Christian Skeptic, here some of them are. I'm afraid I only recorded about half of the comments and the rest are lost forever in godtube space. A bit long I am afraid. To understand the context of the remarks you will have to watch the video.
The whole reason I started commenting on godtube was because I landed on one of their videos by accident, and found it so riddled with basic errors that I felt it would be doing a public service to at least point them out. It's always a bit of a surprise when someone doesn't even want to listen; which is the first and foremost characteristic of a skeptic, as I'm sure you will agree.
=========================================================
http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=8a0581ced549451f31f7
I'm afraid you seem to misunderstand the term 'atheism'. Atheism is the absence of belief in God, not the belief that God does not exist; a very different thing. Only a very small minority of atheists will positively assert that God does not exist, and this can be described as 'belief' as there is no positive proof.
Your example that if there is a house there must be a builder is not a very good one. We frequently see houses being built and we see people building them, so it is reasonable to suppose that if there is a house then there must be a builder. The same inference does not apply to the creation of the Universe.
Isaiah 40:22 states (New International version):
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
The Earth is described as a _circle_, and the description of the heavens as a 'canopy' spread out like a tent suggests the author believed the earth was a flat disk. The term 'sphere' is not used. 'Circle' has also been alternatively interpreted as 'vault' (New American Standard) or 'horizon' (Amplified Bible). Only 'The Message' translation uses the term 'round ball', which is certainly a modern interpolation. But probably the author was simply being poetic, not seriously making a scientific point.
Jeremiah 33:22 states (ibid):
I will make the descendants of David my servant
and the Levites who minister before me
as countless as the stars of the sky
and as measureless as the sand on the seashore.
The current estimate is that there are 7 x 10^22 stars within range of our telescopes, which is estimated to be about ten times larger than the number of sand grains in all the world's beaches and deserts (
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s910295.htm). The only reasonable interpretation is that the author was either ignorant of the actual number of stars and supposed them to only number in the several thousands, or was engaging in poetic hyperbole.
Job 38:19-20 (ibid):
What is the way to the abode of light?
And where does darkness reside?
Can you take them to their places?
Do you know the paths to their dwellings?
These verses refer to the _abode_ of light, and in this context 'light' and 'dark' are used metaphorically. To interpret these to mean that 'light moves' is an egregious misreading of the bible.
I omit analysis of the remaining quotes not because they are valid but because they are equally specious. Science is the formulation of theories encompassing bodies of evidence, and none of these verses contains anything resembling what we understand to be 'science'. Please, _please_, read your bible properly., and don't expose it to ridicule by putting forward such easily dismissed arguments.
============================================================================
http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=48e7fba8f8b4e8530c03
'Evolution' refers to the transformation of 'lifeforms' - to use the terminology of Star Trek! - in response to their environment. It should not be confused with 'abiogenesis', which is the question of how living things arose in the first place.
Concerning abiogenesis, while it is amusing to suggest that a rock just 'sprang to life one day', this is more of an example of a 'straw man' fallacy than an accurate description of the current state of scientific thinking about life origins! If you are interested in abiogenesis, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life.
The suggestion that without God there is no morality is also incorrect. In practice moral codes are usually arrived at by societal consensus, become formalized as religious doctrine, and finally reflected in common or written law. The moral codes themselves are a kind of societal compact that people agree to in order to facilitate civilized interaction, which all thinking people will realize is to everyone's mutual advantage. It is obvious that 'thou shalt not kill' is a vary practical and useful moral code; and it is also obvious that hitting your assistant over the head at regular intervals is not going to result in good intra-lab relations.
