• Amicus Q

    Congrajulations on your new found faith! You sound just as dogmatic and intoxicated with conviction as the Pentecostal Preacher behind the pulpit in my childhood church. Burn all religious! Science saves!

    • Planx Constant

      Except that science distinguishes itself from religion on the basis of evidence and flexibility.

      You can measure the speed of light, and you can look at the parallax of the nearer stars in the sky, and you can see that they are mind bogglingly distant, and that’s just the portion which are close enough to display parallax. The amazing facts about the universe related by the narrator weren’t handed down as a dogmatic tradition made up along the way, they were discovered by examining the universe.

      Science is distinct from religion also in its ability to adapt to new evidence. When people differ on religious thought and interpretation, they are branded heretics and schismatics, and this has resulted in bloody violence all over the globe, throughout history. When people differ on scientific thought and interpretation, experiments are conducted to examine the different theories, and the one which best fits the behavior of reality is kept. This is not to say that individual people aren’t guilty of dogmatism in science, but the essence of science is the opposite of dogma. Dogma is a central element of religion.

      The video isn’t trying to stigmatize people who have religion, it’s a reaction to the fear and guilt and hatred religion produces in people.

    • Anon

      Interesting spelling of “congratulations.” Should anyone expect any intelligence from one who would make such an ignorant statement?

  • Amicus Q

    Congrajulations on your new found faith! You sound just as dogmatic and intoxicated with conviction as the Pentecostal Preacher behind the pulpit in my childhood church. Burn all religious! Science saves!

  • Hamsanath437

    fantastic video

  • Hamsanath437

    fantastic video

  • Smoo

    At the end he only shows men… he left out the best bit of being in this universe… the beautiful women!

    Where is the women?

    Science saved my soul… oh yeah but I forgot to include any awesome freaking women in my video… whatever

  • Smoo

    At the end he only shows men… he left out the best bit of being in this universe… the beautiful women!

    Where is the women?

    Science saved my soul… oh yeah but I forgot to include any awesome freaking women in my video… whatever

    • Evilshrimp06

      marie curie is there if you didn’t notice

      • Butter Knife

        Who wouldn’t notice a hot piece of ass like Marie Curie? That’s nigh criminal.

  • Cerebralsubversion

    What a fucktard. Hey science – explain how or why DMT makes people have strikingly simliar experiences of otherworldly contact with dimensions hitherto unknown. That’s science. Chemistry to be exact. You’ve completely turned your back of this area of study? Why?

    Hey Science – explain why Jung’s theory of the collective unconscious has been proven by means of remote viewing and you don’t seem to care. That’s science. Psychology to be exact. You’ve completely turned your back of this area of study? Why?

    And therein lies the problems with science. It’s heinously corrupt, just like religion.

    Eat mushrooms, have sex on LSD, try astral projection, fuck around with Magick. You have no authority to comment on these things until you know something about them, which you intentionally don’t. How Scientific. We know more about the things we intentionally know nothing about than you do, and we’re here to tell you that they’re bullshit.

    Wow, that “science” experience you had. How amazing. Clearly it was more profound than something like this:

    http://www.portableshrines.com/blog/2010/07/01/extradimensional/#more-2689

    http://www.portableshrines.com/blog/2010/09/04/2812/#more-2812

  • Cerebralsubversion

    What a fucktard. Hey science – explain how or why DMT makes people have strikingly simliar experiences of otherworldly contact with dimensions hitherto unknown. That’s science. Chemistry to be exact. You’ve completely turned your back of this area of study? Why?

    Hey Science – explain why Jung’s theory of the collective unconscious has been proven by means of remote viewing and you don’t seem to care. That’s science. Psychology to be exact. You’ve completely turned your back of this area of study? Why?

    And therein lies the problems with science. It’s heinously corrupt, just like religion.

    Eat mushrooms, have sex on LSD, try astral projection, fuck around with Magick. You have no authority to comment on these things until you know something about them, which you intentionally don’t. How Scientific. We know more about the things we intentionally know nothing about than you do, and we’re here to tell you that they’re bullshit.

    Wow, that “science” experience you had. How amazing. Clearly it was more profound than something like this:

    http://www.portableshrines.com/blog/2010/07/01/extradimensional/#more-2689

    http://www.portableshrines.com/blog/2010/09/04/2812/#more-2812

    • Billybobjoe2299

      Oh my god!!! You are so right, drugs are the most profound ever. Hey, lets all get so fucked up on some hallucinogens that no one can ever form thoughts about the universe ever again.

      WHAT DOES YOUR POST HAVE TO DO WITH THE VIDEO? You did realize that he isn’t talking about drugs, right? Oh wait, you’re too fucked up to have anything to say about the video.

      You fucking retard.

      • ohherrohi

        read his articles first jizzstain then reply to his comment you arrogant P.O.S.

        • Blitztwist

          You do know that both of your articles come from a website based on mind expanding drugs, correct? And that a website whos entire user base wants to believe there is meaning to the drugs they enjoy may simply want to hear things like that, right? I have taken some of those drugs and to say yes, on DMT you may think your talking to ghosts or aliens but if you really step back from a moment, just a moment, from your anger about this video’s claims you may see this. Some chemicals have similar effects on people and that two people on the same drug may have similar experiences or even similar thoughts. Also Carl Jung’s (You should include full names when talking about people) theory was not really proven but I can say it was not disproven. That every one has a link to one another and are all psychic is an interesting idea. Still that doesnt connect with what the video has said and does not prove anything about religion. Even if we were all “psychic” at some level we do not realize that does not mean that it is a form of magic (Not to knit pick but Magic is not spelt with a K.)

