I was impressed by much of your presentation, but not necessarily the part about death and evolution. If nothing can die, then the only selection would be "who is most fertile". Rabbits might dominate the Earth. I admit that without death, humans might have evolved with men having testes the size of grapefruit, and women might be fertile 100% of the time, but the problem (which you alluded to) is that the entire world would be almost immediately overrun by immortal life forms. Unless we accept magic, very shortly there would be no organic material left with which to produce more life forms and evolution would stop as reproduction did. So, evolution as we understand it DOES require death.
Thanks for the kind words, Pat. I think there are a two things I should sort out here. The first is why I was raising this point in the first place. I brought it up because Ham and other anti-evolutionists like to claim that the fact of death itself needs to be explained and they believe that their Garden of Eden account from Genesis is somehow a reasonable (ahem) explanation for why death exists and that evolution doesn't account for the fact that organisms die. So, I raised this point to remind viewers that evolution doesn't purport to explain the fact of mortality and that the explanation of mortality is to be found in biochemistry and cellular biology, not at the level of natural selection. The second point I wanted to counter was this allegation that somehow natural selection _requires_ death. Anti-evolutionists of Ken Ham's variety like to bring this up because death is an ugly fact of life and they think that if they can somehow associate an unpleasant fact of life with evolutionary theory, they can somehow turn their listeners off the very idea. Now, this is of course a silly and irrelevant appeal to emotion on Ham's part, but more importantly, death is not strictly _required_ for evolution. Here's why. Remember that evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a population over time. Now, this will happen (and happen inevitably), whether some or all the organisms in a population live to reproduce (or live indefinitely). If all the individuals in a population live indefinitely, and if the offspring of all those individuals also live and reproduce, you'll still still have random mutations arising. And if some of those mutations affect the _number of offspring_ an individual has, such that it has more offspring than it's conspecifics, then you'll have a change in allele frequencies in the next generation. And that just is evolution. . In fact, what you'd have is evolution off the leash - without constraints, without any sort of filtering/sorting/culling. What you'd have is a massive proliferation, accumulation, and spread of mutations. So, you'd still have a change in allele frequencies over time and you'd have plenty of evolution. If we were immortal and all our offspring were immortal, our distant descendants would be quite genetically distinct from us. We'd still predict that they'd eventually be unable to reproduce with their ancestral stock (namely us). So, this second point was simply to show that, while in the actual world, organisms do die, natural selection and evolution don't _require_ death, since evolution (the change in allele frequencies) merely requires _differential rates of reproductive success_ and nothing more. I hope this helps. Cheers, - Ozy
3 weeks ago I found this channel while looking for ARK encounter reviews. Now I have the Ham and Eggs song stuck in my head and sing it randomly in the car... Sooo I guess I watch this show now.
Awesome guest Paul. I have every respect in the world for Ozy, and this video clearly demonstrates why. Please keep up the great work. It's sorely needed.
Then again, that ain't exactly the highest of bars to get over. In fact, Kent Hovind lowers it so much that virtually anyone is a cut above him. There are very few people below him that make me hope against us ever finding the key to immortality.
Paul I've got to give you props on this one. That's awesome how you can respond with quotes from The Watchmen and it added up exactly. I really enjoyed this episode!
"Atheism cannot answer these questions, but ATHEISTS can..." Yessssssss. So sick of hearing about how morality and ethics and all else can only come from God. This is the best answer to this non-argument I've heard to date. Well done sir.
Morality, empathy and altruism evolved with humans and other very intelligent social animals naturally. I'm pretty sure that's how Dawkins views these issues as well. It's incredibly smug or disengenuous for Christians to claim otherwise.
Is it just my perceptions changing or are Ham, the AIGs and other creationists getting more and more fatuous? Loved Ozymandias' utter demolition of their simplistic and facile world view. And the Watchmen parallels at the beginning.
Yet another great video Paul. I started watching your channel when I saw the cartoon Aron Ra in the description. Calm and cool, your present your position very well, and yes, entertaining.
My man Paul is baaaaaaack baby! I’m as excited as the select pair of elephants that Noah saved from the flood! Out of the hundreds of thousands of their species Noah chose them. You just imagine how special they felt. That’s me right now! 😉
Fun and little know fact: The elephants on the Ark were not Noah's first choice, but the first pair thought the letter was junkmail and threw it out. Yes I made that up, but given the whole story is made up whatcha gonna do about it?
Brilliantly put. I remember once telling a diehard evangelical that if we do deserve hell for ours sins, then accepting that and rejecting Jesus as a loophole might actually be more moral. I got no response. But it really goes to show how low Ham will stoop that he turns an absolute tragedy into an opporturnity to preach and go off on 'sin' related rants. I'm sure he'll be praying for the victims and doing nothing else which amounts to doing nothing at all.
The more I see those idiots, and the more I hear you and/or one of your amazing guests taking their words apart, the more hope I have for the future. It's clear that only the loud but small in number fundies have these ridiculous ideas. I know plenty of Christians (I was one) who would give more credit to your opinions - today including your wonderful guest's - than to those who believe that they have all the answers in a very very narrow and clearly bizarre interpretation of the OT (how often, compared to the NT, does it get mentioned by them?). Thank you!
Love how the original video has 2k views and this one has 7.5k views, even with them having 55k subs and Paulogia "only" having 10k. Also a 85/20 votes vs 600/7. I think it says a lot about both cams.
