Unholy scritpture watch!
youtube.com — New video from everyone's favourite atheist comedian.
rmeddy- 1247 diggs
- digg it
- Monolith4, on 10/10/2007, -73/+5comedian... C-O-M-E-D-I-A-N
- Ploosheeta, on 10/10/2007, -2/+34Thanks for clearing me up on the spelling.
- goodkidyo, on 10/10/2007, -14/+148This guy says all the things that I think, but much more eloquently.
- TenebrousX, on 10/10/2007, -4/+75British accents always make me feel like that
- xutopia, on 10/10/2007, -0/+23It's the vocabulary.
- Markpdotcom, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Yeah, and the fact we don't make up words like "Burglarize" and "Addicting" ;)
- Nereus90, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Limey bastard, making fun of our English!
- Markpdotcom, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Yeah, and the fact we don't make up words like "Burglarize" and "Addicting" ;)
- xutopia, on 10/10/2007, -0/+23It's the vocabulary.
- S1ngular1ty1, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12He is one of the best speakers I've ever heard.
- tyywebb, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I'm highly dubious on atheists who feel the need to refute religious people by pointing out contradictions in their scriptures. Well, then again I guess it's no use using pure logic so maybe this is the only way to really get through to them. Oh well.
- soil, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3Interesting. Unfortunately he's flat wrong. Jesus was clearly not against public prayer but public ostentatious prayers that spring from a heart that desires selfish praise rather than praise to God.
This is hardly a strong argument for church hypocrisy.- Power01, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0One could argue that he is making a subtle point. By highlighting how even one of the most "beautiful" passgaes in the bible, containing advice that I'm sure everyone could agree with, can be manipulated to ones own agenda.
Yet I unfortunately doubt this is the case, as much as I like to hear a rebuttal of superstition and dogma ,this man just reminds me of the Pharisees from the passage.
- Power01, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0One could argue that he is making a subtle point. By highlighting how even one of the most "beautiful" passgaes in the bible, containing advice that I'm sure everyone could agree with, can be manipulated to ones own agenda.
- NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Yeah this guy certainly is amazing.
- firebhaal, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0If god exists may he did YOU down right now!
- TeCuervo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2and if a proofreading exists may it "did" YOU down right now!
- shitdrummer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1U sed wot I woz finkin two but gooder. :p
- TenebrousX, on 10/10/2007, -4/+75British accents always make me feel like that
- Subterfug, on 10/10/2007, -6/+59He has a way with words!
- wafflez, on 10/10/2007, -1/+42"It's like cavemen using a flashlight as a hammer"
That line was amazing.- Djerrid, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Out of many great lines, that one was by far the best there. I'll definitely be lifting it for my next discussion in religion.
- whappo, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4because cavemen had flashlights
- Murdats, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3no, but people have bibles. and they use them as hammers.
I see you have missed the point much like his hypothetical cavemen did.
- Murdats, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3no, but people have bibles. and they use them as hammers.
- whappo, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4because cavemen had flashlights
- Djerrid, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Out of many great lines, that one was by far the best there. I'll definitely be lifting it for my next discussion in religion.
- wafflez, on 10/10/2007, -1/+42"It's like cavemen using a flashlight as a hammer"
- hakz, on 10/10/2007, -26/+2again???
- junky8687, on 10/10/2007, -12/+50hes not a comedian, hes just telling us how it is
- BlackOp, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3I think he is a professional comedian actually.
- LucasVB, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10"It's funny because it's true"
- iDragonFly, on 10/10/2007, -9/+95His point about church's being 'half-way houses', and 'keeping religion to one's self' - was priceless.
- spasticjedi, on 10/10/2007, -3/+39Every time someone tries to preach at me, I whip out that line about Jesus telling people to keep their faith private, and you'd be surprised how many Bible-humpers try and deny it. No, it's YOUR holy book, YOU ought to know this, and it shouldn't take a damned dirty atheist to point it out to you!
- Quintios, on 10/10/2007, -31/+2I guess it is my book, which is why you understand so little about it. *sigh* You don't have a clue what that passage means.
- blazes816, on 10/10/2007, -1/+25I've always wondered, why is it that the passages about things that are accepted as 'okay' or 'good', are literal, however, when somebody is stoning a woman to death it's all just a metaphor?
- Aticper, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13Jesus sounded like he had a pretty good idea what he was talking about.
Who are you to question whether he actually meant it? Now get back in your closet.
- BlackOp, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1why are people burying this??
- cawpin, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9The passage isn't saying you SHOULD keep your faith private. It is saying that you DO keep your faith private and don't pray in public just so people will see you. It doesn't matter if people see you praying in public. It doesn't give you anything extra. That's why the people who do it in public, to be seen, are called hypocrites.
- spasticjedi, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Maybe I should elaborate? If I come up to you and ASK you to tell me about Jesus, okay, that's fine. Go on and tell me. But to come up to me, out of nowhere, and start preaching? That takes a brand of balls I certainly don't possess, because I could never, no matter what my faith, come up to another person and preach. I don't understand what has to go through a person's head to think it's all right to come to my front door, ring my door chime, wake me from a sound sleep and get all condescending when I explain that I've no interest in their god?
I don't hate religion, by any means, but I can't stand those who take their faith and rub it in other people's faces. It strikes me as totally hypocritical, because I'm sure if I went up to them and asked if they'd found (insert "pagan" god here), their heads would explode. How is it we must all take time out to listen to preaching about the christian god, but none other? Isn't that just a LITTLE hypocritical, when you think about it?- actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I completely agree with you. Now, if we could only get Digg's athiests to follow that practice, the world would be a happier place for both sides.
- Abaddon1125, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1We don't preach. We educate.
- actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I completely agree with you. Now, if we could only get Digg's athiests to follow that practice, the world would be a happier place for both sides.
- Badaudio, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4The term is Bible-thumpers, but I like your version too.
- Quintios, on 10/10/2007, -31/+2I guess it is my book, which is why you understand so little about it. *sigh* You don't have a clue what that passage means.
- ninjasquirrel, on 10/10/2007, -20/+3So if religious people have to keep their faith quiet, why don't athiests?
- MSTK, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16...if the atheists followed a doctrine that specifically told them to keep their faith quiet, then they would.
- Aticper, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10...if atheists followed a doctrine telling them anything at all, they wouldn't be atheists.
- GastricContents, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You misunderstand the term. If I believed the script of "Footloose" to be holy scripture and lived by its lessons, and had faith that dance would overcome all, I don't need a god. Case in point: atheist Buddhists. Atheism is simply an absence of God, not necessarily of anything else, including faith.
- S1ngular1ty1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20What exactly would they be keeping quiet if they don't follow any religion? Atheism isn't a religion.
- Reziarfg, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17My guess, and I'm just going to throw this out there, do with it as you will, but, because atheism isn't a faith?
- actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Ah, so it's acceptable for atheists to ridicule Christians, but not the other way around? I'd venture to say neither is constructive.
- Murdats, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I would actually be quite pleased to hear a Christian argument ridiculing atheists that bears validity
you know, other then "your going to burn in a hell you dont believe in for not believing in it"
- Murdats, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I would actually be quite pleased to hear a Christian argument ridiculing atheists that bears validity
- actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Ah, so it's acceptable for atheists to ridicule Christians, but not the other way around? I'd venture to say neither is constructive.
- MaTT2011, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I vote this comment as most blatantly uninformed and just plain hilarious comment of the day.
Congrats to you! Here is your stupid trophy.... - vuke69, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.
- actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1He didn't call it a religion, he called it a faith. Do atheists not have faith in the scientific evidence stating the universe was created a certain way, that certain things happen -- or don't happen -- when you die, and that no supernatural being exists? As for the latter two, these are purely faith-based, as you cannot know either way until you die. And as for the former, scientists once had faith, based on evidence available, that dinosaurs were more closely related to lizards and not birds, and that Pluto was a planet. They have also made cases both for and against human-caused global warming. What this implies is that many beliefs held by the scientific community may change as new evidence presents itself -- making those beliefs, well, beliefs. Now, I'm not saying either side is right or wrong, only that, as an atheist, you have faith in something, even if that something is Science.
- MrPeach, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Athiests have faith only insofar as we believe that our toe will hurt if we drop a rock on it. Otherwise it's completely different.
We have faith that our repeated observations of nature will allow us to make predictions of future behavior.
You skip the whole observation bit and assume things that have no basis in the reality we live in - making absurd statements about what is and what shall be based on nothing.
Technically speaking, Athiests cannot state with any certainty what happens after you die, other than the obvious bodily corruption as we have no reliable observations of this that we can base our understanding on. We can, however, apply the laws of the universe as far as we understand them and conclude that it is highly unlikely that religious fantasies about post death continuance are valid.
Let's see - religious beliefs that refuse to change no matter what evidence is at hand VS scientific understanding that undergoes rigorous review and reevaluation on a periodic basis. And you try to use science's changeability as a negative? Pshaw and balderdash I say. Science has continued to paint your quaint beliefs into a smaller and smaller corner, and still you cling to your foolishness.
Pluto's classification as an argument? Laughable. That's like saying the Dewey decimal system is all rubbish just because of a small classification change.
I dare you to live your life ignoring previous observations of reality and see how long you live. The most laughable part of believers is their willingness to accept "just this much" science and no more. I say if you are religious you can't use science at all. No running water, refrigeration, combustion engines, antibiotics, or any modern stuff. Go live like the ignorant Muslim masses, I dare you.
- MrPeach, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Athiests have faith only insofar as we believe that our toe will hurt if we drop a rock on it. Otherwise it's completely different.
- actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1He didn't call it a religion, he called it a faith. Do atheists not have faith in the scientific evidence stating the universe was created a certain way, that certain things happen -- or don't happen -- when you die, and that no supernatural being exists? As for the latter two, these are purely faith-based, as you cannot know either way until you die. And as for the former, scientists once had faith, based on evidence available, that dinosaurs were more closely related to lizards and not birds, and that Pluto was a planet. They have also made cases both for and against human-caused global warming. What this implies is that many beliefs held by the scientific community may change as new evidence presents itself -- making those beliefs, well, beliefs. Now, I'm not saying either side is right or wrong, only that, as an atheist, you have faith in something, even if that something is Science.
- devjt2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Why don't we keep quiet? Because (in America) Christians have found a way to weave faith into most parts of the government policies. While our laws is not just a carbon-copy of the ten commandments, they are at least influenced by the bible. So much for separation of church and state. This is only one example.
- actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Funny, snarky arguments like vuke69's get dugg up, but yours is the only legitimate one I've seen thus far.
- MrPeach, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Yeah, if the damn believers would just stop shoveling their ***** everywhere and just concentrate on doing actual good works (as opposed to lining the pockets of priests) all us atheists could just shut the hell up and join them.
But they won't, and neither will we.
- MSTK, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16...if the atheists followed a doctrine that specifically told them to keep their faith quiet, then they would.
- kaeves, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The problem with his "keep your religion to yourself" "because the Bible says so" part is that the Bible does not say to keep your religion to yourself.
The verses he quoted like a caveman were actually talking about not trying to win the admiration of others through prayer, which is meant to be communication with God and not grandstanding for others. If you want, I will show you a verse that the Bible says on the subject of keeping religion to yourself: Matthew 28:16-20 says to do the opposite.
Just in case you doubt me, here are the verses: http://tinyurl.com/2grf3l (the ones he used) and http://tinyurl.com/2rah9d (Matthew 28:16-20).
- spasticjedi, on 10/10/2007, -3/+39Every time someone tries to preach at me, I whip out that line about Jesus telling people to keep their faith private, and you'd be surprised how many Bible-humpers try and deny it. No, it's YOUR holy book, YOU ought to know this, and it shouldn't take a damned dirty atheist to point it out to you!
- GilliamOS, on 10/10/2007, -5/+26Pat Condell is a funny, funny man.
- Gadren, on 10/10/2007, -6/+29I've been subscribing to a lot of atheists on YouTube, and I'm surprised I had never found out about this wonderful series of videos.
- thrallie, on 10/10/2007, -8/+11Great video, and I am going to keep the sermon on the mount bit to get myself out of church.
- eddywolf, on 10/10/2007, -18/+30I love this man, seen all his videos. Sooner we can get rid of the mental illness that is "religion", the better. The world will be a better place.
- dael, on 10/10/2007, -3/+25Irrational thinking is the real problem.. religion is just the biggest symptom of irrationality.
It's going to be very, very difficult to tame our brains to demand rational explanations after hundreds of thousands of years of emotionalism, instinctive decisions, and our habit of anthropomorphizing the world.
As a species, we are still only semi-rational.- rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Actually, even very young children can be taught the basic tools of critical thinking. Thus equipped, and then a) exposed to as many, diverse ideas and worldviews as possible, and b) left alone to figure things out for themselves, people from all sorts of backgrounds turn out surprisingly governed by reason to a degree greater than you suggest.
- dael, on 10/10/2007, -3/+25Irrational thinking is the real problem.. religion is just the biggest symptom of irrationality.
- nogahide, on 10/10/2007, -30/+22Some of what he says is funny (Revelations), but the guy doesn't' have a clue what Christianity is. Jesus never preached violence, and Jesus never said to keep your religion to yourself. His reference to "don't be like the Pharisees" was just that. Don't use your religion to feel like your better than everyone else. ***Wikipedia**The word Pharisees comes from the Hebrew פרושים prushim from פרוש parush, meaning "separated" , that is, one who is separated for a life of purity.***Wikipedia** Jesus said that even the best things that we (man) does is like filthy rags to the father so Christians have no right to feel superior. I'm not denying that some Christians do but, hey, human nature, what can I say. We all have our failings.
- resplence, on 10/10/2007, -4/+36Every religious person seem to think their religion is misrepresented by others, be them members of their religion or not. "the guy doesn't' have a clue what Christianity is", or "this guy is not a true christian". And then they go saying what Jesus really meant. How could you know? People have been studying and obsessing and killing each other over it for ages. This is actually a fallacy :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
I'm tired of this reasoning. The only real solution is eradicating supernatural thinking, but I guess that takes up too much processing power from people's brains.- nogahide, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2Well, I sure dont remember reading where, as a christian, I'm supposed to be violent to non-christians and the pharisee thing seems pretty self evident.
Jesus's message seems pretty clear to me..Love your neighbor as yourself, turn the other cheek, your a sinner and dont forget it (paraphrase), the first shall be last..
All that sort of stuff. The new testiment is our source for this info. Can you quote some new testiment where it supports this guys statments about chrstianity?- ralph123, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Ahem....
10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
10:15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
....
10:21 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.
...
3:21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
3:22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
3:23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
...
10:8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.
10:9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. - resplence, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2That depends on what your christian denomination is, your upbringing or what your "inner personal" understanding of it is. You can look at that passage and take it as what it seems to be, literally, or you can take the whole scoop of the new testament, combined with the old, then deduct some grand purpose god has for humanity and only then begin to interpret that.
It's the same as arguing over lyrics. And I'm certainly not gonna do this on digg.- rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Or, you can think to yourself, "why didn't my religion make all of this clearer and less ambiguous", and question the utility of the whole thing.
Instead of choosing to blindly follow fuzzy instructions, reason things out for yourself!
- rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Or, you can think to yourself, "why didn't my religion make all of this clearer and less ambiguous", and question the utility of the whole thing.
- rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2nogahide, whether or not your statement is true, does it not reveal the fatal failure of religion to accomplish its supposed goal of making people better?
Does it really matter what Jesus/Mohammed/Buddha/whoever said, if the religions built around them don't cause people to actually follow their philosophies - worse, followers tend to use religion as an excuse for all sorts of reprehensible behavior?
Doesn't this inherent problem reinforce the notion that following reason and using the critical thinking faculties humans possess - whether you believe they got them from God or natural evolution - would have a better outcome?
What I don't get is how religious apologists always dismiss any evil religious followers commit by insisting they weren't "really" religious", or weren't following what their religion "really" says. To me, that means religion is a failed system. After thousands of years of remarkable lack of success,time to try something else.
- ralph123, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Ahem....
- Joe_rigby, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3"The only real solution is eradicating supernatural thinking"
OMG GET THE LIONS!
= )
- nogahide, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2Well, I sure dont remember reading where, as a christian, I'm supposed to be violent to non-christians and the pharisee thing seems pretty self evident.
- wiiare1, on 10/10/2007, -5/+25Luke 19:27 "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."-jesus
you were saying what?...- ruley, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16i go to a christian high school and everyone puts bible quotes on their senior page in their year book, and im using that quote.
- hamiltonmills, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Do you just type the word 'kill' into some bible search engine and look for verses from the gospels?
If you actually took time to read it you would see that that verse is from a parable in which the king in the parable was speaking. So you can't exactly take that verse and say that Jesus advocates violence. You do actually have to look at the verses before and after it and see what the context is. - TenebrousX, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4It wasn't even Jesus saying that...
- ratnacage, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1fail
- LucidHawk, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Yeah he had a few violent things to say mixed in with "love everyone".
- neodorian, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5The only problem is that Christians don't just follow the alleged teachings of Christ. They also follow millennia of tribal law and parable often as irrefutable fact.
- moskaudancer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1When you think about it, that's the problem with ALL religions; you always end up with a few kooks who decide
Jesus, or Muhammad, or Jaweh, or Baal, or whoever *wanted* them to go around forcing their will on everyone else.
Those assholes just ruin Christianity, or Islam, or Judaism, or Paganism for the rest of us. It's people who are ***** up in the
head who are the problem, not the religions themselves.
- moskaudancer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1When you think about it, that's the problem with ALL religions; you always end up with a few kooks who decide
- BlacklabelSAR, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3If you judge and hate people, you are by definition not "Christ-Like", but instead you are a Fundamentalist Christian, which means that you do not have the power to reason.
- resplence, on 10/10/2007, -4/+36Every religious person seem to think their religion is misrepresented by others, be them members of their religion or not. "the guy doesn't' have a clue what Christianity is", or "this guy is not a true christian". And then they go saying what Jesus really meant. How could you know? People have been studying and obsessing and killing each other over it for ages. This is actually a fallacy :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
- 0livero, on 10/10/2007, -59/+13I know I'll be dug down for this, but I feel I must take a stand, because I really am sick of seeing attacks made on my belief system and no one defending it. So, I am going to defend it. If we use logic, like our friend Pat here does, why can we not come to the conclusion that there is a supreme being? Let me give you a simple argument. It is called: The Evolution of the Soda can.. you see, millions upon millions of years ago there appeared a brown sugary liquid on the face of a rock, that appeared from no-where and on it's own accord. After the process of millions of years aluminum began to creep up about the surface of the liquid, containing it in a canister, which featured a tab and lid.. these two inclusions were beneficial to the over-all design of the item, pretty lucky, huh? Well, you see, millions of more years past and paint fell from the sky decorating the can with the words Coca-Cola, and 20 fl Oz. The colors and symbols made the can appealing so that the sugary liquid could be consumed more readily. And, that, my friends, is how the modern-day coke can arose. Now, honestly, use -logic- and you'll realize that my theory of the coke can is quite foolish. You can see that the coke can has a purpose, I dare-say, a design, and because of that, it is very safe to assume there -is- a designer. Look at a house... does a house randomly construct itself on its own accord? No. Someone designs it. The design -always- points back to the designer. And to finish this up, please, seriously consider this: a coke can is a very simple idea. Coke, aluminum, and paint. Your eye has over 100 million light-sensitive cells. It is -VASTLY- more complex than a can of coke. So, if the coke can has a designer... wouldn't it be safe to assume you do as well? Now.. flame away. Go go go.
