always fascinated by the idea that "a balanced discussion" means "treating all arguments as equally plausible regardless of evidence" and not, ykno, "treating all pieces of evidence with the same level of scrutiny."
That works for weeding out stupid shit like this. But when it comes to higher order issues of what policies are preferable in any given society or how much freedom or restrictions there should be, people tend to get all self righteous and delusional with selectively nit picking data to suit their naive moralist fantasies or short sighted sentiments now that's an entirely different factor that's obscured by your "evidence" argument. Two sides can arrive at entirely separate conclusions from the same piece of evidence. An example would the self promotion of communist ideologues and its consequences on economic planning or free market fundamentalists and the retreat of the state where they argued that problems of the day could've been solved by abolishing private property on one end and abolishing state in the other. Ofcourse details and evidence are only useful if the people compiling that data have the cognitive deference to process it. Most people on the far right and far left are woefully ill equipped for that task. It's easy to grandstand on already resolved issues that are propped up by social idiocy which is what this guy does. The channel listings kind of gave away his ideological leanings.
I had a college professor who insisted we only learn from a "book" she wrote. The problem was, she couldn't publish it because, as she said "the morons in the publishing office want to fuck me over, so I'm not doing it". Her solution was to just give us free printouts of the relevant chapters every lesson. Cool. When I read those chapters, I realized she was actually quoting herself, from the same book! Like literally, in the text she would make a statement, and as a source put THAT book. The one we are reading. For example, in chapter 5 she puts a source saying (her name), (title of the book), chapter 2. It was also the least crazy thing she did during those 2 semesters.
@@dylanbednarz4430 She dressed like Jovanka Broz in her glory days (google her if you don't know who that is) complete with holding an hour long class in a giant fur coat and sunglasses - keep in mind, this was in 2014. She always took cabs everywhere because "I insist to be driven around like a lady" (her words). She was once an hour late to an exam. There was a rumor she somehow blackmailed the school to give her the position and basically make up a subject for her. It was an art school and she taught a completely unrelated law subject that was mandatory for all first years. Also a rumor, but she was supposedly the highest paid profesor at the school. That is all I can remember of the top of my head, but I'm sure there was more that I forgot. But the self quoting will be with me for the rest of my days.
I've always wondered if these charlatans have quiet moments of panic? We all have them, surely. Those moments where you're lying awake and worried about the future. Do they ever pause and go "WHAT AM I DOING?!"
Maybe, but these people are too far gone to change their ways. Even if they wanted to, they receive so much funding from oil companies that they would lose their luxurious livelihoods if they turned against their masters. Grifters are gonna grift.
if you are convinced your cause is categorically, objectively righteous then anything you do becomes justifiable. With that framing, even if what you're doing is harmful, it still isn't wrong. Only bad guys do bad things, and you're one of the good guys.
I'm going to guess not. If you're a grifter, you're already accustomed to victimizing people for money. Grifters are most likely sufficiently packed with dark traits that they do not give a shit.
Seriously, every time some edgy Redditor comes along and says "Flat earthers and geocentrists are not real, its all just trolling, and you only hate them because you want to feel superior to someone" I want to do Ludovico Treatment with Dans videos.
I love this recent strategy of being so wildly wrong that it’s hard to be proven wrong at all. Like where do you even start a discussion with a person who thinks the very concept of science is inherently corrupted against their point of view.
@@shyanjones2916 no, 9mm isn't powerful enough to be considered an "accurate" cartridge. You would need at least a .308 IMO to have the long-range accuracy required to be called "accurate". Also "9mm is weak! Get a .45! Why are you calling me a Fudd?"
The amusing part is that it is easy to refute such claims since for every such claim there is testable option to see if it is true or wrong. Literally every claim in that ridiculous "movie" is observable and testable wrong. The only issue is that you have to sit down and do the edperkekbta. This is what the whole thing is. People are betting that the viewers don't have enough time to test their claims and will accept them at face value. On top of that the easiest way to refute is to ask to see what are their discoveries in modern sicence and why modern science works if they are correct? Either they unravel or they start to try to come up with explanations and all of them contradict each other.
@@elfpi55-bigB0O85 no, actually. Nihilism talks about finding a point and being a person, an individual bc of internal push, not external such as religion or bc other said so. This is such a misrepresentation of a really interesting and complex philosophy and it is ironic to be mentioned in the context of religious hacks when Nietzsche was so against organized religion and not a fan or the church....
It took me 5 minutes to realise that the entire intro in which he’s being interviewed, was actually him interviewing himself, just like the director of the movie did.
I think the funniest thing about that guy’s hang up with being told “dude, that’s your reality” is that whoever said that obviously didn’t literally mean he was living in a different universe or something like he clearly has interpreted. I mean, I can clearly imagine this interaction. You meet some crazy guy who thinks the earth is the center of the universe, and realize arguing is pointless so u just leave it. “Dude, That’s your reality” was clearly just said the same way one might say “let’s agree to disagree” or “I’m not going to argue with you about this”
I've noticed this too with (real) conspiracy theory fans. They seem to be really bad at understanding metaphor and allegory. Everything is literal to them. Either it's literal truth, or someone pretending that it's literal truth - aka a lie, or a big lie, which is a conspiracy. They don't seem capable of understanding the concept of symbolism.
The proper response to someone who's divorced themselves from critical thinking is "You're a fucking idiot, you have no idea what you're talking about, and I'm done listening to your bullshit". If someone is unable to leave their bubble, and no amount of factual counterargument will reach them, there's zero reason to be polite
The way he says it the same way and emphasizes that the person said "Dude" makes me think he got in an argument with his son or something and he can't let it go
@@dylanchouinard6141 Was Caenaus' transition consensual? Sounds to me like Neptune forced a transition on someone suffering from PTSD in a misguided attempt to protect them from further abuse in a deeply patriarchal world. But then again, the Greek pantheon lacked the benefit of post-Freudian psychology :P
@@mirmalchik That is very accurate to the original myth. But the fun thing about myths is that they aren’t static, they are built to change, usually when the person telling it changes. So, while the original is very much what you said, I can totally see a trans man finding a character he can relate to and modifying his retelling to be Poseidon used his divine power to affirm his lovers gender identity.
It’s common knowledge that the universe is centered around azathoth, the blind idiot eldritch god that dreams this all up. He must be kept asleep, for if he ever wakes up the universe ends.
@@Ashlynsohvik 8:12 "I checked the film thousands and thousands and thousands of time and there's just nothing about the geos in the film..." That's what the captions say that he says, but I'm still not convinced. For one thing "the geos" isn't something that's commonly said and doesn't sound like geocentrism. "The Jews" makes more grammatical sense. It also fits because, like Dan covers later on, he's a huge anti-semite. I think somehow his anti-Semitism was brought up and that quote is him trying to address that.
17:25 After another rewatch of this video, it only just really hit me how funny this claim is. "The highest grossing-" Wow! "-single screen opening-" Hm. "-in America-" okay. "-that weekend." Did, like, six people come to see it?
The notion that Holy Terra is the center of the universe is damnable heresy against The Imperial Truth! We must burn them for the glory of Our God-Emperor!
Sounds like somebody who knows what he was actually charged with (mocking the Pope) that he confessed and apologized for immediately. Then he went on his way publishing new versions of his pamphlet without the mocking and that was that. Yeah, he never got in trouble for heliocentric reasons.
@@KingZolem Broke: Galileo got in trouble for heliocentrism Woke: Galileo's charges dealt with the pope, not astronomy Bespoke: The pope should be mocked, and Galileo was right to do so.
@@khill8645 it wasn't even the mockery that got him in trouble, though it was the climax of the affair; Galileo got in trouble for essentially practising sola scriptura at a time where protestant and catholic states were at war. He could have completely avoided this pointless ordeal with the church like other heliocentric proponents (including Copernicus himself); heliocentrism had nothing to do with his condemnation.
nutjob documentaries be like: 2 minute clip: *well-explained overview of the concept of thrust, simply illustrated in layman's terms, consistent with established science and practice* - John Smith, astrophysics Phd 10 second clip: "COULD THAT BE HOW ANCIENT CIVILIZATIONS VISITED MARS?" - William Wackadoo, author of 'The Stars Know Your Name' *Cool CGI clip showing a giant hand reaching from the surface of a gas giant*
Take a drink every time the voice over says: "ancient astronaut theorists argue/believe/contend/claim/posit/suggest" & then the completely batshit thing they claim is treated as literally true with zero scrutiny
@@gemcorker3982“Ancient astronaut theorists argue that beings from Mars came through a pyramidal spaceship and taught the ancient Egyptians how to stack stones to appear as their spaceship. In these ancient carvings, you have what appears to be a light bulb, which was brought to them by the Martians who came in the pyramidal spaceship and massacred the entire population of Atlantis and poisoned the wells of Carthage.” -Jimmy Crazyhair, PhD in Nutjobbery from Cheap Degrees University Ltd.
And it does not really matter which side you are talking to, either, normal people or ... * sad sigh * an Austrian word for it is "Ewiggestrige" - people who will forever belong to yesterday.
The "That's your reality" talking point exposes how many people have just tried to awkwardly shut down conversations with this man and it is *embarrassing* watching him assume that this is a universally relatable experience.
Yeah at a certain point a person's position becomes so insane that really the only response is, "Well you clearly live in an entirely different reality than I do, so I hope that works out for you."
The only person who ever said "That's your reality" to me was when I showed my ultra conservative mom the part of the bible where god orders for mass child murder. If that's a thing you toss around or other people toss around at you, you're probably totally unhinged.
broke: trying to understand the hierarchy of the planets in their celestial spheres woke: trying to understand the sexualities and horniness of the planets
@@hisnibs1121 I believe it's THEY, because it must be an acronym so genius we couldn't possibly decipher it!😆 Even "gematria" can't come to a conclusion!😂 Gravity is listed as one of the 4 natural forces because it's the only way we can observe it to behave, not because we know for sure it actually is one. With quantum theory we are finding that the other three: electromagnetism, the strong and week nuclear forces are not forces in and of themselves but that they are all related on a whole other level, and results of physics we do not yet completely understand, and why they are looking for a quantum component to gravity. The real truth is the word Force is all about behavior to begin with, and not some objective thing we can separate from everything else. I'm so glad science doesn't make bold claims of knowledge, because it's not a bug, it's a feature, and one of it's best!
@@Bob-of-Zoid you mean like during the coof when not a single scientist made bold claims of knowledge about a certain virus or a certain jab? remember "trust the science"? remember when mentioning the wuhan lab and the virus appearing to be altered got you banned from social media, fired from your tenure and ridiculed as a conspiracy theorist by so called "experts" ?
It's surreal watching a guy ask the most convoluted and confusing interview question ever and then proceed to say "As you can see, we were very forthcoming" hsuashuassuhsuah
I love how among Sungenis' listed "worst sins" he does not list murder, rape, genocide, any type of violence, lying, or most of the Ten Commandments, but he does list homosexuality and divorce. So, would it be better to him if people just killed their partners instead of giving them a chance at finding happiness with someone else?
Is there a point to the part about the planets’ and moons’ genders and sexual orientations? Like, I thought it was funny, but am I missing something? Is it just all made up for fun?
@@NameAvailable I think it's just to illustrate how ridiculous the geocentrists and astrologists and shit are about how they spew bs but with convictions so it sounds authoritative and correct?
you are infact the center of the universe you can observe! this isn't to say that anything revolves around you, but as far as your observation goes, the distance you can see is the same in every direction. except for within yourself if you actually believe in geocentrism.
I tried, but I can't imagine a situation (besides the aforementioned one and at a lobster restaurant) where a lobster-patterned shirt wouldn't feel tacky. Well done!
@@workinprogress008 That sounds so plausible I wish I'd thought of it myself. Although in my defence most of what JP says is so blandly forgettable that sometimes some nonsense slips through and fails to register.
40:30 "And he was inspired by god to do so. And inspired means it is inerrant and tells us the exact truth of what went on." No, that really is not at all what inspired means
Even if you go back before 2VC, the Catholic Church of 1950 was not the Catholic Church of 350. For one, the Catholic Church of 1950 accepted the French Republic as being a legitimate government despite not being ruled by a divinely ordained sovereign. We change, and our institutions change with us or are left behind, and our institutions change us in a neverending cycle that started as soon as the first conversation started.
In this case, yes, that's what inspiration means. According to adherents of Abrahamic religions, divine inspiration is an idea given directly by God to man. Therefore, since it is directly God's word, it is inerrant. Think Moses receiving the Stone Tablets atop Mount Sinai. It's a classic case of the meaning of a word as used in a phrase (i.e. inspiration) being deprecated. I don't blame you for being confused by it; I've been mistaken by that very same thing. It's common enough that it's got a specific linguistic name that I can't recall. I just figured I correct you here. There are trillions of things wrong with The Principle, but this isn't one of them.
@@YSN-WiIn a relative sense. We'll always be the center of OUR universe because all the cameras and recording devices lead back to one point, our planet. Of course the universe will seem centered on us. But that's just the nature of perspective. It doesn't mean we're at the exact physical center of the universe. There may not even be a strict center.
I mean as far as I understand it, geo-centrism isn't wrong per se. The models of the solar system before gallileo accurately model and chart the universe, geocentrism models are what we use to make planetariums to this vert day. The only real difference is that geo-centrism is from the perspective of the earth instead of an outside one, neither is wrong, although the outside model looks a lot prettier than the squiggly orbits demanded by geo-centrism.
Indeed! Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence... but evidence of guilt is evidence of guilt. There is plenty of evidence against geocentrism XD
@@ayyylmao101 absence of evidence can only lead to the conclusion that you shouldn't assume anything at all so scientifically speaking, it is evidence of absence
@@tictacterminator not really, absence of evidence is basically saying "really anything is possible", while evidence of absence is saying "bro this is flat out wrong no other way about it".
@@ayyylmao101 Regarding geocentrism, it depends on your beliefs about the nature of spacetime. From a general relativity perspective, the center is anywhere you want it to be as everything is just relative to that frame of reference. That is, a solar system where the Sun goes around the Earth and the planets go around the Sun is equally predictive of the observations as all planets going around the Sun. Although the latter is easier to visualize and calculate as the planetary movements follow more complex patterns than an elliptical orbit from the perspective of the Earth.
@@tictacterminator In this context they’re saying, “we don’t have a 100% answer on this specific topic, so despite all of the other evidence we conclude that the we are right”. The absence of specific evidence doesn’t mean that the opposite of all other evidence is now true, it means that it is up in the air until the evidence is proven. The absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence, like others have said. Big big difference.
Eugenics works though; we simply are uncomfortable with that fact, for a variety of reasons, not the least which is a certain guy with a funny mustache.
The funniest part about these geocentrists is their irrational belief that the earth needs to literally be the center of the universe to be cosmologically important. Like, the fact that the earth is even able to support life and have water across its entire surface is incredibly special on its own. But, it's not the most importantest it could be to these people, they need to be the mostest importantest beings ever, or its not enough. They're not really geocentrists, they're egocentrics. They literally need the world to revolve around them.
They value being literally unique and special instead of caring about what the earth (the catholic church, and therefore themselves) means to other people. It's a form of entitlement trying to justify their ability to oppress others through the language of science. very facist tbh
Dont use fascist into a catch all term. Reckless people like you have made it so normies are desensitized to the word. Ignore me if you want, but the Johns, Devantes, Edgars, and Ngyuens of the world will just start responding with "Guess Im a fascist".
@@shamefuldisplay9692 "Don't use words to describe an ideological belief or I'll start believing the ideology" Conspiratorial thinking is a direct rejection of reality I doubt not calling them fasch-y is gonna get them to change their minds.
@@CitBox Wow. Just wow. It means people will think you sound like an idiot using words you dont understand. When they say "guess Im a fascist" thats *sarcasm*, because they no longer take you seriously. Because Fascism is a system of governance and you apply it to anything you deem bad. People like you hurt the cause.
@@shamefuldisplay9692I see. So we should call them socially democratic scientists so they will just change their minds? No, I think we can rather call an ideology what it is. The antisemitism and desire to take power unjustifiably through lies which is common in their conspiracies didn't occur in a vacuum, but if you think it did, go off.
It's kinda interesting how completely the whole thing circles back to what they said in the trailer: they are desperate for the universe itself to place them on a pedestal of cosmic significance, and they need the earth to be the center of the universe because it's what they use as proof they matter. As opposed to, like, people being wonderful and fascinating things which we treasure for what they are.
Even within a Christian worldview, it seems profoundly sad. We're told that God loves us, regardless of our faults and failures, and created each of us individually and with purpose. You would think that would be enough to reassure a believer that they, personally, matter. Unless, of course, you're secretly a bigot that feels profoundly dissatisfied with the idea that God doesn't just love you, He also loves all the "sinners" and "lessers" that surround you. That you are special in much the same way as everyone else, and should treat them with a corresponding level of kindness and respect. And you can't have that, now can you? How can you be special if everyone else - including the Jews, homosexuals, etc. - also are?
Well they can't believe that can they? Like they said, they believe deep down all people are sinful, so if we live on a random planet in a random corner of the universe, we have no value in their eyes.
