Mr.Deity has the answer your searching for - check out
watch?v=0KSLRjDR4aQ
I tried to make a video response all day yesterday and I just sounded whiny and bitchy and inane. Basically I was trying to say if people don't acknowledge that science (which gives us all the technology we have literally at our fingertips) has something to say about reality and instead imbue eternal life or a life after death with more meaning than the here and now, they can easily reject all human knowledge.
People, on average, are stupid and gullible. They're too lazy to really look into how the world actually works, prefer to be told how it works by others, and only accept explanations they find appealing as opposed to ones that are correct.
The real question is, how can we REVERSE that? How can we make people more interested in the world around them, and curious about how thing actually are instead of just believing things are how they want to believe they are?
h t t p : / / w w w . t h e m o o r i n g s . o r g / a p o l o g e t i c s / G o s p e l s / r e l i a 1 . h t m l
Look, Hairy, if you're going to get all Zeitgeist on me, I am going to drop this conversation because you clearly have a very poor knowledge of the historical evidence if you think Christ was fictitous. I am just not even going to take the time debunking those claims.
Please read that link for evidence of the early recording of all the Gospels.
Your graph showing such an increase in information reminds me of something Robert Jastrow once said
For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.Robert Jastrow
Sorry to say this. Your bible is just one of so many countless compilations of ancient "wisdom." And it's continued, counterproductive influence is a testimony to the ruthlessness of those who have been beguiled by it, those who have seen and used it as a tool, and not by any virtuous properties that it most certainly doesn't possess.
Why be sick of it.You just told us how interested you are in debating these topics.You honestly asked for answers claiming no sarcasm.
re: it's continued, counterproductive influence is a testimony to the ruthlessness of those who have been beguiled by it, "no virtuous properties"
What do you think about Jesus sermon on the mount ?What do you think of mother teresa,the salvation army,st vincent depauls,all motivated by the command in the bible to show love for one another.
The truth? The sermon on the mount was plagarized. Mother Theresa was, frankly, a whore for sponsorship, and she recanted her faith when she neared death.
St. Vincent? Along the same lines as the Salvation Army...keeping people in misery for profit...as long as they're saved.
There was a time not so long ago that science considered an infinite universe.Today it is generally accepted that the universe had a beginning.Interestingly the bible speaks of a beginning to time also.
Newton discovered the laws of gravity and motion
he did so with a theistic premise.Later Einstein confirmed Newtons discovery with the theory of relativity.interestingly Einstein to saw evidence for some kind of intelligence responsible for the universe. cont-
And STILL you shy away from the obvious and well established FACT that Christ was just another in a series of folk heros. Born of a virgin, a child prodigy, killed on a hill, raised from the dead, descended to hell, ascended to heaven, performing miracles, healing the sick...
Folklore is full of such characters.
Why are you not Muslim? Why not a Hindu? A Shinto?
We can easily establish that Christ was not a mythological figure drawn from Pagan or Jewish influences. The fact you can draw such nebulous literary similarities has nothing to do with the historicity of the content. In fact, very few scholars today would say that a physical ressurection event was something present in prevalent mythology of that time. You have to understand it through the eyes of a jew a the time of the first century, not through the rearview mirror, so to speak.
Extra-Biblical Testimony unanimously attribiutes the Gospels to their traditional authors. The Gospels and Acts are cited by a series of authors, beginning with those contemporary with the apostles and continuing in regular and close succession. We use such tests to identify the authorship of secular historical works, and when applied to the Gospels, they more than pass that test. The Epistle of Clement, Barnabas, Ignatius (who refers to the Gosepl and the apostles), which is very early.
They each contain elements of ebarrassment that they'd be careful to leave out were they all assembled from the writings of Matthew. Joseph of Arimathea wouldn't be somebody that later Christians would contrive because he was a sanhedrin, so to show such a person doing the right thing by Christ wouldn't be in the best interest of later Christians. Each Gospel account also contains unique, and correct, knowledge of Jerusalem before it was destroyed in AD.70 suggesting early compilation.
We wont agree on that. Perhaps we could return to the earlier questions you've tried to avoid.