-Oli- LordSlashstab55, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13great, just remember "keep thy religion to thyself"
- 0livero, on 10/10/2007, -12/+2Did I ever specify which religion I belonged to, or if I belonged to any? Hm? I simply presented a defense for the belief that there is a supreme being. Now, if that principle applies to all beliefs, then our friend Pat could keep -his- beliefs to -himself-. I'm not trying to be rude, or sarcastic with this statement.
- DooM, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7"Belief System" Revolving Around Supreme Being = Religion
Your argument is puerile.
- DooM, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7"Belief System" Revolving Around Supreme Being = Religion
- 0livero, on 10/10/2007, -12/+2Did I ever specify which religion I belonged to, or if I belonged to any? Hm? I simply presented a defense for the belief that there is a supreme being. Now, if that principle applies to all beliefs, then our friend Pat could keep -his- beliefs to -himself-. I'm not trying to be rude, or sarcastic with this statement.
- mendo, on 10/10/2007, -17/+7Your an idiot. . .
- badjoke, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20Please learn to use correct grammar. You are = You're.
- mendo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Cheers i will try and remember that sir
- badjoke, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20Please learn to use correct grammar. You are = You're.
- badjoke, on 10/10/2007, -1/+22But evolution would show us that millions of cans became deformed mutations before finally a correct can that ensured the liquid would stay inside popped up. When finally this correct can mutated by accident, it was seen as the best design by the Coca Cola company, and mass reproduced (survival of the fittest.)
So just because our eyes work now, doesn't mean it happened on the first try perfectly. The organism with the eyes won over the blind because it was able to see food and mates, and make more offspring with a longer life.- 0livero, on 10/10/2007, -21/+0I've never seen a single beneficial mutation to a species before.. if you have a link to a picture or something, I'd be interested in seeing it.
- Vodka2389, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Stop embarrassing yourself...you obviously have no idea how evolution works.
- tehdoom, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Besides commonly sighted examples such as Sickle Cell Anemia, there's the example of a mutation that relates to HIV immunity (I believe it's a base pair deletion, but I admittedly haven't read a paper on the subject, just news articles). LINK: http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2005/01/66198
- dbzer0, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Please yes. just shut up and go and read something else other than what your preacher tells you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
- DooM, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17Here's 10. With references. Swing again.
1.) Adaptation to High and Low Temperatures by E. coli.
2.) Adaptation to Growth in the Dark by Chlamydomonas.
3.) Selection for Large Size in Chlamydomomas
4.) Adaptation to a Low Phosphate Chemostat Environment by a Clonal Line of Yeast
5.) Evidence of genetic divergence and beneficial mutations in bacteria after 10,000 generations
6.) Adaptation of yeast to a glucose limited environment via gene duplications and natural selection
7.) Molecular evidence for an ancient duplication of the entire yeast genome
8.) Evolution of a new enzymatic function by recombination within a gene.
9.) Changes in the substrate specificities of an enzyme during directed evolution of new functions.
10.) 12% (3 out of 26) random mutations in a strain of bacteria improved fitness in a particular environment.
Bennett, A.F., Lenski, R.E., & Mittler, J.E. (1992). Evolutionary adaptation to temperature I. Fitness responses of Escherichia coli to changes in its thermal environment. Evolution, 46:16-30.
Francis, J.E., & Hansche, P.E. (1972) Directed evolution of metabolic pathways in microbial populations. I. Modification of the acid phosphatase pH optimum in Saccharaomyces cervisiae. Genetics, 70: 59-73.
Francis, J.E., & Hansche, P.E. (1973) Directed evolution of metabolic pathways in microbial populations. II. A repeatable adaptation in Saccharaomyces cervisiae. Genetics, 74:259-265.
Hansche, P.E. (1975) Gene duplication as a mechanism of genetic adaptation in Saccharaomyces cervisiae. Genetics, 79: 661-674.
Papadopoulos, D., Schneider, D., Meier-Eiss, J., Arber, W., Lenski, R. E., Blot, M. (1999). Genomic evolution during a 10,000-generation
experiment with bacteria. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 96: 3807-3812
Edited by John R. Roth, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, and approved February 3, 1999 (received for review July 21, 1998)
Brown CJ, Todd KM, Rosenzweig RF (1998) Multiple duplications of yeast hexose transport genes in response to selection in a glucose-limited environment. Mol Biol Evol 1998 Aug;15(8):931-42 Nature 387, 708 - 713 (1997)
Hall BG, Zuzel T
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1980 Jun 77:6 3529-33
Biochemistry 1981 Jul 7 20:14 4042-9 - kaisersoz3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
- 0livero, on 10/10/2007, -21/+0I've never seen a single beneficial mutation to a species before.. if you have a link to a picture or something, I'd be interested in seeing it.
- etement, on 10/10/2007, -4/+15I stopped reading after the first sentence.
- plinx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10I understand your analogy but the two scenarios in my mind don't compare. A coke can was created because there was a need; contain the coke. Design was simple and there was an intended purpose. Though, the complexities of our existence in no way justifies a need. Thoughts?
- 0livero, on 10/10/2007, -12/+0Mm.. I have never thought about it that way. I suppose my thoughts are this: a tree has a leaf, the leaf allows the tree to perform photosynthesis. The leaf exists because there is a need for a system that allows the tree to obtain food.
- TeCuervo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No, that's not what you were thinking. You were thinking of causality and Thomas Aquinas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Thomas_Aquinas)
- 0livero, on 10/10/2007, -12/+0Mm.. I have never thought about it that way. I suppose my thoughts are this: a tree has a leaf, the leaf allows the tree to perform photosynthesis. The leaf exists because there is a need for a system that allows the tree to obtain food.
- Scarfy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+18I'm pretty sure that's not where soda comes from...
- TeCuervo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Oh YEAH!??! Well where does it come from? There is clearly some intelligent design in the soda can so... hum...
- Quintios, on 10/10/2007, -21/+2There's someone around here, or I think it's slashdot, that has a tag line that "it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in God". I think a lot of people, because all they've ever known in school is the teachings of evolution, have never actually questioned the "facts" of it. And no, I'm not saying that evolution doesn't exist, I'm talking about the transition from glob of green goo to man. I believe it's the christians that have been presented with both sides of the case more often than others. Heck, I'm an engineer and I've met more christian engineers than I can count. And I can count pretty darn high. I find it odd that the most logical fact-based group of people on the planet tend to lean towards faith in God.
- badjoke, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16I've heard the exact opposite: that most of the smartest people on earth, including most scientists, are atheists.
- tehdoom, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Don't assume everyone is incapable of changing their minds in the face of evidence. The fact is, I see no factual evidence supporting creation; I see much evidence against it, however. That being said, I've been exposed to the creationist arguments probably as much as you've been exposed to arguments in favor of evolution. I've considered all of them, seen their lack of reliable evidence, and decided that evolution seems far more plausible. I'm not just blindly following.
- devjt2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So... You are arguing that the most secular people are uninformed of the creationist theory of the universe?
- 1159, on 10/10/2007, -0/+30No flame, just a thought. There once was a time that we thought the sun was pulled across the sky by a dude in a chariot. As time passed, and we got a little smarter, we learned that wasn't the case. I imagine that a thousand years from now (if we survive ourselves), we'll know a lot more about our universe than we do now. My point is only this, ascribing Divine Design(TM) to things we don't fully understand is not only presumptuous, it's foolish.
And please give me a break, too many Christians act like they're persecuted because they're forced to hear things that they don't want to hear.- moskaudancer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Like the trademark. God, Inc., or God, LLC?
- webgeek2point0, on 10/10/2007, -0/+25So, if you look at that argument, then you also have to look at God. He didn't just "randomly construct itself". And as you said, "The design -always- points back to the designer." Therefore, God must have a designer, too. And his maker's maker, and so on, and so on. So, if you do follow the argument of intelligent design, then you have to follow the logic, and you have to admit that there are an infinite number of "Gods" - which I don't have a problem with, but you can't have it both ways using that argument. There are either no Gods or an infinite number of Gods if you believe in the Intelligent Design argument, otherwise the logic falls apart.
- 0livero, on 10/10/2007, -13/+0Very good point, and I'm dearly afraid this -is- where logic does fall apart for me, because in my mind, I hold fast to the belief that truth is absolute.. if there is an absolute truth, then there must be an absolute, and for me, it is a supreme being who has always existed and will always exist. If I am wrong about this, I will die, and decompose in the ground, and will has lost nothing. If I am right, I will have gained everything... Pretty interesting wager, huh?
- Vodka2389, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13So you're believing in god "just in case", huh? Yep, that exactly was Jesus had in mind.
- tehdoom, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14Yeah, anyone seriously using Pascal's Wager is probably going to Hell, as I think it safe to believe that your God doesn't like selfish sycophants.
- Aticper, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Ah yes, but what if it isn't your god, but one of an infinite assortment of possible gods who are going to get really pissed off that you picked the wrong one?
What if it's one of the infinite variety of gods who give you something better than heaven?
What if god is a giant marshmallow who will send you to meta-hell if you even eat marshmallow cream? Will you never eat another sweet again, just because of 'what if'? - aurorion, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Pascal's Wager?
http://penref.blogspot.com/2007/07/russels-teapot-20070218.html
http://atheistwager.blogspot.com/2007/04/first-post.html
- 0livero, on 10/10/2007, -13/+0Very good point, and I'm dearly afraid this -is- where logic does fall apart for me, because in my mind, I hold fast to the belief that truth is absolute.. if there is an absolute truth, then there must be an absolute, and for me, it is a supreme being who has always existed and will always exist. If I am wrong about this, I will die, and decompose in the ground, and will has lost nothing. If I am right, I will have gained everything... Pretty interesting wager, huh?
