I'm just a humble philosophy student but this is bad teaching.
An ignorant mistake like "Metaphysics, Aristotle invented the term" is serious but not as bad has the perverse propaganda disguised as content of a lecture.
Sorry now thats the right video. ... "some" socolars say the relative peace at the period before 1200 B.C. has its reason in gender equality.("7:16") Who are this scolars?
when he gets' to 9.5 mins - 10.12 mins: he talks about philosophy starting out as greeks trying to find out how to have a happy life and then goes on to talk about a perversion along the way and that now people look at it as who is right and who is wrong. He then goes on to say that everyone would disagree with aristotle in the present time because everyone is different = Maybe this is the problem? just saying..
Yes philosophy is all with the mind. They started doing philosophy because they wanted to find the difference between good and evil. Zen and Buddhim is an effort to quieten the nerves of those who discovered the difference and realized they had done bad. Similarly with confessions in the Catholic religion. Better to give kids the foundation of philosophy as groundwork and work up from there. Also philosophy did not start it Greece. It started in the Garden of Eden.
@TheEdwardallen54 There is no "philosophy" and the word is mostly used improperly. As for children; one might consider that learning how to construal anything true' would be of any most benefit which lends to any and all proper use of any and all informationwithin fruitioning any and all organizational skills while seeking any goal; anyone learns on their own and most children are very distracted within any fear of failure and also within being seen as being successful.
This is good. For a video on YouTube that actually tells us something, it is fantastic. For a philosophy and ethics class, it is average, which is pretty darn good when you think about it.
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate than the word "gay".
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with complete support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
this is not philosophy for dummies - no disrespect to the guy who wrote it --its for people who read widely - and are serious about knowledge --- too bad for the -the none so blind that they will not see.
feel sorry for this guy he is so lost. wish we would read the vedas in sanskrit, thats what plato and the other greeks philosophers did and they still didnt get it. god bless.
@kbrgolfer84 So did I, then I woke up too Just like Neo being controlled by the machine; Philosophy is all about defining quantum mechanics' there is no world view other than on an intrinsic plane of our paternal affection which becomes controlled by the influence of the material comforts; Imagine if you were simply another species being instinctive to your physical attributes based upon your organic structure of nature' but here we as humans are simply attached to the material comforts'
It is a very good lecture on Philosophy. Extremely explanative and it also tells us the basic and fundamental questions in Philosophy. I am really very much impressed by the Professor Dr. Werner Krieglstein. Great Lecture, very very good lecture.
i thought it was good. For me not knowing anything, it helped me get a better understanding.Of course all you people talking bad about him KNOW alot more about philosophy more than I do. So go watch your advanced philosophy videos instead.
If a physics teacher were to teach some basic concepts of physics to a class of children, do you suspect that he would incoperate all the jargon and mathmatics? Probably not. It would likely be watered down physics for a 10 year old to consume-- an uninteresting approach for most adults.
And so it's also the case with this lecture in ethics: a professor teaching watered down (boring) ethics to children-- 0:04.
I'm just saying this to those who think this lecture was for adults.
This is almost inconveivably irresponsible for a tenured Professor.
I say almost because the great Equalizers of mankind will tell any lie no matter how far tetched in order to dupe the guillable or innocent. The guillable probably deserve it, the innocent don't.
This isn't History or Philosophy, it's Gossip. Intellectually this guy operates on the level of gossip.
@A99399939 When learning, we shouldn't soak all ideas as the same level of importance. We have to recognize and differentiate how people try to convince us or shower us with their beliefs. This is why we share comments!
I think we all know judgement is important but here is theoretical proof of this claim:
Judgement allows one to attempt to meet with the people they want to in life and go do what they want in life. If one left this to chance the probability of them getting what they want would clearly decrease (e.g. civilizations rise from orderly humans not chaotic randomness). So overall the probability of people getting what they want increases and overall that wud make more people happy. so it is important
I teach ethics. This is an incredibly poor lecture will ill-conceived examples, and abstract empty bullshit. I mean, WTF - symmetry in nature as a way of INTRODUCING what ethics is???? Please don't judge ethics courses based on this guy!
@Normanrs2004 then at least do a video of it. do you know to see is to believe? you can always say that you teach ethics and blablabla but i cant see any good etiquette from your comment.
@Normanrs2004 I see where he was going, but his thoughts are so scattered that it's impossible to follow. I don't think that the whole of philosophy is on how to be happy and why do people exist. If nothing else, "what exists?" is an important philosophical question. We use the process of science, which sits of philosophical naturalism, to come with answers, but still.
sorry about the thread necrophila, but I am really curious about ethics (mostly meta ethics...as far as I read about it) do you have any literature you recommend? any way to discuss this sort of things.
@Normanrs2004 Did you notice that his students were like 12 year olds? Now he probably was lending within being more condescending while not realizing that philosophic interpretation should be centered around what anyone can and does experience...
@Normanrs2004 I believe you are not pursuing the Golden mean as you might in finding fault with your brother in this video. More worth and good would be expressed by different words, methinks.
Although Dr. K never mentioned believing in the Christian churches or the bible lead to a happy life which philosophers are searching for, but he did mention having a focus, symmetry, Perfection is the Greek thoughts and Christian churches ideas (A=B). And Perfection leads to Happiness (A= C). Therefore, to achieve Happiness is to practice of the Christian churches ideas (therefore, C=B).
Dr. K’s connection of Christian churches and happiness seems to stand out for me, but maybe not to other people. And after all, everyone can get a different message out of the same story, lecture, reading, poetry…etc…It all depends, of our awareness and focus.
@Cwindify Philosophers believe that the goal of one's life should be to find happiness, so, yes, Religion is part of that. Philosophers use Reason to break down a question, and, unfortunately, there are too many contradictions in religion for it to make sense to many of us. But, that's not to say it doesn't make sense to others. Clearly it does, otherwise it wouldn't have survived for as long as it has, and if it makes you happy then go for it.
boring, am an engineering major and took a class of philosophy "intro. to ethics" on pure curiosity. let me tell you i was bored and uninterested . ill just stick to fun complicated math. that actually is gonna make me money
Your opinion is your humble opinion. But I find this interesting in as it says in the title, "Philosophy & Ethics Part 1 - Lecture." Its an overview the beginning. The fact that you are on youtube commenting means you watched it or came just to whine about philosophy. The fact of the matter is I don't see you place in commenting like this, seems pointless and I hope you see my point.
This dude is cool. "Philosophy is the response to the question why are we not happy like the olden days". This statement around 6mins is the reason we all spend time contemplating the things we do, and do what we think is best. Maybe this is true. "The purpose of life is to be happy, not to be logical". Hmmmmm
i'm curious if anyone has any knowledge on this"golden age of peace" he mentions? i've never heard anything like this before and can't seem to find anything on it. besides stories of utopias. i am very curious if there's any anthropological/archeological evidence like he makes it seem or is the professor just pulling this strate out of his ass? any links or insight would be greatly appreciated.