Do you place the same belief in Mythra, Dionysus and/or Osiris?
If not, precisely why?
While you're at it, tell me why you're not Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist? Which of the 30,000 sects of Christianity do you pledge allegiance to? Or are you beginning one of your own?
The denominations of Christianity, as epitemological frameworks, don't influence the central message of Christianity. It seems to me, you want to attempt to belittle the Bible and ignore what I have to say because it doesn't fit your worldview.
are reliable reports. For instance, James, Christs' brother, was visited by the physical Jesus after his resurrection, and originally James did not believe ihis brother to be the Christ. Nor did Paul for that matter until his Damascus road experience. To say the Gospels aren't reliable despite all the evidence to the contrary, such as confirmation from external sources like Josephus and the different sources used by the disciples in their accounts of what happened, seems to me question begging.
So when I say I believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, I am not making a scientific claim about the natural world, I am declaring something I know to be true through the life, death and resurrection of His person. A transcedent truth and so of another sort to the knowledge obtained through scientific observations.
Well, that isn't quite what I said, Hairy, I believe in Jesus christ because there are historical documents, eye witness reports and other such evidence to confirm His miracles, His teachings, and His burial and consequent rise from the Tomb. If you want to claim all of that doesn't count as evidence, or that multiple corrobarative attestations for Him are all the result of a conspiracy theory, one which His followers died for, then that's up to you.
Which eyewitness accounts would you be referring to? I haven't heard of those. The Gospels certainly don't fit the bill, having certainly been written much later than the supposed events.
But, do you place the same belief in Mythra, Dionysus and/or Osiris? Or any of the other earlier virgin-born and resurrected heros of ancient folklore?
That's incorrect. It is considered a historical fact, for instance, that Christ was buried by Joseph of Arimethea, that the Tomb was discovered empty (otherwise you'd have to explain why the Jews, who'd have every reason to dismiss the idea of a physical resurrection of Jesus, tried to explain away the problem as the disciples having stolen the body), that the witness reports of Christ's appearences, because they are multiply attested in the works of Mark, Luke, John, Matthew, Paul, etc (cont)
" It is considered a historical fact, for instance, that Christ was buried by Joseph of Arimethea, that the Tomb was discovered empty "
It is by Christians.
You have ignored my pointing out of the FACT that the gospels were not written until much later than the supposed events. The authors of Mark, Luke and John clearly were working from Matthew, up to a century LATER.
We have more historical evidence for Jesus Christ than Julius Ceaser... And yet you want to apply a different standard for historical evidence when it comes to Jesus Christ.
It's not just Christians who consider those events to be historical facts but skeptics of the New testament.
It's wrong to claim the Gospels were assembled long after the events. Mark, Luke and John were not working off the writings of Matthew, since they all don't have the appearence of forgery. (cont)
In this you are completely wrong. Even the most ardent bible defenders agree that Mark and Luke were NOT written by eyewitnesses. John was almost certainly written almost a century after the supposed death of the supposed Christ.
It's the exclusivity of your reply I am referring to, you make the claim that they all copied from the work of Matthew and this just isn't the case because they all contain the signs of the different sources they used to compile their Gospel accounts.
Straight up Bullshit and Apologetic Chicanery sponsored by Christ Inc. hairy..
Unlike the spectral and wafer thin construct of Jesus Christ, we know what Caesar looked like and we have a complete history of his life. In turn General, Orator, Historian, Statesman and Lawgiver. We have words written by Caesar himself and words written by both his friends and his enemies. Artifacts confirm his life and death, as do his successors.
Caesar established a style of government.. and a calendar.. which endured for centuries.. Portraits and busts created IN HIS OWN LIFETIME..
Caesar was an eyewitness to many of the events he describes in his commentaries. He wrote not for posterity but to have an immediate impact on the power players in Rome as he schemed to advance his own career..
Contemporary witnesses from Cicero to Virgil, Catullus to Sallust, Nepos, Asinius Pollio and many more.. The Bello Gallico, written a few months and at most just a few years after the wars.. Caesar's words and deeds are fully documented by multiple witnesses..
