say something i havnt thought already bro,and if you dont think of what social change can be achieved if a value is believed, then what is the point of influencing others? isnt that what a message is?
I'm not an atheist (anymore), but I agree with the two things he said in this video!
People should use facts to reach intellectual and ideological conclusions. And we should love one another. True Christians see that that is the core of what Christ taught. Even if people are "wrong" or whatever, just love them. It's not your place or responsibility to judge.
If Christians really want to convert people, they should just live like Christ and love indiscriminately like they're supposed to.
I'm not trying to cause trouble, just trying to figure this out logically. From what I gather Atheism says: There was nothing outside of the universe; the universe started for no reason; planets formed and, by chance, life grew; Life evolved into humans (at least on earth); Humans have no purpose,they live to consume and die;we have no reason to live; nothing we do matters;The whole of existence is pointless. With that said:Why do we love?Why do we care about anything?Why are you reading this?
@thruthem A belief that there was no creator (god), which is what Atheism means, implies that there was no reason for the universe because it was not intentionally made. Without a creator it simply couldn't have a point.
@MrKingatheist I suppose in the end it did become Nihilism but it seems to me that Nihilism is the only logical conclusion of Atheism. I just cant see a point in life if there is no reason for the universe.
@ZacharyDenverPitts This is where atheism could take you if that is how you think, for me its a different story. See Nihilism states that "there is no truth, there is nothing", this is simply a fallacy for if the statement is true by its own logic it contradicts. It would be the same as me saying "i always tell lies", the statement contradicts. I personally do not believe the universe came from nothing, i just admit i don't know how the universe came into existence.
@55chh My point was that we simply cannot prove definitively how the universe came to exist because whatever caused it exists outside of space and time and, as thus, outside our realm of comprehension. Therefore, without any evidence either way, to believe any origin story is a leap of faith.
You can have any number of philosophical motivations for action that fall under the umbrella of atheism. Some ppl wish to understand the world (scientists, philosophers, explorers, etc), others wish to create a better part of the world (engineers, artists, architects, parents, etc.) & others simply want to enjoy life while it lasts (hedonists). The only difference is that they have 1 finite life to accomplish it.
@ZacharyDenverPitts There is no "base belief of Atheism". Atheism is the default position. There is no other belief system associated, we simply do not accept without evidence the claim that there is a deity.
@ZacharyDenverPitts In contrast, the same question could be asked of theists: why prolong your suffering in this mortal realm when you could simply kill yourself and live in paradise? Is it because you don't really *really* believe it, deep down? Or the (literal) deus ex machina of "no suicides go to heaven"? Of course, you could always slit your wrists, then ask for forgiveness before you die... :P (I'm not suggesting you do this, of course, just an example)
@JRPeyesatsne I cant speak for all theists, but that mentality is an extremely common misinterpretation of Jesus' message. Its not about dieing and getting to go to heaven, Its about being closer to the creator and doing whats right. Yes that is the end result of it all, but if you take a look at the gospel, most of the teachings are for how to improve life here on earth. There is purpose in life here, when people truly know the creator they will care even more for his creation.
@ZacharyDenverPitts I guess the idea of most atheistic thought is that the universe itself has no purpose, it is (as far as we know) not a conscious being or deliberate construct. But it doesn't have to have purpose, because we (sentient beings) can have purpose, one that we choose ourselves. Btw, this is the most civilized debate I've seen on this topic in a LONG time... maybe there really is hope for the human race!
@ZacharyDenverPitts "From what I gather Atheism says" You gathered wrong. Atheism doesn't say anything. Atheism is the rejection of specific claims. Atheism doesn't offer any alternative claims. By defining myself as an "atheist", the ONLY thing you know about is what I do NOT believe.
"Why do we love?Why do we care about anything?" Because we are a social, cooperative species who's well being depends on the well being of those around us.
@ScientificBob you DO believe that there is NO GOD. The rest was just a chain of logic stemming from that core belief, you may not want to believe it but atheism itself is a belief system.
@ZacharyDenverPitts "an "A"Zeusist belief" Or... a non-belief. Placing the "not" in front of another word doesn't change the fact that it is a NEGATIVE statement.
""I honestly can't know if Zeus exists" is Agnostic" Yes. And it doesn't say ANYTHING about your position on the claim. Only that you can't know it. You can NOT know something and STILL believe it. Which is what every theist does. They don't KNOW, but they BELIEVE anyway. 'agnostic' is NOT a position.
@ZacharyDenverPitts "Look up Atheism in a dictionary, it is a belief." No, it isn't. It's the lack of a belief. You need to buy into something to be a theist. When you do NOT buy into theistic claims, you're an atheist by default. You don't need to believe something else to be an atheist. Seriously, what is so hard to understand about this? Not believing something is NOT the same as believing something. Durrrrr.
@ZacharyDenverPitts No it isn't. Your statement is a common response but is not at all correct. Atheism is the default position. I don't "believe" that there are no unicorns, I simply do NOT believe that they exist until sufficient evidence is presented to prove that they do. That is NOT a belief system. To believe in a god without any evidence whatsoever is irrational.
@ZacharyDenverPitts I am a life long atheist yet I believe in love and wonder. I care about my life and the lives of others. Is there a pointlessness to it all. Yes and no (it's an ambiguously vague and unanswerable question). All of us has had the incredible fortune to be blessed with consciousness which allows us to ponder the universe.
Life is so beautiful and awe inspiring, at the end of the day it would be sad to view it through the filter of a man made mythology.
@oddthedumbboy You truly are the best kind of Atheist :D. But, with respect, my post was more of a logical thought process about the root of it all. It just can't find a way for the universe to make sense without there being a cause for it all.
It seems to me that you are just arguing against a strawman.
There can be lots of causes for the universe. You act as if theism should somehow be high on the list as probable causes. I see no reason why that is. In fact, it belongs more to the category of immaterial unicorns farting space-time into existence.
@ZacharyDenverPitts Didnt you hear what Russell said in the video? Believing in something because we want it to be true, despite the fact there is no evidence to support it, is not a positive virtue and does nothing to advance our understanding of the universe or ourselves. The atheist position is not that life is pointless; it is that we should try to understand the world based on verifiable evidence and rational debate. Curiosity is one of our driving forces, just like many other species
@ThomasCarson1982 That's what I was doing, I don't see the problem here. I was using rational logic to understand the universe and ourselves, nothing more.
@ZacharyDenverPitts On the contrary! Humans have a purpose and that is to make the world a better place for our fellow humans as well as for the animals and nature around us. A noble purpose indeed! Why do we love you ask? Because we are endowed with the ability to do so. Don't deny yourself that even if you have arrived at the sobering conclusion, there is no god. It's rather obvious isn't it! But we are nevertheless men and women with a purpose!
@55chh Let me try to wrap my head around this: Why is this our purpose? just because we decide it to be so? because that's what we think is good? where does our concept of "better" come from? The universe? If there is no purpose in the universe existing then how can something within the universe have purpose? It would take just as much faith for me to believe that as it would for me to believe we were designed by something outside of the universe.
@ZacharyDenverPitts "Why is this our purpose?" Because that's how we developed over evolutionary history. We are a social species. All of us are driven by self-preservation and propagating. As a social species, our own fate goes hand in hand with the fate of the group. We are nothing by ourselves. This gives us purpose: better the group to better ourselves.
@ZacharyDenverPitts "If there is no purpose in the universe existing then how can something within the universe have purpose? It would take just as much faith for me to believe that as it would for me to believe we were designed by something outside of the universe."
I really don't see how you get from the first sentence to the second.
What if a "god" 'designed' our universe for no reason at all?
Our purpose is our own and has nothing to do with the universe dude.
@ZacharyDenverPitts Stop raping the term "logic". First of all there are no atheist belief that you can criticize. I answer for myself now (as a non-believer): We don't know anything about the time before big bang. You have to define "reason". Planets form as products of chemical reactions. Life grew on earth by chance sine the perfect conditions existed. Life evolves in the way that the most adaptable survives (which means a lot of things). The purpose of life is simply to reproduce,
@ZacharyDenverPitts meaning that we as organism are very well adapted to the environment and to pass on our genes we reproduce. That is what evolution is, those who live to be able to f*ck (those smart enough to survive) live to get kids and pass on their genes. It's an auto-correcting system who sorts out those unfit, not because it is evil, but because nature doesn't adapt after us. It's the other way around.
@ZacharyDenverPitts If you substitute your "atheism" with "science" then your question is a bit more reasonable. How the universe began is an unanswerable question for now but what happened after that is very well understood. The early universe, formation of stars, planets and so on. Formation of building blocks of life have also been observed to form spontaneously in space. The reason for life is not clear cut, my personal opinion is that the reason for life is to create intelligence and ideas.
@ZacharyDenverPitts You see, life is rare in the sense that it is anti-entropic. It does not follow the second law of thermodynamics, it goes against it by taking in matter and converting it into energy and making itself more complex. And furthermore when life evolved to the point where we discovered language, the biological evolution was transformed into a technological evolution because we were able to share ideas. Intelligence, discovery and understanding reality gives meaning to life.
