while i was watching this, my mother started playing piano not long before you said "can you hear this?... the piano playing..." my reaction: "hang on, whut" then when you said "the woman playing downstairs..." i think my face may have looked like this: D:
to top it off, my mother also teaches piano :D oh, and she was also playing something that was unmistakeably in the learning stage XD
sorry, not exactly the most intelligent of comments for here, i just enjoyed that :D
Thank you so much for this example and all of your videos. They are truly the best explanations that I have ever found online. Some of us atheists tend to have trouble to answering these types of questions, what with the amount of time that it takes, as well as forming our speeches into a verbal persuasive essay. I tend to show a lot of people your videos. I thank you for all that you have done and I hope that you keep making these videos. Thank you.
I had a christian argue to me that reason and science are not appropriate for discussing the existence of the christian god. He argued that god is experienced and that millions of people over thousands of years have experienced it. He asked me to provide an experience whereby everyone was wrong.
I replied that every day, every human experiences a stationary planet. Yet, the planet rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun. He dismissed the point.
@joethemoproductions That was a brilliant example. You fulfilled his request completely. That very experience of a stationary planet is what allowed so many ideas about being the fixed centre of the universe. Your example holds. And if he dismisses this point, he's just playing goalpost shifting games.
Your video's helped me from a hardcore fundy to now a "born-again atheist" haha. Thank you so much, im privledged To now 'Not' live my life in vain ;)
My experience was one of Unconditional LOVE but I can't say it was God, Jesus or any other religious figure. I never got the impression of deity, just love. Emotional responses? Possibly, All in my head? Could be. However this experience changed me profoundly, simply bc it made me understand we are all ONE. Intellectually, I knew it, but this event cemented it emotionally as well. It made me change how I dealt with others, so imaginary or not, to me it was beneficial.
This man's fairness is selective. For example, he introduces disparaging information(2003 child abuse document) without footnoting/referencing it. The truth is that the document he is referring to has been proven to not be a coverup at all. Instead he offers a piece of (faulty) information as fact.
The religious experience commonly refered to as "a personal relationship with God" is probably nothing but the emotional aspect of intuition and empathy misinterpreted by Christians who can't grasp the idea that behind the emotions there's a subconscious brain process and then relabeled as "the voice of God" or "the flame of God". At least, that's what their descriptions sound like to me.
To me it seems that whenever theists and atheist argue the focus is on proof or lack of proof in gods existences. Is this because of the endless loop of scenarios that would otherwise dominate the discussion?
@Waaghthewonder This wasn't an argument between a theist and an atheist — it was a specific question from someone who later identified himself as an atheist about whether I could be convinced by a private religious experience. The video is an answer to that specific question. If a theist wishes to ask me about other matters, that's up to them.
@TheraminTrees I meant in the discussion in general. I agree with what you said in the video and have no interest to argue to the contrary. Would you agree that people then to avoid talking about hypothetical scenarios like the one we talked about earlier, in fear of risking to get stuck in an neverending loop of "what if"s.
@Waaghthewonder 'Would you agree that people then to avoid talking about hypothetical scenarios like the one we talked about earlier, in fear of risking to get stuck in an neverending loop of "what if"s.'
—No I wouldn't — you don't have to get stuck in a never-ending loop of what-ifs at all, as my exchange with you shows. You can very quickly acknowledge the unproductive nature of infinite what-ifs and move on — as we have.
I been thinking alot about religion and faith reasently. I don't know if I can claim that i dont believe in gods, as I am human and therefor by most religions uncapble of understanding what a god is and how they work.
My question is what if God(any god) has to abid by certain rules, for exemple that he has to convinse humanity without proof or/and he has to tell them that he is allpowerful.
Can we really argue against this premisis? or am i being to "what if?"
@Waaghthewonder 'what if God(any god) has to abid by certain rules, for exemple that he has to convinse humanity without proof or/and he has to tell them that he is allpowerful. Can we really argue against this premisis?'
—So you're proposing a being that has been set some challenge, with externally imposed rules, to deceive humans into believing in another kind of being, which it is not?
@TheraminTrees to some degree. A being that has almost total control over our mortal universe to the point where we can't tell if it is omnipotent or just close to this.
Something along the lines of this senario. We live inside a box and outside to box is a being that has control over what happens in this box. All we would be able to see is that thing happen inside the box, certain patterns might emerge and we might realise that someone is causing these events. so we start to question them. ->
@Waaghthewonder All we see is that someone appears to have full control of the box and the man outside the box tells some people inside the box, that he is omnipotent. All the people inside the box can see is that things happen inside the box and that certain people inside the box say that a omnipotent being outside the box controls everthing we do.
However the reality of the situation is that the man outside the box has to play by certain rules for exemple what I talked about before.
@Waaghthewonder 'However the reality of the situation is that the man outside the box has to play by certain rules'
—And what if it was literally a man — a human, overseeing a virtual reality set-up we were plugged into. What if it was run by machines, whose program was corrupted. What if there are multiple levels of deception — boxes in boxes. We could ask endless what ifs. The problem of deception is fatal — whatever we 'discover' from within the box could be a deliberate deception.
@Waaghthewonder The problem isn't just whether there's a god or not — the question of gods becomes tiny next to the infinity of other what ifs outside such a hypothetical box. That's why I find the focus/preoccupation on the idea of gods such a red herring.
@TheraminTrees Great personality! I think you are a good person, honest, intelligent, witty, articulate and good looking too. Love your vids...especially Instruction Manual for life. It makes my throat ache I feel my eyes will pop out tears uncontrollably. You're too humble to credit Qualia Soup more than he deserves, I love him also. I may be new to youtubing and atheism perhaps but you two are my inspiration to do my assignments. Somebody that I wanna be! Wish well...more vid pls...thanks!
@amayan80east You're very kind, thank you ;8) The credit I give to Qualia is not just for his beautiful contribution to the video, but also the fact that his music was a constant inspiration while I was constructing the animation — kept my momentum sustained the whole way.
It seems that people of a religious persuasion tend to make a logical fallacy quite often. They must conclude something, if they cannot explain something, if there existing explanations fail, if they don't understand, they cannot take it at face value. This comes out in their apologetic.
If evolution is false, if the big bang is rubbish, then god must be real! They are truly wishful ignorant. Sad really.
I came up with a idea after watching lots of this kind of videos.
First I came to conclude that to make an objective conclusion, ppl first consider every posibility (not leaving out 1 detail of reality) then make a conclusion juggling hypothesis' to a most probable solution.
But I concluded that atheists don't take the possibility: 'God is existent, a tyrant, AND righteous' as much as they do other hypothesis. IMO it affects their overall judgement.. I'd be interested in your opinion?
@KiddaDevonHiHi7 'I concluded that atheists don't take the possibility: 'God is existent, a tyrant, AND righteous' as much as they do other hypothesis. IMO it affects their overall judgement.'
—Watch any number of atheist videos on morality and you'll find the irreconcilability of this hypothesis addressed time and again. It's what gets put atheists' way all the time. It isn't dismissed out of hand — it's been deconstructed to death.
its always been my contension that since there are so many holy books the onus should really be on god to come down and say here i am this is what im about. that 1 thing would clear up all the confusion about god. but we continue to fight wars , give children bogus info bout the world, and accept that its good and right to clip a bit of penis from children make women wrap up head to toe, tell sexualy active ppl not to use birth control or condoms that protect from disease.
Actually Theramin, there was nothing mundane about the recording of M.T.'s dingy hallways. Want to know what I mean?
The film. Technology is the miracle that man produces, by the power of his mind, through the means of reason and using the tools of applied reason: scientific disciplines.
While nuclear weaponry is a can of worms I wish had been left closed, whatever the cost, there's no doubt that man has now acquired power that was once the realm of divine influence, and his power is growing.
What's more important to note is that all of that evidence (or pieces of information) combined don't just add up and lead you the idea that it's reasonable to conclude it is the woman and not something else, but that, given the information/evidence, your theory is the MOST reasonable.
This is why natural explanations are superior to supernatural ones. One could postulate that cell phones are powered by invisible fairies, but all the evidence suggests micro-computers and lithium batteries.
I am a christian. I know you used to be, n i agree with u on a lot.
I disagree with the comments here that say the people who disagree with you won't understand you. That's untrue, as you said in another video, one person does not represent all people in a group.
I actually don't believe most of these experiences that people say they have. I have had hallucinations after playing a zombie game when i was unwell. I woke up and saw zombies.
@RenegadeMaster07 [cont.] i tried so hard to keep this to one comment lol
When someone says to me, (another christian or whoever) that God did something, even when they didn't experience anything, I simply say "who are you to tell God what he does or does not do?"
I would prefer some reason/logic/evidence for why firstly they believe something happened supernaturally, and then why it was God.
Public vs private experience: The notion here is that there is no way to get to the Individual except by denying/negating the Universal (public). The subsumation of the particular sense experience under the universal implies the application of categorical thinking (language).
Here the objective/shared view is a view permeated with the general/abstract ("The word is the murder of the thing"). The private experience implies the negation of this general aspect and an affirmation of 'something in me (private) greater than me (public/shared)': the very space of fantasy itself.
The question is whether there is anything revelatory here? And to whom is it revelatory? And how is it that the private nature of this space is also the condition for the possibility of all human experience?
I know that people do convert from one religion to another by persuasion of others. However, regards religious experiences then when will we see a Muslim religious experience in deepest Texas or a Christian experience in deepest Pakistan? It is so easy to explain "what happened" by attributing to the particualr flavour of god that prevails within your own society. The last point on experiences not being public strongly supports this. P.S. We get the same bias with Near Death Experiences.
"what criteria was used to rule out the hallucination explanation in favour of a religious experience explanation. It's completely circular"
U could argue circularity. But Christian religious experience (e.g. being born again, repenting of sin etc) has a set of very defined elements which are outlined specifically in the bible and by the testimonies of converted Christians. That would be your first yardstick.
—Yep, I could, and I continue to do so — because yet again, you have not provided any 'yardsticks' that rule out hallucination. I'm not sure you're hearing me on this, because you're making the same flaw. None of you criteria rules out hallucination, psychotic breaks, suggestion, perceptual conformity, or just plain conformity — all processes that require no supernatural component. A yardstick with no foundation is no yardstick.
Listen, sorry about this, but if you want to keep this discussion going on much longer I'll have to ask that we continue in a few hours. I'm in Australia and it's nearly 4am here and I really need to get to bed. =) It's been great so far. :D
I also don't understand what you mean by arbitrary criteria. Surely if you had two piles, one labelled: Religious Experience Case Studies, and another labelled: Hallucinatory/Psychotic Episode Case Studies, and you looked at what changes they produced in people, this is not arbitrary but methodical?