Your confirming the existence of Caesar,not refuting the existence of Jesus.
It would be expected that Caesar would be well documented given that he was in power over the masses to the point of having his face on there coins. THE NEW ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA states: These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus "(1976), MACROPÆDIA, VOL. 10, P. 145.
I'm not attempting to refute the existence of Jesus nor have any interest in doing so.. I'm asserting that the old Apologetic canard of "more historical evidence exist for Jesus than for Caesar.." is boldly mendacious bullshit..
And thanks pat, when I was thinking of artifacts I neglected to mention 'there' coins..
It is considered a fact but only in the same way that the Micmacs believed the Bay of Fundy was created by a large, pissed off beaver slapping his tail.
They didn't believe the Universe would be a randomly conceived thing. I see no reason to think, without the existence of God, that the Universe should be intelligible to us. There's no evolutionary requirement to be able to ponder philosophy or explore the building blocks of the natural world. Lol, that's ridiculous to think that we should acquire these traits by chance, but anyway... I wanted to also say, through the person of Christ, we have an explanation of why? Science doesn't speak to that
The first of these major assumptions was that the Universe would be intelligible to us and would operate by sensible laws, or repeated patterns. They believed this because they believed that if their faith in the Christian God was true, He would have designed the Universe in such a way so that we could come to understand it and that He wouldn't play tricks on us by reversing certain established laws like a more mischeivous deity might.
I want to pick you up on a few assumptions you make here, Hairy reasoner. First of all, you create the false dichotomy of science vs religion, and I am never surprised when atheists do this. I would like to point out, the foundational basis for all science (no exceptions) rests on religious assumptions. What do I eman by that? Well, because the first practitioners of the scientfific method were deeply religious men (Christians like Newton) they made certain philosophical assumptions (cont)
Since it appears that i am the only theist to A watch your videos and B attempt to comment on them and since this is what you have sincerely asked for i will do so.
I completely agree that human knowledge has grown enormously.I would point to the advances in knowledge that have created difficulties for Darwinian mechanisms ie the origin of genetic information and i would like to submit that and a couple more examples by way of a video response.
I have long thought that there is good portion of humanity that has no temporal understanding, no scale of time. They do not have any sense how long 100 or 1000 or 10000 years are and what can be accomplished in that time. They have no sense that knowledge accrues, building upon itself. I taught archaeology years ago and found students who could not fathom temporal analysis or understand relative sequencing. I think people are temporally challenged. My time is up. Cheers.
The most obvious answer to your question that occurs to me is that believers in the bible will claim that the information in the bible was presented by a creature way off the right hand side of your graph - past the asymptote. A being with infinite knowledge. i.e. the Bible is based on knowledge provided by a god, not humans.
Of course, it is also obvious that that is utter bollocks.
The more knowledge we have the more we then have to learn to understand that gained knowledge. Is not true that throughout history. Discovering that watering crops during a drought must have bought forth more questions in the minds of the farmers, Ideas, irrigation plans? The little book of ideas was merely once an instruction manual on life and the world.now highly outdated by individual manuals on everything from housekeeping to astronomy. YES to knowledge and understanding!
Superb hairy.. as we gain more knowledge and understanding of our Universe at large it shows itself to be far more awe inspiring and beautiful than any quaint stories of Creation and Intentionality..
and is under no obligation to be either simple or comforting..
Some would say we're not mature enough to handle the knowledge.
Carl Sagan said something about the genetic baggage that we still carry today may be our undoing. In the past our clannish mistrust and outright hostility towards strangers and our aggressiveness may have served us well in the struggle to survive, but our environment social , cultural, technological is changing so rapidly we may not have time to adapt before those same instincts become our undoing.
I pretend to understand things from time to time. I wish I wouldn't... I wish I didn't do that as I don't have a fucking clue, but it's VERY VERY cool... Hopefully, that fact is true?
I've been asking myself a lot lately, how grown adults can believe they have an imaginary friend in the sky. I know they take offense to me putting it that way, but honestly, look at all the shit that has gone on in the name of this god. Imagine where we'd be had we not gone through the "Dark Ages".
