Smart | Igniter Media | Church Video
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 авг 2024
- Downloads are available at www.ignitermedi....
Since the beginning of time, man has thought he was smart enough to know everything about this world. Whether it was the shape of the earth or how computers would affect our lives, man always develops a theory. We just seem to be consistently wrong.
Well done! God bless you!
@brownc01 I have read that quote and I completely agree with it, the only knowledge I have is the one God's grace allows me to have.
Awesome!!!
You are truly a genius
I think this film is interesting and original.
Einstein's teacher described him as slow and a drifter. You can't just guess how smart someone is, and spelling is about memory it has nothing to do with being smart.
so true...
Excellent Vid!!!
That's incredible, very creative
Melymbrosia is either equivocating, or mistaken. "In 1600 there was no official Catholic position on the Copernican system, and it was certainly not a heresy. When Bruno was burned at the stake as a heretic, it had nothing to do with his writings in support of Copernican cosmology." - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Copernicus' works had been in publication for over 70 years before resticted by Rome (of which I am no defender). The truth is an elusive creature, especially one prefers a lie.
@SeriphArcher What I meant was that, in the worldview of one who embraces metaphysical naturalism, human beings are no more than relatively advanced primates. Human life might be the base denominator which we all share, but the life has no intrinsic worth or value. Each human (being is not even the right word here) is no more than an aggregate of organic material; and life is cheap.
@SeriphArcher I know, normally an argument from authority. But if we're talking about defining a particular vein of philosophical thought it seemed appropriate.
@SeriphArcher Sorry I can't remember the source document, and thus the names, circumstances of the deaths. All I remember is that it was a blog related to the Galileo issue.
@SeriphArcher There were many scientific objections to Galileo's heliocentricity, which had been a credible theory as far back as the time of the Stoics. Although many of these were based upon the idea of geocentricity, as was the opposition from the Church itself, some of those objections have been sustained as valid today. I'm not saying that the Church, which I think favoured geocentricity was right, merely pointing out the irony in the fact that Galileo was wrong all along.
cool
@SeriphArcher In any case, that sounds akin to Loki's wager.
@SeriphArcher You have a morbid sense of humour if you entropic heat death amusing. I'm not a physicist and so defer to your evidently superior prescience regarding the ultimate fate of the Universe; but, anything I have ever read on the subject (albeit that this point is almost entirely superfluous to the argument I was making); holds out that the theory of entopic heat death is consistent with any of the three projected spatial models of the Universe, and remains entirely valid.
@SeriphArcher Depends what you mean by proof, there is very little that we can prove absolutely, look at the Descartes criticism of sensory perception for example. With Plantinga, I would agree that God's existence can be proved, in some sense at least; and argue that if any of the arguments for His existence follow that existence is made epistemologically more probable than not. Although atheism, offering, as it does, no arguments for God's non-existence, faces a very different challenge.
@SeriphArcher I'm not trying to debate "naturalism and theism", merely to pin down our relative worldviews (something the postmodernist makes very difficult) and consider their merits. I'm aware that a pantheist, for example, might also be a metaphysical naturalist; but it seems to me axiomatic that there is no logical basis for supernaturalism on an atheist worldview. You, and certain strains of Eastern philosophical thought may disagree but I don't see that that disagreement can be sustained.
I really liked "Star Trek The Wrath of the Lamb". Do a search for it without the quotes. I think you'll like it too. You'll never watch Star Trek and see it the same way again. ... Do a RUclips search for "Star Trek The Wrath of the Lamb" without the quotes.
No, anyone with a background in history would easily rebut the illusion you try to present of having a background in history.
@QuisSeperabit60 indeed and good point - the technical definition of the fallacy does not quite apply. It came to mind and I used it because the video is literally appealing to ignorance, the message being: we are ignorant, so here, have religion! Perhaps the more appropriate term would be the "Non Sequitur" or "does not follow". No need to resort to strawmen when addressing something this insipid.
@kirke27 Ok, granted I am drawing on a degree of inference to get to that conclusion - and I can concede that questioning convictions is a good thing, as it skeptical inquiry is the bedrock of scientific progress. All that holds, right up until the end. Why add the reference to scripture then, if not to create a counterpoint? The implication may be deliberately obtuse (like the writing style of most of the commenters here lately), but it is there.
@SeriphArcher Per metaphysical naturalism, there is no rational basis for objective moral values and duties, and hence morality has no truth value and cannot be treated as binding. On atheism, morality is simply a reflection of cultural norms such as fashion, there is no objective moral lawgiver, no overarching enforcement of moral precepts, and no basis for making judgments about some other agent's conduct.
@SeriphArcher I'm not sure what exactly a "tenant in atheism" is, but in terms of the naturalistic worldview, there is no rational basis for the argument that a tenet of naturalism is that human life is of equal worth. Particularly given that ethical judgements, or statements of value, are invariably subjective and mind-specific under any secular ethical system, deontological or no.
