Stumble This | You should also watch “Atheism Defined by Sam Harris” |
Comments 
playlists with this video
Religitheism by cheesemoo
who voted for this video
brain
- nickreal03
- Enzoblue
- BoneyD
- Tofumar
- kulpims
- complord
- gargoyle
- dgandhi
- Crosswords
- ZuroS
- dystopianfuturetoday
- Raigen
- nibiyabi
- Bleedingsnowman
- Mysling
- rubadub
- kev0892
- dbalsdon
- 101
- Zonbie
- That1Swede
- Ryjkyj
- Napalm
- Bidouleroux
- RedSky
- lavoll
- Johnald_Chaffinch
- Hellvis
- HistNerd
- honkeytonk73
- cobalt
- Lendl
- Trancecoach
- drattus
- ChosenOne
- cheesemoo
- rottenseed
- EDD
- Sketch
- gerds
- Smugglarn
- Tymbrwulf
- cybrbeast
- mj0lnir
- blankfist
- wax66
- aaronfr
- HoRnO
- Kerotan
- sometimes
- CaptainPlanet
- enon
- DrPawn
- Guardian-X
- kronosposeidon
- gwiz665
- guitarwolf
who voted against this video
choggie
- quantumushroom
who has this post bookmarked
gunsmith
"Who" Created The Universe? Related Videos
 An Atheist Meets God | Atheism Defined by Sam Harris |  Bikini Girls Fights about Atheism |
Featured Member Comment
Most expensive item in Antiques Roadshow history - “Five minutes later, a group of Navajo Indians scalped him and took their chief's blanket back.” read more by thinker247
Top New Videos by Vote
Subscribe
Top 15 Sifters of All Time
Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week
VideoSift Links
(hate to see this as a goddamn fad).....what brain? Need some atheist budddies??
Huh? I guess I need to start posting all of these videos.
Do these guys ever take calls from people who have well prepared answers and/or some amount of debating skills (Not that I've seen them give people much of a chance to debate)?
On part of the caller's actual question, I my self do enjoy sitting out in the woods alone partaking in the loveliness of nature. I'll close my eyes and listen to the wind blow through the pines, small birds chirping and critters scurrying through the underbrush, the smell of the air and feel of the wind. I feel myself lost in the vastness, humbled, invigorated, and even a little frightened at times. I don't however attribute what I feel to a god, its my own senses and mind that interpret what I feel. I feel trying to realize all the occurrences that had to happen for everything to be just as it was at the moment I am there as mind blowing and awesome an experience as one might thinking a god created it all. I think such experiences are sensory and your interpretations comes filtered through your own mental lens. A similar experience occurs if I stare up at the stars on a dark clear night; a wholly subjective thing but awesome nonetheless.
[EDIT] Upvote cause I think its a good discussion point, even if the guys in the video seemed to pass by that.
As Matt Dillahunty said in the video, any possible argument for a god as creator can be applied to the universe itself, which is one of the reasons Einstein said if he ever believed in a "god" in a religious sense, this "god" would be the universe itself. The problem here is that there's a lot of morons who keep on calling the universe "God" and then instead of sticking to known characteristics of the universe, start going on tangents about this "God" being a "Who" (i.e. an individual, with a human-like will and personality) or having powers he can "use" when he feels like it, or ascribing to it every concept they don't understand like infinity, absoluteness, transcendency, perfection, circularity and what have you.
In this case, God as a perfect circle dates back to the Greeks, and Aristotle in particular, and I doubt very much the caller knew anything about ancient Greeks. Aristotle said it could as likely that a God exists or not, but that he himself thinks there is one and so he postulated one. He also said that since we can't imagine that there is not a first cause, then there must be one, even though time is infinite in both directions. Not much of an explanation you'll agree. Some backward churches, especially in America since they cut themselves from the Vatican a long time ago, still believe in the Aristotelian world-view even though the Vatican has long embraced modern science, although reluctantly (and as long as it doesn't contradict their miracles!).
I'm all for logical and cognizant thought; as evidenced, most of the callers we've seen clips of couldn't debate there way out of a paper bag with logical arguments to support their case. I just don't see the point of it all, when it doesn't reach a mutually agreed-to end.
am loving this dillahunty guy, the other video of him on here is probably the best debate with a creationist that i've ever heard.