More people are living better lives than ever before, yet they'd rather sink us back into those times.
All that knowledge and frozen pizza still sucks. And there's nothing science can do about it!
On a more serious note.. . But what if we add on to that scale all there is that is still unknown? That line would go up for miles and the most knowledgeable person and least knowledgeable person would be in nearly identical positions on it... I guess that's a different topic though..
No matter what logic one brings to the fountain of discussion, the severely delusional Theist will smile and disconnect their logical neurons from their wooful ones. Like anthonzi said, they want to keep their teddy bear in the sky safe and sound.
You know 'HR' I think you might be very correct here. just think where we could go with this!!! Might I also just say perhaps there is a splitting of consciousness within our cultures one tends to veer towards the past for whatever reasons. Some tend to find the observation you cite as perhaps the most magnificent and promising period of history humanity has encountered since its first appearance on the plains of Africa.
I just wonder how this duality within humanity can continue to exist without real conflict. I think in many ways we are seeing the beginnings fragmentation within humanity due to the very observation you chat about. Cool video Kind and warm regards,
You may have opened the door to some sort of probability function for which is more likely to be true
In which case the more recent trends in knowledge would be much more probable.
One thing that has changed little though is philosophy.
redsbr 2 years ago
Mr.Deity has the answer your searching for - check out
watch?v=0KSLRjDR4aQ
I tried to make a video response all day yesterday and I just sounded whiny and bitchy and inane. Basically I was trying to say if people don't acknowledge that science (which gives us all the technology we have literally at our fingertips) has something to say about reality and instead imbue eternal life or a life after death with more meaning than the here and now, they can easily reject all human knowledge.
Elaina43 2 years ago
My answer?
People, on average, are stupid and gullible. They're too lazy to really look into how the world actually works, prefer to be told how it works by others, and only accept explanations they find appealing as opposed to ones that are correct.
The real question is, how can we REVERSE that? How can we make people more interested in the world around them, and curious about how thing actually are instead of just believing things are how they want to believe they are?
Tigranis 2 years ago
h t t p : / / w w w . t h e m o o r i n g s . o r g / a p o l o g e t i c s / G o s p e l s / r e l i a 1 . h t m l
Look, Hairy, if you're going to get all Zeitgeist on me, I am going to drop this conversation because you clearly have a very poor knowledge of the historical evidence if you think Christ was fictitous. I am just not even going to take the time debunking those claims.
Please read that link for evidence of the early recording of all the Gospels.
athlete117 2 years ago
@athleu'rte117
You are not stupid. More's the pity. You're a waste. Christ is very real. He's been real for about 1700 years, as a political influence.
You're a waste. Join me in praising Allah?
hairyreasoner 2 years ago
Your graph showing such an increase in information reminds me of something Robert Jastrow once said
For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.Robert Jastrow
pestmanpat 2 years ago
@pestmanpat
Sorry to say this. Your bible is just one of so many countless compilations of ancient "wisdom." And it's continued, counterproductive influence is a testimony to the ruthlessness of those who have been beguiled by it, those who have seen and used it as a tool, and not by any virtuous properties that it most certainly doesn't possess.
I'm sick of it.
Bring them and kill them before me.
hairyreasoner 2 years ago
Why be sick of it.You just told us how interested you are in debating these topics.You honestly asked for answers claiming no sarcasm.
re: it's continued, counterproductive influence is a testimony to the ruthlessness of those who have been beguiled by it, "no virtuous properties"
What do you think about Jesus sermon on the mount ?What do you think of mother teresa,the salvation army,st vincent depauls,all motivated by the command in the bible to show love for one another.
pestmanpat 2 years ago
@pestmanpat
The truth? The sermon on the mount was plagarized. Mother Theresa was, frankly, a whore for sponsorship, and she recanted her faith when she neared death.
St. Vincent? Along the same lines as the Salvation Army...keeping people in misery for profit...as long as they're saved.
Not much point in this life, is there?
hairyreasoner 2 years ago
What do you think of the message in the sermon on the mount ? is it a positive message or a negative one ?