Did he just say the purpose of life is to be happy, and to survive? And what was this period of peace and harmony? Jesus WAS even born and asa fact it was in the year 0...? I'm at 8:30 and I already find this lecture... very american... in it's essence.. I'll still listen to it to the end, but this is no ernest lecture on philosophy..
What the Greeks taught had nothing do with gaining power(except power of knowledge) and largely people that seek power have no interest in being logical. Plus a lot of 20th century philosophy is not about finding happiness, only new age philosophy is. Great thinkers, regardless of eastern or western, can not be equated with military powers that conquer weaker cultures. You're mixing too many things professor!
it is not where we come from or where you go to . it is self satisfaction for you self witch is done by ;
To have a safe world, LOVE must be established. And education must be based on CARE to everything and not competition which results to selfishness. Religions is just a man made order for the idiots. To gain wisdom apply law of nature to whatever you do.
When people talk of philosophy I prefer it when they speak their own beliefs. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle... The beliefs of these people were lost and god knows how much of their texts were modified by consecutive translators. They are no more reliable than the Bible - maybe less. Plato etc. had a lot of prestige in the Arab and Christian world - people had an interest in altering their works for their own advantage. And, of course, how many of the greatest Greek' works were totally lost?...
@RayL1983 The key here is hermeneutics which is self relfection to define any physical relationship or a physical truth, words are a form of physics some words form large blocks of understanding, the key to defining truths is the use of scientific reasoning to bring forth a greater understanding to the human relationship, the fornation of technology is the roots to language use in evolution, the roots to technology, is the physical mediums of human extension.
Dr Krieglstein makes a great analogy with the Shri Yantra.
However, two observations:
The figure shown is not a mandala. It is a yantra. A Hindu/tantric yantra differs from a Buddhist mandala a great deal in its uses, as the sequence of practice is inverted. With a Buddhist mandala you do meditation "with external support" by starting from the finite (form of mandala) and going above form, beyond the finite. A yantra you do not just meditate/gaze at, you bring the corresponding deity in it.
The yantra is being used the other way round. After working with the sound that corresponds to a particular yantra (or with the bija-mantras, the one syllable sounds often encountered in tantric practices) -- in other words after charging himself with the energy of the corresponding mantra, the practitioner then focuses that energy gathered in the middle of that yantra, to awaken the devata, the deity. So words like mandala and yantra are not interchangeable.
Secondly, the yantra is shown here upside down. This can be confirmed in John Wodroffe's books and through tantric literature. Otherwise, we get into sacred symbology that is reversed. Not only in Christianity, but also in Hindu tantrism and in Buddhism reversing sacred symbols is the equivalent of mocking those forces. If anyone is curious to see what disasters the reversing of these sacred symbols have lead to, a good read would be Alexandra David Neel's "With Mystics And Magicians In Tibet."
How do we know there were thousands of years of harmony? How do we know it was due to sexual equality? What kind of evidence exists, if any? A clue, anything, some pointers about what would give us a reason to reasonably guess at this would have been useful.
You know what i noticed most? everyone who looked this up is looking for that idea of looking for happiness. we all are searching more some sort of peace. and this religion that religion arguing who's right or wrong is what keeps us from finding it. accept everyone for who they are regardless of what they believe. find your own peace and just love others no matter what differences you have. thats how we can find peace. religion is what causes most conflict and war. obviously war is not peace.
sigh* Far too many people prejudiced against other religons Lets see Protestants Catholics Hindus Muslims Let me ask you, arent they all people? Should you judge them simply because of thier spiritual beliefs? I am Atheist I have plenty of extremely pious friends, I simply do not talk of religion with them Judge people on what youve seen them do, not with what youve heard about them
"...taken over by Christianity" (22:27-30)!!! this professor is apparently ignorant of the fact that the notion of the soul (Spirit) being "breathed" into the body of men is a jewish notion mentioned in the Bible, and predates the greeks philosophers. "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul" Gen 2:7. Furthermore, according to the bible, all men had the same knowledge but it got perverted over time.
Philosophy is about how to live a happy life. Hmm...that makes a lot of sense because a truly happy life means living in accord with the laws of God, nature, the Dharma, or whatever you describe as the most high. Dr. Krieglstein makes a lot of sense.
flows into zen buddhism. You complicate things and then realize your thoughts and social constructs are flawed. It is only then that you let go of your desires and clinging to the world and live in harmony and peace and meditation. (hit the bong)
Also, looking back over the comments, can I just clarify something:
Theists: Believe in God
Atheists: Don't believe in God
Agnostics: Haven't fully decided whether or not they believe in God.
Agnosticism isn't some middle road. If an atheist doesn't flat out reject the notion of God all together, this doesn't make him an agnostic. Not even the more aggressive atheist such as Dawkins do this. I know there's always a chance that God exists, just as you know there's always a chance God doesn't.
1. There is one reality all points of view are not equal.
2. The purpose of ethics is not what makes the individual happy. Something implicit in ethics is that it is about how people interact with eachother. This doesn't entail happiness of either party.
Philosophy: Cool subject, but mostly useless in the modern age. Most of the great understanding in philosophy has already been made. Science is the natural progression of philosophy. My opinion.
@gungnir2357 I think it really depends on the branch of Philosophy you're talking about. Metaphysics isn't really practiced and talked about as much anymore, but things like Ethics and Political Philosophy and Philosophy of Religion or Mind, Logic? I think they're a lot more relevant to everyday life than you'd think. But that's my opinion as well.
philosophy i think is created best when u mix emotions with intelligence. and to see so many atheist interested on this stuff tells me one thing... they are emotionally distress.LOL! for they choose to be wrong. U see i knew that boneless chicken breast were good for my health. and that wisdom is better than any philosophy at any grade. and that humble people have the best ethics cuz they actually live by it. all that from like one book. oh yeah and to not fuk my sister....LMFAO!
this guy said that greeks were the first to use logic. that they invented logic. a system like logic. whats next greeks also made the calendar we use today? For I think that as how educated u are, as much ignorant you are. for is a path of life. thats how things work. is like asking why ur remote control car? as a kid needed a battery with a negative and positive signs.
So your saying philosophy is science? Isn't philosophy basically science without the investigation because it ventures into realms beyond what is measurable. Each culture has its own ideas about how the world works outside what it measuable so its not like saying 2+2=6. Thats the same as saying each culture has its own mathematics. Would'nt ideas like Yin yang come under philosophy which are different from other cultures. Science > Philosophy > Religion
Philosophy is the catalyst behind the foirst scientific experiment.
Phiolosphy is the imagination and ideas and posutlation of wonder and the 'best guess answers' therein.