@@Bluecho4 It's interesting to me (as an atheist and naturalist), that a world view that accepts the universe as largely being as described by current science and also believes in a god like the Abrahamic God, it would actually exemplify the love of that god if they loved each individual of such a seemingly small species on just yet another planet. That god may love everything yet still personally love each thing on its own merits, and none are insignificant to this god. There are still issues of the "If God is omnipotent and benevolent, then where does evil come from?" sort, but I think my antitheist streak would hardly exist if the religious consistently went down that sort of road.
@@perchy22 Their obsession with irrelevant (from a religious point of view) cosmological concerns does seem to me to arise from a weakness of faith. Speaking from a Christian point of view, Earth is the "center" because we should be centered on God, which also means, on our neighbors, who live here on Earth. Physical investigations into the nature and movements of the celestial bodies is the proper domain of (for real peer-accredited) scientists, who naturally should operate autonomously (within reason--I could have done without thermonuclear weapons, thank you very much, though I guess that's not really _their_ fault...) Attempts at controlling science is invariably bad for religion: fundamentalism, the worst modern pathology in religion, is a notable "boomerang effect" of such attempts.
Isn't this the same "documentary" that also tricked Kate Mulgrew into narrating because they thought getting a Star Trek Captain to do the voice would give it more weight, and she flat out says "they told me I was going to be narrating a Sci-Fi film".
That and geocentrism involves making assumptions that the earth is significant. Science is about having a hypothesis and testing it to find out if it holds. If it continues to hold then it becomes a theory, which could still be wrong. It's not about wanting something to be true. It's just discovering what is and what is not and being open to new discoveries that prove old theories incomplete or wrong.
What stuck out to me in that section was comparing String Theory to geocentrism. I'm a big PBS Spacetime guy (great space/physics YT channel) and I would say that while string theory is mathematically valid, it is controversial to people who understand it. A documentary presenting string theory as fact without additional evidence would be controversial, in the literal sense, that there is active disagreement on the issue. Side note: One of the ugly mugs talking mentioned that 'oh that's just your reality" or some such. Yeah that's how general relativity works, observer reference frame is really important at massive or near lightspeed scales. Its neat, stop being weird about it, 'Dr.' Wrongaboutthings
10:24 oh my- you just unlocked a repressed memory of my aunt having me and my siblings watch a "documentary" about how the water inside you body responds to positive thoughts. Then she made us all write happy thoughts on pieces of paper, laminated them, and made us carry them around touching our skin so the water in us could...sense it??? why did my mother allow this-?? For years I remember writing on my skin because someone in the documentary did it and I thought it'd help my depression?!?!? someone stop the planet I wanna get off
Your Aunt might be nuts, but placebo effect is particularly effective for mental and emotional problems. I'm sure she meant well, and if you believed it worked it probably would.
“...the forces that are arrayed against us...” Those insidious, horrifying, irrepressible forces... of logic, discernment, skepticism, first principles and scientific method.
"they are trying to suppress us!!!" after they aired their ridiculous movie... so... the strategy of Big them™ is to... *checks notes* give them enough rope to hang themselves and allow the movie to be published and shared, so everybody can see it and die laughing? Well... okay, that is clearly working? :) P.p. edited for stupid typos
“I am the protagonist of this reality. It is up to me and me only to fight this battle many so oblivious about.” He’s a conceited narcissistic attention-seeker that’s all.
“I don't accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view. My view is that the moon is made of rock. If someone says to me 'Well, you haven't been there, have you? You haven't seen it for yourself, so my view that it is made of Norwegian Beaver Cheese is equally valid' - then I can't even be bothered to argue." - Douglas Adams
What are these bots that I keep seeing. It's like, obvious they're bots based on their profile and images but this response seems like it could almost be a response to this comment.
@@elizabethlockhart2103 What about their profile and image is bot like? It's probably just a dude who doesn't use youtube much. Account was made many years ago which isn't bot like at all.
It's literally just attempting to give validity to appeals to ignorance. It's Hitchens' razor - any conclusion that can be freely asserted can be freely deserted.
I love how the documentary uses the word "revolution" to talk about the so-called comeback of the geocentric idea, when the word "revolution" was _created_ by Copernicus when he debunked this very same idea.
This tactic was adopted by large segments of the ultra right wing. 40 years ago, wrapping a right wing argument in the rhetoric of it's critics was something only a few ever tried. 30 some odd years ago, adoption of this tactic was a raging debate. Today, they spew it all over every forum they can find. For instance, white supremacists have taken the rhetoric of the black civil rights movement, and even the Jewish rhetoric. Thus we now constantly hear about "the white holocaust", and "white oppression". But when you sit down to listen to their argument, it's the same tired arguments against mixed race marriage and not being able to treat black people as they did before the civil war is somehow oppressing them. The media is full of examples of this tactic being used
When did "controversial" come to be a softener for things that are obviously bad or stupid? When did everyone need a seat at the table? "Science says that I need food and water to survive, but I think I can live solely off eating bars of soap. Science says it can disprove that, but I say all of this is controversial. Also, I am being silenced for thought crimes. Big food doesn't want you to know about soap!"
You say this as a joke, but there is a real group of people who call themselves “Breatharians” and claim you can live off air alone (at least eventually - they, of course, don’t all agree on how come to this result and yes, it’s cult(ish) and has scam/grifter components).
27:45 After rewatching this video again and again, I finally can translate this paragraph simply. "Turns out, Cancel Culture has always existed! If Christians became dominant again, like in Reagan's Era, then Cancel Culture will stop oppressing us (for being mean to gay people) and go back to oppressing them! (For being gay)" He literally says the quiet part loudly. Or at least writes it in plain text. He just utilizes the same tactic you show later, where he says so many words you lose track of what he means and so it seems more sensible.
Big science™ :) most of them tried to go into science and we're either bad at it or were kicked out for being bad at it.... or couldn't even enter the field. :)
Very few people think that they are some evil corp. Most people just rightly assume that these people are biased and, that the studies they present are often flawed methodologically. Their sample sizes are often poor. They assume correlation constantly even if other factors could account for it. Their control groups are laughable and, they often reach the wrong conclusions based on the data.
@@ekki1993 lol science isnt a monolith nor is it infallible. The way you people treat it is like a religion. They very well may study it but, I in no way exaggerated it. I stated very plainly what happens daily or, should I cite how those three scientists manipulate the system by introducing absolutely ridiculous studies that appealed to the political bias of these supposedly reputable scientific journals?
"Dude, that's your reality" dude, that's code for "i am being talked at by a crazy person and I don't want to disagree with them because they might make a scene"
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts. While the stupid ones are full of confidence." - Charles Bukowski's quote becomes more relevant every day.
@@zakpodo that last quote I just came up with, but I do love Russell, and paraphrasing him here is equally appropriate : "When in pursuit of the truth, never let yourself be diverted by what you wish to believe", i.e don't start with the conclusion you want and work backwards finding evidence to support it. Instead, use the scientific method, start with a theory and look for evidence to debunk it.
I fucking love that someone as well-spoken, thoughtful, succinct and analytically accurate as Dan, decides to finalize the end of the video with "They're a bunch of dumbasses" when he could've absolutely just said it at the beginning. He waited, bought time, explained how almost all of the arguments made were either scientifically or morally reprehensible, and then caps his explanation by calling them fucking morons. I don't know if it's about the dichotomy of the statements, or if it's just about the contrast itself, but fuck if it isn't genuinely hilarious.
He has no arguments against their arguments for geocentrism, all he does is cherry pic short clips, snd gives nothing burgers, and ultimately resorts to character assassination. This was very insightful.
"All positions in an argument should be treated equally." My brother in Christ, the other guy sniffs glue and is wearing an SS Uniform. He lost Frame 1.
@@acetraker1988 I love kool aid! thanks for the new beliefs :D pyramid earth with my country at the peak (back when it was good) and satan being framed by god is a psy-op by the flying spaghetti monster to keep himself hidden since he doesnt like all the noise from prayer
"He's 95% okay with the Vatican II" Me: "He's not okay with the Jews part is he" Edit: trust me, nothing important is happening in the answers to this comment. It started with joking mild antisemitism that the person regretted fairly quickly, and now there's someone who just mentioned pronouns and how ridiculous it is that people care about them. No one has mentioned pronouns. It's an obvious troll. Also, someone has been called a nazi? Seriously, we could lose this entire thread and nothing of value would be lost.
@@LucasDeziderio Yes. Everyone except Nazis. Also, of course I don't know anything about you or your intentions nor do I know if this was intentional or actually just a (bad) joke, but the rhetorical use of comedy to inoculate antisemitism from criticism is /extremely/ common among neo-nazis. They do this so they can portray their critics as irrational and therefore not worth listening to - regardless of the validity of their criticism. The youtuber "Shaun" has a video illustrating this with regard to the Charlottesville rally in 2018. I recommend giving it a watch. ruclips.net/video/zcoYKuoiUrY/видео.html
@@spencerlively3049 I wanted to say that you must be fun at parties, but I also don't want to lie... PS. just to be pedantic about it, not all anti-semites are nazis...
@@spencerlively3049 Hm, fuck. You're right. I am deeply sorry for that. It was a joke, but I didn't think about the implications. Fuck neo-nazis. All love to Shaun.
@@LucasDeziderio Yeah sorry about that, Jew jokes can get real salty because there's A TON of genuine nazis in comments. Just this week I found some guy that thought the protocols of zion are real
Then this ought to aggravate you: whether the sun is orbiting the earth or the earth is orbiting the sun is, with respect to physics, entirely a choice of convenience. Both coordinate system choices are equally valid, and each has different advantages for different tasks. For describing all the large bodies in the solar system, the sun as the origin of the coordinate system is much easier mathematically. For describing the heavenly bodies from a telescope, choosing the earth as the origin of the coordinate system is much easier. The truth is, THERE IS NO PREFERRED REFERENCE FRAME. All reference frames are valid. This is called the principle of relativity. It is among the most solid pieces of physics known to humanity. Where the cranks make a mistake, however, is assuming ONE PARTICULAR frame of reference is "truer" than any other (they assume the "Earth is the center" choice of coordinates is the "true" one). In reality, THERE IS no "true" coordinate system. There are only choices of convenience.
@@EliteTeamKiller2.0 The debate on weather or not the Earth is the center of the universe is one that has metaphysical consequences and is extremely important. It's not true, and yes, that matters.
@@GaryDunion How dare you stop watching after lesson 10? In lesson 10 we learned that the sun is not in fact the mum of planets, instead their babysitter, slowly needing more energy to keep up before eventually burning out! It was another planet who did the deed, giving sustenance to most planets, as well as earth, via long distance shatter relationship.... sadly for Earth it bore too much fruit and the father up until now has not yet been determined.
See, this is how you know these aren't the kinds of people you can just fix by "debating with sincerity" and "letting them be heard." The Pope, their GOD-EMPEROR ON HIS THRONE, told them: "Quit blaming Jews for everything," and that was THE FIRST TIME that a great many of them were like "Nah, I think I'll do my OWN research."
The pope is not my "God-Emperor". I don't know if that's just for dramatic effect or you're laboring under a misconception, but Catholics don't consider the Pope God or any part therein. That would be a violation of the Trinity. He's holy, sure, but not God. Also, he's not an emperor. The pope doesn't have total control and authority-but it's generally agreed that Papal Bulls are right and should be followed. It's not like they select a Pope out of a hat. The guy will know his Bible and his Jesus. Otherwise, yes, these guys are -loons- completely rational and I agree with your point that the timing is -suspicious- completely coincidental. On the note of the Jews thing-that was just a formalization. The Catholic Church had done away with the idea of Jewish Deicide for a while by then. In fact, during WWII, the Vatican safely housed many Jewish refugees despite being smack-dab in the center of Fascist Italy (or as I like to call it, Hitler's Southern Front). That's because the Vatican authorities knew the Axis wouldn't want to risk having the world's Catholic community mobilized against them just for a small percentage of those they could murder elsewhere.
Dan Olson confidently listing the sexualities of the planets is identical energy to Mike's Mic categorising things as Wednesday. Both of them are incredibly accurate
This is a movie about people complaining there is a conspiracy out there suppressing their ideas, while, if they themselves were in power, they would *fiercefully* suppress all opposing thoughts.
There are a lot of ideas and just factual information that actually ARE suppressed by a conspiracy of media and financial ✡️ interests. Flat Earthers and their variants are not being suppressed because you hear so much about it, even if it's just to make fun of it because it's obviously stupid.
**watches entire video with great interest, gaining a greater understanding of rhetorical tactics** **jumps for joy to find out Uranus is Ace as fuck**
That’s why it’s almost impossible to convict rapists in Pakistan (except in gang rape cases where the perpetrators testify against each other): there must be at least 4 adult male witnesses to the crime, and the woman’s accusation of her attacker/s is not admissible evidence. If those 4 witnesses cannot be found the woman will usually be imprisoned for the crime of zina, extramarital sex.
@@alisaurus4224 sooo... any/all potential witnesses are in fact those who made themselves complicit by their lack of action to prevent the assault. and you need FOUR?! that's... scarily fucked up.
@@silvermagpie1071 "Why did you burn down that orphanage" is what's known as a "complex question" -- a question that presumes a (possibly false) premise. Tbere is nothing wrong with non-complex questions.
@@TheWrathAbove I understand them to be synonyms meaning questions whose meaningful asking (or answering) presupposes states of affairs that may be in dispute. (It is hard to ask a question that fails to presuppose something or other, but typically they would not be deemed complex if the presuppositions were shared presuppositions.) Does this help? (I may have over-answered you.)
@@moddydhu2939 No... I just looked up his list of sexual encounters and found that they are predominantly (or even exclusively? Hard to tell with some of the names) women. But you're right, there were not many straight gods in that particular pantheon.
@@TheAgamemnon911 This is just for fun so don't take it too seriously. Though I took a class on erotica in the ancient Greek and Roman world that discussed this but in war there were many sexual and romantic relationships between men and was very normal. "Cesar is every woman's man and every man's woman" was said by Cesar's teacher- so even if in the myth the god has hetaro relationships the institution of war was very very homosexual in the society that worshipped him. So I would say that is very "bi but mostly dates men" energy.
to this day what still confuses me is WHAT they told Kate Mulgrew. How do you get someone to do an entire VO narration for you geocentrism film and have the actor not know it’s a geocentrism film?
@@LiarJudas666 Oh I absolutely don't hold it against her, these guys are proven conmen whose whole MO was tricking people into being in their stupid documentary. I'm honestly just wondering what lie they told her.
Based on what Dan says about the film, it sounds like Kate's stuff wasn't pushing geocentrism on its own but that it pushed it when paired with the interviews (as in if you just watched her sections it wouldn't sound geocentric).
You'd be surprised how easy it is to trick professionals into stuff like this. My archeology professor got tricked into being on ancient aliens. All they told him was that he would be interviewed about mesoamerican mythology for the history channel
These kinds of people constantly confuse being told that you can't say something because it's controversial and that you can't say something because it's stupid and wrong.
to conspiracy theorists, "controversial" has two meanings: 1) "anything i say that i deem to be correct but that everyone else fights me on." 2) "anything that is widely believed but goes against what i think it's correct." so from this we can deduce that everything in existence is controversy to them, depending on how it suits them to define it at the time you ask them about it.
The general clichee of scientists being afraid to dissent the current understanding of a matter is quite ironic because fact of the matter is, being the driving force behind a major scientific revolution, discovering and being able to prove that everyone had been wrong about a particular matter is every scientists wet dream. Technically, being just proven wrong isn't dangerous either. The only time you risk being ostracized is if your work methods were grossly unscientific and it's obvious that you were just trying to prove your own ideas without any evidence, essentially that your work is just a piece of propaganda.
Also, to be a scientist, I would say, is to be wary of / challenge preconceptions, grounding all theory in objectively/independently observable facts. The exact opposite of what these wanna-claim-to-be scientits are doing. Their claiming to be scientists borders on slandering science. Mellow as I am, that kind of thing does get my goat.
It's not even unique to these people, it's a general perception. Hollywood and authors love to cast scientists as ignorant rubes who just don't get it in settings with magic and supernatural creatures, aliens and things beyond their ken. But... that's not what science is. It isn't rigid rules that you follow with blind adherence and shun any opposition to. That's religion. Scientists are skeptical BUT if they actually observe something or are provided evidence of something unusual, they will inspect it, repeatedly, to understand it. If it holds up to inspection and repeated observation, they will generate and test theories until they understand it. If magic were real, scientists would be the fucking wizards, not some new age mooks who just believe what they read on some Facebook posts.
Basically a lot of projection is happening from ppl who can't tell their ass from their elbow in regards to science and how it is done. Thus, conspiracies. :)
Unless of course your work has political implications, in which case you can expect grant money to be pulled, peers refusing review, and results supressed by powerful organizations that would be greatly inconvenienced by that data becoming public.
It’s a fantasy world with mages colleges, and different kinds of magic (restoration, destruction etc.) IIRC. I imagine the Guild of Energists would be trying to use lightning to heal people somehow, ever since one guy managed to restart someone’s heart by sheer luck.
My understanding of geocentrism at the time of Galileo or Copernicus was not that the earth was at the center because it was special, but rather because it was at the bottom. The heavenly bodies were heavenly because they were perfect and possibly immaterial, meanwhile all the imperfect, material stuff was down here on earth. The objection to a heliocentric model was not that it made Earth less important, but that it elevated earth to a heavenly position.