I really enjoy your content Paul. I saw your interview with Godless Engineer. Your story is really interesting. Keep up the good work man. I'm looking to get more involved in atheist activism. Perhaps I'll see you in the conference circuit one day.
Ok. Watching they’ve singing to his donkey brought it back. The Watchmen! Whew, this getting old stuff can get tedious. And yes, Inagree, we are giving Christians too much credit for rational thought processes on the whole. I think this is why the more intelligent among them always fall back on faith.
Off-topic really, but I wish you'd credit the clips you use in your videos. Not because of "fair use," rather because sometimes they look like something I'd be interested in checking out in more detail, but when I try to look them up I fail.
I find the oft repeated tale that Christians tell about how there was no death until after Adam and Eve disobeyed and ate the fruit of knowledge, to be a radical reinterpretation of the story. God tells Adam in Genesis 2:17 “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Which is first of all, a lie, for they don't die when they eat the fruit, and if there was no death in the Garden telling him he'll die is the equivalent to just saying "blah-blah-blah." And in Genesis 3:22-23 we get the punishment for the "sin" of eating the fruit: “And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.” There is nothing there about having their immortality taken away, quite the opposite in fact. God doesn't want Adam and Eve eating from the tree of life and thus becoming immortal, and truly godlike. There is no mention in Genesis of man being immortal before eating the fruit, or of taking away man's immortality after eating the fruit. The punishment for eating the fruit was a sentence to a life at hard labour for men, and painful labour for women.
Put forbidden fruit in easy access to his "children." Punished them for the rest of their lives for one transgression where they were enticed by someone else, punishes their children, and all their descendents for that crime as well. Still claiming the moral high ground?
Dangerous Joy But how do you explain death to someone who, by the standard Christian interpretation of the story, has never seen anything die? Not only that, but they are so innocent at this point that they don't even have a concept or right and wrong? And what sort of death did God mean? The religious kind, where their souls go on to some sort of eternal paradise (so, no change, really) or eternal torment? Could either Adam or Eve have had any concept of what torment was?
Paul I have seen a few of your well made videos. To my pleasant suprise you have had some great guest (like jon Perry and Ozzy just to name a few) I have been following them for years myself. This channel is in the running for the most undersubbed TH-cam channel and I will do the best I can (by sharing your material) to keep you from winning that prize lol.. Great content, keep up the great work. Ps. I feel guilty I jist noticed your work now.
These can certainly be entertaining to watch, but I can only take it in small doses. I love hearing the responses, but subjecting myself to a Hovind or Ham so often is rather difficult.
Has anyone got a good answer for why Ken Ham moved to the US? Only one I've found so far is a quote that boils down to easier access to more 'christians' and to more businesses.
Hi I really like this channel I wish I could financially support it. But I do like and tell my friends to subscribe. What I like most is the simple idea that we (this channel) will show what they say and then present what facts say. You never call the other side bad names you never cherry pick. You get knowledgeable guests when anything is beyond your area of expertise I think you are a very fair and balanced (no joke) And If I was Ken Ham I would take you serious
Have Ham and his panel reacted to gravitational waves at all? I hope they'll talk about the result that was just released today about the spiralling and merging of 2 neutron stars which produced a range of heavy elements like gold and lead, since creationists like to argue that heavy element creation is impossible naturally (or maybe that's just Kent Hovind).
Could be I'm in a shitty mood, but the lead-in annoyed me with the cut backs. The subject and meat of the discussion was top notch and very well stated. For that, I applaud it overall :)
Haven't seen it in a video yet, but Hovind admits his Genesis movie is going to be a 1 night event now. It's a banner on his Facebook page for the movie, and has a video up asking people to want an Encore from Fathom.
A point on how Ken uses "secularist" as if it were synonymous with "atheist" : it is not. An atheist has no belief in gods or actively disbelieves in gods. A secularist merely believes that religion should be kept out of govt/affairs of state. Many secularists are, in fact, theist and the terms are not mutually exclusive. He also seems to equate "evolutionist" with "secularist" and "atheist". sigh. *sec·u·lar·ism* ˈsekyələˌrizəm/ noun _the principle of separation of the state from religious institutions_ *a·the·ism* ˈāTHēˌizəm/ noun noun: atheism _disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods._
Well, you have to remember Ken Hamwich is not very bright. He couldn't get a job as a bell boy. So he has to rip off stupid creationists in order to live in the style he prefers to be accustomed too.
I've always wondered the same thing about the, "no death, no pain, no suffering, etc." aspect of Christian theology that people like ken ham espouse.like, what was it that was prevented them from experiencing pain, death, and suffering? would god prevent them from accidentally falling off a cliff or out of a tree(thus violating their free will)? would they feel no pain if they stubbed their toe on a rock, and were there different laws of physics to prevent ones toe from being broken in such a situation? what about the countless insects that would get stepped on, or stuck accidentally stuck in a person or animal's eye or mouth? also, what was the tree of eternal life there for if they were already immortal?not to mention a question I've never gotten an answer to from a christian(at least not a logical or sufficient/meaningful answer), how could the world possibly "fall" of it was perfect? how could adam and eve "sin" of they were perfect? how could a perfect being possible create a less than perfect world, especially since(according to ham and his ilk), he was actually trying to create a perfect world(and on top of that, they claim he actually _succeeded_ in creating a perfect "world" when he made heaven)?
