer you to that massive slab of words above.”

    – Yes I believe it’s “not good”. Your massive slab of words show the subjectivity of actions and not motivations.

    “while it’s logical to punish immoral behaviour, it seems counterproductive to do so with immoral behaviour. You don’t wash dirt of a car with other dirt.”

    –Ofcourse.

    “Killing people is always the most effective way to keep them from stealing stuff, but we’re talking morality here. Not the efficiency of homo habilis’ legal system.”

    – The motivation is to disincentivize stealing. And moral behaviour includes motivations.

    “An atheist can be a buddhist. It’s actually quite logical for an atheist to be a buddhist.”

    – I’m sure you have persuasive arguments that I can get from the link you posted. But off the bat, I think the atheist will have to believe in some kind of supernatural realm (reincarnation, law of karma, etc.)

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ D-K

    My other comment is still in moderation, for some reason. Could be coz I wrote all of it in 'notepad' and pasted it here.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ over the edge

    Well I argue that an atheist (who's worldview is predicated on scientism) will logically be led to 2 conclusions: materialism and determinism. That in itself is probably not as bad as "religee's" would make it seem, but consider a fundamentalist holding those beliefs; a fundamentalist materialist, or a fundamentalist determinist, or one who holds both.

  • Epicurus

    @ilovemyself, absolutely not. in no way whatsoever would a fundamental materialist not view certain things that happen as unfavorable just because he sees them to be predetermined.

    i think what you are comparing a materialist to is a calvinist or a fundamental evangelical christian. since they think everything that happens is planned out by god. but i would say even they will view certain things unfavorable.

    here:
    "Ah, which can lead a Fundamentalist to say “well, that’s just specie-ism. You are simply biased in favour of your own specie. I can kill you just as I can any other animal”. We are talking about fundamentalists here, remember."

    why would a fundamentalist say that? they would then realize that someone would be more likely to view them that way. WHY would a fundamentalist position on materialism deny altruism and morality?? we have given you the reasons over and over and over again as to how these morals developed and the rational behind them, these dont change for a materialist. if anything they are strengthened.

    you seem to be assuming that a fundamentalist materialistic view would make someone crazy and irrational. you havent yet proven this since we are still arguing so to say that im treating this person sane ought to be obvious. i have been arguing that they would be sane. and actually more rational thus sane.

    you are NOT at all explaining how this world view makes one immoral or insane. try using an argument form to show your argument.

    make your claim: Materialism and determinism makes one not care for human life.

    Now here you would provide some form of rational argument here that would provide credence to your claim.

    i would say a fundamentalist view of the bible would make one kill children who speak back or work on the sabbath or is homosexual or isnt the same belief as them.

    my proof for this is if one is going to follow the religion fundamentally the source of their information will be the holy books. they will, if they are fundamental like the argument we are making here stipulates, then they will follow it all word for word. making morality objective to gods whims, the last time god informed of us his moral views was in the bible, and we must follow them. so until he writes a new book against slavery and war, then we have to follow those rules.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ Randy

    "You know, that will never heal if you keep picking at it…."

    -- What you talkin bout? This is fun! =)

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ Epicurus

    You are basically arguing that it won't logically follow for a fundamentalist, I'm basically arguing that it i will.

    We can argue who is right Nietzsche or Spinoza all day.

    And on your bible example: the question would be would Jesus have been a guard at Aushwitz? To be a true follower of Christ, one will have to ask what Jesus would have done. Those bible-thumping fundies you mention can verily be said to be un-Christian.

  • over the edge

    @ilovemyself
    atheism is not predicated on scientism plain and simple it has nothing to do with it. If your argument is IF a particular atheist had these views that it would be bad or even worse than a fundamentalist christian then i would say that the devaluing of human life had nothing to do with being atheist only this particular persons views in other areas. you would have to agree that some Christians have done bad things that have nothing to do with Christianity. i will admit that atheists can do bad things that have nothing to do with atheism. but the lack of belief in god has nothing to do with your scenario

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ over the edge

    "atheism is not predicated on scientism plain and simple it has nothing to do with it. "

    -- Ofcourse. You can be an atheist and believe in ghosts, reincarnation, or have an imaginary friend. You can be an atheist and believe in an afterlife, or what have you. I'm talking about the kind of atheism that is predicated on scientism, who are more commonly referred to as 'The New Atheists'.

    "but the lack of belief in god has nothing to do with your scenario"

    -- Yes.

  • Epicurus

    "You are basically arguing that it won’t logically follow for a fundamentalist, I’m basically arguing that it i will."

    right but i have provided point, proof, type statements and you have just made assertions.

    "He said to them, 'But now if you have a purse, take it and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. (Luke 22:36)"

    "So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds. (From the NIV Bible, Revelation 2:22-23)"

    "Do not suppose that I [Jesus] have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. (Matthew 10:34)"

    "I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away an withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. (John 15:5-6)"

    "That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. (Luke 12:47-48)"

    this was my point, you can not cherry pick what parts of jesus you like and what you dont. and when you do that you show that you recognize jesus was not perfect.

    hmmm..do you believe in the literal story of adam and eve and original sin? and if not, what was the purpose of the crucifixion and resurrection? and if you do believe in the literal story....well.....why? lol

  • Randy

    Indeed, over the edge.

    These ideologies are nothing to get your panties in a twist over. If you would allow me to simplify your statements.

    Focus on making a living for yourself and your family. Assume that no one is looking out for you! You have to do it yourself!

    Then, if there is some god or whatever, and it says to you at the hour of your death, "You took care of everyone, but you denied that my son died on a cross and then was resurrected... you must go to HELL!"

    You can say back to that a**hole, "Suck upon my penis-- whanker!" And both of your middle fingers will be shoved in It's face.

    Or, more likely, you will just fall into endless, dreamless, black. Just a thought...

  • over the edge

    @ilovemyself
    i went to the new atheists website and found no mention of scientism . now these people really don't like religion and i can see how they can offend you. their own statement is " Intolerance of ignorance, myth and superstition; disregard for the tolerance of religion.Indoctrination of logic, reason and the advancement of a naturalistic worldview." I also went to wikipedia and got a similar statement. also scientism is defined as "Scientism is the idea that natural science is the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, and that it is superior to all other interpretations of life." or we can use the scientific method to explain everything to put it another way. where is the devaluing of human life in here.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @Epicurus

    "right but i have provided point, proof, type statements and you have just made assertions."

    -- Materialist: 'The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.' (You say this can only lead people to appreciate the world more? Really?)

    you say:

    "WHY would a fundamentalist position on materialism deny altruism and morality??"

    -- BECAUSE THEY ARE ILLUSORY. A socio biological spin-off. John Hick's ant having been endowed with socio-biological knowledge, did you read that?

    Determinism: 'is the philosophical view that every event, including human cognition, behaviour, decision, and action is causally determined' (Don't you think Fundies won't see themselves as mere puppets? Really? There's NO logic to that whatsoever?)

    "we have given you the reasons over and over and over again as to how these morals developed and the rational behind them, these dont change for a materialist. if anything they are strengthened."

    -- People suddenly find out that morality is ILLUSORY, and that "strengthens" their moral senses? Really? O.K. I'll grant that that can happen. But, what about for a fundie? The same thing? Wow.

    "you seem to be assuming that a fundamentalist materialistic view would make someone crazy and irrational."

    -- No, not crazy and irrational. Very rational in fact. Very consistent with his worldview.

    "make your claim: Materialism and determinism makes one not care for human life."

    -- Yes. Follow the worldview to it's logical conclusion. Morality is ILLUSORY (and example of John Hick), we are biologically pressured to do certain things that may endanger us, but in the end WHY should we do them, if everyone will end up dead anyway?

    All you have to do is follow the worldview of materialism and determinism to their logical conclusions. The sugary situations you seem to be positing will be the result of a materialist/determinist worldview, seems more like a bunch of people succumbing to the whole ILLUSION.

    --

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ over the edge

    Ofcourse you won't find it there. It's a term used pejoratively. Scientism leads to materialism and determinism. Nuff said.

  • Randy

    @ilovemyselfmorethani

    OK. You are getting a little over-excited. Let's calm down a little bit...

    Your mommy told you something, and maybe she was wrong. Your daddy told you something, and maybe HE was wrong...

    Is all's I'm sayin' You can walk away from them. It won't kill you.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ Randy

    Walk away from these guys? Why would I want to do that?

  • over the edge

    @ ilovemyself
    ok we will agree to disagree on that side of the topic. now tell me how a fundamentalist christian would be less harmful with passages like this."Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." -- Jesus
    Matthew 10:34-39 . It is basically permission to kill everybody and anybody who doesn't love jesus more then anything as an atheist that certainly scares me more

  • Randy

    That is an interesting question.

    Why WOULD you want to walk away from your only means of support? Unless it is to become your own, whole, human being...

    Hmmmm...

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ Randy

    Thanks Grampa! Lol I'm neither in pain nor am I confused. We are different. But you're a kind-hearted person, I can tell. And I have nothing against atheists, because of people like you. I just hate fundies, on both sides.

    Anyways, I won't be replying to ya'll peoples anymore. Hey I CONCEDE! Wow that's the third time now. At 25 I'm already losing my steel, can't be good!

  • Randy

    @ilovemyselfmorethani

    *chuckles* Ok, honey. Have a good life!

  • Gunnar Reiersen

    @D-K: "Gunnar: Evolution is compatible with deism.. But I guess that’d count as “there IS no God!” so there really isn’t a point to stating this."

    I agree with you that Evolution is compatible with deism; but I am less certain that deism necessarily counts as "there IS no God!" It certainly counts as "there is no God that directly intervenes in human affairs and answers personal prayers." This deistic concept of God seems to me to be among the LEAST improbable concepts of God, and the various Judeo-Christian and Muslim concepts of God to be among the MOST improbable.

    Personally, I don't claim to know with certainty whether there is a such thing as God or not, and doubt there is any unequivocal means of deciding the issue one way or the other (other than dying and finding oneself still existing afterwards as a conscious, thinking entity, perhaps). Some would call this atheism, others would define it as agnosticism. Take your choice.

  • Randy

    Yes. What Gunnar said, up there...

    I, essentially, agree.

  • Gunnar Reiersen

    I tend to agree with ilovemyselfmorethani that "fundamentalism" (if by that he means essentially the same thing as "fanaticism") is inherently evil and highly conducive to bigotry and intolerance. There is such a thing as atheistic fanatics, and they are every bit as irrational and dangerous as any other kind of fanatic.

    There seems to be a distressingly large number of people who particularly prone to fanaticism about whatever they choose to believe. It is probably easier to convert a fanatic from one brand of fanaticism to another, contrary one than to cure one of being a fanatic (like the electric monk in Douglas Adams' DIRK GENTLY'S HOLISTIC DETECTIVE AGENCY). I have even encountered people (especially on the internet) who fanatically hold to two or more mutually exclusive and contradictory beliefs at the same time!

  • Gunnar Reiersen

    Hi again Randy! As usual, I appreciate and enjoy your comments!

  • Randy

    Douglas Adams... A great prophet!

    You reminded me of him and my laugh out loud in english classes...

    Don't Panic! Do you have your towel, Gunnar?

  • Gunnar Reiersen

    @Randy:
    "Don’t Panic! Do you have your towel, Gunnar?"

    I think someone swiped it from me the last time I visited The Restaurant at the End of the Universe.

  • Randy

    Oh, my goodness, tears are streaming down my face....

    What a great genius he was...

  • Gunnar Reiersen

    Agreed!

  • Gunnar Reiersen

    BTW, Randy, Have you read Adams' book LAST CHANCE TO SEE? This is a non-fiction work in which he both poignantly and humorously documents the plight of various endangered species and the efforts to save them from the ravages of human rapacity and indifference. I highly recommend it if you haven't already read it (or, for that matter, even if you HAVE read it, as it is definitely worth a second and subsequent read).

  • Randy

    Yes, Gunnar, I have a copy of that book in my library... it is beautiful and remarkable...

    And, as you mention it, I will have to re-read it, even as we speak....

    Thank you!

  • Randy

    Here is something intersting:

    I remeber back in the day, when India was food-poor and Calcutta was called the "Heart-break-of the World"

    India is subject to periodic droughts, sometimes four years at a time without rain... and the Ghangese river is horribly poluuted...

    Hindu fakirs (priests) have often given their lives to tigers, offering themselves for food so that they might feed their tiger babies...

    In these times of drought and suffering... how many christians do you kow that would do that?

  • Achems Razor

    @Randy:

    Don't know, but it says in the christians hand books, bibles etc: that suicide, or assisted suicide is a sin.

    Then brings to mind did not Jesus committ assisted suicide? did he not then damn his soul?
    So christians should be praising a demon!, rather than a god.

  • Randy

    @Achems

    Yes, indeed, did this jesus character NOT commit suicide? He knew, apparently, what was going to happen to him,

    He said, at one point, and I am just riffing here, "No man takes my life! I lay it down and take it up.... etc..."

    Really what it comes down to, is that life was miserable throughout the dark-ages... and even in Rome, but the slaves were not aloud to commit suicide, that was only for the nobles.

    The slaves were product and commerce, they could not take charge of their lives... Suicide was a noble death...

    Whatever, man...

  • Randy

    And, this slave attitude is pervassive, even today.

    No one will murder me. I will murder MYSELF, thank you.

    I do not fear death. I fear poverty, but death is nothing...

    I'm just sayin'

  • eireannach666

    @Ilovetoarguernorethanyou
    Ok I've sat back long enough. You have to be the most stubborn religious at hearted person I've met, you just keep using circular debate tactics to try and make yourself seem as if you are right. Everyone here has stated that you are wrong and even presented their cases with backing and explanation. You however have failed to spell it out for anyone. Stop this madness man. Your getting upset and attacking people because they logically destroy your point. And what has really angered me the most is you trying to discredit someone ideas and knowledge even of fact because they do not have a degree in a particular area. There are lots of garbage men, janitors etc that never went to college but studied learned and know more than any of us. You ha e lost and you resort to cheap shots? What a poor sport you are.

    Shame on you man. You disgrace yourself and look foolish when too do that kind of stuff.

    Don't be so bull headed and take it in as a new way of thinking for yourself.

    Or give some examples and sources that can strengthen your argument. you have to stop being a little kid about being wrong and accepting defeat. If you learned felon the loss then you won as well.

    Just because you say its truw and your misinformed reletives, friends and clergy say its true doesn't make it so. Again I say that we can explain all the things you are assuming by simple logical deduction and reasoning.

    And don't just continue to argue if you feel you need to walk away. What you never had to bite your tounge before? Its a good practice although I too have trouble with that from ime to time.

    And to insult Vlatko, man that's put of line. He is a brilliant mind and I am sure more intellegent than most. He also runs rthis site you should apologize.

    Needless to say again there is no god and all our trits are imbeded in our dna and passed on by our ancestors and parents , geneticly and by instruction. As Randy said, philosophy bakes no bread and science and math can cure your confusion my friend.
    No offense intended. Just think about that for a minute.

    @Randy the Great and Achems the Razor

    I agree. He killed him self and put himself through all that torture just because of an ancient prophecy. Put to death like S/M. Or so it is said to have happened. Plus I couldn't worship a god who kills his kids and then uses us for a cop out, heck ill just start blaming all the issues o the world on him since he could theoreticly fix it. Blame it on god , LIAR!

  • Epicurus

    "Materialist: ‘The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.’ "

    YES, WHY NOT?!?!?

    "BECAUSE THEY ARE ILLUSORY. A socio biological spin-off. John Hick’s ant having been endowed with socio-biological knowledge, did you read that?"

    yes i read your ridiculous quote from a religious philosopher. it didnt provide any proof or evidence for your claims. was just a pointless story that pretended ants were humans. you want a response to this CHILDISH reference then READ THE SELFISH GENE. rather than a philosopher talking about ants, read something based in science talking about humans.

    "Determinism: ‘is the philosophical view that every event, including human cognition, behaviour, decision, and action is causally determined’ (Don’t you think Fundies won’t see themselves as mere puppets? Really? There’s NO logic to that whatsoever?)"

