You're just atheists because y'all want to sin
tags:
Stumble ThisThis is a clip from episode 563 of
"The Atheist Experience" TV show.
Hilarity ensues!
"The Atheist Experience" TV show.
Hilarity ensues!
X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |||||||||||||||
atheist,experience,evolution,abiogenesis,banana,sin You're just atheists because y'all want to sin
Comments  playlists with this video Creationist Folly by Zonbie
• Religiony Stuff by R0SENCRANTZ
• Phunee by 12337
• Creationists are STUPID by kagenin
• evil disco comedy by evil_disco_man
who voted for this video brain
- Shepppard
- enon
- punk225
- evil_disco_man
- peggedbea
- siftbot
x143 - sepatown
- chtierna
- xxovercastxx
- kceaton1
- justathinker
- smbot31
- EDD
- PunkJay
who has this post bookmarked kceaton1
- punk225
You're Just Atheists Because Y'all Want To Sin Related Videos
| Watch this Video NextFriends O' the Sift Top New Videos by Vote  Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week Newest Appreciated Comments          | ||||||||||||||
"I can make something that appears to be a banana in my hand." Laughing My Ass Hole Shut
"I can make something that appears to be a banana in my hand." Laughing My Ass Hole Shut
Hopefully there wasn't a banana in there!
Whats sin?
A banana in your butt?
Whats sin?
In Christian mythology, sin is a religious construct that pertains to either actions that are generally considered malicious (lying, stealing, killing) or actions that create physical pleasure (sex, dancing, loud music, etc.).
And now never wanting to eat a banana again.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
>> ^NicoleBee:
Whats sin?
In Christian mythology, sin is a religious construct...
>> ^NicoleBee:
Whats sin?
In Christian mythology, sin is a religious construct that pertains to either actions that are generally considered malicious (lying, stealing, killing) or actions that create physical pleasure (sex, dancing, loud music, etc.).
with you on the first point, but the pentecostals are disagreeing with you on the second point.
The "Intelligently Designed Banana" is a new low.
'What about the pineapple, or the coconut? Is it a sin to eat those? Because God obviously went to considerable lengths to keep them out of our mouths (... and butts).'
The title should be "You're just atheists because y'all want to sin."
FIXED!
Unfortunately, I don't think that was fake. Seriously, what kind of response did she expect to get when she called?
Not exactly scrumptious easy to eat delight we find in the grocery store. I've heard the banana argument before, I can only guess its some proof preachers offer to their congregation who eat it up like... well bananas, without actually thinking about it. I think this lady is 100% real, I've meet enough people who are loud opinionated and just as stupid as her to think anything else.
sigh
Unfortunately, I don't think that was fake. Seriously, what kind of response did she expect to get when she called?
This show certainly isn't fake.
you can sit there in your evolved (fatass) body getting all smug about logic and evidence, but you don't know the answers to the big questions.
I love (hate) how he skips over the whole "abiogenesis" thing, then explains about some lightning but doesn't say where the lightning comes from, etc. etc...
Her point was, you can trace everything back to 0.00000000000001 seconds after the origin, but you have no idea what the origin is. Or the origin of the origin.
God is everything. That doesn't make sense to smug atheist assholes but hey, God doesn't really give a fuck about making sense to smug atheist assholes, that's not his gig.
But her answer "not in mine" was pretty fucking good too.
Yes it fits in hers, if she's human. She just doesn't want to admit the fact. That's called "denial", not "answering" (call it repartee if you want but it doesn't address the point that she herself brought up and lost mightily, hence the muffled reply indicating she was making a desperate and cowering last blow after the bell rang).
you can sit there in your evolved (fatass) body getting all smug about logic and evidence, but you don't know the answers to the big questions.
Neither do you, it seems. Otherwise I'm sure you'd be yapping all over trying to spread the "Good News", right?
I love (hate) how he skips over the whole "abiogenesis" thing, then explains about some lightning but doesn't say where the lightning comes from, etc. etc...
Thanks for clarifying your use of irony there, I would have missed it otherwise. But calling everything "God" explains what exactly?
As for her, she almost didn't catch the whole banana thing, so I don't think trying to explain abiogenesis would have made any difference at this point.
