This is a lovely video with one problem. Science is logically incompatible with atheism. So the leap from a commitment to science, which I have, to a commitment to naturalism is a leap of faith which reason does not permit. Peace, Dennis
@olivierpicard18 Thank you for the informative comment. Perhaps I wasnt clear. I meant "Because THEY were living long ago, THEY were stupid" Implying that because it happened 2000 years ago, everyone was stupid. That was my point. I re-read my statement and it DOES sound a bit vague. Maybe we can trade, I'll take a writing class, and you can have a history lesson!
Religion is a fear control mind fraud trap, it spreads like a disease and causes a world of dysfunction, misery and war. Science brings us harmony and real understanding. After all your computer doesn't run on faith. Either live like the Amish or embrace the modern world, you can't have both.
I've been toying with the idea of inviting all the scientists and engineers to one isolated country, maybe Switzerland, and leaving the rest of the world behind. I've noticed an increased hostility and mistrust directed at scientists by the average religious/superstitious person. There is even more hostility towards future technologies like AI, nano tech, cybornetics, and things of that nature. I know the rest of the world wouldn't allow it, but a man can dream.
but science created the end, the atomic bomb, the radiations, pollutions, control of minds in a large scale ...why say one is right and the other is wrong ? give to the poor and oppressed tools to live clean and in peace, with water and no bomb created by people of science ...but you cannot, and you know how science will control people and force them to live as minningless people ...except for the rich and aristocrats
@emadrastahastam and is religion is any better? Religion was practising mind control thousands of years before science even came along. The catholic church is one of the largest and richest land owners in the world, and all their income in tax free. A few hundred years ago we were still living in the dirt, yet our quality of life has gone up exponentially since then as a direct result of science. To say it is all evil displays a profound misunderstanding of what you're talking about.
truly the saddest display of human ignorance i've ever seen.
Reason compels us to conclude there is a supernatural personal being. so please call it the age of science, not reason, because Methodological Naturalism presupposes naturalism while reason dictates that its an ad hoc assumption.
"its time for freethinking" if so release the shackles of naturalism from reason. as long as you cant give a reason to support naturalism / if you cant give a reason to believe in God, dont hold to it
From a moral standpoint, it's ideal to believe in God than not to. Because the implications of God's non existence shows how morality could be completely disregarded by someone who just doesn't care. Yes science has answers but it doesn't have them all, who is to say empirical data for God's existence won't come in the future?
@MassacreBlast I've seen many religious people do atrocious things. And I'm not even talking about people doing such things in the name of their religions, but in spite of them.
I'm not trying to offend you, just presenting a different point to your polite argument: Religion is not a very good deterrent.
Seeing there is as much, if not more corruption and immoral acts by religious people than non-religious people, this statement is far from valid. If the leaders of religions are the most likely to bugger little choir boys, and worse, not get punished for such pedophilia by the churches, how can you claim that religion has any moral value whatsoever.
Honestly, priests and bishops get away with much more horribly immoral acts than any politicians, and politicians are atrocious.
And if your rebuttal to this is that there are "bad apples" in the religious realm, then it is a wash. If we took surveys, we would probably find that the amount of "bad apples" that are religious and non-religious are around the same percentage.
Actually, if you survey a prison, you will likely find around 80% to claim to be religious. It is no surprise, as the same irrational, compulsive thinking is seen in convicts as in religious people (lack of responsibility for actions)
Don`t associate evolution with science. You have to have faith to believe in evolution and creation. If you call yourself an atheist, what is it that your denying...?
There is a lot of biology to be taught without creeping in your faith of evolution.
God exists, people! Stop being so proud just because you read a lot of books! To study and learn more and more is great for your material life, but it is not enough to save your soul! Please, respect the bible, it is the word of God, your creator! I totally believe the universe is full of an immense variety of beings and many other wonders! God is eternal and the Earth is just a dust in space! What humans know is pathetic comparing to the endless knowledge and power of God! Be humble!!
Doesn't the Bible state that the Earth was specifically made by God to give us humans a place to live when we were created? "God created the heavens and the Earth" kind of implies that he specifically made the Earth, and then made the heavens for us to gawk at. The only reason we know of our own insignificance is of no thanks to the Bible either (which states otherwise), supposedly the irrefutable word of the God you speak of. If there is a God, it's not biblical. Be humble.
@liketheuniverse11 god has endless knowledge? How come he never taught people how to make vaccines? How come he waited for people to actually use their minds to come up with solutions?
@SirFakeName God wants us to grow up!!! We need to learn for ourselves and He always helps! Unfortunately, many people are too proud to believe it! It's like a child: first he learns his ABCs, then the words, sentences...then go to high school, then college and so on...we have to grow up spiritually, too! Learn about being the best person you can possibly be! In humility, honesty, compassion, patience, etc!!! This short life that we live in the flesh is for improving ourselves by all means! :D
We want to grow not because of a supreme deity. We are here for the world, for our children, and for the next generation and nature as well. Yes we grew spiritually too but not because of God but for ourselves, for the reason we live, and when the time comes... We will know our place in the world. Thats the power of not knowing. Exploring the world's beauty and wonders. We only have one life and we don't know what will happen to us when we die. How exiting is dat?
Science is a truly wonderful methodology for describing the material universe around us. It has shown us many truths about our existence (i.e. natural selection) However many people take it too far in my opinion and assume that the material is all that there is. This is philosophy, not science. The idea that matter and energy is all that makes up reality (materialism) is an unsupported claim, just like supernaturalism. Non-existent and unverifiable are not the same thing.
@Keysteeze What are u talking about, "The idea that matter and energy is all that makes up reality (materialism) is an unsupported claim"
Science doesn't mind being wrong and if there is something there sceince will find it but for now it is irresponsible to state that you know there is anything more than matter and energy and to further state that not only do you know there is more but you understand it is fkn unsubstantiated bullshit.
So why would you believe anything other than science?
@shandcunt Well I do not know if there is a reality beyond the material. No one does. I certainly cannot describe it to you if there is one. However I find it amusing that many people think that they are on some kind of intellectual high ground for assuming materialism. Instead of being dismissive about it, these people should be working on ways to explore it (if there is a non-material).
@Keysteeze They have been, I'm not too sure where you are coming from but if you don't think people have and are investigating the supernatural from a fair scientific view then check out James Randi, Sam Harris. Then please check out homeopathy, dowsing, deepak chopra, peter popoff.
James Randi actively investigates these types of things. what do you believe gives creditability to the idea of a supernatural world? I'm open to it as a possibility but wheres the proof?
@Keysteeze Yeah, you may be right about that. again, go watch some stuff from sam harris about transcedental experiences, he talks about exactly that, discovering a way to study this sort of thing, stripped away from religous dogma, superstition, etc. If ther is a greater truth then it must be able to b measured and if it can't be measured you have no grounds to state anything about it at all, it's possible existence according to an unqualified indivisual would be irrlevent. like pink unicorns
This is what I always hear from people who believe in the supernatural. You say that as if science is somehow restricted in its methodology. Anything that can be repeatedly tested under controlled circumstances falls within the realm of science, it's not narrow at all. It's the only way of distinguising fact from fantasy. There's a reason we still call ghosts, psychics etc SUPERNATURAL rather than NATURAL. They fail every test!
The word "supernatural" is very telling. I mean there are plenty of things which are non-material which we know exist- magnetic fields, gravity etc (although those could fall under 'energy') but when you use the word 'supernatural' it seems to imply that it can't even be measured or understood in the natural world. If that's the case, why bother talk about it? What's the difference between something that doesn't exist and something that can never be shown to exist?
Religion may have been successful among people in the past. I understand that changes in human beliefs are difficult to come because humans have comfort zones. In the modern time, we know more about nearly every aspect of our life, thanks to technology and science. We are becoming smarter as we know more, which is an example of evolution. It was so easy for people in the past to believe in supernaturals for things they did not know, and there were many things people did not know.
@tommystros One only needs to look at the quantity of tangible values religion has brought to humanity compared to Science to know the truth of your statement.
Keep in mind people. Religion= faith. Clearly, non of you have faith and I have no problem with that. If there was proof that religion was real, then there would be no faith and therefore no religion.
the universe is not created so that only the educated have any idea how to live, these people have no greater grasp on reality they just believe what everyone else does, there way is right.
you know I think the only thing I can add to this is; how much of a knuckle dragging mouth breather dose one have to be to represent the 23 people who hit the dislike button on this vid - Fing crazy
There are things all the time science can't explain. Hopeless medical cases that are healed and people who "should" be ok who died. Science has brought us a long way but doesn't hold all the answers. The idea that anyone who doesn't agree is 'backwards' or 'ignorant' for having a different view I don't agree with.