—"I also don't understand what you mean by arbitrary criteria. ...."
—And how were these two piles originally formed — what criteria was used to rule out the hallucination explanation in favour of a religious experience explanation. It's completely circular: you impose arbitrary criteria that religious experiences leave positive changes, then take all experiences leaving these positive changes as religious. You have at no point in fact ruled out hallucination.
I'm happy for the person you know. Don't get me wrong; I'm not claiming to have all the answers. What I'm saying is, if you're really interested in factual evidence, you would want to weigh up ALL the hallucinatory vs. religious experiences you could find compare them to each other in terms of positive results in the cases concerned. It would be a big job & U would probably not be convinced anyway if U were only after 100% hard evidence. That's why I think personal experience is more powerful.
Well, you make it sound like it's completely in the hands of probability but I would rather argue that in this case one would turn to evidence in the form of case studies. You would try to identify if anyone's life/moods/behaviour in history have been substantially improved after a hallucinatory or psychotic experience versus a religious experience, you enquire HOW those experiences changed them, and you consider the merit of each type of experience based on the results.
That's unworkable — the criteria you're suggesting is totally arbitrary. You have not ruled out hallucination or psychotic break at all, merely by asserting they cannot lead to the positive changes you describe. On what evidence do you base this assertion? To the contrary, I know of someone who had hallucinations which inspired a new lease of life and confidence.
Of course. And since I've had hallucinations before, this would be easy. But apart from the actual experience itself, I would place greater weight on my actions AFTER such an event. A hallucination or psychotic episode of itself is evidence of something going wrong in the body and can't be expected to lead to any improvement in one's life or relations with others.
You say: "A hallucination or psychotic episode of itself is evidence of something going wrong in the body and can't be expected to lead to any improvement in one's life or relations with others."
—But neither can it be expected to *not* lead to improvement. Do you see how arbitrary and unsubstantiated it is to claim that improvement in life after a 'vision' supports a supernatural rather than hallucinatory explanation?
No, I wouldn't believe only on what other people tell me, I would have to experience it for myself in a way that would leave absolutely no room for doubt.
Well, for example, consider the case of the gospels. We have 4 men who each write their own account of a man who they claim rose from the dead. After investigating his tomb it is found empty. No body is ever found. Eyewitnesses say they saw him alive. His disciples, from being completely demoralised at his crucifixion, suddenly change & gain great courage & stamina to spread his message & in the end are prepared to & do actually die for their beliefs. Would U consider this valid data? Why/not?
Let me ask you — would you accept as valid four men from an audience who testify that a spiritualist correctly identified someone's home address? Would you be further convinced by other members of the audience being inspired to believe? If you did accept that as valid, you were just successfully swindled by Peter Popoff. What people believe isn't evidence of something — people believed the world was flat. Evidence is objectively measurable.
You tell me — what verifiable evidence can you propose for the kind of experience you have in mind. If nothing verifiable can be proposed, then by what means do we hope to begin to filter out 'false' claims from 'true'. That's the point — if we have nothing we can objectively assess, we can never get past 'could be's — and there is an infinity of 'could be's.
Ok, I didn't realise you meant statistics like numeric information gotten off graphs or whatever. My mistake. =) I hadn't realised how deep your scepticism goes. So basically ur saying that no matter what type of paranormal or supernatural or religious experience you had, you would reason about it in terms of psychic states or something going awry in your own body? You wouldn't even consider God as an explanation? Is that right?
No I didn't just mean 'statistics like numerical information gotten off graphs or whatever' I meant physically measurable phenomena.
"So basically you're saying ...."
—No. I'm not saying that at all. As I wrote previously: I would think there are a number of explanations for I'd just experienced, many of which require no supernatural entities whatsoever — hallucinations, psychotic breaks, etc. Without data, none of them is confirmable.
.. bc it's an outstanding experience she's never had b4 & bc of its unique nature, she's sure she would have recognised 1 if she HAD had it. So religious experience, while not being defined by testimonies alone (everyone's experience is different in some way), is supported by other people's experiences. It would be the same if 10 ppl all living on different continents all claimed to have seen a UFO in a very similar way. You would stop to wonder if they were justified.
"You would stop to wonder if they were justified."
—Stopping to wonder if they are justified is fine — it clearly requires further investigation and the gathering of data to support such testimony. But merely believing them without such evidence is not fine.
5:50 You claim when dealing with a religious experience there is no data... Well, there is. The Bible, books by people who've had religious experiences and people's testimonies are all data. They are used to help someone define a religious experience, quite aside from whether you choose to believe what they say or not. E.g. Many women can describe an orgasm to a woman but when she finally has 1, she'll know it 4sure: 1. Bc it accords with friends' testimonies. 2. It's an outstanding experience..
No data are facts and statistics. We do not have these kinds of information about gods. We may have statistics about how many people claim to have seen gods — we also may have statistics about people who claim to be psychic, and are then proved to be frauds. We do not have facts and statistics about gods. The difference between gods and orgasm? We have data — corroborative physical measures of biological arousal.
I have a question relating to what you request at 0:35. "What constitutes a personal religious experience?" Can I suggest something? If one night while preparing for bed you happened to turn around & suddenly see behind U the figure of a man emanating the brightest of bright light, who was levitating off the floor & spoke with a voice like thunder & who claimed to be Jesus, the Son of God, & then proceeded to tell U everything you'd ever done which no-one but U could know.... What would U think?
I would think there are a number of explanations for I'd just experienced, many of which require no supernatural entities whatsoever — hallucinations, psychotic breaks, etc.
An numinous experience is akin to a kick in a the arse. When it happens there is no need to guess.The Buddhist call it enlightenment but they cant describe it so my saying its a kick in the arse would be incorrect. It is the sweetest gift, oops there I go again descibing it.
also one of them thought that when they had a thought the church, god or whoever thought was wrong she would spill coffey, trip, etc. when one day i asked her, "could you simply be clumsy?" i was almost expelled for that simple 5 letter question.
your videos are filled with wit, humor and more thought provoking questions. i never really had a religion even at a catholic school. i thought of converting but a few things puzzled me Hell, prayer and evidence of God. seeing many hardcore theists at that time showed me how people must conclude and can never leave it alone and take everything as an answer to prayer.
I groaned aloud when you said that it was a 'kodak moment'.
To the leaving a question open, I myself feel just fine to leave a question open and unsolved... to admit that I do not in fact know everything, and don't need to rationalize somethi... wait... you're saying what I'm saying now...
well then.
Shows me for starting to write before the end.
Well then...
Anyways, My other point was that a large majority of people that I have met do NOT feel comfortable doing the same...
Mm, like getting in the spirit on a nude beach, 'I don't know' can prompt some trepidation in prospect for some — but can feel so liberating when one follows through.
The problem with such Amazing and Effective reasoning as yours is that It Tends To Get Very WORDY.... which is exactly the factor that has it NOT REGISTER in the minds of the very people its targeted to. The people that actually WILL listen and FULLY AND GET IT, and savor every point, are people like myself - Ones That Were Already In Agreement with the arguments presented, prior to hearing them.
Its missing the whole point all together. I say this with regret, as You Really Are Brilliant!
Thanks for your comment SIRUS80. This video was targeted specifically at one DavidlyMe, a christian at the time who asked the question that I'm answering here. A few months later he told me that my videos voiced something inside him, and he found himself in an atheist stance. Though it wasn't my intention to convert him or anyone — and I don't think I did — I do get considerable real-life case feedback from theists that my work hits home with them. All the best.
That's great news man. I do hope that it is in fact as you describe (about theists etc..) Its just that I find responses such as made here by davlupi, for instance, to be the most COMMON in real life situations. Responses to which I say: "Dear responder, could you please briefly / accurately RESTATE the main POINTS being made in this video"?
I'm afraid most theists cant do that. It just takes too much of a REAL LISTENING. If they got the points they would seize putting forward absurd arguments
Agreed. The problem is that the people TheraminTrees is speaking to generally won't understand the "big words". I think it's a neurological thing that people who fall for religious thinking are generally less intellectual and more intuitive, and that goes for any supernatural nonsense, like New-Age-ism or psychics.
People like that find science cumbersome and inaccessible because it's too complicated. Therefore, to them, it can't be true because they can't understand it.
Yes, agreed on the neuro thing of intellectual VS intuitive new-age etc.. That's how these people really are.
Raises serious serious hierarchical questions tho. I, in all honesty, can not help but see myself but infinitely superior to them. Because see, I don't think its Apples and Oranges we're dealing with - like the great intellectuals VS the great Intuitives. They have given up (or wired not to have) the ONE AND ONLY faculty that separates us from other primates - the FACULTY OF REASON!
It would be interesting to study brain hemisphere dominance in devout people/atheists, or perhaps brain chemistry. If you think about it, the devout and non-believers have been selectively breeding for those attitudes for quite some time.
@SIRUS80 I understand your point here and I can see why this would be the assumption. Keep in mind though that it is a rarity that one who"believes" ever even looks at a video such as this. Due specifically to the fact that they have been taught NOT to do so. Hopefully if they are viewing it they have the support of their friend, of reason and the capacity to comprehend such a lengthy explanation. To teach one in understanding complexity using simplicity leaves a complex misunderstanding.
@SIRUS80 I think that's a bit over the top to say that the only ones who can completely understand Theramin's points are those who already agree with them. Why does one need to agree with a point to understand it? If you're saying his target audience simply lacks the intellectual capacity to understand then I'm afraid that's simply the nature of the game; some people get it, some people don't. Going as far as to say NONE of his target audience gets it, however, is a bit ludicrous.
@Hankatu People who this is being preached to are, for the most part, too emotionally invested in their world view to allow revision. There is nothing even remotely half-ludicrous in pointing this out. I'll check out that video u mentioned, right now.
@SIRUS80 I'd also like to say that I just had a glance at your channel, and that you definitely have good taste in videos, as seen by various C. Hitchens videos in your favourites. Something I forgot to mention previously, however, is that TheraminTrees already made a video addressing a similar point which you made. I believe he called it "Preaching to the Converted", but I'm not sure. I advise you have a glance if you haven't already.
@SIRUS80 This sort of video(or any of his) aren't necessary for "converting" people. It's for sharing his views and knowledge. There are those that disagree with it and they will either challenge it or just move on not understanding it. Then there are those that see the same views/truths, and they will use it to bolster their confidence in standing by logic(knowing they're not alone).