As a side note, I love the contrast (pun intended) between Dr. Manhattan dimming its own brightness for the cameras, and the petty god from the old testament that emanated an uncontrollable harmful radiation from its front (less from the rear), and had to cover Moses... Maybe that god was dying from radiation poisoning... That may also explain the bad temper. Poor fellow.
As for dawkins, I've read his books and what I think(!) he meant, was there is no good end evil but positive and negative effects. Good and Evil can be considered fairly subjectivly. What I think is good might be evil for someone in that regard Dawkins said there is no good and evil. But as Sam Harris is quoted in his bookd few times on the matter of morality, I understand that Dawkins says that there are deeds which dan be considered god as in having positive consequences for other ppl, and there are "evil" deeds having negative effects on ppl. That is what I understand Dawnkins said about good and evil with regards to the theistic understandment of it.
Good and evil have a religious connotation, just like sin. There is no force of good or a force of evil. Things just happen and it has either positive or negative effects on a species. And when something has a positive effect on one species, it may have negative effect on another species.
cheers thats what I meant. But in terms of morality good and evil still are used commonly even without the religious connontation to it. The same way some sientists use the word "god" (like einstein) without talking about the personified version of it. Thats why I thought it was worth mentioning it how Dawkins might have used it.
+Alberich LP There is an obvious example for the differences between positive/negative and good/evil... Free speech and freedom of religion... a truly neutral, secular state that will enforce freedom of religion/conscience for all its citizens, will have to curtail the excessive deeds of SOME religious people to protect the rights of other religous people and nonbelievers. For a society that is a beneficial action. For e.g. a lot of contemporary Christians that is *_persecution_* and therefore "evil".
Ok Paulogia,! Had a total brain fart from excitement with the clips from the beginning of this episode. Aside from references from the Big Bang Theory I don’t see them referenced. Now if I could just remember the name! Sad, considering I owned the comic book, the animated DVD and the movie! Oy!
As a "cultural Catholic" (definition of that if you ask) - I've ALWAYS had a problem with 'original sin' being something I need to atone for... even as a kid, I've felt responsible for my actions, and NOT responsible for the actions of other people, especially those I never knew... apparently rational since my youth. I have said before, I'm mildly envious of those with these 'blind beliefs' - sort of... it would be nice to just accept things without question... but that's not how our minds work.
I actually think we should embrace the use of the spelling Ehtheist. I wear my shirt all the time and I find it softens the blow a bit. The word Atheist is harsh to some and the tounge in cheek spelling makes starting a conversation a little easier. (Plus it's the only atheist shirt my daughter let's me wear with her in public) It's perfect for Canada Day. Another great job Paul. Thanks for the intro to Ramses II, gonna check out a fellow Canadian.
The theology accounts for it according to believers but it never fixes problems. As long as they wait for a deity to correct 'evils' then humans will continue to suffer. Germs have been conquered by researchers. Poverty may be fixed one day...however, scripture is content with having the poor among us always. Gun control would be a huge help in lessening the number of shootings. But, meh, the Ahmadi and Jesus will return SOON.
I like Ken Ham. He's absolutely wrong about damn near everything, but you know what, I would probably pay to go hear him speak, and I'd probably be go to the pub and have a pint with him.
Sounds like if you posit a benevolent all-knowing God, and keep with scriptural statements of devine impotence, that offers one option: God is all knowing but unable to chance causality in motion. Therefore God is a Druid from Terry Brooks Shannara series. Knowing but only able to tip margins in the way he wants them to fall.
"...in the hope that we will be with him one day." Geez, they don't even promise salvation, only the possibility of salvation, maybe. No promise there. No contract. No guarantee. Just something very, very vague.
I have never heard Richard Dawkins to say there was no right or wrong, looking at his (and note he does say his) view on what the ten commandments could be, he has a concept of write and wrong.
I was watching this for 15 minutes until I realized those are not bandages he's wearing, but some type of caped costume... Lol I thought he was injured somehow... 😆
A major issue with theistic thinking are the ideas that the twinned concepts of 'Good & Evil' have an objective reality, that they are binary absolutes, and that they can be the result of agencies other than man. In fact, one of the greatest allegorical truths that can be found in the bible is in 'the fall of man', resulting from eating the fruit of the tree of KNOWLEDGE of Good & Evil. This shows that Good & Evil are INTERNAL concepts and actually have no external reality, beyond that, all we objectively say is that there exists these concepts labelled as Good & Evil. An individual's internalized concepts of Good & Evil, when concordant and shared with others persons of the same culture, sex, nationality, ethnicity or religion; gives them the appearance of objectivity and therefore validity, so it has been the driving force behind nearly all xenophobic hatred and bloodshed endured by humanity which is invariably labeled as being 'Good', 'Right' or 'Just' by one party and as 'Evil', 'Wrong' or 'an Injustice' by those in opposition. To attribute these concepts to divine origin, interpreted by those in authority, can eliminate all sense of personal responsibility for the actions an individual may perform. A person who would normally never consider the killing of another human being to be a 'Good'' thing, can be convinced to do so, without guilt, because it is for the greater 'Good' of Country/God/(insert cause here). Those who reject the concept of objective, absolute, external morality are less likely to be drawn to commit evil acts in defense of the authority of the external agency, be it nation or God.