    NO, you do though and you havent shown why this would be the case. you certainly have asserted it but you havent shown it. I fully recognize that my life in the universe is meaningless. however i will try to survive to stimulate my CNS and enjoy the one bit of experience i have. no there is no logic to saying that because humans would realize they are a mere by-product of the big bang that they will then become emotionless towards everything...again that is $tupid.

    "People suddenly find out that morality is ILLUSORY, and that “strengthens” their moral senses? Really? O.K. I’ll grant that that can happen. But, what about for a fundie? The same thing? Wow."

    wow....morality isnt illusory they realize morality is a set of rules to help us live happily and with ease. HOW MANY TIMES AM I GOING TO HAVE TO EXPLAIN TO YOU WHAT MORALITY IS AND WHY WE HAVE IT??? its like you arent even reading peoples posts just skimming through them for semantics to argue about.

    "Yes. Follow the worldview to it’s logical conclusion. Morality is ILLUSORY (and example of John Hick), we are biologically pressured to do certain things that may endanger us, but in the end WHY should we do them, if everyone will end up dead anyway?"

    because for the time being they wont be dead...and because of the selfish gene.

    "Dawkins proposes the idea of the "replicator," the initial molecule which first managed to reproduce itself and thus gained an advantage over other molecules within the primordial soup. Today, Dawkins postulates, the replicators are the genes within living organisms.

    Dawkins writes that gene combinations which help an organism to survive and reproduce tend to also improve the gene's own chances of being passed on and, as a result, frequently "successful" genes will also be beneficial to the organism. An example of this might be a gene that protects the organism against a disease, which helps the gene spread and also helps the organism."

    There are other times when the implicit interests of the vehicle and replicator are in conflict, such as the genes behind certain male spiders' instinctive mating behaviour, which increase the organism's inclusive fitness by allowing it to reproduce, but shorten its life by exposing it to the risk of being eaten by the cannibalistic female. Another good example is the existence of segregation distortion genes that are detrimental to their host but nonetheless propagate themselves at its expense. Likewise, the existence of junk DNA that provides no benefit to its host, once a puzzle, can be more easily explained. A more controversial example is aging, in which an old organism's death makes room for its offspring, benefiting its genes at the cost of the organism.

    nothing about your argument proivides one with the evidence to assume a materialist would become immoral and aloof towards all life including theirs. that completely ignores any genetic drive humans may have.

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ Epicurus

    I'll only say that the majority of Philosophers find that building a secular foundation for morality is a very shaky proposal --Atheist philosophers included (Michael Ruse, Nietche, etc.)

    You asked me to read Bob Wright's book 'The Moral Animal'. He's a brilliant guy, I must say. By the way, he agrees with the above.

    Yes. You've explained about the origins of morality. And it's a 'trick' to keep people in line. An illusion that keeps the species evolutionarily successful. Problem is, most people won't give a rat's behind about having evolutionary success. Which is why Dawkins (or maybe it was Dennett) keeps using the term "hoodwinked by natural selection".

    I seriously don't know why you're not getting this. You simply assert that it cannot logically follow. That puts you at odds with a lot of meta-ethicists.

    Anyway, fine. Agree to disagree.

  • eireannach666

    All these isms being thrown around is ridiculous. Ists and isms sounds like were all sick, and maybe we are. I don't even like being called an atheist but this is the language we all have to speak atheism , pfft. Fu** any ism or ist or any label for that matter. Society deems it necessary to lsbel in order to categorize and set apart people. Oh and Fu** society too.

  • Randy

    eireannach666, Epicurus!

    There is something niether of you fully understands! Pay attention as I say in a gravelly voice,

    "I'm Batman!"

    Does that help at all, or....?

  • over the edge

    @ randy
    you are batman
    cool can i borrow the car?

    @ilovemyself
    i thought you were done lol. don't worry i am not going to fight anymore we can agree to disagree (on this topic anyway).on a side note even if we don't agree i appreciate discussing different points of view and i will admit you pointed my to some ideas i haven't heard before so at least i know more today then i did yesterday .even if i don't agree

  • Randy

    @over the edge

    Nobody borrows the car. I don't even let Robin drive it!

    LOL

    Listen, I was digging out my Batman comics... good lord! I got books that are over 25 years old... annuals and anniversary specials... good books!

    I love Neal Adams' art...

    Do you guys know that Batman debuted in 1937? That DC comics is named DC after "Detective Comics" which was Batman's home comic?

    American icon...

  • eireannach666

    @Randy

    LOL Don't worry I won't tell people or think of you differently because you
    Wear tights and hang out with a guy you call the "boy wonder".

    Just kidding you're awesome batman.

    Hey there as a doc called something like pebble of sand or pearl of sand but I was wondering if Carl Sagan did voice over on it? Sounded just like him. Do you have any idea? I asked earlier but got nothing.

  • Randy

    HAHAHA! Yes, there is that whole problem with Robin... You know Bob Kane the creater of Batman resisted the idea of a teenage sidekick. It was simply "the fashion" so...

    It's hilarious, there are several panels from the 50's that show Bruce Wayne and D*ck Grayson waking up together in the same bed... they have their PJ's on... but...

    I am not familiar with the doc you speak of. It sounds very interesting, however...

  • eireannach666

    It was a doc on the planet and its life on a large scale. Sounds like something he might do. I dont know though.

    What a loss.

  • Randy

    Yes, but his work survives. All things that live must die, passing through nature--- to eternity...

    And your work will survive here, too!

    Do not be afraid, my freind.

    I'm Batman!

  • ez2b12

    @ eireannach666
    I have tried to find this elusive doc and determine said narrator, to no avil. Where it is my friend? where it is? I looked on PBS and could not find it, probably me, or the weed I can never tell which.I would like to see the doc though really, where is it?

  • Randy

    @ez2b12

    You are a good guy. I can see that from here. I have been around the rodeo a few times, so I know the good guys from the bad guys...

    You are a good guy.

  • Achems Razor

    Hit youtube..."Ribbon Of Sand"

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    @ilovemyselfmorethani,

    "You must have missed my point about Atheism leading to Materialism and Determinism — or do you deny this? And therefore, we can all logically guess what a fundamentalist materialist/determinist will be like."

    No I didn't miss your point and I deny it. Are you driving a car? If yes, that sounds like raw display of materialism to me. Don't you think that is irresponsible in a time when we know that gasoline is responsible for polluting the environment. The car is not God given object. It is invented and developed by science (people). The fact is you use science and you lean to science every day.

    Atheism is not leading to materialism but every society does. If you use science even with your smallest atom you do tend to materialism. You're all surrounded by materialism and you enforce it every day even if you're Theist. Even Amish enforce materialism in a way.

    Do you believe that the Sun and our solar system will inevitability die one day. Remember that is not just an opinion. That will happen for sure. It is a hard core scientific fact and it's already determined with the birth of our solar system. So if you believe in that than you're thinking deterministic. Or do you believe that you would die one day. That too is already determined when you were born. You see people dying around. So you already have lot of deterministic wordlviews and yet you're Theist.

    Having said that you can't deny that not just atheists but all living people with the appearance of the first scientific thought (the discovery of the first simple stone tool) carry materialistic and deterministic worldviews which are amplifying as the times go buy, while Science advances forward.

    So let imagine for a moment a society in which there are no atheists. Everyone is theist and believes in some deity. However since the human nature is to question everything, to discover, to invent, to try to make the life better, people will eventually develop science. They will discover all sorts of things but the faith in the creator will persist some time. De-facto materialism and determinism will set roots in this given society even if it is just a theistic society. It is only a matter of time when someone questions the existence of God. When you have that kind of momentum filed with materialism and determinism it is very hard to cover up the dirt. The question of existence on a scientific level will inevitably arise in whichever society you are. And of course there you go: an Atheist is born.

    Isn't that odd that atheism is always produced in a theistic society. We may also safely say that Theism is and always was allowing materialism and determinism, thus allowed the birth of atheism. And why? Because it is unstoppable process of the human nature. You can wipe out all Atheists and ban Science for good but eventually the process will restart and you'll come to the same state as today because of the very HUMAN NATURE to explore things around.

    What will happen with this process in the future we can philosophically discuss for weeks and weeks and we can never conclude the right outcome.

    Also Atheist is a very new word. Militant Atheist is even newer word. It is invented very recently by the religious zealots in desperate need to defend their beliefs. There is no atheist as such. If you accept the definition of atheist, as religion describes it, than you too are atheist in a way, since you don't completely discard science and the benefits of it. So you carry atheistic worldviews in some aspects although you declare as Theist. Or it's just me who thinks you declare as such.

    To conclude: There are no atheists. There is only a society in which people apply science and that might lead to materialism and determinism which is a natural process. The problem is that you see that as bad thing. What will happen in far future some generations will tell that story... if humans survive.

  • D-K

    Aw damnit, Nobody is ever online when I am, and I come home from work to 60-100 emails telling me everbody’s been productive on TDF again.

    And now my sparring partner threw in the towel! Gah! Meh, for good measure, here we go anyway.

    “– Well, there are a few actually. Moral acts ARE relative to context. But ‘Morality’ is a system of behaviour which in turn encompasses motivations”

    I’m with you so far.

    “And I will make the case that, motivation does not change, as seen throughout history. Which, for me is evidence for some sense of moral objectivity”

    Motivation is not inherently objective. Principles are. Motivations change according to context, acts change according to motivation. Context does not affect the act, only the thought process leading up to the act, thus motivation. You’re a big boy, I bet you can muster up an example cementing this statement yourself.

    Also, I remember this vividly, you actually said “people are born believing in god”, because it was the inherent humorous pretentiousness that made it stick with me. You can imagine I had quite a few yucks with that one.

    The imprinted blank slate is indeed an oxymo*on, I should have gone with vessel, but I just don’t like that word. Plus, blank vessel just sounds ridiculous. (a joke, indeed)

    “I’m sure you have persuasive arguments that I can get from the link you posted. But off the bat, I think the atheist will have to believe in some kind of supernatural realm (reincarnation, law of karma, etc.)”

    Oh come on… that’s just weak man.. you can do better. Hahaha, funny though.

    (I keep forgetting "oxymo*on" sets off the moderation alarms, sorry for the double post, Vlatko)

  • Randy

    "I think the atheist will have to believe in some kind of supernatural realm (reincarnation, law of karma, etc.)”

    No. I really, really do not have to believe in any of that.

    I know for a fact that my body and its nutrients will be re-used by the Earth, as I only "rent" my life and do not own it.

    In that way, I suppose, there is a kind of physical re-incarnation...

    But consiousness surviving after brain-death? I can't think of anything more terrifying. I don't know how you people take comfort in that idea.

    I want to sleep forever, finally rest from this horrible burden. Never to wake again. That seems really good and comforting to me... I don't know about you religees...

    I mean, do you really like your family so much that you want to be with them forever in some fuzzy afterlife? I can only stand most people for 2 minutes at a time... then I gots ta go!

    Gibbering maniacs...

  • D-K

    Preach brother, preach! (oh the irony!)

    Never mind the earth-cycle, how about the great Matter cycle? I don't think there's an afterlife, I don't need the "comfort" of it. I also think that adopting a worldview in which there is an eternal afterlife trivializes the life you're certain to be conscious of. Dead certain, for lack of better term.

    Then again, my view is not without it's downsides. Here's a quick little thought I had that kinda felt like a logical bummer. "If I was right all along, I'll never know, if I was wrong, I'll never hear the end of it"

    I was also reminded of a depressing pact I made when I was 7. I promised myself if I were ever to have acces to a time-machine, I'd let myself know on my 8th birthday, so I'd have something to look forward too.

    No such message.

    On the other hand, I figured that perhaps with time, I would come upon an age which the future me would deem more suitable to rock my world. I could see myself pulling pranks on past me, which would be downright awesome.

    ...

    I'll stop now.

  • ez2b12

    Thanks Randy, really I appreciate that. I haven't been around on this site long but I love it. I've made some really good friends on here. Hope to talk to you in the future.

  • Randy

    @D-K who wrote:

    "I also think that adopting a worldview in which there is an eternal afterlife trivializes the life you’re certain to be conscious of. Dead certain, for lack of better term..."

    Indeed. This life is not a dress rehearsal. This is it, man. Make the best of it!

    I liked your story about the time machine! When I was 7 I was reading HP Lovecraft and Bram Stoker... I wanted to meet Dracula... *shrug*

    You and I are a personality types known as "Outsiders"...

    Just putting that out there...

  • Achems Razor

    @Randy:

    You know, that drives me like a moth to a flame! Here we go on this oblivion conundrum again.

    Ha,Ha, no oblivion. Randy, sorry to pop your balloon, you have to be conscious in oblivion to know what oblivion is and how long. Complete paradox. So there is always something, never nothing.

  • Randy

    @Achems

    You dirty hippie! LOL!

    Well, I would ask you this:

    Before you were born, what did you see?

  • Achems Razor

    @Randy:

    Who knows, could have been dead for a billions of years, even in some other reality, do you think time matters then. So there is no nothing, no oblivion, unless you can give me a definition? I know, I seem to be fixated on this subject, (LOL)

  • Randy

    @Achems

    There was a vast ocean of time in which you did not exist. You exist now, for a brief time, and that is fun for all of us...

    But, there will come a time when you no longer exist.

    And the World moves on...

    I don't know if I can paint a better picture for you...

  • Achems Razor

    @Randy:

    Yes, but you are saying that time is relevant in supposedly oblivion, there is no time, so if there is no time, there is no oblivion. nothing flows without time, not even oblivion, does it? so again I say there is no oblivion.

    Just saying!

  • D-K

    Time does not equal reality.

  • Achems Razor

    @D-K:

    Don't know what you mean. Time and reality are intertwined.

  • D-K

    Never mind, I'm really too tired to get into it anyway.

  • Randy

    Oy! This "time" question again...

    I've said it beofre and I'll say it again... "time" is simply a measure of movement and distance and is regulated by the Arrow of Entropy, (rate of decay).

    The human mind is very bad at time-mapping. Our experience of time is so subjective as to be rather pointless.

    In fact, all day today, I thought it was still Monday. When my wife told me it was Tuesday, I was amazed. How did I lose a whole day?

    And so on, like that...

  • Achems Razor

    @Randy:

    Yes, I agree. time is subjective and only relative to the observer.

    So I have been saying the same thing, in a round about way.

    Did you try the new doc. on TDF... its pretty good..."Discovering Religion"

  • Scott Henthorn

    I find watching this fascinating. Some of it is very true, but I am smirking at the profound irony that AronRa seems unaware of. While, at times rightly, berating religious folk for their epistemological and ontological overstatements, the host makes a continuous stream of unsubstantiated pontifications about certain ‘facts’ about different religions. He presents his pronouncements as unchallenged truths, he spends little or no time developing or defending his positions, but engages in a kind of blitzkrieg scholarship committing many fallacies and perhaps introducing a new one, ‘The Fallacy of Unsubstantiated Overwhelming Evidence’. This is dishonest in a way because AronRa must know that even non-participant scholars of the various faiths hold a variety of opinions on the claims he throws out as being self evident.

    But real scholarship is tedious and takes time and tends to muddy the clear pronouncements that are needed in times of revolutionary fervour. And this is definitely a time of revolution. I love science. I love its thinking curiosity and its rigorous method, but all intellectual endeavour needs to be engaged with the same care. If AronRa’s real intent is to reach ‘the sheep’ he will need to do more homework. He will need to learn the language of the people he wants to reach. If he thinks the texts are all bullsh#t and not worthy of scholarly attention then just start with that and move on. Don’t feign a scholarly or intellectual effort when you refuse to do anything of the kind.

    We are at a very low level of discourse in the world at present. It is sad if our only real advantage is rationality that we do not use it with each other very often.

    The Carpenter

  • ilovemyselfmorethani

    @ over the edge

    Thanks, man!

