People need to realize that this battle against religion has more to do with critical thinking than anything else. Religion is the biggest force in society that is both widely accepted and scientifically unreasonable, therefore it is the biggest threat to critical thinking. One can be an atheist but still be as deluded as the most devout religious person, and therefore you are not doing a favor to the human race as a whole.
Basically I just want to say, don't just be an atheist - be a thinker.
I love me some Tyson, but it's not the best question, especially coming from a mind of his caliber. He's asking if religion would be okay if it became something it is not. Cherrypicking a new belief system from the bits we like does not make it truer, but simply more palatable. Moreover, the believer is still required to surrender responsibility for their moral compass to God, which disempowers the individual by stripping their potential to make moral decisions themselves.
@Lazymaven If a religion were to be open to scientific and philosophical rationale, they would not assert a moral compass gifted by god. They would also accept dated events (abolishment of slavery, for example) as an outright act of defiance in the face of religious teachings.
They would simply believe in a god; and commune. A good (and smart/informed) community is, in simplistic situations, generally a good thing.
The question is layered with some important implications.
the psychology of bias, mockery, & lack of respect for others extends far beyond religion. This is how atheists & religious people are alike.They both make blind generalizations about one another that are not entirely honest.They also both make the assumption that their basic tenets make them better than the other group. Sam Harris in avoiding Neil's question demonstrated a very ugly bias that is becoming more popular in atheists.They don't acknowledge the majority of believers are nice folks
Most, if not all religions are mind viruses that act aggressively to infect as many others as possible even if it means destroying some potential hosts. It is not satisfied to dwell in one or a few isolated cases but is programed to dominate and control without resistence. It feeds and thrives on ignorance and gullibility which is in abundance among the humans on this planet. That's why religion can never and will never rest or act benigne in human culture and society.
@RhondaH Most, if not all religions are mind viruses that act aggressively to infect as many others as possible even if it means destroying some potential hosts. It is not satisfied to dwell in one or a few isolated cases but is programed to dominate and control without resistence.
You atheists really need to realize that the 3 monotheistic world religions are like this, and not religions in general ! Learn the difference !!!
@MrRichardQED Actually ALL religions are harmful IMO. Belief in anything for which there is no credible evidence is harmful no matter how benigne you may think it is because such belief can and does interfere with the believers sense of reality vs. make-believe (pure fictional fantasy).
@journeyond Religion was used to enslave his people but Dr. King USED religion for his purposes much like politicians do today. It was a tool and a good one to use in the religious south. He had many atheists who were part of his camp and he was sorely critized for it but he nevertheless found them very helpful.
@RhondaH Belief in anything for which there is no credible evidence is harmful no matter how benigne you may think it is
That´s total bullocks/bullshit ! There are many cases where religion has helped people to get control over their life again, where their belief literally saved their life. to make just one example how religion can be not only not harmful, but be quite the opposite. Anybody, who makes claims like you do here, is no better then a fundamentalist of any religion !!
@RhondaH btw who says i have no evidence for my belief ? You just make unbased assumptions here !!! I have seen enough evidence for my religion, to know the supernatural exists, my gods exist.
btw you shouldnt make general claims about religions, when you don´t even know all of them, it makes your beliefs you try to pass of as facts not very believable ! You are free to be an atheist, let me be free to be a polytheist ! My religion has done a lot of good for me !!! You really -->
@MrRichardQED Haven't seen any evidence yet and if you've got any, I'd be happy to have it. Must warn you that I probably have already heard anything you might come up with as I've been researching the question for over 30 years. BTW my claims are always open to convincing evidence but I really don't give a hoot what you believe in if you really don't care whether it is true or not. Just keep it out of government and don't teach it to my kids.
@RhondaH but I really don't give a hoot what you believe in if you really don't care whether it is true or not.
You seem to have trouble with comprehension, AGAIN i have enough evidence to know the supernatural exists. One example is that i do have every now and then dreams about future events IN DETAIL, events concerning my own life. For example I had a car accident, and dreamed about exactly this accident days before, not how it happened, but everything after that
@RhondaH lack something in your life without spirituality! Its like without love,if you have never felt love you don´t know what you are missing out on! But our gods don´t force you to do anything! If you have lived a good life(especially upholding the 9 noble virtues),and brought more joy then sorrow to those around you, you will get a place among them after you die(if you want to),even if you where a staunch atheist all your life.My gods care about virtues,not about being worshiped !
@MrRichardQED Life without spirits is awesome because reality is the ultimate experience of life. Love is a wonderful thing but it is in the mind and that is the domain of the brain thus is biological. Glad you are happy with your "gods" but I neither can believe in them nor would I want to live such a deluded life of bondage. Life without gods is true liberty and freedom.
@RhondaH Life without spirits is awesome because reality is the ultimate experience of life.
Spirituality =/= spirits, invest in a dictionary ^^ Now how would you know if you never had true spirituality in your life ? Life can be awesome without love, but with love its definitly better, same for spirituality
You really have trouble with comprehension, how is it deluded if i have evidence they exist ? You are a hypocrite, since you ask about evidence , and then dismiss it BEFORE you-->
@RhondaH even hear it. I see you are way too deluded to waste my time on you. Exactly like a creationist will never accept evidence for evolution, you will never accept evidence fir the supernatural. You are no better then a christian fundamentalist/creationist !!! Its really ironic that you people managed to create a religion based on atheism, and don´t even realize that your position is just as deluded as that of a creationist^^
@RhondaH is that you judge a religion without knowing anything about it.I mean when creationists judge evolution they know at least a few things usually,so here your position is even worse then the position if a creationist towards evolution^^
You think you are rational and smart,but in reality you are just as irrational as fundies are!Its really sad how pathetic atheism has become in the last few years.The only position that is still really rational is agnostic,if you have no evidence
@MrRichardQED Actually I am rational and smart because I've done my research and you have not. My conclusions are always open to new evidence. You are a troll on this thread and you are being laughed at for your guillibility and ignorance in your posts.
@RhondaH Actually I am rational and smart because I've done my research...
That sentence alone shows you are just an arrogant atheist , whi thinks he is something better because he is an atheist, while in reality he is no better then fundamentalist creationist. Everything i say about you, i have based on something you wrote here . On what can you base that I have done no research ? ON NOTHING-->prejudice ! On what can you base that i am gullible ? ON NOTHING -->prejudice etc.etc.etc.
@RhondaH EVERYTHING you say about me is based on nothing but prejudice,mixed with cheap insults.Your argument has no foundation whatsoever ! So yet again i have here evidence that you are exactly like your average creationist : whole argument is based on prejudice,no real evidence,not really informed about the subject,the same arrogance thinking you are something better etc.etc.etc.
Your conclusions are obviously not open,since you dismiss any evidence I have to offer before knowing-->
@RhondaH anything about it,and call my claims deluded etc without knowing anything about them. I see nobody laughing about my posts, since i can actually base my claims on something. Yours on the other hand ......
People like you are the reason we say that atheism has become a religion of its own. I mean you claim you have done your research, on what ? You don´t even know what my religion is called, and have the audacity to call me ignorant, unbelievable ^^
@RhondaH When I went to the native American museum some of their religions are actually very benign. One I saw teaches humility, wisdom, love, respect and things like that. They also viewed people of neighboring tribes as brothers in every direction.
It was the Anishinaabe people, the Teachings of the Seven Grandfathers.
@Lagunaz23 human social groups are not the same thing as psychological phenomena. The suggestion of such is sometimes evidence of bias led by one's ego.
@journeyond Thank you. I am respectful when I debate on youtube. It is dishonest to falsely block my comments like that. Intelligent debate is the only way to a better world.
@rockabilly500 hahahaha, not a cop out, its your job to do the research not mine. This whole "Atheist" in the name of "Atheism" is the cop out, and just goofy. That wasn't the point from the beginning which you missed around the same time.
If social group or movement A characterizes social group or movement B with the worst examples of people from that group, and ignores or does not fairly address the statistical diversity of character group B, then the people from group A will show everyone else that group A for whatever reason is somewhat out of touch with reality. Sam Harris in his failure to give a real answer to Neil's very wise question, serves to undermine the atheist movement in a way that mirrors a classic flaw.
@journeyond "If social group or movement A characterizes social group or movement B with the worst examples of people from that group, and ignores or does not fairly address the statistical diversity of character group B" And were he doing that you'd have a point, but eh isn't. He's making the point that the basis of those religious beliefs leads to those worst examples of bad behaviour.
@journeyond Do you doubt that religion will ALWAYS have extremist sects? Human history has been littered with fanaticism for all of recorded history, I believe that it is part and parcel of religion. You can't separate them without ignoring the religion itself. It is the fanatic that is actually FOLLOWING the religion.
@ultim4t32 I doubt fanaticism is always the majority or the end result. The friends & family I know are all non-violent, mild mannered people that keep their beliefs to themselves & do not let them affect others that do not share those beliefs.They also help poor people and donate food to starving people. They support civil rights for their fellow citizens.They also accept science & are very loving people that will never make the news or history books.Are you saying they don't exist?
@journeyond I am not saying that there are no people that are good people and religious. The problem is that those people are not following the rules of their own religion. They choose which parts of the the holy book to follow. They disregard Jesus saying "slaves, obey your masters" and embrace "do unto others". Jesus came to fulfill the SACRIFICIAL law, not nullify the entire OT so the fanatics are actually FOLLOWING the bible/koran etc. and the "good" ones are not.
@ultim4t32 Well you originally asked me"Do you doubt that religion will ALWAYS have extremist sects?" Now you are admitting that in fact such a thing is false. What happened there between your initial energy where you used absolutes, and now your more realistic 'okay well there are some good religious people.' What happened is I brought up real life evidence that in fact such a statement is not always true. Therefore you should be careful in your rhetoric against the 'boogeyman.'
@journeyond What? What do the two have to do with each other? Because there are SOME people in a religion that are good, that does not mean that there will not be extremist sects in the religion. A sect by definition is a subset of a given religion. I don't see your point. There are good christians in the US and there is the IRA which is bombing cars. You can have both. What are you talking about?
@ultim4t32 if the majority of rhetoric speaks of things the majority of people do not do, then the rhetoric is viewed with caution. This is why Neil posed that question, because some atheists today are not objective in this fashion, will not even entertain the possibility that religions can be unobtrusive, without extremist elements. Some native American religions have no extremist elements to them.
@journeyond Once again, I said there will always be SECTS of religion. Do you not know what a sect is? "A group of people with somewhat different religious beliefs (typically regarded as heretical) from those of a larger group to which they belong" Now that you know what the word means, do you understand? I don't know much about native american religions so I won't comment on that. Funny example though considering that religion is about extinct.