"Satan adapts his temptations to all classes. He assails the illiterate with a jest or sneer, while he meets the educated with scientific objections and philosophical reasoning, alike calculated to excite distrust or contempt of the Scriptures. "(Ellin G White)
I think Ozymandias Ramses II missed the point with the morality issue. It's a compound issue, but in their minds it is perfectly defensible. It's not logically sound, but that's never stopped them. It only requires a few premises that must be assumed. First is that there is objective morality. Second is that objective morality must be defined by a higher authority. Third is that their god is that higher authority. They already find reasons to dismiss every other god so they've already covered themselves in that respect. And, given the other assumptions, no secular form of morality can be valid. The premises don't hold up to scrutiny, but it's pretty clear that this is their position. They don't need to examine every theory of morality in order to be able to dismiss them with these assumptions.
Richard Dawkins did not say there is no such thing as good and evil. What he may have said is there is no universally agreed on code on what is good and evil, or that not even Christians accept the concepts of good and evil in the bible.
Jesus tells his people, " I am going away to prepare a place for you; and if I go away , I will surely come again, to take you to be with me. I will not leave you as orphans. Eye has not seen , ear has not heard , neither has it entered into the heart of man the things that God has prepared for those who love him " Jesus has prepared our place , and his return is near , Don't trust in the things of this world , Trust Jesus
One thing I don’t understand about Jesus is are they saying that no one went to heaven and everyone went to hell for millions of years heaven was empty so why did god wait so long to welcome his children into a nice place
Paul, I don't know if you already saw it but I tagged you in a G+ comment regarding a potential future episode of Ham and AiG news, if you're interested.
I don't have either, so I'll just repeat it here. Apparently Nathaniel Jeanson will be a guest on tomorrow's Answers News panel to talk about his new book: "Replacing Darwin". I'm in the process of reading and reviewing the book on my blog (google search "evograd"), so I'd be happy to help you with your script if you wanted to talk about the book in an episode of Ham & AiG News.
My morality doesn't have anything to do with evolution, but creationists keep asking for one so. . . Every living thing on this planet is my cousin and I shall treat it as such. . . unless I'm hungry.
This was a pleasure to participate in, Paul, thank you for the invitation.
Keep fighting the good fight!
Cheers,
- Ozy
I was impressed by much of your presentation, but not necessarily the part about death and evolution. If nothing can die, then the only selection would be "who is most fertile". Rabbits might dominate the Earth. I admit that without death, humans might have evolved with men having testes the size of grapefruit, and women might be fertile 100% of the time, but the problem (which you alluded to) is that the entire world would be almost immediately overrun by immortal life forms. Unless we accept magic, very shortly there would be no organic material left with which to produce more life forms and evolution would stop as reproduction did. So, evolution as we understand it DOES require death.
You've earned a sub m8
Purple is definetly your color Ozzy.....
You look razor sharp! 😉
Thanks for the kind words, Pat. I think there are a two things I should sort out here. The first is why I was raising this point in the first place. I brought it up because Ham and other anti-evolutionists like to claim that the fact of death itself needs to be explained and they believe that their Garden of Eden account from Genesis is somehow a reasonable (ahem) explanation for why death exists and that evolution doesn't account for the fact that organisms die. So, I raised this point to remind viewers that evolution doesn't purport to explain the fact of mortality and that the explanation of mortality is to be found in biochemistry and cellular biology, not at the level of natural selection.
The second point I wanted to counter was this allegation that somehow natural selection _requires_ death. Anti-evolutionists of Ken Ham's variety like to bring this up because death is an ugly fact of life and they think that if they can somehow associate an unpleasant fact of life with evolutionary theory, they can somehow turn their listeners off the very idea. Now, this is of course a silly and irrelevant appeal to emotion on Ham's part, but more importantly, death is not strictly _required_ for evolution. Here's why.
Remember that evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a population over time. Now, this will happen (and happen inevitably), whether some or all the organisms in a population live to reproduce (or live indefinitely). If all the individuals in a population live indefinitely, and if the offspring of all those individuals also live and reproduce, you'll still still have random mutations arising. And if some of those mutations affect the _number of offspring_ an individual has, such that it has more offspring than it's conspecifics, then you'll have a change in allele frequencies in the next generation. And that just is evolution. . In fact, what you'd have is evolution off the leash - without constraints, without any sort of filtering/sorting/culling. What you'd have is a massive proliferation, accumulation, and spread of mutations. So, you'd still have a change in allele frequencies over time and you'd have plenty of evolution. If we were immortal and all our offspring were immortal, our distant descendants would be quite genetically distinct from us. We'd still predict that they'd eventually be unable to reproduce with their ancestral stock (namely us). So, this second point was simply to show that, while in the actual world, organisms do die, natural selection and evolution don't _require_ death, since evolution (the change in allele frequencies) merely requires _differential rates of reproductive success_ and nothing more.
I hope this helps.
Cheers,
- Ozy
Thanks so much.
Cheers,
- Ozy
3 weeks ago I found this channel while looking for ARK encounter reviews.
Now I have the Ham and Eggs song stuck in my head and sing it randomly in the car...
Sooo I guess I watch this show now.
welcome!
I know what you mean, lol. I have the "Ham & AIG" tune stuck in my head, too. Sometimes, I just burst into song.
I sing it too!!!
happens to all of us.try replacing it with seaniad oconner.