This is all masturbation. If they had kept the guy on the phone and debated him properly, both would have finally come to the understanding that "we can agree to disagree..."
I'm all for logical and cognizant thought; as evidenced, most of the callers we've seen clips of couldn't debate there way out of a paper bag with logical arguments to support their case. I just don't see the point of it all, when it doesn't reach a mutually agreed-to end.
Personally, I don't think they SHOULD have come to the understanding that they can "agree to disagree". The caller was obviously wrong. The host wasn't really asserting anything, other than the caller's question itself requires justification. He stated it as clearly as possible. If the caller couldn't understand that, there's something wrong with the caller.
I wonder if they screen the calls looking for people who can't form a cogent sentence.
I doubt they have to, being that they're based in Texas and all. Just look over choggie's comment history if you doubt me.
I mean what is the matter with the USA that there is still some question about a simple fact that evolution existe ? and that in some point in time the big bang occured ?
I can not believe that simple fact like the univers is expanding wich mean that at some point in time the universe was very small thus creating some kind of explosion by the mass accumulated in one region of space. (yes I know that I am leaving alot of details out but it is not to confuse some of the readers)
I can not believe that simple fact like there is fossil that where found in the last hundred years (and more) wich where carbon dated to be millions of year old wich mean that the earth is more that 5000 years old and by looking at some of those fossil we can see clearly that we come from ape and so on.(yes I know that I am leaving alot of details out but it is not to confuse some of the readers)
Using just the facts we can see some very good evidence that the earth is round too !!!
Really I am scared ...
Well the caller does ask a good question. Where did the big bang come from? Atheist man suggests, like the caller's concept of God, the universe is a 'perfect circle'. I have no doubt somewhere there's a mathematical model on how the universes can have no true beginning or end, but the question can still be asked, how can such occur, there must be a beginning. I'm not suggesting it must be God, because the same can be questioned of its existence. Where ever there is the assumption of something the source of its beginning can be asked.
I suppose the point I'm trying to make is we can not know for certain that God does not exist. The evidence we observe and measure is used to create a model of how the universe began, and how it works. That evidence does not suggest the presence of a divine entity, nor does it disprove it. Simply believing in God does not mean believing in something in spite of the evidence, it means believing in something despite the lack of evidence. This is the whole concept of faith.
That is not to say religious people will believe in things despite the evidence; that happens all the time. And in such strict doctrine is fairly easy to actual disprove, we can point at different things and say 'look, the earth revolves around the sun, the earth is a few billion years old and we evolved from other primates, *plunk* here's the evidence'. I'd say it takes a whole lot of faith to say, 'that's still not how it happened'.
(This is in very general terms, I am not talking about any specific scientific claim)
Here's the problem as I see it; many a religious person do not simply say they don't believe the evidence, but rather that you have not brought them evidence in the first place. One is a leap of faith and the other is a failure to make a leap because of refusal to believe there is even a cliff there.
While I'm not exactly thrilled over the people who acknowledge you have evidence, but still insist in their belief, I find it a much better alternative than those who say you have none at all. On that note there are also some people who are theists that are very flexible in their beliefs or have a very adaptive belief system. For example, God as the watch maker, general such a stance allows for all scientific observations, with the only caveat that somewhere along the line God was involved. There is nothing to suggest this is true, just as there is nothing to suggest it isn't. I'm not going to say, 'I don't think theists are stupid at times', because I'd be lying to myself if I did, but I also don't think simply believing in God automatically makes you stupid and ignorant. I think being stupid and ignorant makes yo stupid and ignorant (there's your perfect circle right there).
^
Well the caller does ask a good question. Where did the big bang come from?
If he had actually asked that, then maybe it would have been a good question. However, he asked "Who was behind the big bang?" The host explained it very well. Sure the universe's existence can be questioned, but that particular question requires justification.
It's like if I ask:
"Which house cat created the universe?"
"Well its not my house cat, which other house cat is it?"
In order for the question to be a good question, I first have to prove a house cat created the universe.
No, that's just your human brain, wired for binary opposition, trying to find the "non-existence" to pair with "existence."
