For those who are on YouTube regularly, there is at least one Young Earth Creationist proselytizer. He is VenomFangX, and he has gained quite a reputation for irrationality, as well as for not letting comments through. I watched his first video and posted it on the Rational Responders forum.
The first part of this is also available here.
My first message was:
VenomFangX:
I hear you're known for deleting comments that disagree or argue with your point. I am told you're not in this for discussion, so much as you're in it to preach. Otherwise, you'd have responded to Closedingirl when she and her friend dissected your "evolution is evil" video. However, I have faith that you're a mind that is willing to discuss the things you claim, so I'll still give this a shot.
I posted your "Proving the Existence of God by Shawn" video on a forum I frequent, and asked where, if at all, you went wrong. Here is the URL to that thread:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/6370
In it, there are a few refutations of your argument. I would paste some of the arguments here, but I can't post many of them without getting the "message body is too long" message.
So, Shawn, you can sign up to the Rational Responders website and debate this yourself, or if you don't want to do that, at least reply to these points to me over YouTube. That way, you can read the points raised in the thread without signing up, and I'll relate these points back to the thread.
I await your reply.
I didn't have to wait long for the reply.
I read over some of the comments, and to say the least I wasn't impressed. I saw the same logical fallicies such as "did God exist for an infinite amount of time? Who created God?" which is the comment I receive over, and over again.
Surely you can appreciate the difference between infinite, and eternal. Time may very well be infinite, but it can not be eternal. I will explain why.
Eternal means without beginning, and without end. The implications of something being eternal is; it has always existed, and always will exist.
Infinite means with beginning, but without end. The implications of something being infinite is; it began to exist, and then continues for infinity without end.
Time can be infinite, but it can not be eternal, because time must have had a beginning, according to all forms of logic. We can go into this in depth if you wish.
However, claiming God is infinite, but not eternal, is both heresy and illogical. The God of The Bible claims to be Eternal, without beginning or end. You asked where did God come from? Who created God?
To be able to create something, you must exist inside of time. The act of creating itself is an act of time; something doesn't exist, time passes, then it does.
So it is an error placing God within time, because God exists outside of time. Time is a creation of God's, and He is not restricted by it. Infact, you could say God exists without time, to be more accurate. Time is the measure of change, so that means God can not change, because He exists outside of time. This also means God can not be created, because creation is the result of time. If God exists outside of time, that means He always has existed, and always will exist. He is eternal, because timelessness dictates that no change is possible.
However, scientists agree that before this universe, there was nothing. No matter, no time, no space. So the only way for 'something' to happen from a changless, timeless reality, is for something to exist that is an uncaused cause, an unmovable mover, a creationless creator.
God, never changing, always existing, created everything. There is no 'before' God, for God is the very Creator of the fabric of existence. I hope this answers your question.
OK then! My next response is wordy, and includes other people's arguments as well as my own. It's edited for space, but is included in the link I posted at the top.
Shawn:
First off, I do say that you're being arrogant and blind. You are going after one argument only. There were plenty of arguments beside "did God exist for an infinite amount of time? Who created God?" yet you only respond to that. Then you call this a "logical fallacy"? Is this not turning your own watchmaker fallacy back on you? If the world is so wondrous and complex it must be designed…why does this not apply to god, who is infinitely wondrous and complex?
Some of the responses to this PM (yes, I posted this in that thread) have been pretty darn...well, impressive. Rigor_OMortis said, for example:
"To be able to create something, you must exist inside of time. The act of creating itself is an act of time; something doesn't exist, time passes, then it does."
I couldn't agree more... so to create, you must exist inside of time, that would be the conclusion, right? Well then...
"So it is an error placing God within time, because God exists outside of time."
Which is all nice and fine, but considering your definition in the previous sentence, God could not have created anything. Interesting, but wait, we have more!
Magus said: You should ask him. If a god never changes, what made it "decide" to make the universe? If it never changes then it is alway in it inital state, the universe is eternal under this.
Peace, and please write back. I'd actually prefer that you come to RRS, but whatever.
Ben
VenomFangX said, in response to a long message:
"Magus said: You should ask him. If a god never changes, what made it "decide" to make the universe? If it never changes then it is alway in it inital state, the universe is eternal under this." -you
Since God exists outside of time, that means nothing ever changed, He is an Eternal creator.
That's all he said. Avoided most of the message, picked a single argument, and attacked it (poorly).
Oh my god...Shawn, that wasn't the strongest, nor the only, argument against your claims, yet that is ALL you replied to. Let's look at one that defeats your argument, shall we?
YOU SAID:
To be able to create something, you must exist inside of time. The act of creating itself is an act of time; something doesn't exist, time passes, then it does.