I don't think you'll find many atheists/evolutionists/unbelievers advocating moral relativism, beyond environmental constraints. For example, the 'golden rule', 'do unto others as you would have others do unto you' is universal in every culture, and for very sound, sensible reasons that have nothing to do with religious doctrine; and we can expect the golden rule to also hold amongst every sentient culture Captain Kirk and his intrepid crew might find anywhere in the Galaxy, regardless of their peculiar beliefs. This is about as morally absolute as you can get. An example of a rule that might change from place to place or time to time is the death penalty. In a primitive society in which can't afford to carry the burden of extreme criminal behavior, the death penalty might be considered moral, even if such behavior arises from economic desperation or psychological dysfunction. In a more advanced and wealthy society however, the death penalty might be considered immoral. Likewise, while in an Eskimo or Bushman society is might be considered moral to leave Grandma behind when she gets too old and slow, in modern society it is not. There is a danger in insisting that these kinds of rules must be 'absolute', as it may result in unnecessary suffering when environmental constraints that compelled it are removed.
Funny video, but perhaps not for the reasons the authors intended!
=============================================================
http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=1d57313ac48047f90b14
I think it is a bit unfair of Father Morris to imply that Pullman is some kind of malevolent force that has been 'pushing on kids for some time', and 'putting it [atheism] over to eleven year old kids'. I enjoyed both CS Lewis' Narina series, and Phillip Pullman's Golden Compass series; although I did think CS Lewis' books came out more pagan than Christian. And if CS Lewis is going to advocate Christianity - very ably I might say - in a book called 'Mere Christianity', why shouldn't Pullman put out a DVD entitled 'Why atheism?' Nobody's going to label CS Lewis a 'militant' Christian for writing a 'Mere Christianity', so why label Pullman a 'militant atheist'? Come on, Father Morrison, be consistent.
================================================================
http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=d26fef6b83b01a0e5af3&page=1&viewtype=&category=mr
I'm not sure what the object of this sermon was. Basically you spend ten minutes saying 'the only way to heaven is through Jesus'. Well, ok. A bit unfortunate that you also emphasis good works are not required; it would seem to suggest that once you've accepted Jesus, then hey, you get a free pass no matter what you do. It's not a sermon designed to turn Christians into nice people.
================================================================
http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=ed749f2894e6427e6869
The implication of truly believing in hell is that it places a responsibility on you to do anything you can to save someone from ending up in hell. Hell is a place of eternal torment, so logically anything, _anything_ is justified in preventing someone from going to hell. This is the logic used by the Spanish inquisition to justify torturing the accused to death in an attempt to extort a confession. So I don't understand why the interviewee in this video says "I respect people who take their belief seriously"; I would first look to the consequences of that belief before deciding whether to respect it or not.
A second consequence of a naive belief in hell is that it implements what is termed a 'diabolical lie' mechanism. Technically, it runs like this: "You'll go to hell if you don't believe XYZ. If anyone tries to pursuade you not to believe in XYZ, then they are an agent of the devil come to lead to hell. Don't listen!" Consequently, once you pursuade someone to believe in hell even briefly, they fall into a logical trap and continue to believe regardless of the objective truth of XYZ. I would also have trouble respecting someone whose belief is anchored by a diabolical lie, no mater how fervently they believed it.
================================
http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=65dbc3c673ab376adf59
Ben Stein makes an extraordinary claim here. He says Darwinian theory leads to 'social Darwinism' and racial superiority, and cites the Germans - presumably he meant the Nazis - as an example. I would love to know how he arrived at this conclusion. Hitler laid out his thoughts pretty comprehensively in Mein Kampf, and nowhere does he give the slightest hint that he knew anything at all about Darwin. All the evidence is that Hitler's anti-semitism was a product of historical prejudices and Hitler's own twisted hatred. I hope his documentary will explain the claim that there would be "no holocaust without Darwinism". Mr. Stein's round condemnation of 'social Darwinism' is doubly ironic considering his own relgion proclaims him to be a member of a 'chosen race', who according to the Bible regularly practiced genocide against those who did not share their faith - and long before Darwin appeared on the scene.
Stein also seems to be totally confused about the scope of Darwinian theory. He says it is not very useful because it explains 'so little', because it doesn't explain "life, gravity, thermodynamics, and laws of motion". Darwin's theory of natural selection is merely that living things are preferentially selected by their environment depending on their fitness. That's it. Those other things are covered by abiogenesis, general relativity, thermodynamics, and kinematics. It's a bit like saying Genesis is useless because it doesn't contain Corinthians, Kings, Matthew and Paul.