- Bleeblaow, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18"So, if the coke can has a designer... wouldn't it be safe to assume you do as well?"
No.- TeCuervo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Actually you are wrong...
The answer is yes. My wife...- detro1tjok3r, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1a million diggs for you!
- TeCuervo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Actually you are wrong...
- Vodka2389, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I actually dug you up because I was convinced that you were being sarcastic. "No one can be THAT stupid", I thought.
- BlackOp, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Someone doesn't understand evolution. Why don't you idiots do a bit of research about something and find out what it actually is before saying anything? Do you think you're the first person to think of that?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2043771442443928848
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_watchmaker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy - blazes816, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Nice job stealing Ray Comfort's speech. I'd sooner believe that happend than an all powerful being came out of nowhere. And also that he loves you, cares about you, and also needs your money. Well, except for crack addicted babies. I guess he doesn't love everyone.
- Modiga, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2One could argue that a coke can evolves in a similar way to life, although it's slightly clunkier due to bigger steps that are taken. The designer of the can starts off with a handful of ideas and compares them. They then decide which properties of each idea is useful and which properties aren't. If an idea for a coke can has no useful properties, then it is "killed off" in the designers mind, removing it from the can's idea-pool (like a gene pool). The ideas that have useful properties are then merged together (one could say they were bred) producing a new idea (or offspring) that has the beneficial traits of the previous designs but not the flaws. After enough ideas, selection and merging we arrive at the coke can we have today. I'd just like to point out that a coke can, like almost any invention, requires previous ideas to acquire traits from, that's the main reason why things are invented and discovered when they are and not a few hundred years before hand. Inventions require the right time and place.
As for evolution, it's the same basic process. Instead of a coke can we have a life form and instead of ideas we have genetic traits. Now you proposed that for the beneficial traits to be passed on, someone has to come along, weight them up and decide whether the trait is beneficial or not. But is this true? Consider that through passing on DNA, life can pass on positive (and negative) traits to its offspring. Now if a new trait gives a disadvantage to the offspring, that offspring is more likely to die before it can breed and that negative trait is more likely to disappear from the gene pool. Conversely, if a new trait gives an advantage to the offspring, it's going to be more likely to pass on this positive trait and so the number of this species with the positive traits grow as time goes on. When you factor in lots of time and lots of different traits, then the changes that occur are big enough to change the species drastically.
You may wonder how I can sit here and not consider that something that works well could not have a designer, but I wonder how you can sit there and not see how such a simple system fits the evidence so perfectly. - Vodka2389, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Man, I just can't get over how stupid this is. I can't believe some people actually take is seriously. A COKE IS NOT A LIVING ORGANISM! This is the worse analogy ever.
- 0livero, on 10/10/2007, -11/+0Yup.. a coke is much more simple than an organism. It doesn't breath, or anything.. That was the theme of my analogy... if something so simple has a designer, what about the more complex?
- Mousse, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10A coke can doesn't reproduce and a coke can doesn't mutate. This is why it is a terrible analogy.
When you have anything that reproduces with heritable traits but changes slightly from one generation to the next and apply selection pressures to it then you will see gradual changes in the traits of the population. This is true for living and inanimate things such as viruses (which are, after all, just stray DNA molecules enclosed in a protein capsid).
An argument like yours just demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the process of evolution. - Aticper, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Because it DOES NOT BLOOODY REPRODUCE.
A coke can, unlike a living cell, is not subject ot evolution. THEREFORE, it was made. Humans, ARE subject to a very, very well demonstrated phenomena called evolution, and it is therefore absurd to assume that they were designed, ESPECIALLY when your designer flies in the face of the laws of nature.
- Mousse, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10A coke can doesn't reproduce and a coke can doesn't mutate. This is why it is a terrible analogy.
- DooM, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It is the 'worst' analogy ever - but not for the reason you ascribe.
- 0livero, on 10/10/2007, -11/+0Yup.. a coke is much more simple than an organism. It doesn't breath, or anything.. That was the theme of my analogy... if something so simple has a designer, what about the more complex?
- bortis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5 If your intention is to use logic to defend your "belief system" I would suggest not employing Ray Comfort's silly design arguments. What Ray is doing here is not logic but trickery. He starts with his conclusion and serves up wildly distracting and convoluted misrepresentations of what it is he is arguing against. All that is being said in this soda can example is that all complex things have a designer. This, however, is not an argument. This a statement that must be defended. Giving an example of a complex thing that has a designer is not a proof that the thesis is "always" true. Nowhere is there a proof offered for the original claim, just more obvious examples (the banana routine is priceless is its stupidity).
Now it would seem that there are, quite in contrary to your conclusion, examples of very complex yet "un-designed" things all around us. Snowflakes, for example, are indeed quite intricately constructed but have not been individually designed by an artists. Crystals form themselves into striking geometric shapes that seem to suggest a guiding hand. We are often fooled by complicated geological structures (see the Giant's Causeway for an example) that occur naturally but have features that appear designed.
The difference between these counter-examples and the ones that you and Comfort provide is that science can give a detailed explication of why these structures have the shapes and properties that they do. Their claims have predictive power and can be tested. Evolutionary biology explains (in staggering detail) how the much more complicated structures of living things can similarly come about without a designing hand. Evolutionary algorithms have now been employed in a great many other fields to create structures that are fantastically complicated and efficient, but that lack a true "designer".
Even though in may seem tremendously counter-intuitive to us humans, the claim that complexity "always" requires a designer doesn't seem to bare out. And of course... if it did... you would be hard pressed to explain where your rather complex all-knowing God came from! - empeeu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'm a Christian. Sorry mate, that argument doesn't work. You're trying to argue against evolution. I suggest you read Dawkin's "Blind Watchmaker" to get a better understanding of the theory. Humans tend to seek out an explanation for their existence, and before the theory of evolution atheists did not have an adequate reply for that question. "Without an explanation ergo God exists" unfortunately does not work as a good argument.
God by definition cannot be proven;it's like trying to explain to a Flatlander what volume is... without experiencing it, they simply cannot comprehend it. (Flatland by Edwin Abbott Abbott... another good read). Also, the intelligence argument mentioned by others "smart people are religious/atheist" simply does not work either. I hold that the only logically sound belief is agnostic, because that acknowledges that the existence/non-existence of God simply cannot be proven.
Further, I fully understand why some atheists, good people, detest religion: all the horrifying acts throughout history under the flag of divine justice. However, I believe that if everyone on this planet lived his/her life like Jesus (I mean the same principles, I'm not saying everyone should be a profit, we need farmers too :) ), the concept of heaven would be nearly superfluous because we'd pretty much be there already (cheesy yes, I know).
Lastly, there are many people out there defending religion, although I commend you for taking the task upon yourself. However, their defense is more often through action, selflessness, caring, loving, etc. These Internet forum replies tend to reach dead-end arguments and normally prove pointless except for enticing a flaming war. All the above IMHO. - rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The fundamental issue is not with the details of your ignorant and poorly constructed illogic - it is in the very first sentence, your very first premise - that questioning, challenging, debating, even thinking about the validity of your, or anyone else's, beliefs, is somehow taboo.
THAT is the essence of the problem. It also points out your fundamental fear of thinking too deeply about the things you have been indoctrinated to believe - if you were utterly confident in the logic of your thinking, you'd hardly object to people challenging it, would you? Certainly, you wouldn't imply that "attacking" your "beliefs" is somehow illegitimate.
Just because someone labels a notion "religious belief", should not grant it automatic immunity from rational scrutiny. - onewingedangel9, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Coke cans and houses are constructed by man. Nature. Those things grow. Trees grow from seeds. There is a cycle of life and death. There have been experiments showing microscopic proteins (the building blocks of life) appearing out of nothing but different gasses when energy is applied. Why is it so hard to believe that life could have organically grown on this planet? That through a trial-by-error system we have become the most intelligent beings of that system. Would this not make you proud of the human race? Wouldn't it make you want to act in the best interests of our race?
- tybris, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I have yet to find anyone who does not 'believe' in evolution but does understand it.
- hoghug, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Sorta surprised he went with the Coke can and not the infamous banana canard.
This sorta logic makes me think about ancient astronomers and how found pictures in the sky.
IE: if there wasn't a creator, how did those stars ever come to form the shape of not ONE dipper, but TWO? If that doesn't prove the existence of a creator, nothing does... - BlacklabelSAR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Oh, sorry that people question your faith when the Fundamentalist Christians go around judging and hating, which exactly the opposite of Christ's teachings. Think about that. Nobody hates the Amish because they don't push their beliefs on others. Think about that too.
Second thing, it's the Fundamentalist Christians that wish to interpret the bible literally. Evolution would not preclude some Prime Mover, which you could call God. It would only preclude taking the bible literally.
Now let's talk about Faith. If Christians really had faith, they would be happy, secure, people that would not be threatened by questions or alternate theories.
faith (fth)
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
I would venture to guess that you were indoctrinated in fear from a very young age. That would be the fear of burning in Hell for eternity. That is child abuse by the way and cripples a person's ability to think, as it was designed to do.
So now you feel threatened by the Secular world. Who do you think burned witches? Do you believe that witches did exist? Either you do or you admit that Christians were wrong and actually committed murder. Now look into The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, et al.
So you've got self-rightous people, that feel threatened by reality, and feel superior to God over others. You are "God's Chosen People", how cozy and convenient. And by the way, most other religions feel that they too are God's special little guys.
