I like what he said about respect. That is something we seriously lack in the public experience today. Being able to get along with someone else who disagrees with you is maturity and being an adult instead of what we see now, people who talk over each other, get angry, cut each other off, scream, yell. And we wonder where our kids get it from...
You refuted yourself as soon as you said " good people do bad things" because by the actions that we do we are either good or bad, but then we could ask what is good or bad, in which the only water tight argument that can be made for morality is an absolute which in turn has to be founded on the Judeo-Christian God.
@pelonisas So no Hindu ever had good or bad? Buddhism has no prospect on good or bad, The Greeks had no idea on good or bad? The Native Americans had no good or bad? The Natives to Australia have no good or bad? I can keep going here. Really the idea that the god of Abraham brought morality is complete bull.
@keshkirshkinra most non Christian religions are based on some person who lived in the past and has been deified, basically they were born at some time and could die some time in the future and never live again, that cannot be a basis for absolutes because by definition absolutes must be eternal, that takes care or all the non possible "options".
@pelonisas Ignoring the complete lack of religious knowledge on your part, Why must the religion be absolute to create morality. If humans are a forever changing race with needs that change as our environment does, should not morality be the same? In an over populated world, efforts of population control such as contraceptives and abortion are better to alleviate future suffering, where as the opposite is true in a severely underpopulated world.
@keshkirshkinra I readily confess my lack of knowledge in alot of the particulars, but your assertion that there is a complete lack while typical is not true, most of these religions like buddha for example, didn't even claim any godhood, he was a man in the past that was born at some time and died some time later and his teachings were simply taken as some kind of moral teaching, but as such there is no reason to believe he had more insight than people around us today, they don't apply today!
@pelonisas How is that any different from the christian bible? It's just a book of fables, written by mortal men thousands of years ago, who also had no more insight than any of us here today.
Nazi's were driven by religious fervor to think what they did was right, based on the atrocities both commited and condoned by god in the bible. Also, the bible condones slavery, stoning children, women as property, and many MANY more horrible things.... So tell me why the bible is absolute morality?
@blfry not a book of fables, as some very serious people have found out, like Sir William Ramsay who started of to prove the Bible wrong in the field of Archeaology, and found Lukes Gospel (in particular) was the best historical record out there, it's the best historical narrative of the anceint world that we have, there used to be the argument that Daniels account of future prophecy must have been written after it happened because of it's acurracy, but then the dead sea scrolls destroyed that.
@blfry If by "religious fervor" you mean "a lust for power, and a desire for man to reach his next stage of evolution" then and only then you are correct, hitler hated Christianity and all things it's stood for, although he sucked up to the pope and the catholic church to gain power. And his book "mein kampf"(my struggle) is full of it as were his speeches.
@blfry you need to actually read the Bible to know what it does say about slavery, stoning, women, and so on before you tell something like that, I've read it several times through and know that in context it is far different than you put it here.
@pelonisas Sure I've read it. And in fact, I found the bible to be one of the most convincing arguements AGAINST christianity.
Hitler likely did not truely believe in christianity, but he understood the power it held over weak minded people, and used it to help control his people. Most of the nazi soldiers very much believed they were doing gods will.
Also, the bible is full of inaccuracies. And I seem to recall the "dead sea scrolls" having been debunked. Belief does not make it real.
@keshkirshkinra And if you really think that morals must change as constantly as people do then you have no reason to believe that hitler or stalin or pol pot or anyone for that matter could be wrong since morality must change with the people.
the differance is when aI qaeda "says I feel these infidels should die" and act or inspire others to act on those words it causes harm to others if a believer says I feel there is a higher power they are doing no harm to anyone. I am a firm believer in God I believe this one because of experiences I have had in my life but also I look around at the world we live in and see how perfect it is in design to think that this all happened by chance with some big bang is rather absurd to me.
@USPSAman Actually, most likely, did happen with a big bang, as far as man can scientifically explain. I don't think you have to sacrifice your religious beliefs for scientific endeavor of the universe's origin. after all the man who begot the big bang theory was a catholic priest, Georges lemaitre. If you're a fundamentalist who thinks the world was made in 6 days, then I think your theology and understanding of scripture must broaden. God made the universe, all in its rightfull time.
I think the reason this guy professes to get along with fundamentalists( "get along" being a subtle way of saying he can deal with these people alot easier) is because, in fact, religious fundamentalists are ones who have walled themselves off from the world completely and are easier to rebuff, or to pin point their ludacrious ideas of existence. For him to say that, is weak. I am a Catholic not religously liberal, but definitely not a fundamentalsit or politically conservative.
@manuelturcios I think you're missing the point. This is about tolerance being condescending not who Penn Jillette prefers to talk to. Penn 'gets along better' with fundamentalists than liberal Christians _who preach easy tolerance_ because a fundamentalist is saying 'your wrong' while someone who believes in easy tolerance is being condescending by saying 'it doesn't matter that you're wrong because you don't know any better'.
@ArkianTheHandsome I understood that, I chose to criticize him on that point. Though I have met people that are apathetic to other's beliefs because they feel secure with their own and really don't mind if the other person is right or wrong, not because they're pretentious or patronizing. You can't argue the fact that fundamentalists are usually easier to refute, given their denial of evolution for example. and I guess this is why he feels comfortable with them more so.
look we are clueless to what this life is realy is about we will maybe never no.so just respect your self and others....its that easy treat other how you would want to be...I HAVE FRIENDS WHO ARE JEWISH MUSLIM CHRISTIANS AND I LOVE THEME ALL THE SAME AND I WOULD TAKE BULLET ANY DAY FOR THEME SO JUST HANG OUT AND LOVE RESPECT YOURSELF AND OTHERS,,,,LIFE IS SHORT AND PRETTY HARD ENOUGH TO ACT RACIST OR BE A RELIGION BULLY
Gravity is a theory. In science, a theory is a big deal. Theories (in science) are things that can't be proven but can only be disproven through experimentation. Some of the elements that constitute a theory in science are called laws. Their are "laws" in Newtons theory of universal gravitation but in all, it's still considered a theory.
If you still don't understand, google "is gravity a law or theory". The confusion has to do with the meanings we attach to those words
(1) "I believe very strongly that there is a physical reality that my perception does not change. "
and
(2) "Once you've said something that you can't prove to someone else you have completely walled yourself off from the world and you have essentially said that noone can talk to you and you can talk to no one."
Statement (1) is a statement that he can not prove to someone else.
Busted on bullshit? Or not. He admits to being a preacher.
Ron Paul is the only man who is going to end the JEW FED! He is the only man who is going to end the PC indoctrination in our public education system that has made our white youth unhealthy. He is the only man who opposes amnesty and will throw the mestizo colonizers out. He is the only man that will restore states' rights so the scourge of black crime can finally be dealt with. And all in the name of Jesus and freedom. If that ain't WHITE POWER, I don't know what is.
I believe right and wrong are just a matter of perception. What I consider wrong is anything that negatively effects others. I don't mean pleasing or agreeing with everyone because that's impossible but to not injure, take away resources, or say things deliberately offensive. Right is to do what ever makes me and like minded others happy without violating anyone of reasons version of happiness. (Some people are just miserable because they exist)
@patrick258181 Patrick, if a guy is shooting up people at the mall and a cop shoots and kills him to stop him from murdering others--is that wrong? The cop's bullet "negatively affected" the killer, right?
Yeah you said smoking weed in the parking lot is stupid, saying that is stupid, but smoking on the parking lot is awesome. As long as there's no police around.
Athiests this is your only hope. 2000 years ago God sent his own son JESUS to this world to die on the cross for your sins. The price of your sins was what happend to jesus on the cross. God could have allowed me and you to die like slaves to satan without any chance or hope to escape the punishment which we would have to face. But God in his love sent JESUS TO TAKE OUR PLACE, BECAUSE WE COULDNT HANDLE IT. IF you believe this than today God will forgive u for everything you have ever done
@Linklegacy77 ok daniel 7 wrriten 2500 years ago predicted the roman empire would collapse and be divided into 10 kingdoms. daniel than said a blasphempous pompous king would arise out of these ten kingdoms which are the european nations. and guess who came to power the pope did and the pope did exactly what daniel said the anti christ would do he exahulted himself as high as christ he tried to change the sabbath day from saturday to sunday and he succedded
@cuvinteleluitati to continue daniel also said this anti christ this powerful blasphmeous king would kill Gods ture christians ps the inqustion was fullfiled. the cahtolic chruch gave orders to kill 50 million christians in the dark ages . the prophecy continues about the little horn king which would destroy 3 of the ten european kingdoms and history prooved bible prophecy correct because the popes destroyed the herlui vandals and oshtrgaths just as daniel predicted.
@cuvinteleluitati so this is what daniel predicted 2500 years ago and the pope fullfiled it fully, but it doesnt end 2000 years ago paul predicted that satan would hi jack the christian church with a blasphemoues man ps paul is speaking about the same blasphemere that daniel predicted which is the pope. infact revelation 17 says this anti christ would kill Gods saints using a harlot church which would be located in rome. hahahahaha the prophecy was fullfiled perfectly.
