To me, the video sorta oversells the difficulty in identifying / escaping from "ridiculous claims", at least in comparison to my personal experiences.

I grew up in a very religious (Christian, Methodist) family / city / state / country. I was questioning the indoctrination at an early age (younger than 10), and rejecting it due to never receiving satisfactory answers to those questions by ~12. Actually, one of the most significant pushes for me was the ultimate reward/punishment thing. Zero consistency and open contradictions between different religions / sects / sources, etc. In symbolic logic, contradictions mean that one of your premises is wrong. Reconsider what you "know" and try again.

With regards to atheism vs (a)gnosticism, technically I'm an agnostic because I don't know with absolute certainty that there is no god / gods out there. However, in practice, I easily and comfortably would rather self-identify as an atheist. Why, when I don't know for certain? Because I also don't know that there isn't an Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, Loch Ness Monster, or Leprechauns, yet I don't feel compelled to tell people that I'm "agnostic" about those things. No. They are pretty clearly human-invented bullshit, with readily apparent human motivations behind their invention. Sounds like religion to me.

That's basically Russel's teapot.

Yeah, there's a difference between "I believe there is no god", "I don't believe there is a god" and "I know there is no god". Not even Dawkins claims the latter.

As far as I'm concerned, it's Russell's teapot. I can't 100% say for certain that god doesn't exist, but weighing all the evidence, I can say that I find it extremely improbable that he DOES exist, and even if he does, he doesn't meaningfully impact my life, so I may as well ignore him.

Fundamentally, there's nothing wrong with being an atheist.

It's 100% reasonable to say that "you don't believe in god" or even that "you believe there is no god". It's an opinion, not a statement of fact.

43 kilotons. the largest of the teapot tests. Ahh it was a series at the nevada test site during the 50s. LIttle boy being 13 kt and fat man being only 21 kt.

Congratulations! Your video, The World's Most Famous Teapot: The Utah Teapot, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 65 Badge!

Your video, The World's Most Famous Teapot: The Utah Teapot, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Was watching with an open mind but soon couldn't take the increasing pitch in his voice. Started to sound like a teapot whistling on a stove until I couldn't take it anymore. It was interesting until then.

Pretty sad that Basement Boy has to try and ride the coattails of a losing liberal commentator.

But who knows what reasons the Koch brothers have for doing what they do. As for the Florida law, I think it sounds pretty awesome. People who get gov't taxpayer money should be drug tested. The leading cause of death in the county where I live is drug overdose. Heroin overdoses are now epidemic. My wife just went to a funeral for a girl, 24 yrs old, who overdosed. My wife's best friend's daughter got addicted to heroin. Church-going people.

But instead of talking about something important, Ms. Bloviator sounds like she's just uncovered the greatest scandal since Teapot Dome. She must be very satisfied with herself. Bravo.

Because experts have already examined the evidence and found it sufficient. That evidence has been used in the development of medicines, and has used to make predictions later shown to be true.

You, on the other hand, want to overthrow the accepted worldview. So you better have some pretty extraordinary evidence as well as the understanding to back it up. I see neither from you.

The experts have only proven the idea of microevolution, and that is where the usable science comes from. You're telling me that you believe whatever they say on that basis. Isn't that anti-intellectual?

And there is tonnes of evidence of macroevolution. You and your ilk just misuse the term and ask to see a monkey to give birth to a human.

But that's just your lack of understanding.

How about just one piece of evidence for macroevolution? That would do nicely.

Of course it does. They're magic, they exist outside of time and space and can do whatever they feel like. It's the exact same "explanatory power" that god has, i.e. none whatsoever.

Yes, and there were good reasons to think thunder was gods fighting and rain happened when you danced. And now we know those are nonsense.

What you're doing is simply giving the teapot the same essence and characteristics of God, and then calling it something else. That doesn't exactly disprove the idea of God, does it? I think you are trivializing the subject without understanding it. There are good reasons, philosophically and scientifically, to believe that an all powerful being created the Universe. There are logically sound reasons for deducing such a being exists. Have you ever studied the history of philosophy? The subject is a little bit more indepth than you are giving it credit for.