Her point was, you can trace everything back to 0.00000000000001 seconds after the origin, but you have no idea what the origin is. Or the origin of the origin.
Ok, let's say God did it. How did he do it? See, you don't know. Why don't you pray "God" for an answer then? Or is it a trade secret?
You can't even prove to me that there is a God, much less that he has actually made or caused anything. In fact most "proofs" of God start by saying somesuch effect "couldn't" have been caused by something other that God. But that's going backwards (not to mention it's a flagrant display of smug ignorance).
God is everything. That doesn't make sense to smug atheist assholes but hey, God doesn't really give a fuck about making sense to smug atheist assholes, that's not his gig.
So what's his gig? Shoving bananas up your ass?
That was genuinely funny. Also, I agree that eventually we may not be able to provide evidence for creation of the universe. Especially when we get to the non-light (hard to measure anything without photons/radiation, except by indirect evidence) quantum mechanics domain (*edit looking at events very close time wise to what kick started it). But, that's not a reason to believe in god or FSM.
Lightning is fairly well known, sprites and other related phenomena, not so much. We do have a fairly good grasp of electro-magnetism.
I love (hate) how he skips over the whole "abiogenesis" thing, then explains about some lightning but doesn't say where the lightning comes from, etc. etc...
Do you want some more abiogenesis talk? One point that I would have brought up is how unlikely it seems that the first self-replicating life would just fall into place one day. If you get a bunch of chemicals together, it probably won't create life. But if you get an entire planet with chemical oceans for over a billion years, then it starts to get more likely that life would happen.
But then you have to remember the anthropic principle! We're going to find ourselves on whatever planet that life happens to occur on. We guess that there are about 10^20 planets in our universe, and the universe is about 13.7 billion years old. So even if life falling into place at any time on a whole planet has a probability of 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000, we can expect it to happen at least once. And here we are.
When I take that into account, life seems pretty probable to me. You could make up a god to explain it, but I don't see the need.
Whats sin?
Head practice.
^But then you have to remember the anthropic principle! We're going to find ourselves on whatever planet that life happens to occur on. We guess that there are about 10^20 planets in our universe, and the universe is about 13.7 billion years old. So even if life falling into place at any time on a whole planet has a probability of 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000, we can expect it to happen at least once. And here we are.
OMG, numbers make no sense! God is everything, OK?
>Yes it fits in hers, if she's human. She just doesn't want to admit the fact.
No, she was demonstrating a sense of humour and a flash of wit. I thought it was pretty good comeback from being so comprehensively owned. And i detected in her voice the realisation that she was maybe a little bit wrong. Because let's face it, she was 100% totally fucking looneytunes about the banana.
>That's called "denial", not "answering" (call it repartee if you want but it doesn't address the point that she herself brought up and lost mightily, hence the muffled reply indicating she was making a desperate and cowering last blow after the bell rang).
Yes. I agree with you, sorry if that disappoints.
>>you can sit there in your evolved (fatass) body getting all smug about logic and evidence, but you don't know the answers to the big questions.
>Neither do you, it seems.
I do not claim to.
>Otherwise I'm sure you'd be yapping all over trying to spread the "Good News", right?
That is not the only alternative to rejection of God.
>>I love (hate) how he skips over the whole "abiogenesis" thing, then explains about some lightning but doesn't say where the lightning comes from, etc. etc...
>Thanks for clarifying your use of irony there, I would have missed it otherwise.
Thanks for being smug.
>But calling everything "God" explains what exactly?
Nothing from a scientific standpoint.
>As for her, she almost didn't catch the whole banana thing, so I don't think trying to explain abiogenesis would have made any difference at this point.
That's what I didn't like, he tried to be all multisyllabic to show how clever he is, knowing it would be lost on her (cheap and unnecessary shot) but he didn't answer her very simple question... if you go back from seeds, and back, and back, you get to a point you can't explain. What's there? He didn't say "we don't know", he went on about evidence for the stuff that happened within our current sphere of knowledge. He dodged it.
>>Her point was, you can trace everything back to 0.00000000000001 seconds after the origin, but you have no idea what the origin is. Or the origin of the origin.