Science is the act of proving those predictions , best guesses conclusivsely through experiment, extrapolative evidence interprative evidence, peripheral premise, precedence without without conflict (ie. model to also contradict) etc etc.
i'm an atheist but i am tired of hearing god described as simply a myth that only the deluded could believe in. there are lots of smart people who believe in god. they could be wrong (and as an atheist i implicitly believe that they are) but their sanity should not be questioned merely because they believe.
i wish that people on all sides of this debate could exercise a little respect for those they disagree with.
i'm not sure what basis you have for believing that most christians are irrational. and there are lots of christians who would not burn anyone at the stake. there are christian pacifists who renounce violence. that goes for people of other faiths too and people of none.
as an atheist i think it's important to not caricature the people we disagree with otherwise we'll miss all the stuff we have in common with them.
Sadly I think you're in the smallest minority of all Atheists, Pablo.
I have an uncle who is a Pastor, and he is one of the most rational men I will ever know. I'm not religious nor do I believe in "God", but I am also so tired of Atheist's acting as if they are intrinsically more rational or intelligent than religious people.
I understand how they come to this conclusion, but it's not at all "out of the box" thinking on their part. I refuse to call myself one because I find it too finite.
Well, I am an "atheist" as well, but whether a person thinks a God exists or not does not determine whether he or she is rational or not. I've encountered fairly reasonable theists and I've encountered religious nut jobs.
However, religion plays a large part in the thinking of even a rational theist. While theists can be rational, they do not use the full capacity of their rational mind to determine the real world validity of their beliefs. They make an exception of them.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is that atheists can and do view others as rational regardless of their personal beliefs, but if the subject to determine the rational-ness of the individual is that person's personal beliefs, the atheist and the theist will be at opposing ends.
no. i can't describe myself as an agnostic. i really am an atheist. i just don't like dogmatic, close-mindedness. i think (hope) it's possible to have contrary beliefs without having to assume that the other person is an idiot.
@pablo4115 Thank you so much! I believe in God and it's getting pretty boring being called delusional all the time. There needs to be more people like you. People who have their beliefs and can debate it without trying to insult others.
@pablo4115 I invite you to the House of Islam with the Universal greetings of all the Prophets of God, from Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them all), Assalamu Alaikum - Peace be upon you all.
they could not be wrong, they are wrong or better said: deadly likely wrong. the reason is this: imagine you believe in one god. another one believes not in him. thats 50/50. but might it not be that there are two gods? well, thats 33,33%. it might also be that there are some gods and a dog creating this world. 25%! and now think about all possibilities, billions over billions possible perspectives!. how likely is it now to believe in one god? science = being aware about this...
... being aware about all the possiblities and trying to find out what is more likely in a dynamic way. believing in something is a statical idea - and as unlikely as described before. this means also automatically that not religions/believers are close to any kind of god but science/enlightment/atheists/agnostics are way closer to it because one thing is clear: not the bible, not koran but the realiy is from any kind of creator probability - not from humans. and reality companies all the life!
i can't follow much of what you wrote. but you seem to believe that the probability of a view being correct is determined by how many competing views there are. e.g. if there are 999,999,999 other views, then it is one in a billion. this reasoning is dubious since it seems overwhelmingly likely that for many/most views there are numerous alternatives. i assume that a theist has some reasons for believing and so it is not like simply proposing something off the top of his/her head.
@publicminx the odds of you being correct are all dependant on what you are asking. If I am asking "is there a god?" regardless of what you picture god to be it is still a 50/50 chance. if you ask "is there no god?" then it is once again 50/50. however if you ask "is the god i envision real?" then it opens up to an infinit possibility of what it could be. an amount our minds couldnt even fathom
Atheist. Without God. I'm an atheist because I don't believe in God. Nothing more or less. As a rule, atheists aren't opposed to theists in any way at all.
These atheists really aren't in anything like the minority. You just don't notice them because they're quieter.
I agree. I believe "God" or more importantly the "supernatural" SHOULD BE AT LEAST CONSIDERED.
Think about it: We don't KNOW where we come from or where we go. Therefore, there is a presence of POSSIBILITY.
These days, everyone seems to believe that logic gave birth to logic- but that's not very logical when you consider math's motives. Somewhere along the line logic must have decided it was a "good" idea to multiply and now that there is good, there has to be evil.
@pablo4115 I agree with you. I myself, believe in God. But, I have respect for those who don't, whether you're an atheist or believe in an other religion. It's their choice, sure I can disagree with it, but that doesn't mean I have to show little or no respect for their decision.
@pablo4115 Science is the new religion... wait till the quantum physics revolution with time travel and then we'll all question what we know once again. (noone knows anything!)
@pablo4115 You have the right to believe what you want. But why may I ask, do you not believe in God? Do you not think that there was a starter(or supernatural starter) to the Big Bang or universe.
@AshyJ92 That's a pity. I believe God exists, because I believe he was the starter of the big bang, and the universe is to complex for it just to happen by coincidence.
Belief doesn't equal knowledge. The whole argument that "universe is too complex to be a coincidence" is flawed because A: It's not supported by any evidence, and B: It still doesn't introduce the necessity of a deity.
My view of the matter is that belief isn't sufficient, you need knowledge in order to make claims.
@khatack Well, what proof can you show me to the contrary? What proof can you show me that there isn't a God, or that the universe just popped into being for the heck of it? Where is you evidence Sir??
What proof do you have that the world wasn't created by pink teddy bears? Where is the proof that people aren't actually just puppets controlled by purple elephants?
The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of the one making a claim, not the one pointing out that the claim is completely baseless. In this case you made a claim that there is an omnipotent sentience behind the existence of the universe, and I merely pointed out that there's absolutely nothing to support that claim.
@pablo4115: You are completely correct, but showing that respect would only be the intelligent thing to do. After saying that, I know inevitably that some one will not be respectful to the other side.
i don't think i fully follow you but i think that maybe i agree with the general gist of what you are saying. i have christian friends who i love to bits and i'd do anything for and that is also true of my friends of other faiths and my agnostic and atheist friends too.
i'm against disparaging people simply because of their position on religious belief. i think the default should be to respect each other. so, i don't claim to be saying anything special.
@pablo4115 hahaha, I totally agree with you. While many you tube atheists and people claim they know better I still see a large portion of comments taking on the Richard Dawkins attitude that you can't be very smart if you believe in something rediculous.
@RuinSonic Oh Richard is so smart he is so kewl!!! thumbs up to someone who also believes in the big-firecracker in the sky kaboooooooom! oh and the self replications molecule is another brilliant dawkins idea really smart how it just designed and formed itself truly amazing to be enlightened by such brilliance :D
@michigan6443 Straw-man... I think I'd have respect more for people who consider intution better than evidence if they'd also find it unreasonable that we are made of atoms of mostly empty space and particles are bouncing all over us all the time. What a crazy idea!
Seriously everyone's views are silly from a certain perspective if your christian yours especially. I am much more interested in evidence and argument then "argument from how ridiculous" something sounds.
@pablo4115 Whereas the God concept is unfalsifiable, the religious god is.
Thinking people do have respect for their fellow humans, whether they are superstitious or not. Having respect for a cult that damages knowledge is another matter though.