24:15 I do love how his list of worst sins in the 1940's contains things like homosexuality, contraception and promiscuity... but not... I don't know, genocide? War? Racism? I love how accidentally revealing these people sometimes are.
Considering thay Genocide, War and Racism have all been church policies at one time or another, its not that strange. You can't be doing crusades and calling genocide a sin, you'd look.like a hypocrit!
It is deliberately accidental. Bending truth is built into the design of their indoctrination. This is how they get away with being an overt deception.. by not really lying. Most people only see the distractions and totally deject the implications.
Nevermind World War II, the Church had just finished calling the efforts of Spanish Fascists to overthrow a leftist republic a righteous crusade and giving their backing to it. Why would someone that thinks Vatican II was a mistake think war is a bad thing? The only thing Sungenis probably thinks Franco did wrong was not killing more 'undesireables'.
In all fairness, Michio Kaku will appear on anything that he is invited too. He literally went on TV and implied that the Earth's core reversed. He quite often misrepresents the current state of scientific consensus in order to get on television. Yes, he is a very accomplished scientist. However, being an accomplished scientist does not have a correlation to critical thinking abilities. For example, Linus Pauling created and perpetuated the vitamin C immune-boosting bulshit myth, Deepak Chopra was a very well-respected neuroscientist until he started conflating his work with Quantum Mechanics for some reason, Etc.
I never understood why the flat earth and geocentrists feel that the existence of life on earth being an accident/result of big bang/evolution makes it insignificant. I think that one lonely space rock along millions around us being the only one to host life as we know it, to have such varied and complex life forms while those around us are just boiling/freezing rocks and gas balls... I think it's actually very significant and kind of divine in its own way. It doesn't make any difference to me where we are in all that.
Oh yeah, cuz the idea of there having been innumerable weird and wonderful life forms before and almost certainly after us, all being the result of sheer chance and the right things happening at the right times isn’t awe-inspiring at all. Honestly the idea of everything we know and observe being the result of deliberate external influence is *less* cool to me. It makes the universe feel so much smaller. There’s no fun in being the centre of the universe, it leaves you nothing worth exploring, cuz you can only go down from here.
That's because you haven't rested the foundation of your identity on being the most important thing in the universe, or at least a part of the most important thing in the universe.
Why would you lump the very implausible "flat earth" theory in with the very valid geocentric theory that's been shown in every experiment done to date?
When you’re a catholic fundamentalist that makes a crazy cosmology conspiracy film and the Vatican actually does astronomy and totally disagrees with everything you say. Good times.
The Catholic Church and some of the other leading Christian institutions accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution. But their desperate attempts to reconcile the Bible and evolution are absurd since evolution and the Bible account of human origins cannot both be true. If evolution is true, there was no 'Adam and Eve', no 'original sin', no reason for 'God' to send his son to Earth to die to absolve mankind of original sin i.e. no New Testament. If evolution is true, humans evolved millions of years before God created Adam and Eve. If evolution is true the Bible is obviously a work of fiction. Evolution is true because it's supported by the overwhelming scientific evidence which includes DNA, fossil, embryology etc. Trying to reconcile the Bible account of human origins with evolution is absurd. Like the old adage says, "oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive".
@@patm6704 This is only a problem if you insist on taking the Bible “literally” in the modern sense. For example, Augustine actually writes about proper, “literal” biblical interpretation and basically allows for 100% allegory under that umbrella. The idea that the Bible must have been written as a newspaper or textbook is relatively new. If you’ve ever read poetry about historical events, that should give you a framework for dealing with Genesis. Does O Captain My Captain tell a mythical story about a ship’s captain? Is it a historical account that wrongly states that Lincoln is a ship’s captain rather than a president? Or is it a description of true events through the eyes of a poet?
@@jeremydavie4484 the SSPX are in union with the Church. Sedevacantist are not. The only reason the FSSP exists is because of the SSPX when the traditional Latin mass was suppressed.
I think we as an ace community woefully underuse this line. We can do better. I'm not on tik tok but I feel like this audio clip would do numbers with the ace community there
This is the most important thing your conspiracy videos have taught me: some people just suck. Some people are just mad that their hateful, stupid ideologies don't work, or are unpopular, and can only function by lying to themselves and others that they're right and those they oppose are evil. They're not misguided saints, they're cruel idiots desperately trying to exact some control on the world in the most destructive ways possible.
the cruel idiots are on both sides of the fence. one side just seems to outnumber the other. At least scientists are usually too busy with their jobs to make strange documentaries or claims. That is usually left to those with too much free time, and no interesting hobbies.
@@lakkakka dude, stop with the false equivalence of "both sides are bad". No, scientists don't make strange claims just because they don't have "enough time". They don't make outlandish claims without having evidence, unlike religious nuts who never have an ounce of evidence for anything. Have there been amoral scientists and unethical experiments? Yes. Have there been scientific theories that are now known to be wrong and discredited? Also yes. But that's the nature of science, it changes as we obtain more and more data and knowledge. Peer-reviewed science is self-correcting in a way no other social system is.
Wow you have it all wrong. I dont belive but I know that the earth is not what they have told us it is. Also I am far from far right. Actually ALOT or MOST flat earthers are not far right, nor are we left. Ask yourself this, if we know that they lied to us about something as big as the shape of the earth, then why would we belive or buy into the ILLUTION that our votes count. I'm just letting you know that this guy doesnt know what he is talking about. Noone would belive flat earth if there wasnt some hard core evidence. I would never make such a extreme claim if I was not sure. The fact is that there is WAY more PROOF of flat earth than ball earth. There was a $5,000 prize on Zen Garcias channel if someone could prove the ball earth. Noone won, but this guy thought he won and was mad he didnt get the money, so he took Zen to court thinking he would easily win and get his 5 grand. Well the judge ruled in Zens favor because that guy could not prove the ball. That's pretty telling. The truth is that anyone who is talking crap about people who are flat earthers have NEVER seriously looked into it. Truth is that the ONLY reason any of us EVER belived in the globe earth was because we had been convinced of it from a very small age that we never even questioned it. Why did they do this? Because it's the best way to get people to belive something that is IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE. Check it out. But it's hard to find good and real flat earth videos because they
Even if we pretend for a second that the director is speaking in good faith when she talks about wanting to "give everyone a seat at the table and letting the audience decide," that mindset is absolutely infuriating. The marketplace of ideas model doesn't even really work for philosophy, let alone hard science.
I think it *could* work provided everyone before engaging in the debate (table) be given a basic "proper education", especially on the correct context of certain issues and beliefs, although I may be biased mainly because I hate snobbery, wish to avoid a technocracy at all costs and hold fairly egalitarian views.
It's also worth noting that the marketplace of ideas is flawed in premise. When it comes to markets, the most popular or commonly accepted item isn't necessarily the one that's qualitatively the best, but rather the one with the best marketing. Ex. basically all generic medication is exactly the same, but some people perceive some is better than others because of marketing. Most of the time, the things that the markets decide our best are usually not actually the best. If you put this in the lens of trying to find the best or most true idea, you won't actually get that with the marketplace of ideas, you'll get the most palatable or easy to explain answer. Markets don't really work outside of economics, and I would argue they suck there too
It's a mindset that leads to allowing Nazis to have a platform which is NEVER a good thing. The fact of the matter is that, actually, not everyone does deserve a seat at the table.
@@rclark777 Even then, such debates are probably only going to be able to produce mathematical theory and tautology, at best. (Well, maybe some sociology and psychology on the side lol.) To discover nontrivialities, (no shade at mathematics lol,) you need to actually examine the world.
It’s interesting how so often “insignificant” is interpreted to only mean “worthless”. It can mean that, but can also mean “small” in the literal sense. Humanity is indeed insignificant in the grand scheme of the universe, but it’s rarity, and the rest of the planet earth’s vibrant ecosystems, is remarkable within a vast universe without life like it (so far as we know yet). And even if it wasn’t so unique, it wouldn’t mean there’s no worth. Also, I think the repulsion and depression at us being a spec in a vast universe speaks to ego, and one that needs validation. It can be tough, but we can have meaning and value and purpose, and accept that we are not the center of the universe.
Surely compared to the infinite majesty of The Lord, we're also insignificant? In either case insignificant compared to the infinite isn't a bad thing, it just is what it is and it doesn't need to cause stress. An individual bee is insignificant compared to us and they seem pretty chill about it. Be like bees.
@@joshuacollins385 Agreed! It's that knowing your own worth thing, that they def don't have down. so they need to compensate by insisting that they are the chosen, and follow them! But the catch with these people is that they need to feel superior, bc their sense of superiority is where they get their feeling of worth. A lot of human social structures are based on hierarchies, where you can trade on your value by ensuring that other people are below you. Look at their views on LGBTQ+ people, and how they demean them to be subhuman, lower than they. They may acknowledge they are insignificant to their infinite Lord, but they are sure as fuck gonna make to put themselves as high on the hierarchy ladder leading up to him as they can, as they try and tell you only their way of interpreting (or really not interpreting) the Lord's word is correct. *sigh*
This is why I think cosmic horror isn't all that it's cracked up to be. Like, if I ever learned The Great Old Ones actually exist, I would be like "sweet". Sure, it's pretty scary that they can destroy us without even knowing we exist, but when you think about it, is that so different from a supernova? There are so many horrible, destructive things in the universe already, and we still study them without going mad from revelation, so what does it matter if some of them have a civilization and weird architecture?
Terézia Marková huh, never quite thought about it that way, but that makes a lot of sense! It’s just choosing what flavor of destruction comes and how we are not in charge of what happens on this planet
24:22 this guy says all the worst sins in the world are sex. Sex with no baby, undoing a consequence of sex, not being married and therefore not having sex, having too much sex, and gay sex. Either this guy's wife has a rewards membership with Adam and Eve, or his search history is a comprehensive guide to kink culture.
@@edgarallenhoe3518The idea that worldly pleasures are bad and should be discarded in favor of spirituality is the backbone of most sizable religions. It's the basis for Christian morality and the key takeaway from Buddhism.
I'm sure someone else has said this but it BAFFLES me how he said that he checked the film "thousands" of times to check there was "nothing about the Jews in the film". Why the hell would you need to check THOUSANDS of times for that???
This turned out to be a lot weirder than I anticipated. One of the strangest things about this type of world view is that they seem to think that, unless everything is absolute, the universe has no order or meaning at all. The moment you admit that anything is relative or subjective, everything falls apart. Cats living with dogs, people murdering each other with abandon, the whole nine yards. However, here in the real world, some things just are relative and sometimes one viewpoint is as valid as another. I'm not even talking Einstein here, good old Galileo is good enough. If you have observers in two inertial frames of reference that are in motion relative to one another, they will get different values when they measure the velocities of moving objects and neither answer will be more correct than the other. Full stop. But admitting that fact doesn't cause a complete breakdown of all order, it just means that if you want to tell me how fast something is moving you also need to tell me which frame of reference you measured it from. Einstein took it a few steps further. He realized that how you measure time also depends on your frame of reference, and that locally, gravity and linear acceleration are indistinguishable from one another. These people also have a fundamental misunderstanding of what happens when a scientific theory gets proven incorrect. It doesn't mean that anything goes. The replacement theory needs to do at least as good a job of explaining observations as the previous one did. Einstein proved Newton wrong, but it most circumstances Newtonian mechanics is good enough and much easier to understand, so we keep on using it and teaching it. If we ever prove Einstein wrong, the replacement is still going to have to match Einstein and Newton in most circumstances. The same is not true for geocentrism. Even in its most refined form (a la Tycho Brahe) it didn't do a great job of predicting or explaining the movement of planets and it was very complex and convoluted. The moment Kepler came along, geocentrism was done for. It's not a special case or useful simplification of Newtonian physics. It's incompatible on a fundamental level. It doesn't match the reality we see around us. It's just plain wrong. Throwing out Newton and Einstein won't change that.
You explained it well enough, but I love the idea that these people reject relativity so much that even picking frames of reference for standard calculations is an affront to them.
I'm at the part where the producer is revealed to be a Catholic fundamentalist and I'm laughing because even in religion class, my Catholic school education specifically taught us that the Earth is not the center of the universe. Pretty sure the Church fully goes along with the science when it comes to astronomy. Edit: Of course this guy is anti-semitic. Why did I expect any different?
99% of conspiracy theories are anti-semitic in nature, consciously or subconsciously. As soon as people are starting to talk about a "them" that are trying to hide the truth, the anti-semitism has entered the conversation, even if they themselves might not realize.
oh it's really unsurprising considering, one of the big grievances different tradcaths have with vatican two is it basically saying the jewish people aren't responsible for the death of jesus.
@@franciszekdo Blaming modern day Jews for the death of Jesus is stupid enough anyways, but 1. I’m pretty sure crucification was a *Roman* form of capital punishment, not a Jewish one 2. Since Christianity is founded on the belief that Jesus, the Son of God, rose from the dead, shouldn’t the Jews (if we are saying they are the responsible party) be commended for setting up the circumstances for the Resurrection? 3. The Pope, as all good pious folk know, is actually the Anti-Christ and [Redacted for excess Puritanism]
BYZANTINE ( ROMAN EMPIRE ) ASTRONOMY FROM A.D. 1300 EMMANUEL A. PASCHOS Department of Physics, University of Dortmund, Germany. ”…A Byzantine (the one and only Roman Empire), article from the 13th century contains advanced astronomical ideas and pre-Copernican diagrams. The models are geocentric but contain improvements on the trajectories of the Moon and Mercury. This talk presents several models and compares them briefly with the Astronomy of Ptolemy, Arabic Astro nomies of that time and the heliocentric system…” “……In contrast to Western Europeans "the Arabs had virtually full access to that, Greek, heritage from the eighth century onward. This occurred because of a momentous translation effort whereby the great works of Greece and other cultures were translated in Arabic". Later on (12th and 13th centuries) the classical knowledge was transmitted to Western Europe through Byzantine and Arabic sources and Irish monks who travelled across Europe founding monasteries and scriptoria..….”
@@warlordofbritannia The argument they make is that the Romans only crucified Jesus because the jews wanted that. Also: 2. That doesn't contract Christianity at all. The bible makes it very explicit that Jesus was sacrificed for the good of humanity or "The Rightious for the unrightious". The people who made the event happen are not excused because they didn't KNOW what they were doing was God's plan all along. They did it because they thought Christ was not the son of God.
I do not believe and most of the worst atrocities were committed in the name of God/ religion I really like this mans quote I wanted get across that I'm a person that would reject things like this but it is a great way to interpret the Bible
Geocentric models were heavily based on Aristotle and ancient Greek astronomy. The ancient Greeks didn't have telescopes and therefore couldn't see the very minute parallax of stars, and argued this proved the earth was stationary. Until telescopes, there wasn't good evidence for the theory, but the Church also barely cared about heliocentrism vis a vis Galileo. People like to think that the middle ages lost the "knowledge of the ancient greeks" until the Renaissance, but literally every really stupid idea from the middle ages comes directly from ancient greece and Rome. The only "science" that was "lost" due to the Church was haruspexy and divination. The Renaissance should have been about the rediscovery of predicting weather from the flight patterns of doves and the shape of cow ulcers.
The problem with the “im just asking questions” type of arguing is usually just a disguise for “i dont understand this and dont understand the answers ive been given so i dont believe it”.
People who are "just asking questions" are usually already convinced their question cannot be answered. They don't want answers, they want to convince that the "official" answer isn't true.
There's also no such thing as just asking questions. This is easy to prove to anyone. If someone says they're just asking questions, ask them: "Why you you fantasize about sex with your own mother?" or any similar question. You are, literally, just asking a question. But it proves the fact that questions can be leading, or basically outright statements on their own. The fact that you are just asking questions doesn't indemnify your motives and opinions (which show through which questions you ask and how you phrase them) from being interpreted and argued.
@@Demmrir sometimes people are just asking questions though, and are attacked for doing so by being accused of making statements rather than asking questions. It happens.
@@snuffeldjuret and sometimes people actually do fantasize about having sex with their own mother. part of being a rational human involves having the critical thinking skills to help deduce when questions are just questions, and when ulterior motives are at play.
@@adamplentl5588 My experience growing up in a family of Catholic school teachers is that most Catholics know shit fuck all what the Church actually stands for and just arrive at their political beliefs independent of faith and then just try to crowbar their faith into them. (E.g. Catholicism has enough left-leaning doctrine in its dogma like caring for the poor, opposition to the death penalty, criticism of capitalism, etc. that Catholic liberals and progressives can find ways to justify their faith.)
the part where sungenis says "moses wrote genesis chapter 1 therefore everything happened exactly as was written" is so damn wild to me. imagine if there were people 2000 years in the future who genuinely thought the events of Homestuck actually happened
It’s crazy because not even the people of ancient Judea thought Moses wrote Genesis. That idea was synthesized literally centuries later, no earlier that 200 CE.
@@alexanderfreeman3406it was traditionally believed that Moses wrote Genesis. But the oldest manuscript we have of Genesis as we know it (i.e. its entire form) dates to around 400BC. So idk where you got the year 200 from
@@methatis3013 I don’t know where you got the idea that there is a manuscript of Genesis “as we know it” dating to 400 BCE, but you are wildly misinformed. The earliest examples of Abrahamic writing are the famous “Dead Sea Scrolls” found in the Qumran caves, and the oldest of those are fragments and scraps that have been dated to 300 BCE at the earliest with the majority being centuries younger. And no, ancient Jews did not believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch. None of the books ever name an author, because they were an oral tradition passed from generation to generation. Their culture placed no importance on authorship. It was not until they came into contact with Hellenistic cultures starting around 200 CE that they began to start ascribing authorship to their writings. And it was around this time that Rabbis synthesized the belief that Moses wrote Deuteronomy, citing his “divine inspiration” for the Laws of Moses. Mosaic authorship then gradually expanded over the other four books.