@ZacharyDenverPitts - You just attached a dozen diffrent claims to Atheism. Atheism is not a belief; its not a world view or even a hypothesis about the origin of the universe, morality etc. Atheism is simply the rejection of theistic claims. After that, atheists believe all sorts of things. There are atheists known as 'Raelins' who believe in creationism. Some believe "humans have no purpose," while others, like Bertrand Russell, claim "the good life is inspired by love & guided by knowledge."
@ZacharyDenverPitts The fact is we know very little when it comes to the origin of the universe. The fact that you exist and are able to question things means that anything is possible. Looking at the facts and the fine tuning it actually does show Intelligence present throughout the universe. BUT it seems VERY unlikely that a personal god exists. I think I said facts a few to many times in this small paragraph haha
@ZacharyDenverPitts Atheism doesn't say anything you say it says, but I shall answer your questions for the answer is rather simple: those were all genetically hardcoded into us via natural selection. You should read about natural selection, empathy, drive to live and reproduce and etc.(Also this "hardcoding" is a REAL complex thing that is affected by thousands of gene variants and the environment, that's why we don't all have the same desires.) So go and read about nat. selection and genetics.
@ZacharyDenverPitts that's correct, don't feel like there should be a reason for the universe, the universe doesn't owe you any sense of reason. it is not completely true that life evolved by chance, evolution is a series of random differences across generations which are filtered out through non random processes. finally, there is a perfectly logical Darwinian explanation for why we love and care about things. i hope this has helped
@martinrosskerr the universe is just a big pot of chemicals, there are different chemicals and different conditions on each planet. all it takes is for one group of chemicals to react in such a way that the simplest form of life is made. this is very unlikely, but that doesn't matter because there are billions and billions of planets out there. and remember IT HAPPENED :) if it didn't we wouldn't be here to question it
@martinrosskerr and your second question: as far as physicists are aware of so far, the universe does obey certain laws, and as far as we know nothing can happen outside those laws. however to say that some being made those laws is a massive leap of faith for witch there is no evidence for. science doesn't claim to know these things. however logic simply tells us that whoever creates something complicated must be more complicated. So some being (even more complicated) must have made God?
@ZacharyDenverPitts Atheism doesn't anything about how the universe started, or about what is outside the universe. We are open to any suggestion, even god, we only say that god has not been proven to us yet, and therefore we don't believe in one. We don't make any claims about how the universe started, might even have been a god, there just isn't any solid reason to think so. Sure, most of us think there is no god, and that the universe "started" in a different way, but it is not necessary.
@DutchDread Also, the reason we love, the reason we care, the reason we are reading this, is because it was advantageous for us to be the way we are. Being curious and able to love help in surviving and reproducing You pass your genetic code on, and slowly, over millions of generations, develop compassion etc.
Why does getting injured hurt? Because organisms that don't like the feel of getting injured are likely to avoid getting injured, and so, survive. After a billion years, it adds up to pain
@ZacharyDenverPitts God and religion are beliefs. He speaks as a scientific stand point answering the question asked. If someone were to scientifically observe his video in the future as if it were an ancient text what should they take from it and their other endeavors? The facts.
@ZacharyDenverPitts Most of these things are just the stuff you project on atheism. It says nothing about start of the unvierse - science does. Same with other things. I love because I want to, I care because I feel like it - that is much more noble than the idea of ideals imposed by God.
sounds like antiquated morality to me... facts and love as being universally true are more a cultural mandated prejudice, rather than an universally recognizable truth... i wonder if Russell thought love could be conveyed as a mathematical equation...
I wish I learnt about the follies of wishful thinking when I was younger. Instead I hid behind what I wanted to be right or true rather than what was.
How are any of you arguing at all? I love how this man talks about peace and tolerance, yet you desecrate his message by bashing others or arguing about religion. We have no hope whatsoever.
"Love is wise, hatred is foolish. In this world, which is getting more and more closely interconnected, we have to learn to tolerate each other. We have to learn to put up with the fact that some people say things that we don't like. We can only live together in that way. And if we are to live together, and not die together, we must learn a kind of charity and a kind of tolerance, which is absolutely vital to the continuation of human life on this planet."
5. So, as a conclusion, his message to the future really is: "For the common good, let the intellectuals paid by the world leaders look at the data and reach conclusions for you. They know you are busy working 18 hrs a day for $1 per hour. You should work for your love of humanity alone anyways. But, do not worry. You will have the choice to select from a set of meaningless options so be tolerant if others pick different than you"
These are the true words of a government subsidized intellectual
@AncientMarinerNY what you are doing in 2012 is criticising a man no longer living to defend or revise his beliefs made 53 years ago. besides, your "intellectuals paid by the world leaders" take on the whole thing is pretty bizarre...
@moralreef First, the message was directed to the future (i am part of his future). Second, he is a man who devoted most of his years to philosophical ideas and had plenty of time (more than I've had) to get rid of contradictions in his thoughts. Third, intellectuals are paid by world leaders. It is not bizarre at all. It is the reality we live in right now.
@AncientMarinerNY making fun of the past attempting to postulate on the future is fairly one of the most pointless things to do, sorry.
he probably didnt have time to explain his thoughts due to a lifetime of being a well-known polymath in a great many subjects that the pair of us could never hope to achieve
intellectuals are NOT paid by world leaders. they have to fight tooth and nail to make a convincing argument to allocate public or private money to devote to a project.
@moralreef Here are some example: In economics, keynesianism is mainstream. In philosophy, utilitarianism/subjectivism is mainstream. In politics, democracy is worshiped. In ethics, violence (especially against children) is permitted to continue.
What made Russell different is that he wanted to take all that to a whole new level. He wanted to get rid of nation-states and create world government starting by indoctrinating kids into his irrational ideas by means of public education. What a guy!
@AncientMarinerNY from what i've read he proposed a simple, democratic world government that respected each others cultural differences, while unilaterally agreeing nuclear armaments cannot be allowed to continue. now, nobody's saying its not difficult for respecting people's inherent personal freedoms, but its certainly the only one that could ever hope to work. his ideas are a fairly rational thing to want, and he always seemed who took pride in his rationale if anything.
@moralreef 1. it isn't pointless when the ideas proposed by "the past" are both irrational and highly regarded as deep insights. It is dangerous and dishonest to hold his ideas. He had plenty of time to explain his thought through various sources (books, etc) and he clearly was smart enough to realize that he was wrong
Intellectuals are paid by world leaders especially in the social sciences. It is the reason why societies around the world are falling into madness. I will give you some examples
@moralreef 2. In economics, you have one school of though that declares that the government should step in and control the economy (trough money supply, interest rates, etc) and you have another one saying that government should not manipulate it because it will create bubbles.
What economist would you guess will get better/more government positions? If any economist want to further his career he will inevitably go for the first camp since they are the ones who will get chosen as Gvmt advisors
@moralreef 3. In psychiatry, you have the APA publishing the DSM to diagnose mental illness so that psychiatrists can prescribe drugs (Ritalin, etc) and you have others studies revealing the fallacies of the DSM. Which one would you guess is furthered by government influence?
In education, we have kids getting indoctrinated for over a decade in public schools based on practices that were put in place when kids needed summers off to help with the farm ...
@moralreef 4. The list goes on and on ... once you have a democratic government, you can expect people to use the system to further their own agendas and everyone else paying for it ... the worse bloodbaths in history were carried over by democracies for the good of some collective idea ... and the worse thing is that they call it moral or necessary ... once, you got democracy, the individual becomes enslaved by the collective and ends up paying for things that he/she does not support ...
@moralreef 5. The problem with these intellectuals such as Russell is that they never care to define their terms clearly and just create shopping lists of contradictory ideas and call it a philosophy. I can say: "I want a car, a home, and education and I dont want to pay for it" and call it a perfect solution but the fact is that I need to work to get them
Or I can just steal it from someone else ... well these intellectuals call the act of stealing "democratic governments for the common good"
@moralreef I do not blame you for not having an answer ... most people live in this matrix of words where love and tolerance means voting for social programs and accept that others vote differently .. if you want real solutions to world problems then start from scratch, define your terms clearly and do not accept contradictions in your ideas. We live in freedom in most aspects of our lives. Let's take that level of civility to how we organize our society and only then we can get real solutions
@AncientMarinerNY its not that i don't have an answer, its that i honestly, honestly can't be bothered to make a counterpoint that is just going to spiral out of control and frankly, waste my time that is better spent reading these issues made by smarter men than the pair of us.
theres a good reason youtube only gives us about 500 characters to work with
@moralreef The argument from authority is a logical fallacy. Besides, it is not a matter of higher IQ. He has clear contradictions in his thinking and a lack of definitions. No need to have super high IQ to see it. Unfortunately, with his brilliance he decided to advocate for violence and call it "love". That is called dishonesty.
I can take you through his irrational thinking and point you to where he makes mistakes. It is really not that difficult.
4. But then, we could always use his first advice in this video and ask "what are the facts"? However, since it is the world government doing the research for us, then we cannot expect an objective investigation on the facts. We can only expect biased conclusions based on massaged data that will give more power to government officials.
3. I guess since democracies let people vote on inconsequential elections then it is a form of tolerance. However, people can vote on anything, even based on ideology harmful to others (e.g. war on drugs). But i guess if they are justified by "the common good"/"love for humanity' slogans then it is OK because it is "love" nonetheless. I guess that is why he chose to use the word "love" instead of tolerance.