You claimed there are no virtuous properties
pestmanpat 2 years ago
There was a time not so long ago that science considered an infinite universe.Today it is generally accepted that the universe had a beginning.Interestingly the bible speaks of a beginning to time also.
Newton discovered the laws of gravity and motion
he did so with a theistic premise.Later Einstein confirmed Newtons discovery with the theory of relativity.interestingly Einstein to saw evidence for some kind of intelligence responsible for the universe. cont-
pestmanpat 2 years ago
@pestmanpat
There was a time not so long ago that religion considered earthquakes a divine retribution. Actually, it was just a couple of days ago.
hairyreasoner 2 years ago
The fact that some people would draw that conclusion is a valid objection to there way of thinking.
It says nothing on the issue you raise about the increase in knowledge and the implications for the existance of God.
pestmanpat 2 years ago
Little more than 70 years after the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, in fact.
athlete117 2 years ago
@athlete117
And STILL you shy away from the obvious and well established FACT that Christ was just another in a series of folk heros. Born of a virgin, a child prodigy, killed on a hill, raised from the dead, descended to hell, ascended to heaven, performing miracles, healing the sick...
Folklore is full of such characters.
Why are you not Muslim? Why not a Hindu? A Shinto?
You are very tedious.
hairyreasoner 2 years ago
We can easily establish that Christ was not a mythological figure drawn from Pagan or Jewish influences. The fact you can draw such nebulous literary similarities has nothing to do with the historicity of the content. In fact, very few scholars today would say that a physical ressurection event was something present in prevalent mythology of that time. You have to understand it through the eyes of a jew a the time of the first century, not through the rearview mirror, so to speak.
athlete117 2 years ago
@athlete117
Resurrection, a virgin birth, etc. etc. etc. predate your blessed saviour, over and over, for millenia.
hairyreasoner 2 years ago
Extra-Biblical Testimony unanimously attribiutes the Gospels to their traditional authors. The Gospels and Acts are cited by a series of authors, beginning with those contemporary with the apostles and continuing in regular and close succession. We use such tests to identify the authorship of secular historical works, and when applied to the Gospels, they more than pass that test. The Epistle of Clement, Barnabas, Ignatius (who refers to the Gosepl and the apostles), which is very early.
athlete117 2 years ago
They each contain elements of ebarrassment that they'd be careful to leave out were they all assembled from the writings of Matthew. Joseph of Arimathea wouldn't be somebody that later Christians would contrive because he was a sanhedrin, so to show such a person doing the right thing by Christ wouldn't be in the best interest of later Christians. Each Gospel account also contains unique, and correct, knowledge of Jerusalem before it was destroyed in AD.70 suggesting early compilation.
athlete117 2 years ago
We wont agree on that. Perhaps we could return to the earlier questions you've tried to avoid.
Do you place the same belief in Mythra, Dionysus and/or Osiris?
If not, precisely why?
While you're at it, tell me why you're not Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist? Which of the 30,000 sects of Christianity do you pledge allegiance to? Or are you beginning one of your own?
hairyreasoner 2 years ago
Because no other account has so much credibility as the Bible or relies on prophecy and miracles as a litmus test...
athlete117 2 years ago
The denominations of Christianity, as epitemological frameworks, don't influence the central message of Christianity. It seems to me, you want to attempt to belittle the Bible and ignore what I have to say because it doesn't fit your worldview.
athlete117 2 years ago
are reliable reports. For instance, James, Christs' brother, was visited by the physical Jesus after his resurrection, and originally James did not believe ihis brother to be the Christ. Nor did Paul for that matter until his Damascus road experience. To say the Gospels aren't reliable despite all the evidence to the contrary, such as confirmation from external sources like Josephus and the different sources used by the disciples in their accounts of what happened, seems to me question begging.
athlete117 2 years ago
So when I say I believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, I am not making a scientific claim about the natural world, I am declaring something I know to be true through the life, death and resurrection of His person. A transcedent truth and so of another sort to the knowledge obtained through scientific observations.
