Mitchell and Webb write the bible II

How to brainstorm religious doctrines. Taken from the Mitchel and Webb Situation e102. Not my work. Copyright... Someone else. :)

[@MalcolmPowder]

If there was one sentence I didn't expect to hear today it was "The Holy Ghost is like Mike in The Young Ones"

[@here_be_dragons9184]

They are correct. The Holy Ghost hasn't been explored yet. He's like the Boba Fett of the Trinity. What are his motivations ? what is his past ? There's a great opportunity to expand the lore.

[@drrickmarshall1191]

There's quite a lot of content on Boba Fett, he's got his own TV show now

[@CIMAmotor]

@@drrickmarshall1191 And Mike was great in the Young Ones.

[@youbigtubership]

Your idea of expanding 'the lore' is hilarious, but if you want to actually understand who the Holy Spirit is, you could start with Ellen G White's The Great Controversy. A quick summary might be something like 'Christ is dead and resurrected, and sends his mate the Holy Ghost to hover around and look over the shoulders of particular writers over the eons and inspire them in order that the message of love and forgiveness continues to be taught.'

[@JamesNoBrakes]

@@youbigtubership You can make up anything.

[@youbigtubership]

@@JamesNoBrakes well, almost. It has to have the same general flavor of the New Testament stories. Can't have the Holy Ghost flying around gutting good people with a sickle now, if it's going to fit.

[@madnessbydesign1415]

"There's no getting away from the fact that the Messiah has come, and then gone away again - and where does that leave us?". As a Christian, this is brilliant. Pure brilliant...

[@JanetStarChild]

That is remarkable cognitive dissonance you have there, considering that highlighted quote illustrates what a sham Christianity obviously is. How do you reconcile with that?

[@madnessbydesign1415]

@@JanetStarChild The skit is about writing the Bible the way Television shows are written. That's the joke. The highlighted quote actually illustrates the cognitive dissonance between the Church (organized religion) and the real faith. Real Christianity is not a sham, it's about trying to better yourself. That's how I reconcile it - easily... :)

[@thomaswilliamruston]

@@JanetStarChild Oh please...that's pseudo-psychology

[@JanetStarChild]

@@madnessbydesign1415 Yeah, everyone's personal religion is the "real one". Explains why there's hundreds of different denominations of Christianity alone. You'd think if any of those mythologies were true, there'd be the one factual, irrefutable truth, especially if "God" actually intervened and said _"Yo, this is the scoop, my homies..."._ But no; and then we get sent to "Hell" because we didn't believe in the correct god and the right religion (or none at all, due to lack of evidence and scientific contradictions of scripture).

[@madnessbydesign1415]

@@JanetStarChild Wow, there's a lot to unpack there. You're right that everyone's beliefs are subjective, whether in Christianity, Islam, Atheism, Buddhism, Science, or whatever. That's what "belief" (or "personal religion") means. As for 'Why didn't God intervene and drop the Word', you do realize that's what the bulk of Hebrew/Christian/Islamic scripture says: 'God intervened and did X', right? As for the 'being sent to Hell', that's largely a matter of interpretation. There's a lot of misinformation about what the Bible actually says about the afterlife, and visions of Hell are mostly from Middle Ages pop culture (i.e. not Biblically accurate). I'm not sure what "scientific contradictions of scripture" you're referring to, so... Bottom line: You have your beliefs, and I have mine. Neither can be conclusively proven, because they're beliefs. And that's fine. I'm not trying to convince you (or anyone else) that my beliefs are "The Truth", because I know that's indefensible. I simply stand by my original post, praising 2 comedians for their brilliant skit... :)

[@ritcheySMITH]

"It's like Mike in the Young Ones" hahaha

[@mochynddu723]

Harsh.

[@debbieln6569]

I didn't expect the Young Ones lol

[@markreynolds1436]

Amazing

[@RonJohn63]

Please explain to non-British.

[@Phoenix0F8]

"... He might come back again..." "Who cares, frankly?"

[@vladdracul5072]

Those super-brains who even today still believe in 2000-year old superstitions I'd guess.

[@billybear2333]

@@vladdracul5072 hi im god im gonna make humans give them choice get annoyed at them using choice send me to preach about me and then get me killed to prove a point

[@vladdracul5072]

@@billybear2333 Sorry, I don't understand that sentence at all.