2. Now, if his definition of love is "tolerance", why did he choose to use the word "love" instead? Anyways ... Even if we accept "tolerance" as his definition it is still a very fuzzy message. Tolerance is letting other people do and act in their own life as they see fit. However, Russell himself was a proponent of world democratic government. In other words, a small group of people's opinions will determine the course of the rest of the world. Where is tolerance in that?
1. His second assertion is not specific at all. Unfortunately, most people don't have a clear definition of what love or hate is. In fact, a lot of people believe that love is a magical feeling outside of reason. Thus, people use different definitions of love to justify different things and you get people holding irrational ideas using the love excuse:
- Jesus loves you, love him back
- Love your country above all
- Love your relatives/elders regardless of their behavior
someone should have told the cleaner to turn off the hoover... I'm disappointed I wasn't shown videos of Bertrand Russel in school. But at least youtube is here to compensate. BIG thumbs up for the video
@JohnnyJohnW what the fuck are you doing on a computer then a creation that would not be without science , And when your sick dont expect medication fuck science remember ,would it hurt for u to actually think about what you are saying.
@6Gizmo101 Science is proven, otherwise all the things we have wouldn't be here, I'm just tired about "jesus loves anal" and "omgz, dude, science has proven the existence of water" comments.
@mittROMNEY666 haha you better wake up before the new world order eugenic death machine gets you. but you probably think you are on the winning team right?
@mittROMNEY666 haha you better wake up before the new world order eugenic death machine gets you. but you probably think you are on the winning team right?
I would also like to hear what he would have said about the FACT, that this video is surpassed by 5.7Million Views by a random chinese girl showing of her big boobs and babbling nonsense.
@chimetrooper Oh kind of like Jesus taking many of his core beliefs from Buddhism which existed 500 years prior or how about the obvious correlation between the Egyptian myth of Osiris, Isis and their son Horus and the story of Jesus Christ and mother Mary which was 2000 years prior. The Egyptian sun god's name was Amen-Ra. Sound familiar? It should being that all Christians say Amen at the end of their prayers. The Christian religion's foundation is built upon theft and plagiarism.
@DrunkHound1 so many errors here friend. Please read a bit more about Buddist & Christian philosophy. They are quite different. You mean Amon Re (amen?!) Really? A bit of a stretch here. Love your neighbour as yourself was said by Jesus. The professor had a reputation for treating people shabbily, especially women. Hardly in the same league as Jesus.
@chimetrooper Errors? You believe accepting Jesus is the only way to avoid eternal damnation! Believing any religious doctrine is the true "error". If you can't see the similarities between the story of Jesus and many other previous religions you either haven't studied them enough or have what people with common sense call "religious blinders".
@DrunkHound1 If you can't see the different approaches of the teachers of the major religions you are lazy or couldn't be bothered. Why the hostility? I thought you'd be happy to see contented humans with meaningful lives. Their personal beliefs would have been a matter of indifference to you. Now who's dogmatic? You still haven't explained where stuff came from (nor did the professor!). I'm all ears. Please educate me
@DrunkHound1 The "religion" Im sure is not what the man named jesus intended. Religion comes about because humans are full of fear and ego. he didn't steal from prior beliefs although they may have had an inspiration to him. it just so happens that love is universal amongst the wise and whoever the messenger is matters little compared to the actual message or information.
@DrunkHound1 Jesus most likely didn't know a thing about Buddha. (if Jesus was even a real person)
Amun-Ra has nothing to do with the Hebrew "amen", which basically translates to "so be it".
While I believe that Christianity is built upon falsehoods, I don't think making up facts does much to support your assertion. Religion is silly and illogical. Don't stoop to their level to battle their ideas.
@Hermoor Hatred, a consequential state of mind of the egoic part of the human brain, was a necessary evolutionary trait. It gave us, when needed, the extra strength to protect ourselves and our offsprings.
Today, however, instead of being used as a way to ensure the survival of our species, the egoic part of the brain causes us to fight amongst ourselves. It blinds us from seeing that we are all in this together (life) and that no human is different from one another. And that makes it foolish.
@dencrowcune Hate is important to secure the future of the human species, because everyone aren't as smart as Bertrand Russel. 90% of the world is religious they are ignorant and hateful. It's only possible to fight hate with hate, otherwise their hate will destroy you. Evolution will catch up to us all eventually, standing between the ignorant an the smart will lead to your destruction.
@Hermoor I'm sorry, but i have to disagree with you on that one. Fighting hate with hate only fuels more hatred. We will only continue living in this cycle of hatred this way. Fighting ego with ego won't work. Not fighting and living consciously is the only way for us to start living a more peaceful life.
@dencrowcune Oh so you want to be friend with everyone? Everyone doesn't want to be friend with you, what will you do when the idiots come to your home cut the head off a 8 year old. How will you fight them, with love or with hate? There can't be one without the other, hate is useful until we become a global enlightened civilization. When that time comes we can try to live without it. But there are still enemies on this earth that want us to go back to the middle ages. Don't be a fool.
@Hermoor Fight hate with intellect, it is better to change the environment to avoid hating people than to hate people to avoid changing the environment.
@bvssvni You are clearly ignorant, if you search around the internet you can find videos of women and children being beheaded. You haven't felt or known hate, you sit comfortably wherever you are and think you can reason with these people. Know what I know, or see what I haev seen and you won't be able to say you think intellect can win over these people. It's not possible to win a debate with someone who doesn't value logic. Remember those words...
@Hermoor Intellect is to change the environment, the factors that make people behave like they do. Intellect is not academic language. Intellect is the power man has to overcome all kinds of problems, where hate is no more than a feeling, caused by the recognizing of patterns that once did you pain. People don't magically turn into bad persons, only because you think of them as enemies.
@bvssvni Say those exact words when someone saws your 7 year old daughters head with a saw. She cries for you but they have bound your hands. Will you then ignore you hate? It's in us for a reason, it's evolution. It's either the people who cut off your daughters head or it's you and your family. You can be as intellectual as you want, but it won't stop the people with no intellect. I agree with you, but your method is not practical.
@Hermoor Intellect is only useful at a certain distance, to foresee probable events and avoid loss. It is not something simple as a single situation, I also think hate is not avoidable in some situations, but if one needs to keep an eye on it so it doesn't grow. Hate leads to insensitivity and less empathy, and ends with cutting someone's head off. How practical intellect is can be discussed. I think of it like a focus applied to some combination of other skills, like strength or acting
@bvssvni As I said hate is still with us for a reason. It is needed to sort out bad gene pools from good ones. It's evolution, ignoring it like a lot of smart people seem to doing. Is the same as giving up the planet to the idiots. Which eventually will lead to the end of the human species. If you think you can educate about 5.5 billion people into abandoning religion and sports on tv you sure are optemistic. I think they have to be destroyed at some point, to secure our species survival.
@Hermoor We can change the drugs in the brain and find the reason we hate, but that stills leave the question of intelligent life. Am I more worth than another human being? What will the future look like? The world seems small sometimes, but it is in fact HUGE. We don't see the vast space, only the social status of others. Life should be like a long and interesting chess game where we are kings, it doesn't matter if you loose as long as you play against the world, and almost beat it.
@bvssvni The reason we hate is simple, because we either are inferior or superior to the people we hate. If we are superior to the guy watching sports all day or the people praying all day then it's our responsability to not let them have their way. If they can't be educated we need to either put a limit on their birth rate or get rid of them in some other way. I suggest 1 child per family, in a few generations there will be less idiots and then we could start educating. Too many...
@Hermoor 5.3 billion people depend on 900 million petroleum driven vehicles, and averages of almost 6 people per car. Unless every produced car from 2018 runs on renewable energy the lack of transport and boats will ruin a family every second (from now). 1% uses most of the resources. The problem is greedy people, not overpopulation. Limiting children per family is stupid, give women education and the problem is solved.
@bvssvni Problem is greedy people? What has that got to do with anything. Education and wealth will only make people populate faster. Birth rate is crucial, in 1950 sometime we had like 1 billion people on earth. Today we are 6 billion, I think it will continue to increase only way to make it stop is to put a cap on children per family. With this we will solve a lot of problems and won't have to deal with as many idiots. Even most educated people are idiots, they know stuff, not how to think.
@Hermoor No, education and wealth increases the population the first generation in a developing country, and then as educated women make choices it slows down. If you create a war or put on artificial limit, it will cost much more. The problem with lack of resources is mankind not contributing back to nature, like all natural processes that has been around for million of years.
@bvssvni Too many also means more cities more pollution more filth and wildlife will suffer from it. We can't spread like a wildfire through a forest like we do now. We need to leave most of the forest alone. Overpopulation which your method will lead to is not a way to go about things.
@Hermoor If you have a world of war and ignorance, people will cut down the trees anyway. Today it's research on types of forests that grow food more economically than you can have crops on a field, making clouds to fight climate change and to sustain wildlife. I believe much could be done by changing the mindset of the rich population into a life building the future instead of meaningless nonsense.