RIGOR_OMORTIS SAID:
I couldn't agree more... so to create, you must exist inside of time, that would be the conclusion, right? Well then...
YOU SAID:
So it is an error placing God within time, because God exists outside of time.
RIGOR_OMORTIS SAID:
Which is all nice and fine, but considering your definition in the previous sentence, God could not have created anything.
Thus, you have proven that, if your god doesn't exist in time, he could not have created anything. But, we exist, therefore, either we got here through a creator who was IN time, or we had no creator. Your god supposedly is outside of time. Therefore, your god is
Not our creator
Likely non-existent
Please, respond to this argument. If you cannot, and admit that I'm right when I say that Rigor's argument disproves you, I am here for you, and can help you out. I know the transition from a hardcore theist to an atheist is a hard one. If you wish to read my story, it is here: http://www.rationalresponders.com/my_deconversion_and_what_led_to_it (it's long, but it'll help you see where I'm coming from)
I look forward to hearing from you again.
-Ben
I was genuine at the end. Many people, especially those who are hardcore as he is, and I was, need a support group when recovering from theism.
You are missing a point I've made twice now.
God exists outside of time, and being eternally a Creator solves the issue of not having to pass the barrier of time to create anything. If God's nature is that of a Creator, then His creation is simply an extension of His eternality. Thus, no time is required for God to create anything.
That makes no sense, especially given the context of the discussion. And I say that right away.
That makes no sense. This is similar to a child whose favourite made-up hero always wins, no matter the situation. I remember when I was a kid, I had my own made up superhero. His name was Dark Knight (yes, I know it's Batman's nickname. I was 8, cut me some slack). I wrote stories for him, and he always laid the smack down. When a villain discovered his secret identity, he was able to wipe the memories of everyone that villain told. He traveled faster than light, could lift things that were almost infinitely heavy (I once had him move Jupiter into another galaxy and back by flying into it and pushing really hard) and could travel time. He didn't age due to his superpowers, could regrow arms and legs, had every imaginable super power, including the ability to create new ones that he didn't have, etc. etc. etc. I had to constantly change things up every time it seemed that "Dark Knight" met something that he couldn't logically beat. I once made him make a rock so big he couldn't lift it. He managed to do it (he made the rock that he couldn't lift using all the matter in some other universe, then on the second try he lifted it, thus proving he had no limitations). I also once had him go back in time and kill his own grandfather to prevent the grandfather from doing something bad like killing all of humanity or something, which should have prevented my character from being born. I got him out of it by having him raise his grandfather from the dead right away, before he faded out of existence, which was somehow logically possible in my mind. About a year later, I realized how bad these stories were because the entire concept was ridiculous. What you're doing is not very different from what I did, only you base your life around it.
Here's the problem. You said that, for something to be created, time must be spent. Also, the creator must exist inside time. Time must have been created, right? So, God must have gone inside of time, spent some time...to create time itself. THEN, to create the rest of what is in time, god had to go back into time, and spend time, to create things. This is the only way your god could exist outside of time and create things. However, it is illogical, because time cannot have been created, if time is to be used to create it. As you said yourself, "The act of creating ITSELF is an act of time; something doesn't exist, time passes, then it does." [emphasis mine]There is no way that your god can escape that rule, so he must exist within time. In which case, you have to find a way that he came into existence.
If there is a way that "existing outside of time" is a)possible and b)actually a solution to this dilemma, please explain how. Otherwise, it will look as if you are foolishly holding onto beliefs that you cannot justify. Your only explanation thus far is "God is timeless, unchanging, eternal, uncreated. He is the unmovable mover, the uncaused cause." That's it. You're not proving anything by that. So, let's hear it. Obviously you've heard something more convincing than this, since you are so confident in your views.
I do seriously think that most theists, especially Young Earth Creationists, view their god the same way young boys who write view their superheroic creations. This is simply the first time I've been able to use that in a debate.
And for the third time now. Imagine that God consistantly and always is in the act of creating. Imagine if you will that God has never been in a state when He wasn't creating something. That means no time is neccassary, because part of God's eternality is that of a Creator, thus no time is required for God to create anything.
The same arguement can not be made for time, because time itself creates nothing.
He is COMPLETELY unfazed! Plus, he contradicts his own holy book, right after proving his own god doesn't exist. I try to ask him some other questions here, hoping to get him to talk about himself and his YouTube life as well as his theory (colloquial sense) of his god.
How did I miss your point?
If god is always creating, and never in a state where he wasn't creating something, why did he rest on the Sabbath day? The bible contradicts you here.