Science allows insemination of livestock that never meet - but you can do everything scientifically right and still not have conception.
And which realms of science did you not need to actuate in order to watch and/or read about such miraculously unreferenced phenomenon and with what ease did you manage to post said bullshit on the internets?
Darwin couldn't in his time, and despite numerous attempts from evolutionary theory they haven't been able to 'crack' culture. If you understand culture in relative concert with the human mind is more influential on our thinking and behaviour than biological and/or genetic considerations, then culture is a big deal
The values of science? Are those the values that facilitate industrialising, globalising capitalism? Nuclear weapons? Toxic pollutants? How do they 'fit' with the values?
My career is in science and academia so you don't need to sell human acquisition and discovery of knowledge. My point is rooted in the idea of secularists trying to annex 'science values' for their own agenda when the ownership of science is something all humans have to take responsibility for.
This policiszing of science runs counter to its objective claims. It's a shame you can't see that. I wasn't criticizing science, just pointing out the idea of 'values' in science is political
Now if as you say science is essentially the study of nature then as long as practitioners stick to the rigours of the scientific method then there is little room to manouvre that would require any talk of values because when we talk of 'value' we are talking about judgements in terms of belief and direction.
If you open your eyes and mind this is secular politics trying to annex science for this own political ends. Your reply didn't challenge that notion whatsoever.
So when you say that science is 'essentially' the study of nature that completely overlooks the fact that while science can facilitate the detection of the damaging effects that humankind's industrial activity has on the planet, science also facilitates the very processes of destruction.
Do you accept that point? This idea that science 'in itself' embodies clear values is not something that is mirrored in the real world. Science's value is as wide ranging as its uses, good and bad.
I am supremely confident you are unable to provide one example of some (sub)system that cannot, nor will ever, be explained by science.
And so if our species is a natural system in nature and all natural systems can, at least partly, be understood through science, I would absolutely endorse a society that rationally makes decisions based on available evidence and invests in solutions that are, on average, good for the society and the individuals that compose it.
What you've done right there is bring the entire field of objective science into the world of politics, which is a very, very human endeavour. Even if we take the most fundamental idea of Western politics 'democracy' we can see that this is not a universal. There are many forms of democracy, each stressing different values on different parts.
If some scientists want to start a Rational Secular Party beyond science's contribution to politics and law-making then they should do it.
You said: "And so if our species is a natural system in nature and all natural systems can, at least partly, be understood through science.."
I would direct attention to the 'at least partly' bit. Science is the sophistication of provisional truth towards laws, axioms and mathematical representation. The goal is definition, not mere description which is what lies through/behind your 'at least partly' comment.
Comments are limited - If I was talking about politics, I would have just said it.
Science is only accepted by lawmakers when it suits the purposes of the politician/government - drug advisory resignations and volcanic ash dangers being most topical.
And as for the latter part of my comment, I never even wrote the word science. I alluded to scientific enquiry and perhaps even sensible conjecture - I thought you would have known the difference. Obviously not.
Don't be surprised when your clouding expression results in a cloudy impression on my part. This you tube video takes science into the realm of politics as soon as they start to talk about decision-making, values, etc.
It's not the case that I don't know the difference, it's about accepting your short comings on this because you don't know the difference between science and politics, which this is. "..advancing reason, humanist values and secularism around the world."
This conversation was over the minute you showed you were unable to grasp the difference between science and politics. They are interwoven for sure but once we start to package science AS secularism, AS a specific values from a particular groupd then we drift from the very objectivity that science is supposed to embody.
I know you said you weren't talking about politics. That's exactly my point, you can't even see that.
What is the point of trying to reason with someone who clearly doesn't know the difference between science and politics? I might as well try and reason with a child, and that's a metaphor directed at your inability to tell the difference.
If the but hurt line of reason (or whatever it is) is indicative of something more telling of your non-thinking then your apparent failure to tell the difference between politics and science becomes more one of sympathy for you.
Humans comment, it's another thing we do that other life species don't. You should try hanging around with humans some time, you'd become more familiar with the practice.
You are a powerful example of how we can't escape opinion, bias and value in what we say at a human level. Science is a method for sophisticating provisional truths about the material world but when we start to talk (including comment) about values that's political.
And this is an important point which is not going to go away anytime soon, science is a human product. It is one of trillions of human products so rather than undermining human exceptionalism, it underlines it.
Science is a method, an idea given life by fields of enquiry and it's resultant findings, some of which will stand the test of time. Science at its most technical level though remains an idea acting through bodies. In this sense it as non-corporeal than the God you'd deny.
Yet you still cannot find me an object/system that cannot be explained or at the very least is recognised by science - that is, your god and all others are not required to fill in the gaps of human knowledge.
Which pretty much sums you up - multiple replies with little or no intelligent content.
Replying to this message will demonstrate my hypothesis as being correct.
You are responding to me so that means that you have no friends either I would guess. Think through what you are saying as you reply to me.
Wow, your standards have really slipped. Initially it was science could explain any system, and now it's just a case of recognising a system. I can open my eyes like anyone and see cultural phenomena, we don't need science to tell us that it exists. You're a science-ologist of the highest (and yet lowest) order.
So while I am making points and responding to yours, you are only going on about my friendship circles and trying to come across as smug, when you only look short.
You didn't respond to my point about science being at the technical level an idea that acts through bodies, which makes it as non-corporeal as the God you'd deny. Your response to that, no response. You are a very poor example of scientific reasoning and your chances of being science poster boy 2010 are absolute zero.
So do yourself a favour, read and re-read what you are typing. Believe me, a lot of it is better kept inside your head. You've went from the lofty claim that there isn't a system that science can't explain (when culture remains a mystery) to the pretty pathetic back peddling saying that there isn't a system that science can't at least recognise.
I'm just sitting back here watching you trip yourself up lolge-pop.
Why would I delete it, it's a fact that there is no settled general theory of culture anywhere in science, physical, natural and social sciences. That you would make such a play on an obvious statement confirms what I thought and continue to think, that when it comes to the social world of humankind and history of science you are short.
When it comes to moronic and unsubstantiated statement it's clear that you have the monopoly there.
You can easily prove me wrong with this by listing the accepted general theory of culture that is the settled will of and through science. Here's a tip, don't come back with sociobiology, memetics, evolutionary psychology, cultural ethology, Marxism, feminism, symbolic interactionism, even social constructionism, they are all short.
"culture remains a mystery" is not equal to "there is no settled general theory of culture"
I suspected you were a troll a few days ago, but out of curiosity I continued to reply. But now that you are posting stuff like that, I feel the need to spend my time on more interesting pursuits.
And no this is not a admission of failure - I simply don't have time to argue with someone whose statements are (afaict) based entirely on other peoples opinions.
There is no contradiction there, culture remains a mystery but that hasn't stop evolutionary pseudo-sciences form confusing thought as theory, driven by their dogma of Universal Darwinism (UD).
In Michael Gazzaniga's 2008 book 'Human: The Scient behind what makes us unique' he quotes Tooby & Cosmides (evolutionary psychology) who state "Almost all of the phenomena that are central to the humanities are puzzling anomalies from an evolutionary perspective." (2008: 219)
Tooby & Cosmides (Evolutionary Psychology) state "Almost all the phenomena that are central to the humanities are puzzling anomalies from an evolutionary perspective." (Gazzaniga 2008:219)
You initially said that there wasn't a system that science couldn't explain. I replied with culture and how did you reply? You said that there wasn't a system that science didn't/couldn't recognise.
Spectacular, epic-scale back tracking. Watch yourself.
You stated culture then asked me to disprove. In itself that easily demonstrates your lack of education. Furthermore, it demonstrates that you, although whimsical and entertaining, are simply a waste of bandwidth.
And all the while refusing to answer my original post.
Yeah that's right, pull out that old chestnut that I'm a troller.
Anyone can go back and read your spectacularly ridiculous claim that science can explain any and every system. I asked you about culture and you came back with the rather pathetic, yet illuminating backtracking reply that science could recognise any and every system.
So you keep trying to confuse that simple and lasting truth. You made a juvenile, outlandish statement which came back to bite you.
If you insist on paraphrasing then at least look at the original text first rather than relying on your subjectivity.
"science could recognise any and every system." - although not what I said this is, and always has been, a trick question. The very act of such observation and sharing is an exercise in science.
And of course you have conveniently forgot your little intellectual faux pas.
Then fact you are messing words around only shows you up for a squirming, wriggling backtracker.
You thought you knew enough about science to state something quite fantastical. I sounded you out for your silly comments and in revising your comment to state that science could 'recognise' every system you confirmed your sillyness.
You came across 'the big I am' when you are well short of that self-projected standard. You remain short.
I'm sure you won't lose wink of sleep, the thick-skinnedness of the closed mind is a powerful tribute to human over capacity: a power and a problem.