Give this a try: Everyone that is born will die. The energy within us cannot be detroyed, but can only change form. So relax and have some real faith and stop living in fear. - STARTSOMETHING, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Theirs a double edged sword to freedom some think religion is ruining our society and others think abortion is murder
We are born by ourselves and will die by ourselves
So with that said let me live my life
and STAY THE *****!!!! out of it - otakushark, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2This reminds me of a discussion I had like 25 years ago with some Jehovah's Witnesses who came to my house, except they were using the "no matter how much you shake a box of parts it will never turn into a blender" thing as their "proof" that a creator must have been involved in producing the much more complex creatures that inhabit the Earth. Blenders and Coke cans are not living organisms. Evolution deniers, you need a new argument--and try to have it make some sense this time.
- Chazx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Coke cans and houses don't breed.
- LordSlashstab55, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13great, just remember "keep thy religion to thyself"
- CryptiniteDemon, on 10/10/2007, -12/+21As an atheist I really get sick of other atheists taking the whole "pray in the closet" thing out of context. It's more of a scripture about pride and how people shouldn't be prideful constantly shouting to the world that they're Christians. If you're going to church, it's not the public. You're in a sanctuary of other christians who already know you're one, so its actually private in that sense and really it's not showboating.
And really it's not that I'm defending christianity at all, I just really don't like that argument because that's how friggin' easy it is to discredit that argument. If you wanna beat down christian BS, then ya gotta use stronger arguments.- Quintios, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8"As an atheist I really get sick of other atheists taking the whole "pray in the closet" thing out of context."
AMEN BROTHER!! Er, I mean, uh. Way to go? :)
Either way, you got it right. It's not about hiding, it's about bragging. - Gorrondonuts, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4I completely agree. I was a Christian for most of my life. I'm not sure what I am now, but I can no longer believe in god, the way Christianity presents it.(but that's another story entirely). And the fact that Cryptinite is getting dug down just shows how most of the people on Digg love bashing things without actually thinking them through. His point is a very good one. The Bible also says to witness to others about Jesus, that isn't keeping it private. You aren't supposed to become big headed about it. Oh well.
- onewingedangel9, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Everybody is just reiterating what this guy said in the video, that people will get out of the Bible what they want. You can't stop people from reading into it and interpreting the words different ways.
- f201, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You've discovered one of the bible's umpteen contradictions. Congratulations.
- NSResponder, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4It's a perfectly good argument if your purpose is to get christians out of your face. Some of us couldn't care less about what people believe, we just want them to ***** off, and "jesus says to ***** off and pray in your closet" is ideal for getting rid of proselytutes.
-jcr- DooM, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Unless they actually know something about the bible. "Piss off" is a much more concise argument without any misleading statements, and usually works for me.
- Murdats, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1yes, but you dont get to watch their heads explode as you see them trying to refute the bible.
then you can point out that they are refuting the bible, and as such are committing heresy
- Murdats, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1yes, but you dont get to watch their heads explode as you see them trying to refute the bible.
- DooM, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Unless they actually know something about the bible. "Piss off" is a much more concise argument without any misleading statements, and usually works for me.
- Fritzed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I believe the most important part of this debate is how much it underscores the propensity of one to interpret the bible to their own beliefs.
This is not something that is limited to one side of the debate. Agnostics and Christians alike are guilty of picking and choosing passages to support their ideas and even giving completely different understandings of the same passage as in this case.
I do believe that the most important part of Pat Condell's recent video was the explanation of how the bible can be used to preach hate. If that is what you already believe, than there is no doubt that you can find passages in the bible to support you.
I think that most of us can agree that the core of Jesus' message in the bible is love and peace. Picking any specific passages to support a message of hate or violence is disingenuous and betrays this core message.
Of course, maybe this isn't what he meant, maybe this is only my interpretation.- mozzep, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Passages in the bible can be interpreted to have many different meanings. What has many different meanings is ambiguous. God wrote the bible. God is by definition omniscient and omnipotent. Therefore, God intended for the bible to be ambiguous.
Anyways, I think you're absolutely correct.
- mozzep, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Passages in the bible can be interpreted to have many different meanings. What has many different meanings is ambiguous. God wrote the bible. God is by definition omniscient and omnipotent. Therefore, God intended for the bible to be ambiguous.
- ICSU, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3But why the ***** are my taxes used to build that church and pay the wages of the employees?
- ruddy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2which church is that? maybe tax breaks, but not "taking" taxes. my church operates by the contributions from the people who go there.
- JigoroKano, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3"Faith based initiatives"
- ruddy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2which church is that? maybe tax breaks, but not "taking" taxes. my church operates by the contributions from the people who go there.
- jloutey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think you may have missed the irony of the argument. "[People] use their holy books to reinforce their own narrow prejudices and then they try to impose them on every body else." He's exemplifying their hypocrisy.
- kaeves, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1As a Christian, I have to thank you, CryptiniteDemon, for letting people hear this. The last thing we need for a healthy debate, or even respectful coexistence, is more misinformation.
Also, It's hard to get a visible post in this comment system, so even though I tried to say the same thing, few people will see it.
- Quintios, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8"As an atheist I really get sick of other atheists taking the whole "pray in the closet" thing out of context."
- Chemixst, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6The "designer" of your eye may as well be the natual phenomena that occur in this universe that may or may not have spontaneously come into existence for reasons unknown to us at the moment. I don't need to anthropomorphise the nearly infinite complexity of this physical universe into an oversimplified deity.
- tybris, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What I don't understand about people who insist they were designed... What if the universe is deterministic and this 'God' figure planned all seemingly random events, including the workings of evolution, from the very start without ever having to interfere. Would that not be infinitely more impressive? Does that not make our 'God' vastly superior?
People don't think about these things, they simply believe.... whatever the book, the parent or the preacher tells them.- ElwoodHerring, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2If god created a universe that doesn't need any further intervention after its initial creation, then he is superfluous and may as well not exist.
On the other hand, if he created a universe that needs constant attention and monitoring by him, then he is not perfect. You can't have it both ways.- tybris, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This god could still watch his little universe and save the brain structures of his most valued objects just before they die. There might be reason to worship him, but not to stand in the way of science which merely tries to demonstrate how marvelous his 'design' really was.
- MrPeach, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Or he could just sit and masturbate while we eat ***** and die our dirty desperate lives wondering why we bother.
- tybris, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This god could still watch his little universe and save the brain structures of his most valued objects just before they die. There might be reason to worship him, but not to stand in the way of science which merely tries to demonstrate how marvelous his 'design' really was.
- ElwoodHerring, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2If god created a universe that doesn't need any further intervention after its initial creation, then he is superfluous and may as well not exist.
- tybris, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What I don't understand about people who insist they were designed... What if the universe is deterministic and this 'God' figure planned all seemingly random events, including the workings of evolution, from the very start without ever having to interfere. Would that not be infinitely more impressive? Does that not make our 'God' vastly superior?
- Hendrik, on 10/10/2007, -15/+6Okay, enjoy digging me down, folks. I just feel like I need to put in my two cents.
Yes, Jesus told us not to pray on the street-corners, so as to be seen as "holier-than-thou", but rather to keep your prayer life between yourself and God. However, he also said that his Father's house (synagogues, churches) was a house of prayer. Churches, by Christ's definition, are places for people to congregate and pray.
The heart of what Jesus said is obviously that we should be humble in our walk with God, and to not act holy solely for the purpose of earning favor with Man (uppercased to signify humanity as a whole, not merely the gender). What Jesus said in no way means that churches are obsolete.- minoss, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Maybe you should read the verse again:
And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. - ICSU, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You keep walking with whomever fictional character you want, but keep it to yourself.
- minoss, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Maybe you should read the verse again:
- pudgyv, on 10/10/2007, -16/+4Just more BS and claptrap. I'll make it easy for all of you. There is one way, and one way only, to destroy Christianity. Disprove the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If you do that the whole system collapses like a house of cards. Even the Apostle Paul recognized that. So have at it. There is one caveat. Many have tried, none have succeeded.
- blazes816, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Why the need to disprove it? The only 'proof' is a book.
- NSResponder, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14Not for us to disprove it, sunshine. You make the claim, so the burden of proof is yours. Many have tried, none have succeeded.
BTW, you better give up this middle-eastern woo-woo claptrap before Thor smites you with a bolt from Mjolnir.
-jcr - SkittlesUSA, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3I think just the fact that Christianity existed in the first century is substantial evidence. Christianity was created less than a generation after the crucifixion of Jesus, before the New Testament was even written. People who would have been eyewitnesses were executed for being christian. Why would early first-century christians be willing to die for something they knew not to be true, if they were alive when Jesus was?
- pgoetz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Um, less than a century is an impossibly crude measure for your argument. If Christianity was created 95 years after the death of christ you can bet your sweet bipee that no one who was alive during the crucifixion was around to help start Christianity. Check out the 2005 documentary "The God Who Wasn't There" if you'd like to have your eyes opened. Else, muddle on blissfully and ignorantly, but do keep it to yourself.
- onewingedangel9, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Plus lifespans were incredibly shorter in those days. And as for people willing to die for something they knew not to be true, religion is all about believing that it is true. We have suicide bombers to this day that give up their lives for their religion. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that it doesn't take seeing jesus resurrect to be able to die for your faith.
- pgoetz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Um, less than a century is an impossibly crude measure for your argument. If Christianity was created 95 years after the death of christ you can bet your sweet bipee that no one who was alive during the crucifixion was around to help start Christianity. Check out the 2005 documentary "The God Who Wasn't There" if you'd like to have your eyes opened. Else, muddle on blissfully and ignorantly, but do keep it to yourself.
- tybris, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4"Disprove the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
How could anyone disprove that? The sun rises every day and the days lengthen after every winter solstice. The light of the world will come again. - devjt2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2How can something that has NOT been proven be disproven?
- lowentropy, on 10/10/2007, -8/+6I'd like to see a variant of Digg that only allows comments expressed in formal logic. Comments that don't reduce to certainty are automatically buried. As a bonus benefit, no more spelling/grammar-induced pain.
- ElwoodHerring, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4This statement is false.
