How do we know that Christians are delusional?
Found this amusing.
If you are a Christian, you are about to begin
a fascinating journey. In the next ten minutes
it will become clear to you that your belief in God is delusional.
The goal of this short video is to help you look in a mirror and understand the delusion of Christianity. Once you can see what is going on, the hope is that you will be able to start healing your delusion. With each healing, we make our world a better place.
Don't yell at me, I didn't make it or write that, I just thought it was amusing enough to share.
Tags:
5 comments:
This video makes perfect sense. It's sad that most people on this planet are delusional. If I went around saying that I believe in Santa Claus, everyone would laugh at me and call me crazy ... but if I said I belive in JC nobody gives it a second thought.
I hope in 1,000 years (if anyone is alive) people look back in history and laugh at our civilizations for being so DUMB. You know, kinda like how you laugh at a little kid for writing letters to Santa Claus.
Unfortunately, you are delusuional as well.
A quick rebuttal:
Thought the First:
The scientific method is useful for a lot of things, but not all things.
For quick review, the basic gist of the scientific method is to:
1. Make an observation of a phenomenon.
2. Formulate a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon.
3. Predict other phenomenon based on that hypothesis.
4. Perform measured experiments on that prediction to help prove/disprove the hypothesis.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
Now, the good thing about the scientific method is that if it is done correctly, it is based purely on logic, reason, and repeatable results. Thus the answers can be trusted and reproduced (up to a point...the counter-argument is that new hypotheses come along all the time and explain the same set of phenomenon in an entirely different way - thus rendering the old theory obsolete...but I digress).
The bad thing about the scientific method (and science in general) is that it is usually not practiced in such a cut and dried manner. Everyone has their own agenda in some shape, form, or fashion. Subtle biases are bound to creep in and taint what seems like an entirely objective endeavor. Thus, scientific results are not always as purely scientific as they might seem.
The second problem with the scientific method (and science in general) is that a lot of times it answers the wrong question. For example: If I asked a scientist why the sky was blue, he would go into a detailed explanation of sunlight refraction or some other such nonsense. At the end of it, however, I would still be left with my original question: "But why is it blue?" Why not green? or purple? But why blue? At this point the scientist would have no answer. If he were really true to his profession, he would tell you that the color had no true meaning at all - and that neither did anything else in the universe. For there is no room for deeper meanings within science.
The third problem with the scientific method is that no-one can reasonably live by it alone (much to the chagrin and denial of many scientists). How many things do we "know" that are not testable by the scientific method? Take history for example. Sure there are lots of artifacts, etc that tell us about ancient history. But how much can science really say before it becomes pure conjecture? Can science make a repeatable experiment that proves everything that happened to you yesterday? No. And yet we know that things did happen. And we even know about things that happened before we were born - granted we have to take them on the faith that people are telling us the truth and there is not some monumental brainwashing going on.
Anyway, all that to say, science is a method of reasoning that makes for repeatable results and that gives it a sense of authority and trust. It is highly useful for a number of different disciplines, and I strongly support it's use (Imagine if bridges, airplanes, or medicine were not built upon tested scientific principles!).
Thought the Second:
Evolution as it relates to science.
Evolution is perceived as a scientific discipline - and indeed it is to a certain degree. It does not, however, lend itself to the scientific method in the same way that physics does. Evolution can mostly just make predictions about fossil records. Thus, evolutionists will devise a hypothesis that says fish evolved into amphibians. They will then go out and try to find fossil evidence to support this.
Unfortunately, the scientific method begins to break down at this point. So, say an archeologist finds something that looks like it might could have been a hybrid fish-amphibian. Well, how do you know that the evidence is good enough to determine this for sure? Can the scientists really extrapolate the entire animal from a few bone fragments (or are they just trying to make the evidence fit the theory)? What if this just happened to be a location where fish and amphibian bones were found together?
Hopefully you see what I am getting at here. The problem is that there is no repeatable standard of proof that says 'this' is enough evidence to confirm the theory. At the same time, however, there is no evidence which entirely disproves the theory, and so the quest continues.
The main problem with evolutionary evidence right now is that there are very few good examples of transitional forms between different species (i.e. between a fish and an amphibian). This certainly does not rule out the possibility that the evidence will be found one day, but it also does not instill a lot of confidence in my mind.
Thought the Third:
There is a difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution.
Micro-evolution refers to the changes of specific species over time (diversification of species). This is akin to explaining that different varieties of pigeon's all have a common ancestry. This was where Darwin started with his Origin of Species book. He then conjectured that maybe Micro-evolution could be expanded to encompass a common origin of all species (Macro-evolution).
Evolutionists have since expanded the concept of Macro-evolution to include explanations of how living things formed from non-living materials, and even all the way back to the origin of the universe (an aside: most people don't know that the big bang theory originated from a catholic monk, was accepted by the catholic church, and was vehemently opposed by scientists for a long time - not primarily on scientific principles, but instead because it implied the existence of God).
