Comments by "Be N S O N" (@Colddirector) on "Why Are so Many Young People Unhappy? | 5 Minute Video" video.

  1. There is no next life as far as anyone can tell. Hard truths have to be swallowed.
    31
  2. Stevio Gaming No, I said there is no life after death as far as anyone can tell , nice try, but that burden of proof is still on you.
    19
  3. Bryan Merrill You can find just as many, if not more people of other religions who have perceived their own afterlives. It’s interesting how they only perceive the heaven of the most culturally dominant religion in their society.
    8
  4. Stevio Gaming The most reasonable response is to not come to a conclusion because they don’t know.
    7
  5. Stevio Gaming And you’re ignoring a core piece of my claim. I am not saying there is no life after death definitively, but that there isn’t the evidence that could reasonably lead one to that conclusion aka. as far as anyone can tell
    5
  6. cp1307 the future is bleak, even the right acknowledges that, which is why they’re always on alert for a civil war and the rise of china
    4
  7. Sassafras And Christianity is piggybacking off Judaism.
    4
  8. Art Irony I don’t like JP fans, but that’s a pretty low blow.
    3
  9. @Kip Winner If somebody had actual verifiable, repeatable evidence of an afterlife, they would've come forward and presented it. Hence, as far as anyone can tell, there is no afterlife. I'm afraid snark and mockery isn't a viable substitute for an argument. Next.
    3
  10. Sassafras the right engages heavily in post truth thought, they’ll repeatedly and proudly disavow science that is inconvenient to them.
    2
  11. G B Funny how you guys fear monger against Islam being an invading religion when you’ve been brainwashed into accepting an invader’s religion that drove out the faith of your ancestors. You’re a slave, I simply reject the chains.
    2
  12. G B I just watched a bit of that video and past the overly long preamble about his work I already have problems. He is equating the modern cell with the first life forms when it itself is a heavyweight of evolutionary processes. It’s complexity is because of evolution, not despite it. The original life forms would have been much simpler than a modern cell. This is hardly a new argument, nor an uncontested one. Could you respond to this rebuttal before I continue the video?
    2
  13.  @sassafras8677  Um yeah, Muslims believe that about the Qu'ran as well. And the jews do not even believe a Messiah has come. So yes, you're basically to Judaism was Islam is to you.
    2
  14. T Rex I have faith - faith in my loved ones, those I trust and the tools we discern reality with. The key difference between those things and an afterlife is I can prove the former exists to a reasonable degree.
    2
  15. Warren McDonald morality is defined by humans, as well as meaning and purpose. This is why not even the religious can agree on what specifically “gods law” is.
    1
  16. Iiro Laakso I personally believe that is the case in some circumstances. I once talked with someone who had an elderly father with Alzheimer’s. He would frequently forget that his wife died years earlier and each time they reminded him, it destroyed him until he forgot and asked again. They eventually took to simply telling him she’s out at the moment and will be back soon, a simple lie meant to avoid meaningless suffering for a vulnerable person.
    1
  17. Sassafras ...I’m really not sure what you’re trying to say. Be clearer.
    1
  18. G B Plenty of christians are miserable, and you call me a fool even as none of you are able to provide any scientific evidence whatsoever for Christianity.
    1
  19. G B that is an impressive achievement, but it’s not really an authoritative position on evolutionary science or abiogenesis. Do you have anyone in relevant fields?
    1
  20. G B So I looked up this study, and I’m really not sure why you bring up the point of them still being E Coli. Everything I’ve looked up shows no indication they were trying to induce speciation, they’re simply trying to demonstrate how they can evolve to fit new environments. You’re lambasting them for failing to do something they didn’t even seem to be attempting. Your use of “information loss” is frankly a little bizarre, it implies the organism in its current state has the most “information”, by that definition, evolution fundamentally relies upon “information loss”. That a mutation that arises from selection pressures starts to fade once those selection pressures are no longer in place doesn’t mean it’s “weaker”, it means those mutations are no longer of benefit. This really isn’t that hard to explain. My point with his lecture is that his initial points are so dead out the gate that I feel it unfair to go through the rest without explaining these flaws to you.