@marsCubed wow you must be really smart!!!are you a thinking person wow can I be one too! do you have a publik ejuchashun? WOW! you are a cool dude!:D
How about Professor Israel Filkenstein, head of archaeology, Tel Aviv University.
He sums up the conclusion of the academic community in "The bible unearthed".
After decades of systematic research over vast areas of Israel, not a single shard of porrery has been found to support the existence of Exodus, all were Canaanite, no new influx of culture.
Yahweh even had a wife, Esherah found with him on statues, before 650BC.
@pablo4115 I completely agree, it seems that a grand assumptions individuals make is that when one speaks of god, they speak of something absolute, which god is, but the implication and interpretation of god can very from person to person. I know people to think of god as an intangible influential entity and I know people to think of god as an energy force that simply regulates the universe. These two perspectives different enough to implement some relativism into this prospect. I'm an atheist
Hamza yusuf explains meaning n stages of the soul from perfect world with knowledge of the purpose of it'd creater
pharran05 2 weeks ago
for all who didn't like this lecture... would some one, please, tell me a reasonable reasone for this harsh criticism!!!
well, I like it
sarahsarah000 1 month ago 2
I'm just a humble philosophy student but this is bad teaching.
An ignorant mistake like "Metaphysics, Aristotle invented the term" is serious but not as bad has the perverse propaganda disguised as content of a lecture.
madeinpariser 2 months ago
This guy is full of it. The only description of philosophy that makes sense came from Leonard Peikoff.
bocanutz 2 months ago
@bocanutz Leonard Peikoff's not a philosopher. He's a philosophy Ph.D., but he sure as Hell doesn't know what he's doing philosophically.
Imperativism 2 months ago
I thought the third major part of philosophy was epistemology.
Well now, do fascist states fall because of an excess of order or because of a dearth of liberty?
lazyperfectionist1 3 months ago
"The beginning of our time....with the birth of Christ."
ThatFellazZz 3 months ago
Sorry now thats the right video. ... "some" socolars say the relative peace at the period before 1200 B.C. has its reason in gender equality.("7:16") Who are this scolars?
IchEsueberich 3 months ago
when he gets' to 9.5 mins - 10.12 mins: he talks about philosophy starting out as greeks trying to find out how to have a happy life and then goes on to talk about a perversion along the way and that now people look at it as who is right and who is wrong. He then goes on to say that everyone would disagree with aristotle in the present time because everyone is different = Maybe this is the problem? just saying..
ashdotman1981 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Some people want young white females to mix with non-white males.
I made a one-minute video highlighting a very tiny sample of race-mixing advertisements.
I love white people, and I am opposed to race-mixing. But I do not hate non-whites.
If you click on my name “autumntree2011” highlighted in blue below this comment, you can watch my video.
(I'm not a fan of Hitler or KKK.)
autumntree2011 4 months ago
what the effin hippie?
Diosukekun 4 months ago
Yes philosophy is all with the mind. They started doing philosophy because they wanted to find the difference between good and evil. Zen and Buddhim is an effort to quieten the nerves of those who discovered the difference and realized they had done bad. Similarly with confessions in the Catholic religion. Better to give kids the foundation of philosophy as groundwork and work up from there. Also philosophy did not start it Greece. It started in the Garden of Eden.
TheEdwardallen54 5 months ago
@TheEdwardallen54 There is no "philosophy" and the word is mostly used improperly. As for children; one might consider that learning how to construal anything true' would be of any most benefit which lends to any and all proper use of any and all informationwithin fruitioning any and all organizational skills while seeking any goal; anyone learns on their own and most children are very distracted within any fear of failure and also within being seen as being successful.
DrFruedienslip 4 months ago
Another useless class ... NO wonder USA is failing.
mba2ceo 5 months ago
This is good. For a video on YouTube that actually tells us something, it is fantastic. For a philosophy and ethics class, it is average, which is pretty darn good when you think about it.
MrMichelleMoonlight 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate than the word "gay".
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with complete support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 5 months ago
this is not philosophy for dummies - no disrespect to the guy who wrote it --its for people who read widely - and are serious about knowledge --- too bad for the -the none so blind that they will not see.
who would rather stay in Platos cave.
zavierashim 5 months ago
Who the fuck liked this god damn fucking video!
Monanniverse 5 months ago
check out my site to share and discuss philosophy essays and ideas: papers.net76.net
samuelkn2890 5 months ago
This helped me fall asleep
rhn94 5 months ago
feel sorry for this guy he is so lost. wish we would read the vedas in sanskrit, thats what plato and the other greeks philosophers did and they still didnt get it. god bless.
amityadav101 5 months ago
Logic is simply reason'
DrFruedienslip 6 months ago
Much history is based within assumptions
DrFruedienslip 6 months ago
Sentiment has everything to do with expectation in pulling the weight of the machine’
DrFruedienslip 6 months ago
I fell asleep.
kbrgolfer84 6 months ago
@kbrgolfer84 So did I, then I woke up too Just like Neo being controlled by the machine; Philosophy is all about defining quantum mechanics' there is no world view other than on an intrinsic plane of our paternal affection which becomes controlled by the influence of the material comforts; Imagine if you were simply another species being instinctive to your physical attributes based upon your organic structure of nature' but here we as humans are simply attached to the material comforts'
DrFruedienslip 6 months ago
It is a very good lecture on Philosophy. Extremely explanative and it also tells us the basic and fundamental questions in Philosophy. I am really very much impressed by the Professor Dr. Werner Krieglstein. Great Lecture, very very good lecture.
Evafelix100 6 months ago
This is great lecture. Although its delivered to children,I really enjoyed and learned alot.
msaleemawan 6 months ago
i thought it was good. For me not knowing anything, it helped me get a better understanding.Of course all you people talking bad about him KNOW alot more about philosophy more than I do. So go watch your advanced philosophy videos instead.
TheSatelliteLive 7 months ago
If a physics teacher were to teach some basic concepts of physics to a class of children, do you suspect that he would incoperate all the jargon and mathmatics? Probably not. It would likely be watered down physics for a 10 year old to consume-- an uninteresting approach for most adults.
And so it's also the case with this lecture in ethics: a professor teaching watered down (boring) ethics to children-- 0:04.
I'm just saying this to those who think this lecture was for adults.
Howsonify 7 months ago
This is almost inconveivably irresponsible for a tenured Professor.
I say almost because the great Equalizers of mankind will tell any lie no matter how far tetched in order to dupe the guillable or innocent. The guillable probably deserve it, the innocent don't.
This isn't History or Philosophy, it's Gossip. Intellectually this guy operates on the level of gossip.
pr9301 7 months ago
Please, give this guy a break.
At least he tried and his video is shared.
for all you who are more wise, would you kindly enlighten us with your video?
A99399939 7 months ago
@A99399939 When learning, we shouldn't soak all ideas as the same level of importance. We have to recognize and differentiate how people try to convince us or shower us with their beliefs. This is why we share comments!