I wouldn't want anyone coming on this channel and thinking that you (and your shortness) speak for science, that would be a travesty for critical thought. I'll remind you that you said science could explain every system.
I replied with culture and you reverse geared with science able to 'recognise' every system.
Once again, you have avoided my question and misrepresented the facts.
So I ask you again - tell me a system that science neither recognises or explains. (btw it is still a trick question).
Now before you come right back with culture again, I shall quote you "You can easily prove me wrong with this by listing the accepted general theory of culture"
Asking for someone to disprove an unsubstantiated claim is plain silly. So try again, but this time with intelligence.
But then again - ad hominem attacks, the avoidance of simple questions (or an adequate rebuttal of the question itself), misrepresenting facts, and a general ignorance as to how scientific enquiry operates - yeah, I will expect more of the same from you.
Thinkers have been aware of culture for centuries, it's human second nature and the primary source of our experience after all. To say that science can 'recognise' culture then is to say nothing, it would be to hoover up from an awareness developed centuries before science emerged.
Can we say that science can explain culture? Well, no we can't if we hold culture to the same standard we did with evolution and the need for a mechanism.
"But then again - ad hominem attacks, the avoidance of simple questions (or an adequate rebuttal of the question itself), misrepresenting facts, and a general ignorance as to how scientific enquiry operates - yeah, I will expect more of the same from you."
I included the comment about 'no settled general theory of culture' because I thought you might come back with some shallow psuedo-science like memetics, or evolutionary psychology.
In terms of contradicting oneself I'm afraid (I'm not really) that you hold the Oscar for tripping backtracking. You initially said that there wasn't a system that science couldn't explain. I replied with culture and how did you reply?
Charles Darwin wrote "a scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone" and I don't see immediately how this connects with 'the values of science.'
I'm all for people whoever they are to lead lives that we can mutually understand as just but across different cultures there will be relative differences. I don't mind these people referring to secular values, but the notion of 'the values of science' tends to override science as a relative human product.
I set out to debunk a athiest youtuber named calpurnpiso As a greek pagan I thought that I would be in a good postition to do so because without the greeks athiests would not even exist. Look it up. Anywas to make a long story short. His answer was to take out Jesus, insert retard, and block me. I give his response a 70. As in IQ of 70. Thats ok some of my best friends are retards. Please unblock me and have a discussion. I will even subscribe. I still havent read the bible. I wikki'd it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
LOL these guys are soo acting. science doesnt explain everything....there are some things that science hasnt yet discovered...stop beeing ignorent thinking we know everything ...we dont !
and even tho im not complelty religious, i think its wrong to tell people they are wrong, its for humens to discover them selves what is truly right, not what a bunch of actors say on a tellevision screen.
No, it is not up to people to decide what is truly right or wrong. Something is true or it isn't - it really is very simple. Opinion has no bearing on facts.
Right and wrong are concepts of morality. Science does not define morality. Nor does it define truth in the concept of art, or other philosophical pursuits. It is a method, a reality filter if you will, for seeing the universe, and very useful. Your statement is almost as poor as the one you replied to.
I never said you could remove the human element from science - this has no bearing on facts however. Something is true or it isn't. Science has nothing to say about morality or the arts - and these are hardly what i was referring to either. You manners are as poor as your inferences..
2. These are scientists, philosophers, authors, and scholars.
3. Science doesn't explain everything. It explains everything that can be currently explained. While it would not be able to explain how the human body works 2,000 years ago, it would put forth a rational explanation based on available evidence. Not make up some magical bullshit to fill in the gaps in our knowledge.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
it isn't. it's the bare mechanism of empirical research and yet somehow over the last 10 years it's been conflated with a philosophical ideology and transformed into some kind of nerd cult. but hey, who doesn't love seeing pompous academics from first-world nations proselytizing on youtube and attributing the myriad handicaps of the developing world to 'lol witch doctors'.
That's not what they're arguing. Right now b/c of religious faith we're debating gay marriage and abortion as if they're the greatest moral issues of our time, when we have real problems happening. Genocide in Darfur, nukes, disease, worldwide hunger & malnutrition, etc. It's time that we figure how to solve things using our reason, not our ancient books.
What 'philosophical ideology' are you talking about? This is essentially rhetoric if you don't explain what you mean.
Lol, I'm actually more of a Buddhist. And just b/c I believe in the capacity for ethical conduct, spiritual experience, and wisdom (that's all Buddhism and Taoism really are) doesn't mean I deny science, or think that I have all the answers to the big questions in one book.
This isn't some marketing scheme aimed at a multicultural demographic based on relation to visuals. They aren't trying to sell anything and anyone who wants to help can. These people have all been doing things exactly like this independently for awhile and all came together supporting the CFI org.
lrn2relate through ideas and not just "common heroes"
I don't know whether you know it or not bushfingers, but the people you see in this video are some of the top philosophers, Cognitive scientist, and scientific authors of the world... The lady you see in there is the late Carl Sagan's widow... She co-author of the "Cosmos" series...They just might know what they are talking about...
This video is blasphemy. It teaches our young children to forsake divinity in lieu of tripe human knowledge. I am flagging this video for the youtube staff and hope other god fearing people do the same.
If people are going to believe in invisible men in the sky, then that's fine, just don't try and force it on others and don't try - as creationists do- to bend the rules of science to fit your beliefs. science doesn't work that way - using science to explain things and then saying God is outside of science - incompatable and stupid.
I notice that Christians whine a lot about their freedoms, although they weren't keen on the freedoms of others over the 1000 years the church reigned in Europe.
In this world Yossarian wants, he would have to spout his stupid crap to his tribe, because Youtube wouldn't exist, the internet wouldn't exist, computers wouldn't exist, telephone lines wouldn't exist, radios wouldn't exist.
In the world Yossarian yearns for, the evilsof modern science wouldn't have come up with acyclovir for my eye infection, leaving me half blind, unable to work (i couldn't get insurance) and homeless. That's the world Yossarian wants.
''Back in the old days, before the age of "enlightenment", when everyone was religious and lived a "primitive" life, everything was sustainable. ''
Was it? if everything was sustainable, then why did nations fight over territory and resources? It is science that allows modern farming to occur and feed billions. the only things slowing it down is economic greed. Do you really think any of the Worlds leaders give much thought to what the bible says?
'And thanks to modern medicine, infant mortality rate rapidly declined and as a result we are overpopulated, exploiting nature as well.'
What kind of backwards fuck prefers large numbers of people to suffer? Without modern medicine, life would be far more intolerable than it is now. The world isn't over poulated as you think: resources aren't being distributed properly. Religion has given the world nothing at all but another form of social control.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
No it's science that (will) destroy us not religion. There were always wars, and will always be (even without religions) but the big difference is that we have mass destruction weapons now.
And thanks to modern medicine, infant mortality rate rapidly declined and as a result we are overpopulated, exploiting nature as well.
Back in the old days, before the age of "enlightenment", when everyone was religious and lived a "primitive" life, everything was sustainable. But it doesn't matter anymore...
That's like blaming murder on guns. Sorry, guns don't kill. People do. Especially deluded superstitious people.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say everything was sustainable... it was a state of pure barbarism. Slaughtering your neighbors "to please you god". A glance at any of the holy books and religious history will show you that the only "sustainability" you could talk about is that some superstitions murdered others, and the ones that lived are large today.
Yeah and that's not far from the truth imho... I mean there are much more murders in the United States than in Europe simply because keeping guns is illegal for the general public unlike in America.
Yeah but thanks God we are not barbars anymore, are we. Although we exterminate whole species, rain forests (either directly or indirectly) and emit a lot of gases that cause climate change but it all doesn't matter because we are not superstitious anymore. Great.
Dude, you are so wrong. The most screwed up socieites on Earth today are theocracies. They are drowning in religion and ruled by superstition and gods. They are warring and place no emphasis on human rights.
Now look to atheistic cultures - much of Scandanavia, and the rest of Western culture. They are safer and progressive. This is why we have so many races living amongst us. Non-white ppl flock to our Science-driven countries and then say, "Science is bad. God is good." Give me a break.
First, you are dead wrong about Scandinavia. They are as Christian as the rest of Europe and the US. It may be declining, but it's still the vast majority of people worldwide that subscribe to some form of "irrational faith".
Second, it is not the theocracy of nations that is the problem, it is the specific views that they hold - promoting violence, racism, repression.
There is nothing intrinsic to religious cocepts that justifies unethical, cruel behavior.