@cuvinteleluitati but it doesnt end the lord jesus said that the power daniel spoke of would come again right before the world would end. guess what ever since 1544 the pope and his jesuits have been working to fullfil bible prophecy by bringging a new world order under them as the head leaders. they control the illuminai and masons and all these satanic elite leaders of the world work for them. soon they will force the world to worship the pope. that to me is proof
I'm going to take a stab in the dark and guess that you're a Jehovah's witness.
Other then that, I only recently found out that Saturday was in fact the holy sabbath and not Sunday. This confused the heck out of me, because I knew that you were supposed to rest on the Sabbath and Sunday is recognized by everyone as the resting day.
1. Belief in a deity is in no way contingent upon religious dogma. 2. People's ethics and the way they conduct themselves, are in no way contingent upon a belief in a deity or religious dogma. This leads me to believe that religious tolerance is very possible. As long as their beliefs don't infringe upon the rights of others. Why is it even an issue?
@boonskety Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
@boonskety "As long as their beliefs don't infringe upon the rights of others. " but religious practice doesn't seem to be happy unless we all worship their god, or they are a threat to their superstitions. Hence it always necesitates wars.!
@SOAS007 You obviously don't understand what I'm saying. Just because religion can be used as a justification for violence by some does not mean that all people of that faith advocate violence. It also does not mean that people who believe in God or a higher power have to be part of any religious sect. Would you rather the government ban religion all together? What gives you the authority to dictate how other people think. That to me is much more oppressive than allowing people to be.
@boonskety "Would you rather the government ban religion all together?" no, but religion should not be above the law.
"What gives you the authority to dictate how other people think. " I don't . I Say people should look at ALL evidence they can and think for themselves. Religions do not support this idea, on the contrary , hence conflict.!
The Matrix type brain in the vat argument is not airtight, as you say. You are confusing deduction and induction. Inductively, nothing speaks for it. So it is improbable. Thus, a weak argument. You don't' refute an inductively weak argument by trying to prove that it's invalid. And then find out you can't, so say it's airtight. That's mixing modes. The argument is as weak as they come.
@DexterHaven49 agreed, it's just as week as any religion. If someone was to make such a claim as "we're all in a matrix type world", the burden of proof is on THAT person. The person proposing it.
I once made a comment to someone about their cognitive dissonance when they thanked "God" for saving a baby that they in turn acknowledged it was the doctors who did it, but figured they'd thank God anyway and what harm does it do? I explained the harm.
Then some genius replied that "liberals like you like to scream Coexist and Tolerance."
If you say that evolution has never been proven, so too must you accept that neither has gravity. Gravity is both a law AND a theory, therefore making it every bit as falsifiable as the theory of evolution. In fact the Newtonian Theory cannot explain the orbit of Mercury around the sun, thereby refuting your 'law' of gravity.
In fact the point of the original comment was directed at things which can be tested and observed.
I think we can agree on that. However you cannot hide behind a definition and suggest that something isn't true, simply because it's not classified as a law. The theory of evolution is every bit as valid scientifically as the law/theory of gravity. Even the law of gravity CAN change if our observations likewise change.
I agree that tolerance can be condescending but I wouldn't say it is inherently so. "You can take many paths so go your own way" isn't how you talk to a child. You talk to a child with authority. "You can take many paths" is more how to talk to someone whom you don't want to get in an argument with.
what he saying is totally right, sad thing is most ppl in the comment section here is complete retards, not every1 can be a big thinker and certainly not many of these ppl who are angry at everything and argues on youtube for a living, its also funny that some ppl are hardcore atheists but when it comes to climate change everything is right and you cant question it since the issue is about nature and poor people who are suffering
He needs to understand what tolerance is. He should read John Stuart Mill because Penn's idea of tolerance is a detached acceptance of other peoples difference. Mill puts across the idea that tolerance is more challenging and accepts other different beliefs and views must all be declared so that new informed truths can be revealed and norms can be negotiated. Everything point of view is to be tolerated within the discourse, nobody is subject to censor or censure (i.e dismissing as hate speech)
The fact that he defined his definition of tolerance means your argument has no point. you know what he means and you know what he has to say on that attitude. Why argue semantics?
Science is the most benevolent of the pursuits because even though something science has discovered that can be proven over and over, science dare not be conceited enough to call it an unquestionable truth. But religion on the other hand is the exact opposite... it takes events and mere speculation and pronounces it as an undeniable truth, and still today you will find those that disagree are murdered for their disagreement, while in science disagreement is met with acceptance and query.
Religious tolerance is possible. I knew someone who loved Star Wars so much he classified his religion as Jedi. But he said he would never say that the FORCE should be taught in schools.
@realigiousrayne Exactly, tolerance doesn't mean letting people go fuck others, it means understanding that you can't know things which had not been proved and as such, you could be wrong. i.e. Creationism is purely wrong and should be mocked. However, believing in god should not. However, as this guy noted, we should be very willing to accept we are wrong, because no-one is ever always right and it is always possible one day we will find evolution to only be half the story.
@LewisHNL If you mock Creationism, you mock God. If you are willing to tolerate a belief in God you may as well tolerate a belief in creation. Any religion that believes in God, (Muslims, Christian, Judiasm etc.) believes in at least some type of creation so you cannot mock one and accept the other, unless of course you are refering to another god who does not require any type of religious belief.
@bandiit17 No. There is a distinction. Creationism says that god created everything and evolution did not happen, which is clearly wrong, since we have scientific proof to the contrary. Most religious people on all sides accept that creationism is wrong and call it dramatic licence, and not all religions by any means have creationism. See this is what I realised about god and religion, they are stupid terms because they are far too widely used... I am sorry, are you religious?
@LewisHNL I am not religious although I believe in God and that he created the world, I also believe in certain aspects of evolution, I believe it to be part of how God created the world to work. I dislike the term "religious" as it refers to the outer person and I would say that I am more spiritual than religious. What type of religious people do you refer to as accepting creation to be wrong? Scientists, celebrities, politicians, or the common man?
@bandiit17 No such thing as believing in evolution you either accept the facts or don't. By not accepting the facts it doesn't change that evolution is fact.
@cararacs Fact is never a constant, facts change. "Facts" that have been proven by scientists change frequently. What may be true about evolution today may not be true tomorrow. Accepting anything as a whole makes the person accepting it a sheep.
@bandiit17 You are very wrong on this, small details might change when more and more evidence is found in regards of evolution but the fact that it happens in concrete that is why it's a scientific theory. Believing something without facts or research makes one a sheep (which is why a person of faith is called a sheep) however, when you analyze data and it stays consistant for over hundred years with it being challenged and you accept that; one is not a sheep if they concur with the facts.
@cararacs So you want consistency, how old was the world 100 years ago? How old is it today? The fact of how old the world is has never changed but the age that men say it is has changed. How can we truly say it is fact? when the details change, it is not longer the truth. You can say that it is a fact for the earth to be 4.5 billion years old but what if tomorrow they say that new evidence shows the earth to be 5 billion years old, so then technically what they called fact wasn't actually fact
@bandiit17 Adding on 0.5 billion years in geological is time is like saying you arrived somewhere at 5pm but it really was 5:03pm. Yes our technology is growing exponentially every few years but with every growth more and more evidence supporting evolution and making evolutionary theory stronger and stronger. What is fact is that the world is at least 4 billion years old; what is fact is that all living things are made of cells; what is fact is that all matter is made from atoms; what is fact
@bandiit17 is that the diversity of life occurred via evolution. The small fine details of 4.6-5 billion years or the fine mechanism that molecular processes or hypothesis in quantum mechanics or processes of how evolution worked might be fine tweaked but the FACT that they exist is not a debate.
@bandiit17 Ok, please don't take this as an insult and just so you know, I am an agnostic Jew, so I understand where you are coming from, however, I cannot believe that anyone could dispute that people evolved. Creationists believe this, specifically, they believe god created everything in a short amount of time and that god created it exactly as it is today, at least, that is what creationism entails to me. Therefore with our knowledge of evolution, we can refute such claims.
@LewisHNL That is the problem with religious fudnamentalists, and I find that is the reason this PENN finds them more comfortable, because he can rebuff their beliefs on evolution and other literal interpretations of scripture. I'd really like to see him argue that with a Catholic priest, better yet with someone like Georges Lemaitre, a cahtolic priest who begot the Big bang theory.
@realigiousrayne jedi, i remember reading somewhere jedi is now considered a legit religion, i think it was omg facts, not too sure on the credibility but i wouldnt be too suprised
@ItchyQuick Would you agree that Penn is basically saying:
"If you're going to talk about it (debate or dialect) then talk about it. Otherwise, don't bother with platitudes, because the conversation may as well end right there."
I think this is what he is saying. So for example, I do not like the way that secular students would be forced into sitting through "awareness" sessions whereby posters of various religions are being displayed in say math class at key religious times of year.
Oh, and like Penn said, it's not important that we all get along, but whether we can mutually respect each other will decide if we're still around in a hundred years. If only that was a major theme within every religion, not loving your neighbor, but instead respecting them to let them follow their own path. Loved being on your show Penn "orgasms episode of Bullshit" Cheers!
Any religion or philosophy is just a means by best which any individual or group can function. They were created as tools, and yet have become shackles for so many. Their fuel is the in/out game. Everyone wants to be in, and no one wants to be out. Religions play this game against us and each other.