If the big bang theory is true, it's possible there is also a "big crunch", which allows for no true beginning or end to time and space, but creates definite points in time in the past and future beyond which we cannot observe, effectively serving as a beginning and end to the universe. Recent findings have shown the expansion of the universe to be accelerating, most likely due to dark matter, which sort of messes up this theory.
What really bugs me, SO MUCH, about this whole need for a beginning, is just what the show's host said... "where did God come from?" God is no explanation at all, a way to answer a question without thinking.
Christianity: what they call it when you put certainty before truth.
I'm going to play Devil's advocate here.
Who's to say the caller was wrong? Just because he couldn't come up with a "who", then I can challenge the atheist to come up with the "what" that caused the Big Bang. Why does it have to be a "what"? He doesn't have the answer. Nobody has the answer; only their belief in what they think caused the universe.
Again, a pointless argument that has no end...
(as I have a feeling this is going to turn out to be. Unless, of course, we agree to disagree...
Me personally, who's to say there is an end? Humans have always wondered what's beyond that next barrier (hill, ocean, sky, etc.) and there's always something on the other side. Maybe it just keeps going; why should there have to be an end? Or a beginning? Rather Zen, I know.)
there must be a beginning
No, that's just your human brain, wired for binary opposition, trying to find the "non-existence" to pair with "existence."
If the big bang theory is true, it's possible there is also a "big crunch", which allows for no true beginning or end to time and space, but creates definite points in time in the past and future beyond which we cannot observe, effectively serving as a beginning and end to the universe. Recent findings have shown the expansion of the universe to be accelerating, most likely due to dark matter, which sort of messes up this theory.
What really bugs me, SO MUCH, about this whole need for a beginning, is just what the show's host said... "where did God come from?" God is no explanation at all, a way to answer a question without thinking.
I wasn't stating that as an imperative belief, merely that it's a valid point to make. If you fixate on the idea that the Big Bang all there is to it you make the assumption that our current understanding of the universe is as good as its going to get and there's no sense in trying to look further. I think that line of reasoning is no different than the person who states God is the answer to everything, and there's no reason to look further.
When I think of things like this I'm always reminded of Plato's Allegory of the Cave. We should never become too fixated on what we know, because there could just as easily be something behind it. I think science has successfully turned around from looking at the shadows to take a look at the fire time and time again, that's how science progresses. So I think its important to ask the question how can there be existence without non-existence. I'm not saying its impossible (frankly I happen believe current theory regarding the origins /nature of the universe), but I don't think we should pigeonhole ourselves into thinking that way, hence why such thinking is always important.
Atheism: the belief that others actually care about one's lack of belief
Quoted for stupidity.
As for the show, it seems to fail at its intent, which is to be an atheist show for non-atheists. Though I agree with the arguments in general, if they are going to talk to non-atheists, they need to gear down to the level of the caller.
For instance, the caller says "Who created everything?" A more appropriate answer would have been "Your question implies that there had to be a conscious mind behind creation. There is simply no evidence for that, and you won't find evidence through introspection or nature appreciation. Science explains a lot about how the world around us came to be, and we're discovering new things all the time. There is absolutely no evidence for a single all-powerful creator, and I don't need to believe in one to be able to appreciate the wonderful world we live in."
Address the poorly worded question if you must, but the idea behind the question is what is really important if you want to teach people about a different way to live. They get caught up in semantics and make themselves look like arrogant assholes who are lording it over the uneducated.
I'm going to play Devil's advocate here.
Who's to say the caller was wrong? Just because he couldn't come up with a "who", then I can challenge the atheist to come up with the "what" that caused the Big Bang. Why does it have to be a "what"? He doesn't have the answer. Nobody has the answer
I guess the difference is that "who" is more specific, and "what" is more general. Since the answer is unknown, narrowing the question down with a "who" requires justification. You can't automatically rule out all the "what" answers with no reason to.
I think its natural to question "who", because everything that affects us in our daily lives is caused by a person. You can pretty much always ask "who is behind this?" when you see a building or a painting.
Personally, from thinking, I think that intelligence only makes sense as a product of evolution. And if something is the product of evolution, I wouldn't consider it a god. Sure, for all I know, it's possible that some intelligent being created our universe, but I certainly don't see any reason to think so.