@ultim4t32 Okay I think you are a bit confused as to what the subject is. I will try to eliminate this with questions. Is it possible for a religion to be completely non-violent perhaps in the future?
@journeyond Do I believe it is possible for a religion to be non-violent? On Earth, in terms of christianity and islam, absolutely not. Not without disregarding much of what is said in the holy books. In that case I would say that the abandonment of doctrine in favor of humanistic concerns would be the cause (which virtually all moderate christians and Muslims do) On a purely hypothetical basis, I would say it is possible.
@mrjmedeiros What a nice cop out. "Haha, do some more research! But I won't bother to do any of my own." There hasn't been a single major historical figure who has committed unspeakable acts in the name of atheist, or because they were an atheist.
@benfosterism nope, WW1 and WW2 were not religious wars, just a thought- take a look at some of the atrocities done by Atheists. Sorry, advancements in the arts and sciences of all kinds have been made by the religious, atheistic, and agnostic alike. Selfishness, ignorance, and just generally being a short sighted ass hole is a regular human issue regardless of beliefs they still tend to reign supreme. I think your being extremely short sighted my dude-
@mrjmedeiros I can't think of a single horrible atrocity committed by an atheist. I can, however, think of plenty committed in the name of a religious.
@Rockabilly500 In my opinion, religion is merely an expression of human nature. It's a system constructed by humans, and because of that it is a reflection of human nature. If you remove religion from the picture, the same strife and hate exists same as ever, just focused into secular systems be it political, cultural or societal. The xenophobia and fear that feed religion won't die with it. In the absence of religion, people will still kill in the name of cultural supremacy and nationalism.
@KrausHyperOpera There's no argument there. Nationalism led to Germany's first war with France and, arguably, World War I. However, I cannot say for certain that with religion gone hate for others will not be decreased. It seems that religion, especially Abrahamic religions, breed hate and encourage acting upon that hate.
@KrausHyperOpera At least with religion out of the picture, the extremists can't hide behind moderate religious people, or justify it with dogma. When religion is gone, the people doing the killing will have to make a far greater efford to justify it for themselves, and to a far greater extend the people around them.
@KrausHyperOpera There is some truth to that, but some ideologies can have a magnifying effect on these prejudices. If you hate a minority and you subscribe to an ideology that confirms that hatred, you will only feel justified. But, If you follow the science (for instance you share 99% of your dna with that minority), that can have a moderating effect on your attitude and outlook. Not all schools of thought are equal.
@KrausHyperOpera Yes, the hate will stay, but it won't have a chance to spread, because some religions actually justifies it. Religion allows it. For example, parents will inflict their racistic religious views to their children which will result them enabling bad things to happen to hated group. Ever confronted a guy saying that he wish he would help, but his religion says it's bad? That's exactly the case
cont...(I'd argue most of those "morals" are inherent as the very belief itself- but anyway) It is absolutely ridiculous to assume religion is the root of all pride and prejudice...excuse the cliche but serious, do you think "Wall Street" is religious? or has any belief in a god that would make them so...blind to reason? No, it's them being human, and the contradictions you battle as one...that does so. Problem is "good or bad morals" are at root philosophical/spiritual/metaphysical not science
The problem at the premise of this conversation is one of measuring value...period. Be it true now or later, scientific or religious, one book or another- something being physically provable or not, philosophical, theoretical etc. is only as valuable as the social environment you give it. Which is to say, loose religion...you loose the value it gives to those "social" elements we have all grown up with in one form or another.
@mrjmedeiros nope, without religion "social" elements will only get stronger and more connected, you'll never see a Israel Jew, Palestine Muslim, Irish protestant and catholic in the same room as best of friends having a discussion about how to cure alzheimer. thats around 3 billion people not communicating science/philosophy properly
it's a good question that was answered well. It's obvious that Sam's response is ..."well, that's NOT going to happen, since the basic assumptions of religion CONFLICT with science". so a good question and a good answer imo
"Is it ok if denominations only resort to superstition and unsubstantiated claims of an afterlife and dictate moral values? What harm is there in that?" asks Neil deGrasse Tyson. For what purpose if not to control the masses by imposing a belief regime and a set of moral values that I suspect would be no different that the immoral doctrines imposed upon humanity until now? Yeah, what harm would lies, misleading people, relying on ignorance and the wish to be a slave to comfort them do?
Argue with me and ill shred all of ur blather with logic. Meantime, if youre an atheist then the blind man argument would be charged against you. You seek to prove the nonexistence of God not the way things look. If anyone wa blind it would be the atheists not being able to perceive God.
are there to guide us, not to force us under their will, like so many other religions/gods. We think that those other gods really exist, but they have no power over us, since our gods protect us from them. I know, I know, now you will claim again i am delusional ^^
But if you had seen the evidence that was shown to me you would know better then doubt our gods. but they don´t do general evidence, only personal evidence. That´s just how they roll as they say ^^
special symbel cauldron, which has to be emptied, no matter what. When i say cauldron i mean BIG cauldron ^^ A real symbel is fantastic, great fun !!! That´s what i love about my religion, its lots of fun. It embraces all the good things in life,m not like catholic church, which even wants to control our sexlife, and see´s it as something dirty.
We also do not see our gods as our masters, to us they are like these old and wise friend who help us to circumnavigate obstacles in life, and who -->
starts quite serious, we commemorate our dead kin and our ancestors, the second round we commemorate our patron gods, then we commemorate everything good and bad that has happen ed since the last symbel and then the whole thing starts to get less and less serious till it ends in a really hard bender/boozing with lots of storytelling, singing traditional songs, reciting selfmade stuff etc.. The traditional drinks are mead and beer. The mead is served in a -->
just an arrogant prick, who c+p as few arguments and used them against theists. Just like you are now. I did not realize what i was missing, how much spirituality gives you. But i learned the error of my ways, and learned how much more quality my life has with religion in it. I mean the symbels alone have made my religion worthwhile ;) If you want to know exactly what they are, the wiki article is quite good. Just this much its basically a communal drink hosted by the symbelgiver, which-->
but you are wrong. If you are really open and go actively looking for the gods, they will show themselves to you. You wil get your personal evidence, but it is just that, personal evidence. If i told you, i bet you would not believe me. But we are not in the business of creating more believers anyway. So its up to you. I was once like you, though i am an atheist, and that makes m,e so much smarter and more rational then all those delusional theists. It took me a while to realize that i was -->
copy and paste arguments from other let me remind you of this :"I'm gonna offer you a challenge proposed by a youtube character" so you freely admit that you use arguments from others instead of thinking for yourself^^
So why am i delusional exactly ? because you could not think of any other excuse in a hurry? Because i do not share your faith that there is no god (i mean be honest to yourself, it is just a believe !!!) ? Perhaps this helps : you think that i have no evidence for my gods-->
New Atheists are just like religious people. They feel like their point of view is so good that other people just can't think any different without being labeled as stupid. People don't see that the problem isn't really religion. Religious/Philosophical/Political beliefs are channels for the latent intolerance that exists in every human being. If religion does not make anybody better, neither does atheism. What makes ppl better is humbleness to accept that other people think different than us.
@gre8 True but many religons dont endorse bening humble enough to accept other peoples way of thinking, take a look at islam, the penalty for Apostasy in islam is death. I think you have heard from to many trolls on the internet who have given you a bad impresion of atheists, People like Sam Harris do a very good job of showing the problems with relgion. I have no problem with god and would consider myself a deist but many religous teachings are harmfull to other people and teach intolerance.
@gre8 Soory for the long posts I didnt have enough room on the last one. The problem is while atheism in itself may not make anybody better as you put it religon has shown time and again that it can make people worse, through teachings of intolerance which ion turn lead to the subjugation of women or even being stoned to death for infedlity, Look at "honor killings" and tell me that all relgions should be respected.
@thisismikesalajc Look at "honor killings" and tell me that all relgions should be respected.
Yea well, they are not even part of a religion, but part of normal tradition in certain areas. The quran even specifically forbids them, but since it is written in a language most muslims do not understand they often do not know that. Quran also clearly says men and women do have equal rights.
@MrRichardQED Dont know which part you read that gave you the idea women and men have equal rights? maybee sperate but equal the way blacks and whites used to have in america under Jim Crow laws? equal to me means equal rights to wear what they want, work outside the home, divorce etc...
@MrRichardQED Al-Baqarah 2:228 men have the say over the woman in divorce, Al-Baqarah 2:282 In business transactions a woman witness is half that of a man, An-Nisa 4:11 In a will next of kin males are to receive twice that of females. An-Nisa 4:34 Women are to be obedient to men & if not men can strike them.
These verses in the Qur'an in the very least state the inferiority of women to men, which could possibly led to & somewhat implies is men have say over a women rights
@robvlob These verses in the Qur'an in the very least state the inferiority of women to men, which could possibly led to & somewhat implies is men have say over a women rights
You are correct it seemsa, but in other sura´s it says the exact opposite , that both are absolutely equal ! Either its a problem in translation, or the quran contradicts itself, like all the other monotheist holy books do (Thora, Bible etc^^). Thanks for mentioning these
@thisismikesalajc equal to me means equal rights to wear what they want, work outside the home, divorce etc...
No that´s most definitly not what it means ! I was talking about equal rights for both, not total freedom for either or both to do whatever the fuck they want.
@MrRichardQED then its not equal. I have no plans to live by a book witten by men, intepreted by men. And ignorant men from centuries ago to boot. Where is their wisdom concerning DNA, electircity, even basic combustion? I could write a better book given a day and a few red bulls.
@thisismikesalajc You really should consult a dictionary and lookup what equal actually means, and then read again my comments. btw i am not a muslim, and never claimed to be one you moron !
@thisismikesalajc You really should consult a dictionary and lookup what equal actually means, and then read again my comments. btw i am not a muslim, and never claimed to be one you moron !
@MrRichardQED I just read some of your previous comments to catch up on what you have been saying and im convinced your completly and uterly insane. I dont need to belive in some higher power to find happiness in my life and I feel soory that you seem to. You have no hope of brainwashing me and I doubt I have any chance of pushing you towards an time of sanity so lets just give it up I know I am.
@thisismikesalajc I dont need to belive in some higher power to find happiness in my life and I feel soory that you seem
WHAT THE FUCK ? Are you drunk or something? Where the fuck you think i wrote you need a higher power in your life to be happy? Either you have some serious reading disability,or you confuse me with someone else,cause i sure as Hel never claimed you need a higher power in life for anything, let alone to be happy ! I wrote somewhere it can help certain people
Nah. Freedom is not doing what u want but wanting what is best. If u want to kill urself , its illegal. Suicide hopefuls are not free. Neither are drug addicts. Grow up.