@bvssvni Go watch the beheadings of children in indonesia, witch burnings in brazil then come back to me and see if you are as optimistic. Far from everyone has internet, and even if they did have internet. They would be using it to watch porn, fashion, sports and populare culture in the form of manga and crappy superhero movies.
@Hermoor Young people are connected to the internet in a different way than the grown up generation that uses internet for the things they missed in their life. I can not account for all the young, since I do not have enough data on that. Internet is foremost the technology that physicists and scientists use to make progress. Rest of it is just a playground, a kind of very advanced kinder garden.
@bvssvni Every child hasn't got their own computer, many do but most are ignorant religious and dumb. Just look at youtube, how many smart "young" people do you see around here. Just look at the popularity of different videos. The video with most views on youtube is justin beiber's baby song with half a billion views. That is proof alone of how the internet "educates young people". Then of course we got the fact that 12% of the internet is porn.
@Hermoor I think you should distinguish temporarily interests from long term interests when comparing what the internet is used for. Scientific information is often represented through text and takes longer time to interpret. That's why the percentage of traffic on the internet is misleading in terms of the gain of internet.
@Hermoor Each day we can help one person, which I prefer much more than thinking "we're all going to die and I am going to die". Feeling like hatred and love is not justice in themselves, they are mere tools which we intellectually can choose what my future me is probably gonna do. Thanks for this discussion with you.
@bvssvni One can educate onself through the internet but only if you want to be educated. Most people aren't interested in science, litterature or art at all. Most are interested in fashion, celebrities, idols, gods and bad music....porn and sports. The internet seems to me to be to most people nothing else than a better version of the television. There is the discovery channel but it's not as popular as "other channels". Your argument is thin.
@Hermoor A person that does a boring job, and uses the spare time to learn about celebrities. As time goes the social word moves online, and these person have to express themselves more online to gain the same amount of social status. Since any person can contact any person, the focus will be on fewer persons while most of them are overlooked. When less gain is achieved through social activity, the brain searches new patterns to explore, but the argument is still thin.
@bvssvni You can't educate people who don't want to be educated. When I say educated I'm not pointing towards the middle class family...dad is carpenter mother a gardner. That is not education, education is being able to think outside the system. Like the guy in the video does and people like him. You won't get 6 billion people to reason like we do now.
@Hermoor I see your point here, I am uncertain which role the distribution of intellect plays, but I can imagine that some intellect is better than none.
@bvssvni Your want to give education, so do I but we are too many. Decrease world population then start educating. Too many means too many problems and too many idiots. Idiots means conflicts, conflicts means suffering and hate. The very thing you want to avoid, there are two options. Kill of most of the world or make them stop breeding...then educate them. I'm for second option. Your way leads to nowhere, you can't educate 7+ billion people.
@Hermoor 200 years ago, people would be totally ignorant about almost everything you know. Only 20 years ago internet started to grow to the general population. Education is one of the largest and most profitable businesses in the modern civilization, and every country wants it. I disagree with you, I think it is possible.
@Hermoor We can never start living as a global enlightened civilization if we stay with that attitude. What you are suggesting is to leave the enlightened part for future generations. That way of thinking is also a cycle that we have to break free of. The future is unknown, therefore the only way you can be certain that something is being done to make things better is if we start now.
@dencrowcune Yes start now by putting a cap on child birth. If we get world population down to 2 billion we would be able to start educating people seriously. As of right now there is too much stupidity in the world for that to happen. If birth rate laws isn't an option I'm afraid genocide would be. At the end of the day our species and planet is more important than individual suffering. I'm not for genocide, but it seems like you are since that is the only other option available.
@Hermoor Hehe, I'm not for genocide and it is not the only other option. What i mean with starting now is, be an example yourself for the peaceful future that you invision. In the end we won't live to see the end result of the global change in human consciousness. But atleast you can be certain that something was done to provoke such a change. Do what you can to help realise this vision, not hope that someone else in the future will do it for us.
@Hermoor The other option is to do what humanity has always done when faced with space issues, expand to other locations. I have no doubt that for the first people who sailed around the world the sea was a vast and unimaginable place, much how we look upon the starts right now.
Can anybody transcript the logical advice? I couldn't understand quite much what he said in that part
Bru2712 10 hours ago
Thanks for sharing. Gtcha
iLuvAkeys4ever 23 hours ago
say something i havnt thought already bro,and if you dont think of what social change can be achieved if a value is believed, then what is the point of influencing others? isnt that what a message is?
psh mathemeticain
manurulzz5 2 days ago
I love this video but I wish that they had waited until after the interview to do the hoovering!
fireatwill2012 2 days ago
I'm not an atheist (anymore), but I agree with the two things he said in this video!
People should use facts to reach intellectual and ideological conclusions. And we should love one another. True Christians see that that is the core of what Christ taught. Even if people are "wrong" or whatever, just love them. It's not your place or responsibility to judge.
If Christians really want to convert people, they should just live like Christ and love indiscriminately like they're supposed to.
orange11emilie 5 days ago
I'm not trying to cause trouble, just trying to figure this out logically. From what I gather Atheism says: There was nothing outside of the universe; the universe started for no reason; planets formed and, by chance, life grew; Life evolved into humans (at least on earth); Humans have no purpose,they live to consume and die;we have no reason to live; nothing we do matters;The whole of existence is pointless. With that said:Why do we love?Why do we care about anything?Why are you reading this?
ZacharyDenverPitts 1 week ago
@ZacharyDenverPitts Atheism simply means lack of belief in god. a-theism; without theism. duh
thruthem 1 week ago 18
@thruthem A belief that there was no creator (god), which is what Atheism means, implies that there was no reason for the universe because it was not intentionally made. Without a creator it simply couldn't have a point.
ZacharyDenverPitts 6 days ago
@ZacharyDenverPitts That would be Nihilism not Atheism.
MrKingatheist 1 week ago
@MrKingatheist I suppose in the end it did become Nihilism but it seems to me that Nihilism is the only logical conclusion of Atheism. I just cant see a point in life if there is no reason for the universe.
ZacharyDenverPitts 6 days ago
@ZacharyDenverPitts This is where atheism could take you if that is how you think, for me its a different story. See Nihilism states that "there is no truth, there is nothing", this is simply a fallacy for if the statement is true by its own logic it contradicts. It would be the same as me saying "i always tell lies", the statement contradicts. I personally do not believe the universe came from nothing, i just admit i don't know how the universe came into existence.
MrKingatheist 6 days ago
@MrKingatheist True. That's why it takes faith to believe in any origin theory.
ZacharyDenverPitts 6 days ago
@ZacharyDenverPitts No sir, it does not take faith. It takes evidence!
55chh 4 days ago
@55chh My point was that we simply cannot prove definitively how the universe came to exist because whatever caused it exists outside of space and time and, as thus, outside our realm of comprehension. Therefore, without any evidence either way, to believe any origin story is a leap of faith.
ZacharyDenverPitts 4 days ago
@ZacharyDenverPitts Elaborating on what thruthem said:
You can have any number of philosophical motivations for action that fall under the umbrella of atheism. Some ppl wish to understand the world (scientists, philosophers, explorers, etc), others wish to create a better part of the world (engineers, artists, architects, parents, etc.) & others simply want to enjoy life while it lasts (hedonists). The only difference is that they have 1 finite life to accomplish it.
JRPeyesatsne 1 week ago
@JRPeyesatsne True. I was looking more at the base belief of Atheism (There is no creator)
ZacharyDenverPitts 6 days ago
@ZacharyDenverPitts There is no "base belief of Atheism". Atheism is the default position. There is no other belief system associated, we simply do not accept without evidence the claim that there is a deity.
55chh 4 days ago
@55chh You are speaking of Agnosticism. That is the default position, not Atheism.
Definition of Atheism: 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
Definition of Agnosticism: 2. an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge.
ZacharyDenverPitts 4 days ago
@ZacharyDenverPitts Here is the better definition from Websters:
a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity
The point is there is no evidence to support any of the claims for religions. To believe in things without any evidence is foolishness.
55chh 4 days ago
@ZacharyDenverPitts In contrast, the same question could be asked of theists: why prolong your suffering in this mortal realm when you could simply kill yourself and live in paradise? Is it because you don't really *really* believe it, deep down? Or the (literal) deus ex machina of "no suicides go to heaven"? Of course, you could always slit your wrists, then ask for forgiveness before you die... :P (I'm not suggesting you do this, of course, just an example)
JRPeyesatsne 1 week ago
@JRPeyesatsne I cant speak for all theists, but that mentality is an extremely common misinterpretation of Jesus' message. Its not about dieing and getting to go to heaven, Its about being closer to the creator and doing whats right. Yes that is the end result of it all, but if you take a look at the gospel, most of the teachings are for how to improve life here on earth. There is purpose in life here, when people truly know the creator they will care even more for his creation.
ZacharyDenverPitts 6 days ago
@ZacharyDenverPitts I guess the idea of most atheistic thought is that the universe itself has no purpose, it is (as far as we know) not a conscious being or deliberate construct. But it doesn't have to have purpose, because we (sentient beings) can have purpose, one that we choose ourselves. Btw, this is the most civilized debate I've seen on this topic in a LONG time... maybe there really is hope for the human race!