They are personal private exchanges because they are only given to those that humbly seek Christ. Only discount them if you have humbly seeked Christ yourself. If you have, then lets talk about that. But please don't think that making your videos is humbly seeking God... Its not..
Are you open to exploring the way others have come to believe in God?
Great — so I can discount them — because I have humbly sought Christ. Oh and where did I suggest I thought making my videos was 'humbly seeking Christ' — what an bizarre suggestion ....
Some athiests claim that they have seeked God and yet nothing happened. My question to them is "Can you honestly convince yourself that you humbly seeked God with all your heart?" In what ways did you seek God, and it turns out that their conception of seeking God is very different from those who seeked and found God. In one of your videos, you state that if God would just reveal Himself to all the World, then you would believe. What if He will reveal Himself to you alone, what about then?
You can take it that I've done all the other stuff already — the humbly seeking. The stuff I talk about now — eg what you mention about gods revealing themselves — is coming from a more critical discussion about the absurdity of a god asking for belief and giving no evidence.
You're right. They are personal, private exchanges. It's people, talking to themselves and convincing themselves that the voice that's talking back is something independent of themselves. The easiest way to get anyone to do anything is to convince them into thinking they're really not just convincing themselves but that it's some supernatural, external force that's intervening. The truth is that religion provides an answer that people WANT to believe is true, so they do.
I've watched about 3 of your videos, and I am amazed at how you can make your arguments with such precision and leave what seems like no room left to argue, yet at the same time leaving space to wonder about the flip side. Unlike most, I love how you are never attacking anyone, whether it's with extreme language or ad hominems. In a town dominated by Catholic religion you have inspired me to really research all that I can to solidify any arguments I may need to defend my position on religion.
Thanks sunbryce. I think the volatile emotional reactions around subjects like religion are — unfortunately sometimes effective — distractions from the substance of the debate. Like stirring up sand in the water so that no one can see anything. Of course it's often very important to some people that that happens — because if the sand was to settle, and the water became clear, we'd see they have no arguments at all. And I think people find that much more threatening than insults.
couldnt you say that religious conclusions as you call them, can in fact also be religious belief. I think you would find that there are many religious people who do not believe based on factual information. As i have said in the past, religion is often times an attempt to give the unknown something to identify with. After all, the 'big bearded guy in the clouds' is alot more comforting than no explanation at all. Dont you agree?
Some find the concept of an afterlife in whatever form, etc., comforting — some don't. I don't. It's obvious to anyone who's had any debating experience in this field that some religious people don't have an interest in facts — in many cases their very definition of the word 'fact' simply means an opinion they hold strongly. Some even seem to see 'facts' as a challenge to their faith.
what is a 'fact' where two people stand in two completely different paradigms? even the notion of what a 'fact' is is, at base, disputed here, due to the notions of the real and how it retains or changes its integrity. theists say it depends the whims of their god(s). atheists are convinced there's a reliable set of natural principles at work which we might discover and use to our advantage. where is a 'fact' that both of them can agree on? aren't you merely speaking from within your own bias?
The problem with that line of argument is that you quickly find that those in the religious 'paradigm' quickly cross over to the scientific 'paradigm' when it comes to any other matters. Whilst decrying science as arbitrary and 'just theories', they enjoy the real fruits of it: technology that *works*. If I was to claim to be the second coming, they would want .... evidence. Verification. So no. This isn't merely a case of 'perspective'.
you posit in this video the question of world or global God expressions (in which everyone might be exposed to, and know that a phenomenon was the result of something you don't define as, 'God') and personal religious/spiritual experiences. this is an excellent beginning point for the construction of 'theories about Gods'. with this evidence behind one, it is most rational to begin by a consideration that Gods are interior phenomena, then set out to see if there is any overlap amongst these.
Even if I had a private religious experience, I wouldn't say... convert to Christianity (because I've thoroughly examined the bible and find it a book of brutal bronze age nonsense of the worst sort.) And other religions I've studied in depth get much the same from me, make no mistake.
If I had such a stunning experience I'd have to conclude there was a god, I wouldn't identify said god with the wacky anthropomorphic deities of any of earths religions.
After having watched several videos, I've come to a few conclusions. First of all, it's very refreshing to come across someone who is able to present a counter-argument of a religious nature and not only refrain from ad hominem attacks but also allow for the possibility that he or she might be wrong. Second, I'm quite enamored of your attention towards linguistic precision. Just out of curiosity, have you spent any time studying, the Confessions of St. Augustine, or anything of that nature?
Thank you lissablair. Your comment made me feel I'd been deeply heard/perceived — not 'skimmed' as I often feel. I find a great sense of liberty in I-don't-knows. In my early years, I probably succumbed, to an extent, to a distorted protectiveness aroused by 'attacks' like: 'Science doesn't know everything!!!'. But coming to realise there's in fact no attack there — science never claimed to — my defensiveness relaxed. I googled the Confessions you mentioned — sounds like a juicy read!
the one i usually hear is "Science cannot explain everything!" or "Science cannot explain *this*! I am now convinced that anyone who says this doesn't understand Scientific methodologies one whit. whether it is valuable to continue debate or conversation with them thereafter seems to vary considerably.
Some statements/assertions indicate that so much basic groundwork is missing, the fruitfulness of continuing seems doubtful. When a fingers-in-ears attitude is demonstrated on top of that ignorance, that really seals it. By the way, that seems one job of work getting through so many of my videos in one day — and I think you've broken a record for number of comments left.
yes, the recent Comfort & Thunderf00t chatvids may be an example. I sometimes intrigue my listener with semblances of their paradigm for spice. :) you were one of a batch i covered in that day or two. I also watched all of QualiaSoup and the whole of the aforementioned Tf/Comfort discussion and its aftermath reflections and video responses. when a source inspires me i like to absorb and engage it as completely as i am able within the context of expression. I like your output very much. thanks.
Thank you. The Thunderf00t/Comfort exchange further supported previous perceptions of Comfort — specifically his inability/refusal to listen, and his propensity to throw irrelevant and emotionally provocative statements in to take a dangerously rational/productive line of thought off course. I'm astounded 'OK there's such a thing as speciation' passed his lips. I'm tempted to upload that sound bite on a 10 minute loop, but we elevate creationist ignoramuses too much on YouTube already.
What a great video, I considered myself to be christian until
a few months ago when things to do with religion stopped making sense to me. Since then I've been so stressed out about the whole thing, trying to find out why we're here etc, I wish I could just forget about it and get on with life but its always at the back of my mind. Afterlife or not, I'm just going to try and live my life how I think is morally right from now on and try and live it to the full.
Your message takes me back to my own break from religion when I was a boy, and how weird/exotic it felt initially, to have no explicit 'system' of how to live. Ultimately it freed me to be myself in a way I'd never been before — asking so many more important questions, feeling uncensored, and becoming comfortable that I was OK — not some doomed unworthy sinner. I wish you well in your own personal transition ;8)
I like your video. I leraned a alot from it. It is everyone's right to beleive in God's existence or not. In fact, Ibrahim had this doubt as well, but ,as usual, the truth can't be seen or heared. like the radiation form your body.
All right, I'll accept that miracles are a class of religious experience. I did not know that they were classed as such, but come to think of it they probably are by most people.
I want to make a video but I have never made one before. i am now teaching myself to use powerpoint (starting 10 minutes ago). I will make one eventually but it might take a while, and don't expect very high quality (I'm not an artist like you or Qualia Soup).
Oh and while I'm at it, I'm not sure who you're talking to, saying a miracle and a spiritual experience are not the same thing — I haven't come across anyone who said they were.
You elaborated on the problematic-ness of private religious experiences by describing how miracles can often be explained away (as a Kodak moment, for example). This implies that miracles are private religious experiences, otherwise this example would be irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Miracles are a class of religious experience. The point is though I never said anywhere that spiritual experiences and miracles were the same thing — you made that inference completely by yourself, then corrected me as if I'd said it. I consider myself to have spiritual experiences — which I experience as a sense of oneness, for instance with nature, when I watch the sea. I don't call that a miracle.
But put all this stuff in your video to me — I'll address it all.
They always ask about the "personal private" events because thats all they ever can experience or share.
These events must necessarily begin when a person is already on the verge of an emotional and psychological event anyway. Watch them, they will always say "You have to ask god into your heart".
When the "asking" fails, they will try to say "you didn't try hard enough".... to... what, induce a hallucination?
For any religious person that actually and honestly shares a reason why they are religious, many of the examples I get are the "warm fuzzy feelings" of their "god".
All they ever boil down to is an emotional feeling resulting from a psychological event, usually after a traumatic time.
Furthermore, most of them seem to have little or no familiarity with the arguments against religion, and seem to also pretty much believe anyway.
Pointing out how the personal event fails to inspire anyone, they get angry and hostile for some pretty obvious reasons.
Like you touched on, TheraminTrees, they will see/hear/feel/etc something and jump to conclusions based on their preconceptions and desires, forcing it to become something they really want to find: a reason.
Examining those "reasons" carefully, like surviving an accident or the "warm fuzzy feelings" is taboo because it will show they are only fooling themselves.
hi theramin, i just wanted to say i find your videos very interesting and very informative...im currently learning about TA in a humanistic counselling course....i like the way you begin your videos your very relaxed and laid back and have a very calm soothing voice....which i must say adds to the pleasue of watching and learning!
All very well and good, but to frustrate your viewership with the top of a pink box on your t-shirt, and yet make no attempt to reach out to the pink box curious is, well... how can you live with yourself, man!?
I wish I could claim the adios was intentional — but I have to be honest, it was just me offering what little Spanish I knew in exchange for CuanMarce's lovely English! ;8)
...And I very much enjoy your way of thinking. It's very clear and easy to follow. Although it does seem a little as if you're trying to convince others, which is clearly not your intention as it's the one thing you keep on stating you really don't like. Not that it's bad either, I already share your ideas and I'm glad to do so.
I would very much like to see the video of the Muggeridge story you're talking about. Unfortunately the link you posted as an answer below to another comment is no longer working. Do you happen to know another one?
Oh is the link gone now? THat's a damn shame. It was a fantastic exposé of the inane genesis of a miracle myth. Unfortunately I can't see any other copies up there ....
