Atheism, Evil, Stupidity and Religion

[RegalArcher]

Hello There,

I've recently compile a short video on religion, atheism and the existence of god and would be most interested in your gracious comments and thoughts.

Atheists are Evil And Religion is Satanic (http://youtube.com/watch?v=_kySJl6HRJI)

Thanks,

[RegalArcher]

Faulty Link Correction

Atheists are Evil and Religion is Satanic (http://youtube.com/watch?v=jqIj74RZOTI)

[bobdezon]

Is that you narrating the video? Are you are aware you sound exactly like Catface? ;D What accent is that btw?

http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/Cat+Face+6/

Homology is proof of a creator? Im finding it very difficult to understand what your point is here. You are saying that lack of evidence for god is infact evidence for god, because god existance cannot be measured empirically? That makes no sense to me Im afraid. Your whole analogy that mans design and natures design are similar and therefore everything is created by god in a roundabout way is flawed. Form follows function, fish develop gills because it is efficient and important for their ability to filtrate oxygen from water. Evolution practically guarantees this result considering their enviroment.

Your assertion that while it can probably cause different colours races and species, thats about as good as it gets. Evolution cannot develop more limbs, more organs or better intelligence is patantly false. You think that millipedes just "sprang forth" with multiple legs? I just cannot subscribe to this.

The video is a series yes, but no, but yes, but no, with no pattern, no logical conclusion, no point that is anything but personal conjecture based on belief not fact. The title is also misleading, it bears little reference to the actual content.

I just cannot find the pattern or point in this. Your entire two part video seems to be a combination of logical fallacies. Argumentum verbosium, Ignotum per Ignotius, Argumentum ad Lapidem, Argumentum ad Logicam, etc etc etc.

[Julia]

You tell 'im, Bob! Who could hope to prevail against a man with that terrifying Stare of Death?

[dashwood]

What is that accent? >:-)
god it drove me mad trying to place it.:cheesy:

[seren]

I loved that bit when you said "It addresses everyone...mostly". Made me laugh.

Bets on the accent please! I'm plumping for some form of Scandinavian.

[Amaris]

Sorry I got bored after about 5 minutes into first video... when he started talking like the bible was fact. ???

Also a bit hard to understand his accent at this time of night ( no offence meant)

[fallible]

My money's on Scandinavian or Dutch.

[jamiefox]

he sounds like russel reid who i have been told talks in a new zealand accent

[Tomolac]

its a londoner accent apparently ???
but I couldn't see any real points coming and bugged out after 5mins as well, how very lazy of me :tongue:

[spinningdoc]

Is 'utter tosh' a gracious thought?

[bindeweede]

its a londoner accent apparently ???
but I couldn't see any real points coming and bugged out after 5mins as well, how very lazy of me :tongue:

Mostly Englander with a hint of New Zealand? But after 5 mins.............too tired?

[SimonC]

Mostly Englander with a hint of New Zealand? But after 5 mins.............too tired?

Interesting how differently we all interpret the accent. I hear what I would take to be an English/Asian voice. Perhaps Korean, or possibly Chinese, inflections.

The video's bollocks, though - dress the watchmaker argument up however you like, it's still the watchmaker argument.

'Exterior symmetry is an argument for design'? Well, the monitor that I'm typing this on has five buttons and a green light at the bottom-right and none on the bottom-left, so I guess it's not a designed object. Where can I buy flat-screen monitor seeds?

[RegalArcher]

Is that you narrating the video? Are you are aware you sound exactly like Catface? What accent is that btw?

Yup! It's all my voice. Except for the really deep echo part, which is synthesised.


Homology is proof of a creator? Im finding it very difficult to understand what your point is here. You are saying that lack of evidence for god is infact evidence for god, because god existance cannot be measured empirically? That makes no sense to me Im afraid. Your whole analogy that mans design and natures design are similar and therefore everything is created by god in a roundabout way is flawed. Form follows function, fish develop gills because it is efficient and important for their ability to filtrate oxygen from water. Evolution practically guarantees this result considering their enviroment.I'm saying Homology is not evidence for lack of god it's actually a very common feature of design as clearly demonstrated in the video. I understand that you would have problems understanding that. Becuase understanding is a step towards belief, your mind would inhibit that due to wishful thinking.

I think the problem you have is believing that God is some guy. You fail to realise that he is never Abrahamically defined as so... ever.


Your assertion that while it can probably cause different colours races and species, thats about as good as it gets. Evolution cannot develop more limbs, more organs or better intelligence is patantly false. You think that millipedes just "sprang forth" with multiple legs? I just cannot subscribe to this.
Very interestingly put, but not logically. Arguments like "that's not true" are patently lame.


The video is a series yes, but no, but yes, but no, with no pattern, no logical conclusion, no point that is anything but personal conjecture based on belief not fact. The title is also misleading, it bears little reference to the actual content.And now you fail to make any sense at all...

I never thought I'd have this effect on people.


I just cannot find the pattern or point in this. Your entire two part video seems to be a combination of logical fallacies. Argumentum verbosium, Ignotum per Ignotius, Argumentum ad Lapidem, Argumentum ad Logicam, etc etc etc.And the famous "I'm going to spew logical fallacies" argument.

Firstly, Argumentum verbosium - Means that my language was too tough for you to understand and comprehend without the use of a dictionary and Ignotum per Ignotius practically means the same thing

With Argumentum ad Lapidem, I think you mean to say I dismissed an argument by saying it was ridiculous, which I didn't. I clearly state that my idea does not conflict with the theory of evolution in any other way than the use of my vocabulary.

And Argumentum ad Logicam means I declared something as fallacious as an argument against it... Which I clearly did not. I'm not sure why you would want to lie on me like that. Well it's either you lied or you have no idea what these fallacies are...

