Evidence and Delusion

[Joanne98]

Run time: 04:08 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K25EAhHioc8   Posted on YouTube: March 07, 2010 By YouTube Member: 24EvelJustin24 Views on YouTube: 44   Posted on DU: March 08, 2010 By DU Member: Joanne98 Views on DU: 2274

 

[democracy1st]

1. K & R

[activa8tr]

2. Send this guy some DU hugs!!!

[Joanne98]

6. He is a DUer. Here's his latest thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x440915

[D23MIURG23]

3. K&R

[SkyDaddy7]

4. NICE!

[timtom]

5. What a waste of bandwidth.

Why don't you focus on the really important stuff? I think you know what some of those issues are.

[D23MIURG23]

9. What's more important than clear thinking? n/t

[justicia]

23. Well said...

I totally agree with you. I'm an Atheist.

[SkyDaddy7]

20. Waste of bandwidth???

I guess you harbor emotional ties to such delusions? If not, then messages like this need to be told by as many as possible! Or this country will end up like Utah!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4298346


Christians are already taking over school boards trying destroy our shaky education system as it is. They are after women rights, openly hate homosexuals and they have a majority of the country thinking science just takes wild ass guesses when it comes to what we know about the universe...And issues that are a matter of life & death like global warming & stem cell research!

[timtom]

25. You sure sound evangelical about your faith!

[D23MIURG23]

27. The 'faith' of rejecting claims for lack of evidence is a very good one indeed.

But since you apparently don't ascribe to it, I have some wonderful investments I'd like to help you make if you are interested.

:evilgrin:

[timtom]

29. It's the zeal and tenacity with which you belabor points of faith

Faith in science -- faith in the supernatural -- faith in the unseen -- faith in the political system -- all matters of opinion.

[D23MIURG23]

36. So then believing in electricity is the same as believing in sasquatch or young earth creationism?

Its all opinion right?

Wrong. If you don't know that you are setting up a false equivalence you really should. Science means proportioning belief to the degree to which something can be objectively demonstrated to exist. Far more work is put into making sure we actually know what we know by scientists than theologians or supernaturalists, and ultimately the proof is self evident. You are able to read this post by virtue of that labor, you are treated for illness by virtue of that labor, and you are able to eat fresh fruit in the middle of the winter by virtue of that labor. Name one such accomplishment that has come out of the arbitrary, credulous belief in supernatural forces. You are free to hold moronic, fact-free, opinions on any of the subjects you named, but that doesn't imply that facts are inaccessible, or that you won't get owned when you flaunt your ignorance in public.

[timtom]

38. Allowing for the unseen is not ignorance.

Well, to you it is. But I daresay you are very one-dimensional and too much a literalist.

These ARE opinions. Science seems to work well enough to be practical for humanity to utilize. But, science and the material are only representations of a reality. Remember, science is an ever changing structure. There are other representations, you know. And to categorically dismiss them is short-sighted.

Empiricism is great. But, again, it is not the final word on existence. It's merely a tool.

By the way, I commend you for much of your comment (except for tossing around the terms "moronic" and "ignorance".

[SkyDaddy7]

30. Comment removed

by poster

[Oilwellian]

7. I've always wondered what Joseph thought

when Mary claimed to be a virgin yet wound up pregnant with the baby Jesus. Women today wouldn't be able to get away with that story when trying to explain it to their husbands. "Honey, I swear to GOD I was impregnated by God." Yeah, that would go over REAL well, huh?

And in the catholic religion that spawned from this "virtual rape," Joseph could have cried adultery and the marriage would have been annulled. Yet this "miraculous" birth of Jesus is the foundation of the greatest story ever told and followed to this day. How fucked up is that?

[greiner3]

8. The Jews-the writers of the freaking bible;

Hold that most of the bible is in story format. It is told by storytellers to children, if not childlike people, that certain myths might have happened. In that vein, the modern christian belief of adam and eve are just that, myths. The Jews hold that adam and eve were the first; Jews, not people. Other humans were just on the other side of the hill where adam and eve had their hovel. jebus may/ may not have been real. I tend to believe he was a compilation of several philosophers and crazy people from around that era made 'real' after the catholic council of mycea in ace 299.

Lately, science takes one single step ahead and religion and ignorance pulls it all back by two or more into the pit of insanity.

[SkyDaddy7]

21. Mary would have been stoned to death!!!

What a joke! Like you said this Bronze Age crap is still around! Not only that but America is headed in the wrong direction!