Well, immediately after I wrote that I regretted it. I don't usually say things that show such a strong glimpse into my insecurities. I'm sorry to anyone I offended. I really do enjoy your videos, though. There are two kinds of videos on Youtube: TheraminTrees/Qualiasoup, and everything else. =)
I mean happy in the sense of being content/satisfied rather than the more emotional sense. But 'don't mind' would be an equally apt description. That beeping is the camera's mechanism — annoyingly placed next to the sensitive microphone. I use a different camera now! ;8)
Btw, that was a hilarious quote from eddygoombah on your channel page:
—'Debating with a creationist is a lot like playing chess with a pigeon. He'll knock down a few pieces, crap on the table, and then fly home to boast to his friends about his victory.'
...so, when they got back to LOndon, they found that this dark room was bathed in light!!! That was the whole point. Advanced film or not, had there not been this beautiful, healing light, it wouldn't have shown up on film. Jesus said, I am the light of the world...poor man, that made this sad video, is spiritually blind, and I pray God will touch his lovely soul. He's a darling man, who is clearly seeking...
LOL Oh I suggest you save your 'poor, poor man' comments until you hear it from the actual photographer's lips HIMSELF. It can be seen at:
watch?v=VQejG7-sGk4
It'll then be clear that YOU'RE the one with his facts all wrong. See, I don't rely on hearsay — I do my research. I'll be *fascinated* to hear your reaction on learning that my retelling of the Muggeridge story was actually the accurate one here — especially considering the high-handed tone you've taken in supposedly 'correcting' me.
haha...I suppose I did sound condescending, though I didn't mean it as such. Actually, as Christ said to His disciples, how fortunate they were to actually see him and know what was truth...we only have our faith,in the seen and unseen and to be honest, such stories as Malcom Muggeridge's really shouldn't be relevant to a person's faith.
Hahaha — Oh yes, let's just laugh about all those mean-spirited misjudgements you just made about me — "poor, poor man", "sad", "spiritually bilnd".
Interesting. The Mugg. story was first VERY relevant to you — enough in fact for you take issue with me on it. But now the facts are clearer, you suggest it's 'irrelevant'.
Notice how both times — insulting me and 'correcting' me on Mugg. — you gloss over your misjudgements. Ha! An appropriate apology on YouTube?? Now that WOULD be a miracle LOL
You poor, poor man...yes, the film was "light sensitive" but the film was made in a very dark, dingy room. Muggeridge told the photographer, who did not want to film because he said 'it's just too dark!" to film it anyway, because, though the rooom was terribly dark, he wanted to catch at least the mood of the dying...
"I am very happy simply to say 'I don't know what happened'" sums it up for me too. Though, I've arrived at the same summary without having been able to articulate the path anywhere near as succinctly as you have.
Reaching conclusions before the end of something is the domain of the ignorant and egotistical. None of us will have irrefutable proof of God's existence or of everlasting life until the day that this physical life is over for us.
Theramintrees it's clear to anyone with ears that your video is AGAINST reaching premature conclusions. If anyone misunderstands that they just haven't listened. I was going to suggest that maybe your video was too subtle or complicated for some people to grasp but reviewing it it is neither of those things. If people have misunderstood you they must have wanted to. I actually find you one of the most "christian" atheists on here - hope you're not offended!!! :)
Hey EasyOldTimes — 'Christ' seemed to have lots going for him, from what I see — a lot of qualities worth cultivating. Lots of Christians seem to agree — but apparently not all. Some Christians seem to be following someone else — someone judgemental, belittling, smug, condemning, stereotyping, bent on misinterpreting those they don't immediately understand, and unapologetic when they get people all wrong. Compared to that, I'm happy to be thought of as 'christian'. ;8)
"None of us will have irrefutable proof of God's existence or of everlasting life until the day that this physical life is over for us."
How do you know He won't present himself in some way like it's believed He did through Jesus? Do you know God's plan? Apparently you've just reached a CONCLUSION before the end of something - which, by your reasoning, makes you ignorant and egotistical. Peace.
Hi Trees. Interested to know what 'important' differences (other than my arrogant dogmatism?) you mean and your use of the past tense ('....when we had') and what similar positions we 'had' (and by implication, don't have now?). Do you see our respective stances as different? Are you agnostic or atheist? I'm a sceptical Christian (brain says one thing and heart/indoctrination says another -- still settling if I can to a permanent position). Bernard-Herrmanning? Is that the name he's using?
The past tense refers to your past tense comment 'Yes, that was my position for a long time' — which suggested you had a similar position to me, which has since changed. Feel free to clarify if you feel I've misunderstood that.
I'm atheist and agnostic — the two refer to different questions: what ones believes/doesn't believe, and what is knowable.
Some of Davidly's cello strains evoked Bernard Herrmann — his score on Psycho in particular.
to such a high degree that it is close to being certain. I'm so convinced of some things (and equally excited to be proven wrong) that I'm now happy to say, 'it isn't so' rather than 'I don't believe' or 'show me the evidence' or even unlikelier for me, 'I just don't know'. Not a correct sceptical response and quite closed minded ironically, but I'm fed up with my efforts, people's excuses and I'm very much only human. Are you a musician? David is btw.
Scepticchristian, I hear the frustrations you're talking about — I sometimes get irked about that stuff too — and I appreciate your conveying the background behind your own position. I'm sure there must've also been important differences between us even when we had superficially similar positions. Differences that led us to our respective current stances. Yes I'm a musician, and I've heard Davidly Bernard-Herrmanning on his cello. Wonderful expressive instrument.
Yes, that was my position for a long time and there are things I'm sceptical about but genuinely interested in, love discussing and would love to be true/proven. I've done investigative work, been personally involved and had (so called) 'evidence' presented to me countless times (especially regarding healings) and the outcome is always the same. Whilst the next evidence could be proof, experience, statistics and the laws of nature tell me otherwise...
You refer to experiences YOU may have rather than others; ok.
I wonder if these personal religious experiences are god cleverly communicating proof individually but deliberately without leaving traces for others. Maybe we all get one per lifetime.
What's the difference between, 'I don't know' and 'show me the evidence'. The first seems genuine, the second, disbelieving but superficially nice enough to be presented with confirmation.
Incidentally, are you familiar with the books I mentioned?
Yes Scepticchristian, familiar with the books you mentioned — and own a couple.
I really depart with you over 'show me the evidence' seeming 'disbelieving but superficially nice enough to be presented with confirmation'. For me that feels a very judgemental and cynical interpretation. I don't feel I'm being 'disbelieving but superficially nice' in asking for evidence. I feel interested and curious in what people present.
while i was watching this, my mother started playing piano not long before you said "can you hear this?... the piano playing..." my reaction: "hang on, whut" then when you said "the woman playing downstairs..." i think my face may have looked like this: D:
to top it off, my mother also teaches piano :D oh, and she was also playing something that was unmistakeably in the learning stage XD
sorry, not exactly the most intelligent of comments for here, i just enjoyed that :D
sKRAPtheRIpPER 3 weeks ago
Thank you so much for this example and all of your videos. They are truly the best explanations that I have ever found online. Some of us atheists tend to have trouble to answering these types of questions, what with the amount of time that it takes, as well as forming our speeches into a verbal persuasive essay. I tend to show a lot of people your videos. I thank you for all that you have done and I hope that you keep making these videos. Thank you.
Jacksnackify 3 months ago
@Jacksnackify Thanks. There's often a lot to unpack in questions put to atheists. It was a pleasure to have something genuine from DavidlyMe.
TheraminTrees 3 months ago
"Why are we forced to believe in his absence rather than know of his existence?"
Words of wisdom.
LoverElephant97 4 months ago
Comment removed
CJones990 5 months ago
I like your videos, very rational.
I had a christian argue to me that reason and science are not appropriate for discussing the existence of the christian god. He argued that god is experienced and that millions of people over thousands of years have experienced it. He asked me to provide an experience whereby everyone was wrong.
I replied that every day, every human experiences a stationary planet. Yet, the planet rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun. He dismissed the point.
joethemoproductions 7 months ago 4
@joethemoproductions That was a brilliant example. You fulfilled his request completely. That very experience of a stationary planet is what allowed so many ideas about being the fixed centre of the universe. Your example holds. And if he dismisses this point, he's just playing goalpost shifting games.
TheraminTrees 7 months ago 3
@TheraminTrees
Thanks Theramin.
Hope you enjoyed those links I sent you.
Looking forward to your next video.
Cheers,
Joe
joethemoproductions 7 months ago
Your video's helped me from a hardcore fundy to now a "born-again atheist" haha. Thank you so much, im privledged To now 'Not' live my life in vain ;)
buktomsin 7 months ago
My experience was one of Unconditional LOVE but I can't say it was God, Jesus or any other religious figure. I never got the impression of deity, just love. Emotional responses? Possibly, All in my head? Could be. However this experience changed me profoundly, simply bc it made me understand we are all ONE. Intellectually, I knew it, but this event cemented it emotionally as well. It made me change how I dealt with others, so imaginary or not, to me it was beneficial.
Tonithenightowl 7 months ago
shucks, I thought this was going to be about gnosis. how lame.
KGAirsoft 8 months ago
This man's fairness is selective. For example, he introduces disparaging information(2003 child abuse document) without footnoting/referencing it. The truth is that the document he is referring to has been proven to not be a coverup at all. Instead he offers a piece of (faulty) information as fact.
loveyourenemys 11 months ago
The religious experience commonly refered to as "a personal relationship with God" is probably nothing but the emotional aspect of intuition and empathy misinterpreted by Christians who can't grasp the idea that behind the emotions there's a subconscious brain process and then relabeled as "the voice of God" or "the flame of God". At least, that's what their descriptions sound like to me.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
To me it seems that whenever theists and atheist argue the focus is on proof or lack of proof in gods existences. Is this because of the endless loop of scenarios that would otherwise dominate the discussion?
Waaghthewonder 1 year ago
@Waaghthewonder This wasn't an argument between a theist and an atheist — it was a specific question from someone who later identified himself as an atheist about whether I could be convinced by a private religious experience. The video is an answer to that specific question. If a theist wishes to ask me about other matters, that's up to them.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
@TheraminTrees I meant in the discussion in general. I agree with what you said in the video and have no interest to argue to the contrary. Would you agree that people then to avoid talking about hypothetical scenarios like the one we talked about earlier, in fear of risking to get stuck in an neverending loop of "what if"s.
Waaghthewonder 1 year ago
@Waaghthewonder 'Would you agree that people then to avoid talking about hypothetical scenarios like the one we talked about earlier, in fear of risking to get stuck in an neverending loop of "what if"s.'
—No I wouldn't — you don't have to get stuck in a never-ending loop of what-ifs at all, as my exchange with you shows. You can very quickly acknowledge the unproductive nature of infinite what-ifs and move on — as we have.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
I been thinking alot about religion and faith reasently. I don't know if I can claim that i dont believe in gods, as I am human and therefor by most religions uncapble of understanding what a god is and how they work.