I don't get this thing about god being eternal and infinite. Something that is infinite started, but will not end. However, eternal has no beginning or end. How can anything be BOTH? (You're wrong, by the way, infinite is the one that has no beginning. Thanks to Rigor_OMortis for that one)
I also don't get why you don't reply to the other arguments I have sent your way.
I also don't get why you don't approve any comments that disagree with you on your videos. I am glad that you are willing to talk to me here, but why not allow people to talk on your videos? If someone attacks you or spams your videos in the comment box, why not delete them as they come?
Anyway, I really don't see how god continually creating things would take out the requisite that time is used to create something.
Lastly, no, time itself creates nothing. Nothing creates anything, we can only reshape things.
Looking forward to your response.
It didn't work.
Think about this 'constant act of creation' from the perspective of the creation. God begins work, and reaches a point when it is finished. Why would God then continue?
Another contradiction...
Really, I only can think of this from the perspective of creation. The point is you have contradicted yourself. If god stops creating, then time has passed between him creating something and him finishing creation. Even without god stopping, if god continued indefinitely, time would still pass, but we'll avoid that for now. The fact is, you said the reasons that time does not apply to god are thus:
1: He exists outside of time (which makes no sense to me, and disproves you on the point that the creator must exist inside time to create, as the act of creating requires time)
2: He is always creating, which negates your previous argument that he is outside of time, as he must be always inside of time to always be creating. Plus, it contradicts the bible, which you believe is literal.
So, how can god be constantly creating when he is finished? Aren't we doing the work after that? (creating our offspring, our societies, our buildings and technology, etc.) This would mean god only created us and left us alone, and is not with us.
Another query regarding this:If god never changes, why did he change from "constantly creating" to "not creating anymore" because the job is done?
Lastly: Why do you not put as much thought and effort into your replies as I have been?
He has since responded, and put a bit more thought into it, but this is getting long already.
Lesson: RELIGION CAN CAUSE EXTREMES IN IRRATIONALITY. He contradicted himself at least 3 times, and once even proved that his own deity cannot exist, yet he persists in believing in it. This is very sad, but also funny in a sick sort of way.
Lesson 2: DESPITE IRRATIONALITY, DOGMATIC THINKING AND BRAINWASHING, PEOPLE CAN BE INTELLIGENT. Shawn might not understand the Theory of Evolution, but he is capable of thinking and making coherent sentences, if not consistently coherent arguments. I truly believe that, despite everything, Shawn is an intelligent person. I actually think that, if he allows his mind to think past the dogma, he'll not only abandon religion, but possibly end up growing up to be a brilliant mind in whatever field he chooses to go into. (I realize that I don't know how old he is, and he might be much older than me, but you get what I mean). I hold no delusions of grandeur, and don't think that I can deconvert a Kent Hovind follower, but perhaps I can help set him on the right path. Regardless, it's been a good discussion thus far.
Tuesday, 1 May, 2007
Discussion with VenomFangX
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
49 comments:
Hey thanks for the "WOW" on my site, what did you mean by wow? Sounds like you are a bit of a smart skeptic. Did you think I did well in the debate?
(don't post this part frank.walton@yahoo.com, let me know what you really thought. You probably haven't heard the whole story)
dont even bother with him. hes clearly delusional and on the brink of insanity.
venom fang is an asberger's syndrom having comic book obsessed, hovind parroting virgin who is likely to live in his parents basement for the rest of his creepy, jack chick esque life.
Interesting! He seems very young from his videos though, it could be that as he grows older he'll find he's been lied to and turn against his old ideology. I am Christian myself and I get concerned about people who pretend to stand for my religion and spew out bile and hate.
The only post about Frank Walton you will ever need to read.
Frank Walton atheism sucks atheismsucks.blogspot.com
Am I the only real scientist left on this planet?
"Time" is a construct. The transition between two energy levels of cesium-133 was chosen to mark a "second of time".
Man built the construct.
When the 22 year-old comic book goon preaches about time being this or time being that....
Why not just let the idiot know "Time" isn't real.???
In one of his videos he says that he's 21, so there's that. But i got in an evolution argument with him, and he clearly not only does not understand how evolution works (that these mutations are minuscule and imperceptible, but build into larger ones) He also doesn't know how dna works (in ohter video, he said that your dna comes from your mother and your father, and no one else, failing to realize that the whole point of human (meiotic) reproduction is genetic diversity, that the egg and sperm form new combinations of dna for the zygote to acquire and use, such is the basis of mutations in the first place.)
It seems like it'd be easy to get through to him just based on how shitty his arguments are, that you could help him realize where he's wrong. But alas, it's never that easy, is it?