Cwindify 7 months ago
How come this guy has got a job and I am unemployed. When he mentions a god... he is outa the picture...
guitarboogieboogie 7 months ago
Good video santa
luzzygu 8 months ago
The physical thing is reality... there is nothing behind that. (point)
femtophysiker 9 months ago
This is the worst lecture I've ever seen.
SaggioD 9 months ago 9
Comment removed
SaggioD 9 months ago
@SaggioD i wonder why do you find this lecture bad?
utku1903 8 months ago
@SaggioD did listen with your ears or with your eyes? Or would you rather preferred to watch it with your fingertips?
thegreatmonster 4 months ago
@SaggioD i don't think so
MrJonases 2 weeks ago
I think we all know judgement is important but here is theoretical proof of this claim:
Judgement allows one to attempt to meet with the people they want to in life and go do what they want in life. If one left this to chance the probability of them getting what they want would clearly decrease (e.g. civilizations rise from orderly humans not chaotic randomness). So overall the probability of people getting what they want increases and overall that wud make more people happy. so it is important
deanmullen10 9 months ago
I teach ethics. This is an incredibly poor lecture will ill-conceived examples, and abstract empty bullshit. I mean, WTF - symmetry in nature as a way of INTRODUCING what ethics is???? Please don't judge ethics courses based on this guy!
Normanrs2004 9 months ago 13
@Normanrs2004 then at least do a video of it. do you know to see is to believe? you can always say that you teach ethics and blablabla but i cant see any good etiquette from your comment.
bilyah123 8 months ago
@Normanrs2004 I see where he was going, but his thoughts are so scattered that it's impossible to follow. I don't think that the whole of philosophy is on how to be happy and why do people exist. If nothing else, "what exists?" is an important philosophical question. We use the process of science, which sits of philosophical naturalism, to come with answers, but still.
ariuszarim 7 months ago
@Normanrs2004 What do you expect; the lecture is intended for children (0:03).
Howsonify 7 months ago
@Normanrs2004 TEACH ME!!!... :3
sorry about the thread necrophila, but I am really curious about ethics (mostly meta ethics...as far as I read about it) do you have any literature you recommend? any way to discuss this sort of things.
sorry if I bother you with this.
greets: gaoth
gaoth88 6 months ago
@Normanrs2004 Wha, wha, what? You're a teacher in ethics and still you type like a 15 year old gamer?
pindrock 6 months ago
@Normanrs2004 Did you notice that his students were like 12 year olds? Now he probably was lending within being more condescending while not realizing that philosophic interpretation should be centered around what anyone can and does experience...
DrFruedienslip 4 months ago
@Normanrs2004 well i wont watch this now but it's a wonder y the like button was pressed 186x for this
mephatboi 3 months ago
@Normanrs2004 Seems like you're saying that there can only be one approach to ethics... That in itself is unethical.
Showmehemusic 3 months ago
@Normanrs2004 I believe you are not pursuing the Golden mean as you might in finding fault with your brother in this video. More worth and good would be expressed by different words, methinks.
AOZXRAY 3 months ago
@Normanrs2004 Do you have a better suggestion for a series of lectures? I'd be cool if you provided an alternative...
jbealsmusic 1 month ago
Comment removed
Cwindify 10 months ago
This lecture secretly implies that believing in the bible and the Christain church leads to a happy life!
Cwindify 11 months ago
@Cwindify
No, watch it again and use your brain this time.
Steelfossil 10 months ago
@Cwindify Did you watch the same lecture I did? He didn't say anything like that
cnustudent1 10 months ago
@cnustudent1
Although Dr. K never mentioned believing in the Christian churches or the bible lead to a happy life which philosophers are searching for, but he did mention having a focus, symmetry, Perfection is the Greek thoughts and Christian churches ideas (A=B). And Perfection leads to Happiness (A= C). Therefore, to achieve Happiness is to practice of the Christian churches ideas (therefore, C=B).
Cwindify 10 months ago
@cnustudent1
Dr. K’s connection of Christian churches and happiness seems to stand out for me, but maybe not to other people. And after all, everyone can get a different message out of the same story, lecture, reading, poetry…etc…It all depends, of our awareness and focus.
Cwindify 10 months ago
@Cwindify Philosophers believe that the goal of one's life should be to find happiness, so, yes, Religion is part of that. Philosophers use Reason to break down a question, and, unfortunately, there are too many contradictions in religion for it to make sense to many of us. But, that's not to say it doesn't make sense to others. Clearly it does, otherwise it wouldn't have survived for as long as it has, and if it makes you happy then go for it.
bdgrey 7 months ago
@bdgrey Not a bad opinion!
Cwindify 7 months ago
MY PENIS IS SHAPED LIKE A BANANA!
FrankDaTank1218 11 months ago
Comment removed
11thAMORCINEe86 9 months ago
boring, am an engineering major and took a class of philosophy "intro. to ethics" on pure curiosity. let me tell you i was bored and uninterested . ill just stick to fun complicated math. that actually is gonna make me money
5st4rhail 11 months ago
Comment removed
italik13 10 months ago
@5st4rhail
Your opinion is your humble opinion. But I find this interesting in as it says in the title, "Philosophy & Ethics Part 1 - Lecture." Its an overview the beginning. The fact that you are on youtube commenting means you watched it or came just to whine about philosophy. The fact of the matter is I don't see you place in commenting like this, seems pointless and I hope you see my point.
BlakeMorris911 10 months ago
Nice theories but nothing that is supported by historical or scientific evdience..
KemnerConsultants 11 months ago
@Foetuse im a american greek and I feel the western culture sometimes is twisted but can you translate the quote?
AndrewRyanJD 11 months ago
This dude is cool. "Philosophy is the response to the question why are we not happy like the olden days". This statement around 6mins is the reason we all spend time contemplating the things we do, and do what we think is best. Maybe this is true. "The purpose of life is to be happy, not to be logical". Hmmmmm
aikoichi 1 year ago
@aikoichi But in order to be happy, shouldn't we think logically? For the benefit of society and for those around us?
luxord2654 10 months ago
very interesting
vincentgun 1 year ago
i'm curious if anyone has any knowledge on this"golden age of peace" he mentions? i've never heard anything like this before and can't seem to find anything on it. besides stories of utopias. i am very curious if there's any anthropological/archeological evidence like he makes it seem or is the professor just pulling this strate out of his ass? any links or insight would be greatly appreciated.
michaelofGB45 1 year ago
@michaelofGB45 youtube David Wilcock. He'll explain part of it with "proof". We're in silver age now supposedly.
temka892004 1 year ago
Well, it got better to the end, when he got into the thoughts of the human mind, the questions.
Although, no facist state? Sparta?
Kan2209 1 year ago
Did he just say the purpose of life is to be happy, and to survive? And what was this period of peace and harmony? Jesus WAS even born and asa fact it was in the year 0...? I'm at 8:30 and I already find this lecture... very american... in it's essence.. I'll still listen to it to the end, but this is no ernest lecture on philosophy..
