Someone sent me this video recently,


it claims that god do exist.

How do you respond to that ?

Views: 692

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

What would be completely and hilariously funny would be to strip out every bit of Arabic and Islamic references in this video, then show it to a crowd of fundamentalist christian teabaggers.  After it ends and they're all self-righteously congratulating themselves on a triumphant victory over unbelievers, show the whole thing unedited.  Would their hatred of atheists overcome their hatred of muslims?  Would their adoration of the edited version of the video conflict with the obvious islamic propaganda of the raw video?  Would anybody realize the self-awareness conundrum?

Yes. Yes. and No.

interesting point there.  is propaganda like this really honouring the almighty *place deity here* when the 'evidence' is so generic that you wouldn't recognise to be part of the church of *place religion here* with out specific reference between what passes for factual information.  Not only that, but what does it prove? I hear two things repeated throughout this video, 'heres some facts' and 'believe' and I really cant see the connection between two at all. 

Beginning at 25 seconds: "A huge sphere of 12.756 kilometers in radius ... it is called the Earth." = 7.9 miles off by a factor of 1000. Oops. They should have said 12756 km or 12.756 megameters. (True, no one uses the term megameters but it is a valid term.)

"Why? Why? Why?" asked as if such a question actually applies.

It claims everything is perfect for people and tries to use the facts of how hostile the universe is to support the empty idea that the universe is fine tuned for us.

And they get so many facts wrong that I won't even try to count them. But is that really surprising when the first mistake is in the first minute?

The discoveries of Science are all based upon evidence. Experiments are repeated and if the results are the same then we can make deductions. The whole process must be open and be allowed to be peer reviewed. Science starts with an idea and tries to see if it is correct. Religion starts with the answer and hijacks Science to support it. Once that fails all you will hear is that you must have faith, which is never scientific.

"The footage is using science facts and figures mixed with some emotional words trying to reach fortunate people"  

I think you're not using 'fortunate' correctly, here.  But for the most part I see your point and I'm not concerned.  I'd love for the main religious strategy to become using science to prove their position.  They can't win and will only fail faster by trying.  They'll create some talking points for people who've already abdicated their reasoning to the gods, but that's about it.

Using science to prove religion is like using spitballs to win the Super Bowl.  Spitballs are small incremental advantages and the Super Bowl is the big game of A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SPORT!.

(The following is written after being depressed by reading some of the comments here where people say they saw no problem with the "facts" presented so it is negative and annoyed and probably annoying.)

Well, when it's crap like that video point out the mistakes – or have the person who likes the video go through it finding out for themselves it's crap. That alone will undermine it (and teach them some real science).

As for the general problem of people corrupting science – fight it when you find it, pointing out the facts. The crap about fine tuning – easy answer: try living on the moon, Mars or Titan. Can't get there? How about atop Mount Everest or the middle of Antarctica? Oh, wait, you can't because the universe is not fine tuned for us.

Not even the four fundamental forces are fine tuned: we ASSume that other universes can't exist if any are changed but we really have no clue whatsoever. Are most changes going to result in something unstable, sure. Will any other combination result in our version of life? Probably not. But claiming that our combination is the only winning one is like saying that the winning lottery numbers from the first lottery win are the only numbers that will win any lottery ever.

A lottery is also good for pointing out the crap about abiogenesis: most people talk about abiogenesis as if there was only one chance at one place at one time when in reality there were thousands if not millions or billions of places and chances and times. Life was an eventuality not an impossibility. Need proof, look around at the world.


@SteveInCO – The "point" vs "thousand" problem hit me first and occluded the radius vs diameter issue.


General –

The calm reasonable sounding voice seems to have been enough that some didn't pay attention and let all the mistakes slip past. I need fewer things depressing me, not more – I can do depressed all on my own.

Somewhere in the universe is a methane-breathing octoped with no kidneys and 3 brains sitting next to a methanol ocean looking up at his 3 moons and 2 suns thinking "The universe is perfectly made for me", not realizing that 99.9999999999999999999999999% of the universe will kill him in less than a minute.

And sadly, if this poor 'fellow' were transported to just one such local, it is doubtful that the awareness of 'error' would penetrate it's dense protpplasm before something like 'death' appears. A little like a scean out of 'Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy', where that poor whale suddenly appears due to the bad results of the 'improbability drive', and hardly has the time to make a decision about it's existence.   


© 2022   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service