After watching more of his videos and seeing his mannerisms, the ways he speaks and moves his cocky yet empty head, I'm starting to think this guy is a repressed homo.
Seriously. Anyone else picking up on it?
yeah i've thought that too, but something tells me it's all an elaborate scam, that he's really trying to show how ridiculous evolutionists are, by making terrible claims, and being completely inaccurate on a lot of his facts. But then again, it could just be him being stupid.
What if the timespan of the universe passes in an instant from God's perspective.
Doesn't that solve the time problem?
Reading the comments below his videos made me weep(not literally) for the future of humanity.
But reading these comments gives me hope again.
yup, this article restored my hope in humanity also :)
Review the blogger's posts in this thread, and the responses of most of the commenters... notice how few can discuss the issue without personal attacks (sarcasm) toward VenomFangX. If people like him are such a problem for humanity, why is he showing more respect than he's receiving? Remember this one mixing of metaphors: your trees will be known by their fruits, regardless of how many people ride the bandwagon with you.
i really don't feel like he's giving much respect either. Don't get me wrong, i'm totally opposed to personal attacks when it clearly doesn't matter. But he generally has a way of being facetious, and has a habit of typing "lol" as a response to anything he can't come up with an argument against, implying that my argument is not worth his oh so precious time, despite the fact that you spend an assload of time explaining your point of view. He tends to think that a lot of things one might type to him can not be "dignified" with his "gracious" response.
I prefer the "Hitchhiker's" argument.
As per his divine plan, God gave no evidence of his existence to man so that pure faith in him may exist. Any evidence that proves his existence would negate the need for faith. By attempting to prove the existence of God by any means (especially scientific) one is actually attempting to prove the fallibility of God. And if God is fallible, then he is not a perfect being, and is therefore not God by the definitions of virtually any western monotheistic philosophy.
All one can actually prove by attempting this, is the impurity of their own faith, as they clearly show the need to justify their beliefs to themselves and others in physical terms.
One may argue that God gave us the Ten Commandments and the Bible. This is not necessarily the case. It can be argued that God gave to only a few men the inspiration to write words for us to live by and in order to one day be with him in an afterlife. But again, God wouldn't have given any evidence to know that these are in fact his words. All one would have is faith.
Science is consistently leading to discoveries, benefiting mankind and advancing our position in the Universe (even if infintesimaly small given the size). Some of these discoveries may contradict something written in the Bible, but a purely faithful person should be able to accept that regardless of these facts, the message of the Bible is a message of God, and therefore needs no defense.
To Venomfangx: I find your interpretation of science to be weak and uneducated. But it is your selfish desire to prove the existence of God through science, while simultaneously attempting to disprove the sound and reasonable work of actual scientist, that I find disturbing. Your faith is impure. You are in need of insight to accept that you cannot know the nature of God, nor can you prove his existence by any method, nor should you prove it as doing so will only lead to greater contradictions to your beliefs.
I am judgemental toward you. I feel this to be an acceptable behavior of one who doesn't believe in Christ. You are judgemental to all who don't believe in Christ. I feel this to be an unacceptable behavior of one who does believe in Christ.
Adios
infinite, I believe it broken down means in, not, finite, having an end or being bound. So boundless, endless. with no end (not necessarily begining-less). So the venom guy was right. I appreciate your article, but don't be so quick to jump for joy on the smallest linguistic victory.
While venomx's arguments are definitely weak, you should not get so heated when he does not answer to all your questions. If you know he cannot truly answer some of them, then let him avoid them avoid them and don't worry. the more you make an issue of his not responding, the more you seem like a pest bombarding this guy (who gets enough comments daily) with page-long arguments that he just brushes off. I guess it's just what you get for posting youtube videos that talk about something that somebody else can disprove, and nothing is more fun to try and disprove than religion. but yeah. don't take the arguments so seriously. it won't get anywhere. they're all word games and mean nothing even if he technically "disproved" the existence of "his" personal deity or said something that contradicts one sentence in his holy book (he doesn't interpret it all literally it seems, so he's not the worst of his kind).
The way I see it is this. Either there's value to life and a soul and some form of god figure spirit or whatever, or there's nothing. If the former, then life is not easy, you have to work to be a good person, and god is not as nice as people hopes he/she/it is. If the latter, then our lives equal that of animals, ants, and morality is a construction created by the weak and killing a person is no worse than killing an ant. Religion can give happiness (as well as self-righteousness which may lead to worse) on a level that atheism cannot reach, and atheism can give freedom (as well as irresponsibility) on a level that religion can never reach. And either way, you'd be a fool to be sure about one or the other. Even the most devout catholic is an agnostic. According to Jesus, if one had faith the side of a mustard seed (or some other small seed, whatever) you could walk on water or move mountains or something crazy like that. It may be true, but nobody has the faith to prove it. God may exist, but Hell, he wouldn't make it that easy and show himself. Life shouldn't be easy, for a christian nor for an aetheist. i'm not even making a point anymore. must be all that beer. all that caanan water. just littering your website at this point. oh boy. bye.