The only two world views (according to Ken Ham):
People who believe in giving him money
People who don't
i wish i'd thought of that.
@Stainsteel0 Pretty sure its the money that really matters to Kenny.
Does that make the people who give money to the Hovinds instead heretics?
Awesome guest Paul. I have every respect in the world for Ozy, and this video clearly demonstrates why. Please keep up the great work. It's sorely needed.
Thanks, TLD. I'm pleased that some people are discovering Ozy from this. You're next!
Yes!
At least AIG thinks that the attack was real. Which puts them a cut above Kent Hovind.
Then again, that ain't exactly the highest of bars to get over. In fact, Kent Hovind lowers it so much that virtually anyone is a cut above him. There are very few people below him that make me hope against us ever finding the key to immortality.
yeah... we finally know if Canned Bovine or Canned Spam is the more disgusting almost-Food ;-)
th-cam.com/video/g8huXkSaL7o/w-d-xo.html :D
The wages of Sin is Death...
but after taxes, it's more of long nap.
The wages of Sin is Death... but so is the Reward of Virtue. Turns out everyone dies. Who'da thunk it.
@@FuelDropforthewin
At least sin has early closing hours on Fridays.
Love Ozy! Glad you had him on.
oh shit you are still around I enjoyed your videos back in the day hope things haven't been to hectic.
Ozy is one of the clearest Philosophy educators around today! Great show!
Fantastic video, and an excellent guest to have on this week. Thanks Paul!
I love this production. You guys are great. Thank you.
Thank you for continuing with Ham & AIG "news"!! Thank you for continuing with Ham & AIG "news"!! Keep up the great analysis!
I really appreciated this intelligent insightful conversation. Great guest.
Love your channel
Great stuff once again. It's great there's so many ways to dissect old kens BS
Thank you both. I really enjoyed it. 😎
Thank you for the information. Love your channel Paul
Paul I've got to give you props on this one. That's awesome how you can respond with quotes from The Watchmen and it added up exactly. I really enjoyed this episode!
"Atheism cannot answer these questions, but ATHEISTS can..."
Yessssssss. So sick of hearing about how morality and ethics and all else can only come from God. This is the best answer to this non-argument I've heard to date.
Well done sir.
This is probably one of the best analyses of the idiocy of "sin" I've seen. Thanks so much for posting this.
I'm blown away by the analogies to the Watchmen. Great job on this video!
Great video. I glad you had Ozy on. Very interesting and informative.
Ozy, my favorite philosopher.
booleanenator He is one of my 3 fav youtube philosophers, along with Sysiphus Redeemed and Carnaedes.org :)
Where is the Bursar when you need him? :3
That watchmen layover was spot-on. Nice
listening to this on my phone is going to make babysitting bearable
catching this a good year&1/2 later but, lovin' it...
Morality, empathy and altruism evolved with humans and other very intelligent social animals naturally. I'm pretty sure that's how Dawkins views these issues as well. It's incredibly smug or disengenuous for Christians to claim otherwise.
Is it just my perceptions changing or are Ham, the AIGs and other creationists getting more and more fatuous? Loved Ozymandias' utter demolition of their simplistic and facile world view. And the Watchmen parallels at the beginning.
Ah EhTheist, long time a pun made me laugh out loud.
Yet another great video Paul. I started watching your channel when I saw the cartoon Aron Ra in the description.
Calm and cool, your present your position very well, and yes, entertaining.
My man Paul is baaaaaaack baby! I’m as excited as the select pair of elephants that Noah saved from the flood! Out of the hundreds of thousands of their species Noah chose them. You just imagine how special they felt. That’s me right now! 😉
Fun and little know fact: The elephants on the Ark were not Noah's first choice, but the first pair thought the letter was junkmail and threw it out.
Yes I made that up, but given the whole story is made up whatcha gonna do about it?
Great channel guys!!
Yay for another serving of ham and aigs!
Brilliantly put. I remember once telling a diehard evangelical that if we do deserve hell for ours sins, then accepting that and rejecting Jesus as a loophole might actually be more moral. I got no response.
But it really goes to show how low Ham will stoop that he turns an absolute tragedy into an opporturnity to preach and go off on 'sin' related rants. I'm sure he'll be praying for the victims and doing nothing else which amounts to doing nothing at all.
Great episode and love the Watchmen references and love the Canadian guest.
fantastic. i like that you have introduced me to so many rational human beings!
I absolutely LOVE Ozzy! Even if i disagree with ~40% of what he says.
He is so fun to listen to.
Now I want to watch The Watchmen again.
good way to think about the whole "god is good" that didn't tell me what "good" WAS - very cleaver observation. I'm going to try to keep that in mind!
Also love seeing you dish out on Eric Hovind!!
Dynamite mix in the first 2 minutes of this video.
Thank you!
The more I see those idiots, and the more I hear you and/or one of your amazing guests taking their words apart, the more hope I have for the future. It's clear that only the loud but small in number fundies have these ridiculous ideas. I know plenty of Christians (I was one) who would give more credit to your opinions - today including your wonderful guest's - than to those who believe that they have all the answers in a very very narrow and clearly bizarre interpretation of the OT (how often, compared to the NT, does it get mentioned by them?). Thank you!
Love how the original video has 2k views and this one has 7.5k views, even with them having 55k subs and Paulogia "only" having 10k. Also a 85/20 votes vs 600/7.