athlete117 2 years ago
@athlete117 Thank you for "clarifying" your position. Let's see if I now understand it. You believe in Jesus Christ because, um, you believe in him.
hairyreasoner 2 years ago
Well, that isn't quite what I said, Hairy, I believe in Jesus christ because there are historical documents, eye witness reports and other such evidence to confirm His miracles, His teachings, and His burial and consequent rise from the Tomb. If you want to claim all of that doesn't count as evidence, or that multiple corrobarative attestations for Him are all the result of a conspiracy theory, one which His followers died for, then that's up to you.
athlete117 2 years ago
@athlete117
Which eyewitness accounts would you be referring to? I haven't heard of those. The Gospels certainly don't fit the bill, having certainly been written much later than the supposed events.
But, do you place the same belief in Mythra, Dionysus and/or Osiris? Or any of the other earlier virgin-born and resurrected heros of ancient folklore?
hairyreasoner 2 years ago
That's incorrect. It is considered a historical fact, for instance, that Christ was buried by Joseph of Arimethea, that the Tomb was discovered empty (otherwise you'd have to explain why the Jews, who'd have every reason to dismiss the idea of a physical resurrection of Jesus, tried to explain away the problem as the disciples having stolen the body), that the witness reports of Christ's appearences, because they are multiply attested in the works of Mark, Luke, John, Matthew, Paul, etc (cont)
athlete117 2 years ago
@athlete117
" It is considered a historical fact, for instance, that Christ was buried by Joseph of Arimethea, that the Tomb was discovered empty "
It is by Christians.
You have ignored my pointing out of the FACT that the gospels were not written until much later than the supposed events. The authors of Mark, Luke and John clearly were working from Matthew, up to a century LATER.
hairyreasoner 2 years ago
We have more historical evidence for Jesus Christ than Julius Ceaser... And yet you want to apply a different standard for historical evidence when it comes to Jesus Christ.
It's not just Christians who consider those events to be historical facts but skeptics of the New testament.
It's wrong to claim the Gospels were assembled long after the events. Mark, Luke and John were not working off the writings of Matthew, since they all don't have the appearence of forgery. (cont)
athlete117 2 years ago
@athlete117
In this you are completely wrong. Even the most ardent bible defenders agree that Mark and Luke were NOT written by eyewitnesses. John was almost certainly written almost a century after the supposed death of the supposed Christ.
hairyreasoner 2 years ago
It's the exclusivity of your reply I am referring to, you make the claim that they all copied from the work of Matthew and this just isn't the case because they all contain the signs of the different sources they used to compile their Gospel accounts.
athlete117 2 years ago
Straight up Bullshit and Apologetic Chicanery sponsored by Christ Inc. hairy..
Unlike the spectral and wafer thin construct of Jesus Christ, we know what Caesar looked like and we have a complete history of his life. In turn General, Orator, Historian, Statesman and Lawgiver. We have words written by Caesar himself and words written by both his friends and his enemies. Artifacts confirm his life and death, as do his successors.
SofaKingLoaded 2 years ago
Caesar established a style of government.. and a calendar.. which endured for centuries.. Portraits and busts created IN HIS OWN LIFETIME..
Caesar was an eyewitness to many of the events he describes in his commentaries. He wrote not for posterity but to have an immediate impact on the power players in Rome as he schemed to advance his own career..
SofaKingLoaded 2 years ago
Contemporary witnesses from Cicero to Virgil, Catullus to Sallust, Nepos, Asinius Pollio and many more.. The Bello Gallico, written a few months and at most just a few years after the wars.. Caesar's words and deeds are fully documented by multiple witnesses..
SofaKingLoaded 2 years ago
Your confirming the existence of Caesar,not refuting the existence of Jesus.
It would be expected that Caesar would be well documented given that he was in power over the masses to the point of having his face on there coins. THE NEW ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA states: These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus "(1976), MACROPÆDIA, VOL. 10, P. 145.
pestmanpat 2 years ago
I'm not attempting to refute the existence of Jesus nor have any interest in doing so.. I'm asserting that the old Apologetic canard of "more historical evidence exist for Jesus than for Caesar.." is boldly mendacious bullshit..