Kan2209 1 year ago
What the Greeks taught had nothing do with gaining power(except power of knowledge) and largely people that seek power have no interest in being logical. Plus a lot of 20th century philosophy is not about finding happiness, only new age philosophy is. Great thinkers, regardless of eastern or western, can not be equated with military powers that conquer weaker cultures. You're mixing too many things professor!
amajelo 1 year ago
Comment removed
amajelo 1 year ago
your teaching is completely naive. sorry I can watch this crap
sctoweett 1 year ago
your teaching is completely naive.
sctoweett 1 year ago
you dont have a soul
sctoweett 1 year ago
it is not where we come from or where you go to . it is self satisfaction for you self witch is done by ;
To have a safe world, LOVE must be established. And education must be based on CARE to everything and not competition which results to selfishness. Religions is just a man made order for the idiots. To gain wisdom apply law of nature to whatever you do.
sctoweett 1 year ago
Great discussion! We just began posting ethics lectures by Michael Josephson on our channel. Any feedback or suggestions you have would be great.
josephsoninstitute 1 year ago
Great talk, thanks!
Chrisguy42O 1 year ago
Thanks for sharing. Nice lecture, actually I've been expecting more.
iTanagorn 1 year ago
When people talk of philosophy I prefer it when they speak their own beliefs. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle... The beliefs of these people were lost and god knows how much of their texts were modified by consecutive translators. They are no more reliable than the Bible - maybe less. Plato etc. had a lot of prestige in the Arab and Christian world - people had an interest in altering their works for their own advantage. And, of course, how many of the greatest Greek' works were totally lost?...
RayL1983 1 year ago
@RayL1983 The key here is hermeneutics which is self relfection to define any physical relationship or a physical truth, words are a form of physics some words form large blocks of understanding, the key to defining truths is the use of scientific reasoning to bring forth a greater understanding to the human relationship, the fornation of technology is the roots to language use in evolution, the roots to technology, is the physical mediums of human extension.
waypor1 1 year ago
Dr Krieglstein makes a great analogy with the Shri Yantra.
However, two observations:
The figure shown is not a mandala. It is a yantra. A Hindu/tantric yantra differs from a Buddhist mandala a great deal in its uses, as the sequence of practice is inverted. With a Buddhist mandala you do meditation "with external support" by starting from the finite (form of mandala) and going above form, beyond the finite. A yantra you do not just meditate/gaze at, you bring the corresponding deity in it.
Alpha7000 1 year ago
The yantra is being used the other way round. After working with the sound that corresponds to a particular yantra (or with the bija-mantras, the one syllable sounds often encountered in tantric practices) -- in other words after charging himself with the energy of the corresponding mantra, the practitioner then focuses that energy gathered in the middle of that yantra, to awaken the devata, the deity. So words like mandala and yantra are not interchangeable.
Alpha7000 1 year ago
Secondly, the yantra is shown here upside down. This can be confirmed in John Wodroffe's books and through tantric literature. Otherwise, we get into sacred symbology that is reversed. Not only in Christianity, but also in Hindu tantrism and in Buddhism reversing sacred symbols is the equivalent of mocking those forces. If anyone is curious to see what disasters the reversing of these sacred symbols have lead to, a good read would be Alexandra David Neel's "With Mystics And Magicians In Tibet."
Alpha7000 1 year ago
How do we know there were thousands of years of harmony? How do we know it was due to sexual equality? What kind of evidence exists, if any? A clue, anything, some pointers about what would give us a reason to reasonably guess at this would have been useful.
Avray1967 1 year ago
You know what i noticed most? everyone who looked this up is looking for that idea of looking for happiness. we all are searching more some sort of peace. and this religion that religion arguing who's right or wrong is what keeps us from finding it. accept everyone for who they are regardless of what they believe. find your own peace and just love others no matter what differences you have. thats how we can find peace. religion is what causes most conflict and war. obviously war is not peace.
shanemorrissey6 1 year ago
Incorrect, philosophy is only Greeks domen, thing and product. Only Eastern have had a philosophy. In his meaning, even religion is a philosophy.
metal87power 1 year ago
@metal87power
What?
jermd1990 1 year ago
@jermd1990, what what? :)
metal87power 1 year ago
Incorrect, philosophy is only Greeks domen, thing and product. Only Eastern have had a philosophy.
metal87power 1 year ago
We are with-out excuse as the evidence literally fills universes. Thats why it takes greater faith to be an atheist than to believe in the messiah.
michigan6443 1 year ago
Tim52I 1 year ago
"...taken over by Christianity" (22:27-30)!!! this professor is apparently ignorant of the fact that the notion of the soul (Spirit) being "breathed" into the body of men is a jewish notion mentioned in the Bible, and predates the greeks philosophers. "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul" Gen 2:7. Furthermore, according to the bible, all men had the same knowledge but it got perverted over time.
flypejose 1 year ago
@flypejose Really?
The Jewish notion predates the Greek Philosphers?
You mus realise no one has proof of when Gensis was written =\
Tim52I 1 year ago
Philosophy is about how to live a happy life. Hmm...that makes a lot of sense because a truly happy life means living in accord with the laws of God, nature, the Dharma, or whatever you describe as the most high. Dr. Krieglstein makes a lot of sense.
TurboRonin83 1 year ago
Very good lecture.
AlexCrazyHand 1 year ago
flows into zen buddhism. You complicate things and then realize your thoughts and social constructs are flawed. It is only then that you let go of your desires and clinging to the world and live in harmony and peace and meditation. (hit the bong)
sleepyeyeguy 1 year ago
Also, looking back over the comments, can I just clarify something:
Theists: Believe in God
Atheists: Don't believe in God
Agnostics: Haven't fully decided whether or not they believe in God.
Agnosticism isn't some middle road. If an atheist doesn't flat out reject the notion of God all together, this doesn't make him an agnostic. Not even the more aggressive atheist such as Dawkins do this. I know there's always a chance that God exists, just as you know there's always a chance God doesn't.
curiousmind5632 1 year ago
good vid
MrEddiecochran 1 year ago
google Doe's Account.
seekfears 1 year ago
I disagree with the prof on a few points.
1. There is one reality all points of view are not equal.
2. The purpose of ethics is not what makes the individual happy. Something implicit in ethics is that it is about how people interact with eachother. This doesn't entail happiness of either party.
phenomballer666 1 year ago
I am only just starting out with with this stuff so forgive my naievity.