    1
  21. G B Oh so they’re lying about their intentions? That is a serious, potentially career ending allegation. Please provide evidence. I am referring to the flaws I mentioned earlier, the ones you brushed aside as not the focus of the lecture.
    1
  22. G B Again, you have made a serious allegation. Stop trying to dishonestly flip this. It is your burden of proof to meet, not mine. I’m not letting this slide.
    1
  23. G B dude, you’re the one who brought up Lenskis study and insisted on this conspiracy you have no evidence for. Don’t “strawman argument” me because I won’t let your BS slide. Generally, we don’t define biology by its functions alone, otherwise we’d consider no difference between say, chickens and red jungle fowl, or African Wildcats and the common housecat. Note that what we are talking here is abiogenesis, a hypothetical field that strongly relies upon with, but not actually part of evolutionary theory. Like most creationists, you haven’t really done your homework, and just assumed that evolution and abiogenesis are all the same thing. That being said, according to the most dominant and agreed upon version of this hypothesis The first thing that can viably next called a “cell” would’ve been an RNA inside a lipid membrane. These wouldn’t of been the first membrane encased RNA, but the earlier ones were more fragile and prone to breaking apart that they couldn’t really sustain any life cycle. These cells wouldn’t be able “harvest” energy - they’d have no ability to even move on their own until flagella evolved. Instead they’d float in the sea, and if they happen to come across proteins, they’d be absorbed. The cells that managed to come across proteins survive while the cells that don’t die, already a natural selection in progress. Depending on what you mean by “energy storage”, I don’t think they’d be capable of that until vacuoles evolve. Being RNA, it would be able to replicate in a primitive manner, and some of those replications would have flaws, the beneficial flaws would enable the cells to survive longer to replicate more often, while the harmful flaws would die off with the cells they inhabit. Already a selection pressure, already evolving.
    1
  24. G B Yes, conspiracy. You’re insisting that Mr Lenski has some secret unstated goal with these experiments that you have absolutely no evidence for. This would mean he’s lied and wasted unimaginable amounts of grant money on a personal project, I don’t think you even understand just how serious those allegations are. Given your constant attempts to shift burden of proof, I think it’s pretty safe to say you just lied. You’re free to either pay me or look that up yourself. I’m not a biology teacher, and you’ve devolved to little more than arguments from ignorance. It’s certainly rich that you equate evolution to a fairy tale when you believe a magical sky man created everything from nothing though.
    1
  25. G B Alright I’m sick of this. You insist on continuing this idiotic conspiracy theory and have the gall to call me gullible because I want some evidence. It’s become clear that you have nothing outside of a little script you’re trying to railroad me down. For your sake, I hope this god of yours doesn’t exist. Doesn’t seem like he’d take kindly to your lying.
    1
  26. G B FYI I’m not bothering to read that. I’m sick of your bad faith BS, and that first sentence indicates nothing different. And I just noticed stuff about the Big Bang theory in there - ie literally nothing to do with evolution, I’m not wasting my time with this anymore.
    1
  27. People are leaving the church because it’s failed to provide meaning, not the other way around.
    1
  28. Sassafras it clearly isn’t, considering that people are leaving it in droves.
    1
  29. Eric Rich I’m pretty sure if I want “actual experts”, I’d be going to biblical scholars. If this light indeed is flashing it’s high beams in my face, surely you can point me to it. You’ve all still failed to actually produce a viable argument, if this truth is so obvious, then that would be a simple matter. Your book even commands you to produce a reason (1 Peter 3:15), yet you don’t.
    1
  30. Eric Rich what point have I missed? I’m rapidly getting bored of all these evasive vague statements.
    1
  31. Stevio Gaming there actually isn’t proof that unicorns do not exist. It is nearly impossible to prove a negative like that, you can only say that there isn’t any evidence that unicorns do or have once existed, ie as far as anyone can tell
    1
  32. Sassafras and there you go, the threats come out. Your god sounds like a gangster from the 1920s. “Eh that’s a nice soul you got there. Would be a shame if something happened to it”
    1
  33. Sassafras the mob boss warns me he’ll break my legs if I don’t pay up as well
    1