And thanks pat, when I was thinking of artifacts I neglected to mention 'there' coins..
SofaKingLoaded 2 years ago
Re:im asserting that the old Apologetic canard of "more historical evidence exist for Jesus than for Caesar.
Fair enough im just wondering why you would bring that up here.
The discussion between hairy and athlete 117 has Earl assigning Jesus to folklore.Perhaps i missed a comment.
pestmanpat 2 years ago
@athlete117
It is considered a fact but only in the same way that the Micmacs believed the Bay of Fundy was created by a large, pissed off beaver slapping his tail.
hairyreasoner 2 years ago
They didn't believe the Universe would be a randomly conceived thing. I see no reason to think, without the existence of God, that the Universe should be intelligible to us. There's no evolutionary requirement to be able to ponder philosophy or explore the building blocks of the natural world. Lol, that's ridiculous to think that we should acquire these traits by chance, but anyway... I wanted to also say, through the person of Christ, we have an explanation of why? Science doesn't speak to that
athlete117 2 years ago
The first of these major assumptions was that the Universe would be intelligible to us and would operate by sensible laws, or repeated patterns. They believed this because they believed that if their faith in the Christian God was true, He would have designed the Universe in such a way so that we could come to understand it and that He wouldn't play tricks on us by reversing certain established laws like a more mischeivous deity might.
athlete117 2 years ago
I want to pick you up on a few assumptions you make here, Hairy reasoner. First of all, you create the false dichotomy of science vs religion, and I am never surprised when atheists do this. I would like to point out, the foundational basis for all science (no exceptions) rests on religious assumptions. What do I eman by that? Well, because the first practitioners of the scientfific method were deeply religious men (Christians like Newton) they made certain philosophical assumptions (cont)
athlete117 2 years ago
Since it appears that i am the only theist to A watch your videos and B attempt to comment on them and since this is what you have sincerely asked for i will do so.
I completely agree that human knowledge has grown enormously.I would point to the advances in knowledge that have created difficulties for Darwinian mechanisms ie the origin of genetic information and i would like to submit that and a couple more examples by way of a video response.
pestmanpat 2 years ago
Well, the thing on the left is tiny and fits in most peoples heads. That's how ;)
t3nGu666 2 years ago
Excellent point, very simple and direct.
IceFire9yt 2 years ago
Wow the sound is really low on this video. What gives?
act6629 2 years ago
OOh I'm loving it. You are a clever guy my ammigo.
ooglebydoogleby 2 years ago
I have long thought that there is good portion of humanity that has no temporal understanding, no scale of time. They do not have any sense how long 100 or 1000 or 10000 years are and what can be accomplished in that time. They have no sense that knowledge accrues, building upon itself. I taught archaeology years ago and found students who could not fathom temporal analysis or understand relative sequencing. I think people are temporally challenged. My time is up. Cheers.
darbeau1 2 years ago
The most obvious answer to your question that occurs to me is that believers in the bible will claim that the information in the bible was presented by a creature way off the right hand side of your graph - past the asymptote. A being with infinite knowledge. i.e. the Bible is based on knowledge provided by a god, not humans.
Of course, it is also obvious that that is utter bollocks.
thatgaybloke 2 years ago
@thatgaybloke " it is also obvious that that is utter bollocks"
lol
hairyreasoner 2 years ago
You see things I miss Hairy. Nothing is better than a well phrased question. Thanks.
pumkinpi2 2 years ago
Good question :)
Brianswers 2 years ago
The more knowledge we have the more we then have to learn to understand that gained knowledge. Is not true that throughout history. Discovering that watering crops during a drought must have bought forth more questions in the minds of the farmers, Ideas, irrigation plans? The little book of ideas was merely once an instruction manual on life and the world.now highly outdated by individual manuals on everything from housekeeping to astronomy. YES to knowledge and understanding!
oliesbw 2 years ago
Superb hairy.. as we gain more knowledge and understanding of our Universe at large it shows itself to be far more awe inspiring and beautiful than any quaint stories of Creation and Intentionality..
and is under no obligation to be either simple or comforting..
