Thread: Shock and Awe: A Former Christian Ponders the Cosmos

My very good friend made this video. He, like me, is converted FROM Christianity.
He makes many interesting points and the production is superb.

Originally Posted by Chiefgator

My very good friend made this video. He, like me, is converted FROM Christianity.
He makes many interesting points and the production is superb.

Extremely well done.
He answers the question, "why do nonbelievers take a much more awe and interest in the universe, than believers?", pretty well.

Originally Posted by Jredbaron96

Extremely well done.
He answers the question, "why do nonbelievers take a much more awe and interest in the universe, than believers?", pretty well.

I agree. I am hoping to get him interested in this board. He is an exceptional debater.

Originally Posted by Chiefgator

I agree. I am hoping to get him interested in this board. He is an exceptional debater.

oooh, do try.

Originally Posted by Chiefgator

My very good friend made this video. He, like me, is converted FROM Christianity.
He makes many interesting points and the production is superb.

OP VIDEO

Very Nice work and terrific premise. Bravo.

Just one question/bone to pick:
are we "here against stupendous odds"?
Not that there's a god/gods, but that over 15 billion years and 200 billion Galaxies with 200 billion stars each (forgive the numbers if they are off some), are we possibly even likely, if Lucky to be in the right place.
Might there may countless other 'lifes' for reason of Better than even odds of material and forces that occur naturally in the universe over that length of time?
Having better knowledge of these variables, life may Not be "against stupendous odds" but even a 1000:1 Likelihood. ..with 1000 more life planets. Some perhaps even more lucky/advanced/elated.
Even though our particular version/evolution would be unique.

But again Bravo for the Sagan-like wonder put to a Very talented video.
Thank you very much.

Originally Posted by Jredbaron96

Extremely well done.
He answers the question, "why do nonbelievers take a much more awe and interest in the universe, than believers?", pretty well.

I think it's because they've been tricked into believing our awe inspiring universe was the creation of a God. In effect, religion steals credit for all of natures vast beauty both local and beyond our planet. All it's life and it's mysteries are taught to have been made by God so in fact when people worship God, they really are Pagans worshiping nature.

Go outside. Fill a bucket full of dirt, rocks, maybe some insects, a little bit of plant matter. Dont worry about the cosmos...worry about the bucket. Explain how we went from a complete and total vacuum devoid of any and everything in existence to the content of just your bucket and tell me again you dont take things on 'faith' as 'believers'.

Originally Posted by VanceMack

Go outside. Fill a bucket full of dirt, rocks, maybe some insects, a little bit of plant matter. Dont worry about the cosmos...worry about the bucket. Explain how we went from a complete and total vacuum devoid of any and everything in existence to the content of just your bucket and tell me again you dont take things on 'faith' as 'believers'.

Well said. I think it has already been said that science is a faith as well. Not in this forum, though. I think we take an extraordinary amount of things on faith. For instance, all of the information you think you know, a large percentage of it you never directly experience. Like science and history, you place our faith into your teachers or textbooks and believe them to be right. We most certainly are always being led by faith. One might say we are always being led, period.

But very well said.

Originally Posted by VanceMack

Go outside. Fill a bucket full of dirt, rocks, maybe some insects, a little bit of plant matter. Dont worry about the cosmos...worry about the bucket. Explain how we went from a complete and total vacuum devoid of any and everything in existence to the content of just your bucket and tell me again you dont take things on 'faith' as 'believers'.

That's a micro-time fallacy. If you can't show me right now, it didn't happen.
Because are life spans are so short in geologic/evolutionary time it's difficult (especially for those doctrinairelly unwilling) to imagine the changes that were really very gradual and not that amazing.

How did shells get embedded in the tops of mountains?
Difficult for us to imagine that the land was once an ocean or lake bed, but because of geologic forces it very gradually did rise up.
Everest ie, is 'only' 60 million years old/young.
About 1/10th of 1% of the time it took for evolution from RNA/DNA/One cells to us.
But there's no real critics of the Related tectonic geology because that doesn't conflict with there religion/creation myth.
Just life/evolution because it does.
There were famous Ridiculed critics of Churchology BS like Galileo and Copernicus, but as in this case, 'god' had to fold up his tent. Just as 'he' will in re evolution.
It's down to mere creation/inception now from the former Tens of Thousands of gods; the remaining Lightning godders call: "I don't understand so it must be god."
Biogenesis, the first spark, does remain unknown, but as Fire/Lightning/Bal before it, does not even evidence a god.

It's obviously easier for some to fabricate a god/gods, as humanity has done for everything it can't understand, than try and figure it out or accept that we don't know exactly how life started... yet.
Though we Do know it did evolve and the basic (and sometimes detailed) progression because of the Extensive evidence of Fossils, Geology/Stratigraphy, Isotopic dating, DNA regression analysis, etc.

Originally Posted by mbig

That's a micro-time fallacy. If you can't show me right now, it didn't happen.
Because are life spans are so short in geologic/evolutionary time it's difficult (especially for those doctrinairelly unwilling) to imagine the changes that were really very gradual and not that amazing.

How did shells get embedded in the tops of mountains?
Difficult for us to imagine that the land was once an ocean or lake bed, but because of geologic forces it very gradually did rise up.
Everest ie, is 'only' 60 million years old/young.
About 1/10th of 1% of the time it took for evolution from RNA/DNA/One cells to us.
But there's no real critics of the Related tectonic geology because that doesn't conflict with there religion/creation myth.
Just life/evolution because it does.
There were famous Ridiculed critics of Churchology BS like Galileo and Copernicus, but as in this case, 'god' had to fold up his tent. Just as 'he' will in re evolution.
It's down to mere creation/inception now from the former Tens of Thousands of gods; the remaining Lightning godders call: "I don't understand so it must be god."
Biogenesis, the first spark, does remain unknown, but as Fire/Lightning/Bal before it, does not even evidence a god.

It's obviously easier for some to fabricate a god/gods, as humanity has done for everything it can't understand, than try and figure it out or accept that we don't know exactly how life started... yet.
Though we Do know it did evolve and the basic (and sometimes detailed) progression because of the Extensive evidence of Fossils, Geology/Stratigraphy, Isotopic dating, DNA regression analysis, etc.

Lets just start with THAT it exists...k?

There are extremists on both sides of the aisle. Most people of religious faith are perfectly accepting of most people that dont have a religious faith. And most agnostic types are pretty accepting of those that believe. The truly ****ing obnoxious pathetic and insufferable pricks are the ones that feel somehow the need to ridicule others based on their beliefs...religious or otherwise. Face facts...you take it on faith that it all just 'happened' without the impetus of a 'God' as much as religious folk believe that it was a 'God' that first threw the switch.