@j919or Nah. Freedom is not doing what u want but wanting what is best.
You moron are way off the point here. It never was about freedom, it was about that the quran says that men and woman are to be treated EQUAL.Equal does not necessarily entail any freedom.If i put a man and a woman into solitary confinement they are both treated equal as well
QUOTE:"Freedom is not doing what u want but wanting what is best"
Buy a dictionary and look it up, that is NOT the definition for freedom !
What does that have to do with freedom ? Since when is important for freedom if its legal or not ? You arent making the least bit of sense and are completely and utterly off topic, but have the audacity to tell me to grow up, oh wow, talk about irony !!!
YOU need top grow up,talk less drugs(or more if we talk about prescribed drugs^^) so you start making sense, and next time actually look up how the termns you used are usually defined !!!
Harris completely skirted the question! Tyson laid out a cogent and articulately worded thought experiment, asking Harris to comment on a world where religion had become innocuous and marginalized, only to have Harris use the "why should I address that, that could never happen..." excuse, then cut to his party line. Tyson didn't ask him to address the validity of his hypothetical situation no more than Einstein asked for a valid form of of light-speed travel when formulating the twin paradox…
@6fdjq581 I like Tyson but his hypothetical is about as interesting as:
"Oh Mr. Secretary of Defense. What if War stopped and all weapons turned to lollipops and all ammo turned to M&Ms, where do you think the Military would get enough dentists?
@dimbulb23 I don't know, I see the posing of different means to the same end as worthy of discussion. The question of religious self-temperance vs. an effective form of religious abolitionism as being any more pragmatic than the other is a debatable one. But that's not the point. It was a cleverly worded thought experiment one that should have been addressed. So staunchly advocating abolitionism though, when either scenario yielded the same end, is an interesting window into Harris' conceit.
@6fdjq581 Alas NdT wasn't "posing a different means to the same end" or equally desirable end. What he did is ask (paraphased) "what if religion morphed into somethng unobjectionable, what about that?"
Maybe I missed it. What was NdT's proposed "means" to that end?
Religions tells you to believe perfect books. When your beliefs morph into non-belief the result is not a nice religion, it's no religion. That was Sam's response in a nutshell. IMO not a bad one to a somewhat inane question.
@dimbulb23 Vagueness seems to have been introduced in order to change context, when Tyson's phrasing is much more detailed. "Unobjectionable" implies many scenarios, but Tyson specifies. The "end" was organized religion no longer obtruding on public policy, and the individual; essentially becoming irrelevant. The "means" Tyson implies is obvious, a bottom-up reorganization of thought and attitude toward the necessity of indoctrination and collusion on the part of the religious individual.
@6fdjq581 Tyson: "changed to a point where they don't trigger anyone's reactions" is less vague than "unobjectionable"?
Is that really more dishonest than saying "a bottom-up reorganization of thought and attitude toward the necessity of indoctrination and collusion on the part of the religious individual" is a means rather than a goal.
Tyson may well have means to that goal, though I doubt it, but saying he alluded to it in this video is laughable.
@dimbulb23 Your quote of Tyson is still guilty of omitting the specific parameters for what make's religion unobjectionable, is it not? What leads to religion being unobjectionable in this case? Also, "Morphed into a system[s] of philosophy" implies gradation of change or evolution, not revolution. Incremental change happens from the bottom up. If it were feasible to dictate such a drastic change in the effects of a system from the top down, gradualism would be inefficient and unnecessary.
Yes, it would be great if religious people changed in a revolutionary way into a more moderate and reasonable version of themselves and it would be nice if my grandma had wheels, she'd be a bicycle and wouldn't have walk to work!
So what? How is that interesting, informative or useful without a hint as to how that might be brought about?
@dimbulb23 "Evolutionary" not "Revolutionary". You're confused as to what a "means" is, in denying that a series of incremental changes from the bottom up, filtered through selective mechanisms is a system of actions for which certain results arise (means). Calling organic, bottom up progression a goal, not mean, is like saying natural selection is the goal of evolution. You seem to be denying that greater complexity can arise via autocatalytic means. Do you work for the Discovery Institute?
@6fdjq581 What Tyson said (paraphased) " IF religion morphed into something not in conflict with science ... made no attempt to say things about the physical world... what's the harm in that?
Where did he talk about whether that morphing was gradual or abrupt?
What he basically said was: What if religions changed (mechanism unspecified) into something really nice wouldn't that be nice?
Now maybe he has ideas for facilitating that change but "what if it morphed" sure the fuck isn't it.
@dimbulb23 To morph, as a verb, is defined as gradual. And again gradation suggests evolution not revolution. You can't progress your argument by suggesting words with specific denotations also be considered to carry an exact opposite one. That's silly. But really, it isn't the probability or means or validity of the parameters of Tyson's thought experiment that are at issue, it's the lack of reaction to it, one that would give greater insight into Harris' true motivations, but Harris balks.
@dimbulb23 I would require some clarification (something Harris was also entitled to should he have requested it), but if I were to receive none I would consider if you meant the actual process of rapid division of cells (do to, or causing mutation) were somehow kept in check by an organic mechanism hindering such growth… If that were the case, I'd say great. I certainly wouldn't comment on the likelihood of such a scenario as it's implicit in your question not contingent on it.
@dimbulb23 Ha (I get it). Well, at least I tried to understand your question, answered it to the best of my ability, and didn't equivocate (unlike Harris). Honestly though, don't you feel a little short changed by the fact that Tyson's question, if adressed directly by Harris, would have forced him to consider a scenario were his ideal state of affairs had come to fruition, yet occurred completely free of the means with which he had been advocating for the last 10 years?
@6fdjq581 I have no love for religion. I think pointing out its shortcomings is the right way to change people's attitude toward it and if it dies in the process, all the better.
I didn't feel shortchanged in any way. But then I didn't imagine that Tyson was hinting that Harris, and people like him, had no part to play in Tyson's imaginary scenario where religion morphs into Religion Lite. One would have to have an agenda to imagine that.
@dimbulb23 I disagree, of course. History has shown and many precedents have been set for the efficacy of gradual bottom-up change ie. free market economies, consciousness, natural selection, technological advancements, even art is a tinkering of old ideas and forms to create new ones. Top down control is usually practically or theoretically flawed ie. socialism, intelligent design. Enacting agendas has shown time and time again to be ineffective. Just look at political bodies…
@6fdjq581 Straw man. No one is advocating top-down control or abolition. I think most atheists would be happy to see people wise up and religion dry up but I'm not sure I've ever heard one suggest it should be abolished.
Harris and other like him have opened the discussion and confronted people with reasons why religion is not good and have failed to show the traditional deference to religion. That's what's got all the panties in a bunch.
@6fdjq581 No atheist that I'm aware of is picketing religious group or facilities. They simply dare to stand toe-to-toe and tell people what they think. How much more bottom-up can you get? I've been a atheist for 50+ years and didn't know another by name until I happened on a banned book by Mark Twain. Even now I can't name more than twenty and not a single power broker among them. That's a bottom-up grass roots movement if ever there was one.
@dimbulb23 What does atheism have to do with anything? Advocating religious change need not have anything to do with it; atheism is in fact arbitrary. Harris could just as easily be a Christian advocating for a society free of religious infringement (ala John Shelby Spong). Also, starting from a general ideal (marginalization of religion) and then devising viable options to achieve that end is top down in every sense. Finally, being happy to see anything "dry up" or end is an abolitionist view.
@dimbulb23 I think pointing out its shortcomings is the right way to change people's attitude toward it and if it dies in the process, all the better.
The problem never has been religion, the problem is always fundamentalism/extremism, no matter if religiously or politically motivated. This is the one thing you atheists finally need to realize !
@MrRichardQED Fundamentalism/extremism IS religion. In fact, it's the form supported by the holy books.
As Sam pointed out the books say what they say and even if every religious person suddenly became all calm and easy to get along with, the books still sit there ready to support future radicals with the extremes they undeniably contain.
@dimbulb23 Fundamentalism/extremism IS religion. In fact, it's the form supported by the holy books.
Thats utter bullshit : there is lots of extremism that has nothing to do with religion, and there is a lot religion that is neither fundamentalism nor extremism !!! If you really read the books they often even forbid extremism, its all a question of interpretation. Most philosophies can be abused to form extremism out of it, that is not restricted to religion!!!
@MrRichardQED This video is about religion so when you brought up fundamentalism/extremism. What was I to think? Your were talking about extreme skiing? I'm not sure I've heard fundamentalism used in a non-religious context but it could be.
But the fact remains, the bible is full of extremism, for instance, if you don't believe in God He'll burn you forever. That's a bit harsh don't you think? What about witches?
African Christians are burning their witch children these days you know.
@dimbulb23 so when you brought up fundamentalism/extremism.What was I to think?
Simply read instead of too much thinking QUOTE:"The problem never has been religion,the problem is always fundamentalism/extremism,no matter if religiously or politically motivated.This is the one thing you atheists finally need to realize!"
I made it very clear : NOT ONLY RELIGIOUS;BUT ALSO POLITICALand other extremism/fundamentalism.I made that very clear !!! Who is able to read has a clear advantage ^^
@dimbulb23 I really couldnt have made it any clearer, or could I ?
"I'm not sure I've heard fundamentalism used in a non-religious context "
Which is the reason i said extremism/fundamentalism and not just fundamentalism ^^
"if you don't believe in God He'll burn you forever. "
Show me where to find that in the bible ^^ Hell is an idea of the early medieval age. Much of the idea was taken over from norse paganism (Hel is the germanic god of the underworld, though in our believe it-->
@MrRichardQED My point here that these holy books support pretty much any interpretation one wants to make including extremism of pretty much any type including your contention that hell isn't in them I suppose. Though it's child's play to find many references to hell, hell fire, fiery hell, cast into hell, consumed body and soul, torments etc.
That was Sam's point in this video, remember the video? Religion is the problem because religion is belief removed from reason.
@dimbulb23 My point here that these holy books support pretty much any interpretation one wants to make including extremism
The same goes for philosophy, but that is hardly a reason to ban philosophy ! You8 can´t just ban anything that might be abused. What next, banning iron, since you can make weapons out of it ?
"Though it's child's play.."
Yep, but all those are not from holy books, they are from people who abused them for personal gain.
@dimbulb23 So again, religion is not the problem, the problem is extremists who abuse anything they can get their hands on to support their agenda with it. If they can´t use religion,then they use philosophy or anything else they can think of. You are trying to attack the symptoms, instead of going against the illness itself. You might not be able to kill the illness, but you could keep it at bay,if you finally realized what the illness really is.If not it will only spread further !!!