[@billybear2333]

@@vladdracul5072 idk it was an atheistic statement i was drunk

[@FFKonoko]

@@vladdracul5072 seems pretty obvious. God gives free will for choice. God gets mad they use it. Sends himself to preach. Then gets himself killed to prove a point. It's inaccurate, but pretty understandable.

[@666deadman1988]

I love the description of Catholicism, i.e. the faith I was raised in, as "the more colourful, nice paintings, 'do what you like as long as you confess it' ones in fantastic gear". It pretty much sums the whole thing up.

[@HighLordBlazeReborn]

Ciaran Cassidy and then denounce anyone and everyone that tries to expose it.

[@ruairimasun1073]

better than protestantism: “do what you like because God has already chosen who goes to heaven and there's no such thing as the corruptible soul"

[@Jorvard]

That's more calvinism, not really all protestants.

[@johangrostkerck6046]

Jorvard Is more like "live dark, sober and joyless your whole life, so you may suffer shorter time in the inferno fires", I can know 'cause I'm Dutch. (protestant) Priests here only preach about hell and the never to be lifted doom caused and suffered by mankind

[@1503nemanja]

What about us poor Orthodox, we are the weird eastern ones with funny hats who don't much come into it. :P

[@annamitchell9875]

Love the ‘Mike in The Young Ones’ analogy! Gold!

[@sharontaylor4403]

Mike in the young ones..too accurate 😂😂😂

[@oliveryt7168]

This is too great... Love their creativity!

[@RickReasonnz]

Aww... I LIKED Mike in The Young Ones

[@koenigkorczak]

those computers are absolutely glorious

[@Ron-Ayres]

The belovéd early iMac G3s. Luvverly!

[@ViceCityDJ]

i just knew this video was going to full of arguing. beautiful, just beautiful. keep going guys, your going to solve everything..

[@krashd]

I don't know how they put the fucking skin on the cheese!

[@Simple1Jack]

Please feel free to tell us all about your lord and savior Jesus Christ.

[@Hellwyck]

Edward. Atheists don't attack people over a fairy story.

[@julsie3195]

Couldn't pay attention, got hit by nostalgia from those beautiful Macs.

[@juliaconnell]

I know right - I had a pink one called Voyager at my work in 1998

[@henrybalkwill3276]

The iMac isn’t plugged in

[@juliaconnell]

@@henrybalkwill3276 WOW - this is some next level.... words fail me - you know this is a *COMEDY skit* right? That they are just props right? If you have ever watched the show each *comedy* skit lasts for a couple of minutes... and these are just props - in the *background* - of the COMEDY SKIT - & do NOT say 'oh I was just joking'

[@henrybalkwill3276]

@@juliaconnell No, it’s real. These are hidden cameras in real life situations.

[@stanleyplank]

I love how they still have their Radio 4 voices.

[@pijuan666]

This is so funny and cleaver, i love these guys, allways make my day.

[@pennypumpkin66]

"The Holy Ghost is like Mike in the Young ones!" How very true!

[@theamici]

That computer is ancient.

[@european-one]

Hellwyck considering the video was posted in 2008 yeh actually, it's pretty old. Why reply to a year old comment anyway

[@danielpolanco5849]

@@european-one A two year old comment

[@GordonHeaney]

I'm replying and it's now 3 years old

[@hannibalburgers477]

Late 2000's mac computers

[@EsotericStarWarsRubbish]

iMac G3 and Clamshell iBook G3. Between 1999-2001. Was it that long ago 😳

[@MrMikemolly]

'The holy ghost is like Mike in The Young Ones' Brilliant.

[@RokiaNY]

Wow, you all are conducting one of the most reasonable sustained arguments I have ever seen on youtube. I feel like I should horribly misspell something or say something bigoted just to set the tone back to normal... yoo guyz R so stoopid! ;-)

[@Ine7tia]

'Theory' when used in a scientific context represents the highest level of proof within the discipline. It's not just a guess, or hypothesis.

[@SkuldChan42]

Book of Mormon was the Bible spinoff.

[@soundslave]

The book of Mormon was a scam that got out of hand lol.