          • Rmasterstyle

            Magick with a K is often used to differ itself from magic without a k.Now back the the original thread. I wouldn’t say that science has turned it’s back on studies involving drugs and magic. Robert Anton Wilson spoke not only of Magick and drugs but also of the scientific method. I think that it is religion and government that has turned it’s back on Carl Jung and DMT. The studies of DMT are illegal. The studies on collective conscious would do nothing to help a government that likes to kill others .It would also not benefit a religion that has backed up the killing of others who differ in opinion from them. It is also still known that a government (the U.S. government as example) will indeed lock up people based on the books and studies they have done. Read more into Robert Anton Wilson and what they did to Timothy Leary and wilhelm reich. I just think that both studies of DMT and Jungian theroy can be accepted by Science and that if you spend time talking to some scientists you’d find that they have a lot of ideas and beliefs on aliens,drugs, and paranormal activity than you would guess. Supposedly even Nikola Tesla was Harassed for admitting he had Alien contact. I don’t know I guess I just don’t understand since I value my Magick training And Jung but approach both of them (partly due to Christopher S Hyatt) with a Scientific approach. I also loved DMT lol.

          • Saveit

            When magic is spelled “magick”, it implies the style of Crowley- oh excuse ME… I meant ALEISTER Crowley- as he is given credit for that spelling. It is also equated with some as “black” or “dark” magic.

          • aaron

            a better term would be mystic

    • fall

      “You have no authority to comment on these things until you know something about them, which you intentionally don’t”

      You do realize that by casting the narrators experiences aside and accepting your own as superior, you seem to be doing the very same thing that you’re pissed about?

      You also speak of ‘Science’ as if it is some singular entity, which is retarded. Obviously DMT research was hindered by a lack of funds due to it’s illegality, which is the fault of politicians, not scientists. You may notice in the two links you posted (which was a pretty awesome write up, btw) that even that author recognizes the trend in suppressing psychedelic research has been loosening of late.

      ‘Science” cannot turn its back on anything, that is solely up to the motivation of any given ‘scientist’ interested in any given thing. You can go research whatever you’d like, if you happen to find something repeatable and interesting, and you get the word out, you have surpassed said douchey politicians in their own game. Look at Alexander Shulgin, look up open access scientific journals, etc.

      That said, this video was awesome. From now on I’m going to tell people I’m 13.7 billion years old when they ask, for shits and giggles.

      <3 Science: The study of things around us.

    • DJRyn

      Are you telling us you’ve performed astral projection? Or that you can produce real magic? I’m guessing not, but if you really can, I’d be willing to consider those things as fact. As for drugs, those are science. Most hallucinogenic drugs were developed in labs, so don’t understand your point there. Science is only as corrupt as the institution that studies it, and I don’t imagine there is mass corruption in the science community (Maybe NASA). You were right about corruption in religion, though. I’ll give you that.

      • RuralVoice

        “Most hallucinogenic drugs were developed in labs…”

        Which hallucinogenic drugs are you talking about?

        LSD can be found in Morning Glory seeds. Magic mushrooms and peyote grow wild. Even DMT is a naturally occuring substance.

        The active ingredients may have been synthesized in labs, but their origins are in nature.

        • aaron

          lsd isnt in morning glorys its LSA (Lysergic Acid Amide), LSD(d-lysergic acid diethylamid) is a synthetic chemical, derived from ergine (and other processes). LSA is also in Hawaiian baby Woodrose seeds more potently. they are very similar in experiences but LSD is more visual and more potent by amount(micrograms but lsa is active in milligrams). Also the only un-synthesized psychedelics are DMT(all of life), LSA(various seeds), peyote(mescaline), Shrooms (psilocybin), and none others i can think of. To look at a list of all the available hallucinogens in the form of research chemicals especially the 2c chemicals shows MOST hallucinogenic drugs are created. But from either perspective( god gave us science to make em or he put em in the ground) they’re here some how and they’re worth an experience. But never just to get fucked up, rather for the experience, journey, and discovery that ensues. I’ve developed understanding and acceptance of everything do to meditative trips and journeys in the right perspective, in essence the ideas expressed in the video and the acceptance of the balance of everything and everyone’s part in this whole.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Dutton/1395455877 Michael Dutton

      This is psychobabble. Scientists are generally not corrupt people. I bet you actually don’t know any. I do, and they are fine upstanding people, and on the whole, agnostic or athiest.

      • Tuna Ghost

        “on the whole” is pretty hard to quantify, buddy. Scientists who believe in some religion or another are not uncommon at all. The fact that science can’t “prove” religion doesn’t, and shouldn’t, stop people from practicing it.

      • Saveit

        Are there statistics somewhere to support your implied theory that the general “corruptness” of scientists on the whole can be measured and compared with that of the rest of the human population?

        “I bet you actually don’t know any”
        Mr Dutton. We all know what assuming does.

        “I do”
        Congrats. Also: you sound like Ted Haggard in that youtube vid where he freaks out on Richard Dawkins:
        “Well. If you’d only read the books that I’ve read, and knew the people I knew….”

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXJRxsnwQww&feature=related

        The conversation starts at around 4:50.

  • Evilshrimp06

    marie curie is there if you didn’t notice

  • Billybobjoe2299

    Oh my god!!! You are so right, drugs are the most profound ever. Hey, lets all get so fucked up on some hallucinogens that no one can ever form thoughts about the universe ever again.

    WHAT DOES YOUR POST HAVE TO DO WITH THE VIDEO? You did realize that he isn’t talking about drugs, right? Oh wait, you’re too fucked up to have anything to say about the video.

    You fucking retard.

  • Ironaddict06

    Isn’t a bit Ironic(cue music)dont you think that science saved his soul, when majority of hard core sciencest would agree there is no evidence of a soul.

  • Ironaddict06

    Isn’t a bit Ironic(cue music)dont you think that science saved his soul, when majority of hard core sciencest would agree there is no evidence of a soul.