I find his highly polarized take on the truth to actually be quite childish - life and experience is much more complicated than right and wrong.
Yes in daily life right and wrong are important principles for getting along with each other however they are to be used lightly at times...
Let's just take the example of Nelson Mandela who is a hero to many and was a member of a terrorist organisation that supported the use of violence - see what I mean...
I disagree with Penn's statement. First, he is basically reaching the same conclusion: each person can disagree with you. Penn's problem is that he wants an outright confrontation to prove "respect." I see that as childish behavior. Avoiding a fruitless confrontation with a person you disagree is evidence of maturity. As you get to know people better, you can have these interactions; otherwise you are being gratuitously insulting.
@waltherchemnitz Well he should make up his sodding mind. You can be a razor or a writing implement. You can't be two household objects simultaneously. That's just ridiculous. :D Otherwise, yes, you've got a point.
Oh I see then. So if a kid in elementary school thinks that Harry Potter is fun to read and believes in sorcerers, we must oblige ourselves to tell him/her that Harry Potter is not real and tweet about his/her stupidity? Yeah. I can really live in a world like that. How self-contradicting is this guy.
@shelton705 "Religious debates are healthy, but I also see nothing wrong with a "live and let live" attitude." Well in the case of most liberal christians then yes im fine with the live and let live, but with creationists it cant be left, because they are trying to rewrite science and history and trying to impose them beliefs in the education system. Creationism is pure anti science and will lead us back into the dark ages, and so i debate them out of their harmful beliefs, eg faith healers.
What if the objective reality is that it is more than one way to the truth? Consider mathematics. A lot of simple problems has more than one method you can use to solve them. They still have only one answer.
It depends what bible your reading and how nice they have reinterpreted the translation, the bible has been majorly edited 5-6 times over the course of the past 1800 years, but the orignals are the worst,they have only been made more accurate to our current knowledge throughout the ages,the earth sits on pillars in the original,later edited to the earth hangs on nothing in space, linguistics clearly demonstrates these edits through time. The below verses are NIV but are similar in all versions.
@johnizzle725 So you deny the passages in the bible that say you will go to a place of eternal torture? or do you accept the verses are there and interpret them another way? John 3:16& 36, matthew 5:30 ,matthew 13:48-50 matthew 25:41-46 , Revelation 14:10-11 Revelation 20:10-16 . Hell doesnt seem to be described as meer seperation from god but eternal torture if i do not believe jesus was the son of god. Do i deserve eternal torture for not believing that? even thou i live a good life?.
I've noticed the same thing. Those with the extreme delusions may be the nuttiest, but the moderate ones have this certain dishonesty, where they try to devalue the dialogue itself, always trying to win in the end with some relativistic approach. The extreme ones do think there is one truth, the moderate ones somehow don't understand this.
I'd still prefer all religious were moderate and not extreme, but the more watered down delusions come with something poisonous, a dialogue
@Jotto999 ***Ah this stupid 500 character limit. I meant it comes with something damaging to the dialogue, when the moderates try to always spin it into a relativistic approach, but that the extreme ones at least think there is only one truth that exists and so don't have this poisonous dialogue destruction.
I'm an agnostic, and as such, I have similar views to liberal Christians. When it comes to the universe and the existance of life, I do believe there can only be one truth. However, if people want to follow a certain belief or path, I don't see the harm as long as they're not hurting anybody else. I've had respect for Christians, atheists, and everybody in between. Religious debates are healthy, but I also see nothing wrong with a "live and let live" attitude.
@shelton705 So what are you saying? That some people are too harsh or whatever? That seems to be what you're implying, and if it isn't that's nonsense. I've met many "agnostics" who try to convince me that I shouldn't argue with the religious, that I'm "just as bad as them", that the dialogue isn't worth having. I contend that that's a poisonous attitude, the dialogue is necessary and it tries to stifle it.
'God' took my grandmother who went to church and did a lot for the community. He left my c&nt of a grandfather with us for another 10 years who was a chain smoking alcoholic who never did shit. Please explain
And if you believe a man rose from the dead and accended into the "heavens", and performed miracles then that belief is also anti science. Illusionists create the same proposed miracles, but admit that it is only an illusion, not "magic" . But most people dont want to ruin the illusions and so never learn how the tricks are actually done, and so they continue to believe in "magic" . Leading to such horribly damaging things like faith healers and belief in witchcraft.
@irtehpwn09 Jesus maybe the centre of christianity , in all honesty, its the people around him, and the 2000 plus years of information being contorted and morphed into something else. go to church, where you get the pastor/priest talking about how we should act like jesus, and everyone in the clergy will agree.
But the moment they step out of that church their entire humanism just disappeared. Human have just confused ourselves and we keep confusing ourselves even more, & religion doesn't help.
Id like to add my opinion of religious people, they are victims of deceit or misinformation , they are no less intelligent , however when someone has been misinformed to such an extent they accept creationism, they become science illiterate, and that is harmful to the education. I do not try to disprove "god" as when people fall back to a deistic "god" , god becomes unfalsifiable, so instead i just try to break down the creation (anti science) arguements.
@ToraZalinto Christianity , is of the belief that through human sacrifice, all my responsabilities for my "sins" are taken away if only i repent and honestly believe in jesus christ as the son of god. Its a fear driven belief system, the fear of hell , and its also a reward driven belief system , the promise of an afterlife. Beeing good for either of these reasons is not really beeing good, thats why it bends and twists your morals. Are you saying a murderer can never be truely repentant?
regarding the "why can't charlie manson say xyz" and etc etc... That's why I don't base my faith off of just a "feeling in my heart." I have other reasons, logical and philosophical, among others
@ebonifragaria Faith and logic are never in the same room. When logic walks into a room faith runs out. His argument is that religion is based on faith, faith is blind. So because your blind faith is far more documented and followed than Charlie Mansons, it doesn't make it less insane.
@MastodonManiac What is so funny is the same people that staunchly advocate logic believe in evolution. A faith based atheistic theory. Theory is not fact, it is a web of guesses that requires faith to trust. Christians, Atheists, whom ever... we are all resistant to things we don't understand. The true test of truth and honesty is can you admit it.
@ocelot113 What you just said is completely wrong. Evolution is a theory based on evidence and science. There is ZERO faith in evolution. We simply state we don't know how it all started. The rest comes from facts. It's funny that you would compare evolution which has a millions of factual evidence to back it up, over religious faith which has zero.
@ocelot113: You do not understand the term THEORY. A scientific theory is not the same as a literary one. Evolution is both a FACT and a THEORY. Theory in science is about the same as the term "methodology", and simply describes the processes by which an observed fact operates.
@kuzumisama Oh, okay. Thanks. I was not aware how theory and scientific theory were different. If you don't mind, what are some facts that prove evolution?
@ocelot113 ,Let's do a little experiment, shall we ? Take the nearest object. Drop it. What happens ? It falls and crashes on the floor, good.
Pick it up, and drop it again, results ? Now pick and drop it for a few dozen of times. My guess is the result is still going to be the same. Right ?
What is this ? Oh yeah, the THEORY of gravitation. Yet you can verify this theory over and over and over without failing. Because in science, a theory is not a wild guess.
@UnlimitedBladeWork As with evolution, the thing that makes gravity a theory is not that there is no empirical evidence for its existence. In both cases, there is plenty of evidence. In the case of gravity, as you say, it's enough to be axiomatic. What makes them "theoretical" is that the mechanism by which they work is still not completely understood.
@weeryan2008 wrong. gravity is a theory, theories do not become laws but can contain certain laws in order to back them. aronra did a great video explaining what all of the science buzz words like "law" and "theory" actually mean in the scientific community. You can also spend about 30 seconds on google and find the same conclusion.
@anthemofadam Wrong. gravity is a law. That a force acts between two separate masses to pull them toward one another. This was established by Newton and tells us "how" gravity works, it has been relativity unchanged since 1686. The "theory" of gravity or "why" gravity works is Einsteins THEORY of general relativity which is not nearly as sound as the LAW of gravity and has been tweaked a few times since 1916. You can find the same conclusion by spending over a minuet on Google.
@Bo0meRs1 Gravity is actually quite a bit more complicated than the simple law used to describe it. Einstein's theory of general relativity has been robustly confirmed in every practical respect, i.e., its calculations let space flight work. It is a theory because it is a correct model in every instance ever encountered, not because it is somehow "not proven." The idea of a "scientific law" is a bit suspect.
@Decimaster321 Einstein himself had modified his theory a few times after it was published before his death, Even the fact that it breaks down when describing black holes shows its not complete. Although it is almost certainly right it is still a theory. Just like the theory of evolution. My beef is people saying doubting evolution is like doubting that things fall. a falling rock is a law, curved space time is a theory, descending from apes is a theory.
@Bo0meRs1 So effectively what you're saying, is that nothing is true because nothing isn't proven. That we can't accept any reality because there is no way to prove it exists. With this base idea, one denies their own existence based on the fact that nothing is possible.
That is of course false. So what one has to do is try to assert his current reality (whether illusion or not) in order to make sense of his/her own existence. Thus: Science.