@MrRichardQED Unlike Neil you've had many opportunities to say how you'd rid religion of its extremism. Repeating "what if religion was nice" accomplishes nothing.
@dimbulb23 Repeating "what if religion was nice" accomplishes nothing.
Stop building straw mans, cause you have nothing against my actual argument, thats pathetic. I never said"what if religion was nice". Religion HAS many positive aspects right now, extremists are a small minority within them.
What one can do against them ? Education is one very important aspect, extremists are usually badly educated. Lets take the poster boys of our time, the muslim extremists: most of them come-->
@dimbulb23 come from a very poor background with no jobs for most of the youth. So thgey learn the only thing they are offered: study the quran and become iman. If those people had other opportunities most of them surely would rather learn something else. That situation is worsened by the fact that america is leading a war for oil that costed the lives of 100´s of thousand civilian lives, which is the real reason for hating the west. Combine those 2 factors with radical imans and -->
@dimbulb23 you get muslim extremists.Give those people a better education and let them study the real quran,in a language they understand,plus jobs and alternatives for the future and they won´t become extremists(well you will always have a few bad apples,but you get that everywhere)
Now compare those extremists to timothy mc veigh and you will find lots of parallels: low education,low self esteem,no real perspectives for the future etc.THOSE are the reason for extremism,not religion
@MrRichardQED I'm gonna offer you a challenge proposed by a youtube character: name one benefit that can be achieved by religion that cannot be achieved through purely secular means. Now think about the detriment religion has brought to this planet over history. The world would be better off without religion. Just accept it.
@Pigroota name one benefit that can be achieved by religion that cannot be achieved through purely secular means
That is a stupid challenge, since of course religious people don´t get some kind of superhuman power, so anything a religious person can do can also be done by a nonreligious person. Fact is that most organizations to help people in need are of religious origin and/or are still majorly organized and financed by various religions. I bet that for each secular organization -->
@TheHigherVoltage I've yet to find a theistic religion that doesn't promise it's believers superhuman powers.
Either we both have very different definitions of superhuman powers, or you are not making the least bit of sense, but nice try, better luck next time ;)
Jesus promised and illustrated that all that alligned with Him would be mistreated. And that only in connection with Him would they have power to overcome this mistreatment....by loving their enemies and by the joy of God within them.
@j919or I'm not talking about any 'people will laugh at your fairy tales' promises, I'm talking about passages like Mark 16:16-18....Jesus promising all who are baptized and believe will gain super powers like immunity to ingested poison and healing with a touch.
I get that you can't face the reality of Jesus being a myth, but facts are facts. The world didn't end in his generation like he said it would, prayers to Jesus are answered as often as prayers to a garbage bag, the list goes on n on.
No Dumbo. He did say ALL. He said "those that", not "all those that" you added that as part of ur lies and no wonder for satan is all over u.
Meantime, the signs follow the group of believers. And it doesnt specify who would manifest the signs or when or how or even if that one or two or more would manifest more than one sign or whichs signs they would manifest.
@j919or ""promising all who are baptized and believe""
No Dumbo. He didnt say ALL. He said "those that", not "all those that" you added that as part of ur lies and no wonder for satan is all over u.
Meantime, the signs follow the group of believers. And it doesnt specify who would manifest the signs or when or how or even if that manifestor would manifest one or two or more signs or whichs signs he/they would manifest.
@TheHigherVoltage You did not answer my assertions and argument against ur blather and so now I will a) declare the arument over and in my favor b) conclude that u know nothing or argument or logic and just cough up the little u have read without the ability to critically analyze it or to defend it
@j919or I did respond to your assertions. You avoided mine, and declare a childish victory. Good for you! Way to hide from reality! Your imaginary friend must be so proud!
@j919or WFT? You still posting your abhorant messages on YT? Dude get fucking lost, your logic is a joke and wisdom is as dim as my taint. Why don't you get a life and go take a fucking walk or something that is of some use. You post some of the most ignorant shit I have ever come across. I promise you that you are NOT helping your cause. Go fishing or try wood working, loser.
@Pigroota you can name i can name at least 5 religious, 10 if i have time to do research. The point is not that secular organizations couldnt do that, but that they simply do not do it. I also can name you many cases where religion has been a great help for people in dire situations, where their belief was the only thing that could still give them the necessary strenght to pull through it, or even get out of it.
btw you somehow completely fail to get the point of my argument -->
@Pigroota It's very hard to argue with the delusional
So typical,as soon as you run out of arguments you start personal attacks for no reason other then that your pissed that your usual tactic did not work out this time^^ I find your reaction rather pathetic ! You can not know if there is a god or not,those the facts !
Calling me delusional just because i do not share your faith that there is no god shows you react strongly to this one question,which means you are not sure yourself !
@Pigroota I mean you know nothing about my belief, yet have the audacity to judge it as delusional. How unscientific and unreasonable !!! I mean admit it, you thought I am just another theist, who either looses to your argument, or makes a totally gaga claim. But neither happened. I was able to put forward a well though through argument, and you realized you are loosing ground, and all those arguments you learned from various websites and youtube videos didnt stick in this case. Now-->
@Pigroota you fear you might actually lose the debate, so you cough up this pathetic substitute for an excuse to end the debate, before it gets really obvious you stand with the back to the wall.
I mean poor you, this is not supposed to happen ! Theists are not supposed to be able to put forward a reasonable debate, they are supposed to lose so you atheists can feel good about yourself because you have proven once more that you atheists have the better arguments, even if most-->
@Pigroota of you just c+p them or copy them from dawkins or any other atheist mentors (or should i call them masterminds ?).
But we are drifting a bit away from the subject : how can you support your claim i am delusional ? So far i have put forward a very rational argument,that pretty much destroyed the argument you put forward, especially since you completely missed the point. But i guess that was the only argument you could find in a hurry ^^ btw before you start denying that you-->
@Pigroota The problem is NOT religion, the problem is extremism and fundamentalism. I mean look at china under mao or north korea. Both are prime examples of regimes without religion, are you really trying to tell me they where good regimes ? Or that they would have been even worse with religious leaders ? The problem is not religion, just accept it. The problem is extremism and fundamentalism, period !!!
People need to realize that this battle against religion has more to do with critical thinking than anything else. Religion is the biggest force in society that is both widely accepted and scientifically unreasonable, therefore it is the biggest threat to critical thinking. One can be an atheist but still be as deluded as the most devout religious person, and therefore you are not doing a favor to the human race as a whole.
Basically I just want to say, don't just be an atheist - be a thinker.
samhaghjoo 1 hour ago
I love me some Tyson, but it's not the best question, especially coming from a mind of his caliber. He's asking if religion would be okay if it became something it is not. Cherrypicking a new belief system from the bits we like does not make it truer, but simply more palatable. Moreover, the believer is still required to surrender responsibility for their moral compass to God, which disempowers the individual by stripping their potential to make moral decisions themselves.
Lazymaven 18 hours ago
@Lazymaven If a religion were to be open to scientific and philosophical rationale, they would not assert a moral compass gifted by god. They would also accept dated events (abolishment of slavery, for example) as an outright act of defiance in the face of religious teachings.
They would simply believe in a god; and commune. A good (and smart/informed) community is, in simplistic situations, generally a good thing.
The question is layered with some important implications.
jaieet 1 hour ago
Sam Harris: The Ben Stiller of science.
MrGoldenTracks 1 day ago 7
the psychology of bias, mockery, & lack of respect for others extends far beyond religion. This is how atheists & religious people are alike.They both make blind generalizations about one another that are not entirely honest.They also both make the assumption that their basic tenets make them better than the other group. Sam Harris in avoiding Neil's question demonstrated a very ugly bias that is becoming more popular in atheists.They don't acknowledge the majority of believers are nice folks
journeyond 1 day ago
he didn't answer the question. Neil was speaking more of the future idea of religion and Sam Harris did not talk about it at all.
ContractingNebula 2 days ago
Most, if not all religions are mind viruses that act aggressively to infect as many others as possible even if it means destroying some potential hosts. It is not satisfied to dwell in one or a few isolated cases but is programed to dominate and control without resistence. It feeds and thrives on ignorance and gullibility which is in abundance among the humans on this planet. That's why religion can never and will never rest or act benigne in human culture and society.
RhondaH 4 days ago 3
@RhondaH Most, if not all religions are mind viruses that act aggressively to infect as many others as possible even if it means destroying some potential hosts. It is not satisfied to dwell in one or a few isolated cases but is programed to dominate and control without resistence.
You atheists really need to realize that the 3 monotheistic world religions are like this, and not religions in general ! Learn the difference !!!
MrRichardQED 2 days ago
@MrRichardQED Actually ALL religions are harmful IMO. Belief in anything for which there is no credible evidence is harmful no matter how benigne you may think it is because such belief can and does interfere with the believers sense of reality vs. make-believe (pure fictional fantasy).
RhondaH 2 days ago
@RhondaH was religion harmful to Reverend Martin Luther King?
journeyond 1 day ago
@journeyond Religion was used to enslave his people but Dr. King USED religion for his purposes much like politicians do today. It was a tool and a good one to use in the religious south. He had many atheists who were part of his camp and he was sorely critized for it but he nevertheless found them very helpful.
RhondaH 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RhondaH Belief in anything for which there is no credible evidence is harmful no matter how benigne you may think it is
That´s total bullocks/bullshit ! There are many cases where religion has helped people to get control over their life again, where their belief literally saved their life. to make just one example how religion can be not only not harmful, but be quite the opposite. Anybody, who makes claims like you do here, is no better then a fundamentalist of any religion !!
MrRichardQED 1 day ago
@RhondaH btw who says i have no evidence for my belief ? You just make unbased assumptions here !!! I have seen enough evidence for my religion, to know the supernatural exists, my gods exist.
btw you shouldnt make general claims about religions, when you don´t even know all of them, it makes your beliefs you try to pass of as facts not very believable ! You are free to be an atheist, let me be free to be a polytheist ! My religion has done a lot of good for me !!! You really -->
MrRichardQED 1 day ago
@MrRichardQED Haven't seen any evidence yet and if you've got any, I'd be happy to have it. Must warn you that I probably have already heard anything you might come up with as I've been researching the question for over 30 years. BTW my claims are always open to convincing evidence but I really don't give a hoot what you believe in if you really don't care whether it is true or not. Just keep it out of government and don't teach it to my kids.
RhondaH 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RhondaH but I really don't give a hoot what you believe in if you really don't care whether it is true or not.