    • Tuna Ghost

      That doesn’t stop many scientists from believing they have one, or indeed from being religious. So, no, not very ironic.

  • ohherrohi

    read his articles first jizzstain then reply to his comment you arrogant P.O.S.

  • Nasty

    I think I grew a vagina after watching that

  • Nasty

    I think I grew a vagina after watching that

  • Anonymous

    I loved your introduction, but I have one thing to add:

    Eugenics.

  • MrButtermancer

    I loved your introduction, but I have one thing to add:

    Eugenics.

  • Butter Knife

    Who wouldn’t notice a hot piece of ass like Marie Curie? That’s nigh criminal.

  • fall

    “You have no authority to comment on these things until you know something about them, which you intentionally don’t”

    You do realize that by casting the narrators experiences aside and accepting your own as superior, you seem to be doing the very same thing that you’re pissed about?

    You also speak of ‘Science’ as if it is some singular entity, which is retarded. Obviously DMT research was hindered by a lack of funds due to it’s illegality, which is the fault of politicians, not scientists. You may notice in the two links you posted (which was a pretty awesome write up, btw) that even that author recognizes the trend in suppressing psychedelic research has been loosening of late.

    ‘Science” cannot turn its back on anything, that is solely up to the motivation of any given ‘scientist’ interested in any given thing. You can go research whatever you’d like, if you happen to find something repeatable and interesting, and you get the word out, you have surpassed said douchey politicians in their own game. Look at Alexander Shulgin, look up open access scientific journals, etc.

    That said, this video was awesome. From now on I’m going to tell people I’m 13.7 billion years old when they ask, for shits and giggles.

    <3 Science: The study of things around us.

  • Blitztwist

    You do know that both of your articles come from a website based on mind expanding drugs, correct? And that a website whos entire user base wants to believe there is meaning to the drugs they enjoy may simply want to hear things like that, right? I have taken some of those drugs and to say yes, on DMT you may think your talking to ghosts or aliens but if you really step back from a moment, just a moment, from your anger about this video’s claims you may see this. Some chemicals have similar effects on people and that two people on the same drug may have similar experiences or even similar thoughts. Also Carl Jung’s (You should include full names when talking about people) theory was not really proven but I can say it was not disproven. That every one has a link to one another and are all psychic is an interesting idea. Still that doesnt connect with what the video has said and does not prove anything about religion. Even if we were all “psychic” at some level we do not realize that does not mean that it is a form of magic (Not to knit pick but Magic is not spelt with a K.)

  • Anonymous

    Disinfo, how could you!? This is NOT science at all. The narrator mentions GOD in the video (around the five minute mark). “Closer to God?” Well God, you have to be testable or falsifiable in order to be scientific! That automatically strips this video of any credibility.

    You want real science? Open up the book, “Challenging Nature” by Lee M. Silver.

  • StillAtMyMoms

    Disinfo, how could you!? This is NOT science at all. The narrator mentions GOD in the video (around the five minute mark). “Closer to God?” Well God, you have to be testable or falsifiable in order to be scientific! That automatically strips this video of any credibility.

    You want real science? Open up the book, “Challenging Nature” by Lee M. Silver.

  • Anonymous

    These comments make me want to facepalm.

  • dumbsaint

    These comments make me want to facepalm.

  • Cheese

    Great until the mindless athiest-drone stuff. You’re halfway there… but your hate limits your ability to see that seeking truth takes many forms.

  • Cheese

    Great until the mindless athiest-drone stuff. You’re halfway there… but your hate limits your ability to see that seeking truth takes many forms.

  • DJRyn

    Are you telling us you’ve performed astral projection? Or that you can produce real magic? I’m guessing not, but if you really can, I’d be willing to consider those things as fact. As for drugs, those are science. Most hallucinogenic drugs were developed in labs, so don’t understand your point there. Science is only as corrupt as the institution that studies it, and I don’t imagine there is mass corruption in the science community (Maybe NASA). You were right about corruption in religion, though. I’ll give you that.

  • Getoverit

    i think this is stupid. atheists need to leave religion alone and religion needs to leave the non religious alone. this is this shit that is wrong with our world. everyone needs to shut the fuck up and just mind their own.

  • Getoverit

    i think this is stupid. atheists need to leave religion alone and religion needs to leave the non religious alone. this is this shit that is wrong with our world. everyone needs to shut the fuck up and just mind their own.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Dutton/1395455877 Michael Dutton

      Why should Athiests leave religious people alone to go and corrupt the rest of Humanity with their imaginary freind, their hatred their bigotry and their prejudice?

      • Tuna Ghost

        And seeing as how religion was and is an integral peice of culture and how human societies came to exist, why should religion and science stay away from each other?

      • JimOfOhio

        Michael ….. It seems to me that the world is corrupt and expresses hatred and is bigoted and prejudice without God.

    • Rmasterstyle

      “everyone needs to shut the fuck up and just mind their own.” is in it’s own self contradictory to say lol.

      “I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure
      suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ~Elie Wiesel

  • Haley8001

    Science is the study of God-Sir Issac Newton.
    I dont believe in the Christian God, but I do very well believe that there was a creator. not just of this world but of many. I do not think were the only creatures that dwell in this UNIVERSE let alone this galaxy, it would be preposterous to think that. Nor do I think this creator cares very much about things we do on a personal level. I do however believe in a caring creator. I’m tired of the egocentric religions honestly. we know so much about this place in which we live, yet we still refuse to believe that were simply not the center of it all. Question and doubt my beliefs if you will, they wont stop making sense to me because Ive tried questioning and doubting them myself.