>Ok, let's say God did it. How did he do it? See, you don't know.
No I do not. But that doesn't bother me and I am not about to pretend that reducing everything to one viewpoint and acting smug on the internet is a better position than "don't know".
>Why don't you pray "God" for an answer then?
Because I don't really pray to god. Not like you imply anyway.
>Or is it a trade secret?
You know absolutely nothing about me but you assume a great deal. Is that scientific?
>You can't even prove to me that there is a God, much less that he has actually made or caused anything.
I don't have to give you proof just because you ask for it. And I freely admit to not having scientific proof of God. I don't think that would be possible. Hence the word "belief" which is scary to some people because they like all their ducks lined up in a row.
>In fact most "proofs" of God start by saying somesuch effect "couldn't" have been caused by something other that God. But that's going backwards (not to mention it's a flagrant display of smug ignorance).
You think this is the first debate about God i have ever read on the internet? Thanks for the info.
>>God is everything. That doesn't make sense to smug atheist assholes but hey, God doesn't really give a fuck about making sense to smug atheist assholes, that's not his gig.
>So what's his gig? Shoving bananas up your ass?
I think it's great you ended your brilliant argument that way.
God seems pretty probable to me. I could ignore that conclusion, but i don't see the need
trouble is, people have different definitions of God, and atheist assholes love to use the stupidest definition, and then to attack everybody in sight before they realise what's actually being talked about.
I think that The Invisible All-Merciful Man That Will Consign You to a Fiery Pit of Eternal Torment If You Don't Believe In Him concept of god is pretty damn prevalent in our society. And that single "stupidest definition" of God is singled out to be railed against because, well, it's the most dangerous one.
There does seem to be a lot of collateral damage, though, I agree. I won't say that I agree with it, but the over-reaction is understandable considering that in the United States "atheists" are traditionally one of the most-hated least-trusted "minorities."
If "God" is defined by the collective "consciousness" of the known (and unknown) Universe, that we are all a part of on either a quantum or sub-conscious level, it is a silly and not necessarily a probable notion.
If "God" is an "Ultimate Reality" that we cannot experience until we leave this "false reality", meaning he/she/it is not physical entity but an abstraction of existence, it is a silly and not necessariy probable notion.
If "God" is as Spinoza defined it, just the vastness of the ancient, uncaring, indifferent Cosmos, then it is a perfectly sound notion, and quite probable.
There is no evidence, or proofs, for the first three ideas, or definitions of a "God", which are not precise (I admit) and summarized a great deal. There are also many more variations and definitions of "God", I am sure. I am also sure that for all the others there is no evidence, or proof either. They are based on faith, and faith alone. One who looks at a tree and must postulate that such a thing is only there because an intelligence higher than them must have created it is, indeed, silly.
In this era we live, there should be no reason to conjure up thoughts of deities or supernatural explainations for the things we see and experience that we cannot immediately explain. We have answers for most of them, all it takes is asking questions and doing research.
I might be an "atheist asshole", but I don't put everyone's belief in a "God" into such narrow, stupid definitions. I gave four above that are the most common. And the last one is probably the most accepted by people of science, specifically cosmology and astronomy.
If you have a thought provoking definition of your idea of what "God" is to you, MINK, I would sincerely love to be privy to it. In all seriousness, I am addicted to knowledge of any form, and to learn other people's beliefs and how they arrived at them is some of the most interesting knowledge to be had.
Perhaps the Uraban Dictionary needs to have a new definition.
This passage is bananas:
/Flame On!
I suppose the quote has been beaten to death, but Douglas Adams said: Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
When people say things like she does: "How can you not see God when you look at all that is around you?" the easy reply is "How can you?".
first try reading about how "sight" actually works. it is not as impirical as atheists would like to believe.
I have a friend who's favourite thing to say when things go wrong is: "I don't see the problem". I have to remind him that the problem isn't dependent upon his "seeing" it.
I suppose the quote has been beaten to death, but Douglas Adams said: Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
"having" to believe? yeah yeah religious people are "weak" because they "have" to believe god because they aren't strong enough to handle "science".
wait... did i get that the right way around?
i say, why banish fairies from your consciousness?