I think it says a lot about both cams.
I really enjoy your content Paul. I saw your interview with Godless Engineer. Your story is really interesting. Keep up the good work man. I'm looking to get more involved in atheist activism. Perhaps I'll see you in the conference circuit one day.
Ok. Watching they’ve singing to his donkey brought it back. The Watchmen! Whew, this getting old stuff can get tedious. And yes, Inagree, we are giving Christians too much credit for rational thought processes on the whole. I think this is why the more intelligent among them always fall back on faith.
hey! just watched this movie last night :)
I SWEAR.....every time I watch one of these videos it makes me hungry for ham and eggs! Sheesh!
Off-topic really, but I wish you'd credit the clips you use in your videos. Not because of "fair use," rather because sometimes they look like something I'd be interested in checking out in more detail, but when I try to look them up I fail.
Been binge watching these old episodes for days now and I’ve come to the ultimate conclusion, Dr. chuckles does in fact have marbles in her cheeks.
I find the oft repeated tale that Christians tell about how there was no death until after Adam and Eve disobeyed and ate the fruit of knowledge, to be a radical reinterpretation of the story.
God tells Adam in Genesis 2:17 “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Which is first of all, a lie, for they don't die when they eat the fruit, and if there was no death in the Garden telling him he'll die is the equivalent to just saying "blah-blah-blah."
And in Genesis 3:22-23 we get the punishment for the "sin" of eating the fruit: “And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.” There is nothing there about having their immortality taken away, quite the opposite in fact. God doesn't want Adam and Eve eating from the tree of life and thus becoming immortal, and truly godlike.
There is no mention in Genesis of man being immortal before eating the fruit, or of taking away man's immortality after eating the fruit. The punishment for eating the fruit was a sentence to a life at hard labour for men, and painful labour for women.
Dangerous Joy -- Given that he seems to be totally incapable of explaining anything else to anyone, I doubt if he could explain death.
Put forbidden fruit in easy access to his "children." Punished them for the rest of their lives for one transgression where they were enticed by someone else, punishes their children, and all their descendents for that crime as well. Still claiming the moral high ground?
Dangerous Joy
But how do you explain death to someone who, by the standard Christian interpretation of the story, has never seen anything die? Not only that, but they are so innocent at this point that they don't even have a concept or right and wrong?
And what sort of death did God mean? The religious kind, where their souls go on to some sort of eternal paradise (so, no change, really) or eternal torment? Could either Adam or Eve have had any concept of what torment was?
OMG, its OZY!!! :D
Ozymandias Ramses has to be the coolest name ever.
Paul I have seen a few of your well made videos. To my pleasant suprise you have had some great guest (like jon Perry and Ozzy just to name a few) I have been following them for years myself. This channel is in the running for the most undersubbed TH-cam channel and I will do the best I can (by sharing your material) to keep you from winning that prize lol..
Great content, keep up the great work.
Ps. I feel guilty I jist noticed your work now.
welcome, Ronnie!
Great video, as usual! Keep up the good work. I'd like to see you take on apologia studios on TH-cam. That guy Jeff Durban is a real piece of work.
only a philosopher would say that what your doing is honoring ken.
These can certainly be entertaining to watch, but I can only take it in small doses. I love hearing the responses, but subjecting myself to a Hovind or Ham so often is rather difficult.
Has anyone got a good answer for why Ken Ham moved to the US? Only one I've found so far is a quote that boils down to easier access to more 'christians' and to more businesses.
The original Ken Ham channel has far less subscriptions then you have. Keep up the good work. Reason is winning.
Hi I really like this channel I wish I could financially support it. But I do like and tell my friends to subscribe. What I like most is the simple idea that we (this channel) will show what they say and then present what facts say. You never call the other side bad names you never cherry pick. You get knowledgeable guests when anything is beyond your area of expertise I think you are a very fair and balanced (no joke) And If I was Ken Ham I would take you serious
Have Ham and his panel reacted to gravitational waves at all? I hope they'll talk about the result that was just released today about the spiralling and merging of 2 neutron stars which produced a range of heavy elements like gold and lead, since creationists like to argue that heavy element creation is impossible naturally (or maybe that's just Kent Hovind).
Could be I'm in a shitty mood, but the lead-in annoyed me with the cut backs. The subject and meat of the discussion was top notch and very well stated. For that, I applaud it overall :)
Every time I see someone breakdown just how silly the story is, I get so frustrated that people base their lives on it.
And, even worse, expect everyone to, as well.
This was actually a pretty good intro to Catholic natural law theory lol.
Haven't seen it in a video yet, but Hovind admits his Genesis movie is going to be a 1 night event now. It's a banner on his Facebook page for the movie, and has a video up asking people to want an Encore from Fathom.
What's the movie you're playing clips of?
Great takedown of the latest AIG 🦇💩 Paul! Thanks for turning me on to Ozy too! Keep exposing these lying hypocrites! Okay.
A point on how Ken uses "secularist" as if it were synonymous with "atheist" : it is not. An atheist has no belief in gods or actively disbelieves in gods. A secularist merely believes that religion should be kept out of govt/affairs of state. Many secularists are, in fact, theist and the terms are not mutually exclusive. He also seems to equate "evolutionist" with "secularist" and "atheist". sigh.