My question is what if God(any god) has to abid by certain rules, for exemple that he has to convinse humanity without proof or/and he has to tell them that he is allpowerful.
Can we really argue against this premisis? or am i being to "what if?"
Waaghthewonder 1 year ago
@Waaghthewonder 'what if God(any god) has to abid by certain rules, for exemple that he has to convinse humanity without proof or/and he has to tell them that he is allpowerful. Can we really argue against this premisis?'
—So you're proposing a being that has been set some challenge, with externally imposed rules, to deceive humans into believing in another kind of being, which it is not?
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
@TheraminTrees to some degree. A being that has almost total control over our mortal universe to the point where we can't tell if it is omnipotent or just close to this.
Something along the lines of this senario. We live inside a box and outside to box is a being that has control over what happens in this box. All we would be able to see is that thing happen inside the box, certain patterns might emerge and we might realise that someone is causing these events. so we start to question them. ->
Waaghthewonder 1 year ago
@Waaghthewonder All we see is that someone appears to have full control of the box and the man outside the box tells some people inside the box, that he is omnipotent. All the people inside the box can see is that things happen inside the box and that certain people inside the box say that a omnipotent being outside the box controls everthing we do.
However the reality of the situation is that the man outside the box has to play by certain rules for exemple what I talked about before.
Waaghthewonder 1 year ago
@Waaghthewonder 'However the reality of the situation is that the man outside the box has to play by certain rules'
—And what if it was literally a man — a human, overseeing a virtual reality set-up we were plugged into. What if it was run by machines, whose program was corrupted. What if there are multiple levels of deception — boxes in boxes. We could ask endless what ifs. The problem of deception is fatal — whatever we 'discover' from within the box could be a deliberate deception.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
@TheraminTrees that's the problem for me. I'm inside the box and therefor i can't say if there is a god or not
Waaghthewonder 1 year ago
@Waaghthewonder The problem isn't just whether there's a god or not — the question of gods becomes tiny next to the infinity of other what ifs outside such a hypothetical box. That's why I find the focus/preoccupation on the idea of gods such a red herring.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
Another aspect of religious experience, a dangerous one in fundy circles, is to insist on not questioning the experience:
watch?v=zahFKGVpQGg
zarkoff45 1 year ago
If you want to believe you had a religious experience it would be hard to convince the rest of the world without some evidence other than talk.
spareaxe 1 year ago
Comment removed
amayan80east 1 year ago
Love you, Theramin trees!
amayan80east 1 year ago
@amayan80east Why, thank you!
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
@TheraminTrees Great personality! I think you are a good person, honest, intelligent, witty, articulate and good looking too. Love your vids...especially Instruction Manual for life. It makes my throat ache I feel my eyes will pop out tears uncontrollably. You're too humble to credit Qualia Soup more than he deserves, I love him also. I may be new to youtubing and atheism perhaps but you two are my inspiration to do my assignments. Somebody that I wanna be! Wish well...more vid pls...thanks!
amayan80east 1 year ago
@amayan80east You're very kind, thank you ;8) The credit I give to Qualia is not just for his beautiful contribution to the video, but also the fact that his music was a constant inspiration while I was constructing the animation — kept my momentum sustained the whole way.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
Splendid "sound" reasoning.
OldSchoolSkill 1 year ago
It seems that people of a religious persuasion tend to make a logical fallacy quite often. They must conclude something, if they cannot explain something, if there existing explanations fail, if they don't understand, they cannot take it at face value. This comes out in their apologetic.
If evolution is false, if the big bang is rubbish, then god must be real! They are truly wishful ignorant. Sad really.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
I came up with a idea after watching lots of this kind of videos.
First I came to conclude that to make an objective conclusion, ppl first consider every posibility (not leaving out 1 detail of reality) then make a conclusion juggling hypothesis' to a most probable solution.
But I concluded that atheists don't take the possibility: 'God is existent, a tyrant, AND righteous' as much as they do other hypothesis. IMO it affects their overall judgement.. I'd be interested in your opinion?
KiddaDevonHiHi7 1 year ago
@KiddaDevonHiHi7 'I concluded that atheists don't take the possibility: 'God is existent, a tyrant, AND righteous' as much as they do other hypothesis. IMO it affects their overall judgement.'
—Watch any number of atheist videos on morality and you'll find the irreconcilability of this hypothesis addressed time and again. It's what gets put atheists' way all the time. It isn't dismissed out of hand — it's been deconstructed to death.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago 5
its always been my contension that since there are so many holy books the onus should really be on god to come down and say here i am this is what im about. that 1 thing would clear up all the confusion about god. but we continue to fight wars , give children bogus info bout the world, and accept that its good and right to clip a bit of penis from children make women wrap up head to toe, tell sexualy active ppl not to use birth control or condoms that protect from disease.
adzug 1 year ago
blegh so boring imagine if every one was like this that would terrible
ajomez 1 year ago
What a wonderfully delightful neighbor! Such skilled piano from downstairs!
Though, it would be annoying when trying to sleep :/
11889music 1 year ago
Actually Theramin, there was nothing mundane about the recording of M.T.'s dingy hallways. Want to know what I mean?
The film. Technology is the miracle that man produces, by the power of his mind, through the means of reason and using the tools of applied reason: scientific disciplines.
While nuclear weaponry is a can of worms I wish had been left closed, whatever the cost, there's no doubt that man has now acquired power that was once the realm of divine influence, and his power is growing.
GoblinKnightLeo 1 year ago
What's more important to note is that all of that evidence (or pieces of information) combined don't just add up and lead you the idea that it's reasonable to conclude it is the woman and not something else, but that, given the information/evidence, your theory is the MOST reasonable.
This is why natural explanations are superior to supernatural ones. One could postulate that cell phones are powered by invisible fairies, but all the evidence suggests micro-computers and lithium batteries.
ZenithPlacidity 1 year ago
I am a christian. I know you used to be, n i agree with u on a lot.
I disagree with the comments here that say the people who disagree with you won't understand you. That's untrue, as you said in another video, one person does not represent all people in a group.
I actually don't believe most of these experiences that people say they have. I have had hallucinations after playing a zombie game when i was unwell. I woke up and saw zombies.
RenegadeMaster07 1 year ago
@RenegadeMaster07 [cont.] i tried so hard to keep this to one comment lol
When someone says to me, (another christian or whoever) that God did something, even when they didn't experience anything, I simply say "who are you to tell God what he does or does not do?"
I would prefer some reason/logic/evidence for why firstly they believe something happened supernaturally, and then why it was God.
RenegadeMaster07 1 year ago
You're too smart, I wish there we're more people like you.
7eeeeeees 1 year ago
Public vs private experience: The notion here is that there is no way to get to the Individual except by denying/negating the Universal (public). The subsumation of the particular sense experience under the universal implies the application of categorical thinking (language).
notonewhit 1 year ago
Here the objective/shared view is a view permeated with the general/abstract ("The word is the murder of the thing"). The private experience implies the negation of this general aspect and an affirmation of 'something in me (private) greater than me (public/shared)': the very space of fantasy itself.
notonewhit 1 year ago
The question is whether there is anything revelatory here? And to whom is it revelatory? And how is it that the private nature of this space is also the condition for the possibility of all human experience?
notonewhit 1 year ago
I know that people do convert from one religion to another by persuasion of others. However, regards religious experiences then when will we see a Muslim religious experience in deepest Texas or a Christian experience in deepest Pakistan? It is so easy to explain "what happened" by attributing to the particualr flavour of god that prevails within your own society. The last point on experiences not being public strongly supports this. P.S. We get the same bias with Near Death Experiences.
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
"Just a Kodak moment."
BRILLIANT.
amoxtlacatl 1 year ago
"what criteria was used to rule out the hallucination explanation in favour of a religious experience explanation. It's completely circular"
U could argue circularity. But Christian religious experience (e.g. being born again, repenting of sin etc) has a set of very defined elements which are outlined specifically in the bible and by the testimonies of converted Christians. That would be your first yardstick.
Asxhmoula 1 year ago
—"U could argue circularity. But ...."
—Yep, I could, and I continue to do so — because yet again, you have not provided any 'yardsticks' that rule out hallucination. I'm not sure you're hearing me on this, because you're making the same flaw. None of you criteria rules out hallucination, psychotic breaks, suggestion, perceptual conformity, or just plain conformity — all processes that require no supernatural component. A yardstick with no foundation is no yardstick.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago 4
I'll answer that question in the morning if I may... =D
Asxhmoula 1 year ago
Listen, sorry about this, but if you want to keep this discussion going on much longer I'll have to ask that we continue in a few hours. I'm in Australia and it's nearly 4am here and I really need to get to bed. =) It's been great so far. :D
Asxhmoula 1 year ago
I also don't understand what you mean by arbitrary criteria. Surely if you had two piles, one labelled: Religious Experience Case Studies, and another labelled: Hallucinatory/Psychotic Episode Case Studies, and you looked at what changes they produced in people, this is not arbitrary but methodical?
Asxhmoula 1 year ago
—"I also don't understand what you mean by arbitrary criteria. ...."
—And how were these two piles originally formed — what criteria was used to rule out the hallucination explanation in favour of a religious experience explanation. It's completely circular: you impose arbitrary criteria that religious experiences leave positive changes, then take all experiences leaving these positive changes as religious. You have at no point in fact ruled out hallucination.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago 4
I'm happy for the person you know. Don't get me wrong; I'm not claiming to have all the answers. What I'm saying is, if you're really interested in factual evidence, you would want to weigh up ALL the hallucinatory vs. religious experiences you could find compare them to each other in terms of positive results in the cases concerned. It would be a big job & U would probably not be convinced anyway if U were only after 100% hard evidence. That's why I think personal experience is more powerful.
Asxhmoula 1 year ago
Well, you make it sound like it's completely in the hands of probability but I would rather argue that in this case one would turn to evidence in the form of case studies. You would try to identify if anyone's life/moods/behaviour in history have been substantially improved after a hallucinatory or psychotic experience versus a religious experience, you enquire HOW those experiences changed them, and you consider the merit of each type of experience based on the results.
Asxhmoula 1 year ago
That's unworkable — the criteria you're suggesting is totally arbitrary. You have not ruled out hallucination or psychotic break at all, merely by asserting they cannot lead to the positive changes you describe. On what evidence do you base this assertion? To the contrary, I know of someone who had hallucinations which inspired a new lease of life and confidence.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago 2
Of course. And since I've had hallucinations before, this would be easy. But apart from the actual experience itself, I would place greater weight on my actions AFTER such an event. A hallucination or psychotic episode of itself is evidence of something going wrong in the body and can't be expected to lead to any improvement in one's life or relations with others.