You seem to have trouble with comprehension, AGAIN i have enough evidence to know the supernatural exists. One example is that i do have every now and then dreams about future events IN DETAIL, events concerning my own life. For example I had a car accident, and dreamed about exactly this accident days before, not how it happened, but everything after that
MrRichardQED 1 day ago
@RhondaH lack something in your life without spirituality! Its like without love,if you have never felt love you don´t know what you are missing out on! But our gods don´t force you to do anything! If you have lived a good life(especially upholding the 9 noble virtues),and brought more joy then sorrow to those around you, you will get a place among them after you die(if you want to),even if you where a staunch atheist all your life.My gods care about virtues,not about being worshiped !
MrRichardQED 1 day ago
@MrRichardQED Life without spirits is awesome because reality is the ultimate experience of life. Love is a wonderful thing but it is in the mind and that is the domain of the brain thus is biological. Glad you are happy with your "gods" but I neither can believe in them nor would I want to live such a deluded life of bondage. Life without gods is true liberty and freedom.
RhondaH 1 day ago
@RhondaH Life without spirits is awesome because reality is the ultimate experience of life.
Spirituality =/= spirits, invest in a dictionary ^^ Now how would you know if you never had true spirituality in your life ? Life can be awesome without love, but with love its definitly better, same for spirituality
You really have trouble with comprehension, how is it deluded if i have evidence they exist ? You are a hypocrite, since you ask about evidence , and then dismiss it BEFORE you-->
MrRichardQED 1 day ago
@RhondaH even hear it. I see you are way too deluded to waste my time on you. Exactly like a creationist will never accept evidence for evolution, you will never accept evidence fir the supernatural. You are no better then a christian fundamentalist/creationist !!! Its really ironic that you people managed to create a religion based on atheism, and don´t even realize that your position is just as deluded as that of a creationist^^
Another good example what a hypocrite you are -->
MrRichardQED 1 day ago
@RhondaH is that you judge a religion without knowing anything about it.I mean when creationists judge evolution they know at least a few things usually,so here your position is even worse then the position if a creationist towards evolution^^
You think you are rational and smart,but in reality you are just as irrational as fundies are!Its really sad how pathetic atheism has become in the last few years.The only position that is still really rational is agnostic,if you have no evidence
MrRichardQED 1 day ago
@MrRichardQED Actually I am rational and smart because I've done my research and you have not. My conclusions are always open to new evidence. You are a troll on this thread and you are being laughed at for your guillibility and ignorance in your posts.
RhondaH 1 day ago
Comment removed
MrRichardQED 1 day ago
Comment removed
MrRichardQED 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RhondaH Actually I am rational and smart because I've done my research...
That sentence alone shows you are just an arrogant atheist , whi thinks he is something better because he is an atheist, while in reality he is no better then fundamentalist creationist. Everything i say about you, i have based on something you wrote here . On what can you base that I have done no research ? ON NOTHING-->prejudice ! On what can you base that i am gullible ? ON NOTHING -->prejudice etc.etc.etc.
MrRichardQED 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RhondaH EVERYTHING you say about me is based on nothing but prejudice,mixed with cheap insults.Your argument has no foundation whatsoever ! So yet again i have here evidence that you are exactly like your average creationist : whole argument is based on prejudice,no real evidence,not really informed about the subject,the same arrogance thinking you are something better etc.etc.etc.
Your conclusions are obviously not open,since you dismiss any evidence I have to offer before knowing-->
MrRichardQED 1 day ago
@RhondaH anything about it,and call my claims deluded etc without knowing anything about them. I see nobody laughing about my posts, since i can actually base my claims on something. Yours on the other hand ......
People like you are the reason we say that atheism has become a religion of its own. I mean you claim you have done your research, on what ? You don´t even know what my religion is called, and have the audacity to call me ignorant, unbelievable ^^
MrRichardQED 1 day ago
@RhondaH When I went to the native American museum some of their religions are actually very benign. One I saw teaches humility, wisdom, love, respect and things like that. They also viewed people of neighboring tribes as brothers in every direction.
It was the Anishinaabe people, the Teachings of the Seven Grandfathers.
journeyond 1 day ago
religion = human ego
Lagunaz23 5 days ago 2
@Lagunaz23 human social groups are not the same thing as psychological phenomena. The suggestion of such is sometimes evidence of bias led by one's ego.
journeyond 1 day ago
whoever it is that is removing ultim4t32's comments, please stop. Nothing in his comments are spam nor are they offensive. Let him be.
journeyond 1 week ago
@journeyond Thank you. I am respectful when I debate on youtube. It is dishonest to falsely block my comments like that. Intelligent debate is the only way to a better world.
ultim4t32 1 week ago
@journeyond Is it possible for a religion to be completely non-violent perhaps in the future?
journeyond 1 week ago
@journeyond that is preposterous.
blah1311 4 days ago
@blah1311 Not really, both athests and religious people are humans with psychologies. Your statement is false.
journeyond 1 day ago
Atheists are just like religious people in their psychology, and biases.
journeyond 1 week ago
we have a badass over here!
AlonMln 1 week ago
@rockabilly500 hahahaha, not a cop out, its your job to do the research not mine. This whole "Atheist" in the name of "Atheism" is the cop out, and just goofy. That wasn't the point from the beginning which you missed around the same time.
mrjmedeiros 1 week ago
If social group or movement A characterizes social group or movement B with the worst examples of people from that group, and ignores or does not fairly address the statistical diversity of character group B, then the people from group A will show everyone else that group A for whatever reason is somewhat out of touch with reality. Sam Harris in his failure to give a real answer to Neil's very wise question, serves to undermine the atheist movement in a way that mirrors a classic flaw.
journeyond 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@journeyond "If social group or movement A characterizes social group or movement B with the worst examples of people from that group, and ignores or does not fairly address the statistical diversity of character group B" And were he doing that you'd have a point, but eh isn't. He's making the point that the basis of those religious beliefs leads to those worst examples of bad behaviour.
jamesrands 1 week ago
@journeyond Do you doubt that religion will ALWAYS have extremist sects? Human history has been littered with fanaticism for all of recorded history, I believe that it is part and parcel of religion. You can't separate them without ignoring the religion itself. It is the fanatic that is actually FOLLOWING the religion.
ultim4t32 1 week ago
@ultim4t32 I doubt fanaticism is always the majority or the end result. The friends & family I know are all non-violent, mild mannered people that keep their beliefs to themselves & do not let them affect others that do not share those beliefs.They also help poor people and donate food to starving people. They support civil rights for their fellow citizens.They also accept science & are very loving people that will never make the news or history books.Are you saying they don't exist?
journeyond 1 week ago
@journeyond I am not saying that there are no people that are good people and religious. The problem is that those people are not following the rules of their own religion. They choose which parts of the the holy book to follow. They disregard Jesus saying "slaves, obey your masters" and embrace "do unto others". Jesus came to fulfill the SACRIFICIAL law, not nullify the entire OT so the fanatics are actually FOLLOWING the bible/koran etc. and the "good" ones are not.
ultim4t32 1 week ago
@ultim4t32 Well you originally asked me"Do you doubt that religion will ALWAYS have extremist sects?" Now you are admitting that in fact such a thing is false. What happened there between your initial energy where you used absolutes, and now your more realistic 'okay well there are some good religious people.' What happened is I brought up real life evidence that in fact such a statement is not always true. Therefore you should be careful in your rhetoric against the 'boogeyman.'
journeyond 1 week ago
@journeyond What? What do the two have to do with each other? Because there are SOME people in a religion that are good, that does not mean that there will not be extremist sects in the religion. A sect by definition is a subset of a given religion. I don't see your point. There are good christians in the US and there is the IRA which is bombing cars. You can have both. What are you talking about?
ultim4t32 1 week ago
@ultim4t32 if the majority of rhetoric speaks of things the majority of people do not do, then the rhetoric is viewed with caution. This is why Neil posed that question, because some atheists today are not objective in this fashion, will not even entertain the possibility that religions can be unobtrusive, without extremist elements. Some native American religions have no extremist elements to them.
journeyond 1 week ago
Comment removed
ultim4t32 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@journeyond Once again, I said there will always be SECTS of religion. Do you not know what a sect is? "A group of people with somewhat different religious beliefs (typically regarded as heretical) from those of a larger group to which they belong" Now that you know what the word means, do you understand? I don't know much about native american religions so I won't comment on that. Funny example though considering that religion is about extinct.
ultim4t32 1 week ago
@ultim4t32 Okay I think you are a bit confused as to what the subject is. I will try to eliminate this with questions. Is it possible for a religion to be completely non-violent perhaps in the future?
journeyond 1 week ago
@journeyond Do I believe it is possible for a religion to be non-violent? On Earth, in terms of christianity and islam, absolutely not. Not without disregarding much of what is said in the holy books. In that case I would say that the abandonment of doctrine in favor of humanistic concerns would be the cause (which virtually all moderate christians and Muslims do) On a purely hypothetical basis, I would say it is possible.
ultim4t32 1 week ago
@rockabilly500 haha, well... I suggest a little more research.
mrjmedeiros 1 week ago
@mrjmedeiros What a nice cop out. "Haha, do some more research! But I won't bother to do any of my own." There hasn't been a single major historical figure who has committed unspeakable acts in the name of atheist, or because they were an atheist.
Rockabilly500 1 week ago
Why do we need to argue with the religious? Why can't we just kill them?
surangasa 1 week ago
@surangasa cuz then we would be just like them
APRIME 1 week ago 2
@APRIME What's the problem of having a crusade?
surangasa 6 days ago
Because we don't want to sink to their level.
@surangasa
adiamondfordisease 1 week ago
@adiamondfordisease If you don't want to sink to their level by killing them, what would you suggest as the way to get rid of them?
surangasa 6 days ago
@benfosterism nope, WW1 and WW2 were not religious wars, just a thought- take a look at some of the atrocities done by Atheists. Sorry, advancements in the arts and sciences of all kinds have been made by the religious, atheistic, and agnostic alike. Selfishness, ignorance, and just generally being a short sighted ass hole is a regular human issue regardless of beliefs they still tend to reign supreme. I think your being extremely short sighted my dude-
mrjmedeiros 1 week ago
@mrjmedeiros I can't think of a single horrible atrocity committed by an atheist. I can, however, think of plenty committed in the name of a religious.
Rockabilly500 1 week ago
@mrjmedeiros Edit: I can't think of a single atrocity committed by an atheist IN THE NAME OF ATHEISM.