  • Haley8001

    Science is the study of God-Sir Issac Newton.
    I dont believe in the Christian God, but I do very well believe that there was a creator. not just of this world but of many. I do not think were the only creatures that dwell in this UNIVERSE let alone this galaxy, it would be preposterous to think that. Nor do I think this creator cares very much about things we do on a personal level. I do however believe in a caring creator. I’m tired of the egocentric religions honestly. we know so much about this place in which we live, yet we still refuse to believe that were simply not the center of it all. Question and doubt my beliefs if you will, they wont stop making sense to me because Ive tried questioning and doubting them myself.

    • Ironaddict06

      Right. I think a majority of educated people would agree there is/was some type of creator-what ever name you want to call it-God, Allah, Yahweh, Nature. Somehow, matter, came from nothing. Somehow innate matter became animate. Some physicist, scientist claim there were membranes that clashed and caused the big bang. Ok where did these membranes come from? Some scientist claim that they created synthetic life-actually the scientist re-arranged the DNA sequence.

      • Tuna Ghost

        More miraculous than inanimate matter being animate (which is a pretty legitimate “miracle” in my eyes) is the sudden appearance of something from nothing. The fact that there even is something rather than nothing is pretty startling when you think about the very delicate balance between forces that had to exist during the creation of our universe. Attributing a human-like personality and moral code to a creating force, whatever it may be, seems pretty silly but really we’ve been doing that for as long as we’ve been around so why stop now. Well actually the moral code thing is a relatively recent development in human history, maybe we ought to rethink attributing the base of ethics to something we can’t actually communicate with very well

      • jim

        even if they did create life in a lab that would only prove that it takes intelligence to create life.

  • Mgginn

    FUCK YES!

  • Mgginn

    FUCK YES!

  • Planx Constant

    Except that science distinguishes itself from religion on the basis of evidence and flexibility.

    You can measure the speed of light, and you can look at the parallax of the nearer stars in the sky, and you can see that they are mind bogglingly distant, and that’s just the portion which are close enough to display parallax. The amazing facts about the universe related by the narrator weren’t handed down as a dogmatic tradition made up along the way, they were discovered by examining the universe.

    Science is distinct from religion also in its ability to adapt to new evidence. When people differ on religious thought and interpretation, they are branded heretics and schismatics, and this has resulted in bloody violence all over the globe, throughout history. When people differ on scientific thought and interpretation, experiments are conducted to examine the different theories, and the one which best fits the behavior of reality is kept. This is not to say that individual people aren’t guilty of dogmatism in science, but the essence of science is the opposite of dogma. Dogma is a central element of religion.

    The video isn’t trying to stigmatize people who have religion, it’s a reaction to the fear and guilt and hatred religion produces in people.

  • Jesse_pattinson

    you guys are dicks.. totally missing the point. rad video

  • Jesse_pattinson

    you guys are dicks.. totally missing the point. rad video

  • Ironaddict06

    Right. I think a majority of educated people would agree there is/was some type of creator-what ever name you want to call it-God, Allah, Yahweh, Nature. Somehow, matter, came from nothing. Somehow innate matter became animate. Some physicist, scientist claim there were membranes that clashed and caused the big bang. Ok where did these membranes come from? Some scientist claim that they created synthetic life-actually the scientist re-arranged the DNA sequence.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Dutton/1395455877 Michael Dutton

    This is psychobabble. Scientists are generally not corrupt people. I bet you actually don’t know any. I do, and they are fine upstanding people, and on the whole, agnostic or athiest.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Dutton/1395455877 Michael Dutton

    Why should Athiests leave religious people alone to go and corrupt the rest of Humanity with their imaginary freind, their hatred their bigotry and their prejudice?

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    Where do I stand, being a terminal mystic…and a great fan of the sciences…

    Easy…I may suspect, postulate, theorize or want to believe in a great many things…especially with regard to the world of the intangible…

    …but rulers, calipers and other means of measurement get to hold more authoritative weight than Bronze Age tribal rants translated over and over again under highly politicized circumstances.

    I have lots of ‘feelings’…and ‘thoughts’ about possibilities and spirituality…but when I build a house…I put my faith in a level and tape measure…not in things I merely suspect. The important difference is that I would never advocate my spiritual musings become some kind of groundwork for replacing actual scientific inquiry or education.

    I have to assume that stupid people desire a God as stupid as they are…or simply, being stupid, can’t imagine or tolerate the idea that their theoretically supreme, omniscient and omnipotent deity is at least somewhat more clever than they are. Only an annoying hate filled busybody would envision a God that is an annoying hate filled busybody…and only a lover of the sciences would look and see the sublime in calculations and constants.

    So there seems to be a principle of reflection at work. We see what we desire…and if that is so, then lets at least try to desire something more worthy than an all powerful infantile tyrant with terrible aim that slaughters thousands for the offenses of the few.

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    Where do I stand, being a terminal mystic…and a great fan of the sciences…

    Easy…I may suspect, postulate, theorize or want to believe in a great many things…especially with regard to the world of the intangible…

    …but rulers, calipers and other means of measurement get to hold more authoritative weight than Bronze Age tribal rants translated over and over again under highly politicized circumstances.

    I have lots of ‘feelings’…and ‘thoughts’ about possibilities and spirituality…but when I build a house…I put my faith in a level and tape measure…not in things I merely suspect. The important difference is that I would never advocate my spiritual musings become some kind of groundwork for replacing actual scientific inquiry or education.

    I have to assume that stupid people desire a God as stupid as they are…or simply, being stupid, can’t imagine or tolerate the idea that their theoretically supreme, omniscient and omnipotent deity is at least somewhat more clever than they are. Only an annoying hate filled busybody would envision a God that is an annoying hate filled busybody…and only a lover of the sciences would look and see the sublime in calculations and constants.

    So there seems to be a principle of reflection at work. We see what we desire…and if that is so, then lets at least try to desire something more worthy than an all powerful infantile tyrant with terrible aim that slaughters thousands for the offenses of the few.