Asxhmoula 1 year ago
You say: "A hallucination or psychotic episode of itself is evidence of something going wrong in the body and can't be expected to lead to any improvement in one's life or relations with others."
—But neither can it be expected to *not* lead to improvement. Do you see how arbitrary and unsubstantiated it is to claim that improvement in life after a 'vision' supports a supernatural rather than hallucinatory explanation?
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
No, I wouldn't believe only on what other people tell me, I would have to experience it for myself in a way that would leave absolutely no room for doubt.
Asxhmoula 1 year ago
"I would have to experience it for myself in a way that would leave absolutely no room for doubt."
—So you'd want to rule out hallucinations and psychotic breaks.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
Well, for example, consider the case of the gospels. We have 4 men who each write their own account of a man who they claim rose from the dead. After investigating his tomb it is found empty. No body is ever found. Eyewitnesses say they saw him alive. His disciples, from being completely demoralised at his crucifixion, suddenly change & gain great courage & stamina to spread his message & in the end are prepared to & do actually die for their beliefs. Would U consider this valid data? Why/not?
Asxhmoula 1 year ago
Let me ask you — would you accept as valid four men from an audience who testify that a spiritualist correctly identified someone's home address? Would you be further convinced by other members of the audience being inspired to believe? If you did accept that as valid, you were just successfully swindled by Peter Popoff. What people believe isn't evidence of something — people believed the world was flat. Evidence is objectively measurable.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
Correction: What would constitute acceptable data for confirmation of a religious experience?
Asxhmoula 1 year ago
You tell me — what verifiable evidence can you propose for the kind of experience you have in mind. If nothing verifiable can be proposed, then by what means do we hope to begin to filter out 'false' claims from 'true'. That's the point — if we have nothing we can objectively assess, we can never get past 'could be's — and there is an infinity of 'could be's.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
Okay. So what would constitute acceptable data for a religious experience?
Asxhmoula 1 year ago
Ok, I didn't realise you meant statistics like numeric information gotten off graphs or whatever. My mistake. =) I hadn't realised how deep your scepticism goes. So basically ur saying that no matter what type of paranormal or supernatural or religious experience you had, you would reason about it in terms of psychic states or something going awry in your own body? You wouldn't even consider God as an explanation? Is that right?
Asxhmoula 1 year ago
No I didn't just mean 'statistics like numerical information gotten off graphs or whatever' I meant physically measurable phenomena.
"So basically you're saying ...."
—No. I'm not saying that at all. As I wrote previously: I would think there are a number of explanations for I'd just experienced, many of which require no supernatural entities whatsoever — hallucinations, psychotic breaks, etc. Without data, none of them is confirmable.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
.. bc it's an outstanding experience she's never had b4 & bc of its unique nature, she's sure she would have recognised 1 if she HAD had it. So religious experience, while not being defined by testimonies alone (everyone's experience is different in some way), is supported by other people's experiences. It would be the same if 10 ppl all living on different continents all claimed to have seen a UFO in a very similar way. You would stop to wonder if they were justified.
Asxhmoula 1 year ago
"You would stop to wonder if they were justified."
—Stopping to wonder if they are justified is fine — it clearly requires further investigation and the gathering of data to support such testimony. But merely believing them without such evidence is not fine.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
5:50 You claim when dealing with a religious experience there is no data... Well, there is. The Bible, books by people who've had religious experiences and people's testimonies are all data. They are used to help someone define a religious experience, quite aside from whether you choose to believe what they say or not. E.g. Many women can describe an orgasm to a woman but when she finally has 1, she'll know it 4sure: 1. Bc it accords with friends' testimonies. 2. It's an outstanding experience..
Asxhmoula 1 year ago
No data are facts and statistics. We do not have these kinds of information about gods. We may have statistics about how many people claim to have seen gods — we also may have statistics about people who claim to be psychic, and are then proved to be frauds. We do not have facts and statistics about gods. The difference between gods and orgasm? We have data — corroborative physical measures of biological arousal.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
I have a question relating to what you request at 0:35. "What constitutes a personal religious experience?" Can I suggest something? If one night while preparing for bed you happened to turn around & suddenly see behind U the figure of a man emanating the brightest of bright light, who was levitating off the floor & spoke with a voice like thunder & who claimed to be Jesus, the Son of God, & then proceeded to tell U everything you'd ever done which no-one but U could know.... What would U think?
Asxhmoula 1 year ago
I would think there are a number of explanations for I'd just experienced, many of which require no supernatural entities whatsoever — hallucinations, psychotic breaks, etc.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
An numinous experience is akin to a kick in a the arse. When it happens there is no need to guess.The Buddhist call it enlightenment but they cant describe it so my saying its a kick in the arse would be incorrect. It is the sweetest gift, oops there I go again descibing it.
marlogue53 1 year ago
You have a nice mouth.
thetrickortreater 2 years ago
also one of them thought that when they had a thought the church, god or whoever thought was wrong she would spill coffey, trip, etc. when one day i asked her, "could you simply be clumsy?" i was almost expelled for that simple 5 letter question.
StaulkHolm 2 years ago
your videos are filled with wit, humor and more thought provoking questions. i never really had a religion even at a catholic school. i thought of converting but a few things puzzled me Hell, prayer and evidence of God. seeing many hardcore theists at that time showed me how people must conclude and can never leave it alone and take everything as an answer to prayer.
StaulkHolm 2 years ago
I groaned aloud when you said that it was a 'kodak moment'.
To the leaving a question open, I myself feel just fine to leave a question open and unsolved... to admit that I do not in fact know everything, and don't need to rationalize somethi... wait... you're saying what I'm saying now...
well then.
Shows me for starting to write before the end.
Well then...
Anyways, My other point was that a large majority of people that I have met do NOT feel comfortable doing the same...
good vid, et cetera
dogoneshame 2 years ago
Mm, like getting in the spirit on a nude beach, 'I don't know' can prompt some trepidation in prospect for some — but can feel so liberating when one follows through.
TheraminTrees 2 years ago
I really enjoy watching your style... very intriguing.
CodyWest88 2 years ago
The problem with such Amazing and Effective reasoning as yours is that It Tends To Get Very WORDY.... which is exactly the factor that has it NOT REGISTER in the minds of the very people its targeted to. The people that actually WILL listen and FULLY AND GET IT, and savor every point, are people like myself - Ones That Were Already In Agreement with the arguments presented, prior to hearing them.
Its missing the whole point all together. I say this with regret, as You Really Are Brilliant!
SIRUS80 2 years ago 16
Thanks for your comment SIRUS80. This video was targeted specifically at one DavidlyMe, a christian at the time who asked the question that I'm answering here. A few months later he told me that my videos voiced something inside him, and he found himself in an atheist stance. Though it wasn't my intention to convert him or anyone — and I don't think I did — I do get considerable real-life case feedback from theists that my work hits home with them. All the best.
TheraminTrees 2 years ago
That's great news man. I do hope that it is in fact as you describe (about theists etc..) Its just that I find responses such as made here by davlupi, for instance, to be the most COMMON in real life situations. Responses to which I say: "Dear responder, could you please briefly / accurately RESTATE the main POINTS being made in this video"?
I'm afraid most theists cant do that. It just takes too much of a REAL LISTENING. If they got the points they would seize putting forward absurd arguments
SIRUS80 2 years ago
Agreed. The problem is that the people TheraminTrees is speaking to generally won't understand the "big words". I think it's a neurological thing that people who fall for religious thinking are generally less intellectual and more intuitive, and that goes for any supernatural nonsense, like New-Age-ism or psychics.
People like that find science cumbersome and inaccessible because it's too complicated. Therefore, to them, it can't be true because they can't understand it.
shade1978x 2 years ago
Yes, agreed on the neuro thing of intellectual VS intuitive new-age etc.. That's how these people really are.
Raises serious serious hierarchical questions tho. I, in all honesty, can not help but see myself but infinitely superior to them. Because see, I don't think its Apples and Oranges we're dealing with - like the great intellectuals VS the great Intuitives. They have given up (or wired not to have) the ONE AND ONLY faculty that separates us from other primates - the FACULTY OF REASON!
SIRUS80 2 years ago
You know, I've never been able to describe the differnces betwqenn atheists and theists in such a simple/elegant manner. I'll have to remember this.
burkeyatm 2 years ago
It would be interesting to study brain hemisphere dominance in devout people/atheists, or perhaps brain chemistry. If you think about it, the devout and non-believers have been selectively breeding for those attitudes for quite some time.
tanfouk 2 years ago
@SIRUS80 I understand your point here and I can see why this would be the assumption. Keep in mind though that it is a rarity that one who"believes" ever even looks at a video such as this. Due specifically to the fact that they have been taught NOT to do so. Hopefully if they are viewing it they have the support of their friend, of reason and the capacity to comprehend such a lengthy explanation. To teach one in understanding complexity using simplicity leaves a complex misunderstanding.
Mikedogg13666 1 year ago
@SIRUS80 I think that's a bit over the top to say that the only ones who can completely understand Theramin's points are those who already agree with them. Why does one need to agree with a point to understand it? If you're saying his target audience simply lacks the intellectual capacity to understand then I'm afraid that's simply the nature of the game; some people get it, some people don't. Going as far as to say NONE of his target audience gets it, however, is a bit ludicrous.
Hankatu 1 year ago
@Hankatu People who this is being preached to are, for the most part, too emotionally invested in their world view to allow revision. There is nothing even remotely half-ludicrous in pointing this out. I'll check out that video u mentioned, right now.
SIRUS80 1 year ago
@Hankatu yea he posted his video few months after i wrote this comment. point taken. I stand corrected.
SIRUS80 1 year ago
@SIRUS80 I'd also like to say that I just had a glance at your channel, and that you definitely have good taste in videos, as seen by various C. Hitchens videos in your favourites. Something I forgot to mention previously, however, is that TheraminTrees already made a video addressing a similar point which you made. I believe he called it "Preaching to the Converted", but I'm not sure. I advise you have a glance if you haven't already.
Hankatu 1 year ago
@SIRUS80 This sort of video(or any of his) aren't necessary for "converting" people. It's for sharing his views and knowledge. There are those that disagree with it and they will either challenge it or just move on not understanding it. Then there are those that see the same views/truths, and they will use it to bolster their confidence in standing by logic(knowing they're not alone).