Counter argument: What if there are no black holes, but giant space cats that unravel the wrapped up string that is reality? This is a joke. Viewer digression is adviced
“Mom, Dad, I have something I need to tell you. It’s been really hard keeping this inside for so long but I’ve met some new friends who have made me feel much more comfortable with who I am. So I guess it’s time I tell you; I’m energetic. I’m a past life healer, and I can use written words to give water healing properties.”
I always hated when idiots use the term "balanced discussion" and "we need to hear all sides". The arguments of a religious crackpot will NEVER have the same weight as that of a scientist. One has evidence.
One thing I've never gotten is the false dichotomy between "we are in an entirely unique and special place in the universe" and "we mean nothing." I believe we're here by coincidence, I'm atheistic. But the way I see it, life still has intrinsic value, and I still marvel at the sheer unlikeliness of our existence, which is still amazing even if we don't assume there's intelligence involved. I just think we don't have to have been made by an intelligent agent to matter
It isn't necessarily that we mean nothing, it's that the universe is such a terrifyingly huge expanse, with so many different planets (my favourite is the one that rains molten metals) that ot truly puts into perspective that we are randomly arranged clumps of atoms. Our lives matter to us, but that's such a tiny scale that it's dizzying. For a better explanation, I would read the Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy books, specifically the part with the Total Perspective Vortex, a machine designed to force you to experience just how small everything you've ever known and cared about is compared to the entire universe. That being said, I'm with you, our lives have meaning to us and our little dirtball earth, and hopefully one day we can live longer and do more with the time we have.
That’s a beautiful way of putting it, and I wholeheartedly agree! The idea that everything around us, including our own existence, is so unlikely, so many coincidences and “mistakes” piling up on one another over an amount of time so long that none of us can truly wrap our minds around it in a meaningful way, makes me find life even more precious and awe-inspiring! We don’t need to be specially carved by an intelligent being and valuable in the scale of the entire universe for our lives to be unique and incredible.
We literally made significance up, so whatever we feel is significant is, by definition, significant. That is so much more empowering than saying "the nebulous deity decides all significance."
@@isenokami7810 Those are... the same things. You can have the same debates about both. I think what you're trying to say is that we shouldn't be acting like significance is an objective matter.
Why is it when someone tells you to “have an open mind” it almost always means “just believe what I believe.” Ive never heard a rational-minded, critical thinker harp about open mindedness
The sheer irony of someone preaching about open-mindedness, when that same someone would also happily see people like me *put to death* for violating ancient religious law.
@@alfieshepherd6522 That's only applied to wearing blended fabrics of specifically linen and wool. I know it's just a joke, but the joke has been repeated so often that it's frequently taken as the literal truth.
As someone who was home-schooled K-12, I am forever grateful that a) my mother home-schooled for Autism Reasons (e.g. having a horrible public school experience due to being autistic) and b) she was completely comfortable acknowledging that evolution was actually accepted by a number of prominent Christian scholars and never had us study/engage with "Creationist science." Which may be partially attributed to the fact that her favourite areas of science were chemistry and astronomy and we never went into much origins literature, but whatever. I always get something of a kick out of the controversy Galileo/Copernicus/Brahe and their contemporaries were embroiled in given the fact that the ancient Greeks (hello, Eratosthenes!) knew the earth orbited the sun. Also, you are SO right about the planets' LGBTQ alignments. So delightful! Finally, an EXPERT has spoken the truth!!!!!!!!
Honestly almost everyone with an understanding of astronomy was heliocentric. It's apparently pretty clear if you study the stars enough. Idk enough to explain further
In that form it isn't true. Erathostenes calculated the circumference of the Earth, the ancient greec heliocentrist theory was another guy namely Aristarchus. And it wasn't that widely accepted, keep in mind the geocentric theory what was accepted trought late antiquity and medieval history was created by a 2nd century Alexandria guy. They didn't actually "know" the Sun was in the center, most of the math of these people is off, to the point that heliocentrism isn't proovable by it, it's more of a lucky guess than "knowing". We didn't have definitive proof of heliocentrism till the mid 18th century. In the subject of the math being wrong, having no definitive proof and the whole thing amounting to a lucky guess... I know that in hindsight Galileo was closer to the truth than contemporaries, but the thing is, he was wrong. He tought planets orbit the Sun in a circle (instead of in an elypsis) and that made his theory in practice observably wrong. Brahe's model was closer to the observable reality. Galileo's main argument for the Earth movement was that "the tides are a result of the movement of the Earth", in hindsight he seems more correct, but he was still wrong.
@@i.cs.zI've never seen a serious scientist defend Galileo's theory of the tides. It was obviously wrong when he proposed it, it was considered wrong while the whole helio/geocentric debate went down, and then Newton's mechanics and gravity found the real reason and showed that yep, he was wrong about the tides. Sometimes the establishment really does get it right. The simple fact of the matter is that when Galileo was alive, there just wasn't enough evidence one way or the other to decide whether the Earth or the Sun moved. Galileo was technically less wrong, but for the wrong reasons. And he actively ignored evidence that would have helped his case in favor of his crackpot ideas. (His theory of tides was very crackpot, even while his study of mechanics was sound.) It's a fascinating bit of history, and read properly, I think it's a cautionary tale for all involved.
@@jameshart2622 Yeah, between his cracpot ideas, and getting in trouble for being an unprofessiobal asshole instead if his theories, he really is more of a cautiobary tale. Sad that the actual events take a backseat to the "Church vs Science" bs what surounds his life. Giordano Bruno abs Semmelweis is similar in this regard. If course there are huge difference, with Beuro not actually being a scientist, and Semmelweis being a lot more complicated. But there is a similarity in how the reality of their situation takes a backseat to the mostly incorrect narrative made out of the events.
I am agnostic but i will say it: you can't be a christian and believe in evolution, because evolution contradicts genesis and to be a christian you must believe that the bible is, either fully or partially, inspired by god.
always fascinated by the idea that "a balanced discussion" means "treating all arguments as equally plausible regardless of evidence" and not, ykno, "treating all pieces of evidence with the same level of scrutiny."
That works for weeding out stupid shit like this. But when it comes to higher order issues of what policies are preferable in any given society or how much freedom or restrictions there should be, people tend to get all self righteous and delusional with selectively nit picking data to suit their naive moralist fantasies or short sighted sentiments now that's an entirely different factor that's obscured by your "evidence" argument.
Two sides can arrive at entirely separate conclusions from the same piece of evidence. An example would the self promotion of communist ideologues and its consequences on economic planning or free market fundamentalists and the retreat of the state where they argued that problems of the day could've been solved by abolishing private property on one end and abolishing state in the other.
Ofcourse details and evidence are only useful if the people compiling that data have the cognitive deference to process it. Most people on the far right and far left are woefully ill equipped for that task. It's easy to grandstand on already resolved issues that are propped up by social idiocy which is what this guy does.
The channel listings kind of gave away his ideological leanings.
+
Because the people who think to use "it's a balanced discussion" as a *defense* are the ones who were arguing some bullshit.
This is such a good way to say it!
The entirety of right-wing grift is built upon this foundation.
“Effectively interviewed himself to make himself seem like an expert”
Me in the shower winning fake arguments.
compared to my shower drain I am an expert in nearly all fields, but when it comes to sanitation policies it's always a washout
I had a college professor who insisted we only learn from a "book" she wrote. The problem was, she couldn't publish it because, as she said "the morons in the publishing office want to fuck me over, so I'm not doing it". Her solution was to just give us free printouts of the relevant chapters every lesson. Cool. When I read those chapters, I realized she was actually quoting herself, from the same book! Like literally, in the text she would make a statement, and as a source put THAT book. The one we are reading. For example, in chapter 5 she puts a source saying (her name), (title of the book), chapter 2. It was also the least crazy thing she did during those 2 semesters.
@@ettaz I need to know more
@@dylanbednarz4430 She dressed like Jovanka Broz in her glory days (google her if you don't know who that is) complete with holding an hour long class in a giant fur coat and sunglasses - keep in mind, this was in 2014. She always took cabs everywhere because "I insist to be driven around like a lady" (her words). She was once an hour late to an exam. There was a rumor she somehow blackmailed the school to give her the position and basically make up a subject for her. It was an art school and she taught a completely unrelated law subject that was mandatory for all first years. Also a rumor, but she was supposedly the highest paid profesor at the school. That is all I can remember of the top of my head, but I'm sure there was more that I forgot. But the self quoting will be with me for the rest of my days.
@@ettaz she sounds really cool to be friends with, but terrible to be taught by
interviewing yourself while talking about someone interviewing themselves has to be endlessly amusing
It's such a flex lol
At least Dan had some self awareness when he did it.
Earths moon? Pluto?
It wasn't until I read this comment that I realized he was also the interviewer voice lol
I wish you have replied to your own comment agreeing on the matter.
I've always wondered if these charlatans have quiet moments of panic? We all have them, surely. Those moments where you're lying awake and worried about the future. Do they ever pause and go "WHAT AM I DOING?!"
Well who'd have thought Soviet Womble would be watching this video now 😂
Maybe, but these people are too far gone to change their ways. Even if they wanted to, they receive so much funding from oil companies that they would lose their luxurious livelihoods if they turned against their masters. Grifters are gonna grift.
They spend all this energy and time so that they can avoid never having one of those moments.
if you are convinced your cause is categorically, objectively righteous then anything you do becomes justifiable. With that framing, even if what you're doing is harmful, it still isn't wrong. Only bad guys do bad things, and you're one of the good guys.
I'm going to guess not. If you're a grifter, you're already accustomed to victimizing people for money. Grifters are most likely sufficiently packed with dark traits that they do not give a shit.
Dan's really cornering the market on "soul crushing realizations that, yes, people are really like this", great work
Asylumrunner8 i miss being angry about movies
😂😂 I got a good laugh from that. You're not wrong.
@@alex0589 I mean, the only difference is that we *know* the people are garbage, and we aren't forced to infer it from their art.
Seriously, every time some edgy Redditor comes along and says "Flat earthers and geocentrists are not real, its all just trolling, and you only hate them because you want to feel superior to someone" I want to do Ludovico Treatment with Dans videos.
That's Doctor Professor Colonel Dan Olson to you
I love this recent strategy of being so wildly wrong that it’s hard to be proven wrong at all. Like where do you even start a discussion with a person who thinks the very concept of science is inherently corrupted against their point of view.
@@CARILYNF this is painfully accurate
@@shyanjones2916 no, 9mm isn't powerful enough to be considered an "accurate" cartridge. You would need at least a .308 IMO to have the long-range accuracy required to be called "accurate".
Also "9mm is weak! Get a .45! Why are you calling me a Fudd?"
The amusing part is that it is easy to refute such claims since for every such claim there is testable option to see if it is true or wrong. Literally every claim in that ridiculous "movie" is observable and testable wrong. The only issue is that you have to sit down and do the edperkekbta. This is what the whole thing is. People are betting that the viewers don't have enough time to test their claims and will accept them at face value. On top of that the easiest way to refute is to ask to see what are their discoveries in modern sicence and why modern science works if they are correct? Either they unravel or they start to try to come up with explanations and all of them contradict each other.
its pure nihilism
@@elfpi55-bigB0O85 no, actually. Nihilism talks about finding a point and being a person, an individual bc of internal push, not external such as religion or bc other said so. This is such a misrepresentation of a really interesting and complex philosophy and it is ironic to be mentioned in the context of religious hacks when Nietzsche was so against organized religion and not a fan or the church....
It took me 5 minutes to realise that the entire intro in which he’s being interviewed, was actually him interviewing himself, just like the director of the movie did.
And, in the credit sequence, he gives himself a ton of titles (including professor and colonel)
*mwah* love it.
He actually mirrored many of the techniques of the film. Masterful.
Congrats. It took me four viewings of the video.
My first time watch this channel so I just assumed that he is some really good professor and scientist
I literally only copped this on this watch through. Must be my 6th? Wonderful carry on
I think the funniest thing about that guy’s hang up with being told “dude, that’s your reality” is that whoever said that obviously didn’t literally mean he was living in a different universe or something like he clearly has interpreted. I mean, I can clearly imagine this interaction. You meet some crazy guy who thinks the earth is the center of the universe, and realize arguing is pointless so u just leave it. “Dude, That’s your reality” was clearly just said the same way one might say “let’s agree to disagree” or “I’m not going to argue with you about this”
I've noticed this too with (real) conspiracy theory fans. They seem to be really bad at understanding metaphor and allegory. Everything is literal to them. Either it's literal truth, or someone pretending that it's literal truth - aka a lie, or a big lie, which is a conspiracy. They don't seem capable of understanding the concept of symbolism.
The proper response to someone who's divorced themselves from critical thinking is "You're a fucking idiot, you have no idea what you're talking about, and I'm done listening to your bullshit". If someone is unable to leave their bubble, and no amount of factual counterargument will reach them, there's zero reason to be polite
The way he says it the same way and emphasizes that the person said "Dude" makes me think he got in an argument with his son or something and he can't let it go
"earth?" "gay." "moon?" "lesbian." ... "neptune?" "straight trans man, married to the sea."
that ending bit was 100/10 omg
Neptune was the lover of Caenaus, a woman who he made a man after she was raped. He ain’t strait
@@dylanchouinard6141 That's, like, your reality dude.
@@dylanchouinard6141 Was Caenaus' transition consensual? Sounds to me like Neptune forced a transition on someone suffering from PTSD in a misguided attempt to protect them from further abuse in a deeply patriarchal world. But then again, the Greek pantheon lacked the benefit of post-Freudian psychology :P
@@mirmalchik That is very accurate to the original myth. But the fun thing about myths is that they aren’t static, they are built to change, usually when the person telling it changes. So, while the original is very much what you said, I can totally see a trans man finding a character he can relate to and modifying his retelling to be Poseidon used his divine power to affirm his lovers gender identity.
Sausages? No, not on their own
It’s common knowledge that the universe is centered around azathoth, the blind idiot eldritch god that dreams this all up. He must be kept asleep, for if he ever wakes up the universe ends.
Guys who’s gonna go poke him? Not me, someone else do it.
Thought I will read a true and factual comment, I never would have.
Mmm yeah but we just pop out and pop back in a lil bit different the next time. You know deja vu and the Mandela effect? (;
@@strrawberrytekken3698 whoa
lol
"It's not about geocentrism, it's about cosmology"
"This book isn't about jazz, it's about music"
to be fair, the field of cosmology has really inflated over time
I swear, when I first heard that line, I swear I heard, "It's not about the jews, it's about cosmology." That was one hell of a doubletake for me.
@@Ashlynsohvik same.
@@asparagusoffice dank
@@Ashlynsohvik 8:12 "I checked the film thousands and thousands and thousands of time and there's just nothing about the geos in the film..."
That's what the captions say that he says, but I'm still not convinced. For one thing "the geos" isn't something that's commonly said and doesn't sound like geocentrism. "The Jews" makes more grammatical sense. It also fits because, like Dan covers later on, he's a huge anti-semite. I think somehow his anti-Semitism was brought up and that quote is him trying to address that.
17:25 After another rewatch of this video, it only just really hit me how funny this claim is.
"The highest grossing-" Wow!
"-single screen opening-" Hm.
"-in America-" okay.
"-that weekend." Did, like, six people come to see it?
It was probably the only movie to come out that weekend lmao
single screen opening - that means a showing in one theater right?
@@hens0w well, it was *technically* a theater... their home theater in their basement, but still... /j
The movie ended up making less than 100k boxoffice 😂 the highest grossing (single screen opening) IN AMERICA!
“I argue that this notion is damnable heresy” is how I’m going to start responding to everything I disagree with
HERESY DETECTED
I'd argue that this notion is damnable heresy
BURN THE HERETICS, CLEANSE THEM IN HOLY FIRE
The notion that Holy Terra is the center of the universe is damnable heresy against The Imperial Truth! We must burn them for the glory of Our God-Emperor!
@@asparagusoffice al
I tried interviewing myself once, but I found out I don't have an agent, and so I couldn't reach myself.
I contacted myself, but I didn't got an answer yet. We barley talk to each other
Scheduling conflicts with me. It’s been a nightmare
Wait until you realize you’re not even qualified
The booking fee for myself was too high so I had to decline.
I just didnt want to disturb myself
"Galileo was wrong, the church was right" sounds like a book you'd find as a gag in a GTA game
Sounds like a subplot in Assassin's Creed
Sounds like somebody who knows what he was actually charged with (mocking the Pope) that he confessed and apologized for immediately. Then he went on his way publishing new versions of his pamphlet without the mocking and that was that. Yeah, he never got in trouble for heliocentric reasons.
those moons of Jupiter were just weather balloons
@@KingZolem Broke: Galileo got in trouble for heliocentrism
Woke: Galileo's charges dealt with the pope, not astronomy
Bespoke: The pope should be mocked, and Galileo was right to do so.