JRPeyesatsne 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ZacharyDenverPitts "From what I gather Atheism says" You gathered wrong. Atheism doesn't say anything. Atheism is the rejection of specific claims. Atheism doesn't offer any alternative claims. By defining myself as an "atheist", the ONLY thing you know about is what I do NOT believe.
"Why do we love?Why do we care about anything?" Because we are a social, cooperative species who's well being depends on the well being of those around us.
ScientificBob 1 week ago
@ScientificBob you DO believe that there is NO GOD. The rest was just a chain of logic stemming from that core belief, you may not want to believe it but atheism itself is a belief system.
ZacharyDenverPitts 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ZacharyDenverPitts "you may not want to believe it but atheism itself is a belief system."
No, it's not. Not believing something is not the same as believing something.
Just like 'not playing football' is not a sport.
Come on now... you know how it is not to believe in something because you don't believe in Zeus or Apophis.
Not believing baseless claims is a rational position. Believing them (dogmatically even) is not.
ScientificBob 6 days ago
@ScientificBob
"I believe that Zeus does not exist" would be an "A"Zeusist belief
"I honestly can't know if Zeus exists" is Agnostic
"Zeus does exist" Would be a Zeusist belief
Look up Atheism in a dictionary, it is a belief.
you can be Agnostic and call yourself an Atheist if you wish :P
ZacharyDenverPitts 4 days ago
@ZacharyDenverPitts "an "A"Zeusist belief" Or... a non-belief. Placing the "not" in front of another word doesn't change the fact that it is a NEGATIVE statement.
""I honestly can't know if Zeus exists" is Agnostic" Yes. And it doesn't say ANYTHING about your position on the claim. Only that you can't know it. You can NOT know something and STILL believe it. Which is what every theist does. They don't KNOW, but they BELIEVE anyway. 'agnostic' is NOT a position.
ScientificBob 4 days ago
@ZacharyDenverPitts "Look up Atheism in a dictionary, it is a belief." No, it isn't. It's the lack of a belief. You need to buy into something to be a theist. When you do NOT buy into theistic claims, you're an atheist by default. You don't need to believe something else to be an atheist. Seriously, what is so hard to understand about this? Not believing something is NOT the same as believing something. Durrrrr.
ScientificBob 4 days ago
@ZacharyDenverPitts "you can be Agnostic and call yourself an Atheist if you wish "
"There is a god" - gnostic theism
"I believe there is a god" - agnostic theism
"There are no gods" - gnostic atheism
"I don't believe there are gods" - agnostic atheism
(a)gnosticism = the motivation of the position you hold
(a)theism = the actual position you hold.
Seriously, it's not hard.
ScientificBob 4 days ago
@ZacharyDenverPitts No it isn't. Your statement is a common response but is not at all correct. Atheism is the default position. I don't "believe" that there are no unicorns, I simply do NOT believe that they exist until sufficient evidence is presented to prove that they do. That is NOT a belief system. To believe in a god without any evidence whatsoever is irrational.
55chh 4 days ago
@ZacharyDenverPitts I am a life long atheist yet I believe in love and wonder. I care about my life and the lives of others. Is there a pointlessness to it all. Yes and no (it's an ambiguously vague and unanswerable question). All of us has had the incredible fortune to be blessed with consciousness which allows us to ponder the universe.
Life is so beautiful and awe inspiring, at the end of the day it would be sad to view it through the filter of a man made mythology.
oddthedumbboy 1 week ago
@oddthedumbboy You truly are the best kind of Atheist :D. But, with respect, my post was more of a logical thought process about the root of it all. It just can't find a way for the universe to make sense without there being a cause for it all.
ZacharyDenverPitts 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ZacharyDenverPitts "without there being a cause for it all."
Who says that there is no cause for it all?
It seems to me that you are just arguing against a strawman.
There can be lots of causes for the universe. You act as if theism should somehow be high on the list as probable causes. I see no reason why that is. In fact, it belongs more to the category of immaterial unicorns farting space-time into existence.
ScientificBob 6 days ago
@ZacharyDenverPitts Didnt you hear what Russell said in the video? Believing in something because we want it to be true, despite the fact there is no evidence to support it, is not a positive virtue and does nothing to advance our understanding of the universe or ourselves. The atheist position is not that life is pointless; it is that we should try to understand the world based on verifiable evidence and rational debate. Curiosity is one of our driving forces, just like many other species
ThomasCarson1982 6 days ago
@ThomasCarson1982 That's what I was doing, I don't see the problem here. I was using rational logic to understand the universe and ourselves, nothing more.
ZacharyDenverPitts 6 days ago
@ZacharyDenverPitts On the contrary! Humans have a purpose and that is to make the world a better place for our fellow humans as well as for the animals and nature around us. A noble purpose indeed! Why do we love you ask? Because we are endowed with the ability to do so. Don't deny yourself that even if you have arrived at the sobering conclusion, there is no god. It's rather obvious isn't it! But we are nevertheless men and women with a purpose!
55chh 4 days ago
@55chh Let me try to wrap my head around this: Why is this our purpose? just because we decide it to be so? because that's what we think is good? where does our concept of "better" come from? The universe? If there is no purpose in the universe existing then how can something within the universe have purpose? It would take just as much faith for me to believe that as it would for me to believe we were designed by something outside of the universe.
ZacharyDenverPitts 4 days ago
I am retiring from these comments, I have other things I would like to do. (like art!)
Cheers to the commentors of this video, that regardless of our beliefs we can respect each other. :D
ZacharyDenverPitts 4 days ago
@ZacharyDenverPitts "Why is this our purpose?" Because that's how we developed over evolutionary history. We are a social species. All of us are driven by self-preservation and propagating. As a social species, our own fate goes hand in hand with the fate of the group. We are nothing by ourselves. This gives us purpose: better the group to better ourselves.
ScientificBob 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ZacharyDenverPitts "If there is no purpose in the universe existing then how can something within the universe have purpose? It would take just as much faith for me to believe that as it would for me to believe we were designed by something outside of the universe."
I really don't see how you get from the first sentence to the second.
What if a "god" 'designed' our universe for no reason at all?
Our purpose is our own and has nothing to do with the universe dude.
ScientificBob 4 days ago
@ZacharyDenverPitts Stop raping the term "logic". First of all there are no atheist belief that you can criticize. I answer for myself now (as a non-believer): We don't know anything about the time before big bang. You have to define "reason". Planets form as products of chemical reactions. Life grew on earth by chance sine the perfect conditions existed. Life evolves in the way that the most adaptable survives (which means a lot of things). The purpose of life is simply to reproduce,
Basram 4 days ago
@ZacharyDenverPitts meaning that we as organism are very well adapted to the environment and to pass on our genes we reproduce. That is what evolution is, those who live to be able to f*ck (those smart enough to survive) live to get kids and pass on their genes. It's an auto-correcting system who sorts out those unfit, not because it is evil, but because nature doesn't adapt after us. It's the other way around.
Basram 4 days ago
@ZacharyDenverPitts If you substitute your "atheism" with "science" then your question is a bit more reasonable. How the universe began is an unanswerable question for now but what happened after that is very well understood. The early universe, formation of stars, planets and so on. Formation of building blocks of life have also been observed to form spontaneously in space. The reason for life is not clear cut, my personal opinion is that the reason for life is to create intelligence and ideas.
spidermew 3 days ago
@ZacharyDenverPitts You see, life is rare in the sense that it is anti-entropic. It does not follow the second law of thermodynamics, it goes against it by taking in matter and converting it into energy and making itself more complex. And furthermore when life evolved to the point where we discovered language, the biological evolution was transformed into a technological evolution because we were able to share ideas. Intelligence, discovery and understanding reality gives meaning to life.
spidermew 3 days ago
@ZacharyDenverPitts - You just attached a dozen diffrent claims to Atheism. Atheism is not a belief; its not a world view or even a hypothesis about the origin of the universe, morality etc. Atheism is simply the rejection of theistic claims. After that, atheists believe all sorts of things. There are atheists known as 'Raelins' who believe in creationism. Some believe "humans have no purpose," while others, like Bertrand Russell, claim "the good life is inspired by love & guided by knowledge."
314Aurelius 3 days ago
@ZacharyDenverPitts The fact is we know very little when it comes to the origin of the universe. The fact that you exist and are able to question things means that anything is possible. Looking at the facts and the fine tuning it actually does show Intelligence present throughout the universe. BUT it seems VERY unlikely that a personal god exists. I think I said facts a few to many times in this small paragraph haha
JG129 2 days ago
@ZacharyDenverPitts Atheism doesn't say anything you say it says, but I shall answer your questions for the answer is rather simple: those were all genetically hardcoded into us via natural selection. You should read about natural selection, empathy, drive to live and reproduce and etc.(Also this "hardcoding" is a REAL complex thing that is affected by thousands of gene variants and the environment, that's why we don't all have the same desires.) So go and read about nat. selection and genetics.