  • Reasons Voice

    @Randy: The two minute warning!! HaHa couldn't agree more. Although I do enjoy those two minutes three is pushing it.
    @D-K: “I also think that adopting a worldview in which there is an eternal afterlife trivializes the life you’re certain to be conscious of. Dead certain, for lack of better term"
    Yes indeed thus the development of the ideal that life is a test to determine next life placement. A concept I do not entertain. Yet it serves it's purpose to give meaning back to concious life.
    I am not good with introductory quantum physics but I believe it was said that energy never dissappears it only changes form. If that is the case and life is a form of energy it follows logically that it too just changes form and continues in some manner. Perhaps the chemical and electrical energy that is thought and thus conciousness simply slips into dormancy as the potential energy of water,carbon,nitrogen etc. The elemental building blocks of our physical brain.those elements are then utilized my another life thus in fragmented form our life energy returns in fragmented form.

  • Joe_nyc

    "Indeed. This life is not a dress rehearsal. This is it, man. Make the best of it!"

    "Before you were born, what did you see?"

    Someone should be collecting all of Randy's quotes before he decides TDF isn't worth his time.

  • ez2b12

    @ Reason Voice

    I dont think anyone has proven life to be energy exactly but I have thought about this before myself. I would say that the heat energy that leaves your body after death may be what we are reffering to, just a thought. I know when most matter is converted to energy a lot of it is heat energy, well like you I am not very good with thermo dynamics- YET. So i should say i think it is converted to heat energy.

    I am majoring in physics but have not gotten to any real physics classes yet, still stuck in a few requirements. Curriculum changed over the years and when I went back I had to take public speaking, one more elective (Understanding Hebrew and the Old Testament), and eng. comp. 2. Next quarter things will get fun though, wish me luck.

  • Randy

    @ez2b12 and Reasons Voice

    Here is a quote of mine from several months ago on another topical thread. It was in fact, Achem's and me in our original "argument" (a freindly one) about "oblivion" (LOL, good times!)...

    --------------------

    I wrote:

    "If I am my brain, an organized collection of bio-mechanical energy, then when I die, my brain, (almost immediately), will go from order to chaos. Disintegrating into a dis-organized mess, incapable of being me anymore.

    TO those that say “energy never dies so your soul never dies, science, the laws of thermodynamics…” etc. I say, that is true, (except the soul part), but there is a difference between energy organized by neurons and synapsis, and free-range (for a silly but not inaccurate term), dis-organized energy.

    My computer uses electricity to perform amzingly complex tasks, (like play Dragon Age: Origins!), but if I smash it, the energy remains- out there- but with no organizing principle it can no longer play games and calculate numbers.

    The energy can be re-used by ANOTHER computer, but there is no memory of when it was “my electricity”."

    -----------------

    Does that help at all?

  • Reasons Voice

    @ez2b12: Good luck with the physics. I have taken some just not that type. All my physics was radiation physics as it pertains to my field. That and what I pick up from the endless stream of documentary films and lecture videos I watch. As to my statement about the "life energy/soul" The only proof I need of it is that at life begins when the individual becomes autonimous and ends when those bioelectric functions cease.
    @Randy: That was a well phrased thought, that mirrors my own
    ideas. Thats what I meant by fragmented. No continuation as a consiousness but simply as matter and energy to be used again. As to the memory aspect I am conflicted. Perhapse not memory in the sense of "my 21st birthday (which I remember little of after 8pm)" But more like the memory of water. Perhapse our lives harmonize our molecules like has been observed in those experiments with water. Thus leaving an impression that does cary over to the next form. But that is total speculation.

  • Reasons Voice

    @ez2b12: As to the heat energy part of your statement; Yes that would be a part of it however all energy released would be a part of it. That is everything from the heat produced to the nutrients gained by bactia feeding on us to eventual reuptake of our carbon into another living structure. I places us within the living cycle of our planet. A position that much of our lives is spent either ignoring or denying.

  • Achems Razor

    It seems that I can not put this oblivion thing to rest. All I am trying to do is determine by definition, "what is oblivion".

    Try to imagine a state where nothing exists, do not forget about linear time also, which will not exist! Such a state is impossible, even contradictory, since the concept existence is necessary to apprehend it. Therefore existence exists necessarily, even if nothing else exist. Period.
    So, there is always "something" instead of "nothing"

  • Scott Henthorn

    Mr Razor,

    How is this not an example of our own imaginative limitations? Your argument reminds me of a diluted version of Anselm’s Ontological Argument, but in a reductio form.

    Imagine there is absolutely nothing, oblivion.
    This cannot be done without imagining away what we know exists,
    so oblivion, is conceived through existence and is dependant on existence for definition.

    The problem here is in true oblivion there would be no logic or arguments or arguers.

    The strength of your argument notwithstanding is that once there is something oblivion is inconceivable. Imagine our universe here growing. Supposedly it has a limit a perimeter, a convoluted circumference. What is out side of it? Empty space? That would be something. Another unverse? Something. What if there is nothing outside of our universe. Would this be oblivion? What if our universe is the positing of something into nothing? Once there is something is the nothing made illogical, or do both exist simultaneously?

    The Carpenter

  • Randy

    Yes, again I must return to my orginal point:

    There was a time when the Universe existed but you did not. There will come a time, when you no longer exist, but the Universe goes on.

    I can not imagine what the world was like before I was born, but I know it did. I have read about it. I have met people who were their...

    Based on that evidence, I can be certain that when I no longer exist, the Universe will STILL exist. Even as I won't be around to see it...

    AND if I am, I gonna be pi$$ed, and I'm gonna blame some of the people in this room!

  • Randy

    *Obviously, that should have been: "I have met people who were THERE..."

    That was an embarrassing typo... sorry...

  • Reasons Voice

    @Randy: Your one typo amongst innumerable eloquent posts shall be forgiven lol.
    @Achems: Oblivion may be a concept impossible to fathome, as our conciousness can only perceieve what is and not what is not. In a true oblivion state there is no conciousness and thus no definition nor concept so your argument simply has to dismiss that idea. Antimater is a good starting point on this. Can antimater be the absence of all mater? Since, by definition, mater is anything that takes up space and antimater does this. It would seem the two perspectives cancel out one another.

  • ez2b12

    I've always understood an antimatter particle to be the oppopsite of its cousin a matter particle, they have opposite charges and structures. Is this correct? If so it can't be nothingness as it is something, just not matter. From quantum mechanics I understand that the total absence of matter does not exist in our universe.Even in a vaccuum there are particles present, flashing in and out of existance. Right?

    @ Randy

    Don't sweat that tiny typo. I have no idea when to use their or there at all. I know this sounds silly from a college graduate but, remember I live in the US. Truthfully I never took english grammar and punctuation in highschool. I got kicked out of one school(smoking weed) and when I went to the next they thought I had somehow already had it, so I kept my mouth shut- stupid thing to do. Now I have to let tutors read my papers and correct them before I turn them in, or I would fail on punctuation alone.

  • Joe_nyc

    wow!

    just finished it. that was an epic!

  • manny

    I just finished watching this doc. It is a long one but worth watching. This guy explains it how it is. He taught me things I did not know. He is one of my heroes. The best thing he teaches is that if you do not believe what he says you can do the research yourself and see the facts that are out there. Good doc.

  • Fluff

    Incredibly clear and well-delivered documentary. The only thing I dislike about these are the incredible amounts of argumentative posts.

    People have to realize that it doesn't matter how clear and concise your arguments are, it cannot possibly make up for a lifetime of religious indoctrination if you are engaged with a creationist/hardcore Christian/religious zealot. Their "arguments" are based on false information and are not easily given up.

    To further illustrate that point, take note of the ridiculous notion of associating all metal/rock music with Satan. It truly shows just how narrow minded and ignorant people can be. People involved in metal are mostly creative, intelligent, accepting, and hard working people who enjoy sharing their music with anyone who will spare the time to listen and feel lucky to do so. Seems religion could learn about morality from metal :P

  • Jamo

    @Vlatko
    Great Job on the the doc!

    "if humans survive"

    - this doc and others like it are the medicine that can help us survive longer.

    Well put on how man's search for Truth and the way things really work have created and will continue to create Atheists. What is disappointing is how many more religious zealots are being created. It is my contention that the movement to create them is primarily about controlling the masses to gain political power and thus increase wealth. I wonder how many behind the movement actually believe the nonsense deep down. But the belief system is a nice way to justify their sense of entitlement.

    It is a shame how this nonsense retards human progress on all fronts, and how much energy must be expended to stem it's tide.

    I really think that the political correctness that has been afforded the zealots in trying not to offend their religion and God has done us a huge disservice and put us behind the eight ball. It gives them the idea that great thinkers "almost agree with them" all the time.

    I don't know what the answer is but this doc (education) is at the forefront. On behalf of humanity, thank you very much for that. I hope you put out more stuff and others so-inclined keep similar medicine coming.

  • Jamo

    @vlatko

    Just watched it again. Was even better the second time. The most brilliant and and clear documentary I have ever seen on the subject. Great job man!

    The only thing that you might have talked about more is the terror that Christians have. I mean you might have continued to believe in Godzilla if you believed that you would burn for eternity if you didn't. I'm talking about the catch-22 the Christians have with the Bible. They believe if they don't believe it they are going to hell. I believe this is responsible for much of the glue that sticks these people to their beliefs. This throws a monkey-wrench in their natural b@#$%^&* detection system and makes it much more difficult for them to trust the evidence or lack thereof. The concept of hell or something similar has got to be responsible for 90% of religions' power to maintain flock numbers IMO.

    Absolutely amazing and extraordinarily important documentary. Looking forward to watching it again and learning more from it.

  • Jamo

    re my last comment:

    As a Christian: If I question the Bible, I go to hell because I am saved from hell only through my faith in the Bible. So the question is which comes first. If my fear of hell immediately rushes in at the slightest questioning thought I have about the Bible, then there is no way I can question it. I am stuck in prison. So perhaps the best avenue a "believer" would have is to first question the validity of the myth of hell. Once that loosens up a bit, maybe then they will have the power to honestly question the rest of it.

  • gto

    you guys should give the creationist a break. religion is nearing its end..

    the moment science unlock the secret of life that open up a technology that will prolong are life religion will end. that would be the knockout punch for religion whos been battling againts science for thousand of years(if you involve the muslim age)..

    religion really exist because most people are just scared of are mortality (well and a tool to gain/sustain power too).. all of religion has one primary commonality and that is immortality the ultimate prize..

    but sorry to tell you religious fre@ks its not only the ultimate prize of religion but science too. science is already nearing that goal.. im 23 maybe when my grandchild reach grandpa age science my have reach that goal..

  • Scott Henthorn

    gto,

    I am not a creationist like the ones taken to task in this film, but I have a few questions about your future immortality scheme.

    Who will get this dramatic increase in years? All and every? Not possible. Will either of our grandchildren? I very much doubt it. If an unlimited longevity procedure were invented tomorrow the next years on this planet would be the most vicious and bloody we have ever known. Governments would begin to determine who is worthy to receive it and who is not, while corporations and black markets would make procedure available at astronomical prices. The grass roots would hit the streets and protest that such benefit belongs equally to all people.

    Presumably the procedure would not grant immortality but only extreme longevity, so the blessed recipients would not be free from death due to Buses bullets or bombs. So they would be the constant target of those who did not find there claim to perpetual life valid. War would ensue and when the people loose, as they always do, the remaining oligarchy would be infinitely more arrogant and tyrannical than any we have ever seen.

    Oh goody I can’t wait,

    The Carpenter

  • steve

    Does God exist?

    The ultimate question,or to some,an ignorant question,

    I dont know,but my education and reason would bring me to an obvious conclusion..no.However,if God does exist my reasoning could be compared to that of an ant.So my conclusion in the view of God would be inconceivably st00pid.To try and rationalize religion is contradictory,and will only end in dispute.I dont think religious people have flawed reason,I myself often consider going back to church.There is something in us all that bring us together,like that warm feeling you get when you help someone.Theres no rational or evolutionary reason you get that warm feeling.Whats the reason behind love,in most cases it damages us.

    Food for thought i guess. Any other views?

  • Scott Henthorn

    Gto,

    Scientific Renaissance or not we are in a time of increasing disparity between rich and poor. Medical procedures are already being rationed according to ‘need’, financial ability or geopolitical placement. How would this change with the advent of procedures that make the healthy even healthier? If we attained immortality or 2000 year lives would we slow or stop reproduction? Increase the average age of the entire population of the world by even 50% and you create a huge increase in the world’s population. I will watch your futurist vids but most of these visions are predicated the assumption of some kind of eugenics practice. The truth is very few of us would ever have access to these kinds of life increasing benefits. And would they really bring any good, or just 2000 years of the toil taxes and mediocrity we are surrounded with already?

    The bitter old Carpenter

  • gto

    @Scott Henthorn

    well i wasnt just talking to you, and i personally think your not a creationist just a pessimist.. so your not one of the target of my last message and sorry if you think that way.. remmember i didnt write @Scott Henthorn right?

    i think you've got it backwards.. science have become so successful that it resulted the explosion of population, so successful that everyone want to copy the western civilization thats hungry for resources. so the result is obvious. but the thing is theres already a prospect or a hypothesis for a technology that will solve this problem.. watch The Vision of the Future in this site..

    it seems i got busted by vlatko oops.. i love your site man!

  • http://esmuziq.blogspot.com esmuziq

    i love it when he says that "if god wrote it
    we could expect no less " 1 universal belief

  • Scott Henthorn

    @ esmuziq

    You wrote,’ i love it when he says that "if god wrote it
    we could expect no less " 1 universal belief.'

    I understand that in the preset economy of ideas we might expect or desire universal belief, but this is in no way a necessary condition of divine inspiration. In truth God can have an opinion. A basic tenant of Christian faith is that God has, is, and will be present in history. This means what has actually happened is important. Seeking universal underlying principals is perhaps the noble goal of Science and Philosophy; it is not necessarily the end desire of Theology.

    Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen whether or not there was a Hitler or a Jesus, true. But the actual course of human events is inseparable from the presence and actions of these men. Contemporarily we are inclined to think of what has happened in the world as ‘accidental’ and hence less real than scientific axioms. Particular events are the anchors of Christian faith, however. Our actual individual lives and choices matter. Once the universal has manifest in the physical, once the possible has been limited by the actual there is no going back, and a true universality is impossible, decisions and assessments of particular events is the inescapable duty of moral people. I think this is why Existentialism was born of Christianity.

    The Carpenter

  • Max

    Wasn't it George Michael who said "I gota have faith"
    Faith does not equal knowledge.
    A good tune though.

  • original thinker

    such comments should not be ‘copied and pasted’ rather participants should conduct their own research…

  • Kurrrt

    Quite an excellent informative video. This kinda slaps Christians across both sides of their face multiple times and in a hurry. Information over 65mph is speeding. I hope this doesn't really offend anyone, but awakens. Unknowingly born into your parents religion leaves out some important issues of enlightenment it appears, as seen here. Keep the sunny side up.

  • D-K

    @Kurrrt:

    Just make sure you carefully evaluate the evidence from both sides, never turn over easy.

    (egg puns, yay)

  • Bunny

    I really enjoyed this documentary. It was enlightening and informative and I'll be recommending it to others.
    I personalyl enjoyed his faced paced way of speaking, and that sometimes I did have to pause it to take it all in. I don't understand why we even bother with arguing with creationists at all, especially in the comments to a video like this, as stated very early on in the comments: refer to the video. It has all the rebuttals. Those who would argue after watching this video are not liable to change their minds.
    Ah science, the one thing I can trust will not tell me lies.
    Thank you for uploading! I'll be back to watch it again.

  • Jaak Wassmuth

    We can only thank god that this narrator speaks faster than Bob Woodward.

  • SkeptixFelix

    ........seriously when will scientists ever get appreciated for what they have contributed for mankind,without science you'd still be frying eggs on a rock on a cloudy day or walk miles and miles to go home,isn't it weird that god who loves us so much doesn't want us to be yourselves or think freely,be creative,be curious and create something you can be proud of,these are default traits of homo erectus,us!!but fortunately i have lots of friends who take care of me and guide me they are my virus,molecules and what not in and out my body not some spirits i haven't seen,there has been no sign or evidence in my own life that GOD contacted me provided me anything till date or was i the one work my-ass off to get what i want??...i wonder why some ppl are so special to god they see and speak to God,god must have hated me or plainly he is a RACIST!!