@Bo0meRs1 Einstein's formulae, believe it or not, actually work. His formulas ONLY break down in the world of the small, and at Black Holes (which I'm surprised you would assert that they exist in the first place, especially since Black Holes have never been proven to exist; they are just theories that scientists use to explain the anomaly found in galaxies i.e. this could not have possibly been formed like this unless there was a gravity there of enormous size).
@Bo0meRs1 But the modification of a theory is not a denunciation of it. All theories are modified all the time to account for new evidence. But, they are modified so that, at any time, they explain all available evidence. A law is just a functional part of a theory, and laws can also be wrong, just like legal laws can be immoral. To be clear: the theory of evolution successfully explains all of our understanding of medicine, biology, genetics, agriculture, and so on. We ARE apes.
@Decimaster321 I am not denouncing evolution. I'll say it again, my beef is people saying doubting evolution is like doubting that things fall. Saying that if you dont except evolution then you dont except gravity...so jump out the window. You cant compare the two. However, you can say if you don't except evolution because its a theory you don't except relativity on the same terms.
Actually evolution is getting to be so well supported by science, it is generally looked upon as a fact. The theories are now the mechanisms of evolution, such as natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, etc. Those are starting to be considered the theories which explain the fact of evolution. So yes, doubting evolution is very much the same as doubting gravity.
@Bo0meRs1 The point is that a rational human being, presented with the evidence we have on any scientific subject, will agree with the scientific consensus. The rational thinking which lets you understand that things fall down is the same thinking that lets you understand the overwhelming evidence for evolution. But, evolution is even more true, since the Newtonian "laws" are just low energy approximations of relativity.
@666Slayne u must not know what a theory is in the realm of science. A "theory" is the highest level of achievement that an idea can obtain in science and it doesn't mean that it isn't verifiable or proven. A google search will enlighten you.
@666Slayne A scientific theory is a model that explains ALL available evidence without any ambiguity or failure. The theory of gravitation explains every instance of gravitation ever observed in the universe. If something unexpected happens, then the theory of gravitation is modified to take this higher level of complexity into account. So, actually, if something is considered a scientific theory, it is verified by the entire known universe.
@UnlimitedBladeWork Good point and that is why Newton's law is just that a scientific law. The theory of evolution on the other hand is not testable or observable and is not a scientific law. It is an hypothesis.
@PLScotland Evolution has been directly observed thousands of times in organisms with shorter generations than us, and evolution is integral in our understanding of all genetics and medicine. Genetics lets us create a family tree of all life that is the exact same as what we see from taxonomy and the fossil record. A theory is a model that explains all available evidence, and evolution does just that. It is hard to learn about things on longer timescales than our own lives, but not impossible.
@UnlimitedBladeWork I picked up a helium filled balloon. It hit the ceiling. It also proved your point. Without gravity, helium balloons wouldn't rise.
It is funny that you mention the theory of gravity because science still cannot explain where it comes from. For all we know the force is God holding everything down. I doubt it, but we cannot refute it until we discover how the force is actually originating.
@blakec33 I think your transferring your inability to explain gravity to science. For all you know, which seems to be little, the origin of gravity might be magic but when the scientific community applies all it knows it isn't even necessary to reject such a notion as the evidence never leads them so far astray.
@OGRastamon You may want to think twice about commenting about how much I know, based on reading a few lines of a YouTube comment, when you cannot even use correct grammar or comprehend what you are reading. Of course you apparently can't even think once. Your argument doesn't even make sense. Which notion is it unnecessary to reject? God/Magic or the origin of gravity? I didn't reject any. So you think it is ok to ignore a major flaw in the Theory because we already know a lot of other stuff?
@UnlimitedBladeWork Actually what you've described is gravity not the THEORY of gravity. You're right to point out that the public is misdefining 'theory' when they say that "X is just a theory" but I believe it equally important to point out to those on both sides of the argument that "X isn't a theory at all but the theory of X is."
Now you're splitting hairs with this. The theory of evolution for instance can be regarded as fact because of the overwhelming sum of evidence supporting it, and because there are no other competing theories to challenge it. The laws of the conservation of matter and energy are also scientifically-backed theories.
Now just because theories CAN be refuted doesn't automatically negate their value, as that requires an even better theory to take its place.
@BattleshipAgincourt Nobody is splitting hairs. You just don't know the difference between a scientific theory and a law. Evolution is still regarded as a theory because it has not yet been proven. Gravity is regarded as a law because it has been proven. I am not suggesting that Evolution is not the best scientific guess we have, based on available evidence. I am stating a FACT that it has not yet been proven.
I like what he said about respect. That is something we seriously lack in the public experience today. Being able to get along with someone else who disagrees with you is maturity and being an adult instead of what we see now, people who talk over each other, get angry, cut each other off, scream, yell. And we wonder where our kids get it from...
buddy1holly 13 hours ago
You refuted yourself as soon as you said " good people do bad things" because by the actions that we do we are either good or bad, but then we could ask what is good or bad, in which the only water tight argument that can be made for morality is an absolute which in turn has to be founded on the Judeo-Christian God.
pelonisas 21 hours ago
@pelonisas So no Hindu ever had good or bad? Buddhism has no prospect on good or bad, The Greeks had no idea on good or bad? The Native Americans had no good or bad? The Natives to Australia have no good or bad? I can keep going here. Really the idea that the god of Abraham brought morality is complete bull.
keshkirshkinra 20 hours ago
@keshkirshkinra most non Christian religions are based on some person who lived in the past and has been deified, basically they were born at some time and could die some time in the future and never live again, that cannot be a basis for absolutes because by definition absolutes must be eternal, that takes care or all the non possible "options".
pelonisas 20 hours ago
@pelonisas Ignoring the complete lack of religious knowledge on your part, Why must the religion be absolute to create morality. If humans are a forever changing race with needs that change as our environment does, should not morality be the same? In an over populated world, efforts of population control such as contraceptives and abortion are better to alleviate future suffering, where as the opposite is true in a severely underpopulated world.
keshkirshkinra 20 hours ago
@keshkirshkinra I readily confess my lack of knowledge in alot of the particulars, but your assertion that there is a complete lack while typical is not true, most of these religions like buddha for example, didn't even claim any godhood, he was a man in the past that was born at some time and died some time later and his teachings were simply taken as some kind of moral teaching, but as such there is no reason to believe he had more insight than people around us today, they don't apply today!
pelonisas 18 hours ago
@pelonisas How is that any different from the christian bible? It's just a book of fables, written by mortal men thousands of years ago, who also had no more insight than any of us here today.
Nazi's were driven by religious fervor to think what they did was right, based on the atrocities both commited and condoned by god in the bible. Also, the bible condones slavery, stoning children, women as property, and many MANY more horrible things.... So tell me why the bible is absolute morality?
blfry 18 hours ago 5
@blfry not a book of fables, as some very serious people have found out, like Sir William Ramsay who started of to prove the Bible wrong in the field of Archeaology, and found Lukes Gospel (in particular) was the best historical record out there, it's the best historical narrative of the anceint world that we have, there used to be the argument that Daniels account of future prophecy must have been written after it happened because of it's acurracy, but then the dead sea scrolls destroyed that.
pelonisas 17 hours ago
@blfry If by "religious fervor" you mean "a lust for power, and a desire for man to reach his next stage of evolution" then and only then you are correct, hitler hated Christianity and all things it's stood for, although he sucked up to the pope and the catholic church to gain power. And his book "mein kampf"(my struggle) is full of it as were his speeches.
pelonisas 17 hours ago
@blfry you need to actually read the Bible to know what it does say about slavery, stoning, women, and so on before you tell something like that, I've read it several times through and know that in context it is far different than you put it here.
pelonisas 17 hours ago
@pelonisas Sure I've read it. And in fact, I found the bible to be one of the most convincing arguements AGAINST christianity.
Hitler likely did not truely believe in christianity, but he understood the power it held over weak minded people, and used it to help control his people. Most of the nazi soldiers very much believed they were doing gods will.
Also, the bible is full of inaccuracies. And I seem to recall the "dead sea scrolls" having been debunked. Belief does not make it real.
blfry 16 hours ago 7
@keshkirshkinra And if you really think that morals must change as constantly as people do then you have no reason to believe that hitler or stalin or pol pot or anyone for that matter could be wrong since morality must change with the people.
pelonisas 18 hours ago
@pelonisas Yes lets jump to reductum ad absurdium right off the bat.
keshkirshkinra 13 hours ago
the differance is when aI qaeda "says I feel these infidels should die" and act or inspire others to act on those words it causes harm to others if a believer says I feel there is a higher power they are doing no harm to anyone. I am a firm believer in God I believe this one because of experiences I have had in my life but also I look around at the world we live in and see how perfect it is in design to think that this all happened by chance with some big bang is rather absurd to me.