BOOBOODOLLY 1 year ago
@AstroMike314 I totally agree. I need to get to know more people who are into Philosophy.
katyc130890 1 year ago
Love it when philosophers bring up quantum mechanics and don't know what the hell they are talking about.
gungnir2357 1 year ago
Philosophy: Cool subject, but mostly useless in the modern age. Most of the great understanding in philosophy has already been made. Science is the natural progression of philosophy. My opinion.
gungnir2357 1 year ago
@gungnir2357 I think it really depends on the branch of Philosophy you're talking about. Metaphysics isn't really practiced and talked about as much anymore, but things like Ethics and Political Philosophy and Philosophy of Religion or Mind, Logic? I think they're a lot more relevant to everyday life than you'd think. But that's my opinion as well.
katyc130890 1 year ago
Philosophical ethics, so who believes in the death penality? Or abortion?
cpmc1 1 year ago
zzzzzZZZZZZZ Snore
Sidowse 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
philosophy i think is created best when u mix emotions with intelligence. and to see so many atheist interested on this stuff tells me one thing... they are emotionally distress.LOL! for they choose to be wrong. U see i knew that boneless chicken breast were good for my health. and that wisdom is better than any philosophy at any grade. and that humble people have the best ethics cuz they actually live by it. all that from like one book. oh yeah and to not fuk my sister....LMFAO!
rayray2900 1 year ago
Comment removed
rayray2900 1 year ago
this guy said that greeks were the first to use logic. that they invented logic. a system like logic. whats next greeks also made the calendar we use today? For I think that as how educated u are, as much ignorant you are. for is a path of life. thats how things work. is like asking why ur remote control car? as a kid needed a battery with a negative and positive signs.
rayray2900 1 year ago
Comment removed
rayray2900 1 year ago
Great video. Darn shame not much of the world is as interested in this as fart jokes, and the newest ipod..
MrArguementive 1 year ago
Just because the people are black, doesn't mean that they can't be educated! That's racist!
Paulwhoisvegan 1 year ago
I'm fucking sick and tired of this word and artform bing hijacked.
Einsten PRACTICED philosophy.
1.the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.
Philosophy has NO borders.
" Each culture has their own philosophy?"
That's like saying 2+2= 6 in India 8 in China -4 in Israel...etc.
"PURPOSE" of life?
What the fuck? That's not Philosophy. That's the furthest word and idea from Philosophy that there is.
D33veeoss 2 years ago
So your saying philosophy is science? Isn't philosophy basically science without the investigation because it ventures into realms beyond what is measurable. Each culture has its own ideas about how the world works outside what it measuable so its not like saying 2+2=6. Thats the same as saying each culture has its own mathematics. Would'nt ideas like Yin yang come under philosophy which are different from other cultures. Science > Philosophy > Religion
notnameless 2 years ago
Philosophy is the catalyst behind the foirst scientific experiment.
Phiolosphy is the imagination and ideas and posutlation of wonder and the 'best guess answers' therein.
Science is the act of proving those predictions , best guesses conclusivsely through experiment, extrapolative evidence interprative evidence, peripheral premise, precedence without without conflict (ie. model to also contradict) etc etc.
I used to define as (im)measureable too.
But that's critically fallacious.
D33veeoss 2 years ago
Philosophy - question/wonder EVERYTHING involved within.
Science - proving/answering the questions. The conclusion.
2+2=4 is my precedent to show that you cannot sort by type via 'measureable and immeasurable.
The lead on the paper doesn't constitute the information within this trivial math question. Wherein then does it lie?
By your definition, 2+2=4 is philosophy, or at least, unclear
If you look at face value, I have no case
If you concern yourself with what 2+2=4 is MADE out of..
D33veeoss 2 years ago
i'm an atheist but i am tired of hearing god described as simply a myth that only the deluded could believe in. there are lots of smart people who believe in god. they could be wrong (and as an atheist i implicitly believe that they are) but their sanity should not be questioned merely because they believe.
i wish that people on all sides of this debate could exercise a little respect for those they disagree with.
pablo4115 2 years ago 48
i agree
i am a christian but i am not going to call an atheist an idiot because they dont belive in Christ
amatter of fact The bible clearly states that only fools would belive it
so us trying to convince you of something that is logically impossible is foolish for us to do
i wish christians could see that and stop arguing with unbelivers
westonjesusfreak 2 years ago
Unti they wan't to burn you alive on a stake for not believing in their god.
Or until your being judged for breaking one of their religious laws by that same religions jury.
Most christians are not really christian, their just irrational, and that I do not respect.
1Mumiaabujamal 2 years ago
@1Mumiaabujamal
i'm not sure what basis you have for believing that most christians are irrational. and there are lots of christians who would not burn anyone at the stake. there are christian pacifists who renounce violence. that goes for people of other faiths too and people of none.
as an atheist i think it's important to not caricature the people we disagree with otherwise we'll miss all the stuff we have in common with them.
pablo4115 2 years ago
@1Mumiaabujamal Why is irrationality hard for you to respect?
Juefawn 1 year ago
Sadly I think you're in the smallest minority of all Atheists, Pablo.
I have an uncle who is a Pastor, and he is one of the most rational men I will ever know. I'm not religious nor do I believe in "God", but I am also so tired of Atheist's acting as if they are intrinsically more rational or intelligent than religious people.
I understand how they come to this conclusion, but it's not at all "out of the box" thinking on their part. I refuse to call myself one because I find it too finite.
mtb416 2 years ago
@mtb416
Well, I am an "atheist" as well, but whether a person thinks a God exists or not does not determine whether he or she is rational or not. I've encountered fairly reasonable theists and I've encountered religious nut jobs.
However, religion plays a large part in the thinking of even a rational theist. While theists can be rational, they do not use the full capacity of their rational mind to determine the real world validity of their beliefs. They make an exception of them.
Lobotaru 1 year ago
@mtb416
So I guess what I'm trying to say is that atheists can and do view others as rational regardless of their personal beliefs, but if the subject to determine the rational-ness of the individual is that person's personal beliefs, the atheist and the theist will be at opposing ends.
Lobotaru 1 year ago
you sound more like an agnostic than an athiest because of your open-mindedness. hats off to you.
corncornrocks 2 years ago
@corncornrocks
no. i can't describe myself as an agnostic. i really am an atheist. i just don't like dogmatic, close-mindedness. i think (hope) it's possible to have contrary beliefs without having to assume that the other person is an idiot.
pablo4115 2 years ago
I wish more athiests were like you. Many come off as arrogant or condescending.
corncornrocks 2 years ago
@corncornrocks
many atheists are arrogant and/or condescending as are many theists. pretty bothersome all 'round.
pablo4115 2 years ago
@pablo4115 Thank you so much! I believe in God and it's getting pretty boring being called delusional all the time. There needs to be more people like you. People who have their beliefs and can debate it without trying to insult others.