  • Sussy

    Explain the dinosaurs, religious folks.

  • Sussy

    Explain the dinosaurs, religious folks.

    • Tuna Ghost

      ….they lived hundreds of millions of years ago and suffered a mass extinction event? I’m not sure why religion can’t do that. Do hindus and pagans have a problem with dinosaurs?

      • CramItLoser

        I think the confusion stems from the fact that Biblical literalists claim the Earth to be only several thousand years old (based on biblical genealogy traced back to Adam and Eve), and that seems to be in contrast with dinosaurs being on the planet hundreds of millions of years ago, you know, because Earth didn’t exist then! Christians hate that pesky “pseudoscience” called carbon dating haha

        • Tuna Ghost

          Fundementalists, perhaps, which make up a very small minority of christians. And even then, most christians who deny that sort of science would still, if push came to shove, utilize it to save themselves or their loved ones. A lot of it is just posturing and politics, albeit one that is likely harmful to the spread of knowledge. Claiming “christians hate carbon dating” is a such an oversimplification that it becomes far more unhelpful than it is informative.

          • aaron

            yes but in religion differed ideas weren’t even considered, rather attacked i.e Galileo, who was punished by the church for claiming the earth orbits the sun. Science however gives all ideas chance to prove themselves. And only until science has blatantly proven something for years will religion give it a chance. That is the heritage of religion along with war an multitudes of other injustices. this scenario is like that of a child in an unfit home, they live in the house aren’t treated for, are abused by their parents, and have a twisted life and grow up with many psychological issues pushed on subconsciously from their life, that is religion. where as science is the foster parents that take the child in and give them the opportunity to better themselves and have a better future. which side would you believe the child(humanity) should belong to the dangerous inherent on or the nurturing future? Organized religion is so inherently flawed that the bi-product will  be flawed as well, so why no stem from that destruction into the future.

        • jim

          you should research carbon dating it only goes back about 30 thousand years the increments become to small to measure. not only that but they have carbon dated living animals as old as 24000 years. I think it is safe to say they are not worried about carbon dating.

    • jim

      see kent hovind for good explanation, if u listen it will make more sense than evolution theory, just listen then draw a conclusion, after all evolution and creation are both theory’s

  • Onaquestt

    Thank you for this video…it is truly awesome. I am so jealous that I didn’t write it. It defines so much of the way I think and feel.

  • Onaquestt

    Thank you for this video…it is truly awesome. I am so jealous that I didn’t write it. It defines so much of the way I think and feel.

  • iCat

    I don’t know about science saving my soul but it certainly saved my soles with the invention of vulcanized rubber.

  • iCat

    I don’t know about science saving my soul but it certainly saved my soles with the invention of vulcanized rubber.

  • Rmasterstyle

    Magick with a K is often used to differ itself from magic without a k.Now back the the original thread. I wouldn’t say that science has turned it’s back on studies involving drugs and magic. Robert Anton Wilson spoke not only of Magick and drugs but also of the scientific method. I think that it is religion and government that has turned it’s back on Carl Jung and DMT. The studies of DMT are illegal. The studies on collective conscious would do nothing to help a government that likes to kill others .It would also not benefit a religion that has backed up the killing of others who differ in opinion from them. It is also still known that a government (the U.S. government as example) will indeed lock up people based on the books and studies they have done. Read more into Robert Anton Wilson and what they did to Timothy Leary and wilhelm reich. I just think that both studies of DMT and Jungian theroy can be accepted by Science and that if you spend time talking to some scientists you’d find that they have a lot of ideas and beliefs on aliens,drugs, and paranormal activity than you would guess. Supposedly even Nikola Tesla was Harassed for admitting he had Alien contact. I don’t know I guess I just don’t understand since I value my Magick training And Jung but approach both of them (partly due to Christopher S Hyatt) with a Scientific approach. I also loved DMT lol.

  • Tuna Ghost

    And seeing as how religion was and is an integral peice of culture and how human societies came to exist, why should religion and science stay away from each other?

  • Tuna Ghost

    ….they lived hundreds of millions of years ago and suffered a mass extinction event? I’m not sure why religion can’t do that. Do hindus and pagans have a problem with dinosaurs?

  • Tuna Ghost

    That doesn’t stop many scientists from believing they have one, or indeed from being religious. So, no, not very ironic.

  • Tuna Ghost

    “on the whole” is pretty hard to quantify, buddy. Scientists who believe in some religion or another are not uncommon at all. The fact that science can’t “prove” religion doesn’t, and shouldn’t, stop people from practicing it.

  • Tuna Ghost

    I enjoy Disinfo, but one of my primary annoyances with it is that whenever an article involving religion comes up, the discussion immediately splits into Religion vs. Science, or more accurately the Material vs. the Immaterial. This kind of splitting is unnecessary and unhelpful. The fact is, the material and immaterial act upon on another, and this is not disputed by either camp. How it happens (seeing as how it should be impossible, according to our definitions of material and immaterial) is unknown to both sides as well. I fail to see how reducing the conversation to “religion is stupid” vs. “no, YOU’RE stupid” will really move things along. Can we all grow up a bit?

  • Tuna Ghost

    I enjoy Disinfo, but one of my primary annoyances with it is that whenever an article involving religion comes up, the discussion immediately splits into Religion vs. Science, or more accurately the Material vs. the Immaterial. This kind of splitting is unnecessary and unhelpful. The fact is, the material and immaterial act upon on another, and this is not disputed by either camp. How it happens (seeing as how it should be impossible, according to our definitions of material and immaterial) is unknown to both sides as well. I fail to see how reducing the conversation to “religion is stupid” vs. “no, YOU’RE stupid” will really move things along. Can we all grow up a bit?