Rockabilly500 1 week ago
@Rockabilly500 In my opinion, religion is merely an expression of human nature. It's a system constructed by humans, and because of that it is a reflection of human nature. If you remove religion from the picture, the same strife and hate exists same as ever, just focused into secular systems be it political, cultural or societal. The xenophobia and fear that feed religion won't die with it. In the absence of religion, people will still kill in the name of cultural supremacy and nationalism.
KrausHyperOpera 1 week ago
@KrausHyperOpera There's no argument there. Nationalism led to Germany's first war with France and, arguably, World War I. However, I cannot say for certain that with religion gone hate for others will not be decreased. It seems that religion, especially Abrahamic religions, breed hate and encourage acting upon that hate.
Rockabilly500 1 week ago
@Rockabilly500 Religion is the best excuse for hatred.
kusalaviro 1 week ago
@KrausHyperOpera At least with religion out of the picture, the extremists can't hide behind moderate religious people, or justify it with dogma. When religion is gone, the people doing the killing will have to make a far greater efford to justify it for themselves, and to a far greater extend the people around them.
sodalight666 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KrausHyperOpera There is some truth to that, but some ideologies can have a magnifying effect on these prejudices. If you hate a minority and you subscribe to an ideology that confirms that hatred, you will only feel justified. But, If you follow the science (for instance you share 99% of your dna with that minority), that can have a moderating effect on your attitude and outlook. Not all schools of thought are equal.
elatus 1 week ago
@KrausHyperOpera Yes, the hate will stay, but it won't have a chance to spread, because some religions actually justifies it. Religion allows it. For example, parents will inflict their racistic religious views to their children which will result them enabling bad things to happen to hated group. Ever confronted a guy saying that he wish he would help, but his religion says it's bad? That's exactly the case
Justas923 6 days ago
cont...(I'd argue most of those "morals" are inherent as the very belief itself- but anyway) It is absolutely ridiculous to assume religion is the root of all pride and prejudice...excuse the cliche but serious, do you think "Wall Street" is religious? or has any belief in a god that would make them so...blind to reason? No, it's them being human, and the contradictions you battle as one...that does so. Problem is "good or bad morals" are at root philosophical/spiritual/metaphysical not science
mrjmedeiros 1 week ago
The problem at the premise of this conversation is one of measuring value...period. Be it true now or later, scientific or religious, one book or another- something being physically provable or not, philosophical, theoretical etc. is only as valuable as the social environment you give it. Which is to say, loose religion...you loose the value it gives to those "social" elements we have all grown up with in one form or another.
mrjmedeiros 1 week ago
@mrjmedeiros nope, without religion "social" elements will only get stronger and more connected, you'll never see a Israel Jew, Palestine Muslim, Irish protestant and catholic in the same room as best of friends having a discussion about how to cure alzheimer. thats around 3 billion people not communicating science/philosophy properly
BenFosterism 1 week ago
Neil deGrasse Tyson poses a good question.
gacktxrawr 1 week ago 10
@gacktxrawr
it's a good question that was answered well. It's obvious that Sam's response is ..."well, that's NOT going to happen, since the basic assumptions of religion CONFLICT with science". so a good question and a good answer imo
mutedmakequiet 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Is it ok if denominations only resort to superstition and unsubstantiated claims of an afterlife and dictate moral values? What harm is there in that?" asks Neil deGrasse Tyson. For what purpose if not to control the masses by imposing a belief regime and a set of moral values that I suspect would be no different that the immoral doctrines imposed upon humanity until now? Yeah, what harm would lies, misleading people, relying on ignorance and the wish to be a slave to comfort them do?
12Monkeys8u 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
12Monkeys8u 2 weeks ago
I already feel dumber for arguing with a theist. Like arguing with a blind man about the way things look.
thisismikesalajc 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thisismikesalajc ""blind man about the way things look.""
Argue with me and ill shred all of ur blather with logic. Meantime, if youre an atheist then the blind man argument would be charged against you. You seek to prove the nonexistence of God not the way things look. If anyone wa blind it would be the atheists not being able to perceive God.
j919or 2 weeks ago
are there to guide us, not to force us under their will, like so many other religions/gods. We think that those other gods really exist, but they have no power over us, since our gods protect us from them. I know, I know, now you will claim again i am delusional ^^
But if you had seen the evidence that was shown to me you would know better then doubt our gods. but they don´t do general evidence, only personal evidence. That´s just how they roll as they say ^^
MrRichardQED 3 weeks ago
special symbel cauldron, which has to be emptied, no matter what. When i say cauldron i mean BIG cauldron ^^ A real symbel is fantastic, great fun !!! That´s what i love about my religion, its lots of fun. It embraces all the good things in life,m not like catholic church, which even wants to control our sexlife, and see´s it as something dirty.
We also do not see our gods as our masters, to us they are like these old and wise friend who help us to circumnavigate obstacles in life, and who -->
MrRichardQED 3 weeks ago
starts quite serious, we commemorate our dead kin and our ancestors, the second round we commemorate our patron gods, then we commemorate everything good and bad that has happen ed since the last symbel and then the whole thing starts to get less and less serious till it ends in a really hard bender/boozing with lots of storytelling, singing traditional songs, reciting selfmade stuff etc.. The traditional drinks are mead and beer. The mead is served in a -->
MrRichardQED 3 weeks ago
just an arrogant prick, who c+p as few arguments and used them against theists. Just like you are now. I did not realize what i was missing, how much spirituality gives you. But i learned the error of my ways, and learned how much more quality my life has with religion in it. I mean the symbels alone have made my religion worthwhile ;) If you want to know exactly what they are, the wiki article is quite good. Just this much its basically a communal drink hosted by the symbelgiver, which-->
MrRichardQED 3 weeks ago
but you are wrong. If you are really open and go actively looking for the gods, they will show themselves to you. You wil get your personal evidence, but it is just that, personal evidence. If i told you, i bet you would not believe me. But we are not in the business of creating more believers anyway. So its up to you. I was once like you, though i am an atheist, and that makes m,e so much smarter and more rational then all those delusional theists. It took me a while to realize that i was -->
MrRichardQED 3 weeks ago
copy and paste arguments from other let me remind you of this :"I'm gonna offer you a challenge proposed by a youtube character" so you freely admit that you use arguments from others instead of thinking for yourself^^
So why am i delusional exactly ? because you could not think of any other excuse in a hurry? Because i do not share your faith that there is no god (i mean be honest to yourself, it is just a believe !!!) ? Perhaps this helps : you think that i have no evidence for my gods-->
MrRichardQED 3 weeks ago
wow niel i cant believe a educated man like you would defend religion
roy3951 1 month ago
New Atheists are just like religious people. They feel like their point of view is so good that other people just can't think any different without being labeled as stupid. People don't see that the problem isn't really religion. Religious/Philosophical/Political beliefs are channels for the latent intolerance that exists in every human being. If religion does not make anybody better, neither does atheism. What makes ppl better is humbleness to accept that other people think different than us.
gre8 1 month ago
@gre8 True but many religons dont endorse bening humble enough to accept other peoples way of thinking, take a look at islam, the penalty for Apostasy in islam is death. I think you have heard from to many trolls on the internet who have given you a bad impresion of atheists, People like Sam Harris do a very good job of showing the problems with relgion. I have no problem with god and would consider myself a deist but many religous teachings are harmfull to other people and teach intolerance.
thisismikesalajc 1 month ago
@gre8 Soory for the long posts I didnt have enough room on the last one. The problem is while atheism in itself may not make anybody better as you put it religon has shown time and again that it can make people worse, through teachings of intolerance which ion turn lead to the subjugation of women or even being stoned to death for infedlity, Look at "honor killings" and tell me that all relgions should be respected.
thisismikesalajc 1 month ago
@thisismikesalajc Look at "honor killings" and tell me that all relgions should be respected.
Yea well, they are not even part of a religion, but part of normal tradition in certain areas. The quran even specifically forbids them, but since it is written in a language most muslims do not understand they often do not know that. Quran also clearly says men and women do have equal rights.
MrRichardQED 2 weeks ago
@MrRichardQED Dont know which part you read that gave you the idea women and men have equal rights? maybee sperate but equal the way blacks and whites used to have in america under Jim Crow laws? equal to me means equal rights to wear what they want, work outside the home, divorce etc...
thisismikesalajc 2 weeks ago
@thisismikesalajc Dont know which part you read that gave you the idea women and men have equal rights?
1 An-Nisa 4:19 live with women on a footing of kindness and equity
2 Al-Ahzab 33:35 quite a long verse where allah gives both man and woman always exactly the same shares of each of his kindnesses
3. Al-Taubah 9:71 The believing men and women, are associates and helpers of each other. They (collaborate) to promote all that is beneficial
I could go on like that !
MrRichardQED 2 weeks ago
@MrRichardQED Al-Baqarah 2:228 men have the say over the woman in divorce, Al-Baqarah 2:282 In business transactions a woman witness is half that of a man, An-Nisa 4:11 In a will next of kin males are to receive twice that of females. An-Nisa 4:34 Women are to be obedient to men & if not men can strike them.
These verses in the Qur'an in the very least state the inferiority of women to men, which could possibly led to & somewhat implies is men have say over a women rights
robvlob 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@robvlob These verses in the Qur'an in the very least state the inferiority of women to men, which could possibly led to & somewhat implies is men have say over a women rights
You are correct it seemsa, but in other sura´s it says the exact opposite , that both are absolutely equal ! Either its a problem in translation, or the quran contradicts itself, like all the other monotheist holy books do (Thora, Bible etc^^). Thanks for mentioning these
MrRichardQED 1 week ago
@thisismikesalajc equal to me means equal rights to wear what they want, work outside the home, divorce etc...
No that´s most definitly not what it means ! I was talking about equal rights for both, not total freedom for either or both to do whatever the fuck they want.
MrRichardQED 2 weeks ago
@MrRichardQED then its not equal. I have no plans to live by a book witten by men, intepreted by men. And ignorant men from centuries ago to boot. Where is their wisdom concerning DNA, electircity, even basic combustion? I could write a better book given a day and a few red bulls.
thisismikesalajc 2 weeks ago
@thisismikesalajc You really should consult a dictionary and lookup what equal actually means, and then read again my comments. btw i am not a muslim, and never claimed to be one you moron !
MrRichardQED 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thisismikesalajc You really should consult a dictionary and lookup what equal actually means, and then read again my comments. btw i am not a muslim, and never claimed to be one you moron !