*sec·u·lar·ism*
ˈsekyələˌrizəm/
noun
_the principle of separation of the state from religious institutions_
*a·the·ism*
ˈāTHēˌizəm/
noun
noun: atheism
_disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods._
munstrumridcully • It simply boils down to Ken being lazy in his arguments.
Well, you have to remember Ken Hamwich is not very bright. He couldn't get a job as a bell boy. So he has to rip off stupid creationists in order to live in the style he prefers to be accustomed too.
@@sagerider2 his own stage members quite often correct him! He can't be that smart🙄
I've always wondered the same thing about the, "no death, no pain, no suffering, etc." aspect of Christian theology that people like ken ham espouse.like, what was it that was prevented them from experiencing pain, death, and suffering? would god prevent them from accidentally falling off a cliff or out of a tree(thus violating their free will)? would they feel no pain if they stubbed their toe on a rock, and were there different laws of physics to prevent ones toe from being broken in such a situation? what about the countless insects that would get stepped on, or stuck accidentally stuck in a person or animal's eye or mouth? also, what was the tree of eternal life there for if they were already immortal?not to mention a question I've never gotten an answer to from a christian(at least not a logical or sufficient/meaningful answer), how could the world possibly "fall" of it was perfect? how could adam and eve "sin" of they were perfect? how could a perfect being possible create a less than perfect world, especially since(according to ham and his ilk), he was actually trying to create a perfect world(and on top of that, they claim he actually _succeeded_ in creating a perfect "world" when he made heaven)?
As a side note, I love the contrast (pun intended) between Dr. Manhattan dimming its own brightness for the cameras, and the petty god from the old testament that emanated an uncontrollable harmful radiation from its front (less from the rear), and had to cover Moses...
Maybe that god was dying from radiation poisoning...
That may also explain the bad temper.
Poor fellow.
who makes the drawings? thy're awesome and very cute!!
Thanks... i draw them myself.
what movie is the clip @ 1 minute from?
As for dawkins, I've read his books and what I think(!) he meant, was there is no good end evil but positive and negative effects.
Good and Evil can be considered fairly subjectivly. What I think is good might be evil for someone in that regard Dawkins said there is no good and evil.
But as Sam Harris is quoted in his bookd few times on the matter of morality, I understand that Dawkins says that there are deeds which dan be considered god as in having positive consequences for other ppl, and there are "evil" deeds having negative effects on ppl.
That is what I understand Dawnkins said about good and evil with regards to the theistic understandment of it.
Good and evil have a religious connotation, just like sin. There is no force of good or a force of evil. Things just happen and it has either positive or negative effects on a species. And when something has a positive effect on one species, it may have negative effect on another species.
cheers thats what I meant. But in terms of morality good and evil still are used commonly even without the religious connontation to it. The same way some sientists use the word "god" (like einstein) without talking about the personified version of it.
Thats why I thought it was worth mentioning it how Dawkins might have used it.
@john, everyone arguable is more powerfull than nothing;)
Alberich LP lmao!!😂
+Alberich LP
There is an obvious example for the differences between positive/negative and good/evil...
Free speech and freedom of religion... a truly neutral, secular state that will enforce freedom of religion/conscience for all its citizens, will have to curtail the excessive deeds of SOME religious people to protect the rights of other religous people and nonbelievers. For a society that is a beneficial action. For e.g. a lot of contemporary Christians that is *_persecution_* and therefore "evil".
I saw Tevya!!!!!
Ok Paulogia,! Had a total brain fart from excitement with the clips from the beginning of this episode. Aside from references from the Big Bang Theory I don’t see them referenced. Now if I could just remember the name! Sad, considering I owned the comic book, the animated DVD and the movie! Oy!
As a "cultural Catholic" (definition of that if you ask) - I've ALWAYS had a problem with 'original sin' being something I need to atone for... even as a kid, I've felt responsible for my actions, and NOT responsible for the actions of other people, especially those I never knew... apparently rational since my youth. I have said before, I'm mildly envious of those with these 'blind beliefs' - sort of... it would be nice to just accept things without question... but that's not how our minds work.
I actually think we should embrace the use of the spelling Ehtheist. I wear my shirt all the time and I find it softens the blow a bit. The word Atheist is harsh to some and the tounge in cheek spelling makes starting a conversation a little easier. (Plus it's the only atheist shirt my daughter let's me wear with her in public) It's perfect for Canada Day. Another great job Paul. Thanks for the intro to Ramses II, gonna check out a fellow Canadian.
I'm "deity free",
feels good to me.
Where can I get such a shirt?!
- Ozy
Of course Ham and AiG is the only view that explains all of existence as well. Seems they're the totalitarian package.
The theology accounts for it according to believers but it never fixes problems. As long as they wait for a deity to correct 'evils' then humans will continue to suffer. Germs have been conquered by researchers. Poverty may be fixed one day...however, scripture is content with having the poor among us always. Gun control would be a huge help in lessening the number of shootings. But, meh, the Ahmadi and Jesus will return SOON.
Countries that are devoutly religious have the highest rate of social problems.
Sure: www.sciencealert.com/the-world-happiness-index-2016-just-ranked-the-happiest-countries-on-earth
You wanted the countries that are least religious. They are at the top of that list.
Is it possible they got better as they let go of religion? At least parts of the doctrines.