  • Rmasterstyle

    “everyone needs to shut the fuck up and just mind their own.” is in it’s own self contradictory to say lol.

    “I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure
    suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ~Elie Wiesel

  • CramItLoser

    I think the confusion stems from the fact that Biblical literalists claim the Earth to be only several thousand years old (based on biblical genealogy traced back to Adam and Eve), and that seems to be in contrast with dinosaurs being on the planet hundreds of millions of years ago, you know, because Earth didn’t exist then! Christians hate that pesky “pseudoscience” called carbon dating haha

  • Saveit

    When magic is spelled “magick”, it implies the style of Crowley- oh excuse ME… I meant ALEISTER Crowley- as he is given credit for that spelling. It is also equated with some as “black” or “dark” magic.

  • Saveit

    Are there statistics somewhere to support your implied theory that the general “corruptness” of scientists on the whole can be measured and compared with that of the rest of the human population?

    “I bet you actually don’t know any”
    Mr Dutton. We all know what assuming does.

    “I do”
    Congrats. Also: you sound like Ted Haggard in that youtube vid where he freaks out on Richard Dawkins:
    “Well. If you’d only read the books that I’ve read, and knew the people I knew….”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXJRxsnwQww&feature=related

    The conversation starts at around 4:50.

  • Tuna Ghost

    Fundementalists, perhaps, which make up a very small minority of christians. And even then, most christians who deny that sort of science would still, if push came to shove, utilize it to save themselves or their loved ones. A lot of it is just posturing and politics, albeit one that is likely harmful to the spread of knowledge. Claiming “christians hate carbon dating” is a such an oversimplification that it becomes far more unhelpful than it is informative.

  • Tuna Ghost

    More miraculous than inanimate matter being animate (which is a pretty legitimate “miracle” in my eyes) is the sudden appearance of something from nothing. The fact that there even is something rather than nothing is pretty startling when you think about the very delicate balance between forces that had to exist during the creation of our universe. Attributing a human-like personality and moral code to a creating force, whatever it may be, seems pretty silly but really we’ve been doing that for as long as we’ve been around so why stop now. Well actually the moral code thing is a relatively recent development in human history, maybe we ought to rethink attributing the base of ethics to something we can’t actually communicate with very well

  • JimOfOhio

    Michael ….. It seems to me that the world is corrupt and expresses hatred and is bigoted and prejudice without God.

  • Davido_se

    Just a comment: All religions are not contra science. Islam embraces science for example. Please read and learn from history.

  • Davido_se

    Just a comment: All religions are not contra science. Islam embraces science for example. Please read and learn from history.

  • Jbesner

    who is the narrator here?

  • Jbesner

    who is the narrator here?

  • oats

    do any of you realize arguing is futile, your doing exactly what your stating is wrong and shouldnt be done.
    so all of you. suck it up and stfu.

  • oats

    do any of you realize arguing is futile, your doing exactly what your stating is wrong and shouldnt be done.
    so all of you. suck it up and stfu.

  • Anon

    Interesting spelling of “congratulations.” Should anyone expect any intelligence from one who would make such an ignorant statement?

  • Diana

    …stardust arguing with stardust about which speck is brighter…

  • Diana

    …stardust arguing with stardust about which speck is brighter…

  • adam

    This video was great. I’ve had similar experiences like this. It feels great to have a purpose, or a meaning to life. Even if for only a moment. I consider myself lucky not to be religious, as well.

  • adam

    This video was great. I’ve had similar experiences like this. It feels great to have a purpose, or a meaning to life. Even if for only a moment. I consider myself lucky not to be religious, as well.

  • Merryn800

    ok well done mate, no one seems to see that this guy sinks of dush…He’s trying to captivate the feeble minded in the same way that religious leaders do. Not with hard facts and evidence but with dushary. I have no problem with the religious as I am sure their faith comes from their upbringing and we are all slaves to that, along with our genetic code…the point being they can’t help it and it is little indication of character, however anyone who is moved away, in any way, from their faith, a I doubt many are, is from all the evidence available an idiot for being compelled by a few minutes of this smuck. Before you comment think for a few minutes about what you saw here.

  • Merryn800

    ok well done mate, no one seems to see that this guy sinks of dush…He’s trying to captivate the feeble minded in the same way that religious leaders do. Not with hard facts and evidence but with dushary. I have no problem with the religious as I am sure their faith comes from their upbringing and we are all slaves to that, along with our genetic code…the point being they can’t help it and it is little indication of character, however anyone who is moved away, in any way, from their faith, a I doubt many are, is from all the evidence available an idiot for being compelled by a few minutes of this smuck. Before you comment think for a few minutes about what you saw here.

  • Cjnsp

    Alas! I clearly have no poetry in my soul. I have no appreciation of the uplifting glories of acquiring heretofore never-known knowledge, nor of being washed over by the subtle auroric beauty of the soft cosmic music created as billions of dollars waft away down the celestial drain. And then being able to peddle that bullshit to a bewildered public. Now that’s the real Big Bang in all of this!

  • Cjnsp

    Alas! I clearly have no poetry in my soul. I have no appreciation of the uplifting glories of acquiring heretofore never-known knowledge, nor of being washed over by the subtle auroric beauty of the soft cosmic music created as billions of dollars waft away down the celestial drain. And then being able to peddle that bullshit to a bewildered public. Now that’s the real Big Bang in all of this!

  • Moonsock86

    Thank you for sharing this! It is amazing facts and truths that are said so beautifully. This is what I want to share with many. Good Work!!

  • Moonsock86

    Thank you for sharing this! It is amazing facts and truths that are said so beautifully. This is what I want to share with many. Good Work!!

