Every religion proven to be based upon a foundation of lies

The video is promoting what I would call a fact and this fact is, "that I can be wrong about the things I think are absolute facts.
It is suggesting to keep an open mind to new ideas that can change our understandings.
Beliefs often have emotional attachments to them that make it difficult to except new understandings!

Are you referring to what Carl Sagan had to say?

I'd say you should go through life saying (internally) in regard to beliefs... I am wrong why am I wrong ... they are wrong why are they wrong... and use what you know to undo beliefs not create more.... eventually you'll reach the bedrock of reality which will stand on the absence of beliefs and eventually every belief you come across you'll instantly see its lack of substance because you'll understand the fault with the first belief that all other beliefs stand on.

It is all over it including Carls insights...again for me is not about desbelieving but rather about complementing beliefs and contextualizing the layers or the realms of belief...the functional extension in which they prove operationally real...

I suppose if you think beliefs lack substance you imagine functions to be sort of a mystery...maybe the problem stands with redefining the meaning of reality...you see beliefs report real experiences...

...The problem is not so much with beliefs but rather on how you chose to contextualized them...
(using a mobile phone)

That may work OK for you but are you sure that it will work OK for everyone else?

What about someone who believes like this?

I would say beliefs are geometrical forms that may or may not fit a specific layer of phenomena...they are real when they functionaly fit a context, and, the very same forms, unreal when they don't...they must then be pushed away into a place, a layer, in which they can fit...

...he probably did smoke something who left him unwilling...just give him a second joint !

Christianity is based on a system of ethics and philosophy mainly described in the sermon on the mount and the so-called golden rule i.e. the command to treat others as you would be treated. How is that a lie?

Other than that, the main two alternatives in the world i.e. I-slam and the theory of evolution are known to be total bullshit, which doesn't really leave much in the way of alternatives.

Amen brother preach it like you know it!

I do have a question though, If the Jews are the chosen people why don't most of them believe that Jesus is the Christ?

As soon as a person ways that "the theory of evolution" is bullshit, I know that he is blinded by an ideology that cannot accomodate Darwin's valuable findings as well as those of all his scientific descendants or that he simply does not --or feels morally obliged not to--understand Darwin's contribution. Natural selection is the centerpiece of Darwin's contribution, and that is not a simple hypothesis to be tested by a "critical experiment", i.e., there is no falsifiable THEORY OF EVOLUTION. Actually "evolutionism" (or "evolutionary theory") is a general organizing framework for the recording and interdisciplinary analysis of information from many fields, including biology, zoology, primatology, physiology, genetics, geology, etc. It is, therefore, better called "evolutionary theory" than a theory of evolution.
In addition, I think the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount are profoundly valid and pertain to the teachings of Jesus, but Christianity in general is the less valid product of The Church, starting with the shenanigans of Paul--not Jesus.

Some religions are based on a foundation of lies, maybe all, but nobody will do the searching for you, to find the truth.

Nice signature there !

Israel was a very great nation once and Jews have always had a hard time with the idea of a messiah and god whose kingdom was "not of this world". You're asking for a very long sort of a story...

An item seen on FreeRepublic and other conservative sites occasionally:


The big lie which is being promulgated by evolutionists is that there is some sort of a dialectic between evolution and religion. There isn't. In order to have a meaningful dialectic between evolution and religion, you would need a religion which operated on an intellectual level similar to that of evolution, and the only two possible candidates would be voodoo and Rastifari.

The dialectic is between evolution and mathematics. Professing belief in evolution at this juncture amounts to the same thing as claiming not to believe in modern mathematics, probability theory, and logic. It's basically ignorant.

Evolution has been so thoroughly discredited at this point that you assume nobody is defending it because they believe in it anymore, and that they are defending it because they do not like the prospects of having to defend or explain some expect of their lifestyles to God, St. Peter, or some other member of that crowd.

To these people I say, you've still got a problem. The problem is that evolution, as a doctrine, is so overwhelmingly STUPID that, faced with a choice of wearing a sweatshirt with a scarlet letter A for Adulteror, F for Fornicator or some such traditional design, or or a big scarlet letter I for IDIOT, you'd actually be better off sticking with one of the traditional choices because, as Clint Eastwood noted in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly:

God Hates IDIOTS Too...

The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.

Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.

For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.

In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.

All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.

And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.

Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.

Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.

And, if you were starting to think that nothing could possibly be any stupider than believing in evolution despite all of the above (i.e. that the basic stupidity of evolutionism starting from 1980 or thereabouts could not possibly be improved upon), think again. Because there is zero evidence in the fossil record (despite the BS claims of talk.origins "crew" and others of their ilk) to support any sort of a theory involving macroevolution, and because the original conceptions of evolution are flatly refuted by developments in population genetics since the 1950's, the latest incarnation of this theory, Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge's "Punctuated Equilibrium or punc-eek" attempts to claim that these wholesale violations of probabilistic laws all occurred so suddenly as to never leave evidence in the fossil record, and that they all occurred amongst tiny groups of animals living in "peripheral" areas. That says that some velocirapter who wanted to be a bird got together with fifty of his friends and said:



You could devise a new religion by taking the single stupidest doctrine from each of the existing religions, and it would not be as stupid as THAT.

But it gets even stupider.