Besides, you are conflating the origin of the universe with evolution. We have a pretty good idea about the origins of the universe, but it's kinda by definition a difficult question to ask. But we know that evolution is true to a ridiculously high certainty.

How am I conflating the origin of the Universe with evolution? So far, the best idea they've come up with is that nothing created everything. Not exactly encouraging, is it?

I really don't have to study it. You have to provide some evidence to back up your assertion, which I will then trivially disprove with 5 seconds on google.

Again, this is anti-intellectual isn't it? You dismiss the evidence against your belief while being totally ignorant of what it is. Worse yet, you rail on those who do believe it without understanding their positions. You have also said that if evidence were to be posed, you would simply seek out someone who agreed with your view and copy and paste their views on it. Where exactly in that process is your own brain being used?

You're not just wrong, you're fractally wrong. You're like a kitten who can't work out why he can't eat the fish on the tv. You would require significant education to even understand why you're so wrong.

I used to believe what you believe. I stopped believing it because of the evidence, not in spite of it. It's easy to dismiss me but if you actually do investigate the major claims of evolution you will find, not indisputable proof, but a pile of weak, circumstantial evidence.

If I have to be an expert to dismiss the evidence, why don't you also have to be an expert to accept the evidence?

Because experts have already examined the evidence and found it sufficient. That evidence has been used in the development of medicines, and has used to make predictions later shown to be true.

You, on the other hand, want to overthrow the accepted worldview. So you better have some pretty extraordinary evidence as well as the understanding to back it up. I see neither from you.

Why do you have macro and micro evolution in quotations? Do you realize they are scientific terms?

You should read your own links.

Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution. Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale. As Ernst W. Mayr observes, "transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species...it is misleading to make a distinction between the causes of micro- and macroevolution".

And there is tonnes of evidence of macroevolution. You and your ilk just misuse the term and ask to see a monkey to give birth to a human.

But that's just your lack of understanding.

You could say that, but why should it be taken seriously? The flying spaghetti monster, or the flying teapot, have no explanatory power.

Of course it does. They're magic, they exist outside of time and space and can do whatever they feel like. It's the exact same "explanatory power" that god has, i.e. none whatsoever.

There are good reasons, philosophically and otherwise, to believe an all powerful being created this Universe. The idea of whether the Universe was designed is not a ridiculous question, and I think it is pretty odd that anyone would rule that explanation out apriori.

Yes, and there were good reasons to think thunder was gods fighting and rain happened when you danced. And now we know those are nonsense.

Besides, you are conflating the origin of the universe with evolution. We have a pretty good idea about the origins of the universe, but it's kinda by definition a difficult question to ask. But we know that evolution is true to a ridiculously high certainty.

It may be that in the future that someone disproves evolution. But if they do, it will be through science, not creationist bollocks.

Again, have you ever studied the subject? If you have, what evidences have you looked at?

I really don't have to study it. You have to provide some evidence to back up your assertion, which I will then trivially disprove with 5 seconds on google.

I also don't study astrology, homeopathy, tarot cards, voodoo or crystal therapy because they are all long since proven to be complete bollocks.

You're not just wrong, you're fractally wrong. You're like a kitten who can't work out why he can't eat the fish on the tv. You would require significant education to even understand why you're so wrong.

Please enlighten me as to your credentials as a paleontologist. I assume you must have some, given that you feel qualified that your expertise is such as to dismiss millions of man hours of experimental results that support the theory of evolution.

In fact, you should really publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal. If they are correct (and not, as I suspect, complete bollocks), it will be a revelation! There's almost certainly a Nobel prize in it for you.

If I have to be an expert to dismiss the evidence, why don't you also have to be an expert to accept the evidence? Are you not then at this time simply parroting things to me that you don't really understand, not being a paleontologist yourself?

Sweet. You've accepted the evidence for evolution. "Macroevolution" is just lots of "microevolution". Why are we discussing this?

Why do you have macro and micro evolution in quotations? Do you realize they are scientific terms?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution

They aren't actually the same thing; one has scientific evidence to back it up, the other does not. It does not logically follow that because microevolution takes place, macroevolution also must take place. It is the secular creation story which presupposes it, but isn't supported by the evidence.