Sa9e, in the realm of facts (not the realm of random assertions) you'll find the demographics of people asserting to be christian is far lower in scandinavian countries (defined as being denmark/norway/sweden and sometimes iceland and finland as well). Around 2 percent of americans currently identify themselves as athiests. In sweden, as of 2005 (and it's been rising), 23 percent self identified in this way. I'm sorry to jar your assumptions with actual numbers. If you'd like references msg me.
Yours' are the random assertions NoAntecessor, you have consistently picked the lowest figures as your data. In the most recent survey the percentage of American non believers has risen to around 12%. while at the same time the Evangelist churches are losing congregations as never before. there is a big anti right religious sentiment in the USA these days, which is growing as people realize that religion was indoctrinarion for war. It will be interesting to see what the next big study shows
Wow ... do you just say things then hope that they are true, or do you do any research?
There are 5 Scandinavian countries, and in Sweden, for example, 23% of it's citizens consider themselves Atheist - and another 50% just believe in a 'life force' - not a god!
The countries promoting sexism are more theocratic (based on religious gender differences). Mormons believe black people are further from god. Religion is all about repression.
Seriously ... it's amazing what you have written here.
You miss the point completely. I although I believe there are many religious precepts that directly inspire unjustified cruel behavior that doesn't even matter!
The point is faith. Belief without reason. You are either someone who gets that or they don't. What is anything without a reason? NOTHING! You make think that faith can be a good thing (and it may comfort people) but latently it is intrinsically destructive.
I don't understand how one can be one the side you have taken....
given the state of things and what we know about the way our minds work.
Surely, you will live to see these primitive thought processes destroy much of our chance to have a future.
Or not. You can take my word for it and try to understand why I am right. Which... if you really try you will not be denied any form of evidence and reason. And help be on the side of ensuring our future by outgrowing primitive ways of thinking.
This is a lovely video with one problem. Science is logically incompatible with atheism. So the leap from a commitment to science, which I have, to a commitment to naturalism is a leap of faith which reason does not permit. Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 1 day ago in playlist Atheism
If this is true, why do none of you have the courage to expose the BIG lie that the Germans gassed people in WW2? Go to CODOH.COM.
NIETZSCHEAN14 2 days ago
The three great branches. Science, Religion, Philosophy. Each great, each with a purpose.
NickoliLion 4 days ago in playlist Stupid videos by YT Atheists
Yet again the atheists try to hijack science as if it belongs to their worldview!! Yawn.
TheCartesianTheist 4 days ago in playlist Atheism
@TheCartesianTheist I wish I could have said that. It's so true.
MrItchyElbow 4 days ago in playlist Stupid videos by YT Atheists
only in america, the religious nutjobs
sayanroy36 1 month ago
Haha Dennett looked like he really didn't wanna be doing it.
GodTheHypothesis 1 month ago
Susan Jacoby. "because its old, it's stupid!" Now, THERE's some rationale!
LettuceReason 2 months ago
@LettuceReason you should really work on your speech comprehension skills...
olivierpicard18 1 month ago
@olivierpicard18 Thank you for the informative comment. Perhaps I wasnt clear. I meant "Because THEY were living long ago, THEY were stupid" Implying that because it happened 2000 years ago, everyone was stupid. That was my point. I re-read my statement and it DOES sound a bit vague. Maybe we can trade, I'll take a writing class, and you can have a history lesson!
LettuceReason 1 month ago
I think rationality will free us.
Science is only one part of rationality.
DrunkenPoetic 2 months ago
Religion is a fear control mind fraud trap, it spreads like a disease and causes a world of dysfunction, misery and war. Science brings us harmony and real understanding. After all your computer doesn't run on faith. Either live like the Amish or embrace the modern world, you can't have both.
MyITRcom 2 months ago
@dodgedavid67 And only religion can act like a virus that eats away your mind.
MyITRcom 2 months ago
28 people are religious and dont like reason and science and facts and truth and dont like reality!
Freethinker12341 3 months ago
@dodgedavid67
Here is a question you either wont or can't answer: If everyone stopped believing in your God would he/she/it cease to exist?
Yes? then good riddance, No? then you have a god that never interferes and no one believes in, so how does it exist?
Gods can only exist with believers, and die without them, otherwise why have as the most deadly sin worshiping other gods?
Why in your eyes, should I burn in Hell, because I honestly believe there is NO evidence for your Gods existence?
EvolBob1 3 months ago
1:18 Ann Druyan!! <3
psychosavant 4 months ago
Fun fact:
You can get here from the "laughing baby" video if you keep clicking long enough...
seriously how the fuck did i get here and where is the exit?
IceFried 5 months ago
I've been toying with the idea of inviting all the scientists and engineers to one isolated country, maybe Switzerland, and leaving the rest of the world behind. I've noticed an increased hostility and mistrust directed at scientists by the average religious/superstitious person. There is even more hostility towards future technologies like AI, nano tech, cybornetics, and things of that nature. I know the rest of the world wouldn't allow it, but a man can dream.
GodofSpanaway 5 months ago
but science created the end, the atomic bomb, the radiations, pollutions, control of minds in a large scale ...why say one is right and the other is wrong ? give to the poor and oppressed tools to live clean and in peace, with water and no bomb created by people of science ...but you cannot, and you know how science will control people and force them to live as minningless people ...except for the rich and aristocrats
emadrastahastam 5 months ago
@emadrastahastam and is religion is any better? Religion was practising mind control thousands of years before science even came along. The catholic church is one of the largest and richest land owners in the world, and all their income in tax free. A few hundred years ago we were still living in the dirt, yet our quality of life has gone up exponentially since then as a direct result of science. To say it is all evil displays a profound misunderstanding of what you're talking about.
luceEnd 5 months ago
Comment removed
emadrastahastam 5 months ago
The true scientific world is far more beautiful and intriguing than any madeup religious dogma is
ByabyaChannel 6 months ago
truly the saddest display of human ignorance i've ever seen.
Reason compels us to conclude there is a supernatural personal being. so please call it the age of science, not reason, because Methodological Naturalism presupposes naturalism while reason dictates that its an ad hoc assumption.
"its time for freethinking" if so release the shackles of naturalism from reason. as long as you cant give a reason to support naturalism / if you cant give a reason to believe in God, dont hold to it
TheDutchPhilosopher 6 months ago
Don't discount emotion diba!
Tippersnore 8 months ago
From a moral standpoint, it's ideal to believe in God than not to. Because the implications of God's non existence shows how morality could be completely disregarded by someone who just doesn't care. Yes science has answers but it doesn't have them all, who is to say empirical data for God's existence won't come in the future?
MassacreBlast 8 months ago
@MassacreBlast I've seen many religious people do atrocious things. And I'm not even talking about people doing such things in the name of their religions, but in spite of them.
I'm not trying to offend you, just presenting a different point to your polite argument: Religion is not a very good deterrent.
cormano64 8 months ago
@MassacreBlast
Seeing there is as much, if not more corruption and immoral acts by religious people than non-religious people, this statement is far from valid. If the leaders of religions are the most likely to bugger little choir boys, and worse, not get punished for such pedophilia by the churches, how can you claim that religion has any moral value whatsoever.
Honestly, priests and bishops get away with much more horribly immoral acts than any politicians, and politicians are atrocious.
brendanmcwilliams 6 months ago
@MassacreBlast
And if your rebuttal to this is that there are "bad apples" in the religious realm, then it is a wash. If we took surveys, we would probably find that the amount of "bad apples" that are religious and non-religious are around the same percentage.
Actually, if you survey a prison, you will likely find around 80% to claim to be religious. It is no surprise, as the same irrational, compulsive thinking is seen in convicts as in religious people (lack of responsibility for actions)
brendanmcwilliams 6 months ago
Don`t associate evolution with science. You have to have faith to believe in evolution and creation. If you call yourself an atheist, what is it that your denying...?
There is a lot of biology to be taught without creeping in your faith of evolution.
MrTickTickTock1 9 months ago
Science and reason are not the same thing.
Science is a tool used to be reason to understand the natural world.
If reason is restricted to science we're all fucked.
That reason has been restricted to science is one of the reasons religion refuses to leave.
Because science cannot provide us with meaning - so lacking anything else people inevitably turn back to mythology.
DrunkenPoetic 9 months ago
Science is the only thing giving us a true understanding and any real sense of meaning.
MyITRcom 2 months ago
Science can explain how the universe works but it can't give us meaning. It can HELP with meaning, but can't give meaning.
If you think science can give us meaning you must be some kind of mystic or spiritualist.
It's like something a Muslim would say.