USPSAman 1 day ago
@USPSAman Actually, most likely, did happen with a big bang, as far as man can scientifically explain. I don't think you have to sacrifice your religious beliefs for scientific endeavor of the universe's origin. after all the man who begot the big bang theory was a catholic priest, Georges lemaitre. If you're a fundamentalist who thinks the world was made in 6 days, then I think your theology and understanding of scripture must broaden. God made the universe, all in its rightfull time.
manuelturcios 1 day ago
I think the reason this guy professes to get along with fundamentalists( "get along" being a subtle way of saying he can deal with these people alot easier) is because, in fact, religious fundamentalists are ones who have walled themselves off from the world completely and are easier to rebuff, or to pin point their ludacrious ideas of existence. For him to say that, is weak. I am a Catholic not religously liberal, but definitely not a fundamentalsit or politically conservative.
manuelturcios 1 day ago
@manuelturcios I think you're missing the point. This is about tolerance being condescending not who Penn Jillette prefers to talk to. Penn 'gets along better' with fundamentalists than liberal Christians _who preach easy tolerance_ because a fundamentalist is saying 'your wrong' while someone who believes in easy tolerance is being condescending by saying 'it doesn't matter that you're wrong because you don't know any better'.
ArkianTheHandsome 1 day ago
@ArkianTheHandsome I understood that, I chose to criticize him on that point. Though I have met people that are apathetic to other's beliefs because they feel secure with their own and really don't mind if the other person is right or wrong, not because they're pretentious or patronizing. You can't argue the fact that fundamentalists are usually easier to refute, given their denial of evolution for example. and I guess this is why he feels comfortable with them more so.
manuelturcios 1 day ago
look we are clueless to what this life is realy is about we will maybe never no.so just respect your self and others....its that easy treat other how you would want to be...I HAVE FRIENDS WHO ARE JEWISH MUSLIM CHRISTIANS AND I LOVE THEME ALL THE SAME AND I WOULD TAKE BULLET ANY DAY FOR THEME SO JUST HANG OUT AND LOVE RESPECT YOURSELF AND OTHERS,,,,LIFE IS SHORT AND PRETTY HARD ENOUGH TO ACT RACIST OR BE A RELIGION BULLY
markdurocher100 1 day ago
@Bo0meRs1 sigh....
Gravity is a theory. In science, a theory is a big deal. Theories (in science) are things that can't be proven but can only be disproven through experimentation. Some of the elements that constitute a theory in science are called laws. Their are "laws" in Newtons theory of universal gravitation but in all, it's still considered a theory.
If you still don't understand, google "is gravity a law or theory". The confusion has to do with the meanings we attach to those words
anthemofadam 1 day ago
I see a contradiction betwee
(1) "I believe very strongly that there is a physical reality that my perception does not change. "
and
(2) "Once you've said something that you can't prove to someone else you have completely walled yourself off from the world and you have essentially said that noone can talk to you and you can talk to no one."
Statement (1) is a statement that he can not prove to someone else.
Busted on bullshit? Or not. He admits to being a preacher.
timtak1 1 day ago
I would'nt be surprised if youtube take down these videos...
douvil 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul is the only man who is going to end the JEW FED! He is the only man who is going to end the PC indoctrination in our public education system that has made our white youth unhealthy. He is the only man who opposes amnesty and will throw the mestizo colonizers out. He is the only man that will restore states' rights so the scourge of black crime can finally be dealt with. And all in the name of Jesus and freedom. If that ain't WHITE POWER, I don't know what is.
RON PAUL 2012!!!
RealRonPaul 1 day ago
@bandiit17 now youre talking semantics. nothing is absolute. not a thing. but we can only search for the closest thing.
missionpupa 2 days ago
Smart man
Dementeddizzy79 2 days ago
I believe right and wrong are just a matter of perception. What I consider wrong is anything that negatively effects others. I don't mean pleasing or agreeing with everyone because that's impossible but to not injure, take away resources, or say things deliberately offensive. Right is to do what ever makes me and like minded others happy without violating anyone of reasons version of happiness. (Some people are just miserable because they exist)
patrick258181 2 days ago
@patrick258181 Patrick, if a guy is shooting up people at the mall and a cop shoots and kills him to stop him from murdering others--is that wrong? The cop's bullet "negatively affected" the killer, right?
panoply13 2 days ago
@panoply13 It would be neutralizing 1 that would negatively affect many. (Common sense still applies)
patrick258181 1 day ago
with that being said..."Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night." Asimov
Bo0meRs1 2 days ago
"I respect you too much as a person to respect your ridiculous beliefs." --Johann Hari--
ThePhantom135 2 days ago
I may not share Penn's beliefs, but I share his love for freedom of speech and to be be able to criticize and be criticized.
TheGreatTamara 2 days ago
Yeah you said smoking weed in the parking lot is stupid, saying that is stupid, but smoking on the parking lot is awesome. As long as there's no police around.
Konicava 2 days ago
Athiests this is your only hope. 2000 years ago God sent his own son JESUS to this world to die on the cross for your sins. The price of your sins was what happend to jesus on the cross. God could have allowed me and you to die like slaves to satan without any chance or hope to escape the punishment which we would have to face. But God in his love sent JESUS TO TAKE OUR PLACE, BECAUSE WE COULDNT HANDLE IT. IF you believe this than today God will forgive u for everything you have ever done
cuvinteleluitati 2 days ago
@cuvinteleluitati Prove it.
Linklegacy77 2 days ago
@Linklegacy77 ok daniel 7 wrriten 2500 years ago predicted the roman empire would collapse and be divided into 10 kingdoms. daniel than said a blasphempous pompous king would arise out of these ten kingdoms which are the european nations. and guess who came to power the pope did and the pope did exactly what daniel said the anti christ would do he exahulted himself as high as christ he tried to change the sabbath day from saturday to sunday and he succedded
cuvinteleluitati 2 days ago
@cuvinteleluitati to continue daniel also said this anti christ this powerful blasphmeous king would kill Gods ture christians ps the inqustion was fullfiled. the cahtolic chruch gave orders to kill 50 million christians in the dark ages . the prophecy continues about the little horn king which would destroy 3 of the ten european kingdoms and history prooved bible prophecy correct because the popes destroyed the herlui vandals and oshtrgaths just as daniel predicted.
cuvinteleluitati 2 days ago
@cuvinteleluitati so this is what daniel predicted 2500 years ago and the pope fullfiled it fully, but it doesnt end 2000 years ago paul predicted that satan would hi jack the christian church with a blasphemoues man ps paul is speaking about the same blasphemere that daniel predicted which is the pope. infact revelation 17 says this anti christ would kill Gods saints using a harlot church which would be located in rome. hahahahaha the prophecy was fullfiled perfectly.
cuvinteleluitati 2 days ago
@cuvinteleluitati but it doesnt end the lord jesus said that the power daniel spoke of would come again right before the world would end. guess what ever since 1544 the pope and his jesuits have been working to fullfil bible prophecy by bringging a new world order under them as the head leaders. they control the illuminai and masons and all these satanic elite leaders of the world work for them. soon they will force the world to worship the pope. that to me is proof
cuvinteleluitati 2 days ago
@cuvinteleluitati
I'm going to take a stab in the dark and guess that you're a Jehovah's witness.
Other then that, I only recently found out that Saturday was in fact the holy sabbath and not Sunday. This confused the heck out of me, because I knew that you were supposed to rest on the Sabbath and Sunday is recognized by everyone as the resting day.
Einargizz 2 days ago
1. Belief in a deity is in no way contingent upon religious dogma. 2. People's ethics and the way they conduct themselves, are in no way contingent upon a belief in a deity or religious dogma. This leads me to believe that religious tolerance is very possible. As long as their beliefs don't infringe upon the rights of others. Why is it even an issue?
boonskety 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@boonskety Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
marionetemanJ 3 days ago
@boonskety QFT
saberswordsmen1 3 days ago
@boonskety "As long as their beliefs don't infringe upon the rights of others. " but religious practice doesn't seem to be happy unless we all worship their god, or they are a threat to their superstitions. Hence it always necesitates wars.!
SOAS007 2 days ago
@SOAS007 You obviously don't understand what I'm saying. Just because religion can be used as a justification for violence by some does not mean that all people of that faith advocate violence. It also does not mean that people who believe in God or a higher power have to be part of any religious sect. Would you rather the government ban religion all together? What gives you the authority to dictate how other people think. That to me is much more oppressive than allowing people to be.
boonskety 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@boonskety "Would you rather the government ban religion all together?" no, but religion should not be above the law.
"What gives you the authority to dictate how other people think. " I don't . I Say people should look at ALL evidence they can and think for themselves. Religions do not support this idea, on the contrary , hence conflict.!
SOAS007 2 days ago
You make a totally valid point. Belief is dangerous.
danx033 3 days ago
Pseudo-intellectualism from a magician. Don't quit your day job Penn.
DystopianEmpire01 3 days ago
The Matrix type brain in the vat argument is not airtight, as you say. You are confusing deduction and induction. Inductively, nothing speaks for it. So it is improbable. Thus, a weak argument. You don't' refute an inductively weak argument by trying to prove that it's invalid. And then find out you can't, so say it's airtight. That's mixing modes. The argument is as weak as they come.
DexterHaven49 3 days ago
@DexterHaven49 agreed, it's just as week as any religion. If someone was to make such a claim as "we're all in a matrix type world", the burden of proof is on THAT person. The person proposing it.
mykotron 3 days ago
Yeah, the Law of Non-Contradiction can't be proven either...