You've abandoned science at this point. I could equally say that speciation is caused by invisible pink unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (praise his noodly appendages), but none of it is testable and therefore, it's non-scientific.

Besides, the existing theory explains everything pretty well.

You could say that, but why should it be taken seriously? The flying spaghetti monster, or the flying teapot, have no explanatory power. There are good reasons, philosophically and otherwise, to believe an all powerful being created this Universe. The idea of whether the Universe was designed is not a ridiculous question, and I think it is pretty odd that anyone would rule that explanation out apriori.

That is quite simply untrue. It is lies, falsehood, fiction, fabrication, myth, deceit, distortion and misinformation. In short, it's bullshit.

There is no credible evidence for a young earth. Zero, zip, nada.

Again, have you ever studied the subject? If you have, what evidences have you looked at?

Reminds me of computer graphic class, and that stupid teapot model:

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Craig Ferguson, Stephen Fry' to 'Craig Ferguson, Stephen Fry, russells teapot, homosexuality, bible' - edited by xxovercastxx

@Quboid

Regarding Russels Teapot, I feel it is an invalid argument because a teapot orbiting mars has no explanatory value. To ask whether the Universe was intelligently caused is a rational question, and Russels Teapot provides no answer to it; it explains precisely nothing. The idea of God however has explanatory value, and does provide an answer to the question. This is (one of)the difference(s) between the idea of God and the teapot.

Let me ask you this..do you understand what the scripture says about faith? I think we can both agree that we should have no expectation of arriving in New York by following the directions to Los Angeles. In the same way we should have no expectation of coming to know Jesus personally outside of the directions given in scripture. I want to tell you that the directions you are following will never lead you to know Jesus, so please allow me to open up the scripture to you:

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God

Faith is a gift from God. You will never come to believe that Jesus is the Christ (Messiah) by your own effort, because you cannot generate the faith to believe it. The question then becomes, how do you receive the gift of faith?

Romans 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of God.

The word of God gives you the ability to hear Jesus, and through hearing believe:

Revelation 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.

Jesus is knocking at your door all the time, but you do not hear Him. The word of God will give you that ability, but what should you read?

John 20:31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

The gospel of John is written specifically so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ. You may have read it before as a former Christian, but you may not have realized that without the Spirit of God you cannot grasp it:

1 Corinthians 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

Therefore you must ask for help, which will take a ration of humility. Since you are an honest skeptic who will investigate, and you do not know whether God answers prayers, here is a possible clue to knowledge:

Pray to God:

I do not know if you are there or not, or whether Jesus is your Son, but if you are there I want to know the truth. Please help me understand the scripture I am about to read and show me what is true. If you will do this, I promise to follow the truth where ever it leads.

Then read through the gospel of John, and read it slowly and carefully, coming to an understanding of what is being said before you move on. Before each reading, simply ask God to help you understand it. If you will do this you will discover that Jesus is the Christ and come to know Him personally. God bless.

The point you appear to be making, shinyblurry, is that science/Atheism (which are not the same thing but I see where you're coming from) refuses to consider theological arguments.

I have. I was technically a Christian, when I was too young to make up my own mind. Over nearly 10 years I went from believing every word of the Bible, through doubting more and more of it until realising that I no longer believed at all, that it was of moderate historical value only. I was no longer Christian. During this process, I considered theological arguments and found them all wanting.

I continue to read and consider such matters and I've continued to find the non-theological explanations for events and trends to be massively more convincing.

I think this is the same for most people with similar beliefs - these arguments have been considered and have been found unconvincing. The reason I am reluctant to engage in discussion is because the discussion has been had; nothing has changed since. The discussions become the same circular logic that contributed to me losing my faith in Christianity. The same discussions as have been happening for hundreds of years.

I'm perfectly prepared to consider the topic and reconsider how I think the world works, my world view if you like. If there was anything to discuss, I'd be happy to do so. But there's nothing to discuss because your arguments have been made many times by many people over many centuries and they're pretty much talked out. I have listened, I have discussed and I have considered. And I disagree.

I'm not Atheist because I am 100% certain that there can no be a God in any way. I am Atheist because of Russel's teapot. I've found no evidence and no argument which is even slightly convincing for any religion.