The ability to speak does not make you intelligent.
Your right, that Bible kid is just a child who is yet to see the real world. I sure his ma and Pa hammed the church into him so much hes brainwashed to rational thinking.
Oh people,
can't believe what you are doing here. Sad to read. But please don't talk (write)like that about anybody that you don't know (@anonymous et al)Just keep up with the facts. Ok?! Ok. Facts:
That what I know is, that it takes more belief to believe in Evolution than to believe in a Holy God. And guys it seems that you have a lot of belief. That is good. Belief is what gives us hope. And hope is necessary. The question is what kind of hope do you have...?
Let me ask a question:
Does it make sense to you that everything was created from a long long ago Big Bang (in which was nothing than maybe some waves or bubbles)? It is not an ironic question. I really would like to know your honest answers. Does it make sense to you? While I was studying physics at university (and I didn't believe in God at that time) it didn't make sense to me. So what about you?
Just let me ask one last question: Don't you believe that there is just one truth?
Have a wonderful day
I like VenomFangX. He's just expressing his opinion which he has every right to do. He's young and he's learning, and his arguments and defense of the Christian faith will also mature as he matures intellectually and emotionally.
Jesus is the only way, no matter what you say.
I noticed a massive flaw in VenomFangX's central argument that no one else has brought up, and since it's unlikely I'll get around to sharing it anywhere I thought I'd place my input here where it might be appreciated (and hopefully used, if it helps my fellow logical atheists pursue reason and truth).
The first video of him I ever watched gave the following argument:
"If I promised you a chocolate bar after an infinite amount of time, would I ever give you the chocolate bar? The answer is no, because we'd never be able to stop and say 'an infinite amount of time has passed.' So an infinite amount of time couldn't have happened before us because we never would have reached now. Since an infinite amount of time did not come before us, it had to have started at one point. Matter and space cannot exist without time, so they too were created at a definite point."
This is plainly wrong. In the crude diagram below, imagine this arrow on a cartesian graph representing time.
N---> CB
The 'N' is now, or the starting point, the arrow represents and infinite segment of time, and the 'CB' is the point after infinity, when we get the chocolate bar. The next graph shows VenomFangX's logic as to how an infinite amount of time couldn't have come before us (and thus he claims it must have had a starting point):
I---> N
The 'N' point represents now, whereas the point 'I' and the arrow represent the infinite amount of time. It's hard to understand how VenomFangX missed this, when it is so clear, even in this crude diagram, how wrong he is. I had to go out of my way not to reveal this right away, but you can see he just moved the equation in front of the point that is now. The problem is that there is still an implied starting point for the infinite amount of time. That's the problem with his logic, but he does acknowledge that point...
Because he mistakes about the properties of infinity, he assumes this point must be the start of time, space and matter. Wrongfully so. If you actually wondered if an infinite amount of time came before us, a correct diagram would look like this:
<---I N
The arrow here points in the opposite direction because you would be searching forever for the beginning of this infinite segment (of which there is none).
His next argument was "Whatever did this was incredibly powerful, because there is a lot of energy in the universe." First of all, if the universe was considered as a whole, scale wouldn't matter. As one unit, the entire universe would just be 1. It might just be a tiny spark for all we know, there are no other universes to compare to.
Also, he makes the biased, theistic assumption that this beginning to the universe (which was proven wrong) did so with intentions and thoughts. If anything it would have been an indifferent, natural phenomenon.
Finally he said "We know it was incredibly intelligent because it created enough stuff to sustain life on Earth." Now we laugh. This and the previous point have utterly no logic; they're just biased, theistic assumptions. He assumes, almost vainly, that the universe revolves around Earth. Evolution spawned us here, and since the environment is so ideal, we thrived. If it was a bad environment, like everywhere else in the known universe, we'd die out. This explains our unlikely existence to those who think it too unlikely to be chance.
Anyway, I hope you like my input, this isn't exactly the realm of athletic, sixteen-year-old kids like me.
Firstly, congratulations on being #3 on the list for Google searches for "VenomFangX".
The guy is a total narcissist, completely in love with himself more than even his Lord Hovind. He made a video announcing because of death threats he'd received, that he'd be shutting down his YouTube channel. I may not like him, but if he were getting threats then I'm disappointed that people would do that to him, no matter how moronic he is. Oh, and this video blamed 2 other users he'd debated with (and generally made him look foolish) for being the ones that had incited hatred against him.