[@ajaxo85]

lol and the bible isnt? Its clearly an affair cover up story that got out of hand.

[@vasyan123]

Its just a non-canon fan fiction

[@arianrhodhyde7482]

vasyan123 in fairness biblical canon was fairly shaky to begin.

[@warrenphillips69]

Jesus - Adventures in space

[@InsanityBlah]

awww. they're so young :)

[@amandabumgardner2751]

Robert sounded and looked just like the real Webb when he said "I think it really needs it" 😂

[@Myrrhth]

It is true, perhaps some fields of science do maintain a 'healthy atmosphere'. How to distinguish these from the rest, I couldn't tell you. I think you came closest to understanding my point when you mentioned that 'people are staking their careers'. It is important to remember that scientists are people, with employers, who have certain expectations of them. But this point is very well - and humorously - illustrated by our dear Mitchell and Webb, in their 'Garnier' sketch.

[@hallowstar4857]

wooo! hampshire :)

[@bububububak]

The sketch is hilarious... and Rob is hot... now where is my double-like button?!

[@retsuza]

This felt unusually quiet until I realised it was just missing the laugh track

[@kjamison5951]

Mike: “Don’t use the handle, Vyv. My own safety means nothing but the innocent must be protected.” Vyvyan: “Okay then, Andrea?” Mike: “Yes?”

[@AllThroughALife]

Brilliant. I wish they'd done more than two series of The Young Ones. It's still one of my favorite comedies. The absurdist attitude sets it apart from most every other sitcom up to that point.

[@turinhorse]

THE YOUNG ONES WAS FUCKIN AWESOME. all my friends here in America used to stay up really late to watch it on MTV haha. we were like 10 years old

[@2hot2hoot]

Anyone else notice the way David Mitchell rocks his shoulders the first time he says spin off?

[@DRF1001]

In TYO it was Neal's bedroom that was on fire, not a bush. Completely different ideology

[@DavidOfWhitehills]

Good point David.

[@seymourskinner2533]

Neil

[@dtutssel]

And Neil crucified himself outside the house when they came to demolish it.

[@pressureworks]

Shot of Mike sitting on a replica of the young ones couch; "thanks guys".

[@Timrath]

I wonder who invented the Holy Ghost, and why the other Christians felt it was necessary to include it in the canon. It adds nothing to the substance of the story, except making the number 3 somehow "special".

[@Nyghl0]

I guess the holy ghost is Mohammed. Jews worship the Authoritarian Old Testament God father, Christians his New Testament Communist son, and Muslims worship death. The ghost.

[@donovanlittler7798]

I thought the holy ghost was to explain how God could be Jesus on Earth and still operate. Like a 3rd part of the nature that's more constant

[@VladSWG]

Hey Timrath, to answer your question it was the council of nicea on Constantinople around 384 A.D. They invented yet another invisible friend after they murdered all the other bishops who didn't agree or were opposed to molest children. It's in the history books, look it up.

[@GorinRedspear]

Could it be some Jedi ghost version of Mozes?

[@ericcl5313]

Frederik that makes more sense!

[@fuckamericanidiot]

"The holy ghost is like Mike in the Young Ones"

[@MikeDrumsIt]

Exactly! There's no way to know whether or not we're in a simulation, whether or not the infinite realms of space provides us with a parallel universe and whether or not we mean anything at all in this life. So, essentially nihilism is probably closest to realism in that we will probably never know why we are here. But people take comfort in believing in manmade indoctrinations of religion - and sought-after afterlife - when we could easily band together and discover for ourselves what is life!

[@adolfhipsteryolocaust3443]

That's not the point of nichilism at ALL

[@stumbling]

@SunShineNotAvailable I think they are both macs actually, but david is in a suit while rob's got an informal shirt with the collar undone, david is in an office chair but rob has a normal dining chair. I wouldn't have noticed those things without your comment.

[@calvinsaxon5822]

Yeah. Good point. I've often wondered about that: People are waiting for the Messiah to come. The Messiah comes. Great, end of history, right? No, beginning of history. Messiah leaves and promises to come back again. So, the whole thing starts all over again. So, will it start all over again when the Messiah comes back the second time? Well, no, they say, because he said that would be it and there wouldn't be a third time. But during the first long spell when they were waiting for the Messiah to come for the first time, nobody said that he would be leaving again after he came, so why couldn't it happen again?