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
They are personal private exchanges because they are only given to those that humbly seek Christ. Only discount them if you have humbly seeked Christ yourself. If you have, then lets talk about that. But please don't think that making your videos is humbly seeking God... Its not..
Are you open to exploring the way others have come to believe in God?
davlupi 2 years ago
Great — so I can discount them — because I have humbly sought Christ. Oh and where did I suggest I thought making my videos was 'humbly seeking Christ' — what an bizarre suggestion ....
TheraminTrees 2 years ago
Some athiests claim that they have seeked God and yet nothing happened. My question to them is "Can you honestly convince yourself that you humbly seeked God with all your heart?" In what ways did you seek God, and it turns out that their conception of seeking God is very different from those who seeked and found God. In one of your videos, you state that if God would just reveal Himself to all the World, then you would believe. What if He will reveal Himself to you alone, what about then?
davlupi 2 years ago
You can take it that I've done all the other stuff already — the humbly seeking. The stuff I talk about now — eg what you mention about gods revealing themselves — is coming from a more critical discussion about the absurdity of a god asking for belief and giving no evidence.
TheraminTrees 2 years ago
You're right. They are personal, private exchanges. It's people, talking to themselves and convincing themselves that the voice that's talking back is something independent of themselves. The easiest way to get anyone to do anything is to convince them into thinking they're really not just convincing themselves but that it's some supernatural, external force that's intervening. The truth is that religion provides an answer that people WANT to believe is true, so they do.
shade1978x 2 years ago
I really enjoy how well spoken and thought out your videos are. They are a pleasure to watch.
Chauninator 2 years ago 26
"That divine light was actually just a kodak moment." That's probably the funniest thing I've heard all week.
dramadude2011 2 years ago
I've watched about 3 of your videos, and I am amazed at how you can make your arguments with such precision and leave what seems like no room left to argue, yet at the same time leaving space to wonder about the flip side. Unlike most, I love how you are never attacking anyone, whether it's with extreme language or ad hominems. In a town dominated by Catholic religion you have inspired me to really research all that I can to solidify any arguments I may need to defend my position on religion.
sunbryce 2 years ago
Thanks sunbryce. I think the volatile emotional reactions around subjects like religion are — unfortunately sometimes effective — distractions from the substance of the debate. Like stirring up sand in the water so that no one can see anything. Of course it's often very important to some people that that happens — because if the sand was to settle, and the water became clear, we'd see they have no arguments at all. And I think people find that much more threatening than insults.
TheraminTrees 2 years ago
couldnt you say that religious conclusions as you call them, can in fact also be religious belief. I think you would find that there are many religious people who do not believe based on factual information. As i have said in the past, religion is often times an attempt to give the unknown something to identify with. After all, the 'big bearded guy in the clouds' is alot more comforting than no explanation at all. Dont you agree?
irishprice 2 years ago
Some find the concept of an afterlife in whatever form, etc., comforting — some don't. I don't. It's obvious to anyone who's had any debating experience in this field that some religious people don't have an interest in facts — in many cases their very definition of the word 'fact' simply means an opinion they hold strongly. Some even seem to see 'facts' as a challenge to their faith.
TheraminTrees 2 years ago
what is a 'fact' where two people stand in two completely different paradigms? even the notion of what a 'fact' is is, at base, disputed here, due to the notions of the real and how it retains or changes its integrity. theists say it depends the whims of their god(s). atheists are convinced there's a reliable set of natural principles at work which we might discover and use to our advantage. where is a 'fact' that both of them can agree on? aren't you merely speaking from within your own bias?
nagasiva 2 years ago
The problem with that line of argument is that you quickly find that those in the religious 'paradigm' quickly cross over to the scientific 'paradigm' when it comes to any other matters. Whilst decrying science as arbitrary and 'just theories', they enjoy the real fruits of it: technology that *works*. If I was to claim to be the second coming, they would want .... evidence. Verification. So no. This isn't merely a case of 'perspective'.
TheraminTrees 2 years ago
you posit in this video the question of world or global God expressions (in which everyone might be exposed to, and know that a phenomenon was the result of something you don't define as, 'God') and personal religious/spiritual experiences. this is an excellent beginning point for the construction of 'theories about Gods'. with this evidence behind one, it is most rational to begin by a consideration that Gods are interior phenomena, then set out to see if there is any overlap amongst these.
nagasiva 2 years ago
Even if I had a private religious experience, I wouldn't say... convert to Christianity (because I've thoroughly examined the bible and find it a book of brutal bronze age nonsense of the worst sort.) And other religions I've studied in depth get much the same from me, make no mistake.
If I had such a stunning experience I'd have to conclude there was a god, I wouldn't identify said god with the wacky anthropomorphic deities of any of earths religions.
Shavarnarak 2 years ago
Have you studied Daoism/Taoism? That isn't the same as most other religions.
seb538835 2 years ago
After having watched several videos, I've come to a few conclusions. First of all, it's very refreshing to come across someone who is able to present a counter-argument of a religious nature and not only refrain from ad hominem attacks but also allow for the possibility that he or she might be wrong. Second, I'm quite enamored of your attention towards linguistic precision. Just out of curiosity, have you spent any time studying, the Confessions of St. Augustine, or anything of that nature?
lissablair 2 years ago
Thank you lissablair. Your comment made me feel I'd been deeply heard/perceived — not 'skimmed' as I often feel. I find a great sense of liberty in I-don't-knows. In my early years, I probably succumbed, to an extent, to a distorted protectiveness aroused by 'attacks' like: 'Science doesn't know everything!!!'. But coming to realise there's in fact no attack there — science never claimed to — my defensiveness relaxed. I googled the Confessions you mentioned — sounds like a juicy read!
TheraminTrees 2 years ago
the one i usually hear is "Science cannot explain everything!" or "Science cannot explain *this*! I am now convinced that anyone who says this doesn't understand Scientific methodologies one whit. whether it is valuable to continue debate or conversation with them thereafter seems to vary considerably.
nagasiva 2 years ago
Some statements/assertions indicate that so much basic groundwork is missing, the fruitfulness of continuing seems doubtful. When a fingers-in-ears attitude is demonstrated on top of that ignorance, that really seals it. By the way, that seems one job of work getting through so many of my videos in one day — and I think you've broken a record for number of comments left.
TheraminTrees 2 years ago
yes, the recent Comfort & Thunderf00t chatvids may be an example. I sometimes intrigue my listener with semblances of their paradigm for spice. :) you were one of a batch i covered in that day or two. I also watched all of QualiaSoup and the whole of the aforementioned Tf/Comfort discussion and its aftermath reflections and video responses. when a source inspires me i like to absorb and engage it as completely as i am able within the context of expression. I like your output very much. thanks.
nagasiva 2 years ago
Thank you. The Thunderf00t/Comfort exchange further supported previous perceptions of Comfort — specifically his inability/refusal to listen, and his propensity to throw irrelevant and emotionally provocative statements in to take a dangerously rational/productive line of thought off course. I'm astounded 'OK there's such a thing as speciation' passed his lips. I'm tempted to upload that sound bite on a 10 minute loop, but we elevate creationist ignoramuses too much on YouTube already.
TheraminTrees 2 years ago
What a great video, I considered myself to be christian until
a few months ago when things to do with religion stopped making sense to me. Since then I've been so stressed out about the whole thing, trying to find out why we're here etc, I wish I could just forget about it and get on with life but its always at the back of my mind. Afterlife or not, I'm just going to try and live my life how I think is morally right from now on and try and live it to the full.
Jamesc8791 2 years ago
Your message takes me back to my own break from religion when I was a boy, and how weird/exotic it felt initially, to have no explicit 'system' of how to live. Ultimately it freed me to be myself in a way I'd never been before — asking so many more important questions, feeling uncensored, and becoming comfortable that I was OK — not some doomed unworthy sinner. I wish you well in your own personal transition ;8)
TheraminTrees 2 years ago
I like your video. I leraned a alot from it. It is everyone's right to beleive in God's existence or not. In fact, Ibrahim had this doubt as well, but ,as usual, the truth can't be seen or heared. like the radiation form your body.
jj211sa 2 years ago
All right, I'll accept that miracles are a class of religious experience. I did not know that they were classed as such, but come to think of it they probably are by most people.
I want to make a video but I have never made one before. i am now teaching myself to use powerpoint (starting 10 minutes ago). I will make one eventually but it might take a while, and don't expect very high quality (I'm not an artist like you or Qualia Soup).
k0k0isonlymyname 2 years ago
If your video put across your arguments, that's all that will be required.
TheraminTrees 2 years ago
A miracle and a spiritual experience are not the same thing!
I think I'm going to make videos in refutation of your videos. I respect you and Qualia Soup, but I just think you're wrong about a lot of things.
k0k0isonlymyname 2 years ago
You're very welcome to put forward any arguments you feel you have.
TheraminTrees 2 years ago
Oh and while I'm at it, I'm not sure who you're talking to, saying a miracle and a spiritual experience are not the same thing — I haven't come across anyone who said they were.
TheraminTrees 2 years ago
You elaborated on the problematic-ness of private religious experiences by describing how miracles can often be explained away (as a Kodak moment, for example). This implies that miracles are private religious experiences, otherwise this example would be irrelevant to the topic at hand.
k0k0isonlymyname 2 years ago
Miracles are a class of religious experience. The point is though I never said anywhere that spiritual experiences and miracles were the same thing — you made that inference completely by yourself, then corrected me as if I'd said it. I consider myself to have spiritual experiences — which I experience as a sense of oneness, for instance with nature, when I watch the sea. I don't call that a miracle.
But put all this stuff in your video to me — I'll address it all.
TheraminTrees 2 years ago
"...was just a kodak moment..."
Lol. Fantastic.
KemaTheAtheist 3 years ago 2
They always ask about the "personal private" events because thats all they ever can experience or share.
These events must necessarily begin when a person is already on the verge of an emotional and psychological event anyway. Watch them, they will always say "You have to ask god into your heart".
When the "asking" fails, they will try to say "you didn't try hard enough".... to... what, induce a hallucination?
ThatOneQuestion 3 years ago
For any religious person that actually and honestly shares a reason why they are religious, many of the examples I get are the "warm fuzzy feelings" of their "god".
All they ever boil down to is an emotional feeling resulting from a psychological event, usually after a traumatic time.
Furthermore, most of them seem to have little or no familiarity with the arguments against religion, and seem to also pretty much believe anyway.