I hope you're not drunk like that other guy...


As for my accent. It's entirely Londonish...

[farmersboy]

Well, that's 10 minutes or so of my life that I'll never get back... >:-)

Congratulations on trying to repackage all the usual nonsense with new (to me anyway) spins - the whole symmetry aspect was new to me, and raised a little chuckle. So did the mention of older life-forms preparing the planet for the newer; it conjures up pictures of apes taking instructions from the great sky-voice and getting the hammer and nails out - wonderfully ludicrous. Taking it to it's logical conclusion, what race of creatures are we preparing the planet for?

On the most important subject though, you may be Londonish (whatever that means) but your accent isn't - it sounds like it's got at least 3 influences in there...

[Pebble]

Arguments like "that's not true" are patently lame.

And now you fail to make any sense at all...

I never thought I'd have this effect on people.

And the famous "I'm going to spew logical fallacies" argument.

Firstly, Argumentum verbosium - Means that my language was too tough for you to understand and comprehend without the use of a dictionary and Ignotum per Ignotius practically means the same thing

With Argumentum ad Lapidem, I think you mean to say I dismissed an argument by saying it was ridiculous, which I didn't. I clearly state that my idea does not conflict with the theory of evolution in any other way than the use of my vocabulary.

And Argumentum ad Logicam means I declared something as fallacious as an argument against it... Which I clearly did not. I'm not sure why you would want to lie on me like that. Well it's either you lied or you have no idea what these fallacies are...

I hope you're not drunk like that other guy...


As for my accent. It's entirely Londonish...

From the response above I have the impression that you BELIEVE that you are making a serious argument that deserves consideration. In this respect you have come to the wrong site.

In essence if I understand your argument it boils down to: if nature shows evidence of design there must be a designer. This is known as the junk yard tornado 747 conundrum, and is another version of the god of the gaps approach.

If you look these up you will understand why no one takes such arguments seriously.

[tolman]

Firstly, Argumentum verbosium - Means that my language was too tough for you to understand and comprehend without the use of a dictionary and Ignotum per Ignotius practically means the same thing
Doubly wrong, I'm afraid.
Argumentum verbosium isn't about the complexity of language, but the sheer quantity of supposed evidence. If you think people are too thick to understand your genius, you're flattering yourself.
Ignotum per Ignotius is where someone tries to explain something by relying on something more obscure than the thing supposedly being explained. That doesn't rely on the quantity of explanation at all.

etc.

[Mongrel]

Ignotum per Ignotius is where someone tries to explain something by relying on something more obscure than the thing supposedly being explained. That doesn't rely on the quantity of explanation at all.

etc.

So if you can't blind them with science baffle them with bullshit ;D

[Mike Hall]

Aww and I didn't even get to watch it. No fair! :smiley:

[Mulder]

As this thread popped to the top again I decided to view the video. I know I'd regret it and I wasn't disappointed.

I have a slightly different tack from the 'design' idea in the video. In passing, however, I guess if I said that symmetry derives naturally from mathematics and maths derives naturally from number theory (just adding one whole object to another) and that the shape of natural physical objects can be shown to be derived from maths*, you'd say that God invented maths.

Anyway, where does the whole idea of a god come from in ther first place? It comes from people! People decided there was a god using various legends, some to account for our existence, to make us all seem special and some to justify the actions of certain people in history who felt special. Would there still be a god if there were no humans? I doubt it, but you could always ask a rat.

* One of the problems physicists have is in explaining asymmetry when it arises.

[Mike Hall]

Having now had chance to view the video in question, I can comment.

The bulk of the video is presenting the RegalArcher's evidences for design. To give the benefit of the doubt and assume the evidences presented are in fact evidence for design (and I'm not wholly convinced they are) they do not enable to us to deduce anything about the nature of the designer.

The video assumes, without foundation, that the designer is a conscious, omnipotent god (assumed be the Abrahamic god) without presenting anything to support that assertion. The designer could equally have been a non-terrestrial life form or an interventionist creator god other than the god of Abraham.


Or, as is the current scientific consensus, the world could actually be designed bottom-up by natural selection, rather than top-down by a 'creator'.


Beyond this central argument, RegalArcher implies that the Earth was prepared specifically for human life – which appears to assume that human being are the pinnacle of life and the purpose for which the Earth was created. Please correct me if you meant something else. Assuming I'm right and you do consider human beings to be the pinnacle of life and the purpose for which the Earth was created – what is your evidence to support that?


RegalArcher asserts there is no conclusive proof for evolution (by which I assume he means common descent and natural selection). However, there is vast amounts of supporting evidence for common descent and natural selection (talkorigins.org)


The video asserts that evolution cannot produce new limbs, or organs, or superior intelligence – only minor variations within species. Again this assertion is unsupported. Why can't many millions of minor changes build upon each other until they amount to a major change? 1 + 1 may only equal 2, but if you keep adding 1's eventually you're going to get to a billion.

[Mulder]

I just watched part 2 (another 10 minutes of valuable life lost). The points made, as is noted, mostly merely re-iterate well known points about evolution though substituting the word 'god' for 'selection' and 'design' for 'adaptation', to no obvious logical purpose.

My points remain:
a) symmetry is a result of maths and not a sign of 'design'
b) sacred texts, which the video quotes, were written by people, without supplying any evidence (probably because they didn't consider it necessary at the time)
c) 'God' was invented by ancient humans who were intelligent enough to question their own existence but didn't yet have the knowledge to demonstrate how the universe really worked. Now we do.

PS: I'm interested to know how much it cost to use copyright music in the background. Is it expensive?

[Hayley]

I know its something like £50 for each use of a copyrighted photo, must be more for music surely?