Have you seen this shit?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4298346

[Raoul]

10. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

All I gotta say is zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz,, oops, sorry. I fell asleep. Where was I? zzzzzzzzzz There I go again. Okay, I'll make it short
and sweet. Since you are SSSOOO much more intelligent than we dumb theists, can you explain your support of actual infinites? That is
what you really believe you know. What? You don't know what I'm talking about? No surprise there.. ROFL

Okay, I'll make it simpler - how did the universe begin? Or, did it begin? And if you believe it was always here then please supply
all of your evidence to support your blind faith in randomness. Hint - if it had no beginning or had no Intelligent Designer to push
the button, then why do we even have time? There's no such thing you know. If you do believe it had a beginning, then you are faced
with the problem of why it began when it did and not one nano-second before or after the actual point in time that it did. And if it
really did begin a nano-second before or after the actual point in time that it began, none of us would be here reading this crap and
getting bored to death. Academic studies you know go a long way to explain God belief assuming one has a brain and an open mind to
accept such beliefs.

Oh, but I do agree the world didn't happen in 6 days and there was no Garden of Eden..

[denimgirly]

12. Like it or not he makes Sensable Points -- Without evidence in support of your myth it is just a

dellusion. And will stay that way until you decide to use rational thinking. Sorry, it's true.

[Raoul]

14. Oh really?

Can't help noticing you kinda AVOIDED what I'd posited regarding the impossibility of an actual infinite. Care to try again? Otherwise, your opinion is merely that - an opinion.

[D23MIURG23]

37. Weren't you just arguing that god didn't have a starting point?

Does that not count as an "actual infinite"?

[ExPatLeftist]

13. Pointing toward the fact that unanswered questions exist...

...does not support any particular unproven answer to those questions. Yep, there is a lot about our origins that we do not know. What you seem to be saying is "well, we do not know, so we should just believe whatever has been forcefed to us..." My point is the same one that the guy in the vid is making: The burden of proof lies with those making a claim. So in this case, you do not know how the universe came to be and choose to believe in a great omniscient being that created it all. Others ask you to prove your theory, and your only response seems to be, "well do you think the universe just appeared??!!?" Nope. I admit that I do not know how the universe came to be. You claim to know. I never made such a claim, nor did the guy in the video. All I am asking for is evidence, otherwise I am content to not know, rather than just believing whatever story someone tells me so that I can try to convince myself that I know something which is in fact known to no one.

Also, if the video was so boring that it put you to sleep, how did you reply and why did you feel the need to reply (and with so many words)?

[Raoul]

15. Assumptions?

Please don't put words in my mouth - nothing was forced on me. I came to my belief system by rational thought, studies, deductive reasoning. I know, to an atheist, the most dangerous thing is an intelligent theist who uses his/her brains. I've been through this before a million years ago when I was heavily involved with numerous debates with many atheists. We always wound up at the proverbial brick wall.

I just resent the intellectual dishonesty of what I call fundamentalist atheism which is as blind in its non-beliefs as the morons who are snake handlers and blind bible thumpers.

[D23MIURG23]

28. I honestly don't think you have the first clue about atheism.

As blind in our unbelief as snake handlers? By what logic do you compare a group of people who reject the notion of a god for lack of evidence to a group of people who obsess on minor passages of a supposed holy book and declare every word of it literally true? I'm sorry, but I don't see how "intellectual honesty" follows from conceding respect to people who believe in things that would normally be considered absurd out of a sense of normalcy or social obligation. If I were to write a supposed history of JFK alleging that he was really the son of Thor, and that he rose from the grave with half a head and turned a swimming pool into sangria, would you feel compelled to take me seriously? Would you call yourself "blind in your unbelief" in that case? Maybe you can explain the distinction.

[Raoul]

31. Talk about clueless!!

You claim I have no clue regarding atheism and then go on to show your complete ignorance regarding SOME, repeat, SOME of us theists who have spent many long and hard hours,days,weeks,and years coming to our belief system

All of your ramblings about snakes, Thor, etc. have NO relevance to those of us who think with our brains and hold bible thumpers in as much contempt as you do.

I simply resent being lumped into the same pot as everyone else and believe you wouldn't like it if I'd lumped you in with some of the more infamous atheists of our time and in the past.

[D23MIURG23]

35. I was discussing why atheists reject organized religion and its apologists.

I don't know precisely what you believe or whether it has anything to do with organized religion, therefor it wouldn't be possible for me to lump you in with anyone. The majority of the points made by atheists are directed at the beliefs of the majority religions - beliefs we are familiar with. If they don't seem to apply to you I wouldn't worry about them.

