Playlists
|
Keith Allen Will Burn in Hell
5
Videos
This is a documentary of an untraditional flavor made by Keith Allen on the Westboro Baptist Church. He goes to Topeka and acts like an idiot, but is able to reveal the "sinful" nature of the church's leadership and its members.
The leader, Shirley, does admit to having committed a specific sin, what Christians call one of the worst. I don't find this odd in the least. Since the revelation of child abuses conducted by Catholic priesthood and clergy of other faiths, I am sure many are now open to idea that anyone, as could have been reasonably concluded before these events, is capable of the worst inhumane acts. The revelation of Shirley's "youth" proves Westboro baptists are not unlike any of the people they accuse or condemn. This is the great hypocrisy of organized worshiping, to expect even the zealous to be perfect. I think one reason people take sides against them is because of their extreme lack of candor on this matter, though ironically the moderate who resists criticism is tacitly doing the same thing. Atheists are capable of self-contradiction, but they thrive in correction. Contradiction, especially derived through evidence, is a great tool to discovering great truths, scientific or not. In the matter of "hypocrisy," I take issue with what Hitchens calls, "the essential principle of totalitarianism," made by "laws that are impossible to obey." The act of assigning commandments that are impossible to keep is immoral. It is common knowledge that the "strict" are fallible, yet God gave even them reason to fear judgment. If this is true of those who actually try to keep them with full intent, as the Westboro Baptists do, what does that mean for the holiday believers? It means that they will be met by atheists, agnostics, and whoremongers (among other faiths of course) in the Hell that waits them. Sound fair to you? Aside from this issue of manifest hypocrisy: Christianity in general must answer for the crimes of this "extremism." Adherents must answer because their literature provides the iconography, diction, and lexicon of people such as these. Listen to them speak. With each claim they cite chapter and verse. Don't anyone tell me these are the rantings of a lost group taking the "metaphors" in the Bible too literally. Moderation in Christian thinking allows for statements like these because it has to. The one idea separating fanatic from moderate is apology, and I'll bet you know which type of believer I'm referring to. |
|
As a teenager I worked at a gas station and as such I came in contact with all stripes of people. One customer of mine would often confront me about my religious tendencies as he was a Baptist preacher and the leader of a small group in a city not too far from my place of work. He used some scripture to try to impress me, and he also appealed to my scientific side after I revealed my intentions to become a scientist. He explained to me that he had received a MSc in physics at UCLA and that he decided that preaching "the word" was much more fulfilling of a calling than his work for his degree. I didn't know this at the time, so for any one who isn't familiar with the academy, as I wasn't at the time, a master's degree in physics generally means two things: a job in industry (to develop new tools as in MRI say, or the like) or a failed attempt at a PhD and early graduation because the professors didn't like your work. At first I have to say I would have guessed the former. He was a sensible person and he seemed like a hard worker and reasonably bright. But when he attempted to square the mysteries of nature with his justification for joining a seminary, had I understood the workings of university life as I do now, I would have opted for the latter.
He justified his seeking religious devotion with the idea that the coming about of life is so improbable that it would only take a creator to make its essential molecular elements. He further quantified his rational and gave me some extremely small probability figures that any nonscientist would consider impressive to say the least. I still remember, nevertheless, being unimpressed as I still understood, despite any naivete, that these ideas in no way justified specifically the truth claims of Evangelical Christianity or even of Christian theism in general. As Christopher Hitchens explains, the jump from deism of the sort my physics/preacher friend was trying to make to theism is more than difficult and we have very few positive reasons to do so. I had this feeling despite any real eduction to back my position. These hunches scientists call a first approximation, the gut feeling you get when you are suspicious about anything. This video I think address this intuitive contradiction among many other issues. Predictions of probability require some foreknowledge of sample space on all scales. As is the case with coins we have some intuition of probability. There are only two possible states: heads and tails. We feel right when we say there is a "50/50" chance that it will or will not land on heads. Now take this idea and try to reconcile it with the probability of life's coming about. An honest marriage of mathematics with biology still doesn't allow for us to finitely prestate all the possible outcomes of all organic molecules, let alone quanta in general. Certainly we do have some intuitive understanding of what is required to make life, but we have no way of limiting a prediction of probability even in the least. This inability speaks to the heart of Kauffman's central