  • Atrophy

    @SkeptixFelix
    Don't forget that pride is a sin as well...
    I guess we're all going to hell.

    Said it before, and Ill say it again....
    At least it will be warm :P

  • kijunshi

    Okay, so I've skimmed the comments on this site (before even watching the film, which looks intriguing!) and I admit I am feeling a bit melancholy and philosophical. So I want to jump in with a comment (where perhaps it will not ever be read), and make a few points that I don't think have come up in this argument yet.

    For the record, I am a content atheist, who "believes" in the scientific theory of evolution, and has always found the beliefs of creationists a little hard to understand (read: jaw-grindingly frustrating). Nevertheless, it's the atheist guys I want to address here.

    Have any of you realized it yet? Despite the two sides of the debate, there is only one type of person commenting frequently on this site... people who think their worldview can be justified through logical points, delivered in weapon-salvo fashion as if in a court of law. You guys could all be estranged brothers - hell, maybe you are. You call up your crazy cousin Larry recently to see if he's been posting on this awesome new documentary website...?

    What I want to point out - what somehow hasn't been pointed out yet - is that no matter how much you spar, neither of you is *ever* going to convince the other. That's because, even though you claim you are arguing logic and only logic, the truth is... you aren't. You're arguing about whether or not the worldview you've invested your life and figurative soul into is Right. Because if evolution and, especially, atheism aren't Right then your own life choices aren't Right. (And believe me, that capital letter was intentional. I know my damn conventions. A few of you might want to brush up.)

    Now I am certain that many of you have faced prejudice, discrimination, and bullying from those who have a vested interest in not accepting your views (mainly because they don't mesh with their own). I'm not saying that you aren't justified in defending yourself, or that you don't have the right to feel rage. And certainly, the personality you were all born with is far, far more fundamental to you being *you* than any religion or lack of it you have picked up along the way. Nevertheless I'd like to bring up some points, from a fellow atheist who's been tempted to go there, but mostly hasn't - and when she has, has actually changed minds. (My conservative Christian Republican friend in high school? Now an atheist Marxist. A little scary, actually.)

    1. If you are going to do a legalistic logical sort of argument, sorry, but you can't half-ass it. The way you answer a logical argument you know you can win is, answering each and every point the opponent makes in the same order they make them, calmly and completely. That means a) no quickie links to websites, no matter how good, which have text that doesn't fit exactly into the response (i.e. if it doesn't say, "And the answer to your point C is...") - always cut and paste, with your own written introduction, and note your sources. b)Never, ever change the topic in the middle of an argument. If they are posting about evolution, don't bring up how Christianity is stupid - keep the arguments narrow and focused on their illogic. c) For Frith's sake don't call them names. This denigrates you, and makes you just one more Internet troll.(Seriously, what is this "religee" word that some of you seem to have made up? Don't use it, it makes you sound like you are 5.) Also, by the time you get to calling names, you are emotionally riled up and probably not mentally capable of the cold, bloodless precision necessary to destroy a dearly-held worldview with facts. d) Follow it through to the bitter end. If they throw more arguments at you, refute them with equal thoroughness. Follow up until they are reduced to sputtering with incoherent rage. Then note calmly that they are doing so. That is the closest you will get to "winning".

    2. Refuting an argument through legalistic logic, in other words, is really damn exhausting and probably not possible for people with day jobs to do effectively on an Internet forum. Furthermore, you won't change minds or hearts, and any "win" you get isn't really, well... a win in any meaningful sense, except perhaps to feed your own ego.

    3. There are other ways, however, to make arguments, that are both easier and potentially more perceptive. The thing is, though, you have to step back from the game. Here's the cold truth: The "enemy" is a person who thinks like you, reasons like you, and is already anticipating your next move, because you are more similar than you think. What you have to do is come from another angle they aren't expecting. I'll list a few of them that (somehow) haven't appeared in the comment backlog yet.

    4. You say that atheism is the only logical position, and sure, it is, but can you possibly be participating in the logical fallacy that all human beings operate using logic? Duh, of course they don't, they're frikkin' animals!! Take a step back from your "logical, advanced" brain and take a good look at your opposition. It's just as much a frightened animal as you are, grasping for the best truth it can get at in a rapidly changing and unfair world. You can go "logical logical blah blah blaaaaaaah" all you want and all your opponent will hear is "superior superior I am soooo superior to you little redneck just watch me take a shit all over everything your granny taught you and your only hope for eternal life that isn't the shithole that random circumstances dealt you". Not the best way to get your message across. A great way, however, to get atheism tagged as a belief system populated by jackasses.

    5. They argue out of fear, basically, but fear of what? This requires some creativity to tease out, as you can't say "nyaa nyaa what are you scaaaared of?" which is about the highest level of inquiry I've seen on this site so far. Try and dredge some compassion out of yourselves, and apply it at unexpected times. This is especially effective after they've basically insulted your mother, or (perhaps worse?) your mind. They know they would be seething after such a comment - don't answer their expectations. Ask them, why are they angry? Why do they feel the need to argue this point? Did they have a bad experience with evolution in the past - a cruel, belittling teacher? A work boss insulting their intelligence to their face? Or are they undergoing a crisis of faith...? You will sometimes throw them off balance, and get a response written by a human instead of a troll. Once you have received a human response, respond to it like a human. Commiserate, it's not like you can't imagine what it is to be in their shoes. Haven't you been there too, on the other side?

    Once you have achieved the ability to speak to them as another human being, you can ascertain their true reasons for asserting the beliefs they do.

    6. Perhaps the most common fear I've come across thus far the fear of the collapse of order. Many religious people define religion in their life as an organizing, stabilizing force. Here's the thing: they're not wrong. Oh, they may be wrong that morality was somehow given to people by God and all that, but they aren't wrong that religion gives you a framework upon which to hang your life. You may personally be scornful of the person who "sells out" and lets an organization tell them what to do, but not everyone is you, and not everyone desires to live the life that you do. Some people honestly don't want to wrestle with the big questions, at least not now. They want the certainty of the overarching worldview, the clearly defined gender relations, the mutually-supportive community structure, and the link to the past (however tenuous/fake), that only the religion can give them. They've lived their entire lives in the comfortable embrace of this faith, generally until college, and then the cold ice water of the actual world is thrown in their face. It really isn't pleasant, you know, to have certainties you grew up with ripped away from you. Not only does it threaten the security and the happiness you've had in your life up until now, it's like being told your parents lied to you, and lied maliciously. If outsiders came in and told you that your own beloved parents were malicious liars who raised you to be an imbecile, wouldn't your first response be to defend them at all costs? Not all children rebel, to you rebels out there. I can't believe you don't remember the terrible pain it caused you at one point, either.

    Most of these sorts of people merely go "la la la" and try to ignore the message, moving on with their life. A few legalistic thinkers, though, just can't let it go. Their concept of order and the truth cannot abide any challenge. It must be defeated, or they must be defeated, as if on a battlefield. Throw in a bit of unemployment and a need to make other people feel the pain and confusion they do, and voila: the Internet trolls.

    7. The theory of evolution, furthermore, represents more to the anti-evolutionist than his own origins, or those of other animals. It's really a buzzword, or if you like, a scapegoat. I think that for a lot of the uneasy masses, what evolution represents is "change". And this has nothing to do with DNA - change, meaning the increased secularization of the nation, destroying, in their view, the quiet consensus of Americans that they knew in their youth; change, meaning the collapse of marriage and therefore family in this nation (by the astronomical rise of single mothers), which is disproportionately felt among the poor, who are mostly the ones who deny evolution; change, meaning the truly sucky economic times in which jobs that can be done without a college degree are vanishing to countries with brown people in them, leaving poor less-educated *white* men, perhaps for the first time, to realize that this country doesn't value them worth beans - and trust me, they mostly reject evolution; change, in that common scapegoats and whipping boys, such as black people and gays and immigrants are off limits like they never were before, making - gasp! - themselves very near the absolute bottom of the totem pole; change, heck, in the very face of their nation itself (brown man in Oval Office! whoo!).

    It's a lot to pile on evolution's back, it being merely a description of the process of natural selection through random mutations that naturally occur over time. But illogical as it may seem, evolution represents all these fears wrapped into a quick buzzword to rally the base. When the word "evolution" is mentioned in certain circles, what they are really saying is: "Circle the wagons: *Change* is coming, and we can't let it in, or we'll lose everything, even what little pride we have left."

    8. Okay, enough with philosophy... I think I'd like to get back to science for a bit. So here, for your pleasure of mind, is how science helped me make peace with some of the crazy.

    I read an article (I'd link to it, but I'm not being legalistic and Google should take you there) in a science magazine that explained that spiritual people (to be carefully separated from the religious...!) have a special structure inside their brain, which activated when they were doing activities such as meditation and prayer. The spiritual people reported that they experienced a great joy or peaceful feeling when they were doing these spiritual activities. So far, so unsurprising, but here's the kicker: An estimated 10% of people studied did NOT possess this structure in their brains at all. That's right, guys... that 10% is probably us. We're a mutation! :D

    And of course, the benefit of our mutation is obvious: atheistic people tend to be more logical (though not always legalistic), more detail-oriented, and more thorough in our research and arguments. In other words: we tend to make great scientists (the correlation with scientists and non-religiousness isn't an accident!), and the world has benefited in unimaginable ways from our talents.

    The downside, however, is that we are forever barred from a common human experience, that of spiritual feeling, or "God". I guess a good example of the feelings of an atheist watching a religious event would be the feelings of an asexual watching two people gettin' it on. The mix of fascination, confusion and horror is hard to describe... even as you know this is supposed to be "normal" and "natural", you also know that the participants are going to produce inevitable consequences they might not be equipped to handle, and the logical part of you wants to scream at them to STOP!

    But they won't of course, and why should they? They're just doing what evolution tells them to. I don't know why evolution created the religious brain, and there haven't been enough studies for me to speculate with much accuracy. My best guess is that it provided us with greater community cohesiveness at a time when it was hang together, or hang separately, and by "hang" I mean get eaten by lions. That trait would certainly be acted upon by natural selection, and therefore, we have humanity as it exists today - with over 90% professing some sort of faith or spirituality.

    But here's the really, really important conclusion: To reject the appearance of spirituality/religion in the human population is to reject a natural aspect of humanity as it currently exists. To make arguments that our mutation is more "evolved"? Oh, come on! I would be willing to bet you that atheists have fewer children than non-atheists - and most of us appear as a recessive trait out of families made up of religious members. My own mother is religious (though thankfully for my equilibrium, my father is not). There's a good chance that my own children will be religious, when I have them. If I lecture them about how their own natural tendencies towards spirituality are Bad-And-Un-Evolved-Things (all but using the word, "sin") I'll be damn certain to have religious children, and obnoxious ones too.

    The biggest point of all, perhaps, is this: we aren't going to make spiritual people into non-spiritual people like ourselves, any more than we're going to turn gay people straight. Their adopting the tenets of atheism would bring them as much hollowness and misery as us standing in a church, pretending to devoutly mouth a hymn (while all the time thinking "But this book is *wrong*! It's *factually* wrong!!"). The vast majority of Russians converted back to the Orthodox church after the collapse of communist-enforced atheism. That wasn't some sort of loss for world atheism - that was humanity reverting to it's natural, free state. They, individually, were much happier. And who are you, or I, to deny them that?

    9. So therefore, we come full circle (of sorts?) and back to the question semi-raised near-ish the beginning: what point does this 200+ comment thread even have? Well, currently just an opportunity for you to take cheap shots at one another. But I can't help but think, what could you get out of this war of words? What could you argue with them about that wouldn't just be running in circles, chasing each other's tails?

    Well, I do think that the argument I would like to have (if I had the energy, which I almost never do) is not about whether evolution is right or wrong, or whether atheism is the right and only way or whatever. I'd like to challenge the spiritual and religious to make their beliefs *matter* as much as evolution. And by *matter*, I mean have a real effect in the world, for unqualified good, able to be recognized as such by all parties. Not "good" as in supporting the religious people's particular world view (i.e., Plan B barred from pharmacies - victory for the Baptists!) but "good" as in, so damned good that even atheists could stop in our little detail-oriented squirrellings and say "...whoa. Man, that's *Christian*." Without any irony whatsoever.

    You know, like going over to Haiti and providing medical care for free (and not... stealing children... like that one church kind of tried to do), or opening up the church building to homeless people on cold nights, or supporting and marching alongside people who have been given a bum deal by society, because Jesus apparently actually gave a damn about the poor and unlucky. I mean, I dunno, I just read the book and all, but that was my conclusion. I just can't help but feel like any Christian who wouldn't give the coat off his back to a homeless dude on a day when he has to walk home in the sleet just isn't following the tenets, you know? Maybe he should try something else, like Wiccan? They're all about the moon rituals, none of this crazy "love thy neighbor" stuff. Tons easier, really.

    I mean, evolution isn't a force for good or evil in society - it's just a plain, neutral fact, that will continue its quiet operations whether people "believe" in it or not, whether by natural selection or when people seize it in hand and start controlling it themselves with genetic modifications (the process will begin, I'm almost certain, in my lifetime). Frankly, it can't ever be anything more than that. But religion, as the harness of the power of human spirituality, *can* be. That's why it's so disappointing to see it fall short, almost every time.

    I'd like to see the religious justify that to me.

    10. Hoooly cow, sorry about the long-winded-ness -_-;; Clearly I felt like unburdening myself tonight. I work with mostly Christian people right now, and they're pretty much uniformly wonderful as human beings, though I think things would go down a different path if I brought up evolution in the confrontational way you guys do.

    I guess if I want to make any one point, for anyone still actually reading this, it's that grouping atheists is like herding cats - we don't all think it's great to thwack theists with the Logic club! (Though I admit it's a fun mental exercise, if it can be done with mutual respect and an agreement, in the end, to disagree.)

    Goodnight, all, and happy arguments! :)

  • Heather

    All arguments aside, the beauty of this doc is the very ability to question in our age. We should question, and discuss everything! Including religion, which should be scrutinized ad nauseum, imo.
    Humans are incredibly prone to the power of suggestion. There's entire industries based on that fact. To name one: advertising. Just keep that in mind as you move through life. Your mind is your most powerful resource, protect it through questioning your world!

  • pondcypress

    This was very good. Can say its one of the doc's I've enjoyed every minute of on this site.

  • adam

    seems to me that creationist think they are a higher beings to us apes or maybe they are racist as they cant possibly come from Africans at one time or maybe they think they are booking their passage to heaven by letting god know they are with him and will fight for him till the end so he must have their little part of heaven ready for them...well guess what there is no god there is only truth and the truth is we are all just ape so if you need to worship anything start worshiping ape and you will surely be on the right track,
    if they are none of the above then they must be sheep...only reason they keep on with this bull****.

  • Sry to ruin it

    LOL, all arguments aside, when I cam across this video on this forum, there were 666 posts.....
    I'm 667......
    coincidence?
    Where's your messiah now? lol

  • Syntaxfree

    The "debate" with Bob~> Wow... really though, wow.. I mean...really though, c'mon.. Wow!

    The first half of this thread should be saved as the perfect warning and example of why not to argue with creationist or anyone else that is unable or unwilling to accept the facts presented to them. Richard Dawkins says he refuses to engage in this type of debate because the two sides are not equal and don't deserve equal credence. This is true but even if it weren't it's still a futile effort to begin with. Yep it's crazy to argue with crazy people!

  • Syntaxfree

    By the way, My previous post was not meant to be a personal attack on Bob. That being said, sometimes people deserve to be ridiculed especially when they rudely make false claims, plagerize, and flat out lie. I love how he hides the fact that he's a creationist as if he's really just a defender of truth with some brilliant but secret alternative theory. Worse yet, in one post he says, "who said I believe in god?" then in the very next post he says "God loves you all!" . Like, "really I'm a completely objective scientist with a top secret um theory..whatever that is, that disproves all the evidence and supports Creationism but I'm not a creationist...honest engine I'm not"! If it wasn't so damn funny it would be sad. Well, God does love all of you and I for one can't wait to see him...along with my grandma and 2pac!