DrunkenPoetic 2 months ago
@liketheuniverse11 I totally agree. Athiests piss me off cause they think science is the only truth
MoviesGamesAndShit 1 year ago
Haha, what a paradox "There were people that were tortured for their beliefs"..
sergiomarchelli 1 year ago
God exists, people! Stop being so proud just because you read a lot of books! To study and learn more and more is great for your material life, but it is not enough to save your soul! Please, respect the bible, it is the word of God, your creator! I totally believe the universe is full of an immense variety of beings and many other wonders! God is eternal and the Earth is just a dust in space! What humans know is pathetic comparing to the endless knowledge and power of God! Be humble!!
liketheuniverse11 1 year ago
@liketheuniverse11
Doesn't the Bible state that the Earth was specifically made by God to give us humans a place to live when we were created? "God created the heavens and the Earth" kind of implies that he specifically made the Earth, and then made the heavens for us to gawk at. The only reason we know of our own insignificance is of no thanks to the Bible either (which states otherwise), supposedly the irrefutable word of the God you speak of. If there is a God, it's not biblical. Be humble.
SulfuricAcidChugger 1 year ago
@liketheuniverse11 god has endless knowledge? How come he never taught people how to make vaccines? How come he waited for people to actually use their minds to come up with solutions?
SirFakeName 11 months ago
@SirFakeName God wants us to grow up!!! We need to learn for ourselves and He always helps! Unfortunately, many people are too proud to believe it! It's like a child: first he learns his ABCs, then the words, sentences...then go to high school, then college and so on...we have to grow up spiritually, too! Learn about being the best person you can possibly be! In humility, honesty, compassion, patience, etc!!! This short life that we live in the flesh is for improving ourselves by all means! :D
liketheuniverse11 11 months ago
@liketheuniverse11
We want to grow not because of a supreme deity. We are here for the world, for our children, and for the next generation and nature as well. Yes we grew spiritually too but not because of God but for ourselves, for the reason we live, and when the time comes... We will know our place in the world. Thats the power of not knowing. Exploring the world's beauty and wonders. We only have one life and we don't know what will happen to us when we die. How exiting is dat?
KEEETARO 10 months ago
@liketheuniverse11 "God exists, people!" You can show this how?
hawklord2001 10 months ago
@liketheuniverse11 "Please, respect the bible, it is the word of God, your creator! You can prove this assertion how?
hawklord2001 10 months ago
Science is a truly wonderful methodology for describing the material universe around us. It has shown us many truths about our existence (i.e. natural selection) However many people take it too far in my opinion and assume that the material is all that there is. This is philosophy, not science. The idea that matter and energy is all that makes up reality (materialism) is an unsupported claim, just like supernaturalism. Non-existent and unverifiable are not the same thing.
Keysteeze 1 year ago
@Keysteeze What are u talking about, "The idea that matter and energy is all that makes up reality (materialism) is an unsupported claim"
Science doesn't mind being wrong and if there is something there sceince will find it but for now it is irresponsible to state that you know there is anything more than matter and energy and to further state that not only do you know there is more but you understand it is fkn unsubstantiated bullshit.
So why would you believe anything other than science?
shandcunt 1 year ago
@shandcunt Well I do not know if there is a reality beyond the material. No one does. I certainly cannot describe it to you if there is one. However I find it amusing that many people think that they are on some kind of intellectual high ground for assuming materialism. Instead of being dismissive about it, these people should be working on ways to explore it (if there is a non-material).
Keysteeze 1 year ago
@Keysteeze They have been, I'm not too sure where you are coming from but if you don't think people have and are investigating the supernatural from a fair scientific view then check out James Randi, Sam Harris. Then please check out homeopathy, dowsing, deepak chopra, peter popoff.
James Randi actively investigates these types of things. what do you believe gives creditability to the idea of a supernatural world? I'm open to it as a possibility but wheres the proof?
shandcunt 1 year ago
@shandcunt Perhaps science is unable to answer these questions. Maybe we need to discover a new methodology.
Keysteeze 1 year ago
@Keysteeze Yeah, you may be right about that. again, go watch some stuff from sam harris about transcedental experiences, he talks about exactly that, discovering a way to study this sort of thing, stripped away from religous dogma, superstition, etc. If ther is a greater truth then it must be able to b measured and if it can't be measured you have no grounds to state anything about it at all, it's possible existence according to an unqualified indivisual would be irrlevent. like pink unicorns
shandcunt 1 year ago
@Keysteeze
This is what I always hear from people who believe in the supernatural. You say that as if science is somehow restricted in its methodology. Anything that can be repeatedly tested under controlled circumstances falls within the realm of science, it's not narrow at all. It's the only way of distinguising fact from fantasy. There's a reason we still call ghosts, psychics etc SUPERNATURAL rather than NATURAL. They fail every test!
GodTheHypothesis 1 year ago
@Keysteeze
The word "supernatural" is very telling. I mean there are plenty of things which are non-material which we know exist- magnetic fields, gravity etc (although those could fall under 'energy') but when you use the word 'supernatural' it seems to imply that it can't even be measured or understood in the natural world. If that's the case, why bother talk about it? What's the difference between something that doesn't exist and something that can never be shown to exist?
GodTheHypothesis 1 year ago
Religion may have been successful among people in the past. I understand that changes in human beliefs are difficult to come because humans have comfort zones. In the modern time, we know more about nearly every aspect of our life, thanks to technology and science. We are becoming smarter as we know more, which is an example of evolution. It was so easy for people in the past to believe in supernaturals for things they did not know, and there were many things people did not know.
candoyja 1 year ago
i think some of us still resent having fear born supersticions pushed upon us from a young and impressionable age i know i sometimes do.
THESOULbornold 1 year ago
23 dislikes? only stupid people would do that.
userwl2850 1 year ago
Beautiful. Science is reality. Religion is useless supersition, it will die.
bary1234 1 year ago 11
@bary1234 agreed
SvendsenAtheist 1 year ago
Whats the name of the song that starts at around 1:50 ? :)
Wallebille 1 year ago
@Wallebille That's just a loop that's in Garage Band. A music making program available on all Macs...
therealtonylugo 1 year ago
Science is valuable because it acknowledges that we do not know everything, and strives to correct that as much as it is possible.
Religion is dangerous because it teaches us to be happy with our ignorance
GeneralMontague 1 year ago
Evolution in mammals is only possible with heterosexual relationships...
Religious faggots will never admit this.
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
99.9 % of people know science is the future and religion is the past
religion will kill us
science will free us
tommystros 1 year ago 16
@tommystros beatiful
SvendsenAtheist 1 year ago
@tommystros Religion is already killing us.
Devialx10 5 months ago
@tommystros One only needs to look at the quantity of tangible values religion has brought to humanity compared to Science to know the truth of your statement.
MyITRcom 2 months ago
Keep in mind people. Religion= faith. Clearly, non of you have faith and I have no problem with that. If there was proof that religion was real, then there would be no faith and therefore no religion.
oshyria 1 year ago
this video is amazing,
so many brilliant minds saying that beautiful words, with that little song,
i feel my batteries recharged because of these words, truly exciting!!
rocksz19 1 year ago
the universe is not created so that only the educated have any idea how to live, these people have no greater grasp on reality they just believe what everyone else does, there way is right.
sycova 1 year ago
you know I think the only thing I can add to this is; how much of a knuckle dragging mouth breather dose one have to be to represent the 23 people who hit the dislike button on this vid - Fing crazy
rollerpodger 1 year ago
That was probably the wettest thing I have ever seen :-I
Jackdoubleday1 1 year ago
1:20
Carl Sagan's wife! :)
luarionte 1 year ago
"God: Hidden Science" - Google it!
byScrooby 1 year ago
Watch my valentine's video! ^_^
juntaon 1 year ago
That 1st woman was fucking ugly.
TheAmazingRandall 1 year ago
I hereby double dare you to point at something which cannot be explained by science.
lolgepwnt 2 years ago 2
There are things all the time science can't explain. Hopeless medical cases that are healed and people who "should" be ok who died. Science has brought us a long way but doesn't hold all the answers. The idea that anyone who doesn't agree is 'backwards' or 'ignorant' for having a different view I don't agree with.
Science allows insemination of livestock that never meet - but you can do everything scientifically right and still not have conception.
JanH1961 2 years ago
And which realms of science did you not need to actuate in order to watch and/or read about such miraculously unreferenced phenomenon and with what ease did you manage to post said bullshit on the internets?
You are a waste of bandwidth.
lolgepwnt 2 years ago 2
@lolgepwnt
Darwin couldn't in his time, and despite numerous attempts from evolutionary theory they haven't been able to 'crack' culture. If you understand culture in relative concert with the human mind is more influential on our thinking and behaviour than biological and/or genetic considerations, then culture is a big deal
The values of science? Are those the values that facilitate industrialising, globalising capitalism? Nuclear weapons? Toxic pollutants? How do they 'fit' with the values?
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@naturalpreservation Science is the essentially the study of nature. And nature doesn't care what you think.
Think about the tripe you are talking. Without Economics!, Nuclear research!, Chemistry! you wouldn't be typing these silly comments.