Again, the original Darwinian vision of gradualistic evolution is flatly refuted by the fossil record (Darwinian evolution demanded that the vast bulk of ALL fossils be intermediates) and by the findings of population genetics, particularly the Haldane dilemma and the impossible time requirements for spreading genetic changes through any sizeable herd of animals.

Consider what Gould and other punk-eekers are saying. Punc-eek amounts to a claim that all meaningful evolutionary change takes place in peripheral areas, amongst tiny groups of animals which develop some genetic advantage, and then move out and overwhelm, outcompete, and replace the larger herds. They are claiming that this eliminates the need to spread genetic change through any sizeable herd of animals and, at the same time, is why we never find intermediate fossils (since there are never enough of these CHANGELINGS to leave fossil evidence).

Obvious problems with punctuated equilibria include, minimally:

• It is a pure pseudoscience seeking to explain and actually be proved by a lack of evidence rather than by evidence (all the missing intermediate fossils). In other words, the clowns promoting this BS are claiming that the very lack of intermediate fossils supports the theory. Similarly, Cotton Mather claimed that the fact that nobody had ever seen or heard a witch was proof they were there (if you could SEE them, they wouldn't BE witches...) This kind of logic is less inhibiting than the logic they used to teach in American schools. For instance, I could as easily claim that the fact that I'd never been seen with Tina Turner was all the proof anybody should need that I was sleeping with her. In other words, it might not work terribly well for science, but it's great for fantasies...
  
  
  
  
• PE amounts to a claim that inbreeding is the most major source of genetic advancement in the world. Apparently Steve Gould never saw Deliverance...
  
  
• PE requires these tiny peripheral groups to conquer vastly larger groups of animals millions if not billions of times, which is like requiring Custer to win at the little Big Horn every day, for millions of years.
  
  
• PE requires an eternal victory of animals specifically adapted to localized and parochial conditions over animals which are globally adapted, which never happens in real life.
  
  
• For any number of reasons, you need a minimal population of any animal to be viable. This is before the tiny group even gets started in overwhelming the vast herds. A number of American species such as the heath hen became non-viable when their numbers were reduced to a few thousand; at that point, any stroke of bad luck at all, a hard winter, a skewed sex ratio in one generation, a disease of some sort, and it's all over. The heath hen was fine as long as it was spread out over the East coast of the U.S. The point at which it got penned into one of these "peripheral" areas which Gould and Eldredge see as the salvation for evolutionism, it was all over.
  

The sort of things noted in items 3 and 5 are generally referred to as the "gambler's problem", in this case, the problem facing the tiny group of "peripheral" animals being similar to that facing a gambler trying to beat the house in blackjack or roulette; the house could lose many hands of cards or rolls of the dice without flinching, and the globally-adapted species spread out over a continent could withstand just about anything short of a continental-scale catastrophe without going extinct, while two or three bad rolls of the dice will bankrupt the gambler, and any combination of two or three strokes of bad luck will wipe out the "peripheral" species. Gould's basic method of handling this problem is to ignore it.

And there's one other thing which should be obvious to anybody attempting to read through Gould and Eldridge's BS:



They don't even bother to try to provide a mechanism or technical explaination of any sort for this "punk-eek"


They are claiming that at certain times, amongst tiny groups of animals living in peripheral areas, a "speciation event(TM)" happens, and THEN the rest of it takes place. In other words, they are saying:



Again, Gould and Eldridge require that the Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happen not just once, but countless billions of times, i.e. at least once for every kind of complex creature which has ever walked the Earth. They do not specify whether this amounts to the same Abracadabra-Shazaam each time, or a different kind of Abracadabra-Shazaam for each creature.

I ask you: How could anything be stupider or worse than that? What could possibly be worse than professing to believe in such a thing?

..."sort of a story" and not History is a very good definition of it...

Too absurd for consideration.

You and your pals don´t devise the process of evolution because you and your idiotic friends have a linear comprehension of its dynamics and multiple functionality´s...it is not the case that things evolve from A to B with all the goals set at start...like just from one species to another radically different requiring all that stuff straight in the list...understand nothing is required and there is no goal !
...just to pick your example on birds did it occurred to you that some species might have first evolved onto light hunters/runners, (many species kept at that point) while a few others kept on adapting say to jumpers/gliders until later on you get to actual flying birds ?
The selective adaptive goal was not to get to flight (nor anywhere) from the start but rather that they did get to flight because previous random mutations set viable for different purposes of adaptation in different transitory species logically coincided in the minimal critical mass of features that allowed a primitive species to start adapting from say a jumper or a glider into a flying bird, and probably a very bad flyer at start...and many more species did n´t get to flight not because they all went extinct but because they settled somewhere in between the process and specialized in different ways...say some may be just light weighted, with strong hearts for running, but they don´t have the wings, once they half way adapted differently ! Light weighted runners and jumpers obviously are one step closer to flight then rhinos and elephants but you can count millions of them that never ever get to flight and went on as light hunters...
As I pointed out previously the problems rests with your linear understanding and poor perception of evolution in its plural meta functional process of adaptation and not with some sort of conspiracy theory set on the scientific world against Religions...for real, get out of it !

Bravo. Glad someone has the energy to answer him.

I did consider not to bother J, but then he put so much effort in his counter, that I felt that I needed to any way...