  • mnbmn bm n

    wow this guy love must love listening to his pompous self.. I don't believe in creationism but youre a dousheeeeeeeeee

  • Otter Nonsense

    Rational debate is healthy intellectual exercise in the pursuit of truth. There is a lot of ranting and raving here that, if we were an in-person forum, would get some people on this site removed, sedated and put under observation, then banned from further comment.

    What we have here is NOT a healthy debate, but mostly a free-for-all by a bunch of lunatics.

    There is no point in arguing anything with a psycho.

    "Okay Bob, you're right. Now GO AWAY!"

  • CoryM

    I loved this doc. I have a tendency to get into theological/scientific debates and am always looking for more info to support my argument. I saw a few posts about the religion bashing in this film. Since the existence of a creator can neither be proved or disproved he was merely questioning creationism by discrediting the source material that creationists use as "evidence".A good scientific theory can endure criticism but creationism can be blown apart by an 8 yr old. If you hope to show someone a truth you must first expose the lie which they already believe.

    This has been the first I've seen of AronRa but i will be searching for more of his work. The pace was a little fast and I found myself pausing the video to read what was on the screen. Maybe I'm old fashioned but I would like to see this movie adapted to a book (a big thick one) with lots of pictures, diagrams, and quotes.

  • Don

    I have been checking out the opinions offered by people on this issue of Creationism vs. Evolution. It’s gotten pretty mean spirited and derogatory.

    In the beginning of this documentary the narrator makes a reference to the Catholic Church (Catholic is a Greek word meaning Universal) as accepting the primary and fundamental observations of the scientific theories concerning evolution and creationism as synonymous and complimentary to reason.

    In other words, accepted as true. Therefore, the Church accepts the notion that evolution, as a science, compliments the teachings of the mystery of existence, weather physical or spiritual. Yet, there are still critics who rather bring up the “medieval” scandal of the Church concerning Galileo’s discovery that the earth was not the center of the Universe.
    Since then, the Vatican has one of the oldest planetary observatory in history that is still used for scientific observations and studies.

    Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was a Paleontologist and Archeologist who discovered ancient “Peking Man”. He also was a writer of wonderful books on the science of nature and poetry. Some of the titles of his books were, The Phenomena of Man, The Devine Milieu, How I Believe, The Hymn of the Universe, Building the Earth and so many other books and essays. He was a Jesuit, scientist, poet and a “Renaissance Man” in his day. He passed away in 1955.

    Now I have to admit that there are some Catholics who take a literal view of the life of Christ. But it’s the message not the man. Yes?

    Those who call themselves “Creationist” and then throw at you and in your face “Praise Jesus!” types are nothing more than self absorbed literalist who are not only scary but also dangerous. They are of this world and haven’t delved into the one that has been evolving since the beginning of “time”.

    If anything, they lack a sense of the existential aspect of knowing, a kind of trust in any message or realization that opens doors to a person’s realizations of being, suffering and love. We are all passengers on this great ship called earth. It seems to me that knowledge, and self-knowledge is what man desires to achieve and arrive at… at the center of his being and with a grateful sense toward possibility of
    spiritual/knowledge toward transcendence, that is, his desire to receive knowledge so that he may have a glance behind the hidden mystery we call life.

    Our own birth process transformed us into something moving toward or forward to a time and a place that we never thought would be accessible during earlier maturation but not just for an individual but also for all species. This is why humanity must be open, receptive to new discoveries especially of consciousness, the inner dialectic of our consciousness by the dialectic of reconciliation and possibilities complimentary to both real science and mystery, that is, movement/evolution toward a balanced sense of consciousness and possibility and then, even the smallest discovery could and should change our whole understanding of who we are in relation to evolution and awareness of all possibilities.

  • Scott Henthorn

    Don,

    Ahh the sweat sound of reasoned Christianity. (Be on guard for volleys from all sides.)

    Further on Galileo. The Heliocentric conception predates Galileo and was not considered heretical. It was astronomers more than mere churchmen who did not agree that Galileo had proven the case without question.

    This case is overstated and is part of the myth of the emergence of reason over superstition.

    The Carpenter

  • Don

    The "Carpenter" has "evolved" from the womb. Who Knew!

    The question is why?

    Thanks for the heads up Scott.

    Don

  • Steve

    @Bob

    I'm calling shenanigans I bet you don't have a degree.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/polarjoa Jo McKay

    @Vlatko This was listed as one of the most discussed documentaries; I'm guessing the comments were 'wiped'? I will try to give an honest reaction. It is clear that the producer/writer Aron Ra is passionate about his subject, and I appreciated those times that the frustration showed through. I have felt similar on occasion. It still begs the question, how do you talk to people who do not want to hear or even think about it, let alone debate or discuss. The answer - you can't. As I watched the first hour or so, I think my expectations grew too high, as I began to hope I could use this film to perhaps open discussions again. It is important. I really liked the review re: what is the scientific method, and what is theory, within the scientific method, and I loved the charts & diagrams showing the fossil records, and some of the back and forth re: here is one main arguments of creationism, and here is the scientific evidence. I think those worked. I would like to have seen better graphic (close in & time to see/read some of the material). Then as time went on that became the problem - too long - too much information. As I didn't need convincing, I was trying to view this from the perspective of someone who was 'on the fence' so to speak. So, with due respect (& I do recognise how much work it is) and sincerity to Aron Ra, I think this film could be helpful IF some of the suggestions above are implemented and a massive EDIT is completed. (Just my opinion). Thank so much.

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    On some of the docs the comments are still missing. I'm working on posting them back.

  • oddsrhuge

    This was very interesting. Possibly one of the better framed and complete explanations of the nuances of this (argument?, disscussion?, intrinsic difference of opinion?)

    I tend to side with the creator of this documentary as far as the strength of science vs religion, just based upon the most outspoken proponents of each. People, like Richard Dawkins, make their points in a way that really makes it hard to deny their validity. I have yet to hear a truly rational agrument for the "creationist" camp, or I might be able to give them a shot at defending a documentary like this one.

  • Jogi89

    I find it interesting how the cover picture for this documentary is the pope. Just to clear up any confusion the Catholic Church does not deny evolution, in fact it supports science's frontier to better understand nature. It is clear that human did not magically appear on Earth out of thin air; however it also cannot be denied that the forces of nature which created all living things cannot be attributed to God. Ultimately there has to be a main source or hub if you will that sprung the creation and further evolution of nature into existence. Can the big bang be denied, absolutely not, cannot it be completely accepted, well not yet since it is nothing more than a theory (which by the way was proposed by a Catholic Bishop in Belgium who was also a physicist). If the big bang is proven to be true, well there has to be something that sparked it. God perhaps? This option cannot be denied for it would be foolish and close minded. One thing we as humans need to remember is that while we are certainly a great and intelligent species, we must accept limits to our ability to understand the universe around us. This limit of understanding is quite evident with an inability to come to a conclusion on our own existence, or our ability to create a "so called heaven on earth". So my point is that we as humans have limits to our understanding just like a dog (for example) has limits of understanding the world surrounding it. Every living this is limited by the natural biological limits nature has placed on them.

    One final point. Creationism (as understood in the movie) can be attributed to some Lutheran (not all) understanding of the Bible. Their only authority is the Bible, and if one is to take to Bible literally in every aspect it approximately spans a 6000 year range (which clearly isn't true because not only of science but historical records of civilizations dating back further than 6000 years). It must be understood that the creationist stories in the Bible serve as a story to understand the modern human. For instance why humans do bad (original sin as described in genesis - the tendency to do bad, but it can be avoided through rational thinking), also when in Genesis it says a man and woman were created, there is nothing inaccurate or accurate about that. If one is a rational thinker it is not foolish to think that there had to be a point where there was only one woman and one man, despite if they were in our present modern form or half developed monkeys. So evolution can perfectly fit into the bible and original Christian doctrine as explained by early church fathers even before the Bible was put together.

    Any questions feel free to ask.

    Thanks!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LZ4J57WPUKTMAFOAPCZKTW3DZI Kalan

    Great series of videos. I used to be a young-earth creationist, fundamentalist christian - AronRa nails the coffins of every single creationist argument I ever heard, along with a few others, and does so with mellifluous precision and incredible detail.

    AronRa's "Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism" makes Ben Stein's "Expelled" look like a 2nd grade play, written, directed, produced, and hosted by the students....

  • CaCtUs2003

    If you're going to include this here, I would also like to motion that you could also include Thunderf00t's series called "Why People Laugh At Creationists" or something along the lines of that.

  • Cyberbard

    This guy has me confused. Is he trying to disprove Creationism but still propose that God exists? If so, what a douche.

    Anyone with the intelligence surpassing that of an earth worm can conclude that God is man-made, by looking at where the evidence points.

    Also, his point about more Christians believing in Evolution than other groups of people, like the atheists, is stupid. There are more people registered to the Christian church in the western world than there are atheists in the entire world, but hardly any of these people still believe in God. If you look at the percentages of atheists vs. religious people accepting evolution as fact, I'm sure atheists "win".

  • http://profiles.google.com/alyoshakaramazov.dse Doug Erhard

    What I'm looking for is a documentary that doesn't UNNECESSARILY put down religion, in order to disprove creationism.

    It's not necessary, and it's not helping.

    Creationism is not science because it offers no falsifiable experimental evidence. Doesn't matter whether God exists or the Bible is truth. Creationism is NOT science.

    Teach it in a comparative religion course, fine, but NOT in a science course.

  • jaysuf

    If his goal is to educate the "sheep", he's going about it the wrong way. Very few people are persuaded into changing their opinion with negativity. Most people just get defensive.

  • 0zyxcba1

    I have seen videos like this before, most notably, 'Why Do People Laugh at Creationists?'. At first I enjoyed them. But the state of the American system of public education, as exposed by these videos, depresses me to the extent that henceforward I will most likely steer clear of any further 'shooting fish in a barrel' documentaries. I just can't take it any longer. What's happening to us?

    I taught mathematics and general science at the high school level both here, in the U.S., and in Europe. The divergence in standards between Europe and America have, over the years, become startling. And it all seems due to a mindless religious fervor peculiar to the United States. I think it's wonderful that religio-politicos, like the leaders of the creationist movements, are being seriously challenged. But is it even making a dent?

    It's beyond depressing, beyond tragic; it has grown dangerous.

    For me, the 'dumbing down of America' was once just an amusing catch-phrase. I was in denial. It really is true. When the entire citizenry of a nation can no longer discern logic from voodoo; when people sink to a level of scientific illiteracy such that they are clueless as to even the most rudimentary principles underling the scientific method; when a people can no longer think, it is then too late, and we descend back to the Dark Ages.

    I want to be wrong. Please tell me if I am, so that I don't shoot myself.

  • Guest

    Yes, seems like descending to the dark ages, doesn't help of course instead of loosing votes, the Pres. most elected officials go along with the religious majority.

    Religions not only peculiar to U.S. it is all over, but 'dumbing down well?
    But a little light in the tunnel, some sources say. Any business (Christianity) that is loosing 31 million now, up to 37 million in 3 or 4 years, of customers is going out of business.

    But then of the 2 evils, Islam is on an upswing, could one deciding factor be the 27 virgins thing? or is that only conducive to radicals blowing themselves and other things up?

    Michio Kaku says, when we progress out of our class "0" civilization and become a class "1" civilization most religions will fall by the wayside, class "1" will use alternate fuel resources, and stop raping the planet, the human race will stop trying to kill each other! Class "2" will figure out how to protect Earth from threats from space, asteroids, meteors, etc: and become self sufficient.

    Class "3" will shoot for the stars!...

  • 0zyxcba1

    Shooting for Class 3 stars sure beats shooting myself! (lol)

    Your optimism is uplifting. Thanks. But the clock is ticking. How likely is it that 'The Fall of Superstition' will occur in my lifetime?

    Focusing on the U.S., for the moment, I am heartened to learn about the precipitous drop in religion industry revenues. Thirty-seven percent is a lot. I think people, to some extent, are getting fed up and are getting the message due in large measure to the internet.

    And young people are no longer buying the 'Halleluiah!' crap, either, in addition to which, the young are not going to stay young. Faster than you can say 'Jesus saves!', they will be taking up the reigns of power, and the old religious diehards are going to do just that: DIE, hard!

    Children currently being brainwashed will soon be having children of their own and, along the way... ever hear of 'rebellious youth'? As they grow into their teens, the kids being told today "Who are you going to believe, God, or..." might become bitter over the religious abuse to which these innocents are currently being subjected. Let's hope so. Remember, the clock is ticking.

    If you haven't already, watch 'Why I Am No Longer a Christian' under 'Recommended Documentaries'(it is listed as #70 in the 'Religion' section). It is a very good documentary and demonstrates what we've been discussing.

    Thank you, AR, for your response to my comment.

  • His Forever

    Mr. razor: I really like reading your posts. I log on just to do so some days like today.

    I don't think that Christianity is loosing net numbers worldwide, Mr. Razor. Is it really? What's your source? But, even if that is the case, it's an exciting time, as there is a Biblical prophecy that says "In the last days there would be a great falling away [from true Christianity]."

    I'm not entirely sure without research, but I would think a reversal in numbers of the church world-wide would be the first time in its 2000+ years history when such was the case, and therefore the first time such a prophecy as stated above could be verified.

    These indeed are exciting times we live in for where there will be a falling away of the nominal Christians, the faithful will start moving in greater manifestations of miracles and an even greater witness in these last days. I watch It's Supernatural with Sid Roth often, and I know that I know that I know there is a God and he still does miracles and touches lives today.

    As long as there is breath in my lungs, there will be at least one "religie" for you to worry about Mr. Razor, but fortunately, I'm good at replication; I'm doing my very best to pass on my faith to my family, friends, neighbors and especially my children. May the love and serve Him even more than myself some day.

    Peace to you!

    Charles B.

  • Guest

    @C_and _N:

    Holy Batman! Charles, as Randy used to say. With the "Rapture" again! you might as well also believe in the 1988 live action and animation Disney movie, "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" the same kind of "loony toons" stuff that you are referring to.

    But alas, you are not alone on your rapture stuff, whole websites on that fantasy, waiting for some kind of invisible rapture that will get you into some kind of invisible heavens gate, not trying to single you out personally, and present company not included??? but people that believe in that "gunk" are completely and irreversibly "dumbed down"!! along with all the other fairy tales that you and other religee's subscribe to!

    If I believed in fairy tales would go along more with "marvel comics" like Spiderman, Batman, et all: at least something you can sink your teeth into. More my style, need action, women, stuff like that.

    Actually if you are right, one can only hope? at least the rapture will rid the planet of all the religious fanatics, but hope you are not one of them, would hate to see you go Charles...

    Sid Roth? again not enough money in the world to make me watch his religious ramblings!

    And again my viewpoint is that it is wrong for you to instill your religion on your children. They should make up their own minds when they can think like adults. Not be swayed as children.

  • His Forever

    I like Sid Roth; I just wish I had something verifiable and interesting enough to be a guest on the show---minus the stressfulness of like dying in a car accident and seeing Heaven, or having terminal cancer and then healed just in the nick of time. Not so fond of trauma and stress.

    But as far as the Rapture is concern, time alone will prove one or the other of us right.

  • 0zyxcba1

    @ C_and _N:

    I really like reading your posts. I log on just to do so some days like today.

    Whether or not "Christianity is loosing net numbers worldwide" depends entirely upon how one defines Christianity. For example, more than a few Evangelicals and Fundamentalists reject the notion that Catholics are Christians. Oops! There just went a billion! Are Mormons Christians? Mormons say they are, but how can you trust the word of a Mormon? According to Jehovah's Witnesses, Christendom is comprised of a vanishingly small number of homo sapiens. And beware! Our dear Creationist brethren keep scoreboards of their own!