LCBpink 1 year ago
@pablo4115
Were the same on that aspect.
cpmc1 1 year ago
@pablo4115 I invite you to the House of Islam with the Universal greetings of all the Prophets of God, from Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them all), Assalamu Alaikum - Peace be upon you all.
salahaddin11 1 year ago
@pablo4115
they could not be wrong, they are wrong or better said: deadly likely wrong. the reason is this: imagine you believe in one god. another one believes not in him. thats 50/50. but might it not be that there are two gods? well, thats 33,33%. it might also be that there are some gods and a dog creating this world. 25%! and now think about all possibilities, billions over billions possible perspectives!. how likely is it now to believe in one god? science = being aware about this...
publicminx 1 year ago
... being aware about all the possiblities and trying to find out what is more likely in a dynamic way. believing in something is a statical idea - and as unlikely as described before. this means also automatically that not religions/believers are close to any kind of god but science/enlightment/atheists/agnostics are way closer to it because one thing is clear: not the bible, not koran but the realiy is from any kind of creator probability - not from humans. and reality companies all the life!
publicminx 1 year ago
@publicminx
i can't follow much of what you wrote. but you seem to believe that the probability of a view being correct is determined by how many competing views there are. e.g. if there are 999,999,999 other views, then it is one in a billion. this reasoning is dubious since it seems overwhelmingly likely that for many/most views there are numerous alternatives. i assume that a theist has some reasons for believing and so it is not like simply proposing something off the top of his/her head.
pablo4115 1 year ago
@publicminx the odds of you being correct are all dependant on what you are asking. If I am asking "is there a god?" regardless of what you picture god to be it is still a 50/50 chance. if you ask "is there no god?" then it is once again 50/50. however if you ask "is the god i envision real?" then it opens up to an infinit possibility of what it could be. an amount our minds couldnt even fathom
yeah2boy 1 year ago
@pablo4115 Im in the same boat as you bro.
cAnOfWoRmS419 1 year ago
@pablo4115 then ur not an atheist ur a retard
killerfilms08 1 year ago
@pablo4115
Atheist=Anti Theist
Do you understand that?
M1rinecorps 1 year ago
@M1rinecorps Well that's definitively wrong.
Atheist. Without God. I'm an atheist because I don't believe in God. Nothing more or less. As a rule, atheists aren't opposed to theists in any way at all.
These atheists really aren't in anything like the minority. You just don't notice them because they're quieter.
curiousmind5632 1 year ago
@pablo4115
I agree. I believe "God" or more importantly the "supernatural" SHOULD BE AT LEAST CONSIDERED.
Think about it: We don't KNOW where we come from or where we go. Therefore, there is a presence of POSSIBILITY.
These days, everyone seems to believe that logic gave birth to logic- but that's not very logical when you consider math's motives. Somewhere along the line logic must have decided it was a "good" idea to multiply and now that there is good, there has to be evil.
FQCS 1 year ago
@pablo4115 I agree with you. I myself, believe in God. But, I have respect for those who don't, whether you're an atheist or believe in an other religion. It's their choice, sure I can disagree with it, but that doesn't mean I have to show little or no respect for their decision.
CjayyNSC 1 year ago
@pablo4115 Science is the new religion... wait till the quantum physics revolution with time travel and then we'll all question what we know once again. (noone knows anything!)
sleepyeyeguy 1 year ago
@pablo4115 You have the right to believe what you want. But why may I ask, do you not believe in God? Do you not think that there was a starter(or supernatural starter) to the Big Bang or universe.
mozeus5 1 year ago
@mozeus5
That's right. I do not believe that there was a supernatural person who got the Universe started.
pablo4115 1 year ago
@pablo4115 hmmm, ok.
mozeus5 1 year ago
@mozeus5 I think Im a Deist, I believe that God either doesnt care....or doesnt exist anymore
AshyJ92 1 year ago
@AshyJ92 That's a pity. I believe God exists, because I believe he was the starter of the big bang, and the universe is to complex for it just to happen by coincidence.
mozeus5 1 year ago
@mozeus5
Belief doesn't equal knowledge. The whole argument that "universe is too complex to be a coincidence" is flawed because A: It's not supported by any evidence, and B: It still doesn't introduce the necessity of a deity.
My view of the matter is that belief isn't sufficient, you need knowledge in order to make claims.
khatack 1 year ago
@khatack Well, what proof can you show me to the contrary? What proof can you show me that there isn't a God, or that the universe just popped into being for the heck of it? Where is you evidence Sir??
mozeus5 1 year ago
@mozeus5
What proof do you have that the world wasn't created by pink teddy bears? Where is the proof that people aren't actually just puppets controlled by purple elephants?
The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of the one making a claim, not the one pointing out that the claim is completely baseless. In this case you made a claim that there is an omnipotent sentience behind the existence of the universe, and I merely pointed out that there's absolutely nothing to support that claim.
khatack 1 year ago
@pablo4115: You are completely correct, but showing that respect would only be the intelligent thing to do. After saying that, I know inevitably that some one will not be respectful to the other side.
bmmadsen 1 year ago
@pablo4115 I don't think that would ever have an end nor will it ever be resolve, let just leave everybody be with whatever make them happy.
FriedRiceD1ite 1 year ago
@FriedRiceD1ite
i don't think i fully follow you but i think that maybe i agree with the general gist of what you are saying. i have christian friends who i love to bits and i'd do anything for and that is also true of my friends of other faiths and my agnostic and atheist friends too.
i'm against disparaging people simply because of their position on religious belief. i think the default should be to respect each other. so, i don't claim to be saying anything special.
pablo4115 1 year ago
@pablo4115 hahaha, I totally agree with you. While many you tube atheists and people claim they know better I still see a large portion of comments taking on the Richard Dawkins attitude that you can't be very smart if you believe in something rediculous.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic Oh Richard is so smart he is so kewl!!! thumbs up to someone who also believes in the big-firecracker in the sky kaboooooooom! oh and the self replications molecule is another brilliant dawkins idea really smart how it just designed and formed itself truly amazing to be enlightened by such brilliance :D
michigan6443 1 year ago
@michigan6443 Straw-man... I think I'd have respect more for people who consider intution better than evidence if they'd also find it unreasonable that we are made of atoms of mostly empty space and particles are bouncing all over us all the time. What a crazy idea!
Seriously everyone's views are silly from a certain perspective if your christian yours especially. I am much more interested in evidence and argument then "argument from how ridiculous" something sounds.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@pablo4115 Whereas the God concept is unfalsifiable, the religious god is.
Thinking people do have respect for their fellow humans, whether they are superstitious or not. Having respect for a cult that damages knowledge is another matter though.
marsCubed 1 year ago
@marsCubed wow you must be really smart!!!are you a thinking person wow can I be one too! do you have a publik ejuchashun? WOW! you are a cool dude!:D
michigan6443 1 year ago
@michigan6443 You want smart?
How about Professor Israel Filkenstein, head of archaeology, Tel Aviv University.
He sums up the conclusion of the academic community in "The bible unearthed".
After decades of systematic research over vast areas of Israel, not a single shard of porrery has been found to support the existence of Exodus, all were Canaanite, no new influx of culture.
Yahweh even had a wife, Esherah found with him on statues, before 650BC.
Bible is falsifiable. it is not magic.
marsCubed 1 year ago
@pablo4115 I completely agree, it seems that a grand assumptions individuals make is that when one speaks of god, they speak of something absolute, which god is, but the implication and interpretation of god can very from person to person. I know people to think of god as an intangible influential entity and I know people to think of god as an energy force that simply regulates the universe. These two perspectives different enough to implement some relativism into this prospect. I'm an atheist
NBomb187 1 year ago