@@khill8645 it wasn't even the mockery that got him in trouble, though it was the climax of the affair; Galileo got in trouble for essentially practising sola scriptura at a time where protestant and catholic states were at war. He could have completely avoided this pointless ordeal with the church like other heliocentric proponents (including Copernicus himself); heliocentrism had nothing to do with his condemnation.
nutjob documentaries be like:
2 minute clip: *well-explained overview of the concept of thrust, simply illustrated in layman's terms, consistent with established science and practice* - John Smith, astrophysics Phd
10 second clip: "COULD THAT BE HOW ANCIENT CIVILIZATIONS VISITED MARS?" - William Wackadoo, author of 'The Stars Know Your Name'
*Cool CGI clip showing a giant hand reaching from the surface of a gas giant*
Take a drink every time the voice over says: "ancient astronaut theorists argue/believe/contend/claim/posit/suggest" & then the completely batshit thing they claim is treated as literally true with zero scrutiny
@@gemcorker3982 ow oof owie my liver
The stars know your name is a cool title ngl
But when does the film get to the moon nazis?
@@gemcorker3982“Ancient astronaut theorists argue that beings from Mars came through a pyramidal spaceship and taught the ancient Egyptians how to stack stones to appear as their spaceship. In these ancient carvings, you have what appears to be a light bulb, which was brought to them by the Martians who came in the pyramidal spaceship and massacred the entire population of Atlantis and poisoned the wells of Carthage.”
-Jimmy Crazyhair, PhD in Nutjobbery from Cheap Degrees University Ltd.
Here's a rule of thumb: if you have to say "There's nothing about the Jews in this film" you've got a problem.
And it does not really matter which side you are talking to, either, normal people or ... * sad sigh * an Austrian word for it is "Ewiggestrige" - people who will forever belong to yesterday.
geos. GEOS. jesus christ dude.
@@amsrroleplaylila7173 Ah that makes more sense.
@@amsrroleplaylila7173 did you have captions on dude. He clearly said Jews
@@josequilez5449 That's for auto generated, if you click the human-written captions, then it is "Geos"
The "That's your reality" talking point exposes how many people have just tried to awkwardly shut down conversations with this man and it is *embarrassing* watching him assume that this is a universally relatable experience.
Yeah at a certain point a person's position becomes so insane that really the only response is, "Well you clearly live in an entirely different reality than I do, so I hope that works out for you."
The only person who ever said "That's your reality" to me was when I showed my ultra conservative mom the part of the bible where god orders for mass child murder.
If that's a thing you toss around or other people toss around at you, you're probably totally unhinged.
Goated comment
Exactly what I thought. I’ve never heard anyone say that before. So cringe.
Bingo. The lack of self awareness with these people man i swear
broke: trying to understand the hierarchy of the planets in their celestial spheres
woke: trying to understand the sexualities and horniness of the planets
I wonder which ones Rick would fuck
@@bioticjedi3864 All of them, but it would take different amounts of alcohol for each one.
Thanks for reminding me. I almost forgot to renew my subscription to Planetfucker magazine.
I wonder what the sun is, I picture a gay, bear type
@@bioticjedi3864 really?
You wouldn't say it's the fiery, flaming and hot type?
"We have no chance against the forces areayed against us."
What, gravity and electromagnetism?
"Yes, but it's worse than that. Gravity is not a force, which only goes to show how sneaky 'they' are!" ;-)
i think he meant the jews
@@hisnibs1121 I believe it's THEY, because it must be an acronym so genius we couldn't possibly decipher it!😆 Even "gematria" can't come to a conclusion!😂
Gravity is listed as one of the 4 natural forces because it's the only way we can observe it to behave, not because we know for sure it actually is one. With quantum theory we are finding that the other three: electromagnetism, the strong and week nuclear forces are not forces in and of themselves but that they are all related on a whole other level, and results of physics we do not yet completely understand, and why they are looking for a quantum component to gravity. The real truth is the word Force is all about behavior to begin with, and not some objective thing we can separate from everything else.
I'm so glad science doesn't make bold claims of knowledge, because it's not a bug, it's a feature, and one of it's best!
@@Bob-of-Zoid you mean like during the coof when not a single scientist made bold claims of knowledge about a certain virus or a certain jab?
remember "trust the science"? remember when mentioning the wuhan lab and the virus appearing to be altered got you banned from social media, fired from your tenure and ridiculed as a conspiracy theorist by so called "experts" ?
“Are we significant or just a cosmic accident?” These assertions aren’t mutually exclusive. We can easily be both.
If significance here refers to absolute significance in all possible areas then I’d probably disagree then.
Or neither.
"significant cosmic accidents" sounds like a cool nickname for humans
We're just a cosmic accident and very significant for us. Of course we're not vert significant for say Jupiter, but who cares about Jupiter? ^^
Indeed. The Earth being in the center of the universe is not an indication of significance.
Love when the manager at Red Lobster comes to my table and tells me about bad documentaries about crackpot science.
I don't think you understand how hard I laughed at your comment. Thank you for posting it.
Same🤣
As interesting as that was sir, it doesn’t change the fact my chicken was medium rare
@@woodlefoof2 thats on you for orderiung chicken at red lobster
@@burieddagger8064 yeah woodle, it’s call red for a reason. Get salmonella, nerd.
Uranus: "So ace that she doesn't understand the question and wishes everyone would stop asking." I shrieked, you've killed me.
That was some quality representation
The representation we deserve
Is the question in this context her sexuality? Or something else that I'm unaware of? I too am an ace who doesn't understand the question.
@@ehoofnagle7254 its in reference to the "ur anus" joke, i think
@@ehoofnagle7254 Yes, all about sexuality. If you pronounce Uranus a bit differently it sounds like 'your anus'. You know, butt stuff!
It's surreal watching a guy ask the most convoluted and confusing interview question ever and then proceed to say "As you can see, we were very forthcoming" hsuashuassuhsuah
"wait, is dan interviewing himself? why isn't he just presenting normally? why does this feel so pretentiooooOOOHHH"
Gotta be honest. Only checked the comment to make sure I wasn't the only one who had this exact same reaction. Thank you for the sanity reaffirmation.
+
My EXACT reaction!
Forgive me for being naive, is the joke here that this man is known for being pretentious?
@@figrollin the joke becomes apparent like literally 2 and a half minutes into the video
I love how among Sungenis' listed "worst sins" he does not list murder, rape, genocide, any type of violence, lying, or most of the Ten Commandments, but he does list homosexuality and divorce. So, would it be better to him if people just killed their partners instead of giving them a chance at finding happiness with someone else?
Yes. He has more in common with those fellows doing honor killings than he'd ever admit.
Rather not know the answer to that
He's saying it would be better to kill him than fuck him. If you're a dude.
The Fable way. In the Fable games you get less evil (points, karma, whatever) from sacrificing your wife to the devil then from divorce.
@@Duiker36 aka "Death before GaySex."
Someone once told Rick Delano “that’s your reality, dude” and it’s kept him up at night ever since.
Once? Lmao you give him way too much credit, no way did he give up bothering someone after hearing that once
@@juniperrodley9843 He tells it to himself in the mirror every morning as a pep talk
“I reject your reality and substitute my own!”
- Not Rick DeLano
Considering how Rick Delano is an evangelical* Flat Earther, it probably happened more than once.
*In the sense of aggressively prostheletizing.
I don’t know much about science but I’m a firm believer that my puppy, Benji, is the center of my universe.
You could say I’m a Benjiocentrist.
I BELIEVE in Benji
sure, I'll incorporate that into my worldview
"They're good dogs Brent" as a cosmology
I also believe Benji is the center of your universe.
Thats my dogs name too :D
The last minute of this video is a gem and it’s illegal for anyone to skip it
I'm downloading this video just to save that gem
Absolutely unacceptable to skip
Is there a point to the part about the planets’ and moons’ genders and sexual orientations? Like, I thought it was funny, but am I missing something? Is it just all made up for fun?
@@NameAvailable I think it's just to illustrate how ridiculous the geocentrists and astrologists and shit are about how they spew bs but with convictions so it sounds authoritative and correct?
@@bioticjedi3864 fuck, you’re right. He’s back in the documentary mode so it’s exactly what you said meant as a dig, like the intro is. Thank you
Fun fact: YOU are the center of the OBSERVABLE universe. Geocentrism can't compete with that much ego boosting info.
🤔
you are infact the center of the universe you can observe! this isn't to say that anything revolves around you, but as far as your observation goes, the distance you can see is the same in every direction. except for within yourself if you actually believe in geocentrism.
Hahahahaha
and if the universe is infinite, there is a case to say that EVERYWHERE is the centre.
That`s very cartesian of you
The secret to rocking a lobster-patterned shirt is to make sure it contrasts with a plain background. I'm learning so much today.
Rock lobster?
I tried, but I can't imagine a situation (besides the aforementioned one and at a lobster restaurant) where a lobster-patterned shirt wouldn't feel tacky. Well done!
Pretty sure it's a visual ode to JP.
@@workinprogress008 That sounds so plausible I wish I'd thought of it myself. Although in my defence most of what JP says is so blandly forgettable that sometimes some nonsense slips through and fails to register.
I didn't even notice the shirt until you pointed it out.
40:30 "And he was inspired by god to do so. And inspired means it is inerrant and tells us the exact truth of what went on."
No, that really is not at all what inspired means
Even if you go back before 2VC, the Catholic Church of 1950 was not the Catholic Church of 350. For one, the Catholic Church of 1950 accepted the French Republic as being a legitimate government despite not being ruled by a divinely ordained sovereign. We change, and our institutions change with us or are left behind, and our institutions change us in a neverending cycle that started as soon as the first conversation started.
In this case, yes, that's what inspiration means. According to adherents of Abrahamic religions, divine inspiration is an idea given directly by God to man. Therefore, since it is directly God's word, it is inerrant. Think Moses receiving the Stone Tablets atop Mount Sinai. It's a classic case of the meaning of a word as used in a phrase (i.e. inspiration) being deprecated. I don't blame you for being confused by it; I've been mistaken by that very same thing. It's common enough that it's got a specific linguistic name that I can't recall. I just figured I correct you here. There are trillions of things wrong with The Principle, but this isn't one of them.
In a theological context, yes, 'inspiration' does imply infallibility and inerrancy.
But it does not imply literalness.
@@allison5104 ^ It implies that what it communicates- including by poetic device- is true.
Geocentrism is just applying "main character syndrome" to our planet.
geocentrism is FACT my friend..
@@YSN-WiIn a relative sense. We'll always be the center of OUR universe because all the cameras and recording devices lead back to one point, our planet. Of course the universe will seem centered on us.
But that's just the nature of perspective. It doesn't mean we're at the exact physical center of the universe. There may not even be a strict center.
@@YSN-Wi I hope you're not sincerely that crazy.
This is THE best way to explain it
I mean as far as I understand it, geo-centrism isn't wrong per se. The models of the solar system before gallileo accurately model and chart the universe, geocentrism models are what we use to make planetariums to this vert day.
The only real difference is that geo-centrism is from the perspective of the earth instead of an outside one, neither is wrong, although the outside model looks a lot prettier than the squiggly orbits demanded by geo-centrism.
I don’t think these people get that “not proven” and “disproven” are very different things
Indeed! Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence... but evidence of guilt is evidence of guilt. There is plenty of evidence against geocentrism XD
@@ayyylmao101
absence of evidence can only lead to the conclusion that you shouldn't assume anything at all
so scientifically speaking, it is evidence of absence
@@tictacterminator not really, absence of evidence is basically saying "really anything is possible", while evidence of absence is saying "bro this is flat out wrong no other way about it".
@@ayyylmao101 Regarding geocentrism, it depends on your beliefs about the nature of spacetime. From a general relativity perspective, the center is anywhere you want it to be as everything is just relative to that frame of reference. That is, a solar system where the Sun goes around the Earth and the planets go around the Sun is equally predictive of the observations as all planets going around the Sun. Although the latter is easier to visualize and calculate as the planetary movements follow more complex patterns than an elliptical orbit from the perspective of the Earth.
@@tictacterminator In this context they’re saying, “we don’t have a 100% answer on this specific topic, so despite all of the other evidence we conclude that the we are right”. The absence of specific evidence doesn’t mean that the opposite of all other evidence is now true, it means that it is up in the air until the evidence is proven. The absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence, like others have said. Big big difference.
"this book isn't about eugenics, it's about changes in our understanding of human genealogy"
Eugenics works though; we simply are uncomfortable with that fact, for a variety of reasons, not the least which is a certain guy with a funny mustache.
@@Burt1038 As if you libs are any different from the nazis
It's not loot boxes, it's surprise mechanics.
@@Burt1038 you can’t be actually trying to justify eugenics right?
@@phoenix1900 Justify? I mean, the evidence is pretty obvious. BTW, Eugenics is practiced almost universally, at least informally.
The funniest part about these geocentrists is their irrational belief that the earth needs to literally be the center of the universe to be cosmologically important.
Like, the fact that the earth is even able to support life and have water across its entire surface is incredibly special on its own.
But, it's not the most importantest it could be to these people, they need to be the mostest importantest beings ever, or its not enough.
They're not really geocentrists, they're egocentrics. They literally need the world to revolve around them.
They value being literally unique and special instead of caring about what the earth (the catholic church, and therefore themselves) means to other people. It's a form of entitlement trying to justify their ability to oppress others through the language of science. very facist tbh
Dont use fascist into a catch all term. Reckless people like you have made it so normies are desensitized to the word.
Ignore me if you want, but the Johns, Devantes, Edgars, and Ngyuens of the world will just start responding with "Guess Im a fascist".
@@shamefuldisplay9692 "Don't use words to describe an ideological belief or I'll start believing the ideology" Conspiratorial thinking is a direct rejection of reality I doubt not calling them fasch-y is gonna get them to change their minds.
@@CitBox Wow. Just wow. It means people will think you sound like an idiot using words you dont understand. When they say "guess Im a fascist" thats *sarcasm*, because they no longer take you seriously. Because Fascism is a system of governance and you apply it to anything you deem bad.
People like you hurt the cause.
@@shamefuldisplay9692I see. So we should call them socially democratic scientists so they will just change their minds?
No, I think we can rather call an ideology what it is. The antisemitism and desire to take power unjustifiably through lies which is common in their conspiracies didn't occur in a vacuum, but if you think it did, go off.
"It's not about geocentrism, it's about cosmology"
i'm not trying to build a bomb, i'm practicing chemistry
bars
@@leomuller2841 oh my god you're right
Please refrain from vagueposting about @ExplosionsAndFire
Your honor, it wasn't a meth lab, I just had all the ingredients for **making** meth
I’m not murdering people, I’m learning about anatomy
It's kinda interesting how completely the whole thing circles back to what they said in the trailer: they are desperate for the universe itself to place them on a pedestal of cosmic significance, and they need the earth to be the center of the universe because it's what they use as proof they matter.
As opposed to, like, people being wonderful and fascinating things which we treasure for what they are.
Even within a Christian worldview, it seems profoundly sad. We're told that God loves us, regardless of our faults and failures, and created each of us individually and with purpose. You would think that would be enough to reassure a believer that they, personally, matter.
Unless, of course, you're secretly a bigot that feels profoundly dissatisfied with the idea that God doesn't just love you, He also loves all the "sinners" and "lessers" that surround you. That you are special in much the same way as everyone else, and should treat them with a corresponding level of kindness and respect.
And you can't have that, now can you? How can you be special if everyone else - including the Jews, homosexuals, etc. - also are?
Well they can't believe that can they? Like they said, they believe deep down all people are sinful, so if we live on a random planet in a random corner of the universe, we have no value in their eyes.
@@Bluecho4 Damn... That makes an uncomfortable amount of sense.
@@Bluecho4 It's interesting to me (as an atheist and naturalist), that a world view that accepts the universe as largely being as described by current science and also believes in a god like the Abrahamic God, it would actually exemplify the love of that god if they loved each individual of such a seemingly small species on just yet another planet. That god may love everything yet still personally love each thing on its own merits, and none are insignificant to this god.
There are still issues of the "If God is omnipotent and benevolent, then where does evil come from?" sort, but I think my antitheist streak would hardly exist if the religious consistently went down that sort of road.
@@perchy22 Their obsession with irrelevant (from a religious point of view) cosmological concerns does seem to me to arise from a weakness of faith. Speaking from a Christian point of view, Earth is the "center" because we should be centered on God, which also means, on our neighbors, who live here on Earth. Physical investigations into the nature and movements of the celestial bodies is the proper domain of (for real peer-accredited) scientists, who naturally should operate autonomously (within reason--I could have done without thermonuclear weapons, thank you very much, though I guess that's not really _their_ fault...) Attempts at controlling science is invariably bad for religion: fundamentalism, the worst modern pathology in religion, is a notable "boomerang effect" of such attempts.
Its not about GEOcentrism.
Its about EGOcentrism.
Specifically anthrocentrism. The belief that humans are inexplicably special and so therefore must be their home, ideas, form etc.
bazinga
It’s about making money off of stupid people.
Nothing's more egocentric than people who deny the real God and choose instead to be their own gods.
@@lorichet I think that would be the sum of it.
Isn't this the same "documentary" that also tricked Kate Mulgrew into narrating because they thought getting a Star Trek Captain to do the voice would give it more weight, and she flat out says "they told me I was going to be narrating a Sci-Fi film".