Now, micro-evolution makes sense to me and there is a lot of evidence that lends support to its claims. Sure, animals adapt to their environment, minor genetic variations occur over time, and different classes of the same species have a common ancestry. Making the leap from micro to macro, however, seems to require a large amount of faith at the moment (again due to the current lack of evidence for transitional species).
When most people refer to evolution, they are usually referring to Macro-evolution. The case for micro-evolution is debated less often and seems to be generally accepted.
Thought the Fourth:
Evolution as it relates to Christianity/God
I assume that at least some part of your question had to do with the Evolution/God debate...if it can be called such a thing. The problem I see is that neither side proves or disproves the other. They seem to be somewhat mutually exclusive.
For example, there is nothing to say that God did not use evolution as a means of creating the universe. Seems plausible - especially if there were more fossil evidence to support it.
Of course, you will get some Christians who will spout off Genesis 1 that God created the earth in 7 days and that it is exactly 6258 years old and that He just made it seem a lot older than that to trick everyone. Maybe they are right...I do not know. I am not sure that the 7 day creation story is meant to be taken so literally that it rules out the possibility of more than 168 hours. Maybe a better translation would have been 7 'ages?' (My point here is not to reinterpret the Bible into whatever fits my fancy, but instead to try and understand it in the appropriate historical context - whatever that may be) Ultimately, I will probably not know until after I am dead, but its not really a sticking point for me. I certainly do not see it as something that proves the essential message of the Bible (good news of God's grace) false.
Similarly, I don't see how evolutionists think they have explained away the need for God simply by saying that everything came from a single origin and evolved over time - to me that just doubly emphasizes the need for a divine creator (or prime mover) to at the very least get the ball rolling (if not also manage and control the process once it did get started).
Now, there have been some recently proposed theories about a perpetuating universe that sound cool and make it seem like there is neither a beginning or an end to the universe. Unfortunately, the theories still fail to answer questions of why it all exists, what's the point, etc. I don't see how these theories do any better at explaining away the need for an intelligent being - besides the fact that they have hardly a shred of supporting evidence.
Thought the Fifth:
How is evolution practiced?
In general, evolution seems to be championed by agnostics and atheists. It is their way of trying to explain away the need for God. It is their religion, so to speak. Sure, there are Christian evolutionists who think God created the world through evolution,and there are others who think it is an interesting possibility and worth further study.
The problem is that there is a battle of ideals going on and evolution is just the surface issue. The truth is that it is not evolution that makes people agnostic/athiests - it is agnostics/atheists who embrace evolution because of its perceived ability to explain away the existence of God. Unfortunately, if they actually carried out the logical conclusions of their idea then they would realize that they still come up empty-handed (either evolution still needs a prime mover - a.k.a God, or we just continue to ignore that part and everything in life is completely devoid of any deeper meaning).
On a whole, I do feel like Christians have done a poor job handling evolution (and science in general). In some ways, christians and scientists just talk past each other (see the blue sky example above). In other ways, Christians refuse to acknowledge the ground rules of the scientific method in formulating their arguments towards scientists. In yet other ways, scientists refuse to acknowledge the limits of science and the very fact that they live by faith just as much as the Christians. Everyone lives by faith in something.
Closing thoughts:
So, did we come from the same evolutionary ancestor as apes? I do not know. They do look something like us. They seem fairly intelligent and share a lot of common genetic material. Maybe we did evolve from the same ancestor. Maybe we did not.
Either way, I believe that it was God who created us. This is not a delusional belief. It requires less faith than believing in natural evolution. Maybe God used evolution as the primary method. Or maybe he just reused some of the same design specs for both the Ape model and the Human model. Either way, something special and distinct sets humans apart from the rest of creation and there is certainly more to us than can be explained purely through the course of natural evolutionary processes. And no, I do not have concrete scientific evidence to support those claims, they are just my own observations ;-)
By the way, if you want more scientific point/counter-point analysis, there is a wealth of (usually highly biased) information on the web. There is also a book called "Darwin's Black Box" that I have heard does a good job of deconstructing evolutionary theory.
The real question is: what will happen to you when you die? According to your own belief system, you will completely cease to exist. Must really suck for you...and makes your entire life, everything you do, utterly meaningless.
You people are all insane.
anonymous saidT
Thus, evolutionists will devise a hypothesis that says fish evolved into amphibians. They will then go out and try to find fossil evidence to support this.
Au contraire; It's my understanding that an observation is made/a fossil found and THEN the hypothesis is devoloped to try to explain what has been observed/found. Not the other way around as this idiot seems to think.
"Unfortunately, you are delusuional as well.
A quick rebuttal:..."
Bullshit.
Post a Comment