I don't particularly like it when people use Stalin or Hitler (not even an atheist) to hit atheists over the head - but its a pretty common practice. Then again I'm also able to point out that the things advocated by those men bear little or no resemblance to the principals of the modern atheist movement. Your best defense against being lumped in with the fundies is to do the same - articulate how your beliefs are better or more sophisticated. By the way - you haven't really done this. The only thing I know about your beliefs are that you feel that the existence of matter implies that an agency created matter.

[D23MIURG23]

17. Actually no. This is called the "god of the gaps" fallacy.

No one knows why the universe is here in a broad sense and no one fully understands what caused it to start expanding. This isn't evidence for a creator. What you are trying to do is trade a universe with no apparent cause for a (presumably very complicated and sophisticated) being without a cause who was able to create the universe out of nothing from sheer will. The official story is that matter has always existed - originally in a hyper dense state wherein the entire universe (including time) was present in a single point. Through the process of expansion it then gained complexity. Your cognition that it should have been caused by an unfathomably complex being adds a lot of improbability to the picture, and is entirely without support. While it is strange and unsatisfying that the universe started expanding - apparently without cause, this doesn't mean you can reasonably apply any default explanation you chose to rationalize that.

Infinity is a mathematical concept; we can apply it to the universe, however the way we choose to do so may or may not have physical meaning. For instance, we can visualize the universe, and given that it appears limitless and without what we would consider a clear boundary we may conclude that it has infinite volume. The amount of volume contained by the universe is subject to the constraints of time however, as 3 dimensional volume is a consequence of the expansion of the universe, and there has been a finite amount of time since the start of expansion. While the dynamics of expansion are a little bit sticky, and not something I'm qualified to delve into, I don't believe there is a consensus in the astronomical community around an infinite universe (its a possibility under consideration, but not a settled issue by any means). So its not clear to me that a lot of us 'believe in infinities' in the sense you are trying to suggest.

[Raoul]

33. Your argument actually supports God existence

If matter 'always' existed as you claim then why is it irrational to believe that God always existed?

[D23MIURG23]

34. Its called Occam's Razor.

When you have multiple hypotheses for how something could have happened the simplest one is the most likely to be correct.

We know that matter exists; if you can't acknowledge that, then we may as well end the debate now. We can formulate two hypotheses for how matter came to exist: a) it always existed in some form, and it has changed in structure through (mostly understood) physical and chemical processes over time to give the world we currently observe or b) it was created by some awesomely powerful and complex being who just happened to be in existence for unknown reasons and who is not caused. I pick a) as the simpler hypothesis. It doesn't invoke the chance occurrence of an extraordinary being or forces we can't rationalize. If you like b) better maybe you can explain to me why it seems more likely than than a) as an explanation for the origin of matter.

on edit: complete rewrite.

[SkyDaddy7]

22. Right on!

You are a shinning example of what is wrong with America!

Right now you claim science can't answer A, B, C but when they do then it will be D, E, F...That is childish!

This is what happens when delusions are considered the norm...


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4298346

[cachukis]

26. Sorry, but do you understand math?

[Raoul]

32. Yes, I do.

Yes now please refute the 'actual infinite' set theory for all of us. I'm all eyes.

[denimgirly]

11. THANK YOU!

[Raoul]

16. You're quite welcome!

Oh, sorry - I thought you were thanking me for posting something a bit more intelligent that what was presented in that dreary video.
ROFL..

[Moostache]

18. "raped in the ass by goats for eternity"...

EGAD! I had never ever HEARD of that type of hell before, but he makes a good point...I certainly would swear allegiance to Jeebus - if it would just keep those ravenous, sexually repressed goats away from me in my eternal damnation!!!

On a very slightly more serious note, while the video-man makes a few salient points, there are literally dozens of these videos available and not a single one of them will shake the faith of a single rube that wants to embrace the Bronze Age desert deity in any of its hideous forms - be that Yahweh, Jeebus or Uncle Mo-Mo's hallucinations. The real answer is (and has always been) turtles...turtles all the way down!

[Fredfon]

19. In my backyard

There are an INFINITE number of pink unicorns.

[SkyDaddy7]

24. Flying Spaghetti Monster!

The only true GAWD!

[Kazak]

39. Ah, logic again...

Many have tried, many have failed.