Yes, this is mentioned in the video (without the specific reasoning)
So you didn’t get even a couple minutes into this video huh?
@@JTD472Who hurt you? Why so mean?
@@cly_ How was the question "mean" 😅?
"why are they attacking this one theory that has been proven false and not these other theories which haven't?"
That and geocentrism involves making assumptions that the earth is significant. Science is about having a hypothesis and testing it to find out if it holds. If it continues to hold then it becomes a theory, which could still be wrong. It's not about wanting something to be true. It's just discovering what is and what is not and being open to new discoveries that prove old theories incomplete or wrong.
What stuck out to me in that section was comparing String Theory to geocentrism. I'm a big PBS Spacetime guy (great space/physics YT channel) and I would say that while string theory is mathematically valid, it is controversial to people who understand it. A documentary presenting string theory as fact without additional evidence would be controversial, in the literal sense, that there is active disagreement on the issue.
Side note: One of the ugly mugs talking mentioned that 'oh that's just your reality" or some such. Yeah that's how general relativity works, observer reference frame is really important at massive or near lightspeed scales. Its neat, stop being weird about it, 'Dr.' Wrongaboutthings
You mean "Why are they attacking the only one that is not a scientific theory?"
@@CleverChrononaut The earth is significant, to those that reside upon it' surface.
@@malenfant21m It _was_ a scientific theory but was disproven which is what heliopyre is talking about.
10:24 oh my- you just unlocked a repressed memory of my aunt having me and my siblings watch a "documentary" about how the water inside you body responds to positive thoughts.
Then she made us all write happy thoughts on pieces of paper, laminated them, and made us carry them around touching our skin so the water in us could...sense it???
why did my mother allow this-?? For years I remember writing on my skin because someone in the documentary did it and I thought it'd help my depression?!?!?
someone stop the planet I wanna get off
i hope you got actual therapy in the end lmaooo
Your Aunt might be nuts, but placebo effect is particularly effective for mental and emotional problems. I'm sure she meant well, and if you believed it worked it probably would.
@@SineN0mine3 I was closer to thinking that at least the action was harmless, even if the mindset was off the goddamn rails.
Wow… woof…. Are.. are you still in touch with this aunt??? I’m so curious what she’s doing with her life now
Well, good news, we don't gotta stop it, you can just walk off the edge...
“...the forces that are arrayed against us...”
Those insidious, horrifying, irrepressible forces... of logic, discernment, skepticism, first principles and scientific method.
And also jews.
A lot of these lunatic types uncritically repeat nazi rhetoric, which is unsurprising.
Logic is pretty aggressive
@@riley8385 unsurprising, yes, but also pretty depressing.
"they are trying to suppress us!!!" after they aired their ridiculous movie... so... the strategy of Big them™ is to... *checks notes* give them enough rope to hang themselves and allow the movie to be published and shared, so everybody can see it and die laughing? Well... okay, that is clearly working? :)
P.p. edited for stupid typos
“I am the protagonist of this reality. It is up to me and me only to fight this battle many so oblivious about.”
He’s a conceited narcissistic attention-seeker that’s all.
the last few seconds about the planets sexualities is so real honestly tumblr would be quaking rn over your headcanons
That segment is how I first realized that Dan is both extremely online and incredibly based
“I don't accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view. My view is that the moon is made of rock. If someone says to me 'Well, you haven't been there, have you? You haven't seen it for yourself, so my view that it is made of Norwegian Beaver Cheese is equally valid' - then I can't even be bothered to argue." - Douglas Adams
What are these bots that I keep seeing. It's like, obvious they're bots based on their profile and images but this response seems like it could almost be a response to this comment.
@@elizabethlockhart2103 What about their profile and image is bot like? It's probably just a dude who doesn't use youtube much. Account was made many years ago which isn't bot like at all.
@@Spamhard The comment is gone now, but there WAS a reply to this comment that was a bot. Not the op here lol.
@@elizabethlockhart2103 Oooh that makes way more sense. Yeah the porn bots are rabid atm, I'm reporting like 5+ accounts a day. It's wild.
It's literally just attempting to give validity to appeals to ignorance. It's Hitchens' razor - any conclusion that can be freely asserted can be freely deserted.
I love how the documentary uses the word "revolution" to talk about the so-called comeback of the geocentric idea, when the word "revolution" was _created_ by Copernicus when he debunked this very same idea.
It came full sphere
You win the internet today sirs
Well that's hella amazing
similar energy to flat earth societies claiming they have members all across the globe
This tactic was adopted by large segments of the ultra right wing. 40 years ago, wrapping a right wing argument in the rhetoric of it's critics was something only a few ever tried. 30 some odd years ago, adoption of this tactic was a raging debate. Today, they spew it all over every forum they can find.
For instance, white supremacists have taken the rhetoric of the black civil rights movement, and even the Jewish rhetoric. Thus we now constantly hear about "the white holocaust", and "white oppression". But when you sit down to listen to their argument, it's the same tired arguments against mixed race marriage and not being able to treat black people as they did before the civil war is somehow oppressing them.
The media is full of examples of this tactic being used
When did "controversial" come to be a softener for things that are obviously bad or stupid? When did everyone need a seat at the table? "Science says that I need food and water to survive, but I think I can live solely off eating bars of soap. Science says it can disprove that, but I say all of this is controversial. Also, I am being silenced for thought crimes. Big food doesn't want you to know about soap!"
BIG FOOD KEEPS TRYING TO TELL US TO NOT DRINK BLEACH
WHAT IS IT THAT THEY DONT WANT US TO KNOW!?
as someone who is bad and stupid I must contest this opinion to preserve my political voice
You say this as a joke, but there is a real group of people who call themselves “Breatharians” and claim you can live off air alone (at least eventually - they, of course, don’t all agree on how come to this result and yes, it’s cult(ish) and has scam/grifter components).
being silenced for doin your mom doin your mom u know we straight up doin your mom
I love this take. Ur my big food now...cmere
27:45 After rewatching this video again and again, I finally can translate this paragraph simply. "Turns out, Cancel Culture has always existed! If Christians became dominant again, like in Reagan's Era, then Cancel Culture will stop oppressing us (for being mean to gay people) and go back to oppressing them! (For being gay)"
He literally says the quiet part loudly. Or at least writes it in plain text. He just utilizes the same tactic you show later, where he says so many words you lose track of what he means and so it seems more sensible.
I love how they refer to Science as if it's some sort of shadowy, evil corporation 🤣
Everybody knows that when you become a scientist, the illuminati will force you to either join them or die. Don't play dumb 🙄
Big science™ :) most of them tried to go into science and we're either bad at it or were kicked out for being bad at it.... or couldn't even enter the field. :)
Very few people think that they are some evil corp. Most people just rightly assume that these people are biased and, that the studies they present are often flawed methodologically. Their sample sizes are often poor. They assume correlation constantly even if other factors could account for it. Their control groups are laughable and, they often reach the wrong conclusions based on the data.
@@joshuareynolds23 And science studies that too, which is the only reason why you know about it (and exaggerate it to make a point).
@@ekki1993 lol science isnt a monolith nor is it infallible. The way you people treat it is like a religion. They very well may study it but, I in no way exaggerated it. I stated very plainly what happens daily or, should I cite how those three scientists manipulate the system by introducing absolutely ridiculous studies that appealed to the political bias of these supposedly reputable scientific journals?
I need like an extended 5 hour cut of Dan Olson naming planet sexualities, absolutely brilliant
That’s a weird documentary about cosmology I would support
Me too
Seconded
Ayo where my Joviansexual homies at?
@@Actinide5013 I laughed *and* I learned (not in that order).
"Dude, that's your reality" dude, that's code for "i am being talked at by a crazy person and I don't want to disagree with them because they might make a scene"
It's like talking to a black hole, tiring and futile.
@@Rinne_is_real ...is talking to a black hole tiring?
@@sydssolanumsamsys indubitably
Some stoner told him "that's your reality" in college & he had no good response so it's lived rent-free in his head ever since.
@@sydssolanumsamsys Only if you expect a response.
I've watched this video a dozen times now, and the way Dan says "straight, trans man. Married to the Sea" always kills me
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts. While the stupid ones are full of confidence." - Charles Bukowski's quote becomes more relevant every day.
Classic Dunning-Kruger Effect :/
@@pastlife960 science is the means by which the truth is discovered, whereas religion is the means by which the truth is decided.
Wasnt that bertrand russell? But if that was a joke, nice one. And If im way off base, just consider it exhibit A.
@@zakpodo that last quote I just came up with, but I do love Russell, and paraphrasing him here is equally appropriate : "When in pursuit of the truth, never let yourself be diverted by what you wish to believe", i.e don't start with the conclusion you want and work backwards finding evidence to support it. Instead, use the scientific method, start with a theory and look for evidence to debunk it.
The oldie but still true: the more I learn, the less I know.
I fucking love that someone as well-spoken, thoughtful, succinct and analytically accurate as Dan, decides to finalize the end of the video with "They're a bunch of dumbasses" when he could've absolutely just said it at the beginning. He waited, bought time, explained how almost all of the arguments made were either scientifically or morally reprehensible, and then caps his explanation by calling them fucking morons. I don't know if it's about the dichotomy of the statements, or if it's just about the contrast itself, but fuck if it isn't genuinely hilarious.
He has no arguments against their arguments for geocentrism, all he does is cherry pic short clips, snd gives nothing burgers, and ultimately resorts to character assassination. This was very insightful.
@@MaxStArlyn Nice bait.
Character assassination against a bunch of brain dead zombies
@@dariogutierrez6716 yeah not much to assassinate there lol
@@dariogutierrez6716 basically assasinated themselves
"All positions in an argument should be treated equally."
My brother in Christ, the other guy sniffs glue and is wearing an SS Uniform. He lost Frame 1.
Do not pass go, do not collect 200 zorkmids.
So if all sides are equal, "Satan was framed by god and earth is actually a pyramid".
-This is humour, please do not drink any cool aid.
@@acetraker1988 I love kool aid! thanks for the new beliefs :D pyramid earth with my country at the peak (back when it was good) and satan being framed by god is a psy-op by the flying spaghetti monster to keep himself hidden since he doesnt like all the noise from prayer
Yeah, as someone else put it, that should mean to give all arguments equal scrutiny, not to treat them as equally valid.
Fr
Imagine being *so* insecure, you try to make a documentary about how you really *are* the center of the universe.
Men will literally make Pro-Geocentrist propaganda instead of going to therapy.
Imagine being so ingrained that the footage of India landing on the moon seems legit.
@@TVAVStudios you want to chop your wiener off don’t you
"He's 95% okay with the Vatican II"
Me: "He's not okay with the Jews part is he"
Edit: trust me, nothing important is happening in the answers to this comment. It started with joking mild antisemitism that the person regretted fairly quickly, and now there's someone who just mentioned pronouns and how ridiculous it is that people care about them. No one has mentioned pronouns. It's an obvious troll. Also, someone has been called a nazi? Seriously, we could lose this entire thread and nothing of value would be lost.
I mean... Is anyone really okay with the jews thing? (jk)
@@LucasDeziderio Yes. Everyone except Nazis. Also, of course I don't know anything about you or your intentions nor do I know if this was intentional or actually just a (bad) joke, but the rhetorical use of comedy to inoculate antisemitism from criticism is /extremely/ common among neo-nazis. They do this so they can portray their critics as irrational and therefore not worth listening to - regardless of the validity of their criticism. The youtuber "Shaun" has a video illustrating this with regard to the Charlottesville rally in 2018. I recommend giving it a watch. ruclips.net/video/zcoYKuoiUrY/видео.html
@@spencerlively3049 I wanted to say that you must be fun at parties, but I also don't want to lie...
PS. just to be pedantic about it, not all anti-semites are nazis...
@@spencerlively3049 Hm, fuck. You're right. I am deeply sorry for that. It was a joke, but I didn't think about the implications. Fuck neo-nazis. All love to Shaun.
@@LucasDeziderio Yeah sorry about that, Jew jokes can get real salty because there's A TON of genuine nazis in comments. Just this week I found some guy that thought the protocols of zion are real
I am endlessly amused/frustrated with the idea that "all opinions are equally valid'. No. No they are not.
The important part is the 'opinions'. In their mind facts don't matter only opinions do and their opinions are more valid than others.
@@tigervigesaa1866 That's what happens when someone conflates "having the right to an opinion" with "all opinions are equally valid".
+
Then this ought to aggravate you: whether the sun is orbiting the earth or the earth is orbiting the sun is, with respect to physics, entirely a choice of convenience. Both coordinate system choices are equally valid, and each has different advantages for different tasks. For describing all the large bodies in the solar system, the sun as the origin of the coordinate system is much easier mathematically. For describing the heavenly bodies from a telescope, choosing the earth as the origin of the coordinate system is much easier. The truth is, THERE IS NO PREFERRED REFERENCE FRAME. All reference frames are valid. This is called the principle of relativity. It is among the most solid pieces of physics known to humanity.
Where the cranks make a mistake, however, is assuming ONE PARTICULAR frame of reference is "truer" than any other (they assume the "Earth is the center" choice of coordinates is the "true" one). In reality, THERE IS no "true" coordinate system. There are only choices of convenience.
@@EliteTeamKiller2.0 The debate on weather or not the Earth is the center of the universe is one that has metaphysical consequences and is extremely important. It's not true, and yes, that matters.
I studied planetology and I can confirm that everything Dan says in the last 50 seconds is 100% scientifically accurate.
What about Pluto
@@quiroz923 Bisexual, sick of people calling her "straight" just because she's married to Charon
What about the Sun?
@@ashikjaman1940 ew, gross, Ashik! That's the planets' _mum_ !
@@GaryDunion How dare you stop watching after lesson 10? In lesson 10 we learned that the sun is not in fact the mum of planets, instead their babysitter, slowly needing more energy to keep up before eventually burning out! It was another planet who did the deed, giving sustenance to most planets, as well as earth, via long distance shatter relationship.... sadly for Earth it bore too much fruit and the father up until now has not yet been determined.
See, this is how you know these aren't the kinds of people you can just fix by "debating with sincerity" and "letting them be heard."
The Pope, their GOD-EMPEROR ON HIS THRONE, told them: "Quit blaming Jews for everything," and that was THE FIRST TIME that a great many of them were like "Nah, I think I'll do my OWN research."
There's only one thing to be done about "tradcaths" and other fascist creeps, but saying it would violate RUclips guidelines 😒
to be fair in the past they just started a new religion instead
@@nfinn42 we beat them in minecraft pvp of course
@@juniperrodley9843 I thought the M.O. was that we make them run a game of F.A.T.A.L.
The pope is not my "God-Emperor". I don't know if that's just for dramatic effect or you're laboring under a misconception, but Catholics don't consider the Pope God or any part therein. That would be a violation of the Trinity. He's holy, sure, but not God. Also, he's not an emperor. The pope doesn't have total control and authority-but it's generally agreed that Papal Bulls are right and should be followed. It's not like they select a Pope out of a hat. The guy will know his Bible and his Jesus.
Otherwise, yes, these guys are -loons- completely rational and I agree with your point that the timing is -suspicious- completely coincidental. On the note of the Jews thing-that was just a formalization. The Catholic Church had done away with the idea of Jewish Deicide for a while by then. In fact, during WWII, the Vatican safely housed many Jewish refugees despite being smack-dab in the center of Fascist Italy (or as I like to call it, Hitler's Southern Front). That's because the Vatican authorities knew the Axis wouldn't want to risk having the world's Catholic community mobilized against them just for a small percentage of those they could murder elsewhere.
"This is not about geocentrism"
"SCIENCE HAS EVIDENCE THAT EARTH IS THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE"
What?
@@nbriez-c5914 SAY WHAT AGAIN, I DARE YOU
@@nob2243 whwhwhwh what
True that
"SCIENCE HAS FOUND EVIDENCE OF GOD"
Fixed/edited for mah boi Nathan Lloyd
Dan Olson confidently listing the sexualities of the planets is identical energy to Mike's Mic categorising things as Wednesday. Both of them are incredibly accurate
or Lenny Bruce defining inanimate objects as Jewish or goyish
I've watched this video countless times and just realized that the Galilean Moon pan polycule would only have 2 members
one of mike's best videos
@@josemedrano2645 maybe they're a couple that wants to be poly but just haven't found their third/fourth/fifth/etc yet?
@@corporalregicide5248 Dibs.
This is a movie about people complaining there is a conspiracy out there suppressing their ideas, while, if they themselves were in power, they would *fiercefully* suppress all opposing thoughts.
Classic case of projection. They're telling on themselves!
Yes but MY ideas are the right ones so it's ok if I suppress yours /s
It’s so funny because if theirs ideas were REALLY being suppressed then the docu would never have made it to mainstream lmao
There are a lot of ideas and just factual information that actually ARE suppressed by a conspiracy of media and financial ✡️ interests.
Flat Earthers and their variants are not being suppressed because you hear so much about it, even if it's just to make fun of it because it's obviously stupid.
Fiercefully??
**watches entire video with great interest, gaining a greater understanding of rhetorical tactics**
**jumps for joy to find out Uranus is Ace as fuck**
“Well if we don’t see it we won’t kill them” is the worst defense I may have ever heard
We call it the Anne Frank doctrine.