    Charles B., what scoreboard do YOU keep? It is important for us to know, as YOUR scoreboard is doubtless not REALLY your scoreboard at all but rather that of our Lord, and our Savior, Jesus, the Christ.

    Right?

    You say that "there is a Biblical prophecy that says 'In the last days there would be a great falling away(from true Christianity)'." And you also say that you "don't think that Christianity is loosing net numbers worldwide." So these days CANNOT be 'the last days'.

    Right?

    But surely, Charles, "true Christianity" is on the decline(even though you "don't think that Christianity is loosing net numbers worldwide"). Therefore, Charles, even though these days CANNOT be 'the last days', these days MUST be 'the last days'.

    Right?

    "These indeed are exciting times we live in," so exciting, in fact, that I am almost peeing myself. Be right back.

    BACK!

    Charles, have you done your research?

    Are we(or are we not) experiencing "a reversal in numbers of the church world-wide [for] the first time in its 2000+ years history?" Is this(or is this not) "the first time such a prophecy as [that which you so kindly referenced] could be verified?"

    I'm just peeing to know!

    "These indeed are exciting times we live in for where there will be a falling away of the nominal Christians, the faithful will start moving in greater manifestations of miracles and an even greater witness in these last days."

    Thank you, Charles. Now we know.
    Have you told Sid Roth, yet(or is that where you got it from)?

    Charles!
    Just this instant the Holy Spirit filled me with Divine Knowledge!
    You, Charles, really DO know that you know that you "know there is a God and he still does miracles and touches lives today."

    Gee whiz!
    Maybe God will touch my prideful, lustful, sinful life!

    Charles!
    Would you please spare some of that breath in your lungs to pray for the salvation of my wretched soul?

    I cannot speak on behalf of Mr. Razor, nor would I presume to do so, but I, for one, do not worry about the likes of you. I do, however, worry about your neighbors, friends and family and, most especially, about your replications, your children, who are defenseless.

    I'm stupid.
    You already know everything you need to know. All that's left for the rest of us is to agree with you. Discussion is impossible. It's stupid of me to even try.

    Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
    And, goodbye.

    P.S.: Do you drink?

  • AtheistTroll

    well 0zyxcba1, I wouldn't get that gun just yet, but I sure would keep a hold on 1 bullet just in case.

  • 0zyxcba1

    Unfortunately, I sense you are right.

  • mahonhouse

    perculiar to the united states are u kidding me.have ever heard of a muslim country.Perhaps Italy's school system is not influenced by catholosicm.Creationism is a joke and I am an American.Yes I am an american who is sick of hearing that we are all any one thing,There are just as many americans who think that the people here are

  • mahonhouse

    I feel as though I would Agree with this doc had I not been so annoyed to death by the narrators idiotic fast speech.There is a reason you never saw that fed ex guy from the eighties again.Speaking fast is annoying.So good job All i took from this was "gimmee a break who talks like this.Btw creationism is crap and I am an American.

  • mahonhouse

    how about a catepillar it's anus becomes the butterflies mouth after being in the sack and having the particular gene effected so that the change takes place.plants cant live without light yet they have noww find them deep in the ocean near underwater volcanoes,

  • newq

    Did you even watch the entire series, for fucks sake? AronRa is an Atheist. Watch the whole thing before you post stupid remarks.

  • newq

    The main picture is of the pope because Youtube uses the frame that's exactly at the halfway point of the video as the preview image. This was not deliberate. If you watch the documentary, that image is at the halfway point for the first video in the documentary.

  • 0zyxcba1

    @ mahonhouse

    I think you misunderstand.

    The portion of Achems Razor's comment to which you refer was in response to a comment made by me about the situation in the United States, as compared to Europe. Besides, Achems Razor said, and I quote:

    "Religions not only peculiar to U.S. it is all over,..."

    We are fully aware that Islam is the out-of-control, 'loose canon' of the world. It is just that that is not what we were discussing.

    As an aside, Italian public schools are not influenced by the Catholic Church. If anything, the Italian public education system is anti-Catholic. Italian educators know all too well the horrors of the Catholic Church. Just look at the map. Vatican City lies smack dab in the center of Rome! In any case, as a member state of the European Union, Italian public schools are secular. It's the law.

    Scandinavia is about as atheist a place as you will find anywhere in the West and spends more money on education per student than elsewhere in Europe. Denmark spends more money on education, per capita, than any other nation on earth. Of all industrialized countries in the western world, America falls in dead last, even behind Mexico.

    Those are the numbers.

    I cannot believe that any intelligent person would think Americans are all alike or that Americans are all Creationists. Creationists form but a small fraction of the American population. Just the same, nearly all Creationists living in Western industrialized countries do live in the United States, and America has a long history of Creationist movements. In this regard, America does stand out like a red thumb.

    Religion is certainly not peculiar to America, but American religion is peculiar. In fact, it's downright weird!

    The reason I spent so much time talking about the U.S. is because I am concerned about my country, the United States of America.
    I love my country, and I do not want to see the neglect of our public education system worsen. And I do not want to see our children born into a culture controlled and ruined my a handful of religious freaks.

    And I am sure you feel the same way.
    _______________________________

  • Ansar11

    He kind of had to talk fast, this documentary is already 2+ hours and it has almost no breaks for other clips. If he talked at a normal pace you could tack on another half hour probably.

  • Ansar11

    He kind of had to talk fast, this documentary is already 2+ hours long and it has almost no breaks for other clips. If he talked at a normal pace you could tack on another half hour probably.

  • Daniel Wescovich

    Why is the pope's picture on this documentary? The Catholic Church does not advocate creationism. So I am confused. It's all those whacky Evangelicals and Pentecostals that believe in creationism.

  • joe31

    I dont get it, god created all creatures and were one of his creation,thers no contradiction with me,all his creation is dependant on sun water earth to exist,thats were we are equal,but god made man superior to all his creation and trustie of the earth,are intelegance and intelec sets us apart from all other creation,false doctrins have loop hole and darwinism has major loop hole,each side knows what the other is missing,the same mystery between man and woman,many scientice and and phi;osefers have been wrong,theres nothing wrong with thinking out side the box or challange certain thereories ,it moves uf forward like first challanging man to fly one info leads you to another , now we have jet planes but that was not the origanal goal or to drop bombs on nations,science knowledge is neutral only man uses it for good or evil but to force it main stream is wrong and some ones narrow understanding the end of all things...the catholic religion is a bad example maybe thats why they were used,thay have a history of killing those who challenge ther interpretation of religion or god and killed or imprision those who said the worls was round and othe forms of science as well as the inferior placment of woman,but at the same time all people have strengh and weaknesses,because one believes in god some knowenly and some not but because god can reveal himself to his servants at his will,but maybe ignorant in other things does not mean what he know is not true,and otheres who put all ther faith in ther preacher and or scientice,political philosipher,marxism will end or change as the facts always have...i like the islamic version ,wich says,I god am ahidden treasure,I created the world to be know,therefor I created the worlds,,it takes the old and straighten whats been made crooked by man nd preseves the truth yet brings ud forward into the future in discovery,it does not lock you in a box only a coffin does. lets finish the journy and stop argueing,one trail will end and another will open up <Im sure as it always had,and whats true will stand the test of time,it was always ther were are just learning about it.

  • lakeside69

    you're an idiot

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    the catholic church still doesnt recognize ACTUAL evolution. they make the whole micro/macro-evolution distinction and they claim man and other animals have a common ancestor. they believe humans popped into existence.

  • Achems_Razor

    Learn how to write joey boy, who in the Sam hell is even going to try and read that claptrap you have just wrote.

  • GrittyKat

    I am not trying to be rude and I highly doubt this is true of someone who has your views, but did you SMOKE A BIG FATTY just before typing this? I could not tell where one sentence ended and the next one began not to mention the exact point you were trying to make. I'm just say'n.

  • Tjerk de Heer

    Haha, 7:17 of part 1, I KNEW it was Skinner talking all along!

  • ruffkutt

    "the anus becomes the mouth" spoken like a true believer :-D

  • OddJob67

    I agree with the narrator that to understand the intricacies of the theory of evolution (I consider evolution as fact) you have to have a broad knowledge of biology, chemistry and many other branches of science. However, there are books out there (for those of you who are willing and open minded) that explain evolution to the layperson. Richard Dawkins is in my opinion, the foremost evolution scientist today. His "The Blind Watchmaker" written almost 30 years ago is a great read. His most recent book, "The Greatest Show on Earth" is also wonderful. There are many examples of evolution at work that people don't even realize it's happening. Dog breeding is one of them. It's an example of controled evolution. Dogs are part of the Canidae family and were domesticated from wolves thousands of years ago. To understand the result of todays dog breeds, one needs to familiarize himself with some basic genetics. To understand basic genetics, one needs to understand the workings of DNA. To understand the workings of DNA, some chemistry is in order. See where I'm getting at? This all takes some work! The creationists are lazy. Instead of taking the time to learn the science needed to truly understand evolution, they prefer to blindly beleive a story.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Yannick-Dierens/626272428 Yannick Dierens

    Wow... I mean, wow. I don't tend to say rude things in an online discussion but man, I read your first "sentence" and gave up because
    a) it's unreadable
    b) it is absolute nonsense
    c) I really don't care about the rest of your bullshit

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Yannick-Dierens/626272428 Yannick Dierens

    As a person with I guess average intelligence I feel I should say this: why any human who isn't mentally challenged would think that some greater power named "God" created everything around us is beyond my ability to comprehend.
    People who are defending creationism really get on my nerves. It's not just one of the most outrageous displays of total ignorance, it's the idea that some of these nitwits actually want it to be taught in our schools as truth that is quite unsettling.
    What's wrong with you people?!?

  • 0zyxcba1

    @ Yannick Dierens
    " What's wrong with you people?!? "

    Religion is what's wrong with them people! (lol)

    0z

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Yannick-Dierens/626272428 Yannick Dierens

    @ 0zyxcba1: well said!
    I think a well educated person would (almost) always agree on evolution as scientific fact. And I think that same person would feel that creationism is indeed mindless and even dangerous.

    It seems like that same evolution is giving us a hard time, as large portions of the world population are, or are growing into, more and more irrational people. In many cases due to religion.

    I don't personally feel the need to adapt my life to the customs of any kind of religion. I'd rather think rational and believe in science, because that is actually based on facts, and facts only. But I could understand and respect some people's needs to live a religious life. It's when irrational thinking is spread all over the place, and religious stories are believed to be fact that religion becomes dangerous and makes me angry, and sometimes depressed and afraid. I thought the good thing about evolution was that mankind became more intelligent, rational, civilised... It seems that is not always the case.

    As for people in favor of creationism who happen to read my comment, here's just one simple thought:
    If creationism is true, than pretty much everything in science is wrong. If science is wrong we would still be living in the Dark Ages. Hence every f***ing thing around you would not be here. You wouldn't be able to read my comment on a computer, because that is just one of the millions and millions of common things that make up the modern world around us and are a result of centuries of scientists investigating the f***ing world! If you are older than 45 there's a good chance you wouldn't even be here (which wouldn't be the worst thing) because of disease or poor health living conditions which would still be common if it weren't for f***ing science.

    See, now you've upset me. Assholes.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Yannick-Dierens/626272428 Yannick Dierens

    The world would certainly be a better place without religious nuts!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Yannick-Dierens/626272428 Yannick Dierens

    If you would watch the docu for five and a half minutes you would know. No need to be confused.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ElmoPutz David Foster

    Looks to me like someone attempting to demonstrate that all creationists are ignoramuses. Even a TRUE ignoramus generally doesn't make that many errors.

  • 0zyxcba1

    @ David Foster
    "...a TRUE ignoramus generally doesn't make that many errors."

    How would "a TRUE ignoramus" know?

    0z

  • Jack1952

    Indoctrination doesn't always take. I grew up in a strict religious atmosphere. Church twice on Sunday, prayer before each meal, prayer and Bible reading after each meal, catechism once a week, Christian cadets for young boys, young peoples meetings once a week, primary education in a separate school financially supported by our church are just some of things I grew up with. I taught myself to read by reading a children's Bible. Although, I am the only one of 7 children to have spent his entire primary education in the Christian school, it appears that I am the only one who is an Atheist. At a very young age I started to cringe every time I heard the phrase "our lord and savior, Jesus Christ" and I heard it a lot. I could not understand why God insisted on our praising him, continuously, every day. Why would God need me to tell him how great he is?

    I still love the old Bible stories, Christmas and the hymn,Silent Night, is one of my favorite all time songs (Doors, Zeppelin, Purple, Ozzie is what I listen to). The messages of peace, charity and caring expressed in the Bible are quite inspirational and I take them to heart, but I try to keep it in perspective. In the end though, I realize that the Bible is a collection of ancient myths, inspired by half forgotten histories and evolving spirituality, told by an unknown amount of authors, covering thousands of years of the past. An amazing collection of work, but not something to believe in and definitely not to die for.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jose-Periut/1001588763 Jose Periut

    if you watch the video in its entirely you would know

  • oklima

    You'd have to be clinically brain dead to believe creationism

  • SFXkilla

    "The creationists are lazy. Instead of taking the time to learn the science needed to truly understand evolution, they prefer to blindly beleive a story." That is something iv'e found to be true not only of creationists,but of alot of people of faith

  • Derek B

    I agree this person is all over the place and has more errors than my 12 year old. His rant is making my head hurt.. Ever hear of spell check.... As for The Goddess and God, we will never find them with technology. Its something that's within, not over the next Quasar ..

    DJ

  • jurica

    10 trillion somatic cells interlinked with 10 trillion brain cells all interacting to make a sense of ??
    why is life so damned complicated and why do the human species spend so much effort trying to unravel this dichotomy?
    scientists go full on to try to make the human existence a better place -
    divine interventionists seek to control and divide - as has always been the case -sic - find the weak and they shall inherit the world
    (cause that's the way I like it ) ROBERT MUGABE.

  • jurica

    because you think so ergo et sum

  • jurica

    jesus was just a man - period

  • Killin

    Often the same message is conveyed across cultures but in a language that culture understands, so there are appearances of vast differences, but many core similarities.
    Not all scriptures were written centuries later, but some very close to particular events and with great consistency, oral traditions carried on many stories ver batim.
    We have to keep in mind that the full scientific story is still unfolding and many of the principles are contentious among scientists themselves ie the self centered gene or primacy of group survival. Lack of evidence is not proof of anything , does not proove something does not exist. I you don't see a black swan it does not mean that black swans don't exist. Triangulating evidence includes narrative history, even mythology , and syllogisms of logical thinking.

    It appears that some Christian groups, at least in the States, are contraining scientific study. If this is the case, it is a sorry state of affairs. Otherwise, I am curious why there is a strong defensivenss emerging, no, antagonist conflict that science is engaging in with 'Creationists' especially since they are not bible or religious scholars in any sense. Why bother, just carry on with your vocation, why not?

    I don't understand why this mutual irritation is going on, the fundamentalists are not going to be converted by science nor the other way round...Forget about it and appeal to the more intellectual and educated groups within "Christianity and leave them to it.

    Incidently Islam, Judaesm, Catholocism , Lutheran and Anglican religions don't have the zealous anti science mind set you describe, far as I know.

    Good video, enjoyed your remarks and that even in science, almost anything is possible!

    Regards,

    K

  • BooBoo Bear

    I personally believe that all "Creationist" Christians that believe that way should be made to forgo all medication that has been created because of science. Basically that means that they could only use cold compresses and heating pads. And almost all surgeries would be performed without medications, I would allow the use of a local for tonsils if it is to be performed on a child. He shouldn't suffer for the asinine beliefs of his/her parents.

  • Bryan Runke

    I'm completely surprised and delighted to see the lack of Creationists commenting here. I honestly expected an all out war over these videos. Glad that not everyone is brain dead yet, although I'm sure most of you are from overseas :(

    Hey, any of you foreigners ever think about moving to the U.S.? We could use a few more rational minds over here.

  • BetsMcGee

    Creationists Believe every word Genesis says?
    I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer.