Velokid93 3 days ago
@Velokid93
pretty sure if it has law in the name, its been proven
FawziMoobs 3 days ago
it doesnt matter anyway, the gospels of the 21st century=Lord of the Rings trilogy and the StarWars Saga
SyrinxPriestOf 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SyrinxPriestOf "the gospels of the 21st century=Lord of the Rings trilogy and the StarWars Saga" and for real ethical insight. Harry Potter.!
SOAS007 2 days ago
I once made a comment to someone about their cognitive dissonance when they thanked "God" for saving a baby that they in turn acknowledged it was the doctors who did it, but figured they'd thank God anyway and what harm does it do? I explained the harm.
Then some genius replied that "liberals like you like to scream Coexist and Tolerance."
Boy, are people stupid.
VideoMenu 3 days ago
fair enough
justinscustomkickers 3 days ago
When a religion has it's own nation, THAT'S gone too far
MegaAchilles23 3 days ago 2
@DrComputerGuy
So what's your point?
If you say that evolution has never been proven, so too must you accept that neither has gravity. Gravity is both a law AND a theory, therefore making it every bit as falsifiable as the theory of evolution. In fact the Newtonian Theory cannot explain the orbit of Mercury around the sun, thereby refuting your 'law' of gravity.
In fact the point of the original comment was directed at things which can be tested and observed.
BattleshipAgincourt 3 days ago
@BattleshipAgincourt You don't know what you're talking about. Law is not Theory and Theory is not Law.
DrComputerGuy 3 days ago
@DrComputerGuy
I think we can agree on that. However you cannot hide behind a definition and suggest that something isn't true, simply because it's not classified as a law. The theory of evolution is every bit as valid scientifically as the law/theory of gravity. Even the law of gravity CAN change if our observations likewise change.
BattleshipAgincourt 3 days ago
@BattleshipAgincourt Sure, and I can become a unicorn if I want to, too.
DrComputerGuy 3 days ago
I agree that tolerance can be condescending but I wouldn't say it is inherently so. "You can take many paths so go your own way" isn't how you talk to a child. You talk to a child with authority. "You can take many paths" is more how to talk to someone whom you don't want to get in an argument with.
gregwullaert 3 days ago
Penn...I wanna say something. I'm gonna put it out there; if you like it, you can take it, if you don't, send it right back.
I want to be on you.
lucifersgarden 3 days ago
He can't comprehend the idea of people finding different philosophies that make sense to them, how sad.
HybridD91 3 days ago
The patterns of nature can only ignored ,if one ignores them...The cosmos, is a Divine Ballet...
TheChristianRight09 3 days ago
I think I just fell in love with this channel, also why is everyone arguing about gravity?
millerliteisgud 4 days ago
You talked to Feynman!?
Axartsme 4 days ago
what he saying is totally right, sad thing is most ppl in the comment section here is complete retards, not every1 can be a big thinker and certainly not many of these ppl who are angry at everything and argues on youtube for a living, its also funny that some ppl are hardcore atheists but when it comes to climate change everything is right and you cant question it since the issue is about nature and poor people who are suffering
geppegep 4 days ago
He needs to understand what tolerance is. He should read John Stuart Mill because Penn's idea of tolerance is a detached acceptance of other peoples difference. Mill puts across the idea that tolerance is more challenging and accepts other different beliefs and views must all be declared so that new informed truths can be revealed and norms can be negotiated. Everything point of view is to be tolerated within the discourse, nobody is subject to censor or censure (i.e dismissing as hate speech)
PLScotland 4 days ago
@PLScotland
The fact that he defined his definition of tolerance means your argument has no point. you know what he means and you know what he has to say on that attitude. Why argue semantics?
Surtak 4 days ago
Science is the most benevolent of the pursuits because even though something science has discovered that can be proven over and over, science dare not be conceited enough to call it an unquestionable truth. But religion on the other hand is the exact opposite... it takes events and mere speculation and pronounces it as an undeniable truth, and still today you will find those that disagree are murdered for their disagreement, while in science disagreement is met with acceptance and query.
mathiastheok 4 days ago
Religious tolerance is possible. I knew someone who loved Star Wars so much he classified his religion as Jedi. But he said he would never say that the FORCE should be taught in schools.
realigiousrayne 5 days ago 34
@realigiousrayne It would be funny if it was, though.
4ingP 4 days ago
@realigiousrayne Exactly, tolerance doesn't mean letting people go fuck others, it means understanding that you can't know things which had not been proved and as such, you could be wrong. i.e. Creationism is purely wrong and should be mocked. However, believing in god should not. However, as this guy noted, we should be very willing to accept we are wrong, because no-one is ever always right and it is always possible one day we will find evolution to only be half the story.
LewisHNL 2 days ago
@LewisHNL If you mock Creationism, you mock God. If you are willing to tolerate a belief in God you may as well tolerate a belief in creation. Any religion that believes in God, (Muslims, Christian, Judiasm etc.) believes in at least some type of creation so you cannot mock one and accept the other, unless of course you are refering to another god who does not require any type of religious belief.
bandiit17 2 days ago
@bandiit17 No. There is a distinction. Creationism says that god created everything and evolution did not happen, which is clearly wrong, since we have scientific proof to the contrary. Most religious people on all sides accept that creationism is wrong and call it dramatic licence, and not all religions by any means have creationism. See this is what I realised about god and religion, they are stupid terms because they are far too widely used... I am sorry, are you religious?
LewisHNL 2 days ago
@LewisHNL I am not religious although I believe in God and that he created the world, I also believe in certain aspects of evolution, I believe it to be part of how God created the world to work. I dislike the term "religious" as it refers to the outer person and I would say that I am more spiritual than religious. What type of religious people do you refer to as accepting creation to be wrong? Scientists, celebrities, politicians, or the common man?
bandiit17 2 days ago
@bandiit17 No such thing as believing in evolution you either accept the facts or don't. By not accepting the facts it doesn't change that evolution is fact.
cararacs 2 days ago
@cararacs Fact is never a constant, facts change. "Facts" that have been proven by scientists change frequently. What may be true about evolution today may not be true tomorrow. Accepting anything as a whole makes the person accepting it a sheep.
bandiit17 2 days ago
@bandiit17 You are very wrong on this, small details might change when more and more evidence is found in regards of evolution but the fact that it happens in concrete that is why it's a scientific theory. Believing something without facts or research makes one a sheep (which is why a person of faith is called a sheep) however, when you analyze data and it stays consistant for over hundred years with it being challenged and you accept that; one is not a sheep if they concur with the facts.
cararacs 2 days ago
@cararacs So you want consistency, how old was the world 100 years ago? How old is it today? The fact of how old the world is has never changed but the age that men say it is has changed. How can we truly say it is fact? when the details change, it is not longer the truth. You can say that it is a fact for the earth to be 4.5 billion years old but what if tomorrow they say that new evidence shows the earth to be 5 billion years old, so then technically what they called fact wasn't actually fact
bandiit17 2 days ago
@bandiit17 Adding on 0.5 billion years in geological is time is like saying you arrived somewhere at 5pm but it really was 5:03pm. Yes our technology is growing exponentially every few years but with every growth more and more evidence supporting evolution and making evolutionary theory stronger and stronger. What is fact is that the world is at least 4 billion years old; what is fact is that all living things are made of cells; what is fact is that all matter is made from atoms; what is fact
cararacs 1 day ago
@bandiit17 is that the diversity of life occurred via evolution. The small fine details of 4.6-5 billion years or the fine mechanism that molecular processes or hypothesis in quantum mechanics or processes of how evolution worked might be fine tweaked but the FACT that they exist is not a debate.
cararacs 1 day ago
@bandiit17 Ok, please don't take this as an insult and just so you know, I am an agnostic Jew, so I understand where you are coming from, however, I cannot believe that anyone could dispute that people evolved. Creationists believe this, specifically, they believe god created everything in a short amount of time and that god created it exactly as it is today, at least, that is what creationism entails to me. Therefore with our knowledge of evolution, we can refute such claims.
LewisHNL 1 day ago
@LewisHNL I do take a different view from the normal creationist so it makes it almost idiotic for me to try and make a point on youtube lol.
bandiit17 1 day ago
@LewisHNL That is the problem with religious fudnamentalists, and I find that is the reason this PENN finds them more comfortable, because he can rebuff their beliefs on evolution and other literal interpretations of scripture. I'd really like to see him argue that with a Catholic priest, better yet with someone like Georges Lemaitre, a cahtolic priest who begot the Big bang theory.
manuelturcios 1 day ago
@realigiousrayne jedi, i remember reading somewhere jedi is now considered a legit religion, i think it was omg facts, not too sure on the credibility but i wouldnt be too suprised
RomanNumural9 2 days ago
3:12
kotsaris87 5 days ago
I'd like to take the effort to say your right...I hope you can respect me for that
IanMcCann441 5 days ago
Matthew 7:13 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.
MrBetoleo 5 days ago
@MrBetoleo
Is that why church doors are so big and so many?
davewatcher 5 days ago 3
@davewatcher
They provide quick exit for the priests when the police arrive.
TheGhosthunter77777 2 days ago
half assed intelligent sounding right wing twaddle couched as "common sense".
10ccalanarkush 5 days ago
I'm a Christian.. and I love Penn and Teller. James Randi too.
ItchyQuick 5 days ago
@ItchyQuick Would you agree that Penn is basically saying:
"If you're going to talk about it (debate or dialect) then talk about it. Otherwise, don't bother with platitudes, because the conversation may as well end right there."