[@michamazur8705]

Getting rid of aliens and wondering if they are comming back is "Ender's Game"

[@NevTheDeranged]

Bonus Young Ones reference!

[@rachelar]

I quite like Mike in the young ones. Its just as schoolkids we preferred to see Rick and Vyvvyan smash things up

[@davidhoogendyke2774]

Essentially how the original Bible was created, out of thin air, but with no previous example to go by.

[@gavaniacono]

Love the computers, lads!

[@fatmikecj]

Ecstatic! I'm listening to live music via the internet through awesome speakers. I talked face to face with my girlfriend yesterday, even though she's hundreds of miles away, and on Friday I'm catching a high speed train to go and see her in person after buying my tickets without having to go out into the pourning rain. WOOT Science!

[@Degenerate_Gen]

i was trying to show this guy that says evolution is only a theory that just because we cannot show exactly why or how came about that we should appreciate the existence of evolution as a theory just as much as gravity, that was my point

[@QuisSeperabit60]

@Griexxt Causality applies to the existence of entities, with certain properties. When any entity begins to exist, in its current form, its existence is normally dependent or predicated upon the occurence of an antecedental entity. If you're referring to the causation of virtual particles, many contemporary physicists believe they occur in a weak causal field. If we have no experience of anything spontaneously coming into existence then the premise is warranted.

[@QuisSeperabit60]

@Griexxt Premise 1) Causality: that every physical thing which begins to exist requires a cause. We arrive at this axiom through the inductive observation that things do not spontaneously come into existence. Premise 2) Contemporary science (Stellar redshift etc), and logic (Hilbert's grand hotel etc.) point towards a Universe which had a temporal beginning (or a "Big Bang"); Premise 3) That cause must both be atemporal and aspatial, existing outside the Universe, hence God.

[@rebeccamcelroy1000]

Agreed. All things in moderation.

[@rachelar]

The Holy Ghost has like,ghost powers. A bit like Angel Summoner.

[@boiledelephant]

Holy shit, a lucid, intelligent comment on facebook. I suppose it had to happen eventually...

[@ZER0--]

What ever happened to Mike from The Young Ones"....sank without a trace.

[@xbc2000_]

He was cast as a replacement to the guy who was intended to play the character of Mike. Wasn't really "in" with the others, although I think he appeared in 'Bottom'.

[@thumper8684]

I hate cliques.

[@AllThroughALife]

Christopher "Mike the cool person" Ryan had a solid career. He was in several episodes of Bottom, showed up in The New Statesman, French and Saunders, and Absolutely Fabulous. Like most actors, he never became a household name, but he's carved out a good life.

[@CyberBeep_kenshi]

Perhaps in bible II god can be a bit less genocidal and anti slavery and stoning infants for a change. Even if it's just a fictional character.

[@Elzebub666]

As the Joke goes. Science = "We have some evidence, what conclusion can we draw?" Religion = "We have a conclusion, what evidence can we draw to support this?"

[@entropy156]

So.......the Holy Ghost is really short?

[@alasyon]

Completely savaged Mike!

[@Jamiered18]

Computer isn't even plugged in. Must be powered by divine intervention.

[@sickJLSrecords]

I don't think they are restricted to a certain order. I do think there is usually some evidence, facts, data, etc. that initially inspires the formulation of a Theory, but I don't think this is always the case either. Some first drafts of a Theory may precede any evidence or observations, but I think it's usually referred to as a Hypothesis, until more supporting evidence is compiled. At which point the Theory can be formed, and can then be supported or contradicted by further tests results.

[@QuisSeperabit60]

@Griexxt The debate over objective morality isn't technically about the existence of "moral absolutes" (which is, rather, the frame of reference for the utilitarian/deontological debate). Instead, to say a certain category of action is objectively morally wrong is to say it is wrong regardless of the opinions of the agent performing said action, or of society writ large, as to its morality, i.e. that moral values are mind-independent. This is, again, an incorrigable, or properly basic belief.

[@QuisSeperabit60]

@Griexxt The particular structure and application of all these many arguments is, I believe, best explained by classical Christianity, and this, in addition to Christological proofs, and personal experience, explains why I believe the Christian "faith" is warranted.