Tychoxi 2 days ago
@ZacharyDenverPitts that's correct, don't feel like there should be a reason for the universe, the universe doesn't owe you any sense of reason. it is not completely true that life evolved by chance, evolution is a series of random differences across generations which are filtered out through non random processes. finally, there is a perfectly logical Darwinian explanation for why we love and care about things. i hope this has helped
georgewoodmagic 2 days ago
@georgewoodmagic So where did these random processes originate? Who or what created the rules by which the universe evolves?
martinrosskerr 1 day ago
@martinrosskerr the universe is just a big pot of chemicals, there are different chemicals and different conditions on each planet. all it takes is for one group of chemicals to react in such a way that the simplest form of life is made. this is very unlikely, but that doesn't matter because there are billions and billions of planets out there. and remember IT HAPPENED :) if it didn't we wouldn't be here to question it
georgewoodmagic 1 day ago
@martinrosskerr and your second question: as far as physicists are aware of so far, the universe does obey certain laws, and as far as we know nothing can happen outside those laws. however to say that some being made those laws is a massive leap of faith for witch there is no evidence for. science doesn't claim to know these things. however logic simply tells us that whoever creates something complicated must be more complicated. So some being (even more complicated) must have made God?
georgewoodmagic 1 day ago
@ZacharyDenverPitts Atheism doesn't anything about how the universe started, or about what is outside the universe. We are open to any suggestion, even god, we only say that god has not been proven to us yet, and therefore we don't believe in one. We don't make any claims about how the universe started, might even have been a god, there just isn't any solid reason to think so. Sure, most of us think there is no god, and that the universe "started" in a different way, but it is not necessary.
DutchDread 1 day ago
@DutchDread Also, the reason we love, the reason we care, the reason we are reading this, is because it was advantageous for us to be the way we are. Being curious and able to love help in surviving and reproducing You pass your genetic code on, and slowly, over millions of generations, develop compassion etc.
Why does getting injured hurt? Because organisms that don't like the feel of getting injured are likely to avoid getting injured, and so, survive. After a billion years, it adds up to pain
DutchDread 1 day ago
@ZacharyDenverPitts God and religion are beliefs. He speaks as a scientific stand point answering the question asked. If someone were to scientifically observe his video in the future as if it were an ancient text what should they take from it and their other endeavors? The facts.
TheMmurrayd 12 hours ago
@ZacharyDenverPitts Most of these things are just the stuff you project on atheism. It says nothing about start of the unvierse - science does. Same with other things. I love because I want to, I care because I feel like it - that is much more noble than the idea of ideals imposed by God.
Beneficiis 30 minutes ago
Comment removed
ZacharyDenverPitts 1 week ago
Being an atheist growing up in the 19th century of course this man had to learn to accept that people disagree with him!
BuIletForMyVaIentine 1 week ago
sounds like antiquated morality to me... facts and love as being universally true are more a cultural mandated prejudice, rather than an universally recognizable truth... i wonder if Russell thought love could be conveyed as a mathematical equation...
tculbert100 1 week ago
Everybody with an internet connection should watch this and at least follow the moral message. He is speaking to us!
atomixfang 2 weeks ago
The irony of the comments section of this video being a heated argument about personal beliefs is palpable.
SupahCola 2 weeks ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
I wish I learnt about the follies of wishful thinking when I was younger. Instead I hid behind what I wanted to be right or true rather than what was.
Standuble 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Standuble 2 weeks ago
How are any of you arguing at all? I love how this man talks about peace and tolerance, yet you desecrate his message by bashing others or arguing about religion. We have no hope whatsoever.
RussianLunar 2 weeks ago 17
@RussianLunar We do have hope! Time reveals!
LegendofJack 2 days ago
"Love is wise, hatred is foolish. In this world, which is getting more and more closely interconnected, we have to learn to tolerate each other. We have to learn to put up with the fact that some people say things that we don't like. We can only live together in that way. And if we are to live together, and not die together, we must learn a kind of charity and a kind of tolerance, which is absolutely vital to the continuation of human life on this planet."
Peace is the only way.
loayzc10 3 weeks ago 4
press 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
gmikoner 3 weeks ago
Legendary!
Hjominbonrun 3 weeks ago
@DrunkHound1 Bahahaha do you realize that "Amen" is a Hebrew word spoken by Jews, Christians, and Muslims?
curtyfresh 4 weeks ago
Are you listening religious people??? FACTS
Jwest720 1 month ago
5. So, as a conclusion, his message to the future really is: "For the common good, let the intellectuals paid by the world leaders look at the data and reach conclusions for you. They know you are busy working 18 hrs a day for $1 per hour. You should work for your love of humanity alone anyways. But, do not worry. You will have the choice to select from a set of meaningless options so be tolerant if others pick different than you"
These are the true words of a government subsidized intellectual
AncientMarinerNY 1 month ago
@AncientMarinerNY what you are doing in 2012 is criticising a man no longer living to defend or revise his beliefs made 53 years ago. besides, your "intellectuals paid by the world leaders" take on the whole thing is pretty bizarre...
moralreef 1 month ago
@moralreef First, the message was directed to the future (i am part of his future). Second, he is a man who devoted most of his years to philosophical ideas and had plenty of time (more than I've had) to get rid of contradictions in his thoughts. Third, intellectuals are paid by world leaders. It is not bizarre at all. It is the reality we live in right now.
AncientMarinerNY 1 month ago
@AncientMarinerNY making fun of the past attempting to postulate on the future is fairly one of the most pointless things to do, sorry.
he probably didnt have time to explain his thoughts due to a lifetime of being a well-known polymath in a great many subjects that the pair of us could never hope to achieve
intellectuals are NOT paid by world leaders. they have to fight tooth and nail to make a convincing argument to allocate public or private money to devote to a project.
moralreef 1 month ago
@moralreef Here are some example: In economics, keynesianism is mainstream. In philosophy, utilitarianism/subjectivism is mainstream. In politics, democracy is worshiped. In ethics, violence (especially against children) is permitted to continue.
What made Russell different is that he wanted to take all that to a whole new level. He wanted to get rid of nation-states and create world government starting by indoctrinating kids into his irrational ideas by means of public education. What a guy!
AncientMarinerNY 1 month ago
@AncientMarinerNY from what i've read he proposed a simple, democratic world government that respected each others cultural differences, while unilaterally agreeing nuclear armaments cannot be allowed to continue. now, nobody's saying its not difficult for respecting people's inherent personal freedoms, but its certainly the only one that could ever hope to work. his ideas are a fairly rational thing to want, and he always seemed who took pride in his rationale if anything.
moralreef 1 month ago
@moralreef 1. it isn't pointless when the ideas proposed by "the past" are both irrational and highly regarded as deep insights. It is dangerous and dishonest to hold his ideas. He had plenty of time to explain his thought through various sources (books, etc) and he clearly was smart enough to realize that he was wrong
Intellectuals are paid by world leaders especially in the social sciences. It is the reason why societies around the world are falling into madness. I will give you some examples
AncientMarinerNY 1 month ago
@moralreef 2. In economics, you have one school of though that declares that the government should step in and control the economy (trough money supply, interest rates, etc) and you have another one saying that government should not manipulate it because it will create bubbles.
What economist would you guess will get better/more government positions? If any economist want to further his career he will inevitably go for the first camp since they are the ones who will get chosen as Gvmt advisors
AncientMarinerNY 1 month ago
@moralreef 3. In psychiatry, you have the APA publishing the DSM to diagnose mental illness so that psychiatrists can prescribe drugs (Ritalin, etc) and you have others studies revealing the fallacies of the DSM. Which one would you guess is furthered by government influence?
In education, we have kids getting indoctrinated for over a decade in public schools based on practices that were put in place when kids needed summers off to help with the farm ...
AncientMarinerNY 1 month ago
@moralreef 4. The list goes on and on ... once you have a democratic government, you can expect people to use the system to further their own agendas and everyone else paying for it ... the worse bloodbaths in history were carried over by democracies for the good of some collective idea ... and the worse thing is that they call it moral or necessary ... once, you got democracy, the individual becomes enslaved by the collective and ends up paying for things that he/she does not support ...
AncientMarinerNY 1 month ago
@moralreef 5. The problem with these intellectuals such as Russell is that they never care to define their terms clearly and just create shopping lists of contradictory ideas and call it a philosophy. I can say: "I want a car, a home, and education and I dont want to pay for it" and call it a perfect solution but the fact is that I need to work to get them
Or I can just steal it from someone else ... well these intellectuals call the act of stealing "democratic governments for the common good"
AncientMarinerNY 1 month ago
@AncientMarinerNY im sorry no way am i going to reply to all of that. keep it terse or this is pointless
moralreef 1 month ago
@moralreef I do not blame you for not having an answer ... most people live in this matrix of words where love and tolerance means voting for social programs and accept that others vote differently .. if you want real solutions to world problems then start from scratch, define your terms clearly and do not accept contradictions in your ideas. We live in freedom in most aspects of our lives. Let's take that level of civility to how we organize our society and only then we can get real solutions
AncientMarinerNY 1 month ago
@AncientMarinerNY its not that i don't have an answer, its that i honestly, honestly can't be bothered to make a counterpoint that is just going to spiral out of control and frankly, waste my time that is better spent reading these issues made by smarter men than the pair of us.
theres a good reason youtube only gives us about 500 characters to work with
moralreef 1 month ago
@moralreef The argument from authority is a logical fallacy. Besides, it is not a matter of higher IQ. He has clear contradictions in his thinking and a lack of definitions. No need to have super high IQ to see it. Unfortunately, with his brilliance he decided to advocate for violence and call it "love". That is called dishonesty.