But alas, the channel did not shut down, and showed near-constant activity for the following week, wherein he watched around 600 videos. And then 10 days later after departing, he posts a new video, which must have taken pretty much all 10 days to splice together and edit. Consisted of a huge number of users responding to his goodbye video all saying "Venom Fang X", most of it in a "Look how much everybody loves me!" kind of way, but then showed off a few of those "And look at some of those hateful atheists trying to persecute me for being right" clips too. He's since took both videos down I believe, but VenomFongX and other imposters have them.
It would seem that those threats against him may not have been real at all, and the whole thing was just a publicity stunt. Not the first time he's done dishonest things on his channel, but to tell them all would make this comment excessively long.
In conclusion, you're correct that all he's there to do is preach. He has absolutely no willingness to be correct, for he already "knows" everything, and no amount of evidence will change that. I'm just saddened that people out there actually do take him seriously, and cheer him on like he's some kind of hero.
hah yeah I also got here by googling "venomfangx" and as per usual he just got utterly destroyed.
Wow, that discussion was absolutely amazing. Shawn scares the hell out of me because I can see how his weird logic might make sense to people who aren't familiar with spotting inconsistencies. Truly, Bravo!
VenomFangX is a respectable, honorable, honest, intelligent young man who simply shares his views of the world. Call it "preaching," if you must, though there is nothing wrong with preaching. The same cannot be said, however, for the vast majority of his opponents who attack him through mere ad hominems and threats, including support for his murder. Most of his critics skew the issues he raises and prefer, instead, to twist his words and their meaning to fit their hateful, genocidal agenda against christianity and christians. VenomFangX has been nothing but courteous to everyone, even his most violent detractors. So he does not post opposing comments. As he has said, that's because they contain swears and threats and he wants to keep his channel clean. Why not make a rational, courteous video response instead. Even if he doesn't approve it, it will still be seen. You people need to get over the fact that not everyone will listen to you, just like you don't listen to everyone else.
I'm late to this discussion and i havent read thru all the comments, so don't know if it's been addressed before, but did anyone notice shawn's statement:
"Thus, no time is required for God to create anything."
then why the fuck did it take him SIX days to create the universe if he could have blinked it into existence?! And WHY would he have to rest for a full day if he was all powerful? Rest from what!? No time was required!
In response to anonymous on spt 16:
"As he has said, that's because they contain swears and threats and he wants to keep his channel clean."
this is a blatant LIE. Shawn censors ALL criticism, wether there are swear words or not, whether they contain personal attacks or not. I've been banned under SIX different user names simply because i disagreed with what he was saying or correcting him when he lied about scientific evidence.
I was banned for asking him if he would accept Thunderf00t's offer in regard to filing a fals DMCA claim!
venomfangx is not a christian. he lies manipulates and (attempts) to silence the truth. In turn he is the devil himself. I mean shit look at his name it has poison written all over it and he is here to poison the minds of good people. i think its best said "For bad people to do bad things you need nothing. For good people to do bad things all you need is religion" and VFX is a great example.
Faith is a funny thing. by definition its something you dont question. yet as the years go on and new things discovered "faithful" people try and shut them out. IE every scientific discovery that has contradicted the church since the church gained some sort of power *cough cough genocide cough*
Well the thing here is if reality causes you to question or contradicts your faith, did you ever have it? why cant science and god go hand-in-hand? why cant we thank god for the great gift of evolution? or would that be to "progressive" for simple minded folk who want simple answers? I mean shit, science says the same thing as the creationist.
science says "we were rocks dissolved in water then some lightning struck and we have organic molecules"
religion says "god made us from the earth"
science says "at first nothing then the big bang"
religion says "at first nothing then god made the universe"
Why dont creationist leave the thinking to scientist because they seem to do a better job at understanding God's creation more so than christians.
I jsut stumbled upon this. Chances are, i'm going to shoot myself in the foot, but that's life.
As i see it.
The existance of a higher being is evident in the existance of creation.
The Bible is infallible.
VemonFangX is a person.
There are no perfect people.
Using VemonFangX's arguments to disprove the existance of God, is like saying that you don't exist, because a worm couldn't properly defend your existance.
The worms terrible defence of you doesn't mean you don't exist. The worm was just too stupid to answer the question correctly or logically.
The same applies with trying to jusify the idea that there is no higher power.
VemonFangX is a man. One person that sometimes says things that don't make sense. It doesn't make sense to hang the whole gospel on his errors.
"Theism is full of holes, silly, and irrational. Here are discussions that show this."