- givemereplay, on 10/10/2007, -29/+1Pissy, whiny atheists with british accents complain about how everyone else is dumber and more vile than they are
Part 2.- rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10You are such an exemplary example of the merits of faith. Clearly, your beliefs have made you more tolerant, loving and reasonable than us heathens.
- givemereplay, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Your presumptions about my beliefs don't lend anything to your credibility. You're welcome to digg me down, but it doesn't change the fact that this man is just another intolerant, whiny, and self assured (as much as fundamentalist Christians) Dawkins knock off.
- rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I take it you disagree with the presumptions that you are more tolerant, loving and reasonable?
Far be it from me to contradict you.- MrPeach, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0LOL. Straw man built and burned. Almost entertaining, looser.
- rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I take it you disagree with the presumptions that you are more tolerant, loving and reasonable?
- ButterBuddha, on 10/10/2007, -3/+32Matthew 6: verses 5 & 6
"5) And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6) But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."- S1ngular1ty1, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6Amen. Keep that crazy crap to yourself.
- goodshorts, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1the guy in this video was completely taking the scripture out of context. how can you argue against something, if you don't even know what it means?
- evilevil, on 10/10/2007, -8/+24jesus's dead body or it didn't happen
- belligerent, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6You see, part of Christian belief says his body was "raised up" because he is the son of God. So if Jesus' dead body was lying around, I'd personally take that as a reason NOT to believe. Go ahead and believe what you want, but please pull your head out of your ass first thank you
- ruddy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1thats why the discovery channel has shows titles "we found jesus' body, or did we".
- georgebnet, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1whoosh!
- ruddy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1thats why the discovery channel has shows titles "we found jesus' body, or did we".
- skyshock1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9i lol'd.
- ElwoodHerring, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Happy to oblige...
http://www.tombofjesus.com/2007/index.html
- belligerent, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6You see, part of Christian belief says his body was "raised up" because he is the son of God. So if Jesus' dead body was lying around, I'd personally take that as a reason NOT to believe. Go ahead and believe what you want, but please pull your head out of your ass first thank you
- breakerjump, on 10/10/2007, -13/+14I, for one, believe Christianity as practiced in modern America is pathetic, dangerous, and contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ. But seriously, he - at the end of his video - did what he chastised others for doing near the beginning: He took one passage, paraphrased it incorrectly and out-of-context, and then used it to reinforce his own narrow prejudices.
Why should one listen to anything else he has to say?- onewingedangel9, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4If you think about it, isn't that the point of him doing it? He's showing that anybody can do it and make it sound convincing. He can make people believe that's what the real meaning of what Jesus said is, when the real meaning can never be truly known.
- tybris, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Because he has a calming voice and eloquent pronuncation?
- georgebnet, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Because he does that on purpose to show how, when given a cryptic enough text and no exact methods of interpretation, one can get anything out of it. He also uses the incorrect, logically cyclic argument that what he said was true because it's in the bible which is true because it's the word of god which is so because so it says in the bible.
Once again, whoosh. - shig, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Protestantism, and the concept of Sola Scriptura, is all of those things. Thumbs up!
- Brut3forc3, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15Is it just me or does anyone else want to go to the Greek Island of Patmos to get stoned on Psilocybin mushrooms?
- azerton, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You read instructions I fly the plane
- Aticper, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Feel free.
Maybe do a little surfing, and write a new holy book while you're there. - Aticper, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0Sorry, double post. Please digg down.
- Aticper, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5A triple post?
Honestly, Digg Comment System, you're slipping.
- macinjosh, on 10/10/2007, -12/+10This video makes an interesting point but his attempt at pegging churches as being against the scriptures is horribly off, he has taken the scripture completely out of context, which is a trick that at lot of skeptics use. The Bible is a complex book and therefore can easily be twisted to make it look like it says things it does not.
What Jesus was talking about in Matthew 6 is the fact that a lot of people (especially in the time and culture when this message was preached) acted religiously but were really just in it for power, money, and fame. It is a bit ironic because those are the things atheists, agnostics, and other non-believers don't like about religion. In this passage Jesus was urging people to not be like this, he was urging them to have a real relationship with God, and its those relationships God rewards, not the selfish, ill intentioned ones.- rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7"The Bible is a complex book and therefore can easily be twisted to make it look like it says things it does not."
Yet it is the sole source of (supposed) Jesus' words, and thus the sole source of Christian authority. So:
a) what makes your interpretation any more valid than anyone else's?
b) if so many people evidently "misinterpret" the "true" intent of Jesus, doesn't this point out to a fatal failure of Christianity as a religion - and, possibly, of the Bible itself as a source of "enlightenment"?
After alll, we expect a decent operating manual for a freakin' television, and yet "God" couldn't write one clear enough for people to follow?
File among "things that make you go Hmmm."- macinjosh, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Thats a good enough point, but the problem isn't my interpretation vs. his, its that he removed the scripture from context thus making the words say what he wanted. Its like taking the phrase "Your TV will not work without being plugged in" out of the manual and just using the "Your TV will not work" part. Its context not interpretation.
- burnt1ce85, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2I totally agree. For the programmers out there, it's like reading the "then" part without the "if" in a "if-then" statement which would not make any sense.
- burnt1ce85, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2I totally agree. For the programmers out there, it's like reading the "then" part without the "if" in a "if-then" statement which would not make any sense.
- macinjosh, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Thats a good enough point, but the problem isn't my interpretation vs. his, its that he removed the scripture from context thus making the words say what he wanted. Its like taking the phrase "Your TV will not work without being plugged in" out of the manual and just using the "Your TV will not work" part. Its context not interpretation.
- Aticper, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5By 'complex', I assume you mean 'riddled with internal contradictions, dubious meanings, contradictory morality, and logical absurdities'?
I thought so.- burnt1ce85, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Oh.. did you figure that out yourself or did your rip it off from a youtube video? woah dejavu
- onewingedangel9, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I believe his point is that you can make the bible say whatever you want it to say, and he just proves that point in the end. Too many people are going to take that line in the end and quote it and argue over it, but they are just proving how right he is.
- rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7"The Bible is a complex book and therefore can easily be twisted to make it look like it says things it does not."
- BlackCow, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Mr. Oli, soda cans and sugar water are not organic building blocks for life. What would more likely happen is tiny micro-organisms would appear using that sugar water and whatever energy is around. Over millions of years of evolution complex organisms would evolve with the ability to make a soda can to put that sugar water in.
- belligerent, on 10/10/2007, -7/+6"His point about church's being 'half-way houses', and 'keeping religion to one's self' - was priceless."
In his anti-church statement, he completely contradicts himself. If you take the bible literally you will come out with a contorted mess. That was quite possibly his main point. Yet he takes the bible verse literally for his own personal views as he JUST warned against. Interpretively, it may come out as "Your faith is personal, don't use it to advance your image. Don't go out and USE it in a low earthly way." Literal interpretation is how we get these nut-job close-minded Christians. But I guess he's no better. Anyone else find this strikingly obvious?- minoss, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I agree, why believe the entire bible when you can just believe the parts you like.
- Pureeviljester, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2he's saying interpret what should be interpreted.
most verses are surrounded by other verses. Which means there is a background to that scripture he didn't bother to read.
- Pureeviljester, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2he's saying interpret what should be interpreted.
- Aticper, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think he was making a point that you can interpret that bloody thing to support any position you want.
Heck, you can take 90% of it seriously without ignoring a couple of major laws of physics. - Menchi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Nope, because he only took one phrase from the Bible that has a pretty clear meaning (as in that you can't really squeeze that much philosophical points out of it) and used it as an example, a pretty good one at that. You cannot take the ENTIRE Bible literally, but many verses in the Bible are fairly straightforward ("Respect thy neighbor!" - how can you interpret that other than literally?...respect them metaphorically?...)
I'm an atheist and I do not find the Bible to be an amazing book of rainbow miracles, but as Pat said it does have good points - depending on how the person reads it, and sometimes the words mean exactly what they mean (literally!) and the important thing is to know WHEN do those crop up. (example again, "sacrifice your life hurf durf for your faith and kill infidels" is probably not a good one to take literally, "be a good person and don't annoy other people with your *****" IS probably a good one to take literally")- belligerent, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Does it mean respect your "neighbor"? That would be a weak statement wouldn't it?....okay, so I should wave to them when I take out my trash? How about respecting the guy sitting next to you on the bus? Your co-workers? Your friends? How about anyone you have to interact with? The word "neighbor" is very interpretable...
- onewingedangel9, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0He seemingly contradicts himself because he is showing just how easy it is to take your own meaning out of it and convince plenty of people. It's not hypocritical if you mean to do it to prove the original point.
- minoss, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I agree, why believe the entire bible when you can just believe the parts you like.
- Thaum, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Good man, well said.
- MrMidi, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4I wish this guy was my friend.
- GmorG, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Sorry, my favourite atheist comedian is George Carlin.
- wastedpanda, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I personally believe that all time is predetermined, because matter follows the laws of physics and all you are is matter. If you rewind time and play it back again passively, events wouldn't change. So how can a just God damn someone to hell for something they had no real control over? The illusion of decision making is merely impulses in your brain. These impulses are not random, they are determined (or sparked off) by your senses, which in turn are determined by matter in the world. Digg me down if you disagree, but that's my opinion and it makes perfect sense to me. This is, for one, why I will never be a religious man.
- knowitman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1C.S Lewis uses a similar argument to yours to argue the opposite thing in his book, Miracles. If I correctly understand what you are saying, you are saying that everything in this world is just a serious of actions that are completely controlled by the laws of physics. Everything you think is because of the movements of atoms and molecules in your brain that are just moving according to the laws of physics.
I will now use the C.S. Lewis argument. Because you rationally thought out that paragraph, it proves that there is something more then the movements of molecules in the brain based off of the laws of physics. - SkittlesUSA, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Well I am glad you have an excuse for everything wrong you do in your life.