See above.
What exactly would this invisible man be overseeing in your new judicial system? Surely not in charge of the War Department?
Listing things that ultimately are deemed as causing death, doesn't defer the reality that you will die.
lolgepwnt 1 year ago
@lolgepwnt
My career is in science and academia so you don't need to sell human acquisition and discovery of knowledge. My point is rooted in the idea of secularists trying to annex 'science values' for their own agenda when the ownership of science is something all humans have to take responsibility for.
This policiszing of science runs counter to its objective claims. It's a shame you can't see that. I wasn't criticizing science, just pointing out the idea of 'values' in science is political
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@lolgepwnt
Now if as you say science is essentially the study of nature then as long as practitioners stick to the rigours of the scientific method then there is little room to manouvre that would require any talk of values because when we talk of 'value' we are talking about judgements in terms of belief and direction.
If you open your eyes and mind this is secular politics trying to annex science for this own political ends. Your reply didn't challenge that notion whatsoever.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@lolgepwnt
So when you say that science is 'essentially' the study of nature that completely overlooks the fact that while science can facilitate the detection of the damaging effects that humankind's industrial activity has on the planet, science also facilitates the very processes of destruction.
Do you accept that point? This idea that science 'in itself' embodies clear values is not something that is mirrored in the real world. Science's value is as wide ranging as its uses, good and bad.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@naturalpreservation
I am supremely confident you are unable to provide one example of some (sub)system that cannot, nor will ever, be explained by science.
And so if our species is a natural system in nature and all natural systems can, at least partly, be understood through science, I would absolutely endorse a society that rationally makes decisions based on available evidence and invests in solutions that are, on average, good for the society and the individuals that compose it.
lolgepwnt 1 year ago
@lolgepwnt
What you've done right there is bring the entire field of objective science into the world of politics, which is a very, very human endeavour. Even if we take the most fundamental idea of Western politics 'democracy' we can see that this is not a universal. There are many forms of democracy, each stressing different values on different parts.
If some scientists want to start a Rational Secular Party beyond science's contribution to politics and law-making then they should do it.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@lolgepwnt
You said: "And so if our species is a natural system in nature and all natural systems can, at least partly, be understood through science.."
I would direct attention to the 'at least partly' bit. Science is the sophistication of provisional truth towards laws, axioms and mathematical representation. The goal is definition, not mere description which is what lies through/behind your 'at least partly' comment.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@naturalpreservation
Comments are limited - If I was talking about politics, I would have just said it.
Science is only accepted by lawmakers when it suits the purposes of the politician/government - drug advisory resignations and volcanic ash dangers being most topical.
And as for the latter part of my comment, I never even wrote the word science. I alluded to scientific enquiry and perhaps even sensible conjecture - I thought you would have known the difference. Obviously not.
lolgepwnt 1 year ago
@lolgepwnt
Don't be surprised when your clouding expression results in a cloudy impression on my part. This you tube video takes science into the realm of politics as soon as they start to talk about decision-making, values, etc.
It's not the case that I don't know the difference, it's about accepting your short comings on this because you don't know the difference between science and politics, which this is. "..advancing reason, humanist values and secularism around the world."
Politics.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@naturalpreservation
Ah more comment avoidance. If you can't think of a sensible reply, don't bother.
lolgepwnt 1 year ago
@lolgepwnt
This conversation was over the minute you showed you were unable to grasp the difference between science and politics. They are interwoven for sure but once we start to package science AS secularism, AS a specific values from a particular groupd then we drift from the very objectivity that science is supposed to embody.
I know you said you weren't talking about politics. That's exactly my point, you can't even see that.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@naturalpreservation
Yet you are still commenting. Go be butthurt elsewhere.
lolgepwnt 1 year ago
@lolgepwnt
What is the point of trying to reason with someone who clearly doesn't know the difference between science and politics? I might as well try and reason with a child, and that's a metaphor directed at your inability to tell the difference.
If the but hurt line of reason (or whatever it is) is indicative of something more telling of your non-thinking then your apparent failure to tell the difference between politics and science becomes more one of sympathy for you.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@naturalpreservation
And still you comment. Though it is nice to know idiots can make it this far in life without stabbing themselves to death at the dinner table.
lolgepwnt 1 year ago
@lolgepwnt
Humans comment, it's another thing we do that other life species don't. You should try hanging around with humans some time, you'd become more familiar with the practice.
You are a powerful example of how we can't escape opinion, bias and value in what we say at a human level. Science is a method for sophisticating provisional truths about the material world but when we start to talk (including comment) about values that's political.
As an observation, or comment you don't get it.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
And this is an important point which is not going to go away anytime soon, science is a human product. It is one of trillions of human products so rather than undermining human exceptionalism, it underlines it.
Science is a method, an idea given life by fields of enquiry and it's resultant findings, some of which will stand the test of time. Science at its most technical level though remains an idea acting through bodies. In this sense it as non-corporeal than the God you'd deny.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@naturalpreservation
You really must be desperate for friends.
Yet you still cannot find me an object/system that cannot be explained or at the very least is recognised by science - that is, your god and all others are not required to fill in the gaps of human knowledge.
Which pretty much sums you up - multiple replies with little or no intelligent content.
Replying to this message will demonstrate my hypothesis as being correct.
lolgepwnt 1 year ago
@lolgepwnt
You are responding to me so that means that you have no friends either I would guess. Think through what you are saying as you reply to me.
Wow, your standards have really slipped. Initially it was science could explain any system, and now it's just a case of recognising a system. I can open my eyes like anyone and see cultural phenomena, we don't need science to tell us that it exists. You're a science-ologist of the highest (and yet lowest) order.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@lolgepwnt
So while I am making points and responding to yours, you are only going on about my friendship circles and trying to come across as smug, when you only look short.
You didn't respond to my point about science being at the technical level an idea that acts through bodies, which makes it as non-corporeal as the God you'd deny. Your response to that, no response. You are a very poor example of scientific reasoning and your chances of being science poster boy 2010 are absolute zero.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@lolge-pop
So do yourself a favour, read and re-read what you are typing. Believe me, a lot of it is better kept inside your head. You've went from the lofty claim that there isn't a system that science can't explain (when culture remains a mystery) to the pretty pathetic back peddling saying that there isn't a system that science can't at least recognise.
I'm just sitting back here watching you trip yourself up lolge-pop.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@naturalpreservation
Oh lol. So the entire concept of culture is, at present, entirely unknownable and unexplainable? I really hope you don't delete that comment.
But thanks anyway for demonstrating me to be correct and proving that dominated strategies are never a good thing to actuate.
And now it is your cue to post another deflecting and equally moronic and unsubstantiated statement.
lolgepwnt 1 year ago
@lolgepwnt
Why would I delete it, it's a fact that there is no settled general theory of culture anywhere in science, physical, natural and social sciences. That you would make such a play on an obvious statement confirms what I thought and continue to think, that when it comes to the social world of humankind and history of science you are short.
Way short.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@lolgepwnt
When it comes to moronic and unsubstantiated statement it's clear that you have the monopoly there.
You can easily prove me wrong with this by listing the accepted general theory of culture that is the settled will of and through science. Here's a tip, don't come back with sociobiology, memetics, evolutionary psychology, cultural ethology, Marxism, feminism, symbolic interactionism, even social constructionism, they are all short.
Bit like you.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@naturalpreservation
"culture remains a mystery" is not equal to "there is no settled general theory of culture"
I suspected you were a troll a few days ago, but out of curiosity I continued to reply. But now that you are posting stuff like that, I feel the need to spend my time on more interesting pursuits.
And no this is not a admission of failure - I simply don't have time to argue with someone whose statements are (afaict) based entirely on other peoples opinions.
No need to reply.
lolgepwnt 1 year ago
@lolgepwnt
There is no contradiction there, culture remains a mystery but that hasn't stop evolutionary pseudo-sciences form confusing thought as theory, driven by their dogma of Universal Darwinism (UD).
In Michael Gazzaniga's 2008 book 'Human: The Scient behind what makes us unique' he quotes Tooby & Cosmides (evolutionary psychology) who state "Almost all of the phenomena that are central to the humanities are puzzling anomalies from an evolutionary perspective." (2008: 219)
Mystery indeed
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@lolgepwnt
Tooby & Cosmides (Evolutionary Psychology) state "Almost all the phenomena that are central to the humanities are puzzling anomalies from an evolutionary perspective." (Gazzaniga 2008:219)
You initially said that there wasn't a system that science couldn't explain. I replied with culture and how did you reply? You said that there wasn't a system that science didn't/couldn't recognise.