  • DefiantOne

    Another atheist pissed off at God for not existing! ;)

  • DefiantOne

    Another atheist pissed off at God for not existing! ;)

  • Tom Ace

    This was 1/2 awesome. The rest sucked.

    This is why:

    I’m only assuming that this was Richard Dawkins because it sounded like him. His problem is that he boils down “religion” into a monolithic ideology, one that he is as guilty of creating as man is accused to have created himself. As a scientist and even as a contemplative scientist, the man invokes the grandeur of the universe. He knows what he’s doing. That first half was glorious.

    But the second half (i.e. the part where the drums start beating) was conjecture. He constructs his vision of religion, a vision that any sane person would have to hate, and passes it off as what is. Hardly anyone outside of the fringes of any religious tradition subscribes to these caricatures. This is stupid. This is belligerent. This is unintelligent.

    Religious traditions are all born of a reckoning with some perceptible reality. The philosophically-minded traditions reckon with “being”. Only fundamentalism closes off the real data of the perceptible universe and close themselves off from it, disallowing reality to inform their posture towards “being”, towards “what is”. The history of Christianity in particular always grapples with what is. This is why there is infighting in what’s known as “theology”, which is nothing more than applying rational thought to “what is”. The only difference is that there is a common understanding that there is more to us than just us, there’s more to what is than what we can see. This isn’t an invitation, as the video suggests, to close ourselves off from this universe and it’s grandeur, but to be in dialogue with it, to learn and to grow. Not everyone is supposed to be a scientist, not everyone is supposed to be a philosopher, not everyone is supposed to work at 7-11, not everyone is supposed to work in a record store…but the human project is collecting all of what we have for the sake of a common endeavor. The religious impulse, the basic sense that there is more to me than just me, is self evident: “you”, not just me. “we”, not just you. “them”, not just us. our “community”, not just our family. our “culture”, not just our community. all people, not just our people. our world, not just the people. our galaxy, not just our world. the universe, not just our galaxy…and for religiously-minded people, the “eternal”, not just the temporal. For religious minded people, the “eternal” (or rather the “Eternal”, or “Being” or “God”) is the ground of our being, the base of what “is”. We are contingent on this “Being” and we understand ourselves in response to Being, as articulations from that first basic principle extending outwards into our most immediate experiences. Religion doesn’t happen with your eyes shut, you have to know what “is”. It’s not static, there’s development. Faith isn’t ignorance, it can be simple or informed. In faith, the common ground between the “informed” and the “simple” is a matter of how much we reckon with what “is”, whether we finish thinking at the expanding universe or we run ahead and peer a little bit beyond even that.

    You can’t oversimplify this stuff or else you shouldn’t speak about it. Scientific anti-theists are irked when uninformed religious people dabble in their area of expertise, at least without a conversation or two first. It’s only fair that it works the other way around too.

  • Tom Ace

    This was 1/2 awesome. The rest sucked.

    This is why:

    I’m only assuming that this was Richard Dawkins because it sounded like him. His problem is that he boils down “religion” into a monolithic ideology, one that he is as guilty of creating as man is accused to have created himself. As a scientist and even as a contemplative scientist, the man invokes the grandeur of the universe. He knows what he’s doing. That first half was glorious.

    But the second half (i.e. the part where the drums start beating) was conjecture. He constructs his vision of religion, a vision that any sane person would have to hate, and passes it off as what is. Hardly anyone outside of the fringes of any religious tradition subscribes to these caricatures. This is stupid. This is belligerent. This is unintelligent.

    Religious traditions are all born of a reckoning with some perceptible reality. The philosophically-minded traditions reckon with “being”. Only fundamentalism closes off the real data of the perceptible universe and close themselves off from it, disallowing reality to inform their posture towards “being”, towards “what is”. The history of Christianity in particular always grapples with what is. This is why there is infighting in what’s known as “theology”, which is nothing more than applying rational thought to “what is”. The only difference is that there is a common understanding that there is more to us than just us, there’s more to what is than what we can see. This isn’t an invitation, as the video suggests, to close ourselves off from this universe and it’s grandeur, but to be in dialogue with it, to learn and to grow. Not everyone is supposed to be a scientist, not everyone is supposed to be a philosopher, not everyone is supposed to work at 7-11, not everyone is supposed to work in a record store…but the human project is collecting all of what we have for the sake of a common endeavor. The religious impulse, the basic sense that there is more to me than just me, is self evident: “you”, not just me. “we”, not just you. “them”, not just us. our “community”, not just our family. our “culture”, not just our community. all people, not just our people. our world, not just the people. our galaxy, not just our world. the universe, not just our galaxy…and for religiously-minded people, the “eternal”, not just the temporal. For religious minded people, the “eternal” (or rather the “Eternal”, or “Being” or “God”) is the ground of our being, the base of what “is”. We are contingent on this “Being” and we understand ourselves in response to Being, as articulations from that first basic principle extending outwards into our most immediate experiences. Religion doesn’t happen with your eyes shut, you have to know what “is”. It’s not static, there’s development. Faith isn’t ignorance, it can be simple or informed. In faith, the common ground between the “informed” and the “simple” is a matter of how much we reckon with what “is”, whether we finish thinking at the expanding universe or we run ahead and peer a little bit beyond even that.

    You can’t oversimplify this stuff or else you shouldn’t speak about it. Scientific anti-theists are irked when uninformed religious people dabble in their area of expertise, at least without a conversation or two first. It’s only fair that it works the other way around too.

  • jim

    the speed of light is not a constant, there for u can not estimate distance based on the speed of light, and yes they estimate, science has proven this, all this video prove’s to me is wow who ever created this was really smart. this guys point of view where he believes that he was created by the big bang is his beilief, there for making it religious, and science has not yet proven this theory. further more I know lots of christians and they do not believe that they are better than u they simply believe some thing that u do not, they have told me once and only once what they believe it is up to me whether I accept it or not. this guy I think has mistaken christians for cathlics. I feel science would be much farther ahead if they simply droped the unproven religion that is evolution theory, stop trying to prove there is no creator and start studying an learning from what is, where we are, where we are going and how to get there.