I think this is what he is saying. So for example, I do not like the way that secular students would be forced into sitting through "awareness" sessions whereby posters of various religions are being displayed in say math class at key religious times of year.
TableWolfMusic 5 days ago
Oh, and like Penn said, it's not important that we all get along, but whether we can mutually respect each other will decide if we're still around in a hundred years. If only that was a major theme within every religion, not loving your neighbor, but instead respecting them to let them follow their own path. Loved being on your show Penn "orgasms episode of Bullshit" Cheers!
leifthor415 5 days ago
Any religion or philosophy is just a means by best which any individual or group can function. They were created as tools, and yet have become shackles for so many. Their fuel is the in/out game. Everyone wants to be in, and no one wants to be out. Religions play this game against us and each other.
leifthor415 5 days ago
"Equal neglect is not impartial kindness." Edmund Burke on Toleration
KayamaTakeru 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I am disgusted by the arrogance of this channel calling itself "the bigthink".
It's nothing more than these people's person subjective opinions on things.
There is absolutely nothing deeper or more "intelligent" about these comments
than those on any blog in cyberspace.
mphello 6 days ago
I find his highly polarized take on the truth to actually be quite childish - life and experience is much more complicated than right and wrong.
Yes in daily life right and wrong are important principles for getting along with each other however they are to be used lightly at times...
Let's just take the example of Nelson Mandela who is a hero to many and was a member of a terrorist organisation that supported the use of violence - see what I mean...
jagara1 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jagara1 =member of a terrorist organisation =
That's just somebody's opinion. In my opinion, they are a proud army.
Like you said
"right and wrong are to be used lightly at times"
In my opinion, blacks should have gotten as much outside help as possible to nuke South Africa.
mphello 6 days ago
I disagree with Penn's statement. First, he is basically reaching the same conclusion: each person can disagree with you. Penn's problem is that he wants an outright confrontation to prove "respect." I see that as childish behavior. Avoiding a fruitless confrontation with a person you disagree is evidence of maturity. As you get to know people better, you can have these interactions; otherwise you are being gratuitously insulting.
hugoestr 6 days ago
@hugoestr Exactly! As the saying goes - chose your battles wisely...
jagara1 6 days ago
Bull, I betcha there's at least one sentence he's not busted on. :D
tdurran 6 days ago
@tdurran His name is Penn Jillette. He's said that and I don't think anyone busted him on that.
waltherchemnitz 6 days ago
@waltherchemnitz Well he should make up his sodding mind. You can be a razor or a writing implement. You can't be two household objects simultaneously. That's just ridiculous. :D Otherwise, yes, you've got a point.
tdurran 6 days ago
@tdurran Busted!! :D
waltherchemnitz 6 days ago
Oh I see then. So if a kid in elementary school thinks that Harry Potter is fun to read and believes in sorcerers, we must oblige ourselves to tell him/her that Harry Potter is not real and tweet about his/her stupidity? Yeah. I can really live in a world like that. How self-contradicting is this guy.
anosh88 6 days ago
@shelton705 "Religious debates are healthy, but I also see nothing wrong with a "live and let live" attitude." Well in the case of most liberal christians then yes im fine with the live and let live, but with creationists it cant be left, because they are trying to rewrite science and history and trying to impose them beliefs in the education system. Creationism is pure anti science and will lead us back into the dark ages, and so i debate them out of their harmful beliefs, eg faith healers.
irtehpwn09 6 days ago
What if the objective reality is that it is more than one way to the truth? Consider mathematics. A lot of simple problems has more than one method you can use to solve them. They still have only one answer.
arerix 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It depends what bible your reading and how nice they have reinterpreted the translation, the bible has been majorly edited 5-6 times over the course of the past 1800 years, but the orignals are the worst,they have only been made more accurate to our current knowledge throughout the ages,the earth sits on pillars in the original,later edited to the earth hangs on nothing in space, linguistics clearly demonstrates these edits through time. The below verses are NIV but are similar in all versions.
irtehpwn09 1 week ago
Comment removed
irtehpwn09 1 week ago
@johnizzle725 So you deny the passages in the bible that say you will go to a place of eternal torture? or do you accept the verses are there and interpret them another way? John 3:16& 36, matthew 5:30 ,matthew 13:48-50 matthew 25:41-46 , Revelation 14:10-11 Revelation 20:10-16 . Hell doesnt seem to be described as meer seperation from god but eternal torture if i do not believe jesus was the son of god. Do i deserve eternal torture for not believing that? even thou i live a good life?.
irtehpwn09 1 week ago
I've noticed the same thing. Those with the extreme delusions may be the nuttiest, but the moderate ones have this certain dishonesty, where they try to devalue the dialogue itself, always trying to win in the end with some relativistic approach. The extreme ones do think there is one truth, the moderate ones somehow don't understand this.
I'd still prefer all religious were moderate and not extreme, but the more watered down delusions come with something poisonous, a dialogue
Jotto999 1 week ago
@Jotto999 ***Ah this stupid 500 character limit. I meant it comes with something damaging to the dialogue, when the moderates try to always spin it into a relativistic approach, but that the extreme ones at least think there is only one truth that exists and so don't have this poisonous dialogue destruction.
Jotto999 1 week ago
@Jotto999
I'm an agnostic, and as such, I have similar views to liberal Christians. When it comes to the universe and the existance of life, I do believe there can only be one truth. However, if people want to follow a certain belief or path, I don't see the harm as long as they're not hurting anybody else. I've had respect for Christians, atheists, and everybody in between. Religious debates are healthy, but I also see nothing wrong with a "live and let live" attitude.
shelton705 1 week ago
@shelton705 So what are you saying? That some people are too harsh or whatever? That seems to be what you're implying, and if it isn't that's nonsense. I've met many "agnostics" who try to convince me that I shouldn't argue with the religious, that I'm "just as bad as them", that the dialogue isn't worth having. I contend that that's a poisonous attitude, the dialogue is necessary and it tries to stifle it.
Jotto999 6 days ago
@Jotto999 **Grr, I meant "if it is, that's nonsense". I sure hate the format of Youtube comments!
Jotto999 6 days ago
'God' took my grandmother who went to church and did a lot for the community. He left my c&nt of a grandfather with us for another 10 years who was a chain smoking alcoholic who never did shit. Please explain
22ness0hayden 1 week ago
@22ness0hayden explain what? get a psychologist!
azmanabdula 1 week ago
So the crime is indifference. Okay, whatever.
hybridmcgee 1 week ago
Well, said I will not tolerate anyone and when they complain I will show them this video.
BenjaminWirtz 1 week ago
And if you believe a man rose from the dead and accended into the "heavens", and performed miracles then that belief is also anti science. Illusionists create the same proposed miracles, but admit that it is only an illusion, not "magic" . But most people dont want to ruin the illusions and so never learn how the tricks are actually done, and so they continue to believe in "magic" . Leading to such horribly damaging things like faith healers and belief in witchcraft.
irtehpwn09 1 week ago
@irtehpwn09 Jesus maybe the centre of christianity , in all honesty, its the people around him, and the 2000 plus years of information being contorted and morphed into something else. go to church, where you get the pastor/priest talking about how we should act like jesus, and everyone in the clergy will agree.
But the moment they step out of that church their entire humanism just disappeared. Human have just confused ourselves and we keep confusing ourselves even more, & religion doesn't help.
MrSkinnynerd03 1 week ago
Id like to add my opinion of religious people, they are victims of deceit or misinformation , they are no less intelligent , however when someone has been misinformed to such an extent they accept creationism, they become science illiterate, and that is harmful to the education. I do not try to disprove "god" as when people fall back to a deistic "god" , god becomes unfalsifiable, so instead i just try to break down the creation (anti science) arguements.
irtehpwn09 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ToraZalinto Christianity , is of the belief that through human sacrifice, all my responsabilities for my "sins" are taken away if only i repent and honestly believe in jesus christ as the son of god. Its a fear driven belief system, the fear of hell , and its also a reward driven belief system , the promise of an afterlife. Beeing good for either of these reasons is not really beeing good, thats why it bends and twists your morals. Are you saying a murderer can never be truely repentant?
irtehpwn09 1 week ago
Comment removed
irtehpwn09 1 week ago
Penn is correct and I appreciate his integrity
railroadtrash09 1 week ago
@ebonifragaria Thank you SO much for not telling us your reasons. We really don't want to hear them.
AlexanderAnarchist 1 week ago
regarding the "why can't charlie manson say xyz" and etc etc... That's why I don't base my faith off of just a "feeling in my heart." I have other reasons, logical and philosophical, among others
ebonifragaria 1 week ago
@ebonifragaria Faith and logic are never in the same room. When logic walks into a room faith runs out. His argument is that religion is based on faith, faith is blind. So because your blind faith is far more documented and followed than Charlie Mansons, it doesn't make it less insane.