I can take you through his irrational thinking and point you to where he makes mistakes. It is really not that difficult.
AncientMarinerNY 1 month ago
4. But then, we could always use his first advice in this video and ask "what are the facts"? However, since it is the world government doing the research for us, then we cannot expect an objective investigation on the facts. We can only expect biased conclusions based on massaged data that will give more power to government officials.
AncientMarinerNY 1 month ago
3. I guess since democracies let people vote on inconsequential elections then it is a form of tolerance. However, people can vote on anything, even based on ideology harmful to others (e.g. war on drugs). But i guess if they are justified by "the common good"/"love for humanity' slogans then it is OK because it is "love" nonetheless. I guess that is why he chose to use the word "love" instead of tolerance.
AncientMarinerNY 1 month ago
2. Now, if his definition of love is "tolerance", why did he choose to use the word "love" instead? Anyways ... Even if we accept "tolerance" as his definition it is still a very fuzzy message. Tolerance is letting other people do and act in their own life as they see fit. However, Russell himself was a proponent of world democratic government. In other words, a small group of people's opinions will determine the course of the rest of the world. Where is tolerance in that?
AncientMarinerNY 1 month ago
1. His second assertion is not specific at all. Unfortunately, most people don't have a clear definition of what love or hate is. In fact, a lot of people believe that love is a magical feeling outside of reason. Thus, people use different definitions of love to justify different things and you get people holding irrational ideas using the love excuse:
- Jesus loves you, love him back
- Love your country above all
- Love your relatives/elders regardless of their behavior
- Love for humanity
AncientMarinerNY 1 month ago
Indeed.
BlackSN8K 1 month ago
someone should have told the cleaner to turn off the hoover... I'm disappointed I wasn't shown videos of Bertrand Russel in school. But at least youtube is here to compensate. BIG thumbs up for the video
rwtj01 1 month ago
Religion, Science, fuck them both, I want to live in my own self-created world. And guess what, Science and Religion are not allowed.
JohnnyJohnW 1 month ago
@JohnnyJohnW what the fuck are you doing on a computer then a creation that would not be without science , And when your sick dont expect medication fuck science remember ,would it hurt for u to actually think about what you are saying.
6Gizmo101 1 month ago
@6Gizmo101 Science is proven, otherwise all the things we have wouldn't be here, I'm just tired about "jesus loves anal" and "omgz, dude, science has proven the existence of water" comments.
JohnnyJohnW 1 month ago
@JohnnyJohnW Try not to troll on this guys video as a sign of respect, please.
Shuffle2dMax 1 month ago
@candiceevans1 Jesus loves anal
nilbud 1 month ago
hah! can't accept the moral thing due to the constraints of the intellectual thing. oh well
emigre86 1 month ago
@emigre86 You're stupid.
nilbud 1 month ago
Comment removed
ThePussyNigger 1 month ago
then he slips some poison in your water and injects you with more poison and tries to sterilize you.....
NataiEndo 1 month ago
@NataiEndo only to christians so who cares
mittROMNEY666 1 month ago
@mittROMNEY666 haha you better wake up before the new world order eugenic death machine gets you. but you probably think you are on the winning team right?
NataiEndo 1 month ago
@NataiEndo Your mind has turned to shit.
nilbud 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mittROMNEY666 haha you better wake up before the new world order eugenic death machine gets you. but you probably think you are on the winning team right?
NataiEndo 1 month ago
His words Are true, but crying? Tears? Really? Bitches.
g4hardcore 1 month ago
Anyone who cried at his words is a straight up bitch.
g4hardcore 1 month ago
Only if everyone thought like most of us watching this video think world would be a much better place.
wahidullahbhat 1 month ago
What beautiful words, brought me to tears... he's so right.
Macabresque 1 month ago
I would also like to hear what he would have said about the FACT, that this video is surpassed by 5.7Million Views by a random chinese girl showing of her big boobs and babbling nonsense.
Maybe he would have smiled a bit? :P
r2d2rx 1 month ago
OMG the Bastard knew.
MrNintoku 1 month ago
Brilliant. Simply brilliant.
Uberlaser 1 month ago
Saying he was an amazing man wouldn't come close to describing him.
GillTime 1 month ago 43
Just what Jesus said! I totally agree with the professor. But isn't quoting someone and not giving them credit a bit of a naughty thing to do?
chimetrooper 1 month ago
@chimetrooper There is no video evidence of Jesus saying ANYTHING. So, all credit goes to Bertrand.
classISsick 1 month ago
@classISsick your display of intellectual laziness just proves my point about some athiests. Video?! Trying to be funny somehow?
chimetrooper 1 month ago
@chimetrooper trolled.
classISsick 1 month ago
@chimetrooper Oh kind of like Jesus taking many of his core beliefs from Buddhism which existed 500 years prior or how about the obvious correlation between the Egyptian myth of Osiris, Isis and their son Horus and the story of Jesus Christ and mother Mary which was 2000 years prior. The Egyptian sun god's name was Amen-Ra. Sound familiar? It should being that all Christians say Amen at the end of their prayers. The Christian religion's foundation is built upon theft and plagiarism.
DrunkHound1 1 month ago 35
@DrunkHound1 so many errors here friend. Please read a bit more about Buddist & Christian philosophy. They are quite different. You mean Amon Re (amen?!) Really? A bit of a stretch here. Love your neighbour as yourself was said by Jesus. The professor had a reputation for treating people shabbily, especially women. Hardly in the same league as Jesus.
chimetrooper 1 month ago
@chimetrooper Errors? You believe accepting Jesus is the only way to avoid eternal damnation! Believing any religious doctrine is the true "error". If you can't see the similarities between the story of Jesus and many other previous religions you either haven't studied them enough or have what people with common sense call "religious blinders".
DrunkHound1 1 month ago
@DrunkHound1 If you can't see the different approaches of the teachers of the major religions you are lazy or couldn't be bothered. Why the hostility? I thought you'd be happy to see contented humans with meaningful lives. Their personal beliefs would have been a matter of indifference to you. Now who's dogmatic? You still haven't explained where stuff came from (nor did the professor!). I'm all ears. Please educate me
chimetrooper 1 month ago
@DrunkHound1 That's a pretty dumb set of assumptions all of which are incorrect.
nilbud 1 month ago
@DrunkHound1 The "religion" Im sure is not what the man named jesus intended. Religion comes about because humans are full of fear and ego. he didn't steal from prior beliefs although they may have had an inspiration to him. it just so happens that love is universal amongst the wise and whoever the messenger is matters little compared to the actual message or information.
joemoe23 4 weeks ago
@DrunkHound1 Is that comment for real or are you just pretending to be that stupid?
"The Egyptian sun god's name was Amen-Ra. Sound familiar?"
"The Christian religion's foundation is built upon theft and plagiarism."
lol
martinibigwolf 2 weeks ago
@DrunkHound1 Jesus most likely didn't know a thing about Buddha. (if Jesus was even a real person)
Amun-Ra has nothing to do with the Hebrew "amen", which basically translates to "so be it".
While I believe that Christianity is built upon falsehoods, I don't think making up facts does much to support your assertion. Religion is silly and illogical. Don't stoop to their level to battle their ideas.
CCKsoldier 2 weeks ago 2
@chimetrooper
What is written in the Bible, and what this man just said are two totally seperate things.
'What Jesus said' is impossible to know, as the Bible was written many years after his supposed life by anonymous authors who had never met him.
I can't even begin to see how you can find a correlation between the Bible and Russell's statement.
Christianity has no foothold here. Focussing on the facts and not what you'd like to believe, leaves out all form of religious dogma.
Uberlaser 1 month ago
Comment removed
dencrowcune 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
I'm afraid I was very, very drunk.
chebs8888 1 month ago
Hatred isn't foolish it's vital! Other than that really wise words.
Hermoor 1 month ago
@Hermoor Hatred, a consequential state of mind of the egoic part of the human brain, was a necessary evolutionary trait. It gave us, when needed, the extra strength to protect ourselves and our offsprings.
Today, however, instead of being used as a way to ensure the survival of our species, the egoic part of the brain causes us to fight amongst ourselves. It blinds us from seeing that we are all in this together (life) and that no human is different from one another. And that makes it foolish.
dencrowcune 1 month ago
@dencrowcune Hate is important to secure the future of the human species, because everyone aren't as smart as Bertrand Russel. 90% of the world is religious they are ignorant and hateful. It's only possible to fight hate with hate, otherwise their hate will destroy you. Evolution will catch up to us all eventually, standing between the ignorant an the smart will lead to your destruction.
Hermoor 1 month ago
@Hermoor I'm sorry, but i have to disagree with you on that one. Fighting hate with hate only fuels more hatred. We will only continue living in this cycle of hatred this way. Fighting ego with ego won't work. Not fighting and living consciously is the only way for us to start living a more peaceful life.
dencrowcune 1 month ago
@dencrowcune Oh so you want to be friend with everyone? Everyone doesn't want to be friend with you, what will you do when the idiots come to your home cut the head off a 8 year old. How will you fight them, with love or with hate? There can't be one without the other, hate is useful until we become a global enlightened civilization. When that time comes we can try to live without it. But there are still enemies on this earth that want us to go back to the middle ages. Don't be a fool.