  • jim

    the speed of light is not a constant, there for u can not estimate distance based on the speed of light, and yes they estimate, science has proven this, all this video prove’s to me is wow who ever created this was really smart. this guys point of view where he believes that he was created by the big bang is his beilief, there for making it religious, and science has not yet proven this theory. further more I know lots of christians and they do not believe that they are better than u they simply believe some thing that u do not, they have told me once and only once what they believe it is up to me whether I accept it or not. this guy I think has mistaken christians for cathlics. I feel science would be much farther ahead if they simply droped the unproven religion that is evolution theory, stop trying to prove there is no creator and start studying an learning from what is, where we are, where we are going and how to get there.

  • jim

    even if they did create life in a lab that would only prove that it takes intelligence to create life.

  • jim

    you should research carbon dating it only goes back about 30 thousand years the increments become to small to measure. not only that but they have carbon dated living animals as old as 24000 years. I think it is safe to say they are not worried about carbon dating.

  • jim

    see kent hovind for good explanation, if u listen it will make more sense than evolution theory, just listen then draw a conclusion, after all evolution and creation are both theory’s

  • http://realativity.tumblr.com/ NMM

    Well done. Amazing. Thank you.

  • http://realativity.tumblr.com/ NMM

    Well done. Amazing. Thank you.

  • martha

    Who is bluemana? I could listen to him talk forever! Very well done, I love this video.

  • martha

    Who is bluemana? I could listen to him talk forever! Very well done, I love this video.

  • DesertSun59

    Awesome. Simply awesome.

  • DesertSun59

    Awesome. Simply awesome.

  • RuralVoice

    “Most hallucinogenic drugs were developed in labs…”

    Which hallucinogenic drugs are you talking about?

    LSD can be found in Morning Glory seeds. Magic mushrooms and peyote grow wild. Even DMT is a naturally occuring substance.

    The active ingredients may have been synthesized in labs, but their origins are in nature.

  • aaron

    a better term would be mystic

  • aaron

    lsd isnt in morning glorys its LSA (Lysergic Acid Amide), LSD(d-lysergic acid diethylamid) is a synthetic chemical, derived from ergine (and other processes). LSA is also in Hawaiian baby Woodrose seeds more potently. they are very similar in experiences but LSD is more visual and more potent by amount(micrograms but lsa is active in milligrams). Also the only un-synthesized psychedelics are DMT(all of life), LSA(various seeds), peyote(mescaline), Shrooms (psilocybin), and none others i can think of. To look at a list of all the available hallucinogens in the form of research chemicals especially the 2c chemicals shows MOST hallucinogenic drugs are created. But from either perspective( god gave us science to make em or he put em in the ground) they’re here some how and they’re worth an experience. But never just to get fucked up, rather for the experience, journey, and discovery that ensues. I’ve developed understanding and acceptance of everything do to meditative trips and journeys in the right perspective, in essence the ideas expressed in the video and the acceptance of the balance of everything and everyone’s part in this whole.

  • aaron

    yes but in religion differed ideas weren’t even considered, rather attacked i.e Galileo, who was punished by the church for claiming the earth orbits the sun. Science however gives all ideas chance to prove themselves. And only until science has blatantly proven something for years will religion give it a chance. That is the heritage of religion along with war an multitudes of other injustices. this scenario is like that of a child in an unfit home, they live in the house aren’t treated for, are abused by their parents, and have a twisted life and grow up with many psychological issues pushed on subconsciously from their life, that is religion. where as science is the foster parents that take the child in and give them the opportunity to better themselves and have a better future. which side would you believe the child(humanity) should belong to the dangerous inherent on or the nurturing future? Organized religion is so inherently flawed that the bi-product will  be flawed as well, so why no stem from that destruction into the future.

  • rosbif75

    Jim, old son try watching it again in slow motion 2 or 3 times if necessary in order to try to understand what this guy is saying. Will you stop this creationist piffle? (You are more dangerous than Soviet Communism ever was.) Of course the speed of light is a constant; of course we are formed from “star stuff’. The basic molecules from which we are made were formed by, not one, but a succession of super novae.
       This is the wonder, the “miracle” of our existence not the belief in a deity of our own creation. Why does this god, who is shared by the three great monotheistic religions, demand so many different and contradictory beliefs and actions? Why are Hindus or Buddhists wrong?- they certainly don’t think so.
        You see Jim, you believe…they believe something completely different but none of  you can prove anything. All you can do is become more aggressive, try to shout louder than those who contradict you or in extreme cases threaten social exclusion and even violence. This is true of “believers” in all religions because non-belief by others threatens them (and you).
        At least I know where I come from-I am a child of the stars and that’s fine by me. We don’t need your creator and the world would be a wonderfully better place if everybody else realised this too.
                                                             All the best Jim.
                                                                                 I pray for you.

  • rosbif75

     Hello Jim,
             It’s me again! No Jim, evolution has been proven time and time again. You do not seem to understand the basics of scientific progress. and the word the word “theory” seems to have escaped you completely – at least in scientific terms.
             Please stop this nonsense. Get a grip of yourelf and try to think. I really am getting worried about you, Nothing seems to affect you blind belief in a “deity” that the majority of the world’s people have heard of but have rejected. Of course they are wrong and you are right – except that as having rejected them, you too are condemned in their eyes. Does it not  worry you Jim that you are condemning them, as they are condemning you? Oh dear!
             Look forward to reading your bigoted nonsense in the near future.
                                                                                 Well done lad.

21