MastodonManiac 1 week ago
@MastodonManiac What is so funny is the same people that staunchly advocate logic believe in evolution. A faith based atheistic theory. Theory is not fact, it is a web of guesses that requires faith to trust. Christians, Atheists, whom ever... we are all resistant to things we don't understand. The true test of truth and honesty is can you admit it.
ocelot113 1 week ago
@ocelot113 What you just said is completely wrong. Evolution is a theory based on evidence and science. There is ZERO faith in evolution. We simply state we don't know how it all started. The rest comes from facts. It's funny that you would compare evolution which has a millions of factual evidence to back it up, over religious faith which has zero.
MastodonManiac 1 week ago
@ocelot113: You do not understand the term THEORY. A scientific theory is not the same as a literary one. Evolution is both a FACT and a THEORY. Theory in science is about the same as the term "methodology", and simply describes the processes by which an observed fact operates.
kuzumisama 1 week ago
@kuzumisama Oh, okay. Thanks. I was not aware how theory and scientific theory were different. If you don't mind, what are some facts that prove evolution?
ocelot113 1 week ago
@ocelot113 ,Let's do a little experiment, shall we ? Take the nearest object. Drop it. What happens ? It falls and crashes on the floor, good.
Pick it up, and drop it again, results ? Now pick and drop it for a few dozen of times. My guess is the result is still going to be the same. Right ?
What is this ? Oh yeah, the THEORY of gravitation. Yet you can verify this theory over and over and over without failing. Because in science, a theory is not a wild guess.
UnlimitedBladeWork 1 week ago 36
@UnlimitedBladeWork As with evolution, the thing that makes gravity a theory is not that there is no empirical evidence for its existence. In both cases, there is plenty of evidence. In the case of gravity, as you say, it's enough to be axiomatic. What makes them "theoretical" is that the mechanism by which they work is still not completely understood.
manthasagittarius1 1 week ago
@UnlimitedBladeWork I'm on your side but that is the "Law of Gravitation"
TonsofFun777 5 days ago
@TonsofFun777 They figured out how the universe causes gravity? Isn't it a law once they find the source onfused
TekLok 4 days ago
@UnlimitedBladeWork Gravity is a law. General Relativity is a theory that incorporates that law.
weeryan2008 5 days ago
@weeryan2008 wrong. gravity is a theory, theories do not become laws but can contain certain laws in order to back them. aronra did a great video explaining what all of the science buzz words like "law" and "theory" actually mean in the scientific community. You can also spend about 30 seconds on google and find the same conclusion.
anthemofadam 4 days ago
@anthemofadam Wrong. gravity is a law. That a force acts between two separate masses to pull them toward one another. This was established by Newton and tells us "how" gravity works, it has been relativity unchanged since 1686. The "theory" of gravity or "why" gravity works is Einsteins THEORY of general relativity which is not nearly as sound as the LAW of gravity and has been tweaked a few times since 1916. You can find the same conclusion by spending over a minuet on Google.
Bo0meRs1 4 days ago in playlist BigThink
@Bo0meRs1 Gravity is actually quite a bit more complicated than the simple law used to describe it. Einstein's theory of general relativity has been robustly confirmed in every practical respect, i.e., its calculations let space flight work. It is a theory because it is a correct model in every instance ever encountered, not because it is somehow "not proven." The idea of a "scientific law" is a bit suspect.
Decimaster321 3 days ago
@Decimaster321 Einstein himself had modified his theory a few times after it was published before his death, Even the fact that it breaks down when describing black holes shows its not complete. Although it is almost certainly right it is still a theory. Just like the theory of evolution. My beef is people saying doubting evolution is like doubting that things fall. a falling rock is a law, curved space time is a theory, descending from apes is a theory.
Bo0meRs1 2 days ago
@Bo0meRs1 So effectively what you're saying, is that nothing is true because nothing isn't proven. That we can't accept any reality because there is no way to prove it exists. With this base idea, one denies their own existence based on the fact that nothing is possible.
That is of course false. So what one has to do is try to assert his current reality (whether illusion or not) in order to make sense of his/her own existence. Thus: Science.
Mad0racle 2 days ago
@Bo0meRs1 Einstein's formulae, believe it or not, actually work. His formulas ONLY break down in the world of the small, and at Black Holes (which I'm surprised you would assert that they exist in the first place, especially since Black Holes have never been proven to exist; they are just theories that scientists use to explain the anomaly found in galaxies i.e. this could not have possibly been formed like this unless there was a gravity there of enormous size).
Mad0racle 2 days ago
@Bo0meRs1 But the modification of a theory is not a denunciation of it. All theories are modified all the time to account for new evidence. But, they are modified so that, at any time, they explain all available evidence. A law is just a functional part of a theory, and laws can also be wrong, just like legal laws can be immoral. To be clear: the theory of evolution successfully explains all of our understanding of medicine, biology, genetics, agriculture, and so on. We ARE apes.
Decimaster321 2 days ago
@Decimaster321 I am not denouncing evolution. I'll say it again, my beef is people saying doubting evolution is like doubting that things fall. Saying that if you dont except evolution then you dont except gravity...so jump out the window. You cant compare the two. However, you can say if you don't except evolution because its a theory you don't except relativity on the same terms.
Bo0meRs1 2 days ago
@Bo0meRs1
Actually evolution is getting to be so well supported by science, it is generally looked upon as a fact. The theories are now the mechanisms of evolution, such as natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, etc. Those are starting to be considered the theories which explain the fact of evolution. So yes, doubting evolution is very much the same as doubting gravity.
MrDrakkus 2 days ago
@Bo0meRs1 The point is that a rational human being, presented with the evidence we have on any scientific subject, will agree with the scientific consensus. The rational thinking which lets you understand that things fall down is the same thinking that lets you understand the overwhelming evidence for evolution. But, evolution is even more true, since the Newtonian "laws" are just low energy approximations of relativity.
Decimaster321 1 day ago
@UnlimitedBladeWork u will NEVER verify a Theory. the only thing u can in Physics is to falsify.
and a theroy is not verfied just because u get 5 times in a row the same result;)....
666Slayne 4 days ago
@666Slayne u must not know what a theory is in the realm of science. A "theory" is the highest level of achievement that an idea can obtain in science and it doesn't mean that it isn't verifiable or proven. A google search will enlighten you.
anthemofadam 4 days ago
@666Slayne A scientific theory is a model that explains ALL available evidence without any ambiguity or failure. The theory of gravitation explains every instance of gravitation ever observed in the universe. If something unexpected happens, then the theory of gravitation is modified to take this higher level of complexity into account. So, actually, if something is considered a scientific theory, it is verified by the entire known universe.
Decimaster321 4 days ago
@UnlimitedBladeWork Good point and that is why Newton's law is just that a scientific law. The theory of evolution on the other hand is not testable or observable and is not a scientific law. It is an hypothesis.
PLScotland 4 days ago
@PLScotland Evolution has been directly observed thousands of times in organisms with shorter generations than us, and evolution is integral in our understanding of all genetics and medicine. Genetics lets us create a family tree of all life that is the exact same as what we see from taxonomy and the fossil record. A theory is a model that explains all available evidence, and evolution does just that. It is hard to learn about things on longer timescales than our own lives, but not impossible.
Decimaster321 4 days ago 2
@UnlimitedBladeWork I picked up a helium filled balloon. It hit the ceiling. It also proved your point. Without gravity, helium balloons wouldn't rise.
It is funny that you mention the theory of gravity because science still cannot explain where it comes from. For all we know the force is God holding everything down. I doubt it, but we cannot refute it until we discover how the force is actually originating.
blakec33 4 days ago
@blakec33 Precisely.
uranatheisttwit 4 days ago
@blakec33 I think your transferring your inability to explain gravity to science. For all you know, which seems to be little, the origin of gravity might be magic but when the scientific community applies all it knows it isn't even necessary to reject such a notion as the evidence never leads them so far astray.
OGRastamon 4 days ago
@OGRastamon You may want to think twice about commenting about how much I know, based on reading a few lines of a YouTube comment, when you cannot even use correct grammar or comprehend what you are reading. Of course you apparently can't even think once. Your argument doesn't even make sense. Which notion is it unnecessary to reject? God/Magic or the origin of gravity? I didn't reject any. So you think it is ok to ignore a major flaw in the Theory because we already know a lot of other stuff?
blakec33 2 days ago
@UnlimitedBladeWork Actually what you've described is gravity not the THEORY of gravity. You're right to point out that the public is misdefining 'theory' when they say that "X is just a theory" but I believe it equally important to point out to those on both sides of the argument that "X isn't a theory at all but the theory of X is."
OGRastamon 4 days ago
@UnlimitedBladeWork Actually, it's the LAW of gravity. Theories can be refuted, laws cannot.
DrComputerGuy 3 days ago
@DrComputerGuy
Now you're splitting hairs with this. The theory of evolution for instance can be regarded as fact because of the overwhelming sum of evidence supporting it, and because there are no other competing theories to challenge it. The laws of the conservation of matter and energy are also scientifically-backed theories.
Now just because theories CAN be refuted doesn't automatically negate their value, as that requires an even better theory to take its place.
BattleshipAgincourt 3 days ago
@BattleshipAgincourt Nobody is splitting hairs. You just don't know the difference between a scientific theory and a law. Evolution is still regarded as a theory because it has not yet been proven. Gravity is regarded as a law because it has been proven. I am not suggesting that Evolution is not the best scientific guess we have, based on available evidence. I am stating a FACT that it has not yet been proven.