"It wasn't my fault judge! I couldn't help murdering the entire family! It was fate! I have no control over what I am doing, it was predetermined."- aurorion, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Unfortunately, that IS true.
Everything happening in every part of the universe, including electrochemical reactions in human brains, are determined purely by the laws of physics. There is no magical entity that grants us any magical power like free will or choice, which can overrule physics.. - aurorion, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Unfortunately, that IS true.
Everything happening in every part of the universe, including electrochemical reactions in human brains, are determined purely by the laws of physics. There is no magical entity that grants us any magical power like free will or choice, which can overrule physics..
- aurorion, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Unfortunately, that IS true.
- georgebnet, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The deterministic view of the world is not in line with modern physics. WRT what free will entails to physically, that's something we are not bound to answer very soon.
- shig, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If there is nothing outside of the material then there is no love, justice, or morality. Likewise, if everything is predetermined by a God then I spit in His face, and since I would be predetermined to do so then it wouldn't be considered a sin against Him.
Of course having a belief in predetermination you rule out any reason, or logical debate, because all belief is predetermined. I'd rather argue with a stone, as it is less likely to convince me to choke it to death. - MrPeach, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0So if I hunt your ass down, rip off your stupid head and ***** down your throat, it's ok because it's all part of god's plan, oops, I mean it's all foreordained?
- knowitman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1C.S Lewis uses a similar argument to yours to argue the opposite thing in his book, Miracles. If I correctly understand what you are saying, you are saying that everything in this world is just a serious of actions that are completely controlled by the laws of physics. Everything you think is because of the movements of atoms and molecules in your brain that are just moving according to the laws of physics.
- tybris, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4/me conspicuously reads all comments to find a Christian to belittle.
- tybris, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Hmz, burried for sarcasm?
- dxmzan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Buried because you obviously write this so you can check back and see how many diggs you have.
- tybris, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Hmz, burried for sarcasm?
- omnithought, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3This guy has a lot of great videos. Very well spoken.
Oh, and the fact that someone is a comedian doesn't automatically make their words less valid or somehow insincere. One can speak the truth in a comedic way, after all. - OneAndOnlySnob, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3This guy's great and all, but I think most people's favorite "atheist comedian" is George Carlin.
- georgebnet, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1George Carlin is to Pat Condell like a Yank is to a Britt :D
Carlin is a different class of humour; I think I still prefer Condell though.
- georgebnet, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1George Carlin is to Pat Condell like a Yank is to a Britt :D
- burnt1ce85, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5My comment to the author, which i posted on Youtube:
"Before i say anything, i do not mind people criticizing the Bible. I'm totally okay with that but if you're criticism is wrong it has to be corrected.
About your comment on verse Matthew 5:5-6, you're taking it totally out of context. If you read the verses before that, such as Mathew 5:1-4, but specifically Matthew 5:2, it says "So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men." Jesus is saying do not be a 'hypocrite' or a 'phony' who claims to be holy so that they may win the respect of peers (ie: "to be honored by men"). The verse you presented, Matthew 5:5-6 is a PARALLEL to this verse.
Therefore, if you read Matthew 5:1-6, Jesus is giving a practical point to NOT give to the needy or pray out loud just so that you can win the hearts of men and not GOD because that cultivates a selfish attitude. At the sametime, I'm not saying we shouldnt give to the needy or pray.
Overall, I have strongly proved the point that Christians are NOT sinning by simply going to church and pray in public.
You have mislead yourself. "- monka, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1...damn.
- georgebnet, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Wow, two conflicting interpretations for the same text, I wonder why :D How do we know your interpretation is correct and Pat's is incorrect? Because you _say_ so? Because "it's in the Bible"? Gee, I wonder what _else_ have we got wrong from the Bible?
So, this is the 3rd "whoosh" for today.
- paulierocks, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1That was abolutely DIVINE.
- houndawg87, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Great video.
- moyameehaa, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1good piece of advice. i like the "like cavemen using a flashlight as a hammer" part very much.it is how we read the holy books (any book for that matter) which matters...following em in the textual context, blindly is resulting in violence.
- Cunninlynguist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2i wanna know how religion explains dinosaurs...
- otakushark, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Creationists think "The Flintstones" was a documentary.
http://travel.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/arts/24crea.html?pagewanted=1 - aurorion, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I am sure dinosaurs were the pets of angels who used to be on earth before man was created.
Oh... You say that contradicts the bible? You are just interpreting it wrong! - georgebnet, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The Devil did it! You should have known by now...
- otakushark, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Creationists think "The Flintstones" was a documentary.
- knowitman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I like how he contradicts himself. He says to NOT read the Bible literally, but then proceeds to explain how people who go to church are blasphemers by his own LITERAL translation.
- rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Is that all you were able to glean from the entire video?
- georgebnet, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14th Whoosh!
- BlacklabelSAR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Google Video Bill Hicks. If you like George Carlin, you will love Bill Hicks. He was ahead of his time.
Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster - zabouth, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1yes that video is OK i agree with him but watch this one http://youtube.com/watch?v=nI5WoXpmPiM
Its pure racism he is using very board stereotypes and pointing out a very small majority of cases to argue a daft point.
What more worrying is that its done very well and a no so well informed person or a idiot would drink it up- psyaeger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That video is not racist. It is, however, anti-stupidity.
- MacGyverDXS, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I think Arthur C. Clark summed up the absurdity of religion quite well in the book 3001: The Final Odyssey.
Civilization and Religion are incompatible.
Imagine you are an intelligent extraterrestrial, concerned only with verifiable truths. You discover a species that has divided itself into thousands-no by now millions- of tribal groups holding an incredible variety of beliefs about the origin of the universe and the way to behave in it. Although many of them have ideas in common, even when there's a 99% overlap, the remaining 1%'s enough to set them killing and torturing each other over trivial points of doctrine, utterly meaningless to outsiders.
How to account for such irrational behavior? Lucretius hit it on the nail when he sad that religion we the byproduct of fear- a reaction to a mysterious and often hostile universe. Four much of human prehistory it may have been a necessary evil- but why was it so much more evil than necessary- and why did it survive when it was no longer necessary?
I said evil and I mean it, because fear leads to cruelty. The slightest knowledge of the inquisition makes one ashamed to belong to the human species...one of the most revolting books ever published was the Hammer of Witches, written by a couple of sadistic perverts and describing the tortures of the church authorized- encouraged! To exact "confessions from thousands of harmless old women before it burned them alive. The Pope himself wrote an approving forward!
But most of the other religions, with a few honorable exceptions, were just as bad as Christianity.
Perhaps the most baffling aspect of the whole affair is how obvious madmen, century after century, would proclaim that they-and they alone!-had received messages from God. If all the messages had agreed, that would have settled the matter. But of course they are wildly discordant-which never prevented self-styled messiahs from gathering hundreds-sometimes millions-of adherents, who would fight to the death against equally deluded belivers of a microscopically differing faith.
There's never been anything, however absurd, that myriads of people weren't prepaired to believe, often so passionately that they'd fight to the death rather than abandon their illusions. To me that's the definition of insanity.- shig, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1"Civilization and Religion are incompatible."
He also believed in extraterrestrial life, which is an equally absurd argument.
- shig, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1"Civilization and Religion are incompatible."
- Mier, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Clarke is obviously a jaded individual who had a bad experience.
- jeliel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Dugg it seriously and blogged about it. Awesome video. New fan!
- sitykat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Yeah, he made several interesting points, many worth discussion, but I've gotta take issue with that text he referenced at the end of the video. It was really taken out of context. When Jesus made that comment, in Matthew 6: verses 5 & 6....
He was referring to the pharisees, which anyone who knows the Bible, knows that they were pompous, hypocritical, excuses for "righteous" religious leaders, who only pretended to do good, etc. give alms to the poor, tithe more than anyone else simply out of pride (like hey look at how rich I am b/c I can give 10 times the tithe that poor widow can) and not out of the love of their heart for God. They were known for making ostentatious public prayers, which brings me back to my point, of why Jesus made that comment. Jesus did not make that comment for the sake of discouraging believers (Christians) from gathering in public places of worship, (Not to sound snooty, or 'better than thou', but if he studied the Bible more thoroughly, he would probably know that.) (Church) on ( Saturday, originally in the time of the early Christians, and still followed today by a few Christian believers, i.e. Seventh-day Adventists, or Seventh-day Baptists) or Sunday (as created by the Roman Catholic Church, and now followed by 98% of the Christian world). Sorry for writing a book folks. Whether you digg me up or down, I just wanted to share and I hope someone learned something.- georgebnet, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"He was referring to the pharisees, which anyone who knows the Bible, knows that they were pompous, hypocritical, excuses for "righteous" religious leaders"
"They were known for making ostentatious public prayers"
And today's displays of faith, particularly with the Catholics, are anything _but_ ostentatious or public, right?
Yes, they remind me a lot of today's priests... must be the same people by any chance?
Whoosh again!
- georgebnet, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"He was referring to the pharisees, which anyone who knows the Bible, knows that they were pompous, hypocritical, excuses for "righteous" religious leaders"
- Urilus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Thats why the bible is so vague, so that people would argue amongst themselves quoting passages and saying to each other this is the way its supposed to be, no this is the way its supposed to be, no this is the way, all believing that they are correct. And when they all believe that they are correct they all at least believe that the bible is correct as they see it, so people spend all their time arguing with each other instead of questioning whether or not the bible is fact or fiction.