I noticed that as a sub-heading, and like everything in this post, it's a total interpolation of the evidence.
The Universe just came into being, our planet and other things are perfectly tuned, and it just happened to eventually give birth to conscious beings.
Yeah, right.
although I am usually on the apposing side of VFX, I must stand for him this time. Believing something to be true, and having a proof shown to you, proving that it's wrong, but still believing what you originally did, is not silly, it's called "having a belief, that something is true" many realigns are like that, but many scientists are like that too.
Darwin was shown a proof, that the sun could not had existed for more then a few thousand years, and he said (not sure of his exact words) something like this "I understand that your proof contradicts my belief, but I still believe that I'm right". Turns out the proof had an error in it, but no one in that time could have known it.
You want an "explanation" of how god could exist out side of time? imagine that we are not really "here". we (and everything else) is a THOUGHT inside of god's mind. although the thought (us) change, god it self does not (how? I don't know ...). the univ' began when god started to think about it. this thought is kind of a self sustaining thought, god doesn't need to think about it, in order for it go keep existing.
for those of you who don't recognize it, this "model" is somewhat like the Babylon-5 univ' concept of god.
Bottom line, I'm not saying he is right, I'm just say that the fight here, is not weather or not there is a god, and how it came to be. Each person can believe what he wants, but we all must accept the fact that MAYBE we are wrong, but that it's still ok to believe that we are not.
BTW my mail is eyalllev@walla.co.il
"The Universe just came into being, our planet and other things are perfectly tuned, and it just happened to eventually give birth to conscious beings.
Yeah, right."
I would recommend that you read Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker as a starting point; it explains evolution quite simply, logically, and consistently, if indeed such things are qualities to you (rather than detriments). Though you may dislike Richard Dawkins for his later anti-religious books, be assured that this one is not one of them. I assume in good faith that you are interested in learning, rather than blindly shutting out differing opinions - otherwise, what is the point in letting your own opinion be known?
According to the anthropic principle: the planet Earth (and indeed, this universe) happens to be perfectly tuned for the type of life that evolved on planet Earth.
However, to put it a better way, the sort of life that survives on planet Earth tends to be the sort of life that is more suited to Earth's environment. Since Earth has many different kinds of environments, observe how different organisms have evolved to fill different niches in the ecosystem.
To clarify: the sorts of organisms that are not suited for their habitat do not tend to survive. The organisms that are best suited for their habitat do tend to survive. Over time, some organisms will tend to become more specialised, more suited to their particular habitat. This is how ecosystems are created.
Evolution does not have a goal. Life did not arise with the distinct goal of causing humans to come into existence. Such hubris! Evolution has no targets; the organisms that have developed more beneficial mutations - the ones more likely to aid in producing offspring - will tend to have more offspring. Life arose, and humans are one of the many examples of it populating the planet today.
I have no desire to give anybody a lecture in biology - I am hardly qualified, and as such have simplified everything here while aiming to retain as much accuracy as possible. As such, I do apologise if I have confused evolution and natural selection in here. However, I would advise everybody to learn what they can about it, because it is a fascinating thing to learn about. Hopefully, you will learn that nature's marvels can all be explained without the existence of a god.
I wish you luck, if indeed you do come in pursuit of knowledge.
I actually did get a reply from VenomfangX once, and my comment was let through.
The reply was "wut lol", yes that's right.
I guess he thought my Science was too hard to understand because it was all Physics (It was Physics video) and that nobody else in the world would understand me.
After that I dumbed it down... and he blocked me.
i know one way to prove christianity and all other religions in the world wrong!
religion= sun orbits the earth
science= earth orbits the sun
we can clearly tell which is the right one....and during jesus's time there were many other people claiming to be the son or daughter of god or gods so what better chance does jesus have?
what are you guys trying to prove to your self you just don’t want to be accountable for your sins. You all know that he is right, and you don’t want to go to Hell so…Your just in denial.
I agree with Rahul.
VenomfangXs central tenet in his argument for the existance of God is based upon the big bang as an event or action that was "sparked" or instigated.His assumption that this was a result of the actions of a supernatural being is arbitrary however, based on his presupposition that there exists this supernatural being. The originator of the big bang may have been the result of "cosmic forces" beyond our scope of reality, it may have been instigated when god clicked her fingers, it may have been the result of a previous "big crunch" theroy contraction. The overiding fact is that picking a supernatural omnipotent god from a list of causes is not determined absolutely from VenomfangXs logic.Note that i approximate these "unseen" forces or other causes to be seperate from a supernatural,intelligent,interceding "god".Due to the ambiguaties of the English language you could claim these forces or causes to be a "god". This is mere arguing about vocabulary however, and the main point is that VenomfangXs hypothosis does not "win" by default.
get a life u waste of space shaun and live your life instead of worrying what others are saying ,sad man il pray for u
His dream is to be like Kent Hovin, what more needs to be said?