Fairies might be there. So fuck all y'all. You just haven't invented the fairyometer yet, bitches.
Whats sin?
SIN = Opposite
Hypotenuse
http://www.videosift.com/video/Behold-the-Atheists-Nightmare-the-banana-has-a-point-at-the-top-for-easy-entry
And a refutation:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Atheists-nightmare-debunked
I gotta applaud the tactic, too, since he essentially framed the argument in scientific terms -- science has nothing to say about God. We have no hard evidence either way about God.
Scientific method requires that you approach the world without unproven preconceptions -- and saying there's no God is definitely an unproven preconception.
So respect the people who choose to believe in Him, they might be right.
However, people who think bananas are proof of God's existence deserve all the ridicule they get.
and choggie is quite correct,the only way to frame the argument for a person of faith,is faith.the atheist has no recourse,because there is no discernable answer.just as the atheist is forced to frame the argument in the context of religion.
religion is rife with contradictions and outright hypocrisy,and therefore easy picking for any free-thinking person with even a rudimentary understanding of the worlds religions.
just as the atheist cannot dis-prove the existence of a creator,the believer cannot prove the contrary.it will always end in a deadlock.
unfortunately it is the fundamentalist which always falls in the trap of defending their religious beliefs,and as we see in this clip,gets their ass handed to them easily.she conflates faith with religion,poorly i might add.
you can have faith without religion,but not religion without faith.this is the juxposition between the two,for religion will always strive to keep itself relevant,and in the doing,condemns so many to a life of ignorance.
but ignorance is curable,stupid is not.
so as long as the worlds religions hold sway over the easily frightened and manipulated,this argument shall be ever-lasting.
what a waste of time.
bravo netrunner.
till next time...peace.
>> ^gwiz665:
When people say things like she does: "How can you not see God when you look at all that is around you?" the easy reply is "How can you?".
first try reading about how "sight" actually works. it is not as impirical as atheists would like to believe.
I have a friend who's favourite thing to say when things go wrong is: "I don't see the problem". I have to remind him that the problem isn't dependent upon his "seeing" it.
I suppose the quote has been beaten to death, but Douglas Adams said: Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
"having" to believe? yeah yeah religious people are "weak" because they "have" to believe god because they aren't strong enough to handle "science".
wait... did i get that the right way around?
i say, why banish fairies from your consciousness?
Fairies might be there. So fuck all y'all. You just haven't invented the fairyometer yet, bitches.
Your argument falls to the ground, because we know full well what a fairy is, and it has never been seen. If it is a magical, invisible creature that cannot be seen with the naked eye or any form of measuring device we already have, then it's not really a fairy. Same thing goes with god. As soon as you define what god is, the spell is broken, because then we can attempt to measure and test it.
It's all about probabilities. Very few things, many of which are very reliable in all of their relevant applications, outside of mathematical proofs can we ever be 100% sure about and are truly knowable. Saying god cannot be 100% disproved is a non-argument. There is zero proof-positive of it, just like there is for faeries, cyclops, and chimeras. People are not supposed to imagine things and then go find the evidence for it. It works the other way around. He/she/it is a psychological construct. You do have a pretty good point though and I agree about trying to defend indefensible positions or trying to address an argument which is already rigged to the opposing side's favor, because of it's seemingly intentional, hazy, and nebulous nature which is by default auto-immune to scientific scrutiny and protocols. It's like trying to not get wet from the rain by jumping into a pool.
I do not say, "There is no god." I say, "There is no known evidence for god, therefore I choose to live my life not wasting the very little time I have thinking there is." If anyone has something, anything ...I'm all ears.
Believe what you want, there is no power that will save from something except the power in yourself, and occasionally a nice something. dog, cat, human, algae, never know when a good algae can save your life.
noone listens to a flamboyant homosexual, a ganged out mexican, or bra burning man hated feminist and noone is going to listen to baldy mcnerdistein and uncle pedo in his joker hat.
why cant you find a more handsome spokesman?
maybe y'all are just atheist because youre ugly.
Case in point: Tom Cruise.
Tom Cruise isn't pretty, he's just streamlined.