Stein says "No one observed evolution...", but he adds "...of a mamalian species". I'm guessing he added that last bit as today there are countless examples of speciation actually observed in real time, in the laboratory, in everything ranging from bacteria to plants to insects (see for example
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html). The reason no-one has observed mamalian evolution in the lab is simply because their life cycle is so long that any researcher would die of old age before completing the experiment. But man did domesticate a wolf variant and created hundreds of dog varieties by selective breeding, and today something like a chiwawa and a great dane could never mate under natural circumstances, and so are set on divergent evolutionary paths.
Stein's statement that scientists don't like the idea of an intelligent designer because "then they would be held morally responsible" [by God] is a non sequitur. Maybe there _is_ an intelligent designer; but it does not follow that the intelligent designer is God, it could just as easilly be a smart space-alien. Maybe the space-aliens were the ones designed by God, who knows? And if there was not an intelligent designer, it does not follow that we should be any less morally responsible to our fellow creatures. I'm nice to my neighbour so that we can live nicely together, not because maybe I was designed by somebody. Sorry, it just doesn't compute.
Mr. Stein concludes with the plea: "Give us free speech". I suspect, but don't honestly know, that Stein doesn't understand how science works. You are supposed to look at evidence, formulate hypotheses, and test hypotheses; this is a continuous process that gradually and iteratively builds up a body of cohesive evidence that is eventually dignified with the label 'theory'. To my knowledge, there is as yet no 'theory of intelligent design'. There is an hypothesis, that there is an intelligent designer, good; Michael Behe offered the idea of irreducible complexity as a possible means of proving the existence of an intelligent designer, good; but this just hasn't stood up to serious examination. Intelligent designers just haven't been writing papers and presenting at conferences and undergoing all the usual processes of scientific enquiry; and that's why academic institutions are likely to look askance and a sub-community that insists it is in posession of the Truth without offering sound, reasoned arguments that stand up to scruitiny. So sorry Mr. Stein, you've got free speech and you always had it, but you must deliver the goods or stop trying to pretend you are doing science.
But I'm sure Mr. Stein's documentary is going to be very interesting, and it might make a nice counterpoint to Randy Olson's "Flock of Dodos" (of which an amusing clip can be found at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hoy6YEjpFN4).
==================================
http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=ee73e63418003b47d7d5
I was very disappointed by this video; in essence, the argument is "Its coherence in explaining the questions of origin, meaning, morality and destiny is what proves Christiantity to be the true religion." However, Ravi Zacharias merely makes this assertion without providing reasons as to _why_ Christianity is more coherent than any other religion in explaining these questions. Maybe the mere assertion is good enough if you already believe it, but let's hear a decent argument that could be used against a skeptic, Mr. Zacharias.
=====================================================
http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=7f6b767270562b895bc6
This video is a chilling example of what happens when ideology trumps compassion. Wesly Smith means well but the consequence of his stance is unbearable suffering and torment for unfortunate victims of chance.
The Groningen protocol mentioned was designed to specify under what circumstances a newborn may be euthenased. The purpose is to end suffering in hopeless cases, and the _only_ consideration is the welfare of the patient. Here are the main requirements of the Groningen protocol:
* The diagnosis and prognosis must be certain
* Hopeless and unbearable suffering must be present
The remaining requirements have to do with independent verification and consent. A brief description of the protocol may be found at
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/352/10/959.
From about 1998 to 2005, 22 infants were euthenased uner the protocol out of 1.4M born. All of them were born with a condition called spina bifida, basically a condition in which a portion of the spinal cord is outside the body. Some infants can be rescued by means of an operation, although they live a very degraded life. Others however are so severe that although modern medical technology could keep them alive, they would live a nightmarish existance of pain and helpnessness.
Mr. Smith's position is that it is better to keep stretch these infant's lives out as long as possible, because to kill prematurely would be 'immoral'. My understanding is that ethics seeks to minimise harm and suffering. Mr. Smith calls the option of euthenasia 'killing babies'. I call the option of no euthenasia 'torture'. Pretend you are the parent of such and child. You decide.