MrRichardQED 2 weeks ago
@MrRichardQED I just read some of your previous comments to catch up on what you have been saying and im convinced your completly and uterly insane. I dont need to belive in some higher power to find happiness in my life and I feel soory that you seem to. You have no hope of brainwashing me and I doubt I have any chance of pushing you towards an time of sanity so lets just give it up I know I am.
thisismikesalajc 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thisismikesalajc I dont need to belive in some higher power to find happiness in my life and I feel soory that you seem
WHAT THE FUCK ? Are you drunk or something? Where the fuck you think i wrote you need a higher power in your life to be happy? Either you have some serious reading disability,or you confuse me with someone else,cause i sure as Hel never claimed you need a higher power in life for anything, let alone to be happy ! I wrote somewhere it can help certain people
MrRichardQED 2 weeks ago
@MrRichardQED ""whatever the fuck they want. ""
Nah. Freedom is not doing what u want but wanting what is best. If u want to kill urself , its illegal. Suicide hopefuls are not free. Neither are drug addicts. Grow up.
j919or 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@j919or Nah. Freedom is not doing what u want but wanting what is best.
You moron are way off the point here. It never was about freedom, it was about that the quran says that men and woman are to be treated EQUAL.Equal does not necessarily entail any freedom.If i put a man and a woman into solitary confinement they are both treated equal as well
QUOTE:"Freedom is not doing what u want but wanting what is best"
Buy a dictionary and look it up, that is NOT the definition for freedom !
MrRichardQED 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@j919or If u want to kill urself , its illegal.
What does that have to do with freedom ? Since when is important for freedom if its legal or not ? You arent making the least bit of sense and are completely and utterly off topic, but have the audacity to tell me to grow up, oh wow, talk about irony !!!
YOU need top grow up,talk less drugs(or more if we talk about prescribed drugs^^) so you start making sense, and next time actually look up how the termns you used are usually defined !!!
MrRichardQED 2 weeks ago
2:31 fuck! in a whisper..lol
parisruiz1 1 month ago
@parisruiz1 that was god trolling sam harris
Jayhc19 1 month ago
Thank you for posting this, BarryJBelmont.
writersblock26 1 month ago
Whats Ben stiller doing there?
Heinekeem 1 month ago
Harris completely skirted the question! Tyson laid out a cogent and articulately worded thought experiment, asking Harris to comment on a world where religion had become innocuous and marginalized, only to have Harris use the "why should I address that, that could never happen..." excuse, then cut to his party line. Tyson didn't ask him to address the validity of his hypothetical situation no more than Einstein asked for a valid form of of light-speed travel when formulating the twin paradox…
6fdjq581 1 month ago
@6fdjq581 I like Tyson but his hypothetical is about as interesting as:
"Oh Mr. Secretary of Defense. What if War stopped and all weapons turned to lollipops and all ammo turned to M&Ms, where do you think the Military would get enough dentists?
Harris did him and us a favor by ignoring it.
dimbulb23 1 month ago
@dimbulb23 I don't know, I see the posing of different means to the same end as worthy of discussion. The question of religious self-temperance vs. an effective form of religious abolitionism as being any more pragmatic than the other is a debatable one. But that's not the point. It was a cleverly worded thought experiment one that should have been addressed. So staunchly advocating abolitionism though, when either scenario yielded the same end, is an interesting window into Harris' conceit.
6fdjq581 1 month ago
@6fdjq581 Alas NdT wasn't "posing a different means to the same end" or equally desirable end. What he did is ask (paraphased) "what if religion morphed into somethng unobjectionable, what about that?"
Maybe I missed it. What was NdT's proposed "means" to that end?
Religions tells you to believe perfect books. When your beliefs morph into non-belief the result is not a nice religion, it's no religion. That was Sam's response in a nutshell. IMO not a bad one to a somewhat inane question.
dimbulb23 1 month ago
@dimbulb23 Vagueness seems to have been introduced in order to change context, when Tyson's phrasing is much more detailed. "Unobjectionable" implies many scenarios, but Tyson specifies. The "end" was organized religion no longer obtruding on public policy, and the individual; essentially becoming irrelevant. The "means" Tyson implies is obvious, a bottom-up reorganization of thought and attitude toward the necessity of indoctrination and collusion on the part of the religious individual.
6fdjq581 1 month ago
@6fdjq581 Tyson: "changed to a point where they don't trigger anyone's reactions" is less vague than "unobjectionable"?
Is that really more dishonest than saying "a bottom-up reorganization of thought and attitude toward the necessity of indoctrination and collusion on the part of the religious individual" is a means rather than a goal.
Tyson may well have means to that goal, though I doubt it, but saying he alluded to it in this video is laughable.
dimbulb23 1 month ago
@dimbulb23 Your quote of Tyson is still guilty of omitting the specific parameters for what make's religion unobjectionable, is it not? What leads to religion being unobjectionable in this case? Also, "Morphed into a system[s] of philosophy" implies gradation of change or evolution, not revolution. Incremental change happens from the bottom up. If it were feasible to dictate such a drastic change in the effects of a system from the top down, gradualism would be inefficient and unnecessary.
6fdjq581 1 month ago
@6fdjq581
Yes, it would be great if religious people changed in a revolutionary way into a more moderate and reasonable version of themselves and it would be nice if my grandma had wheels, she'd be a bicycle and wouldn't have walk to work!
So what? How is that interesting, informative or useful without a hint as to how that might be brought about?
dimbulb23 1 month ago
@dimbulb23 "Evolutionary" not "Revolutionary". You're confused as to what a "means" is, in denying that a series of incremental changes from the bottom up, filtered through selective mechanisms is a system of actions for which certain results arise (means). Calling organic, bottom up progression a goal, not mean, is like saying natural selection is the goal of evolution. You seem to be denying that greater complexity can arise via autocatalytic means. Do you work for the Discovery Institute?
6fdjq581 1 month ago
@6fdjq581 What Tyson said (paraphased) " IF religion morphed into something not in conflict with science ... made no attempt to say things about the physical world... what's the harm in that?
Where did he talk about whether that morphing was gradual or abrupt?
What he basically said was: What if religions changed (mechanism unspecified) into something really nice wouldn't that be nice?
Now maybe he has ideas for facilitating that change but "what if it morphed" sure the fuck isn't it.
dimbulb23 1 month ago
@dimbulb23 To morph, as a verb, is defined as gradual. And again gradation suggests evolution not revolution. You can't progress your argument by suggesting words with specific denotations also be considered to carry an exact opposite one. That's silly. But really, it isn't the probability or means or validity of the parameters of Tyson's thought experiment that are at issue, it's the lack of reaction to it, one that would give greater insight into Harris' true motivations, but Harris balks.
6fdjq581 1 month ago
@6fdjq581 Ok. Let's try this.
I say: "Wouldn't be great if cancer morphed into something that didn't make people sick".
How would you respond to that?
Or take Sam's role and respond to Neil's thought experiment.
Show me a thought productive mind a work, show me your true motivations.
dimbulb23 1 month ago
@dimbulb23 I would require some clarification (something Harris was also entitled to should he have requested it), but if I were to receive none I would consider if you meant the actual process of rapid division of cells (do to, or causing mutation) were somehow kept in check by an organic mechanism hindering such growth… If that were the case, I'd say great. I certainly wouldn't comment on the likelihood of such a scenario as it's implicit in your question not contingent on it.
6fdjq581 1 month ago
@6fdjq581 Sorry the moderator, just like in the video, has cut us off.
You had one shot at responding in a productive way to my cancer thought experiment and well, your response is found lacking.
Too bad this wasn't a casual informal exchange with no external constraints.
But there it is.
Sorry but I must conclude you are not motivated to cure cancer or religion. tsk tsk tsk
dimbulb23 1 month ago
@dimbulb23 Ha (I get it). Well, at least I tried to understand your question, answered it to the best of my ability, and didn't equivocate (unlike Harris). Honestly though, don't you feel a little short changed by the fact that Tyson's question, if adressed directly by Harris, would have forced him to consider a scenario were his ideal state of affairs had come to fruition, yet occurred completely free of the means with which he had been advocating for the last 10 years?
6fdjq581 1 month ago
@6fdjq581 I have no love for religion. I think pointing out its shortcomings is the right way to change people's attitude toward it and if it dies in the process, all the better.
I didn't feel shortchanged in any way. But then I didn't imagine that Tyson was hinting that Harris, and people like him, had no part to play in Tyson's imaginary scenario where religion morphs into Religion Lite. One would have to have an agenda to imagine that.
dimbulb23 1 month ago
@dimbulb23 I disagree, of course. History has shown and many precedents have been set for the efficacy of gradual bottom-up change ie. free market economies, consciousness, natural selection, technological advancements, even art is a tinkering of old ideas and forms to create new ones. Top down control is usually practically or theoretically flawed ie. socialism, intelligent design. Enacting agendas has shown time and time again to be ineffective. Just look at political bodies…
6fdjq581 1 month ago
@6fdjq581 Straw man. No one is advocating top-down control or abolition. I think most atheists would be happy to see people wise up and religion dry up but I'm not sure I've ever heard one suggest it should be abolished.
Harris and other like him have opened the discussion and confronted people with reasons why religion is not good and have failed to show the traditional deference to religion. That's what's got all the panties in a bunch.
dimbulb23 1 month ago
@6fdjq581 No atheist that I'm aware of is picketing religious group or facilities. They simply dare to stand toe-to-toe and tell people what they think. How much more bottom-up can you get? I've been a atheist for 50+ years and didn't know another by name until I happened on a banned book by Mark Twain. Even now I can't name more than twenty and not a single power broker among them. That's a bottom-up grass roots movement if ever there was one.
dimbulb23 1 month ago
@dimbulb23 What does atheism have to do with anything? Advocating religious change need not have anything to do with it; atheism is in fact arbitrary. Harris could just as easily be a Christian advocating for a society free of religious infringement (ala John Shelby Spong). Also, starting from a general ideal (marginalization of religion) and then devising viable options to achieve that end is top down in every sense. Finally, being happy to see anything "dry up" or end is an abolitionist view.
6fdjq581 1 month ago
@dimbulb23 I think pointing out its shortcomings is the right way to change people's attitude toward it and if it dies in the process, all the better.
The problem never has been religion, the problem is always fundamentalism/extremism, no matter if religiously or politically motivated. This is the one thing you atheists finally need to realize !
MrRichardQED 1 month ago
@MrRichardQED Fundamentalism/extremism IS religion. In fact, it's the form supported by the holy books.
As Sam pointed out the books say what they say and even if every religious person suddenly became all calm and easy to get along with, the books still sit there ready to support future radicals with the extremes they undeniably contain.
dimbulb23 1 month ago 2
@dimbulb23 Fundamentalism/extremism IS religion. In fact, it's the form supported by the holy books.
Thats utter bullshit : there is lots of extremism that has nothing to do with religion, and there is a lot religion that is neither fundamentalism nor extremism !!! If you really read the books they often even forbid extremism, its all a question of interpretation. Most philosophies can be abused to form extremism out of it, that is not restricted to religion!!!