[@countchocula2169]

Actually brilliant.

[@jamesmcinnis208]

"actually"

[@QuisSeperabit60]

@Griexxt to agree. Of course, causality, like almost anything else, cannot be proved absolutely; but this merely brings us full circle to the question of whether one choses to accept those, intuitively plausible postulates, which form the bedrock of almost every system of reason and belief known to humanity. And with that sinking feeling that we are getting nowhere fast, this will be my last reply. P.S. Quantum physicists are not prone to "ad hoc" explanations.

[@masio13]

@PrettyMurky you are correct and your statement is spoken well and has merit. However this sketch was not debating beliefs it was making fun of christianity, a valid belief with supporting evidence.

[@CCNuck]

Don't make me smack you, dude. :P l adore this sketch. Hee. And l'm one of the "plain, annoyed ones".

[@Griexxt]

@QuisSeperabit60 Hume's guillotine is new to me. After having looked it up briefly, I'm not really sure what it is I should apply it to?

[@QuisSeperabit60]

@amazinhazon Several specific "christological" arguments have been put forward by various apologists for Christianity. Its also possible to to argue that the nature of some of the generic arguments for theism lends credence to a judeo-christian worldview contra various other theistic philosophies.

[@J0ECRAWF15H]

I feel as though I HAVE to know what the previous comment was to really and fully understand the context of the conundrum you're portraying. Sadly, youtube either lets people get away with retracting their stupidity, or they do them the courtesy themselves... Still, I will put forth that simply receiving data through an outside source is not *quite* the same as experiencing directly; that would be like me claiming to have lived through WWII because of all the movies and video games I've played

[@jackbuchanan2]

No I'm saying you said that, doesn't matter anyway was just being picky. Have a good day sir!

[@TheCharnstar]

Mike in the Young Ones! HOLY SHIT! So true

[@FallOutAndDown]

I explained that rather poorly, allow me to explain it in a better manner. A exists. A is constant. A is the effect, nobody doubts A. B is gravity, B is how people think A works. B is not proven, but has been observed, B could very easily be part of a bigger C or a byproduct of D, so we cannot conclusivly say B is correct. However even if B is not correct, A remains. If that makes any more sense...

[@TheMightyX]

@jwheat65 ...but if it's two of each kind, and not two of each variation, doesn't that kind of open the door for evolution arguments? If you just took two beetles, let's say ladybugs, then how do you wind up with a Rose Chafer beetle? :P

[@FallOutAndDown]

Furthermore the difference between a theory and a scientific theory is that a scientific theory can be tested and have the results reproduced time and time again with little to no margin of error. A theory cannot be proven because there is no way, or nobody has, tested its credibility. The theory of evolution works generally and there are those that claim it fact because of fossils. However, there are various potential explanations with similar, equal, or greater probability.

[@chimmy___]

If all these denominations stuck to "The Script", the world would be very different.

[@K1lostream]

If all the denominations accepted that a) Either none of them are right or, at best, only one of them is right and that, given the number of denominations, statistically it is probably not them and b) most of the scripts are self-contradictory in at least one, possibly some, and most likely many places, and just gave it up as a bad job the world would be not only very different, but also better!

[@chimmy___]

@@K1lostream - Care to point out some of the contradictions?

[@K1lostream]

chimmy Too many to go into detail in YT comments, but for a christian example, take a look at the commandment 'You shall not kill' (seems unambiguous) and measure it up against the treatment prescribed for the Amalekites.

[@chimmy___]

@@K1lostream - The Hebrew word translated "kill" is "ratsakh" and should be translated "murder". It does not apply to killing enemies in war. The Amalekites were an evil nation that repeatedly tried to destroy the Israelites. God's judgement upon them was right. For more info, you can read the short article titled: Genocide of the Amalekites @ georgesjournal.net

[@K1lostream]

chimmy Even if you could convince me there was a God (You can't) you would still have all your work ahead of you to offer me the faintest shred o evidence that it cared anything about human activities, let alone took sides in wars.