Spectacular, epic-scale back tracking. Watch yourself.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@naturalpreservation
You stated culture then asked me to disprove. In itself that easily demonstrates your lack of education. Furthermore, it demonstrates that you, although whimsical and entertaining, are simply a waste of bandwidth.
And all the while refusing to answer my original post.
Keep trolling.
lolgepwnt 1 year ago
@lolgepwnt
Yeah that's right, pull out that old chestnut that I'm a troller.
Anyone can go back and read your spectacularly ridiculous claim that science can explain any and every system. I asked you about culture and you came back with the rather pathetic, yet illuminating backtracking reply that science could recognise any and every system.
So you keep trying to confuse that simple and lasting truth. You made a juvenile, outlandish statement which came back to bite you.
Ouch.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@naturalpreservation
"I asked you about culture..." - *ahem*
If you insist on paraphrasing then at least look at the original text first rather than relying on your subjectivity.
"science could recognise any and every system." - although not what I said this is, and always has been, a trick question. The very act of such observation and sharing is an exercise in science.
And of course you have conveniently forgot your little intellectual faux pas.
Keep trying.
lolgepwnt 1 year ago
@lolgepwnt
Then fact you are messing words around only shows you up for a squirming, wriggling backtracker.
You thought you knew enough about science to state something quite fantastical. I sounded you out for your silly comments and in revising your comment to state that science could 'recognise' every system you confirmed your sillyness.
You came across 'the big I am' when you are well short of that self-projected standard. You remain short.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@naturalpreservation
Yeah that's it. I'll not be able to sleep a wink tonight knowing I have been intellectually thwarted by you.
And once again, you may refrain from seeking further attention by replying to this post.
lolgepwnt 1 year ago
@lolgepwnt 'Shorty'
I'm sure you won't lose wink of sleep, the thick-skinnedness of the closed mind is a powerful tribute to human over capacity: a power and a problem.
I wouldn't want anyone coming on this channel and thinking that you (and your shortness) speak for science, that would be a travesty for critical thought. I'll remind you that you said science could explain every system.
I replied with culture and you reverse geared with science able to 'recognise' every system.
You're short.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@naturalpreservation
Oh no, the troll kept on trolling. What a surprise.
lolgepwnt 1 year ago
@lolgepwnt 'Shorty'
I'll remind you again how you tripped yourself up.
(1) You made the silly, and quite ridiculous statement that science could explain every system.
(2) I asked you about culture
(3) Then you back tracked by then saying that science could 'recognise' every system.
(4) I laughed at your back tracking and you being caught in such an obviously fool hardy statement.
So now you lash out calling me a troller. Don't worry I don't take offence from someone so obviously short.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@naturalpreservation
1) You failed to answer.
2) You asserted that culture is a mystery and then asked me to disprove your claim.
3) I rephrased my original point - you again refused to answer.
4) You laughed, but you missed the joke completely.
And when all else failed, you began the ad hominem attacks.
But it was a nice try.
lolgepwnt 1 year ago
@lolgepwnt 'Shorty'
It's even more simple than that, a bit like you 'Shorty'
(1) you said there wasn't a system that science couldn't explain
(2) I asked you about culture
(3) you then back tracked and said there wasn't a system that science couldn't recognise
What a climb down. Like I said though I wouldn't confuse someone so short as a credible mouth piece for science.
Not with your short drivel.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@naturalpreservation
Once again, you have avoided my question and misrepresented the facts.
So I ask you again - tell me a system that science neither recognises or explains. (btw it is still a trick question).
Now before you come right back with culture again, I shall quote you "You can easily prove me wrong with this by listing the accepted general theory of culture"
Asking for someone to disprove an unsubstantiated claim is plain silly. So try again, but this time with intelligence.
lolgepwnt 1 year ago
@lolgepwnt
But then again - ad hominem attacks, the avoidance of simple questions (or an adequate rebuttal of the question itself), misrepresenting facts, and a general ignorance as to how scientific enquiry operates - yeah, I will expect more of the same from you.
lolgepwnt 1 year ago
@lolgepwnt "Shorty"
Thinkers have been aware of culture for centuries, it's human second nature and the primary source of our experience after all. To say that science can 'recognise' culture then is to say nothing, it would be to hoover up from an awareness developed centuries before science emerged.
Can we say that science can explain culture? Well, no we can't if we hold culture to the same standard we did with evolution and the need for a mechanism.
You remain short and funny "shorty".
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@naturalpreservation
"But then again - ad hominem attacks, the avoidance of simple questions (or an adequate rebuttal of the question itself), misrepresenting facts, and a general ignorance as to how scientific enquiry operates - yeah, I will expect more of the same from you."
Predicted, expected and delivered.
lolgepwnt 1 year ago
@lolgepwnt "shorty"
Again you made the fantastical claim that science can explain any system - WRONG
I asked you about culture and you then humourously back tracked by saying that science could RECOGNISE any system.
Now you have blended the two together by asking about 'a system that science neither recognises or explains.' You are a joke.
You don't see that by HAVING TO add 'recognise' you are not highlighting scientific strength, but weakness in merely 'recognising'
You're short, and funny
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@naturalpreservation
I included the comment about 'no settled general theory of culture' because I thought you might come back with some shallow psuedo-science like memetics, or evolutionary psychology.
In terms of contradicting oneself I'm afraid (I'm not really) that you hold the Oscar for tripping backtracking. You initially said that there wasn't a system that science couldn't explain. I replied with culture and how did you reply?
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
Charles Darwin wrote "a scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone" and I don't see immediately how this connects with 'the values of science.'
I'm all for people whoever they are to lead lives that we can mutually understand as just but across different cultures there will be relative differences. I don't mind these people referring to secular values, but the notion of 'the values of science' tends to override science as a relative human product.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I set out to debunk a athiest youtuber named calpurnpiso As a greek pagan I thought that I would be in a good postition to do so because without the greeks athiests would not even exist. Look it up. Anywas to make a long story short. His answer was to take out Jesus, insert retard, and block me. I give his response a 70. As in IQ of 70. Thats ok some of my best friends are retards. Please unblock me and have a discussion. I will even subscribe. I still havent read the bible. I wikki'd it.
MNBrant 2 years ago
It's time for wisdom, righteousness and common sense!
PortVienna80 2 years ago
great ad
nlytend1 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
LOL these guys are soo acting. science doesnt explain everything....there are some things that science hasnt yet discovered...stop beeing ignorent thinking we know everything ...we dont !
and even tho im not complelty religious, i think its wrong to tell people they are wrong, its for humens to discover them selves what is truly right, not what a bunch of actors say on a tellevision screen.
MichaelAFFischer 2 years ago
No, it is not up to people to decide what is truly right or wrong. Something is true or it isn't - it really is very simple. Opinion has no bearing on facts.
ssmith73 2 years ago 12
Right and wrong are concepts of morality. Science does not define morality. Nor does it define truth in the concept of art, or other philosophical pursuits. It is a method, a reality filter if you will, for seeing the universe, and very useful. Your statement is almost as poor as the one you replied to.
kaimialana 2 years ago
as is yours - if you had a point it is less than clear.
ssmith73 2 years ago
Perhaps that it /is/ up to people to decide what is right and wrong? Or is your reading comprehension that low?
Regardless, you can't remove the human element from science. Cf. Karl Popper.
kaimialana 2 years ago
I never said you could remove the human element from science - this has no bearing on facts however. Something is true or it isn't. Science has nothing to say about morality or the arts - and these are hardly what i was referring to either. You manners are as poor as your inferences..
ssmith73 2 years ago
1. Your monitor is not a television screen.
2. These are scientists, philosophers, authors, and scholars.
3. Science doesn't explain everything. It explains everything that can be currently explained. While it would not be able to explain how the human body works 2,000 years ago, it would put forth a rational explanation based on available evidence. Not make up some magical bullshit to fill in the gaps in our knowledge.
alexjohnc3 2 years ago 46
Yes.
kaimialana 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Oh the hilarity they have in their desperation against religion, founded the church of Atheism ALL HAIL RICHARD DAWKINS
GiftoChaos 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
PLEASE SAVE US EDUCATED WHITE PEOPLE only your self-righteous first-world ideologies can rescue humanity from the dangers of culture and heritage!
ThePepperKing 2 years ago
Yeah, culture and heritage is what religion is. Not dogmatic, blind faith in 2,000 year old BS that keeps humanity from reaching its full potential.
Oh, and how is science an ideology?
TaoOfPhilosophy 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
it isn't. it's the bare mechanism of empirical research and yet somehow over the last 10 years it's been conflated with a philosophical ideology and transformed into some kind of nerd cult. but hey, who doesn't love seeing pompous academics from first-world nations proselytizing on youtube and attributing the myriad handicaps of the developing world to 'lol witch doctors'.