thesis. Does anyone really think that even the most intelligent being, even an omniscient one, could reasonably state all possible outcomes of a group of atoms even to predict the fluid motion of a heart. Laplace was a genius in his time, but I don't think he grasped the awesome complexity that emergence obviously manifests, even with all foreknowledge of 6N dimensional space, when he suggested any ability to predict future events given certain molecular information (velocity, vector direction etc). If we mean by natural law a compact description available before hand and afterwords of the regularities of a process, does anyone think there could be a natural law for the evolution of swimm bladders? I agree with Stuart in saying no. Natural law as given to us by god or Galileo will never be sufficient to give a whole account of consequences. Thus value and morality are available through this manifold mystery and unpredictability. I hope believers see that this is where most atheists derive principle-based morality rather than dictum-based morality as they suggest ought to the case. In the example of an abused women hiding in your house, you would never tell the truth and reveal her location to her husband if he asked. We know that moral principles themselves could change with good reason and that good reason is the only tool to do so. Thus if we have good reasons to state anything, we can do so with more confidence than any "pronouncement" by any supposed "authority." Thus the only way to suggest the most probable outcome of anything is to offer supportive evidence and not to suggest that one or a group of few people say so "and thus it is so." We know that if "it is so" it is a not likely true because one person or a group of people are less likely to be able to predict sufficiently anything, let alone ideas as complex as creation, morality, or ethics. |
|
This is a candid discussion between world renowned physicists and thinkers. Keep in mind that this was video taped sometime around 1988 when Hawking's book was first published and red-shift had yet to be confirmed by Hubble as it was not in orbit then. Despite the absence of seemingly essential components in scientific understanding, the idea that the universe is void of theistic explanation if not deity itself still remains. Carl Sagan's foreword to Hawking's book is exemplary, and by similar methods you will see how these minds are able to create the truer nature of our understanding of celestial bodies, as Laplace made clear, without any assumption of Godly intervention.
|
Videos
(96)
Channel Comments
(154)
|
FukJewtube
(4 days ago)
Brah; can you disprove all religions? Or is it just like they are bullshit through logic? I'd like to know some facts just so I can debate with some religious cats every once in awhile. I've done some research but clearly you're into it a lot more then me. I think the "Problem of Evil" disproves god but so does a lot more. Enlighten me please.
|
|
mcha313
(6 days ago)
hey man thanks for the evolution documentary.
|
|
AlecsDeLarge
(2 weeks ago)
For those of you who are interested: I have posted my response to "Hellviolence's" remarks on my posted website (found below my site description)
|
|
|
hellviolence
(2 weeks ago)
So,again,I'm saying that the actions made by those who are at war which are against the teachings of Islam have nothing to do with Islam or Allah.
|
|
|
hellviolence
(2 weeks ago)
It's simply because of that.Not because their religion told them to kill the non believers like this or like that.I can tell you now,even if they fight against other Muslim countries,if the one who started the war is doing this kind of things(like killing freely, tortures and everything),the one who is under attack would do the same thing back at them too.Basic common sense.Don't you agree?
|
|
|
hellviolence
(2 weeks ago)
The same reason goes to the people who were killed by those causing mass genocides you were saying.Not only they are doing the same,but they are also doing the same evil things that were done to them.
|
|
|
hellviolence
(2 weeks ago)
Example,the first attack made by American government was because the 9/11 tragedy.They assumed that it must be a Muslim,knowing that the person behind it speaks Arabic or other similar language,and they must be from this certain country.So they attack.Because of one small group of people,the whole country is involved and ruined.Those who are not involved but also get treated like criminals of course would want to have their rights protected.If you can kill us as you please,why cant we?The reason the American government gave is that they wanted to catch the criminal.But is the whole country a criminal?No,but they are from this country so we have to attack.
|
|
|
hellviolence
(2 weeks ago)
If the American-Muslims in America were doing it,or any other peaceful Muslim community,that would have been a different story,because they're not even near to being dominated or intruded by others.They are living peacefully!So,their purpose is to talk in peaceful ways,try to reason with people,not by violence.
|
|
|
hellviolence
(2 weeks ago)
.In case you don't understand,the actions that they were doing that you called 'genocide' is a normal thing in their situation,because they are at war.Of course they have to kill those who wants to kill them,you would do the same if you are at war.
|
|
|
hellviolence
(2 weeks ago)
As for those who are causing the mass genocide that you were talking about,if you understand in the first reference explanation that i posted,then it settles it.
|