[@QuisSeperabit60]

@Pheonixeye88 I found it difficult to grasp exactly what you're trying to say here, but the evidence obtained from the totality of our sensory experiences is what constitutes empirical science. Axioms (which indeed there are) are absolutely necessary to validate those sensory experiences and, indeed, empirical science itself. Causality is a scientific concept insofar as the boundaries of science can be successfully demarcated; meeting Popper's falsifiability criterion, for instance.

[@stiimuli]

Most religions are spinoffs of others. Then along comes L. Ron Hubbard whos says "Ya think those are weird? Hold my beer..."

[@stiimuli]

If anyone could do that I bet it would be him.

[@QuisSeperabit60]

@Griexxt cont. regardless of societal/evolutionary developments, or status of human minds, i.e. why objectively true moral rights and duties exist. As I stated, this is rightly a philosophical, as opposed to empirical argument. Hume's guillotine applies where someone tries to derive a proposition about what ought to be, from an observation about what is, i.e. a value from a fact. You should apply it to your attempt to argue that neo-darwinian theory adequately explain morality in its totality.

[@fatmikecj]

Science produced everything cool ever. From video games to supercars. From drugs to space shuttles. Electricity to the internet. If you genuinely believe science is boring, you probably don't know what you're talking about.

[@user-hd1ul6od2x]

Science also created degenerates.

[@sickJLSrecords]

Cont'd: Although, I do find such ideas fun to think about; but I don't truly consider such possibilities like 'we might be in the matrix' as valid and substantiated, potential realities.

[@turnsout689]

I had a thought the other day that what I hear as sound could be entirely different to what other people hear as sound. Like how English to me might sound to others as gibberish by my perception of sound.

[@Hephaestus84]

In scientific terms, something being a theory does not mean it is insufficiently supported by evidence. Even if we found a fossil for every species on Earth for every year life has existed (which, let's face it, would not be enough proof for Creationists anyway) it would still be called the Theory of Evolution.

[@Bjarku]

no, tanton1, YOU'RE AWESOME

[@GordonHeaney]

I'm replying to a 10 year old comment

[@TheMightyX]

@TheSobek Oh, don't forget insects! He had to have at least two of EVERY KIND OF INSECT/ARTHROPOD. I don't know the exact breakdown except for spiders (30,000+ spiders classified), but there are WAY more beetles, then you have butterflies, regular flies, TRUE flies, mites, isopods, etc. Hey, do you think we got Bathynomeus Giganteus (giant sea isopods) because Noah accidentally dropped a relative of the Sow Bug into the ocean?

[@nolanlamond2439]

Tbf I don't think sea dwelling creatures would be adversely affected by a flood...

[@grahvis]

@@nolanlamond2439 . They would, there would have been a large change in salinity.

[@QuisSeperabit60]

@Griexxt That's because there is something distinct about humanity which sets it apart from the animal kingdom.Humans have a dualist nature, they are imbued with a capacity to reason, make ethical judgements, and an awareness of aesthetics etc.Whilst it is true that certain traits are perpetuated as a result of random genetic mutation, this cannot explain reason, or why certain moral actions are wrong independently of human minds, or societal development i.e. true regardless of those things.

[@Griexxt]

@QuisSeperabit60 You said that "reason, or why certain moral actions are wrong independently of human minds" CANNOT be explained by evolutionary theory. This is definitely a positive statement about the inability, present and future, of evolutionary theory to explain these things. I'm not convinced our own judgement about the morality of our actions are all that reasoned either. We are far too prone to make up rationalizations after the fact.

[@FallOutAndDown]

Gravity isn't a theory, the explanation of gravity is. Gravity is fact.

[@stuartneil23]

If you have proof that evolution is false, write it down, get it peer reviewed, and collect your noble prize.

[@Amanda-cd6dm]

If you came from Apes then why haven't your family member Apes came out of the jungle and asked you for some pants, car, and cell phone yet?

[@Amanda-cd6dm]

I would think by now your Ape ancestors wouldve gotten with your evolution program

[@Amanda-cd6dm]

Evolution is true to a degree because anything will ADAPT to survive if it can. BUT let's be clear, ALMIGHTY GOD created your ass with ability to evolve(dumb ass word, adapt is better)for survival for number one

[@Amanda-cd6dm]

I can't wait until all the living and dead have to face GOD. Try explaining Darwins satanic ass to him

[@Amanda-cd6dm]

Last but not least: Why is it so hard for everyone to accept that maybe, just maybe GOD created evolution....