ThePepperKing 2 years ago
That's not what they're arguing. Right now b/c of religious faith we're debating gay marriage and abortion as if they're the greatest moral issues of our time, when we have real problems happening. Genocide in Darfur, nukes, disease, worldwide hunger & malnutrition, etc. It's time that we figure how to solve things using our reason, not our ancient books.
What 'philosophical ideology' are you talking about? This is essentially rhetoric if you don't explain what you mean.
TaoOfPhilosophy 2 years ago 3
you must be a fucking terrible taoist.
ThePepperKing 2 years ago
Lol, I'm actually more of a Buddhist. And just b/c I believe in the capacity for ethical conduct, spiritual experience, and wisdom (that's all Buddhism and Taoism really are) doesn't mean I deny science, or think that I have all the answers to the big questions in one book.
TaoOfPhilosophy 2 years ago 2
cool so that's you and 90% of people in the world then.
ThePepperKing 2 years ago
Nah, last time I checked, Christians, Muslims, and Hindus together make up about 70% of the world's population.
TaoOfPhilosophy 2 years ago
Well said.
aerycksmusic 2 years ago
lol
This isn't some marketing scheme aimed at a multicultural demographic based on relation to visuals. They aren't trying to sell anything and anyone who wants to help can. These people have all been doing things exactly like this independently for awhile and all came together supporting the CFI org.
lrn2relate through ideas and not just "common heroes"
420bongweed 2 years ago
I don't know much WildAssCopyCat, but I do know that you are trying to apply argumentum ad verecundiam.
But you are right - someone as important as Carl Sagan's widow must know what she is talking about :-)
I'm all for science and reason, but I believe in being reasonable about reason and scientific about science.
bushfingers 2 years ago
What rot!!
bushfingers 2 years ago
I don't know whether you know it or not bushfingers, but the people you see in this video are some of the top philosophers, Cognitive scientist, and scientific authors of the world... The lady you see in there is the late Carl Sagan's widow... She co-author of the "Cosmos" series...They just might know what they are talking about...
^..^
TheWildAssCopyCat 2 years ago
This video is blasphemy. It teaches our young children to forsake divinity in lieu of tripe human knowledge. I am flagging this video for the youtube staff and hope other god fearing people do the same.
/sike
jamesmaxwell 2 years ago
Ha i thought you were serious until the "sike" bit. Nice. :D
Yudovitch 2 years ago
Poe's Law is like that. :)
kaimialana 2 years ago
Incredible video.
GnomeyHead 2 years ago 3
I want to be in the video!!!!!! and wear a tuxedo
Nades129 2 years ago
I LOVE YOU ALL!!!
What an incredible group of people!
LagrangianDynamics 2 years ago 13
@LagrangianDynamics I second that. Finally I've found some evidence based reasoning on youtube
BrendanIsCool 1 year ago
If people are going to believe in invisible men in the sky, then that's fine, just don't try and force it on others and don't try - as creationists do- to bend the rules of science to fit your beliefs. science doesn't work that way - using science to explain things and then saying God is outside of science - incompatable and stupid.
I notice that Christians whine a lot about their freedoms, although they weren't keen on the freedoms of others over the 1000 years the church reigned in Europe.
kitchenaut 2 years ago
In this world Yossarian wants, he would have to spout his stupid crap to his tribe, because Youtube wouldn't exist, the internet wouldn't exist, computers wouldn't exist, telephone lines wouldn't exist, radios wouldn't exist.
kitchenaut 2 years ago
In the world Yossarian yearns for, the evilsof modern science wouldn't have come up with acyclovir for my eye infection, leaving me half blind, unable to work (i couldn't get insurance) and homeless. That's the world Yossarian wants.
kitchenaut 2 years ago
''Back in the old days, before the age of "enlightenment", when everyone was religious and lived a "primitive" life, everything was sustainable. ''
Was it? if everything was sustainable, then why did nations fight over territory and resources? It is science that allows modern farming to occur and feed billions. the only things slowing it down is economic greed. Do you really think any of the Worlds leaders give much thought to what the bible says?
kitchenaut 2 years ago
'And thanks to modern medicine, infant mortality rate rapidly declined and as a result we are overpopulated, exploiting nature as well.'
What kind of backwards fuck prefers large numbers of people to suffer? Without modern medicine, life would be far more intolerable than it is now. The world isn't over poulated as you think: resources aren't being distributed properly. Religion has given the world nothing at all but another form of social control.
Now read a book.
kitchenaut 2 years ago
Yes the world will be destroyed unless
atheists take over!!
Religions might destroy the planet!!
maltiskisokol 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No it's science that (will) destroy us not religion. There were always wars, and will always be (even without religions) but the big difference is that we have mass destruction weapons now.
And thanks to modern medicine, infant mortality rate rapidly declined and as a result we are overpopulated, exploiting nature as well.
Back in the old days, before the age of "enlightenment", when everyone was religious and lived a "primitive" life, everything was sustainable. But it doesn't matter anymore...
Yossarian1213 2 years ago
That's like blaming murder on guns. Sorry, guns don't kill. People do. Especially deluded superstitious people.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say everything was sustainable... it was a state of pure barbarism. Slaughtering your neighbors "to please you god". A glance at any of the holy books and religious history will show you that the only "sustainability" you could talk about is that some superstitions murdered others, and the ones that lived are large today.
Gnomefro 2 years ago 2
"That's like blaming murder on guns."
Yeah and that's not far from the truth imho... I mean there are much more murders in the United States than in Europe simply because keeping guns is illegal for the general public unlike in America.
Yossarian1213 2 years ago
"it was a state of pure barbarism."
Yeah but thanks God we are not barbars anymore, are we. Although we exterminate whole species, rain forests (either directly or indirectly) and emit a lot of gases that cause climate change but it all doesn't matter because we are not superstitious anymore. Great.
Yossarian1213 2 years ago
Dude, you are so wrong. The most screwed up socieites on Earth today are theocracies. They are drowning in religion and ruled by superstition and gods. They are warring and place no emphasis on human rights.
Now look to atheistic cultures - much of Scandanavia, and the rest of Western culture. They are safer and progressive. This is why we have so many races living amongst us. Non-white ppl flock to our Science-driven countries and then say, "Science is bad. God is good." Give me a break.
dweeper1020 2 years ago
First, you are dead wrong about Scandinavia. They are as Christian as the rest of Europe and the US. It may be declining, but it's still the vast majority of people worldwide that subscribe to some form of "irrational faith".
Second, it is not the theocracy of nations that is the problem, it is the specific views that they hold - promoting violence, racism, repression.
There is nothing intrinsic to religious cocepts that justifies unethical, cruel behavior.
sa9e 2 years ago
Sa9e, in the realm of facts (not the realm of random assertions) you'll find the demographics of people asserting to be christian is far lower in scandinavian countries (defined as being denmark/norway/sweden and sometimes iceland and finland as well). Around 2 percent of americans currently identify themselves as athiests. In sweden, as of 2005 (and it's been rising), 23 percent self identified in this way. I'm sorry to jar your assumptions with actual numbers. If you'd like references msg me.
NoAntecessor 2 years ago
Yours' are the random assertions NoAntecessor, you have consistently picked the lowest figures as your data. In the most recent survey the percentage of American non believers has risen to around 12%. while at the same time the Evangelist churches are losing congregations as never before. there is a big anti right religious sentiment in the USA these days, which is growing as people realize that religion was indoctrinarion for war. It will be interesting to see what the next big study shows
marsCubed 2 years ago
Wow ... do you just say things then hope that they are true, or do you do any research?
There are 5 Scandinavian countries, and in Sweden, for example, 23% of it's citizens consider themselves Atheist - and another 50% just believe in a 'life force' - not a god!
The countries promoting sexism are more theocratic (based on religious gender differences). Mormons believe black people are further from god. Religion is all about repression.
Seriously ... it's amazing what you have written here.
dweeper1020 2 years ago
I assure you - Scandinavia is no where *near* the US when it comes to adherance to religious dogma.
TheAtheistSwede 2 years ago
You miss the point completely. I although I believe there are many religious precepts that directly inspire unjustified cruel behavior that doesn't even matter!
The point is faith. Belief without reason. You are either someone who gets that or they don't. What is anything without a reason? NOTHING! You make think that faith can be a good thing (and it may comfort people) but latently it is intrinsically destructive.
I don't understand how one can be one the side you have taken....
VarialProductions 2 years ago 2
given the state of things and what we know about the way our minds work.
Surely, you will live to see these primitive thought processes destroy much of our chance to have a future.
Or not. You can take my word for it and try to understand why I am right. Which... if you really try you will not be denied any form of evidence and reason. And help be on the side of ensuring our future by outgrowing primitive ways of thinking.
VarialProductions 2 years ago