I like Ken Ham. He's absolutely wrong about damn near everything, but you know what, I would probably pay to go hear him speak, and I'd probably be go to the pub and have a pint with him.
Sounds like if you posit a benevolent all-knowing God, and keep with scriptural statements of devine impotence, that offers one option: God is all knowing but unable to chance causality in motion. Therefore God is a Druid from Terry Brooks Shannara series. Knowing but only able to tip margins in the way he wants them to fall.
"...in the hope that we will be with him one day." Geez, they don't even promise salvation, only the possibility of salvation, maybe. No promise there. No contract. No guarantee. Just something very, very vague.
Why are most skeptics on the western side of the Pond Canadian?
Ken,Georgia and Bodie were clearly made in their gods image
You mean their god has three heads, six arms, six legs and um... multiple sexual organs? :)
Hmm, so all their pictures of him are wrong! ;)
HISHE cameo!
I have never heard Richard Dawkins to say there was no right or wrong, looking at his (and note he does say his) view on what the ten commandments could be, he has a concept of write and wrong.
I fucking love the watchmen movie lol
I want to meet Ken lol
The supposed god that AIG so ferverently keep insisting exists, is COMPLETELY responsible for all of the events that happened in the garden of Eden.
I was watching this for 15 minutes until I realized those are not bandages he's wearing, but some type of caped costume... Lol
I thought he was injured somehow... 😆
A major issue with theistic thinking are the ideas that the twinned concepts of 'Good & Evil' have an objective reality, that they are binary absolutes, and that they can be the result of agencies other than man. In fact, one of the greatest allegorical truths that can be found in the bible is in 'the fall of man', resulting from eating the fruit of the tree of KNOWLEDGE of Good & Evil. This shows that Good & Evil are INTERNAL concepts and actually have no external reality, beyond that, all we objectively say is that there exists these concepts labelled as Good & Evil. An individual's internalized concepts of Good & Evil, when concordant and shared with others persons of the same culture, sex, nationality, ethnicity or religion; gives them the appearance of objectivity and therefore validity, so it has been the driving force behind nearly all xenophobic hatred and bloodshed endured by humanity which is invariably labeled as being 'Good', 'Right' or 'Just' by one party and as 'Evil', 'Wrong' or 'an Injustice' by those in opposition. To attribute these concepts to divine origin, interpreted by those in authority, can eliminate all sense of personal responsibility for the actions an individual may perform. A person who would normally never consider the killing of another human being to be a 'Good'' thing, can be convinced to do so, without guilt, because it is for the greater 'Good' of Country/God/(insert cause here). Those who reject the concept of objective, absolute, external morality are less likely to be drawn to commit evil acts in defense of the authority of the external agency, be it nation or God.
To be fair Christianity is basically modified judaism.
"Satan adapts his temptations to all classes. He assails the illiterate with a jest or sneer, while he meets the educated with scientific objections and philosophical reasoning, alike calculated to excite distrust or contempt of the Scriptures. "(Ellin G White)
It would be just like satan to invent the bible...
So in your opening song you say "flip em ____ em" what is that missing word? Because it sound your saying fuck them to me...
I think Ozymandias Ramses II missed the point with the morality issue. It's a compound issue, but in their minds it is perfectly defensible. It's not logically sound, but that's never stopped them. It only requires a few premises that must be assumed. First is that there is objective morality. Second is that objective morality must be defined by a higher authority. Third is that their god is that higher authority. They already find reasons to dismiss every other god so they've already covered themselves in that respect. And, given the other assumptions, no secular form of morality can be valid.
The premises don't hold up to scrutiny, but it's pretty clear that this is their position. They don't need to examine every theory of morality in order to be able to dismiss them with these assumptions.
building falls: must be god. building doesn't fall: must be god. -_-;;;;;; sigh
Richard Dawkins did not say there is no such thing as good and evil. What he may have said is there is no universally agreed on code on what is good and evil, or that not even Christians accept the concepts of good and evil in the bible.
"Gross Simplification" A new name for Kon Ham!! He is gross and simple!
I wonder if they will use the pun 'a theist' to describe atheism as a religion.
Jesus tells his people, " I am going away to prepare a place for you; and if I go away , I will surely come again, to take you to be with me. I will not leave you as orphans. Eye has not seen , ear has not heard , neither has it entered into the heart of man the things that God has prepared for those who love him " Jesus has prepared our place , and his return is near , Don't trust in the things of this world , Trust Jesus
One thing I don’t understand about Jesus is are they saying that no one went to heaven and everyone went to hell for millions of years heaven was empty so why did god wait so long to welcome his children into a nice place
Paul, I don't know if you already saw it but I tagged you in a G+ comment regarding a potential future episode of Ham and AiG news, if you're interested.
I didn't see it. Could you message me on twitter or Facebook?
I don't have either, so I'll just repeat it here. Apparently Nathaniel Jeanson will be a guest on tomorrow's Answers News panel to talk about his new book: "Replacing Darwin". I'm in the process of reading and reviewing the book on my blog (google search "evograd"), so I'd be happy to help you with your script if you wanted to talk about the book in an episode of Ham & AiG News.
Oh sweet... yeah, I'm very interested, given all the promotion they've been doing.
Great, let me know when you want to chat about it
My morality doesn't have anything to do with evolution, but creationists keep asking for one so. . . Every living thing on this planet is my cousin and I shall treat it as such. . . unless I'm hungry.