[@Griexxt]

@QuisSeperabit60 2) The fact that they are all hypothesis means we don't know what the case is. Which suits my needs in this argument very well. 3) But for what possible reason should we call that a god? There are too many unknowns to be jumping to that conclusion. Did the causal agent have intent to create a universe? Did the causal agent survive the creation or was it destroyed in the process? We can't possibly know, currently at least.

[@thiagodeandrade7081]

Actually, I would like a movie starting at the aftermath of the defeat of the alien invasion. Where does it leave mankind? How has the world changes? How much destruction? What happened to specfic countries? How much has human science advanced? What happened to religions and other ideologies?

[@Piemasteratron]

The holy ghost IS like Mike in the Young Ones!

[@QuisSeperabit60]

@Griexxt In any case, it does not always seem accurate to state that the person making the "positive claim" (a problem in itself) always carries the burden of proof. An anti-realist, for example, (see below), would argue that the burden of proof lies upon you to discharge the positive claim you necessarily make as to the existence of other minds, or of an external world. A lot depends on your presupposed worldview, and to my mind, the presupposition of metaphysical naturalism seems unwarranted.

[@1776iscool]

Basically the writers of “The Chosen”

[@QuisSeperabit60]

@Griexxt 2) I don't understand the thrust of this objection.. we know very little about what happened at around the beginnings of the Universe at all, but what we do know - that the Universe is, on average, in a state of cosmic expansion - is strong warrant for the observation that it must have had an absolute beginning - see the works of Vilenkin or Guth. 3) How we go about ascertaining the nature and character of God is not simply limited to an examination of one argument for His existence.

[@QuisSeperabit60]

@Neylonx As to Noah's Ark, an Italian liner with bigger dimensions was built in 1884. Whilst it would most certainly have been difficult to have built the Ark humanly it would not have been impossible, and with God all things are possible. I think there is considerable scientific evidence, as well as narrative evidence from hundreds of other cultures, that some sort of localised flood event did happen, but that it is difficult to establish the precise dating and nature of that event

[@QuisSeperabit60]

@Griexxt 3) cont. There are other reasons why theistic philosophers believe this to be so, and if you're interested you can follow the debate at Craig's reasonable faith site (probably a good starting point given that he is one of the foremost proponents of the argument in this particular form).

[@stuartneil23]

Well I didn't come up with it myself, so feel free :D

[@FallOutAndDown]

Good job ZerkosXD, now try to form the rest of that sentence.

[@koraxsan]

Kinda funny that most people who don't know "The young ones" are the young ones.

[@rowdytriesstuff9173]

Wow best comment ever

[@ilikethisnamebetter]

Have you seen many youtube comments?

[@brettjohnson536]

That’s brilliant!

[@amandabumgardner4972]

God is like grumpy Dad....

[@abauslau]

@trancemanic Agreed. A great line.

[@schizoidboy]

@la2111 The problem with rationality is it depends on who is rationalizing, regardless of beliefs not everyone, especially non-believers, rationalize things the same way. Holding on to a single principle is a sure way of creating a dogma and that is more likely to cause problems rather then belief in a deity. Social Darwinism, which is a secular concept - unless there is a religion that has adopted it, can be used to justify colonialism and genocide, "we do this to survive." as a rational idea.

[@SuperDethclock]

Evolution is a fact. It is also a scientific theory. A scientific theory is an explanation of the fact of evolution. e.g. The theory of gravity explains the laws of gravity. You can see that in scientific language "theory" does not have the same meaning as in everyday contexts.

[@GorinRedspear]

The entire bible is basically a history book, the Israelites writing: 'here's what happened, according to us'. Then comes along Mohammed, and he writes about an experience he had, where angels told him a new set of rules to live by. Two lines, three books, millenia of war and death!

[@jcalpha103]

Well of course there are other rules such as those mentioned but many core principles seem to relate to some very basic moral principles. Although many of the older scriptures seem to be confused and pretty strict on certain aspects. Todays interpretations however at least in christianity seem to have taken mainly the moral principles. "This also is not true" what else do you think i am wrong about?