Faith is retarded (Video)

reply to post by DustySmith


Too bad only a few had anything good to say about your video. But just out of random curiousity are you aspiring to be the maker of some sort of atheistic version of video "Chick Tracts"?

reply to post by Darthorious


Science is always supported by the facts, as that is all the scientific method is. However, if you are suggesting the scientist themselves are no longer using facts to justify their claims, then I'd be willing to listen to you. Do you have any evidence of this? Can you give some specific examples?

reply to post by DustySmith

Science is always supported by the facts,

I really have to ask, what do you identify as "science"? The reason I ask is simple really. You seem to infer that you take it to mean "truth", "fact" or "reality". In which case I would have to call you severely mistaken, science is mankind's tool for understanding the world and could be and has been proven incorrect at any number of turns. Science is just as falliable as the creature that made it and not the universe at large.

sci⋅ence  /ˈsaɪəns/ [sahy-uhns] –noun 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Origin:
1300–50; ME < MF < L scientia knowledge, equiv. to scient- (s. of sciēns), prp. of scīre to know + -ia -ia
Synonyms:
7. art, technique, method, discipline.

SOURCE:dictionary.reference.com...
And just for the sake of argument, knowledge:

knowl⋅edge  /ˈnɒlɪdʒ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [nol-ij]
–noun 1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.
2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.
3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.
4. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.
5. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.
6. something that is or may be known; information: He sought knowledge of her activities.
7. the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.
8. the sum of what is known: Knowledge of the true situation is limited.
9. Archaic. sexual intercourse. Compare carnal knowledge.
–adjective 10. creating, involving, using, or disseminating special knowledge or information: A computer expert can always find a good job in the knowledge industry.
—Idiom11. to one's knowledge, according to the information available to one: To my knowledge he hasn't been here before.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Origin:
1250–1300; ME knouleche, equiv. to know(en) to know 1 + -leche, perh. akin to OE -lāc suffix denoting action or practice, c. ON (-)leikr; cf. wedlock
Related forms:
know⋅ledge⋅less, adjective
Synonyms:
1. See information. 4. understanding, discernment, comprehension; erudition, scholarship.

SOURCE:dictionary.reference.com...

as that is all the scientific method is.

Not really. This is what the scientific method is:

Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce biased interpretations of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

SOURCE:en.wikipedia.org...

Is summation, it's just a tool. You can have faith in that tool and the people who claim to wield it purely all you wish. Doesn't change the nature of the thing. Doing so is just a tad more blindly trusting than I can accomplish though.


[edit on 10-6-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by Daniem

 

What an inflammatory self righteous judgmental video.

Not to mention incorrect in my cases. The study of Christian apologetics is nothing but the study of evidence confirming our beliefs.

But I guess I don't know what I'm talking about since I'm a 'retarded imbred idiot' and a field I've studied intently for approximately a decade doesn't exist.
After all, there is a You Tube video explaining how it's all blind faith so it must be true.

True - very true - you are. Lets face facts - people study astrology, alchemy and entrails for decades as well - don't make it right.

Christianity, Judaism or Islam is absolutely NO different to the Cargo cult, the worship of Kali, Easter Island heads or simply Roman Thor, god of thunder or Greek Zeus - they are simply tales explaining stuff based on hearsay.

To have faith in these types radically insane notions is equal to believing in any other fairytale - pure and simple.

Now there is nothing wrong with believing in fantasy and fairytale - so long as you are able to accept the ridicule which comes with such mentally disturbed issues. Having said that I am sure there will come a time when help will be available and it will be politically incorrect to laugh my arse off at this type of asinine behaviour - but until then I will stand be the enlightenment of the 16th century and dissolved the lies about God to reveal truth and logic as guide for man instead of the divine rule of kings and emperors - the main reason for religion - and continue to mock and ridicule you in the manner I should as a thinking, enlightened individual and you can continue to protest your right to believe in outrageous fantasies = so long as you don't expect me not to mock you.

reply to post by audas


So says the person who doesn't know her yet is calling her a lets see, imbred idiot?