  • smjpl

    Good to see there is still rational minds left in the U.S. too.

  • Pilgrim74

    Could you possibly be any more patronising?

  • Guest

    Phuck Phil.

  • jurica

    why did Arthur Ashe praise Jesus for his victory in winning Wimbledon those many years ago?
    why do modern day footballers 'kiss' the turf and point to the sky after scoring a goal

  • jonathan jackward

    LOL hahahahahah

  • jonathan jackward

    the real scientific debate is Materialistic dualism versus monistic idealism.

  • joe31

    listen up everybody.....there is a reason why adam could name all the names of creation and the angels could not.

  • Truthseeker420

    Sometimes i feel soooo alone.

  • knowledgeizpower

    Whats the matter come on its all right you're too pretty so Smile lol :) You know a good doc to watch natures colors if you are feeling a little blue....Peace

  • Guest

    he was a fish and everything was called bob

  • Truthseeker420

    Thank you, you're sweet! It' just that I'm surrounded by people who think I'm crazy because I just don't have any "faith" and won't take part in their mass schizophrenia. I pretty much keep things to myself but I watch and listen and in MY mind I think they are mostly crazy. You're right - I'll watch "Drain the Ocean" again. Did you see it KIP? GORGEOUS!

  • knowledgeizpower

    Hii Truth,
    Lol, I get ya..I am one of those Observers myself Too...Hey But Folks Like Us Are Special People Lol :D We are the Watchers...But anyway.. Yep That one is good no matter what the reviews it got at first lol...I still think the narrator sounded like James Earl Jones Lmao! But Okay I have to go but hopefully we can discuss some more later...Ooops Off Subject....Peace :)

  • Achems_Razor

    Hi truth 420, don't let the religee's get you down, they are just sheep that cannot think for themselves, we got your back!

  • Guest

    Simply hilarious! I was just a bit bugged the speed at which this guy was launching his sarcasms. There is so much to laugh at!
    You didn's yet finished to swollow one sarcasm that the other one shows up already! Non stop, one after the other.
    I wonder why George Carlin did made a show on these guys?
    However, Carlin had so much to create...
    Beside, the "Other" George would have set him aboard a plane, one way ticket ride to down town Manhattan! :-)

    There's only one place where I felt a lit'le sorry for the creationists and it is when they quote some "Anciant Testament" words, in which it is obvious that the religious leaders in those days stated that the truth or reality is of a secondary importance and that if one subject has a problem with, simply ban him! Something baring that meaning.
    I'll have to view it again but it'll be fun to revise all sacasms in there!

    For once, not only the "Christians" are under scrutiny but many other as well.

    Bottom line is that a long time ago, all religions were abuse and many, close to all "Zombies" made alas religion a useless thing.
    For God sake, when you don't know about one thing, why fantasy should take over? Understand and accept that you still have a long road in front of oneself.

    I'll need to view it a couple of times.

    Pierre.

  • Emanouel

    Are people atheists because they believe that all the accounts of Jesus and the miracles he performed are fictitious? I guess it all comes down to whether you believe he actually existed and whether you believe in all the accounts of the events in his life. I can truly understand people's reluctance to believe, because the whole story happened 2 thousand years ago. There are experts who argue for and against the truth of the story. This only adds to the confusion. Each to their own. No harm in dreaming and may peace be the ultimate victor.

  • http://www.facebook.com/patrick.kathambana Patrick Kathambana

    Why is the Pope on the cover? The catholic shurch supports evolution. A little research might have been prudent here...

  • Guest

    @Patrick Kathambana
    The catholic chuch support evolution?
    As you meant to say, being prudent about that would be of great help.
    Because catholicism means to support the whole "Anciant Testament".
    Which, within itself goes against the "Evolution" concept.

    And on the contrary, the reseach the author went through were extentives to a point of being maniac about details.

    It shows that in now days, peoples accept pretty easily that in one line of conduct, 2 concepts goes against each others.
    One denying the other.

    Pierre.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Judy-Porter/100000440468347 Judy Porter

    Bllah blah bullushit...

  • Guest

    If you want dubious moral guidance with a healthy dash of violence and misery then I recommend Strewwelpeter by Heinrich Hoffmann.

  • Tim1980

    I enjoyed your film immensely. Thank you

  • http://www.facebook.com/alessandrovenice Alessandro Bernardi

    Which lies and distortions? You don't mention a single one. And re yr long post that follows, a spiritual experience is what you attribute to whatever god one's believe in, we find it its people deluding themselves.
    And why would teachers of creationism lie? Because there's a sucker born every minute, but you obviously haven't heard of all the creationist fraudsters serving time.

  • Demoorelizer

    It probably beats faster due to an excited mental mindset. That's what the heart does, sends blood throughout the body.
    Scientists can do what you say. If you simply kill the nail bed/matrix with say...acid (with the nail removed) then your nails will stop growing. Hair can also change color, sometimes people who go through extreme trauma sometimes have the colored hair fall out or certain follicles die or are targeted by the immune system and hair can change from black to white. Or you could simply bleach your hair, or dye it, to change its' color.

    If you're as bad with religion as you are with science then I am curious as to why anyone would pay relevance to you speaking on its subject.

  • Fake Name

    He notes 3 popes that have confirmed the Catholic churches support of evolution... Perhaps watch the doc? This is the best kind of doc for people that can know everything about something... before knowing anything about anything.

  • Fake Name

    He pointed out the errors creationists make, please point out one evolution theory makes. It's not good enough to make a statement and imply it as fact, it must have evidence to support it, you've provided none, he provided far more than was needed to prove his point. This indicates that either you did not watch the video, or you are set in your faith based belief system and will not be deterred from it by well documented rigorously tested facts.

  • Fake Name

    He doesn't put down religion, he says many times that creationists are of different religions and he is not trying to verify or falsify God or any other supernatural being, he is trying to make people aware of the huge lies being told by the people supporting creationism and or intelligent design regardless of their personal faith based belief system. The title says it all.

  • Fake Name

    I'll second that.

  • Fake Name

    I do get irritated when people make comments based solely on the title and picture, but other than that I do not read these comments to find other peoples flaws or failings in their own comments, I read them out of curiosity. I am curios to find out what other people took away from the video and to compare it to what I've gotten from it and to others. Perhaps that is why I get frustrated at comments made by people that didn't actually watch the video. At any rate, I certainly don't argue, so much as present my opinion as such, be it in contradiction or agreement. I feel no need to sway anyone, only to share my experience in relation to theirs. After all after having watched this video or any other we've shared an experience, and I personally think that is worth talking about.

  • raylennox80

    Maybe their physical abilities are more respectable than their reasoning.

  • Scott Williams

    Wow! This was one of the most brilliant presentations on religion and faith I've ever heard. Highly recommend it to all religious people. AronRa rocks! Very fluent and eloquent speaker.

  • ToneTone83

    the pope aint christian, he is a poser in a fancy night gown

  • ToneTone83

    ya, clearly this doc is biased. disinformative and propagandistic

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Skudder/100000524551734 John Skudder

    who watched this from start to finish

  • Guest

    @John Skudder,

    Yes Surely do. The other day, I was in the mood for a comedy show and nothing scheduled on TV!
    I though, finally the right time to go & view the Creationism docu on TDF.
    But this one is not as hilarious as the other one (The older one) I seen on TDF.

    Pierre.

  • http://www.facebook.com/patrick.kathambana Patrick Kathambana

    After watching the doc, its actually very well researched and insightful.

  • americanidementi

    In the middle of the crisis of the Evolutionism, it is important to distract, to talk about something else, i.e. creationism.
    It is impossible to disprove creationism, while evolutionism has been already disproved... it is simple, even for dump people....

  • americanidementi

    YES, Catholic Church support evolutionism intra species. If you study before open your damn mouth, you ll find out! If you studied Evoultionism you ll realize that it is a bunch of nonsense... for instance Where is the middle step b/w the small and the big giraffe? (this the simpliest step for evolutionism, there are other steps that are pure fantasy, just for idiots...)

  • americanidementi

    Many times a day I CREATE EVOLUTIONARY SYSTEMS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, WITH GENETIC ALGORITHM. So even if you believe that evolution is the right explanation, you are still supporting creationism...
    I am sorry for the anti-christian, but you are not evolved enough.

  • over the edge

    @americanidementi
    "In the middle of the crisis of the Evolutionism, it is important to distract, to talk about something else, i.e. creationism." but this documentary is about creationism so aren't you doing what you accuse evolutionists of?

    "It is impossible to disprove creationism" you are right there are no hard facts to prove or disprove but the burden is on those making the claim to prove it not the other way around

    "YES, Catholic Church support evolutionism intra specie" yes but if you study for yourself you will find that science has actually observed,repeated and ongoing species to species evolution

    then you go on to talk about the evolution of the giraffe. yes there are missing steps. but the fossil record does have plenty of evidence. do you know how fossils are formed? not just the basics but the sheer number of specific conditions that have to be met for a fossil to form and survive? less than 1% of animals actually become fossils, and of that 1% most are marine fossils. most fossils come to be when they die in water,quickly sink to the bottom, escape being scattered or eaten by other animals and covered by silt. even if all these things happen we still have to find them. so yes the fossils record is not 100% complete but that doesn't excuse the fossils (and other evidence) we do have and pointing out one (or more ) gaps is proof of nothing

    in closing we both know you support a christian creator. how about we compare evidence. i will give empirical evidence for what i hold as true and you give empirical evidence for your beliefs and we will compare weight of evidence sound fair?

  • Guest

    @americanidementi,

    Being born & raised within christianhood, I sure know what all christian religions are about.

    Though, I never expected the existence of the ludicrous creationists in a modern world.

    In childhood, we were ready to believe any stupidity that we were fed. The bad thing in there is that above all, all religions is dedicated to provide the ultimate "Dream" of human beings: Something that never, ever change through time.
    From there God.

    If it ought to remain the same through time, it obviously mean that there can't be anything new in religions. In a material world in constant changes.
    Which is the reason why basic and strict, very strict religious beliefs such as the birth of this material world (Creation of this world) dates back to at most somewhere like 50,000 years ago.
    According to Judeo-Christian beliefs relying on jewish Torah, & Bible scriptures better known as "Ancient Testament".

    While it is known and fully proven through diverse recognized technical methods that not only this world existed long before 50,000 years but intelligent socialized homosapiens also existed.

    More over, within more than a few ancient scriptures, there are references to natural organic extracts that induce "Spiritual Moods" that bring homosapiens "Closer" to the ultimate authority of this world otherwise known as "God".

    If you, you need to strengthen your faith into a ultimate authority through aberrations issues by "Shamans" while being not only unabled but also being unfit, you fully deserve to be treated as such.

    Through the years, centuries and milleniums that went by, religee's such as you have made such a mess out the God's concept that in now days, the only way to go is with one's goodwill.

    Not a bunch of indoctrinated weirdo’s as we see falling in deep trance that are in the end a TV Show.

    I had enough laughter for today.
    Any good man with integrity detect falsehood as it manifest itself itself.
    The basic principle is so simple according to Jesus: -Dont harm others. And that is not what you preach from what I see happening "Over there".
    Those who teach were cough again & again in all sort of disgraces. Because, you know why maybe?
    They're of the humankind, worst, zealotes.

    Pierre.

  • Guest

    @americanidementi,

    (Quote): "Many times a day I CREATE EVOLUTIONARY SYSTEMS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, WITH GENETIC ALGORITHM".

    Soo? You're working on a new, maybe better method of creating this world we live in? You believe that you'll find a better way to synthetize, control genetical evolution than the existing one?

    It reminds me of Dr. Aribert Heim for whom the USA Gov. declared that they lost track of him some 60 years ago after providing him with surgical operation.
    The whole being part of "Operation paperClip".

    Anyhow, he'd be some 95 Y/O in now days.
    According to a few proofs published in a documentary on Aribert Heim available on Internet.

    Good new! We have another human being in direct & totally exclusive contact with the creator of this world!
    What is it you want? A war with the ones that don't fit you criterias? How many you want be killed, tortured?

    Sometimes, why do I have the vague feeling that...

    Pierre.

  • Guest

    @over the edge,

    Bwaftt over the edge, if a modern archeological technical analysis fits a "Creationist" concept, it'll be a workhorse within their "Blah-Blahs", and it it doesn't fit, they'll deny the analysis.

    It's been many times. More than once.
    When one faith is that poor & weak, they don't have much of anyting else to resort to.

    I'll now go back to my other serie I'm watching.

    Pierre.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/P5JE6PXVSTLN4B7PS27MUHDWE4 Mark

    This is an excellent indictment of faith-based belief systems and an irrefutable argument for the use of scientific inquiry. However, the sheer speed with which the material was covered and the use of rapid-cut visual aids had me feeling towards the end that I had been the subject of water torture. I''m sure that AronRa's style of delivery here was many times for humorous or dramatic effect and also due to the huge amount of ground covered in this documentary. Perhaps the headache I got towards the end was simply because this was the first time I had ever heard a speaker employ circular breathing in delivering his message. I'll bet he's not a smoker, at least not of cigarettes. I'm going to grab some Tylenol now, go back to the last couple of segments, and poise my finger over the pause button.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/QT4AUBQKD6DJ7SG3P3EANAJRJU Noel Leon

    if you take a good look at the world today, wars, famen, terror, horror, torture, polution, slavery, genocide, deforestation, murder, etc, ect....you tell me, why is it that man has not evolved at all, psychologically, after millions of years making the same mistakes? Why is there no evolving here?

  • PhD_is_for_me

    First, you are right it does take a a very long time to evolve, especially physical traits. Modern humans, however, have only been around for (at most accepted evidence from the scientific First, you are right it does take a a very long time to evolve, especially physical traits. Modern humans, however, have only been around for (at most accepted evidence from the scientific community) 200, 000 years so there is no millions of years of making mistakes. In fact, for most of this time humans lived in small communities as hunter gatherers. It was only say about 10,000 years that we actually started living in large communities or civilizations. That being said, large-scale problems like wars, famine, slavery, pollution, genocide ect. have only existed for 10,000 years. Note also, this is around the time most world religions also started. I'm not implying religion is the cause but it certainly hasn't helped, if not generated wars, genocide, and slavery all of which the Bible endorses. My point being if you look at the small communities there was less of these problems because the major concern was to survive. In fact, some modern African nomadic tribes seem very crime free, even containing concepts like mating for life without any laws or religion. It seems what you imply is that man is no more moral than the start of his existence, but this is in part true. A distinction should be made in terms of large scale problems vs individual morality. Living things as a species do not evolve psychologically. This is a fallacy. Evolution and natural selection occur out of need and adaptability. Behaviors and culture arise out of traditions, development of governments, and social standards. I suppose you mean why after all the years of human growth do we have these problems. This is a complex question that is far beyond the scope of an internet comment that involves issues like poverty, political control, and collective psychology. In terms of individual crimes, humans are all different in small ways which is the very mechanism of how evolution works so there will always be those who divert from morality and social rules. I wonder what your education background is and how old you are because based on your spelling, your false claims about evolution, and the infantile nature of you question, you seem to not understand concepts of evolution and social issues. A utopian society is not possible without taking away everyones liberties. But as a species we are getting better and have learned from our mistakes from bad government in 1st world countries. As the documentary suggests though... religion has hindered this growth.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/YMIU3NFLVP4DUBQ7IRJM33N7K4 Paul

    First, you are right it does take a a very long time to evolve, especially physical traits. Modern humans, however, have only been around for (at most accepted evidence from the scientific community) 200, 000 years so there is no millions of years of making mistakes. In fact, for most of this time humans lived in small communities as hunter gatherers. It was only say about 10,000 years that we actually started living in large communities or civilizations. That being said, large-scale problems like wars, famine, slavery, pollution, genocide ect. have only existed for 10,000 years. Note also, this is around the time most world religions also started. I'm not implying religion is the cause but it certainly hasn't helped, if not generated wars, genocide, and slavery all of which the Bible endorses.