MrRichardQED 1 month ago
@MrRichardQED This video is about religion so when you brought up fundamentalism/extremism. What was I to think? Your were talking about extreme skiing? I'm not sure I've heard fundamentalism used in a non-religious context but it could be.
But the fact remains, the bible is full of extremism, for instance, if you don't believe in God He'll burn you forever. That's a bit harsh don't you think? What about witches?
African Christians are burning their witch children these days you know.
dimbulb23 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dimbulb23 so when you brought up fundamentalism/extremism.What was I to think?
Simply read instead of too much thinking QUOTE:"The problem never has been religion,the problem is always fundamentalism/extremism,no matter if religiously or politically motivated.This is the one thing you atheists finally need to realize!"
I made it very clear : NOT ONLY RELIGIOUS;BUT ALSO POLITICALand other extremism/fundamentalism.I made that very clear !!! Who is able to read has a clear advantage ^^
MrRichardQED 1 month ago
@dimbulb23 I really couldnt have made it any clearer, or could I ?
"I'm not sure I've heard fundamentalism used in a non-religious context "
Which is the reason i said extremism/fundamentalism and not just fundamentalism ^^
"if you don't believe in God He'll burn you forever. "
Show me where to find that in the bible ^^ Hell is an idea of the early medieval age. Much of the idea was taken over from norse paganism (Hel is the germanic god of the underworld, though in our believe it-->
MrRichardQED 1 month ago
@MrRichardQED My point here that these holy books support pretty much any interpretation one wants to make including extremism of pretty much any type including your contention that hell isn't in them I suppose. Though it's child's play to find many references to hell, hell fire, fiery hell, cast into hell, consumed body and soul, torments etc.
That was Sam's point in this video, remember the video? Religion is the problem because religion is belief removed from reason.
dimbulb23 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dimbulb23 My point here that these holy books support pretty much any interpretation one wants to make including extremism
The same goes for philosophy, but that is hardly a reason to ban philosophy ! You8 can´t just ban anything that might be abused. What next, banning iron, since you can make weapons out of it ?
"Though it's child's play.."
Yep, but all those are not from holy books, they are from people who abused them for personal gain.
MrRichardQED 1 month ago
@dimbulb23 So again, religion is not the problem, the problem is extremists who abuse anything they can get their hands on to support their agenda with it. If they can´t use religion,then they use philosophy or anything else they can think of. You are trying to attack the symptoms, instead of going against the illness itself. You might not be able to kill the illness, but you could keep it at bay,if you finally realized what the illness really is.If not it will only spread further !!!
MrRichardQED 1 month ago
@MrRichardQED Unlike Neil you've had many opportunities to say how you'd rid religion of its extremism. Repeating "what if religion was nice" accomplishes nothing.
So let's hear that.
dimbulb23 1 month ago
@dimbulb23 Repeating "what if religion was nice" accomplishes nothing.
Stop building straw mans, cause you have nothing against my actual argument, thats pathetic. I never said"what if religion was nice". Religion HAS many positive aspects right now, extremists are a small minority within them.
What one can do against them ? Education is one very important aspect, extremists are usually badly educated. Lets take the poster boys of our time, the muslim extremists: most of them come-->
MrRichardQED 1 month ago
@dimbulb23 come from a very poor background with no jobs for most of the youth. So thgey learn the only thing they are offered: study the quran and become iman. If those people had other opportunities most of them surely would rather learn something else. That situation is worsened by the fact that america is leading a war for oil that costed the lives of 100´s of thousand civilian lives, which is the real reason for hating the west. Combine those 2 factors with radical imans and -->
MrRichardQED 1 month ago
@dimbulb23 you get muslim extremists.Give those people a better education and let them study the real quran,in a language they understand,plus jobs and alternatives for the future and they won´t become extremists(well you will always have a few bad apples,but you get that everywhere)
Now compare those extremists to timothy mc veigh and you will find lots of parallels: low education,low self esteem,no real perspectives for the future etc.THOSE are the reason for extremism,not religion
MrRichardQED 1 month ago
@MrRichardQED I'm gonna offer you a challenge proposed by a youtube character: name one benefit that can be achieved by religion that cannot be achieved through purely secular means. Now think about the detriment religion has brought to this planet over history. The world would be better off without religion. Just accept it.
Pigroota 1 month ago
@Pigroota [name one benefit that can be achieved by religion that cannot be achieved through purely secular means]
Religion can make a person feel that they are on the moral high ground while performing the most heinous of deeds.
Checkmate, you stupid atheist!
sleazybtd 4 weeks ago
@sleazybtd wait.....here come the lulz
Pigroota 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Pigroota name one benefit that can be achieved by religion that cannot be achieved through purely secular means
That is a stupid challenge, since of course religious people don´t get some kind of superhuman power, so anything a religious person can do can also be done by a nonreligious person. Fact is that most organizations to help people in need are of religious origin and/or are still majorly organized and financed by various religions. I bet that for each secular organization -->
MrRichardQED 3 weeks ago
@MrRichardQED "since of course religious people don´t get some kind of superhuman power,"
I've yet to find a theistic religion that doesn't promise it's believers superhuman powers.
TheHigherVoltage 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheHigherVoltage I've yet to find a theistic religion that doesn't promise it's believers superhuman powers.
Either we both have very different definitions of superhuman powers, or you are not making the least bit of sense, but nice try, better luck next time ;)
MrRichardQED 2 weeks ago
@TheHigherVoltage "doesn't promise it's believers superhuman powers."
Jesus promised and illustrated that all that alligned with Him would be mistreated. And that only in connection with Him would they have power to overcome this mistreatment....by loving their enemies and by the joy of God within them.
j919or 2 weeks ago
@j919or I'm not talking about any 'people will laugh at your fairy tales' promises, I'm talking about passages like Mark 16:16-18....Jesus promising all who are baptized and believe will gain super powers like immunity to ingested poison and healing with a touch.
I get that you can't face the reality of Jesus being a myth, but facts are facts. The world didn't end in his generation like he said it would, prayers to Jesus are answered as often as prayers to a garbage bag, the list goes on n on.
TheHigherVoltage 2 weeks ago
@TheHigherVoltage ""promising all who are baptized and believe""
No Dumbo. He did say ALL. He said "those that", not "all those that" you added that as part of ur lies and no wonder for satan is all over u.
Meantime, the signs follow the group of believers. And it doesnt specify who would manifest the signs or when or how or even if that one or two or more would manifest more than one sign or whichs signs they would manifest.
j919or 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@j919or ""promising all who are baptized and believe""
No Dumbo. He didnt say ALL. He said "those that", not "all those that" you added that as part of ur lies and no wonder for satan is all over u.
Meantime, the signs follow the group of believers. And it doesnt specify who would manifest the signs or when or how or even if that manifestor would manifest one or two or more signs or whichs signs he/they would manifest.
j919or 2 weeks ago
@TheHigherVoltage Assumptions and speculation is the foundation of skepticism and its so easy to expose and crush.
j919or 2 weeks ago
@j919or MARK 16:16-18. It's not assumption or speculation. It's what Jesus claims in his myths. And it's verifiable bullshit.
TheHigherVoltage 2 weeks ago
@TheHigherVoltage You did not answer my assertions and argument against ur blather and so now I will a) declare the arument over and in my favor b) conclude that u know nothing or argument or logic and just cough up the little u have read without the ability to critically analyze it or to defend it
j919or 2 weeks ago
@j919or I did respond to your assertions. You avoided mine, and declare a childish victory. Good for you! Way to hide from reality! Your imaginary friend must be so proud!
TheHigherVoltage 2 weeks ago
@j919or WFT? You still posting your abhorant messages on YT? Dude get fucking lost, your logic is a joke and wisdom is as dim as my taint. Why don't you get a life and go take a fucking walk or something that is of some use. You post some of the most ignorant shit I have ever come across. I promise you that you are NOT helping your cause. Go fishing or try wood working, loser.
BigDwarren 2 weeks ago
@j919or And no, the foundation of skepticism is intellectual honesty - questioning things that don't make sense.
Faith is assumption and speculation.
TheHigherVoltage 2 weeks ago
@Pigroota you can name i can name at least 5 religious, 10 if i have time to do research. The point is not that secular organizations couldnt do that, but that they simply do not do it. I also can name you many cases where religion has been a great help for people in dire situations, where their belief was the only thing that could still give them the necessary strenght to pull through it, or even get out of it.
btw you somehow completely fail to get the point of my argument -->
MrRichardQED 3 weeks ago
@MrRichardQED It's very hard to argue with the delusional
Pigroota 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Pigroota It's very hard to argue with the delusional
So typical,as soon as you run out of arguments you start personal attacks for no reason other then that your pissed that your usual tactic did not work out this time^^ I find your reaction rather pathetic ! You can not know if there is a god or not,those the facts !
Calling me delusional just because i do not share your faith that there is no god shows you react strongly to this one question,which means you are not sure yourself !
MrRichardQED 3 weeks ago
@Pigroota I mean you know nothing about my belief, yet have the audacity to judge it as delusional. How unscientific and unreasonable !!! I mean admit it, you thought I am just another theist, who either looses to your argument, or makes a totally gaga claim. But neither happened. I was able to put forward a well though through argument, and you realized you are loosing ground, and all those arguments you learned from various websites and youtube videos didnt stick in this case. Now-->
MrRichardQED 3 weeks ago
@Pigroota you fear you might actually lose the debate, so you cough up this pathetic substitute for an excuse to end the debate, before it gets really obvious you stand with the back to the wall.
I mean poor you, this is not supposed to happen ! Theists are not supposed to be able to put forward a reasonable debate, they are supposed to lose so you atheists can feel good about yourself because you have proven once more that you atheists have the better arguments, even if most-->
MrRichardQED 3 weeks ago
@Pigroota of you just c+p them or copy them from dawkins or any other atheist mentors (or should i call them masterminds ?).
But we are drifting a bit away from the subject : how can you support your claim i am delusional ? So far i have put forward a very rational argument,that pretty much destroyed the argument you put forward, especially since you completely missed the point. But i guess that was the only argument you could find in a hurry ^^ btw before you start denying that you-->
MrRichardQED 3 weeks ago
@Pigroota The problem is NOT religion, the problem is extremism and fundamentalism. I mean look at china under mao or north korea. Both are prime examples of regimes without religion, are you really trying to tell me they where good regimes ? Or that they would have been even worse with religious leaders ? The problem is not religion, just accept it. The problem is extremism and fundamentalism, period !!!