Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

This is the last thing

Posted Jun 3, '13 at 12:30pm

KnightDeclan

KnightDeclan

487 posts

I just want to show one video to explain what I've been trying to say. please watch some, if not all of it. Just give it a chance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS1x-6al2pE

 

Posted Jun 3, '13 at 1:34pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,740 posts

I just want to show one video to explain what I've been trying to say.


We're quite aware of what you've been trying to say.

please watch some, if not all of it. Just give it a chance.


It's two hours long. Either pick out some bits that you feel are important so we can determine whether it's worth watching more, or I'm just going to not even try because I don't want to spend 2 hours listening to a jumble of logical fallacies and old hat arguments.
 

Posted Jun 3, '13 at 1:39pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,477 posts

I wonder why you seem to accept scientific things only when they seem to vaguely agree with your beliefs.

Oh, and take the discussion here instead.

 

Posted Jun 3, '13 at 1:40pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,740 posts

*Note that I am still going to take a look at it, but it will be in random jumps and listening for a minute to see if they're saying anything. I can't guarantee I'll hear anything you consider important.

 

Posted Jun 3, '13 at 1:52pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,740 posts

Okay, just skipped through bits. Found a bunch of flawed arguments/logical fallacies (fine tuned universe + spontaneous generation disproved = life had to come from God + arguments from incredulity + begging the question + "everyone already knows God exists&quot

I'm not going to bother with more.

 

Posted Jun 3, '13 at 4:12pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,782 posts

Knight

I would like to take the time to deconstruct the entire things and give you my feed back on it. Unfortunately given it's two hours and I would have to take at least that much time to give it proper feedback, I simply don't have that time to spend right now.

I could maybe do it in chunks instead of all at once. I would like to give what you're trying to get across the proper chance, even if it's something I have heard before.

 

Posted Jun 3, '13 at 5:28pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,305 posts

Knight

Usually when we post links for people like you to read, they don't. I'm not gonna watch a two hours video if you're not going to consider reading up stuff. However you could do it like Mage. You pick out chunks, single arguments, and present/defend them for a while and then pass to the next. That way we get a nice discussion with lots of things to talk about.

 

Posted Jun 3, '13 at 7:08pm

UnleashedUponMankind

UnleashedUponMankind

6,803 posts

Moderator

Two hours?... well, you learned that the people here are different and nobody share your beliefs... so why do you think we would like to watch a vid with this lenght?

 

Posted Jun 3, '13 at 9:03pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,782 posts

Knight

We are being programmed


A rather almost humorous statement to start a video off with that is titled "The Signs of God's Existence" considering the level of indoctrination from an early age that religion employs.

The project is literally the secularization of the world. To completely strip the world of religious beliefs. Novus Ordo Seclorum, a new secular or worldly order...


Let's start with this phrase "Novus Ordo Seclorum" From wiki "The phrase Novus ordo seclorum (Latin for "New Order of the Ages&quot", "The phrase is also mistranslated as "New World Order" by many people who believe in a conspiracy behind the design; however, it does directly translate to "New Order of the Ages" .", "The word seclorum does not mean "secular", as one might assume, but is the genitive (possessive) plural form of the word saeculum, meaning (in this context) generation, century, or age. Saeculum did come to mean "age, world" in late, Christian Latin, and "secular" is derived from it, through secularis. However, the adjective "secularis," meaning "worldly," is not equivalent to the genitive plural "seclorum," meaning "of the ages.""

In case you don't think wiki is reliable their citation for this information are,
http://www.greatseal.com/mottoes/seclorum.html and
Lewis and Short, A Latin Dictionary: Founded on Andrews' Edition of Freund's Latin Dictionary: Revised, Enlarged, and in Great Part Rewritten by Charlton T. Lewis, Ph.D. and Charles Short, LL.D. The Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1879, s. vv.

So it would seem we are starting right off the bat with conspiratory nonsense that isn't even true. And this is 1:21 minutes in and we haven't even gotten to anything yet, this is still just the intro.

Oh and on the part of stripping religion from the world.
http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/23800000/Help-we-re-being-oppressed-atheism-23887187-350-355.png

The creationist were right the just didn't have the argumentative skills.


No what they don't have is the evidence on their side. You know one of those things we go by to evaluate a truth claim.

When this Big Bang model was first proposed in the early part of the 20th century, it was received with great skepticism by the scientific community. because the scientific community knew that the Big Bang opened up the possibility of having a beginning and a creator and someone who began it.


Okay we started off with the Big Bang and surprisingly it was described for the most part rather well. The part I'm quoting is where I start to take issue. The theory was rightly met with skepticism. At the start the evidence had only just been presented and hadn't been looked over as thoroughly at that time. Given the incredible nature of the claim it was deserving of skepticism and it of course required incredible evidence. Which it was able to pony up and thus allowing it to eventually become the leading theory. The resistance it faced had nothing to do with it opening up the possibility of there being a creator and it doesn't even suggest a "someone" starting it. Though to be fair Considering the guy who first proposed an expanding universe model was not only an astronomer and physics professor, but also priest. I wouldn't be that surprised if such a concept of a "someone" was far from his mind.

The only thing that really comes close to the rejection of the Big Bang model because of the implication of a god comes from the person who coined the name, Fred Hoyle. "He found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms"" -wiki

In short what this video did was take one person's reason fro being skeptical (and possibility those who were directly working with him) and applied it to the entire scientific community of the time.

Moving on...

William Lane Craig is our next source? Really? >_> Okay I haven't even watched this part yet but I'm going to take a wild guess here and predict he will used the cosmological argument in this clip.

Oh wait we are doing clip show, skipping around to a bunch of people. This video has ADHD or something. Back to Craig, yep he is using the cosmological argument. Craig goes on to call it an explosion (so we are slipping away from how well this started with describing the model) and mentions it started from nothing. Of course he isn't using the same definition of "nothing" as scientists use.

This is what nothing looks like. It's actually something.
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y163/MageGrayWolf/animation_lava.gif

We have no example of the sort of nothing Craig is implying. Further more if we were starting with a god/creator who acted on this sort nothing to create the universe, that would be a logical impossibility. Since that sort of nothing isn't a thing that can be acted upon.

Okay I'm only about 8 minutes into this but I'm going to have to stop here since I have other things I need to go do.
 

Posted Jun 4, '13 at 12:26am

Bladerunner679

Bladerunner679

2,534 posts

I decided to place this down to refute intelligent design

Watch as I come back later with another thing to refute Christian apologetics.

-Blade

 
Reply to This is the last thing

You must be logged in to post a reply!