@SeriphArcher The communist regime imposed in Soviet Russia shared characteristics with the communist regimes imposed in almost every other country around the world.If you'd read the comment properly, you'd have realised that I wasn't even attempting to equivocate communism with atheism (although atheism is a necessary aspect of communism as propogated by Marx and practiced in every single communist regime ever to exist) I was merely interested to hear you concede that Stalinism was a religion
What software did y'all use to edit this video?
@SeriphArcher From anything I've read Galileo was called to Rome not because he presented credible scientific arguments, of which the Vatican was already aware; but rather because the advocate of geocentricity in his book was called simplicio (simpleton), and the suspected ridicule put Galileo out of favour with the Pope, who had hitherto actually been one of his supporters.
But, like I said, I'm not supporter of the "Church" and as this debate is becoming academic this will be my last reply.
I wish the horse was to stay, I like horses.
I counted at least ten errors, in what you just stated.
@soopahsoopah An appeal to ignorance is a logical fallacy whereby a premise is held forth as true because it has not been proved wrong. This video is simply pointing out the finite nature of the human capacity for absolute knowledge... even were one to draw any further inferences from that, your characterisation would still be invalid.
The strawman - a hallmark of anti-Christian argumentation... why am I not surpised.
Who is that guy?
Actually, you are both mistaken. To quote the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "in 1600 there was no official Catholic position on the Copernican system, and it was certainly not a heresy. When Bruno was burned at the stake as a heretic, it had nothing to do with his writings in support of Copernican cosmology." Copernicus' works had been in publication for over 70 years before resticted by Rome (of which I am no defender). The truth is an elusive creature, especially one prefers a lie.
@soopahsoopah I disagree with your interpretation. Subjective projections only tenuously linked to the original source will always be flawed, but if one were to derive any such interpretation from the video it might be that we should re-examine, or at least be ready to question, the argumentum ad populum for the neo-darwinian paradigm in light of the fact that even a consensus within the scientific community has been, and has the potential to be, mistaken re: their deeply held convictions.
"But they are scared and love the darkness and their sinful lives. "
This is pure dogma. A demonization of the other, typical in every cult.
@SeriphArcher I don't see that there is any problem inherent in the contradiction. Relativism is entirely illogical. If there are no absolute truths, then you cannot believe anything absolutely at all, including that there are no absolute truths. Therefore, nothing could be really true for you - including relativism
@SeriphArcher "The rational basis is that atheism rejects ideaology that constrains us in narratives by force". It might be a language problem but that makes little to no sense. Atheism sustains no common ethical position, but metaphysical naturalism is the logical concomitant of atheism. Postmodernism is self-defeating; if the postmodernist wishes to reject the claim that there is no such thing as objective truth, they necessarily make an objectively true statement in so doing.
@soopahsoopah But again, such intentions might not even have been in the mind of the video's creator at all, and as far as I can see, the video produces no point of contention. Other videos by ignitermedia, such as the marshmallow test, seem to work on similar lines.
Um, actually, people knew in the middle ages that the world was spherical. It was reported even then that only idiots thought it was flat.
@SeriphArcher @SeriphArcher You are now discussing narratives in postmodern thought, originally you were discussing narrative in atheism. To equivocate atheism and post-modernism I would see as a mistake.
Possibly, we're getting into semantics, and disagreement is probably inevitable, but let me set out my position - to my mind facts are true statements, all truth is objective, but not all truths are facts. Belief and truth can also be synonymous.
@SeriphArcher I'd agree that there are many differences, but atheism is one of the hallmarks of any of the Marxist/Communist regimes imposed anywhere around the world in the last century, incidentally the bloodiest in Earth's history.
If you're referring to the Church in Acts, the system of wealth-sharing there imposed was voluntary, and based on Christian charity. It bore little resemblance to the philosophy of Marx.
god gave u a brain for reason lol
Why has this topic turned and become about religion? It's just a cleaver commercial about perspective. Don't have to argue about it, Just think about it. Everyone has different views and arguing will not change anyone's opinion, it will just waste your time.
That's the athiest argument ever
and to this damn video u cant just judge humanity intelligence base off few people mistakes this is clearly not a good video and i fear that it will warp people minds that cant think for themselves
"Since the beginning of time, man has thought he was smart enough to know everything about this world."
Except "science" isn't called "omniscience" for that very reason. It's in the meaning of the words. By defintion science admits there's always more to learn. Otherwise it'd just stop.
Also, man hasn't existed since the begining of time. Paleontology demonstraits that.
I'm starting to immediatly get the impression this video is going to be utterly misinformed crap.
Yep.
Great video! Stupid message.