The atheists have gone down in defeat on Youtube, and everyone knows it. Atheism is the most irrational and illogical of all philosophical worldviews.
Now now didn't anyone tell you it's rude to claim a whole portion of the world population is irrational and illogical without giving reasons why? Whilst we are irrational in the way that some of us actually believe we can convince fanatical christians to accept a degree of comprimise, and yes it may be illogical to debate about the existence of something that can never be proven to exist or proven not to exist, but on the basis of this you are just as irrational or logical as a philosophical worldview as we are if not more so. Regardless vemonfangx is scum even by most thiest's standards. Especially after he promised to give some of the donations given to him to the sick kids hospital, then decided to keep the money himself.
What the heck does he mean "According to all forms of logic, time had to begin?"
According to any logic I've ever heard, the process of beginning only has meaning in the context of time.
I go to york universitywith this clown... Whenever I catch him trying to baptize people in the pond I rush into the fray. I'd love to have a video showdown with him in person; but don't have a camera myself. Anyone in?
Hi, its simple, God cant be proven logically and cant be proven mathematically, it is just through faith that you can reach God, it is just through faith that you can prove God. I think venomfangx tried to explained God into a very persuasive way, but everyone who tries to explain God existence is going to crash into a big wall called our great but limited minds.
That's why I chanllenge you guys to have faith and to believe in Jesus and follow his way of living.
So you can prove God.
Thank you for reading. If you wish to contact me write to: Blinky1234@gmail.com
VFX was the YOUTUBE VILLIAGE IDIOT until he left in May'09, after his charity scam backfired (he embezzled at least $3500 that he promised to re-direct to Sick Kids) and his parents got pissed of at him for bringing the heat to their doorstep. Now he's an unemployed 24-yr-old bum still living in mommy's house and has no skills or even the ability to hold down a joe-job (was fired from the last 3 for evangelizing on the job).
Then he got really pissed at TF00T for debating Ray Comfort instead of him and made a YT rant video reply in late July, but looks like dady found out and he is back in the corner for punishment.
SUCH AN EPIC LOSER.
The most repugnant, self-aggrandizing, self-indulgent, narcissistic, sanctimonious, dishonest LIAR you will ever see. Clinically intriguing, really.
The writer of talkingtotheists.blogspot.com has written a superior article. I got your point and there is nothing to argue about. It is like the following universal truth that you can not disagree with: It is impossible to understand the behavior of dogs and cats at the same time, unless of course you're a cat. I will be back.
Seriously, you guys need to realize not all verses in the bible are literal. There are allegory and poetic forms often found around and in historical books of the bible that aren't meant to be literally; One example being Genesis 1 and 2 which may even not be classified as poetic, allegory, or historical, but more so as Myth ( which is a term I use loosely, it does not mean false, but really is an explanation of the origin of the world). That being said, the Bible is not, as it is often treated, a scientific textbook. Its a collection of letters and scriptures, absolutely chalked FULL of literary devices that may not even translate perfectly from Greek or Hebrew into English, much like certain English phrases and devices don't revert to other languages.
So, the next time you're going to bash the bible for scientific fallacies, remember that it isn't a scientific textbook.
Now, this being said, I'd also like to address the attacks on the nature of the biblical God; When the bible refers to the nature of God, it does so in a strictly relational sense- that is the bible describes God in a way that is based on our relationship with God. This is largely a part of the Christian Worldview as we all know; relationship with God.
Actually, the bible goes so far as to say, God doesn't even BOTHER explaining his nature to us because he it is much like an ant trying to understand us- and on this point I'll have to ask you to suck in your pride, I know I do, because honestly, I can't imagine something that I couldn't understand given enough information and education.
It's easy to reject this idea on the basis that it's simply Christians creating a 'superhero' with 'unlimited powers' much like a child, But then, the bible does tell it's followers to be 'as children' which I could easily interpret as a call to indulge this God-given nature to look for something 'super'. Perhaps our tendency to reject the idea of something 'super' is born not out of logic, but out of a grown up pride in how mature we've become.
Finally, I'd like to end with a comment on this Venom Fang Character; He does seem to have done you all respect by not attacking your ideas, and has upheld his values on keeping a clean channel, however I'm tempted
to take sides with the majority here in regards too his stealing money, that IS low. Christians can certainly be Hypocrites, but Man, I'm sure Glad that Jesus called us to follow him, not each other.
Post a Comment