ThatOneQuestion 3 years ago
Pointing out how the personal event fails to inspire anyone, they get angry and hostile for some pretty obvious reasons.
Like you touched on, TheraminTrees, they will see/hear/feel/etc something and jump to conclusions based on their preconceptions and desires, forcing it to become something they really want to find: a reason.
Examining those "reasons" carefully, like surviving an accident or the "warm fuzzy feelings" is taboo because it will show they are only fooling themselves.
ThatOneQuestion 3 years ago
hi theramin, i just wanted to say i find your videos very interesting and very informative...im currently learning about TA in a humanistic counselling course....i like the way you begin your videos your very relaxed and laid back and have a very calm soothing voice....which i must say adds to the pleasue of watching and learning!
camillaasmatullah 3 years ago
Thank you Camillaasmatulluh. I hope you're enjoying your course — best of luck with it!
TheraminTrees 3 years ago
All very well and good, but to frustrate your viewership with the top of a pink box on your t-shirt, and yet make no attempt to reach out to the pink box curious is, well... how can you live with yourself, man!?
Oh, and the video was cool too.
XitStrategy 3 years ago
Well said and then some!
lol @ the "adios" - that means "with god" right?
you scamp!
a2zdiy 3 years ago
I wish I could claim the adios was intentional — but I have to be honest, it was just me offering what little Spanish I knew in exchange for CuanMarce's lovely English! ;8)
TheraminTrees 3 years ago
...And I very much enjoy your way of thinking. It's very clear and easy to follow. Although it does seem a little as if you're trying to convince others, which is clearly not your intention as it's the one thing you keep on stating you really don't like. Not that it's bad either, I already share your ideas and I'm glad to do so.
Kiliankoe 3 years ago
I would very much like to see the video of the Muggeridge story you're talking about. Unfortunately the link you posted as an answer below to another comment is no longer working. Do you happen to know another one?
...
Kiliankoe 3 years ago
Oh is the link gone now? THat's a damn shame. It was a fantastic exposé of the inane genesis of a miracle myth. Unfortunately I can't see any other copies up there ....
TheraminTrees 3 years ago
B E A-utiful.
Bobbiethejean 3 years ago
I'm not homosexual - but I think I just became obsessed with you and your videos.
grandpaegg 3 years ago
Because homosexuals are susceptible to obsession? Specifically with other males?
Your opening statement is of no remedial value, and I find it peculiar that you would be thinking of homosexuals at random intervals.
LoganElden 3 years ago
I was just joking. A very bad joke.
grandpaegg 3 years ago
Aw — I had a laugh when I read it 4 months ago Grandpaegg ;8)
TheraminTrees 3 years ago
Well, immediately after I wrote that I regretted it. I don't usually say things that show such a strong glimpse into my insecurities. I'm sorry to anyone I offended. I really do enjoy your videos, though. There are two kinds of videos on Youtube: TheraminTrees/Qualiasoup, and everything else. =)
grandpaegg 3 years ago
Lol it's alright. I'm kind of a gay troll. I really don't care.
LoganElden 3 years ago
When you say you're 'happy' to say you don't know makes me think: "Haha, I don't know!".
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say 'don't mind' instead of 'happy'?
Anyways, you're very keen.
ps. What IS that beeping?
Denamic 3 years ago
I mean happy in the sense of being content/satisfied rather than the more emotional sense. But 'don't mind' would be an equally apt description. That beeping is the camera's mechanism — annoyingly placed next to the sensitive microphone. I use a different camera now! ;8)
TheraminTrees 3 years ago
Btw, that was a hilarious quote from eddygoombah on your channel page:
—'Debating with a creationist is a lot like playing chess with a pigeon. He'll knock down a few pieces, crap on the table, and then fly home to boast to his friends about his victory.'
That's EXACTLY what it feels like!
TheraminTrees 3 years ago
Okay, just wondering.
Make more videos now.
Denamic 3 years ago
...so, when they got back to LOndon, they found that this dark room was bathed in light!!! That was the whole point. Advanced film or not, had there not been this beautiful, healing light, it wouldn't have shown up on film. Jesus said, I am the light of the world...poor man, that made this sad video, is spiritually blind, and I pray God will touch his lovely soul. He's a darling man, who is clearly seeking...
catholicmaxima 3 years ago
LOL Oh I suggest you save your 'poor, poor man' comments until you hear it from the actual photographer's lips HIMSELF. It can be seen at:
watch?v=VQejG7-sGk4
It'll then be clear that YOU'RE the one with his facts all wrong. See, I don't rely on hearsay — I do my research. I'll be *fascinated* to hear your reaction on learning that my retelling of the Muggeridge story was actually the accurate one here — especially considering the high-handed tone you've taken in supposedly 'correcting' me.
TheraminTrees 3 years ago
haha...I suppose I did sound condescending, though I didn't mean it as such. Actually, as Christ said to His disciples, how fortunate they were to actually see him and know what was truth...we only have our faith,in the seen and unseen and to be honest, such stories as Malcom Muggeridge's really shouldn't be relevant to a person's faith.
catholicmaxima 3 years ago
Hahaha — Oh yes, let's just laugh about all those mean-spirited misjudgements you just made about me — "poor, poor man", "sad", "spiritually bilnd".
Interesting. The Mugg. story was first VERY relevant to you — enough in fact for you take issue with me on it. But now the facts are clearer, you suggest it's 'irrelevant'.
Notice how both times — insulting me and 'correcting' me on Mugg. — you gloss over your misjudgements. Ha! An appropriate apology on YouTube?? Now that WOULD be a miracle LOL
TheraminTrees 3 years ago
You poor, poor man...yes, the film was "light sensitive" but the film was made in a very dark, dingy room. Muggeridge told the photographer, who did not want to film because he said 'it's just too dark!" to film it anyway, because, though the rooom was terribly dark, he wanted to catch at least the mood of the dying...
catholicmaxima 3 years ago
"I am very happy simply to say 'I don't know what happened'" sums it up for me too. Though, I've arrived at the same summary without having been able to articulate the path anywhere near as succinctly as you have.
SohoSquare 4 years ago
Reaching conclusions before the end of something is the domain of the ignorant and egotistical. None of us will have irrefutable proof of God's existence or of everlasting life until the day that this physical life is over for us.
Good luck to you on that day.
Peace.
Capn0bvious 4 years ago
That's *exactly* what this video is addressing — reaching premature conclusions. Peace to you too.
TheraminTrees 4 years ago
Theramintrees it's clear to anyone with ears that your video is AGAINST reaching premature conclusions. If anyone misunderstands that they just haven't listened. I was going to suggest that maybe your video was too subtle or complicated for some people to grasp but reviewing it it is neither of those things. If people have misunderstood you they must have wanted to. I actually find you one of the most "christian" atheists on here - hope you're not offended!!! :)
EasyOldTimes 4 years ago
Hey EasyOldTimes — 'Christ' seemed to have lots going for him, from what I see — a lot of qualities worth cultivating. Lots of Christians seem to agree — but apparently not all. Some Christians seem to be following someone else — someone judgemental, belittling, smug, condemning, stereotyping, bent on misinterpreting those they don't immediately understand, and unapologetic when they get people all wrong. Compared to that, I'm happy to be thought of as 'christian'. ;8)
TheraminTrees 4 years ago
"None of us will have irrefutable proof of God's existence or of everlasting life until the day that this physical life is over for us."
How do you know He won't present himself in some way like it's believed He did through Jesus? Do you know God's plan? Apparently you've just reached a CONCLUSION before the end of something - which, by your reasoning, makes you ignorant and egotistical. Peace.
EasyOldTimes 4 years ago
I could never believe in a personal religious visitation. I need a witness!
Brainmold 4 years ago
Thanks TheraminTrees, excuse my ignorance in all areas. Take care,
SC
scepticchristian 4 years ago
Hi Trees. Interested to know what 'important' differences (other than my arrogant dogmatism?) you mean and your use of the past tense ('....when we had') and what similar positions we 'had' (and by implication, don't have now?). Do you see our respective stances as different? Are you agnostic or atheist? I'm a sceptical Christian (brain says one thing and heart/indoctrination says another -- still settling if I can to a permanent position). Bernard-Herrmanning? Is that the name he's using?
scepticchristian 4 years ago
The past tense refers to your past tense comment 'Yes, that was my position for a long time' — which suggested you had a similar position to me, which has since changed. Feel free to clarify if you feel I've misunderstood that.
I'm atheist and agnostic — the two refer to different questions: what ones believes/doesn't believe, and what is knowable.
Some of Davidly's cello strains evoked Bernard Herrmann — his score on Psycho in particular.
TheraminTrees 4 years ago
to such a high degree that it is close to being certain. I'm so convinced of some things (and equally excited to be proven wrong) that I'm now happy to say, 'it isn't so' rather than 'I don't believe' or 'show me the evidence' or even unlikelier for me, 'I just don't know'. Not a correct sceptical response and quite closed minded ironically, but I'm fed up with my efforts, people's excuses and I'm very much only human. Are you a musician? David is btw.
scepticchristian 4 years ago
Scepticchristian, I hear the frustrations you're talking about — I sometimes get irked about that stuff too — and I appreciate your conveying the background behind your own position. I'm sure there must've also been important differences between us even when we had superficially similar positions. Differences that led us to our respective current stances. Yes I'm a musician, and I've heard Davidly Bernard-Herrmanning on his cello. Wonderful expressive instrument.
TheraminTrees 4 years ago
Yes, that was my position for a long time and there are things I'm sceptical about but genuinely interested in, love discussing and would love to be true/proven. I've done investigative work, been personally involved and had (so called) 'evidence' presented to me countless times (especially regarding healings) and the outcome is always the same. Whilst the next evidence could be proof, experience, statistics and the laws of nature tell me otherwise...
scepticchristian 4 years ago
You refer to experiences YOU may have rather than others; ok.
I wonder if these personal religious experiences are god cleverly communicating proof individually but deliberately without leaving traces for others. Maybe we all get one per lifetime.
What's the difference between, 'I don't know' and 'show me the evidence'. The first seems genuine, the second, disbelieving but superficially nice enough to be presented with confirmation.
Incidentally, are you familiar with the books I mentioned?
scepticchristian 4 years ago
Yes Scepticchristian, familiar with the books you mentioned — and own a couple.
I really depart with you over 'show me the evidence' seeming 'disbelieving but superficially nice enough to be presented with confirmation'. For me that feels a very judgemental and cynical interpretation. I don't feel I'm being 'disbelieving but superficially nice' in asking for evidence. I feel interested and curious in what people present.
TheraminTrees 4 years ago