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by DustySmith

 

Too bad only a few had anything good to say about your video. But just out of random curiousity are you aspiring to be the maker of some sort of atheistic version of video "Chick Tracts"?

Hey Watcher,

I'm not really sure if you are being sarcastic here or not. My video has been seen over 25k times now and has received thousands of ratings and comments. It maintains a perfect 5 star rating after thousands of votes and about 90% of the comments left are positive. Which makes me think you might just be kidding.

Anyhow, I have no interest in being like Jack Chick. I just want to make entertaining videos that spread my memes. Nothing more, nothing less.

reply to post by DustySmith

I'm not really sure if you are being sarcastic here or not. My video has been seen over 25k times now and has received thousands of ratings and comments. It maintains a perfect 5 star rating after thousands of votes and about 90% of the comments left are positive. Which makes me think you might just be kidding.

No, quite serious. Oh and ever hear of the logical fallacy:

An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges, "If many believe so, it is so."

This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people, argument by consensus, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy, and in Latin by the names argumentum ad populum ("appeal to the people"), argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect, the spreading of various religious and anti-religious beliefs, and of the Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger".

SOURCE:en.wikipedia.org...

Anyhow, I have no interest in being like Jack Chick. I just want to make entertaining videos that spread my memes. Nothing more, nothing less.

And Jack Chick says something similar.... Being outside that whole particular religious debate *atheism versus christianity* I find it vastly amusing how similar members of the two groups can act at times. Although in different directions.

[edit on 11-6-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by DustySmith

 

Science is always supported by the facts,

I really have to ask, what do you identify as "science"? The reason I ask is simple really. You seem to infer that you take it to mean "truth", "fact" or "reality". In which case I would have to call you severely mistaken, science is mankind's tool for understanding the world and could be and has been proven incorrect at any number of turns. Science is just as falliable as the creature that made it and not the universe at large.
.

I don't look at science as "truth". I reason that absolute truth might exist, but without having absolutely 100% of the information, there is no way to ever know it. The best we can do as humans with limited information is use probabilities.

I reason things are more probable to be true than not as soon as they reach the point where I have observed enough evidence to logically conclude that. However, I always leave open the possibility that better evidence could come along. In fact, as soon as I receive better evidence than the evidence I already posses, I immediately change my "opinion".


I "identify as science" the scientific method and the observable, repeatable, and testable conclusion that arise from it.

I am willing to entertain the possibility that some other from of collecting "true" information is better than the scientific method, but as I have yet to see a better method, I do not reason it is probable one currently exists.

reply to post by DustySmith


Um, you completely missed my point......... Ah, well. With that in mind I honestly wish you good day.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by DustySmith


No, quite serious. Oh and ever hear of the logical fallacy:

An argumentum ad populum .

How can you be serious in light of what I just pointed out to you? And yes I am familiar with the logical fallacy you mentioned. However, I never claimed that my video was true because a lot of people liked it and supported it. I was merely refuting your point that it wasn't well liked and supported.

So I suspect since my words had absolutely nothing to do with the logical fallacy you listed, that you must not truly understand what that logical fallacy actually means.

You might want to try actually reading the words and attempt to comprehend them instead of just randomly copying and pasting things from wikipedia. Because when someone points out your misuse of these argument like I just did, *Snip*

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 6/11/2009 by semperfortis]

[edit on 6/11/2009 by semperfortis]

reply to post by DustySmith


Um, tis not I that be wantonly misintrepreting *or not paying attention to the other's statements* here sir. Funny that you would you would claim that after I said something to that effect about you after the post in question though.....
I did not say anything about their validity or lack there of. I said that it seemed you were aspiring to be a version of Jack Chick for Atheism. To which you replied that you are sure that was not the case because you claim that response has been mostly positive which does not mean that my assertion is incorrect as it has nothing to do with whether or not my assertion is correct. The illogic is easy enough to identify, mostly positive comments and stars from others does not sucessfully refute my claim.
And neither am I the one playing the fool this go around.
Once again, good day.

[edit on 11-6-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Solomons


Thank you for posting that Sam Harris video. What a amazing speaker. He brings up points that are very interesting. This video is WELL worth the 20 minutes of your time. Please watch it.