SofaKingLoaded 2 years ago
"Because one book of simple ideas is easier to read than trying to read a bunch of books full of hard to understand ideas."
RyuDarragh 2 years ago
That was excellent!
kalsolarUK 2 years ago
Because 'big' science is difficult to understand by most and childhood indoctrination & peer pressure got in there first.
Good simple questions Hairy, many thanks for your videos & open chat.
vidiviciveni 2 years ago 3
Answer to the end remarks: Because its easier
ItsDaSuperFly 2 years ago
Some would say we're not mature enough to handle the knowledge.
Carl Sagan said something about the genetic baggage that we still carry today may be our undoing. In the past our clannish mistrust and outright hostility towards strangers and our aggressiveness may have served us well in the struggle to survive, but our environment social , cultural, technological is changing so rapidly we may not have time to adapt before those same instincts become our undoing.
Only time will tell.
maxpolaris99 2 years ago
Im heading to Nevada tomorrow. I haven't yet learned enough to stop having fun...
I hate going backwards by the way...
mobiltec 2 years ago
'cause "that" is nice and flat and doesn't change much so it doesn't scare me? This vid's a real 5'r hairy.
ozmoroid 2 years ago 3
I pretend to understand things from time to time. I wish I wouldn't... I wish I didn't do that as I don't have a fucking clue, but it's VERY VERY cool... Hopefully, that fact is true?
RodHullIOnceWasHim 2 years ago
I've been asking myself a lot lately, how grown adults can believe they have an imaginary friend in the sky. I know they take offense to me putting it that way, but honestly, look at all the shit that has gone on in the name of this god. Imagine where we'd be had we not gone through the "Dark Ages".
More people are living better lives than ever before, yet they'd rather sink us back into those times.
tattooskin72 2 years ago
Didn't you know the bible is the most scientific book?
ubergossen 2 years ago
All that knowledge and frozen pizza still sucks. And there's nothing science can do about it!
On a more serious note.. . But what if we add on to that scale all there is that is still unknown? That line would go up for miles and the most knowledgeable person and least knowledgeable person would be in nearly identical positions on it... I guess that's a different topic though..
Well put, Hairy.
Cloudsofdust 2 years ago
Oh how I wish this was mirrored by everyone. So many more people need to see this Hairy! So very concise.
Favourited and 20 stars!
O2BSoLucky 2 years ago
Well that just about says it all. It's so simple a cave man could understand it.
natureboywonder 2 years ago
Answer: Because religion is an addictive narcotic. Next question?
dashxdr 2 years ago 3
No matter what logic one brings to the fountain of discussion, the severely delusional Theist will smile and disconnect their logical neurons from their wooful ones. Like anthonzi said, they want to keep their teddy bear in the sky safe and sound.
saxmanchiro 2 years ago
This is the exact point that Ray Kurzweil raises in "The Age of Spiritual Machines."
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
Righteous (in a good way). :D
philhellenes 2 years ago 2
You know 'HR' I think you might be very correct here. just think where we could go with this!!! Might I also just say perhaps there is a splitting of consciousness within our cultures one tends to veer towards the past for whatever reasons. Some tend to find the observation you cite as perhaps the most magnificent and promising period of history humanity has encountered since its first appearance on the plains of Africa.
TheWisemonkey8 2 years ago
I just wonder how this duality within humanity can continue to exist without real conflict. I think in many ways we are seeing the beginnings fragmentation within humanity due to the very observation you chat about. Cool video Kind and warm regards,
TheWisemonkey8 2 years ago
It's mostly those who doesn't have what you call "This" that says "This" is useless, and rather prefer "That" :)
Censeo 2 years ago
0:20 people will make complex justifications to keep their teddy-bear safe.
anthonzi 2 years ago
Just every eight years? I thought it was at least every ten.
MrKrov 2 years ago
@MrKrov. Today knowledge is doubling every 8 years. It WAS doubling every 10 years but that was last week.
WarmWeatherGuy 2 years ago
1,000D+200Deachforsmallones.
ArtificialCleverenAI 2 years ago