Combined with "they'll be so scared to be killed, they'll hide it way before we start killing them!" Disgusting.
That’s why it’s almost impossible to convict rapists in Pakistan (except in gang rape cases where the perpetrators testify against each other): there must be at least 4 adult male witnesses to the crime, and the woman’s accusation of her attacker/s is not admissible evidence. If those 4 witnesses cannot be found the woman will usually be imprisoned for the crime of zina, extramarital sex.
@@alisaurus4224 sooo... any/all potential witnesses are in fact those who made themselves complicit by their lack of action to prevent the assault. and you need FOUR?! that's... scarily fucked up.
Ah, Sundown Towns.
If someone says they're "just asking questions", what they're actually saying is that they don't want to hear the answer.
Does this include Socrates? And if so, does it constitute a dig against him?
Ask them something like "Why did you burn down that orphanage?"
It's just a question, after all
@@silvermagpie1071 "Why did you burn down that orphanage" is what's known as a "complex question" -- a question that presumes a (possibly false) premise.
Tbere is nothing wrong with non-complex questions.
@@zapazap Is there a difference between "Complex Questions" and "Loaded Questions," or are they simply different names for the same idea?
@@TheWrathAbove I understand them to be synonyms meaning questions whose meaningful asking (or answering) presupposes states of affairs that may be in dispute. (It is hard to ask a question that fails to presuppose something or other, but typically they would not be deemed complex if the presuppositions were shared presuppositions.)
Does this help? (I may have over-answered you.)
saying Mars is "bi but almost exclusively dates men" is just, so valid.
That's my bf, honestly. Lol
He can't mean the roman or greek god, though. That guy was deffo straight. (And almost as much a playa as Jupiter)
@@TheAgamemnon911 are you tryna say that the greco-roman pantheon wasnt intensely homoerotic ?
@@moddydhu2939 No... I just looked up his list of sexual encounters and found that they are predominantly (or even exclusively? Hard to tell with some of the names) women. But you're right, there were not many straight gods in that particular pantheon.
@@TheAgamemnon911 This is just for fun so don't take it too seriously. Though I took a class on erotica in the ancient Greek and Roman world that discussed this but in war there were many sexual and romantic relationships between men and was very normal. "Cesar is every woman's man and every man's woman" was said by Cesar's teacher- so even if in the myth the god has hetaro relationships the institution of war was very very homosexual in the society that worshipped him. So I would say that is very "bi but mostly dates men" energy.
to this day what still confuses me is WHAT they told Kate Mulgrew. How do you get someone to do an entire VO narration for you geocentrism film and have the actor not know it’s a geocentrism film?
I mean, she's an actress, not a science communicator. I don't hold it against her
@@LiarJudas666 Oh I absolutely don't hold it against her, these guys are proven conmen whose whole MO was tricking people into being in their stupid documentary. I'm honestly just wondering what lie they told her.
Based on what Dan says about the film, it sounds like Kate's stuff wasn't pushing geocentrism on its own but that it pushed it when paired with the interviews (as in if you just watched her sections it wouldn't sound geocentric).
You'd be surprised how easy it is to trick professionals into stuff like this. My archeology professor got tricked into being on ancient aliens. All they told him was that he would be interviewed about mesoamerican mythology for the history channel
@@The867530910 Oh that's sneaky. That's REAL sneaky.
They place themselves as victims before engaging a conversation, as to treat any response as hostile. It's exhausting.
How could it be any other way?
Either you are with them or you are against them with zero in-between.
Yeah, I've delt with extreme narcissists too.
Exhausting is EXACTLY it
Ironically that's what a lot of us Jews do. Probably gonna have to refine our methods a bit....
Wow, cool it with the antisemitism
These kinds of people constantly confuse being told that you can't say something because it's controversial and that you can't say something because it's stupid and wrong.
You can't say something because it's wrong, stupid, AND controversial
Needs to be a t-shirt
to conspiracy theorists, "controversial" has two meanings:
1) "anything i say that i deem to be correct but that everyone else fights me on."
2) "anything that is widely believed but goes against what i think it's correct."
so from this we can deduce that everything in existence is controversy to them, depending on how it suits them to define it at the time you ask them about it.
@@OriginalCreatorSama It's a highly narcissistic thought process.
@@SamAronow for real tho
so what is controversial?
The general clichee of scientists being afraid to dissent the current understanding of a matter is quite ironic because fact of the matter is, being the driving force behind a major scientific revolution, discovering and being able to prove that everyone had been wrong about a particular matter is every scientists wet dream. Technically, being just proven wrong isn't dangerous either. The only time you risk being ostracized is if your work methods were grossly unscientific and it's obvious that you were just trying to prove your own ideas without any evidence, essentially that your work is just a piece of propaganda.
You explained beautifully why these people (in the video) had to pay for their "degrees".
Also, to be a scientist, I would say, is to be wary of / challenge preconceptions, grounding all theory in objectively/independently observable facts. The exact opposite of what these wanna-claim-to-be scientits are doing. Their claiming to be scientists borders on slandering science. Mellow as I am, that kind of thing does get my goat.
It's not even unique to these people, it's a general perception. Hollywood and authors love to cast scientists as ignorant rubes who just don't get it in settings with magic and supernatural creatures, aliens and things beyond their ken. But... that's not what science is. It isn't rigid rules that you follow with blind adherence and shun any opposition to. That's religion. Scientists are skeptical BUT if they actually observe something or are provided evidence of something unusual, they will inspect it, repeatedly, to understand it. If it holds up to inspection and repeated observation, they will generate and test theories until they understand it. If magic were real, scientists would be the fucking wizards, not some new age mooks who just believe what they read on some Facebook posts.
Basically a lot of projection is happening from ppl who can't tell their ass from their elbow in regards to science and how it is done. Thus, conspiracies. :)
Unless of course your work has political implications, in which case you can expect grant money to be pulled, peers refusing review, and results supressed by powerful organizations that would be greatly inconvenienced by that data becoming public.
"The trailer is meant to be provocative!"
People: _gets provoked_
"Why are they angry at us?"
Guild of energists sounds like the next elder scrolls mage guild
I don't know the game. Is that a guild of pretend-mages?
It’s a fantasy world with mages colleges, and different kinds of magic (restoration, destruction etc.) IIRC.
I imagine the Guild of Energists would be trying to use lightning to heal people somehow, ever since one guy managed to restart someone’s heart by sheer luck.
@@anthonythompson6053, thank you for explaining!
Gonna add the guild of energists to my dnd campaign now tyhiiutedgy
@@leedraconis5793 sounds awesome!
My understanding of geocentrism at the time of Galileo or Copernicus was not that the earth was at the center because it was special, but rather because it was at the bottom.
The heavenly bodies were heavenly because they were perfect and possibly immaterial, meanwhile all the imperfect, material stuff was down here on earth. The objection to a heliocentric model was not that it made Earth less important, but that it elevated earth to a heavenly position.
24:15 I do love how his list of worst sins in the 1940's contains things like homosexuality, contraception and promiscuity... but not... I don't know, genocide? War? Racism? I love how accidentally revealing these people sometimes are.
Considering thay Genocide, War and Racism have all been church policies at one time or another, its not that strange.
You can't be doing crusades and calling genocide a sin, you'd look.like a hypocrit!
@@SineN0mine3 Glad we're past that atleast
can't forget him leaving out p*dophilia, which is ultimately made worse by what was revealed abou the catholic church
It is deliberately accidental. Bending truth is built into the design of their indoctrination. This is how they get away with being an overt deception.. by not really lying. Most people only see the distractions and totally deject the implications.
Nevermind World War II, the Church had just finished calling the efforts of Spanish Fascists to overthrow a leftist republic a righteous crusade and giving their backing to it. Why would someone that thinks Vatican II was a mistake think war is a bad thing? The only thing Sungenis probably thinks Franco did wrong was not killing more 'undesireables'.
In all fairness, Michio Kaku will appear on anything that he is invited too. He literally went on TV and implied that the Earth's core reversed. He quite often misrepresents the current state of scientific consensus in order to get on television. Yes, he is a very accomplished scientist. However, being an accomplished scientist does not have a correlation to critical thinking abilities. For example, Linus Pauling created and perpetuated the vitamin C immune-boosting bulshit myth, Deepak Chopra was a very well-respected neuroscientist until he started conflating his work with Quantum Mechanics for some reason, Etc.
Ok, but how does that prove space exists?
Tbh i respect that. Man does not give a shit
VITAMIN C BOOSTING YOUR IMMUNE SYSTEM IS A MYTH????
I love his "consider the lobster" shirt
Hey Sakamoto, since you can talk now, have you ever considered picking up a phone and contacting child services?
I have that exact shirt. Love it
David Foster Wallace fans rise up
@@imveryangryitsnotbutter can't, no thumbs
@Najawin You are bad and you should feel bad.
I never understood why the flat earth and geocentrists feel that the existence of life on earth being an accident/result of big bang/evolution makes it insignificant. I think that one lonely space rock along millions around us being the only one to host life as we know it, to have such varied and complex life forms while those around us are just boiling/freezing rocks and gas balls... I think it's actually very significant and kind of divine in its own way. It doesn't make any difference to me where we are in all that.
because they think everything is an anti-faith conspiracy
Oh yeah, cuz the idea of there having been innumerable weird and wonderful life forms before and almost certainly after us, all being the result of sheer chance and the right things happening at the right times isn’t awe-inspiring at all. Honestly the idea of everything we know and observe being the result of deliberate external influence is *less* cool to me. It makes the universe feel so much smaller. There’s no fun in being the centre of the universe, it leaves you nothing worth exploring, cuz you can only go down from here.
@@thatkidwiththehoodie I feel you but the centre is not guaranteed to be the most interesting. I mean hey it could be but there's no gaurenteEEEE
That's because you haven't rested the foundation of your identity on being the most important thing in the universe, or at least a part of the most important thing in the universe.
Why would you lump the very implausible "flat earth" theory in with the very valid geocentric theory that's been shown in every experiment done to date?
When you’re a catholic fundamentalist that makes a crazy cosmology conspiracy film and the Vatican actually does astronomy and totally disagrees with everything you say. Good times.
@@snarkylive I believe in the infallibility of the Church but not this one they're doing it wrong.
@@wyrmh0le I'm glad there's a voice of reason here. Honestly, SSPX and Sedevacantists are truly Protestants in the closet.
The Catholic Church and some of the other leading Christian institutions accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution. But their desperate attempts to reconcile the Bible and evolution are absurd since evolution and the Bible account of human origins cannot both be true. If evolution is true, there was no 'Adam and Eve', no 'original sin', no reason for 'God' to send his son to Earth to die to absolve mankind of original sin i.e. no New Testament. If evolution is true, humans evolved millions of years before God created Adam and Eve. If evolution is true the Bible is obviously a work of fiction. Evolution is true because it's supported by the overwhelming scientific evidence which includes DNA, fossil, embryology etc. Trying to reconcile the Bible account of human origins with evolution is absurd. Like the old adage says, "oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive".
@@patm6704 This is only a problem if you insist on taking the Bible “literally” in the modern sense. For example, Augustine actually writes about proper, “literal” biblical interpretation and basically allows for 100% allegory under that umbrella. The idea that the Bible must have been written as a newspaper or textbook is relatively new. If you’ve ever read poetry about historical events, that should give you a framework for dealing with Genesis. Does O Captain My Captain tell a mythical story about a ship’s captain? Is it a historical account that wrongly states that Lincoln is a ship’s captain rather than a president? Or is it a description of true events through the eyes of a poet?
@@jeremydavie4484 the SSPX are in union with the Church. Sedevacantist are not. The only reason the FSSP exists is because of the SSPX when the traditional Latin mass was suppressed.
"so ace that she doesnt even understand the question and wishes that everyone would stop asking"
me.
she's so relatable 💜
I think we as an ace community woefully underuse this line. We can do better. I'm not on tik tok but I feel like this audio clip would do numbers with the ace community there
the fact i only got the joke on my second rewatch is a true testament to this ✋😭
This is the most important thing your conspiracy videos have taught me: some people just suck. Some people are just mad that their hateful, stupid ideologies don't work, or are unpopular, and can only function by lying to themselves and others that they're right and those they oppose are evil. They're not misguided saints, they're cruel idiots desperately trying to exact some control on the world in the most destructive ways possible.
This comment should have more likes
@@fangirlfortheages5940 i agree
the cruel idiots are on both sides of the fence. one side just seems to outnumber the other. At least scientists are usually too busy with their jobs to make strange documentaries or claims. That is usually left to those with too much free time, and no interesting hobbies.
@@lakkakka dude, stop with the false equivalence of "both sides are bad".
No, scientists don't make strange claims just because they don't have "enough time". They don't make outlandish claims without having evidence, unlike religious nuts who never have an ounce of evidence for anything. Have there been amoral scientists and unethical experiments? Yes. Have there been scientific theories that are now known to be wrong and discredited? Also yes. But that's the nature of science, it changes as we obtain more and more data and knowledge. Peer-reviewed science is self-correcting in a way no other social system is.
Wow you have it all wrong. I dont belive but I know that the earth is not what they have told us it is. Also I am far from far right. Actually ALOT or MOST flat earthers are not far right, nor are we left. Ask yourself this, if we know that they lied to us about something as big as the shape of the earth, then why would we belive or buy into the ILLUTION that our votes count.
I'm just letting you know that this guy doesnt know what he is talking about.
Noone would belive flat earth if there wasnt some hard core evidence. I would never make such a extreme claim if I was not sure. The fact is that there is WAY more PROOF of flat earth than ball earth. There was a $5,000 prize on Zen Garcias channel if someone could prove the ball earth. Noone won, but this guy thought he won and was mad he didnt get the money, so he took Zen to court thinking he would easily win and get his 5 grand. Well the judge ruled in Zens favor because that guy could not prove the ball. That's pretty telling.
The truth is that anyone who is talking crap about people who are flat earthers have NEVER seriously looked into it.
Truth is that the ONLY reason any of us EVER belived in the globe earth was because we had been convinced of it from a very small age that we never even questioned it. Why did they do this? Because it's the best way to get people to belive something that is IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE.
Check it out. But it's hard to find good and real flat earth videos because they
Even if we pretend for a second that the director is speaking in good faith when she talks about wanting to "give everyone a seat at the table and letting the audience decide," that mindset is absolutely infuriating. The marketplace of ideas model doesn't even really work for philosophy, let alone hard science.
I think it *could* work provided everyone before engaging in the debate (table) be given a basic "proper education", especially on the correct context of certain issues and beliefs, although I may be biased mainly because I hate snobbery, wish to avoid a technocracy at all costs and hold fairly egalitarian views.
@@rclark777 reminds me of a wikipedia guideline which states doing so makes the pseudoscience more prominence
It's also worth noting that the marketplace of ideas is flawed in premise.
When it comes to markets, the most popular or commonly accepted item isn't necessarily the one that's qualitatively the best, but rather the one with the best marketing. Ex. basically all generic medication is exactly the same, but some people perceive some is better than others because of marketing. Most of the time, the things that the markets decide our best are usually not actually the best.
If you put this in the lens of trying to find the best or most true idea, you won't actually get that with the marketplace of ideas, you'll get the most palatable or easy to explain answer.
Markets don't really work outside of economics, and I would argue they suck there too
It's a mindset that leads to allowing Nazis to have a platform which is NEVER a good thing. The fact of the matter is that, actually, not everyone does deserve a seat at the table.
@@rclark777 Even then, such debates are probably only going to be able to produce mathematical theory and tautology, at best. (Well, maybe some sociology and psychology on the side lol.) To discover nontrivialities, (no shade at mathematics lol,) you need to actually examine the world.
It’s interesting how so often “insignificant” is interpreted to only mean “worthless”. It can mean that, but can also mean “small” in the literal sense. Humanity is indeed insignificant in the grand scheme of the universe, but it’s rarity, and the rest of the planet earth’s vibrant ecosystems, is remarkable within a vast universe without life like it (so far as we know yet). And even if it wasn’t so unique, it wouldn’t mean there’s no worth.
Also, I think the repulsion and depression at us being a spec in a vast universe speaks to ego, and one that needs validation. It can be tough, but we can have meaning and value and purpose, and accept that we are not the center of the universe.
ego... somehow it always comes down to that doesn't it
Surely compared to the infinite majesty of The Lord, we're also insignificant?
In either case insignificant compared to the infinite isn't a bad thing, it just is what it is and it doesn't need to cause stress.
An individual bee is insignificant compared to us and they seem pretty chill about it.
Be like bees.
@@joshuacollins385 Agreed! It's that knowing your own worth thing, that they def don't have down. so they need to compensate by insisting that they are the chosen, and follow them!
But the catch with these people is that they need to feel superior, bc their sense of superiority is where they get their feeling of worth. A lot of human social structures are based on hierarchies, where you can trade on your value by ensuring that other people are below you. Look at their views on LGBTQ+ people, and how they demean them to be subhuman, lower than they. They may acknowledge they are insignificant to their infinite Lord, but they are sure as fuck gonna make to put themselves as high on the hierarchy ladder leading up to him as they can, as they try and tell you only their way of interpreting (or really not interpreting) the Lord's word is correct. *sigh*
This is why I think cosmic horror isn't all that it's cracked up to be. Like, if I ever learned The Great Old Ones actually exist, I would be like "sweet". Sure, it's pretty scary that they can destroy us without even knowing we exist, but when you think about it, is that so different from a supernova? There are so many horrible, destructive things in the universe already, and we still study them without going mad from revelation, so what does it matter if some of them have a civilization and weird architecture?