As soon as you define what god is, the spell is broken, because then we can attempt to measure and test it.
What if I define God as "that which is unmeasurable"? Because that's pretty much the definition of God which every religion uses.
Let me put it another way, if you are inside a soap bubble, how would you go and take a photo from outside?
Or let me put it another way:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat
What if I define God as "that which is unmeasurable"? Because that's pretty much the definition of God which every religion uses.
If that were the case, then there would be no possible way of knowing if god exists or does not exist. And you should dump any religious views for strong agnosticism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_agnosticism
Besides, if god is unmeasurable, how could there be books written about him?
I also think that would be equivalent (as far as we could tell) to god not existing. It would also be equivalent to a whole society of supernatural beings/forces living in the "unmeasurable" zone. So really, who cares? Shouldn't we all be agnostic about unmeasurable things? Why do we feel the need to invent the idea of god and invent an explanation for why we have no reason to believe he's there?
as for unmeasurable=doesn'texist... well either we haven't found out how to measure it yet, or it means that we never will find out. Both agnostic positions. But i don't see how "humans can't measure it" automatically means "it doesn't exist and it doesn't matter and it doesn't affect us". The "effect" might only go one way... precluding measurement but not impact on humans.
the "need" to "invent god" comes from the desire to actually discuss concept this without using a really long sentence every time you want to say "god".
I was just thinking, if god is literally "unmeasurable" then his powers are extremely limited. He couldn't even heal the religious, or the prayed for, or non murderers more often than others. If he did, we could measure that and know that something was happening.
Are you one of these people that thinks if god exists, he's behind the Heisenberg uncertainty principle adjusting particle locations here and there?
it's impossible to test god, that's the point. it even says in the Bible that it's a bad idea to jump off a tall building whilst praying.
how do you know god isn't tricking you? his powers are UNlimited... such that he can even hide himself from logic...
Why try and have a debate if you're just going to play that lame card? What possible response is there to "God is immune to logic"?
These religion circlejerks always end this way...
The religious guys will say that our pathetic human minds cannot comprehend god, all the while using their own twisted "logic" to interpret the bible and god's supposed words in a way that means just about bloody anything they want it to.
Immune to logic?
What do you think logic is, a virus, or a D&D rule, like in - immune to acid?
Saying that some things aren't logical, or can't be accessed by straightforward logical reasoning is an argument
And so what - there are some statements you don't have proper responses to - OK - you believe that sometimes 2 plus 2 = 3, no problem, it implies a world-view, one that is as beautiful or as ugly as any other
The problem with the evangelicals is that they think they know. It's just stupid.
And even worse, they treat their religious document like a stenographic record - which defeats the argument about it being the word of God, since the word of God should be something alive, and not simply an artifact, or a paper with words... (Dear Christian, I'm writing this letter to ask about your health... signed God)
Jesus! these bastards think that the prophets were a kind of metaphysical secretaries - but thats their problem.
(and a minority problem)
None. No debate. That's my point. The debate comes when you try to tell me that you know that everything in the universe is logical, and I disagree. Also I will disagree if people try to diss me by associating me with religious hypocrites or the pink unicorn cult.
I'm just defending my position, and encouraging other people to explore things from a few more angles to see what they uncover. Even from a logical perspective, you have to admit we simply don't know, and should be researching more.
^ The lame card?
Immune to logic?
What do you think logic is, a virus, or a D&D rule, like in - immune to acid?
In this context, as a means of arriving at a conclusion, it may as well be. What we consider to be the actual case makes no difference at all to what is actually happening. The universe doesn't care what we think.
All we could hope to do at the moment is have a debate, predominant world views have been shown to be utterly false plenty of times before.
Logic and science seem to me to be the best ways of approaching questions regarding the universe, and some others approach them spiritually. I really haven't seen the two mindsets to be compatible in a debate about religion. "Faith" or whatever is almost always invoked and that's pretty much the end of any debate between science and religion in my experience.
Clarified?
Science? Well look around you. Your computer and all those other fun electronics you own? Invented by practical application of scientific principles. And they work!
And Mink, I didn't mean you personally. It's just frustrating and something I see all too often.