Hermoor 1 month ago
@Hermoor Fight hate with intellect, it is better to change the environment to avoid hating people than to hate people to avoid changing the environment.
bvssvni 1 month ago
@bvssvni You are clearly ignorant, if you search around the internet you can find videos of women and children being beheaded. You haven't felt or known hate, you sit comfortably wherever you are and think you can reason with these people. Know what I know, or see what I haev seen and you won't be able to say you think intellect can win over these people. It's not possible to win a debate with someone who doesn't value logic. Remember those words...
Hermoor 1 month ago
@Hermoor Intellect is to change the environment, the factors that make people behave like they do. Intellect is not academic language. Intellect is the power man has to overcome all kinds of problems, where hate is no more than a feeling, caused by the recognizing of patterns that once did you pain. People don't magically turn into bad persons, only because you think of them as enemies.
bvssvni 1 month ago
@bvssvni Say those exact words when someone saws your 7 year old daughters head with a saw. She cries for you but they have bound your hands. Will you then ignore you hate? It's in us for a reason, it's evolution. It's either the people who cut off your daughters head or it's you and your family. You can be as intellectual as you want, but it won't stop the people with no intellect. I agree with you, but your method is not practical.
Hermoor 1 month ago
@Hermoor Intellect is only useful at a certain distance, to foresee probable events and avoid loss. It is not something simple as a single situation, I also think hate is not avoidable in some situations, but if one needs to keep an eye on it so it doesn't grow. Hate leads to insensitivity and less empathy, and ends with cutting someone's head off. How practical intellect is can be discussed. I think of it like a focus applied to some combination of other skills, like strength or acting
bvssvni 1 month ago
@bvssvni As I said hate is still with us for a reason. It is needed to sort out bad gene pools from good ones. It's evolution, ignoring it like a lot of smart people seem to doing. Is the same as giving up the planet to the idiots. Which eventually will lead to the end of the human species. If you think you can educate about 5.5 billion people into abandoning religion and sports on tv you sure are optemistic. I think they have to be destroyed at some point, to secure our species survival.
Hermoor 1 month ago
@Hermoor We can change the drugs in the brain and find the reason we hate, but that stills leave the question of intelligent life. Am I more worth than another human being? What will the future look like? The world seems small sometimes, but it is in fact HUGE. We don't see the vast space, only the social status of others. Life should be like a long and interesting chess game where we are kings, it doesn't matter if you loose as long as you play against the world, and almost beat it.
bvssvni 1 month ago
@bvssvni The reason we hate is simple, because we either are inferior or superior to the people we hate. If we are superior to the guy watching sports all day or the people praying all day then it's our responsability to not let them have their way. If they can't be educated we need to either put a limit on their birth rate or get rid of them in some other way. I suggest 1 child per family, in a few generations there will be less idiots and then we could start educating. Too many...
Hermoor 1 month ago
@Hermoor 5.3 billion people depend on 900 million petroleum driven vehicles, and averages of almost 6 people per car. Unless every produced car from 2018 runs on renewable energy the lack of transport and boats will ruin a family every second (from now). 1% uses most of the resources. The problem is greedy people, not overpopulation. Limiting children per family is stupid, give women education and the problem is solved.
bvssvni 1 month ago
@bvssvni Problem is greedy people? What has that got to do with anything. Education and wealth will only make people populate faster. Birth rate is crucial, in 1950 sometime we had like 1 billion people on earth. Today we are 6 billion, I think it will continue to increase only way to make it stop is to put a cap on children per family. With this we will solve a lot of problems and won't have to deal with as many idiots. Even most educated people are idiots, they know stuff, not how to think.
Hermoor 1 month ago
@Hermoor No, education and wealth increases the population the first generation in a developing country, and then as educated women make choices it slows down. If you create a war or put on artificial limit, it will cost much more. The problem with lack of resources is mankind not contributing back to nature, like all natural processes that has been around for million of years.
bvssvni 1 month ago
@bvssvni Too many also means more cities more pollution more filth and wildlife will suffer from it. We can't spread like a wildfire through a forest like we do now. We need to leave most of the forest alone. Overpopulation which your method will lead to is not a way to go about things.
Hermoor 1 month ago
@Hermoor If you have a world of war and ignorance, people will cut down the trees anyway. Today it's research on types of forests that grow food more economically than you can have crops on a field, making clouds to fight climate change and to sustain wildlife. I believe much could be done by changing the mindset of the rich population into a life building the future instead of meaningless nonsense.
bvssvni 1 month ago
@bvssvni Go watch the beheadings of children in indonesia, witch burnings in brazil then come back to me and see if you are as optimistic. Far from everyone has internet, and even if they did have internet. They would be using it to watch porn, fashion, sports and populare culture in the form of manga and crappy superhero movies.
Hermoor 1 month ago
@Hermoor Young people are connected to the internet in a different way than the grown up generation that uses internet for the things they missed in their life. I can not account for all the young, since I do not have enough data on that. Internet is foremost the technology that physicists and scientists use to make progress. Rest of it is just a playground, a kind of very advanced kinder garden.
bvssvni 1 month ago
@bvssvni Every child hasn't got their own computer, many do but most are ignorant religious and dumb. Just look at youtube, how many smart "young" people do you see around here. Just look at the popularity of different videos. The video with most views on youtube is justin beiber's baby song with half a billion views. That is proof alone of how the internet "educates young people". Then of course we got the fact that 12% of the internet is porn.
Hermoor 1 month ago
@Hermoor I think you should distinguish temporarily interests from long term interests when comparing what the internet is used for. Scientific information is often represented through text and takes longer time to interpret. That's why the percentage of traffic on the internet is misleading in terms of the gain of internet.
bvssvni 1 month ago
@Hermoor Each day we can help one person, which I prefer much more than thinking "we're all going to die and I am going to die". Feeling like hatred and love is not justice in themselves, they are mere tools which we intellectually can choose what my future me is probably gonna do. Thanks for this discussion with you.
bvssvni 1 month ago
@bvssvni One can educate onself through the internet but only if you want to be educated. Most people aren't interested in science, litterature or art at all. Most are interested in fashion, celebrities, idols, gods and bad music....porn and sports. The internet seems to me to be to most people nothing else than a better version of the television. There is the discovery channel but it's not as popular as "other channels". Your argument is thin.
Hermoor 1 month ago
@Hermoor A person that does a boring job, and uses the spare time to learn about celebrities. As time goes the social word moves online, and these person have to express themselves more online to gain the same amount of social status. Since any person can contact any person, the focus will be on fewer persons while most of them are overlooked. When less gain is achieved through social activity, the brain searches new patterns to explore, but the argument is still thin.
bvssvni 1 month ago
@bvssvni You can't educate people who don't want to be educated. When I say educated I'm not pointing towards the middle class family...dad is carpenter mother a gardner. That is not education, education is being able to think outside the system. Like the guy in the video does and people like him. You won't get 6 billion people to reason like we do now.
Hermoor 1 month ago
@Hermoor I see your point here, I am uncertain which role the distribution of intellect plays, but I can imagine that some intellect is better than none.
bvssvni 1 month ago
@bvssvni Your want to give education, so do I but we are too many. Decrease world population then start educating. Too many means too many problems and too many idiots. Idiots means conflicts, conflicts means suffering and hate. The very thing you want to avoid, there are two options. Kill of most of the world or make them stop breeding...then educate them. I'm for second option. Your way leads to nowhere, you can't educate 7+ billion people.
Hermoor 1 month ago
@Hermoor 200 years ago, people would be totally ignorant about almost everything you know. Only 20 years ago internet started to grow to the general population. Education is one of the largest and most profitable businesses in the modern civilization, and every country wants it. I disagree with you, I think it is possible.
bvssvni 1 month ago
@Hermoor We can never start living as a global enlightened civilization if we stay with that attitude. What you are suggesting is to leave the enlightened part for future generations. That way of thinking is also a cycle that we have to break free of. The future is unknown, therefore the only way you can be certain that something is being done to make things better is if we start now.
dencrowcune 1 month ago
@dencrowcune Yes start now by putting a cap on child birth. If we get world population down to 2 billion we would be able to start educating people seriously. As of right now there is too much stupidity in the world for that to happen. If birth rate laws isn't an option I'm afraid genocide would be. At the end of the day our species and planet is more important than individual suffering. I'm not for genocide, but it seems like you are since that is the only other option available.
Hermoor 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hermoor Hehe, I'm not for genocide and it is not the only other option. What i mean with starting now is, be an example yourself for the peaceful future that you invision. In the end we won't live to see the end result of the global change in human consciousness. But atleast you can be certain that something was done to provoke such a change. Do what you can to help realise this vision, not hope that someone else in the future will do it for us.
dencrowcune 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
@Hermoor The other option is to do what humanity has always done when faced with space issues, expand to other locations. I have no doubt that for the first people who sailed around the world the sea was a vast and unimaginable place, much how we look upon the starts right now.
Malakree 1 month ago
@Malakree nearest planet that might be suitable for human life would take 3000 years to travel to...ok...
Hermoor 1 month ago
Timeless advice..
EmpiricalMonkey 1 month ago