Terézia Marková huh, never quite thought about it that way, but that makes a lot of sense! It’s just choosing what flavor of destruction comes and how we are not in charge of what happens on this planet
24:22 this guy says all the worst sins in the world are sex. Sex with no baby, undoing a consequence of sex, not being married and therefore not having sex, having too much sex, and gay sex.
Either this guy's wife has a rewards membership with Adam and Eve, or his search history is a comprehensive guide to kink culture.
or he's just a hateful bigot
I've always found it so weird how fundamentalists see sex as, like, the worst thing anyone could possibly do ever, it's so weird and bizzare
Christian morality is largely based on the idea that enjoying things is inherently bad and denying yourself enjoyable things is inherently good.
Put it more simply, the church needs you to feel guilty and sad so you keep going to church.
@@edgarallenhoe3518The idea that worldly pleasures are bad and should be discarded in favor of spirituality is the backbone of most sizable religions. It's the basis for Christian morality and the key takeaway from Buddhism.
I'm sure someone else has said this but it BAFFLES me how he said that he checked the film "thousands" of times to check there was "nothing about the Jews in the film". Why the hell would you need to check THOUSANDS of times for that???
This turned out to be a lot weirder than I anticipated.
One of the strangest things about this type of world view is that they seem to think that, unless everything is absolute, the universe has no order or meaning at all. The moment you admit that anything is relative or subjective, everything falls apart. Cats living with dogs, people murdering each other with abandon, the whole nine yards.
However, here in the real world, some things just are relative and sometimes one viewpoint is as valid as another.
I'm not even talking Einstein here, good old Galileo is good enough. If you have observers in two inertial frames of reference that are in motion relative to one another, they will get different values when they measure the velocities of moving objects and neither answer will be more correct than the other. Full stop.
But admitting that fact doesn't cause a complete breakdown of all order, it just means that if you want to tell me how fast something is moving you also need to tell me which frame of reference you measured it from.
Einstein took it a few steps further. He realized that how you measure time also depends on your frame of reference, and that locally, gravity and linear acceleration are indistinguishable from one another.
These people also have a fundamental misunderstanding of what happens when a scientific theory gets proven incorrect. It doesn't mean that anything goes. The replacement theory needs to do at least as good a job of explaining observations as the previous one did.
Einstein proved Newton wrong, but it most circumstances Newtonian mechanics is good enough and much easier to understand, so we keep on using it and teaching it. If we ever prove Einstein wrong, the replacement is still going to have to match Einstein and Newton in most circumstances.
The same is not true for geocentrism. Even in its most refined form (a la Tycho Brahe) it didn't do a great job of predicting or explaining the movement of planets and it was very complex and convoluted. The moment Kepler came along, geocentrism was done for. It's not a special case or useful simplification of Newtonian physics. It's incompatible on a fundamental level. It doesn't match the reality we see around us. It's just plain wrong. Throwing out Newton and Einstein won't change that.
You explained it well enough, but I love the idea that these people reject relativity so much that even picking frames of reference for standard calculations is an affront to them.
I'm at the part where the producer is revealed to be a Catholic fundamentalist and I'm laughing because even in religion class, my Catholic school education specifically taught us that the Earth is not the center of the universe. Pretty sure the Church fully goes along with the science when it comes to astronomy.
Edit: Of course this guy is anti-semitic. Why did I expect any different?
99% of conspiracy theories are anti-semitic in nature, consciously or subconsciously. As soon as people are starting to talk about a "them" that are trying to hide the truth, the anti-semitism has entered the conversation, even if they themselves might not realize.
oh it's really unsurprising considering, one of the big grievances different tradcaths have with vatican two is it basically saying the jewish people aren't responsible for the death of jesus.
@@franciszekdo
Blaming modern day Jews for the death of Jesus is stupid enough anyways, but
1. I’m pretty sure crucification was a *Roman* form of capital punishment, not a Jewish one
2. Since Christianity is founded on the belief that Jesus, the Son of God, rose from the dead, shouldn’t the Jews (if we are saying they are the responsible party) be commended for setting up the circumstances for the Resurrection?
3. The Pope, as all good pious folk know, is actually the Anti-Christ and [Redacted for excess Puritanism]
BYZANTINE ( ROMAN EMPIRE ) ASTRONOMY FROM A.D. 1300
EMMANUEL A. PASCHOS
Department of Physics, University of Dortmund, Germany.
”…A Byzantine (the one and only Roman Empire), article from the 13th century contains advanced astronomical ideas and pre-Copernican diagrams. The models are geocentric but contain improvements on the trajectories of the Moon and Mercury. This talk presents several models and compares them briefly with the Astronomy of Ptolemy, Arabic Astro nomies of that time and the heliocentric system…”
“……In contrast to Western Europeans "the Arabs had virtually full access to that, Greek, heritage from the eighth century onward. This occurred because of a momentous translation effort whereby the great works of Greece and other cultures were translated in Arabic". Later on (12th and 13th centuries) the classical knowledge was transmitted to Western Europe through Byzantine and Arabic sources and Irish monks who travelled across Europe founding monasteries and scriptoria..….”
@@warlordofbritannia The argument they make is that the Romans only crucified Jesus because the jews wanted that.
Also:
2. That doesn't contract Christianity at all. The bible makes it very explicit that Jesus was sacrificed for the good of humanity or "The Rightious for the unrightious". The people who made the event happen are not excused because they didn't KNOW what they were doing was God's plan all along. They did it because they thought Christ was not the son of God.
> "Uranus?" "So Ace that she doesn't understand the question and wishes everyone would stop asking."
What a way to end a video!
I wish more of the faithful would read what Cardinal Cesar Baronius wrote: “The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.”
The actually Bible tells us both dude
@@O3177O - "The actually Bible tells us both dude"
We're supposed to believe someone who cannot even form a comprehensible sentence?
I do not believe and most of the worst atrocities were committed in the name of God/ religion
I really like this mans quote I wanted get across that I'm a person that would reject things like this but it is a great way to interpret the Bible
@@westleyreed6977 Glad you like it.
Geocentric models were heavily based on Aristotle and ancient Greek astronomy. The ancient Greeks didn't have telescopes and therefore couldn't see the very minute parallax of stars, and argued this proved the earth was stationary. Until telescopes, there wasn't good evidence for the theory, but the Church also barely cared about heliocentrism vis a vis Galileo. People like to think that the middle ages lost the "knowledge of the ancient greeks" until the Renaissance, but literally every really stupid idea from the middle ages comes directly from ancient greece and Rome. The only "science" that was "lost" due to the Church was haruspexy and divination. The Renaissance should have been about the rediscovery of predicting weather from the flight patterns of doves and the shape of cow ulcers.
The problem with the “im just asking questions” type of arguing is usually just a disguise for “i dont understand this and dont understand the answers ive been given so i dont believe it”.
People who are "just asking questions" are usually already convinced their question cannot be answered. They don't want answers, they want to convince that the "official" answer isn't true.
There's also no such thing as just asking questions. This is easy to prove to anyone. If someone says they're just asking questions, ask them: "Why you you fantasize about sex with your own mother?" or any similar question. You are, literally, just asking a question. But it proves the fact that questions can be leading, or basically outright statements on their own. The fact that you are just asking questions doesn't indemnify your motives and opinions (which show through which questions you ask and how you phrase them) from being interpreted and argued.
@@Demmrir sometimes people are just asking questions though, and are attacked for doing so by being accused of making statements rather than asking questions. It happens.
@@snuffeldjuret and sometimes people actually do fantasize about having sex with their own mother.
part of being a rational human involves having the critical thinking skills to help deduce when questions are just questions, and when ulterior motives are at play.
@@gorcrow in other words, you agree with me?
As someone raised by a TradCath, Libertarian mom, this was a long series of "oh no" moments.
Props to the really fundie catholic types for literally dragging out some conspiracy theories for hundreds of years I guess.
Imagine simultaneously thinking you're a libertarian and adhering to the tenets of the largest theocratic organization on the planet.
@@adamplentl5588 My experience growing up in a family of Catholic school teachers is that most Catholics know shit fuck all what the Church actually stands for and just arrive at their political beliefs independent of faith and then just try to crowbar their faith into them. (E.g. Catholicism has enough left-leaning doctrine in its dogma like caring for the poor, opposition to the death penalty, criticism of capitalism, etc. that Catholic liberals and progressives can find ways to justify their faith.)
eyy me too, and i had the added misfortune of being the eldest and also trans.
@@daver7910 Oof. I'm sorry. I hope you're in better circumstances now.
the part where sungenis says "moses wrote genesis chapter 1 therefore everything happened exactly as was written" is so damn wild to me. imagine if there were people 2000 years in the future who genuinely thought the events of Homestuck actually happened
It’s crazy because not even the people of ancient Judea thought Moses wrote Genesis. That idea was synthesized literally centuries later, no earlier that 200 CE.
@@alexanderfreeman3406it was traditionally believed that Moses wrote Genesis. But the oldest manuscript we have of Genesis as we know it (i.e. its entire form) dates to around 400BC. So idk where you got the year 200 from
@@methatis3013 I don’t know where you got the idea that there is a manuscript of Genesis “as we know it” dating to 400 BCE, but you are wildly misinformed. The earliest examples of Abrahamic writing are the famous “Dead Sea Scrolls” found in the Qumran caves, and the oldest of those are fragments and scraps that have been dated to 300 BCE at the earliest with the majority being centuries younger.
And no, ancient Jews did not believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch. None of the books ever name an author, because they were an oral tradition passed from generation to generation. Their culture placed no importance on authorship. It was not until they came into contact with Hellenistic cultures starting around 200 CE that they began to start ascribing authorship to their writings. And it was around this time that Rabbis synthesized the belief that Moses wrote Deuteronomy, citing his “divine inspiration” for the Laws of Moses. Mosaic authorship then gradually expanded over the other four books.
It's weird that they try to pretend fiction and artistic liberties are a new invention, not a fundamental part of the human condition.
Genesis doesn't teach geocentrism, tho.
Me (an idiot): "Heh, if the Vatican is so great, why isn't there a Vatican 2?"
Dan (an intellectual): "Vatican 2"
Me: "oh.."
Vatican 2: Not As Anti-Semitic Boogaloo
I'm waiting for Vatican 3 Lazer pope
@@ProbablyJules aren't we all?
@@ProbablyJules Unfortunately Vatican 3 is in Development Hell
Vatican 2: Lost in New York, featuring a surprise appearance by Donald Trump.
I know this is an old meme, but I just love it: “if the earth was flat, cats would have knocked everything off it by now.” As a cat owner, I concur.
Cats are against the hierarchy of gravity!
Thats funny!
Old memes die hard.
Counter argument: What if there are no black holes, but giant space cats that unravel the wrapped up string that is reality?
This is a joke. Viewer digression is adviced
this is why I explain Globe Earth to my cats in spite of the facts
“Mom, Dad, I have something I need to tell you. It’s been really hard keeping this inside for so long but I’ve met some new friends who have made me feel much more comfortable with who I am. So I guess it’s time I tell you; I’m energetic. I’m a past life healer, and I can use written words to give water healing properties.”
"No son of mine..."
"I knew you wouldn't take this well, considering you are a Virgo"
"NO! SON! OF! MINE!"
I always hated when idiots use the term "balanced discussion" and "we need to hear all sides". The arguments of a religious crackpot will NEVER have the same weight as that of a scientist. One has evidence.
We need to hear all sides, doesn't mean I won't laugh at the stupid one 😂
Religious group haven't invented technology on a grand scale like science has.
One thing I've never gotten is the false dichotomy between "we are in an entirely unique and special place in the universe" and "we mean nothing." I believe we're here by coincidence, I'm atheistic. But the way I see it, life still has intrinsic value, and I still marvel at the sheer unlikeliness of our existence, which is still amazing even if we don't assume there's intelligence involved. I just think we don't have to have been made by an intelligent agent to matter
It isn't necessarily that we mean nothing, it's that the universe is such a terrifyingly huge expanse, with so many different planets (my favourite is the one that rains molten metals) that ot truly puts into perspective that we are randomly arranged clumps of atoms. Our lives matter to us, but that's such a tiny scale that it's dizzying. For a better explanation, I would read the Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy books, specifically the part with the Total Perspective Vortex, a machine designed to force you to experience just how small everything you've ever known and cared about is compared to the entire universe. That being said, I'm with you, our lives have meaning to us and our little dirtball earth, and hopefully one day we can live longer and do more with the time we have.
That’s a beautiful way of putting it, and I wholeheartedly agree! The idea that everything around us, including our own existence, is so unlikely, so many coincidences and “mistakes” piling up on one another over an amount of time so long that none of us can truly wrap our minds around it in a meaningful way, makes me find life even more precious and awe-inspiring! We don’t need to be specially carved by an intelligent being and valuable in the scale of the entire universe for our lives to be unique and incredible.
We literally made significance up, so whatever we feel is significant is, by definition, significant. That is so much more empowering than saying "the nebulous deity decides all significance."
Exactly. Significance should not be confused with importance.
@@isenokami7810 Those are... the same things. You can have the same debates about both. I think what you're trying to say is that we shouldn't be acting like significance is an objective matter.
Why is it when someone tells you to “have an open mind” it almost always means “just believe what I believe.” Ive never heard a rational-minded, critical thinker harp about open mindedness
The sheer irony of someone preaching about open-mindedness, when that same someone would also happily see people like me *put to death* for violating ancient religious law.
👏
@@danielludwig647 You wear clothing of two different fabric don't you degenerate?
@@alfieshepherd6522 That's only applied to wearing blended fabrics of specifically linen and wool. I know it's just a joke, but the joke has been repeated so often that it's frequently taken as the literal truth.
@@SamAronow Really? I thought it literally said in Leviticus that you shouldn’t wear a garment of “two kinds of material mixed together”.
Love that he interviews himself to show how strange it is, great work.
I was very confused at first but was reall well done
This was my first video of his, can confirm I was very confused
As someone who was home-schooled K-12, I am forever grateful that a) my mother home-schooled for Autism Reasons (e.g. having a horrible public school experience due to being autistic) and b) she was completely comfortable acknowledging that evolution was actually accepted by a number of prominent Christian scholars and never had us study/engage with "Creationist science." Which may be partially attributed to the fact that her favourite areas of science were chemistry and astronomy and we never went into much origins literature, but whatever. I always get something of a kick out of the controversy Galileo/Copernicus/Brahe and their contemporaries were embroiled in given the fact that the ancient Greeks (hello, Eratosthenes!) knew the earth orbited the sun.
Also, you are SO right about the planets' LGBTQ alignments. So delightful! Finally, an EXPERT has spoken the truth!!!!!!!!
Honestly almost everyone with an understanding of astronomy was heliocentric. It's apparently pretty clear if you study the stars enough.
Idk enough to explain further
In that form it isn't true. Erathostenes calculated the circumference of the Earth, the ancient greec heliocentrist theory was another guy namely Aristarchus. And it wasn't that widely accepted, keep in mind the geocentric theory what was accepted trought late antiquity and medieval history was created by a 2nd century Alexandria guy. They didn't actually "know" the Sun was in the center, most of the math of these people is off, to the point that heliocentrism isn't proovable by it, it's more of a lucky guess than "knowing". We didn't have definitive proof of heliocentrism till the mid 18th century.
In the subject of the math being wrong, having no definitive proof and the whole thing amounting to a lucky guess... I know that in hindsight Galileo was closer to the truth than contemporaries, but the thing is, he was wrong. He tought planets orbit the Sun in a circle (instead of in an elypsis) and that made his theory in practice observably wrong. Brahe's model was closer to the observable reality. Galileo's main argument for the Earth movement was that "the tides are a result of the movement of the Earth", in hindsight he seems more correct, but he was still wrong.
@@i.cs.zI've never seen a serious scientist defend Galileo's theory of the tides. It was obviously wrong when he proposed it, it was considered wrong while the whole helio/geocentric debate went down, and then Newton's mechanics and gravity found the real reason and showed that yep, he was wrong about the tides.
Sometimes the establishment really does get it right.
The simple fact of the matter is that when Galileo was alive, there just wasn't enough evidence one way or the other to decide whether the Earth or the Sun moved. Galileo was technically less wrong, but for the wrong reasons. And he actively ignored evidence that would have helped his case in favor of his crackpot ideas. (His theory of tides was very crackpot, even while his study of mechanics was sound.) It's a fascinating bit of history, and read properly, I think it's a cautionary tale for all involved.
@@jameshart2622 Yeah, between his cracpot ideas, and getting in trouble for being an unprofessiobal asshole instead if his theories, he really is more of a cautiobary tale. Sad that the actual events take a backseat to the "Church vs Science" bs what surounds his life.
Giordano Bruno abs Semmelweis is similar in this regard. If course there are huge difference, with Beuro not actually being a scientist, and Semmelweis being a lot more complicated. But there is a similarity in how the reality of their situation takes a backseat to the mostly incorrect narrative made out of the events.
I am agnostic but i will say it: you can't be a christian and believe in evolution, because evolution contradicts genesis and to be a christian you must believe that the bible is, either fully or partially, inspired by god.