- AUmiler13, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2To the people who keep saying he contradicted himself: When Pat quoted Matthew 6 he did so with the purpose of taking the quote out of context and in a quite literal way. The point of this, in case you missed it, is to show how easily the words of the Bible can be manipulated. When people say homosexuality is immoral, for example, they take certain quotes from Genesis 18-20 (Sodom and Gomorrah) and INTERPRET them to come up with the following: "God obviously hates homosexuality - look what he did to Sodom and Gomorrah...". If you read this story, however, it is not necessarilly easy to decipher how this point against homosexuality is actually derived. Pat was only trying to show how easy the Bible can be manipulated to fit ones own beliefs - in much the same way many people (especially gay, old Republicans) bend the Bible to fit their own prejudices. So, please stop pointing out Pats contradiction - it just makes you look stupid.
- georgebnet, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1mod parent up
- walmartconnect, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Ah, Atheism + Digg, holding hands since the dawn of the internet.
I'm very happy for people that find something to believe in (or lack there of). I find some offense in comments such as "the sooner we can eradicate the mental illness that is religion, the better."
Who is someone to call someone else's beliefs an illness, oh great and wise atheists?- Abaddon1125, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Well when you hold an irrational belief as true, and deny any evidence that shows otherwise, you might be little funny in the head.
- shig, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"the sooner we can eradicate the mental illness that is religion, the better."
That IS an irrational belief.- georgebnet, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Not really, it's based on observation and logical deduction. This makes it pretty rational.
- Maynym, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0"Well when you hold an irrational belief as true, and deny any evidence that shows otherwise, you might be little funny in the head." --- +300 diggs to this comment, please.
- shig, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"the sooner we can eradicate the mental illness that is religion, the better."
- georgebnet, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3When the belief in question starts hurting people and halts scientific progress.
- Maynym, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0“A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.” ~ Friedrich Nietzsche
- Urilus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Well the 3 Abrahamic religions, ie. Christianity, Judaism and Islam have caused more wars, death, torture, sorrow, etc. than anything else in the last 1000 years of our history so maybe its time we get the clue from our past and move on without them.
- MrPeach, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I think we need to explicitly bundle fascism in with that as otherwise we ignore a great amount of modern misery.
- Urilus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0too true
- MrPeach, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I think we need to explicitly bundle fascism in with that as otherwise we ignore a great amount of modern misery.
- Abaddon1125, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Well when you hold an irrational belief as true, and deny any evidence that shows otherwise, you might be little funny in the head.
- RocketSeason, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1whether or not he took the last bit out of context on purpose or not, he did illustrate something very interesting there. Athiests ALSO take scripture out of context to manipulate the viewing public to believe whatever it is they want them to.
It is for that reason this stupid battle between religion and atheism will rage for generations to come.- AUmiler13, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Lets see here: (Some) Christians take the Bible as the word of God. They take the stories literally (literally is the same thing as out of context when it comes to the Bible) and then use the Bible as a means for their own crusade, particularly against: evolution, gay rights, abortion, and stem cell research.
Now, Atheists don't have a problem with the utter stupidity involved in having a religious belief but once those beliefs begin to infringe on the public policies of this country, there is a problem. Atheists only quote/manipulate the Bible to show the ignorance involved in quoting the Bible in the first place! If you say the Bible is infallible and yet many of its words are up for interpretation, how infallible is it really? When the atheist quotes the Bible he is merely trying to show just how divine the Bible IS NOT. For this to be illustrated properly the Bible must be manipulated by the atheist.- goodshorts, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0let us break down your comment.
-"Lets see here: (Some) Christians take the Bible as the word of God."
if you don't believe in the Bible, then how can you be a christian? Jesus said "I am the way the truth and the life, no man comes unto the father, but by Me." If you don't take that as the word of God, you miss the whole point!
-" They take the stories literally (literally is the same thing as out of context when it comes to the Bible) and then use the Bible as a means for their own crusade, particularly against: evolution, gay rights, abortion, and stem cell research."
when you say; literally is the same thing as out of context, what does that mean? words don't really mean the things they say? doesn't that contradict itself? now concerning evolution, gay rights, abortion, and stem cell research. you don't see anything wrong with abortion? a new life, that had no choice in the matter, is being killed? i have nothing wrong against anyone who is gay. alot of gay people are really funny and nice people. that does not mean what they are doing is right. we don't force are views on anyone, but we don't have to be forced silent about it. stem cell research is great if it leads to things that will help humanity, but why use killed babies to fuel the research. and the last, and my least favorite, evolution. it has never been proved, so don't force your religion on kids in state-funded schools. it is not science, it is just a philosophy that exludes a god.
-"Now, Atheists don't have a problem with the utter stupidity involved in having a religious belief but once those beliefs begin to infringe on the public policies of this country, there is a problem."
saying i can't pray in certain places is a problem. forcing the theory of evolution on kids in school is infringing public policies. we do have a problem. where has morality gone? accountability?
-"Atheists only quote/manipulate the Bible to show the ignorance involved in quoting the Bible in the first place!"
manipulating scriptures in the Bible completely takes them out of context. if you don't understand it, how can you even intelligently argue against it?
-"If you say the Bible is infallible and yet many of its words are up for interpretation, how infallible is it really?"
the original greek and hebrew translations are infalible. there has been alot of translations out there that completely pervert the Bible.
-"When the atheist quotes the Bible he is merely trying to show just how divine the Bible IS NOT. For this to be illustrated properly the Bible must be manipulated by the atheist. "
so you openly manipulate. there is no honesty in your arguments, therefore you due not speak any truth. how do you excpect to be logical about anything if you cannot be honest?
- goodshorts, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0let us break down your comment.
- AUmiler13, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Lets see here: (Some) Christians take the Bible as the word of God. They take the stories literally (literally is the same thing as out of context when it comes to the Bible) and then use the Bible as a means for their own crusade, particularly against: evolution, gay rights, abortion, and stem cell research.
- goodshorts, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0this guy contradicts himself out of ignorance.
at the end of the Bible he claims Jesus said to "keep religion to yourself" and uses the example in the Bible of the pharisee praying in public and thinking he was holier than everyone else.
if whoever is in this video would actually read the Bible, and not cherry pick statements just to get his own point across, he would come across scripture that says "forsake not the assembling of yourselves together" and "go into all the world and preach the gospel".
my point is this, get your truth from a reliable source, not some random dude on youtube. he contradicts himself, speaks out of ignorance, and does not care to study the things he speaks out against.
don't even get me started on evolution. i guess he believes in the THEORY, as outdated and completely ridiculous it is. it takes way more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in a god. all the observation in the world will never proove evolution.
the reason i believe in the Bible is not because of what this guy states "the bible is true because it says so". I believe it because i can recognize truth from error. the truth in the Bible is observable, i have witnessed it personally in my own life.
the part about racist statements was good, anyone who is racist is ignorant and needs a serious look at their heart. but why mix it in with talking about scripture? - AUmiler13, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0To goodshorts, in reply to your response to my above post: 1. Many Christian religions do not take the Bible literally, Catholics for instance. To many Christians the Bible is merely allegory, metaphor, and other literary devices used to lead them to the ways of Jesus - To many, it is not the word of god directly from god. 2. When I say, "literally is the same thing as out of context," what I mean is that taking the Bible literally is essentially like taking a Harry Potter book out of the fiction section and saying it is all real. To interpret such a story as a factual recreation of the events that happened to high school aged sorcerers at Hogwarts is a misinterpretation, essentially taking the book out of its context. a. My stance on abortion is this: I personally would not have one if it were my decision. However, I feel that taking away peoples right to choose is a limit on the freedoms the US Constitution gaurentees. It is still hotly debated at which point the grouping of cells that will eventually make up a life actually constitute a life. b. As for stem cell research: The cells taken for this research come from the cells days after fertilization. This grouping of cells are called the Blastocyst. These are merely cells and to call them a human life at this point is like calling a sperm half of a human life. c. What gay people do is totally right, saying otherwise means you have at least some problem with who they are. Lets assume for a second that man was "created" by god. If gay men and women were created by this being are they not doing only gods will? Gay people do not just choose to be gay; there is no point in there lives where they just decided to switch from liking girls to liking other boys (or vice/verse). To say otherwise will only show your ignorance - and if you dispute that god made them, well, then we are getting some where. d. Evolution: Evolution is a scientific FACT. All of biology shows that evolution occurs - DNA shows it, fossils show it, all empirical evidence SHOWS IT TO BE FACT. The only place the word theory comes into play is when scientists try to describe how evolution occurs. Here you can say that "god did it, god put evolution into place" but there is no dispute that it actually happens - the only question is how does it happen. 3. I don't care where you talk to yourself...oops, I mean pray. Forcing the learning of evolution is different from forcing the learning of a religion. Evolution is backed by science which is an ever changing process that seeks the truth and knowledge of this world. Teaching religion is personal and should be kept personal. Morality is going the same place it has always gone - NO WHERE. For centuries people have tried to say morality is disappearing, but this is pure lies and propaganda. Morality isn't even derived from the Bible so do you think bringing your anti-intellectual biblical creationist stories will actually help anything? It won't! It will only continue the ignorance of the way the world works. Look at yourself, you have some grudge against evolution and you don't even understand how it works - you are just hell bent on saying its all lies because some pastor told you to! Obviously it doesn't matter what is taught in schools - the ignorant will remain that way. 4. If you take the Bible literally let me ask you this: do you stone your children if they disobey you? Do you believe that pi is equal to 3? Do you believe that insects have 4 legs? If you answered yes to these questions then it is probably a waste of my time to even respond to you. But if you answered no, you have just shown that the bible cannot be taken literally or as an infallible text. In the Bible, god demands that disobediant children be stoned; in the bible pi is equal to 3 when it is actually 3.14... - will you attack math next?? And finally, your infallible god, mistakenly writes in Leviticus 11 that all insects have 4 legs while in fact they have 6. How could the creator of the universe have such a harsh morality and get the most simple geometric and biological examples totally wrong? Oh, by not existing - that's how! The rest of your response is not worth any further repsonse. I look forward to your next response though.
- goodshorts, on 10/10/2007, -0/