    My point being if you look at the small communities there was less of these problems because the major concern was to survive. In fact, some modern African nomadic tribes seem very crime free, even containing concepts like mating for life without any laws or religion. It seems what you imply is that man is no more moral than the start of his existence, but this is in part true. A distinction should be made in terms of large scale problems vs individual morality. Living things as a species do not evolve psychologically. This is a fallacy. Evolution and natural selection occur out of need and adaptability. Behaviors and culture arise out of traditions, development of governments, and social standards.

    I suppose you mean why after all the years of human growth do we have these problems. This is a complex question that is far beyond the scope of an internet comment that involves issues like poverty, political control, and collective psychology. In terms of individual crimes, humans are all different in small ways which is the very mechanism of how evolution works so there will always be those who divert from morality and social rules. I wonder what your education background is and how old you are because based on your spelling, your false claims about evolution, economics, and the infantile nature of you question, you seem to not understand concepts of evolution and social issues. A utopian society is not possible without taking away everyones liberties. But as a species we are getting better and have learned from our mistakes from bad government in 1st world countries.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/VUFSWG3B5HEEBVBWAXUCDS3HZU Violeta

    Evolution is adaption to environment, we have adapted very well, and continually adapt our environment to fit ourselves. Psychology has nothing to do with it. Those problems are made by humans trying to advance themselves in a a negative way.

  • James Brown

    What a bunch a nonsense. I see you're very well versed in bullshit.

  • James Brown

    Because Jesus loves famous people and loath and despises the poor and impoverished, despite what the Bable says. That's why they're so happy and the others suffer so miserably.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dean-Edgington/1003719946 Dean Edgington

    You mistakenly expect biological evolution to produce utopia. That doesn't exist for any species. You don't understand evolution. nyway, what is your explanation of the all the troubles you outlined? Original sin?

  • MickFromNapa

    Aronra-I haven't been able to find any of your academic qualifications online. If you want to support the positions in your video, instead of stringing together a bunch of big words, I suggest you pick up "Darwin on Trial," trial, authored by Phillip Johnson, a Professor at University of California's Boalt Hall School of Law, whose academic credentials are equaled by few, and answer present the proof for who the failure of the study of the fossil record has not only failed to provide evidence of the missing link between man and monkey, but also to show seketal remains documenting the transformation of any species into a separate species.

  • over the edge

    MickFromNapa
    so you decide the best way to start a discussion is an argument fron authority? and by the way seeing that your source has such flawless credentials and education in the relevant field is soo important to you. what are the scientific degrees your source has? and seeing that the focus of this doc is creationism your source has a degree in theology right? you also point out "the fossil record has not only failed to provide evidence of the missing link between man and monkey" in which you are 100% correct because we did not descend from monkeys we share a common ancestor with them. but that mistake is understandable when you look up to a lawyer as an expert on science? next you ask"show seketal remains documenting the transformation of any species into a separate species." for that go to a museum or university and see for yourself. look in a mirror as we all are transitional. or watch AronRa's other doc on this site "Falsifying Phylogeny".but i will do you one better. how about observed,repeated,documented and published speciation? look up the long term e-coli experiment. now i will guess your answer to that one it will include the word "kind"

  • MickFromNapa

    Over the edge

    Read Phillip Johnson's "Darwin on Trial" and let me know if you have an answer to his to his assertion that there are no "missing links" between any two species.

  • over the edge

    MickFromNapa
    you make assertions and i get reading assignments? what about the answers i provided? i gave you an example of speciation that was actually observed. so his denial of transitional fossils means nothing to me as i have seen them for myself.

  • MickFromNapa

    Read my response to Aronra above.

  • over the edge

    MickFromNapa
    please let me know if that is going to be your standard answer? where you got your assertions is of no concern of mine and if i wanted to read this book and discuss it in detail i would have that discussion with the author. if you wish to discuss issues brought up in the book or elsewhere i am more than willing to but you did bring up the perceived lack of transitional fossils and i did provide you with not only where to find the answer for yourself but an actual observed transition from one species to another with every step documented. isn't that better than a group of fossils? you brought up points and made assertions i addressed the specific concerns and asked some questions of my own. do you not feel it is fair for you to attempt to actually answer my questions and or refute my claims and evidence? and further more you know that even if you refute evolution or any other theory it still is not evidence for a creator right?

  • over the edge

    MickFromNapa
    are you that dense? the long term e-coli evolution experiment is documented step by step evolution from one species to another. isn't that what you asked for? i addressed your posts and i will not address any more until you address the facts i have posted to you. this has to be an exchange of information not a one way street. the perceived lack of evidence that you point to is yes an incomplete record but by no means non existent. creationism right or wrong is not science and it has no place within science. and your wiki article addresses very old ideas and thoughts try a scientific journal if you wish to attack science or at least a current model

  • MickFromNapa

    If you are familiar with the e. coli research, then you are aware that e.coli do not transmit a complete set of dna to each offspring. In that context a different species is not the same as it is for animal life like the great majority of animal life, which transmit a complete set of dna.

    Anyway, I gather that you don't have any more evidence of fossils showing a transition from one species to another. With a theory that claims that every higher species results from a transition from a lower species, I think that most people, if they realized the lack of fossil evidence, which is rather a guarded secret, would have some doubts about evolutionary theory they don't have now because the information is not out there.

    Since my goal was to find out if any further fossil evidence has been found, I don't plan to continue with this conversation.

    I know we don't agree, and may never, but best wishes to you.

    Mick

  • MickFromNapa

    Epicurus,

    I'm not big on blogs. I see that what happened is that when "over the edge" replied to something I said on Aronra's blog, my responses and his replies all ended up on this blog. I thought his comments and my response to him (if over the edge is a him, I suppose over the edge could be female) were all still on Aronra's blog. After reading your post, I went back and saw that Aronra did respond to my message his blog. I was notified of responses through my email address, but for some reason, while I received notices that "over the edge" had responded, I did not receive any notice that Aronra had responded.

    In light of you post, I went back a few minutes ago and found the response by Aronra. Apparently I need to go through 14 of his You Tube videos to find the answer to my question, but it's Sunday night at 20 till 1 and I need to go to work in the morning. As far as I could tell from the links you put into your message, the discussion is based upon finding a progression in skeletal evidence in different species.

    I have always thought that the similarity of species was a creative act, akin to a symphony where a theme is stated then variations on that theme are presented which display a beauty and symmetry which is painstakingly created by the composer.

    What Darwin theorized was that minute birth defects changing the organism presented a gradual transition between species and that the operation of natural selection based upon the reproductive advantage which resulted from the genetic mutation would explain how one species became another. I understand that Jay Gould and many other evolutionists spent a long time talking about why this lack of fossil evidence was not significant.

    Now you are telling me that there is no lack of fossil evidence that needs explaining. I doubt Gould would have made the effort of attempting the explanation where none was needed. Anyway, I am interested in exploring this issue. I saw from reading Aronra's response a few minutes that he says he can satisfy me that I have been misinformed.

    I have a lot of things on my plate at present and I don't have a lot of time to explore this issue, although I find it very interesting. I will try to get back to both you and Aronra once I have had time to look at the material you recommend. It may be a couple of months before I resurface, because I still need to make a living and I have family obligations.

    Mick

  • Kateye70

    "I have always thought that the similarity of species was a
    creative act,
    akin to a symphony where a theme is stated
    then variations on that theme are presented
    which display a beauty and symmetry
    which is painstakingly
    created
    by the composer."

    You just stated the problem in a nutshell.

    Evolution does not posit a 'creator' (or 'composer').
    Evolution describes a methodology (or process).

    Separate the process (evolution)
    from the human need to control it (theology).
    _____________

    "I only ended up on this thread because I was wondering if any of these interspecies fossil remains had been discovered."

    Just google 'whale fossils' and you'll come up with several easy-to-read pages, including pictures of charts with the intermediary skeletons shown. Here's an easy one:
    pbs dot org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05 dot html

    There's also this one, that goes into the actual science, but you may not like the site:
    talkorigins dot org/features/whales/
    It explains how fossil evidence and evidence from other, unrelated disciplines tie together to show a complete picture of evolutionary changes that led from one species to another.

    This article has a long list of references to follow if so inclined.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    "I have always thought that the similarity of species was a creative act, akin to a symphony where a theme is stated then variations on that theme are presented which display a beauty and symmetry which is painstakingly created by the composer."

    this is an understandable way to view the problem here however we have to look at it with a logical scientific mind.

    positing a creator adds a whole new set of assumptions and other things we must prove. however if we stick with the scientific explanation and avoid the use of supernatural beings like god we can realize that all life started from the same moment here on earth and all life evolved from that thus being a natural reason for similarity rather than positing something extra like a creator.

    also it would seem very strange for god to have created SO MANY viruses and diseases that specifically target and destroy human life.

    "understand that Jay Gould and many other evolutionists spent a long time talking about why this lack of fossil evidence was not significant."

    well if you work for a museum or a university you will be privvy to the rooms and rooms and rooms of fossils that are not on display. we have buildings upon buildings FULL of fossils. not every living thing that dies fossilizes. but we should still be amazed at the amount of fossils we DO have.

    I hope you dont neglect your work and family too much (i know the internet can do that....evil machine) take your time. read up some more.

    but please also read up on cognitive biases and when you are looking through the evidence please avoid any cognitive bias that might creep in.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/YVHUFUHV4RCUKXYUO6IVRNRLNU IAM Awake

    I enjoyed every frame. Thanks for making this available. Too bad we can't force people to learn the rules of reason the way I was forced , as a child, to learn the dogmatism of religion.

  • TheLegend33

    The first 1:28 of the 2nd foundation (part 2) says it all. And where I began questioning my faith years ago. I think anyone with a critical thought process will see and hear why faith, does not mean a belief in ...Truth. In this simple (1:27) explaination, you can begin to analyze, with an open mind, the facts stated and continue your own research to further back an anti-theistic point of view with all honesty. The heavy weight of guilt that religion burdens people with, will quickly melt away.

  • over the edge

    was this link composed by a child?

    -yes " dogs have been and continue to be dogs, cats continue to be cats and elephants continue to be elephants." and if they didn't the theory would fall apart. just like we are apes an animal does not evolve out of its ancestry.

    -then goes off on some rant about the Platypus that proves nothing. then assumes "Platypus comes to us fully formed with an extraordinarily unique and static body plan" with nothing to back that up

    -then " there is no smooth gradation of one body plan to the next." i can help there. would an observed, documented and repeated example of one species evolving into another species with ALL steps documented convince you?

    - as for punctuated equilibrium. why can"t there be gradual evolution or stable species within gradually changing or stable environments. then have rapid (relatively) punctuated change during periods of dramatic/quick changes within the environment?

  • Joseph O Polanco

    I. You say, "just like we are apes" but, again, this presupposes Gradualism and Common Descent.

    II. If what you're offering are multiple examples of finely gradated spectra where, on one end, every subsequent life form is slightly less some animal X than the next until it’s no longer an X and, on the other end, each one is slightly more Y than the next until you end up with something that was not an X anymore then, absolutely, I'd be very interested in seeing such concrete evidence. If, however, what you're offering is something akin to the fly or bacteria experiments where, in the end, you still ended up with a fly or bacteria, I'm not interested. This is not proof of macroevolution.

  • over the edge

    1 no it does not presuppose anything. it is a statement based on the genetic,fossil structural and vestigial evidence we have (among other) that shows the fact that evolution happens

    2 please define macroevolution using scientific terms so we are starting on the same page. "kind" is not a scientific term. once we agree on the terms them i will attempt to give you an example that fits the definitions. also why should we exclude flies and bacteria. if they fit the definitions why are they not allowed? i addressed your questions or asked for elaboration in order to answer them please show me the same courtesy

    this is the " Biology Online" definition of macroevolution do you agree?

    "Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of species, over geologic time resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups."

  • Joseph O Polanco

    Multiple examples of finely gradated spectra where, on one end, every subsequent life form is slightly less some animal X than the next until it’s no longer an X and, on the other end, each one is slightly more Y than the next until you end up with something that was not an X anymore.

  • over the edge

    just so i know are you going to continue to make claims and not answer direct questions? how does your link answer my first statement? and are you going to provide a definition of macro evolution so i can attempt to give you an example? or is this going to be a one sided debate where you throw darts in the dark and hope one of them sticks? are you going to continue to provide links to long debunked claims and misrepresentations that i do not think you even understand?

  • Joseph O Polanco

    Show me a host of animals composing a spectrum where, on one end, each one is slightly less Platypus than the next until it’s no longer a Platypus and, on the other end, each one is slightly more Platypus than the next until you ended up with something that was not a Platypus.

  • Joseph O Polanco

    I. Are you finding the material I've shared too difficult to follow? If so, feel free to ask a specific question pertaining to it and I'll do my utmost to clarify :)

    II. I provided you with an analogical definition for Macroevolution since it appears a precise scientific one has yet to be delineated.

  • over the edge

    i gave you a definition and asked if you agreed to no avail. i asked why flies and bacteria are not allowed as examples to no avail. an analogy is not a definition and comparing non living objects to living organisms is foolish.

  • Joseph O Polanco

    I. As I explicated earlier, the flies and bacteria experiments simply produced more flies and bacteria. That's not macroevolution. Had these experiments yielded something that was not a fly or bacteria this exchange would be pointless for those results would’ve constituted hard evidence for Gradualism and Common Descent.

    II. If that definition signifies multiple examples of finely gradated spectra where, on one end, every subsequent life form is slightly less some animal X than the next until it’s no longer an X and, on the other end, each one is slightly more Y than the next until you end up with something that was not an X anymore then I happily accept it. If not, I don’t. The floor is yours.

  • over the edge

    i. then you do not understand evolution. a fly will never evolve out of its ancestry and no person educated in the evolutionary sciences would ever claim differently. all macro evolution consists of is a lot on micro evolution. and like myself many (if not most to all) scientists do not use the terms micro/macro as it is all evolution. but when pressed they will define it at the species level. now if you refuse to accept that. it does not change what evolutionary theory claims and what fits certain definitions. if you cannot make your case without misrepresenting the definitions and standards then you do not have much of a case.

    ii. perfect. look up the long term e-coli experiment. it clearly shows one species evolving into another (or macro evolution). if that doesn't satisfy you then look up ring species. now if you claim they are still bacteria then you do not understand at all.

    we will always be homo sapiens/mammals/primates/animalia and no amount of evolution will change that and no scientist in the relevant fields would claim otherwise.

  • Joseph O Polanco

    What kind of double talk is this? Mammals didn't evolve from birds who evolved from reptiles who evolved from amphibians who evolved from fish?

  • over the edge

    it is not doubletalk. it is how evolution works. no matter what our evolutionary future has in store for us we will never cease to be part of our ancestory. we will always be mammals. so when you state it is still a fly or bacteria the only answer i can give is of course it is. evolution never claims that an offspring is completely different and more importantly unable to reproduce with the proceeding generation. the study i pointed to is a speciation event that occurred over more than 30 000 generations with lots of detail and observation. i also mentioned ring species that occur in nature. neither of which you addressed. or if you wish maybe address epicurus points and questions if you do not understand what i am saying. he knows his stuff and i am sure can provide many detailed examples for you

  • over the edge

    and where does evolution claim mammals evolved from birds?

  • robertallen1

    What is the extent of your scientific education, especially in biology? Obviously none, as opposed to Over the Edge and Epicurus. .

  • robertallen1

    1. No it doesn't. It's based on the evidence.
    2. Try the elephant and the manatee.

  • robertallen1

    No presupposition, only evidence--and what are the scientific and academic qualifications of this maximiliann whom you're so fond of citing?

  • robertallen1

    Fossil evidence is only one type. There is also microbiology, genetics, etc. Asking for only one type is dishonest.

  • robertallen1

    But modern birds evolved from reptiles.

  • robertallen1

    How do you tell when something is a "fly" and when something is not or no longer is?

  • robertallen1

    That's because it's all evolution.

  • robertallen1

    The Wikipedia article you cite has nothing to do with creation vs. evolution. You obviously did not understand it or are engaging in deceit. .

  • robertallen1

    How do you tell if it is not an X any more?