Intuition, Science, and Religion

In this video, I discuss how I think an increase in scientific knowledge may erode religious beliefs.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• atheist
• atheism
• science
• religion
• belief
• god
• knowledge
• thought
• think
• wisdom
• intuition
• learning
• school
• jebus
• lol
• vlog
• blog
• video
• log
• derp

[jamessv2005]

:) Godwin's Law -- couldn't help LOL.

In some ways every evolutionary biologist is a eugenist at heart; its the whole point of evolution. BTW, omitting "evolutionary" was a neat little trick.

Considering that Darwin himself asked that his theory be completed removed, if the missing link is not found with 100 years of his death, won't stop scientists, now will it?

The point is, there is absolute truth -- regardless of what anyone says, and you can choose to believe it or, not!

[SolRosenberg84]

@jamessv2005

Missing Link? How many hominids do we have to find before you realize there will always be things missing from the record? By your logic, for every hominid found we create two more "missing links".

Perhaps there is something called truth - but you don't know it. I don't know it. No one does. If you actually think you do have all the answers - ask why you think so? Where did you hear it from? Who told you? How can you be sure?

[jamessv2005]

Intuition, is by definition, a thought process -- and what's wrong with being an animal that bows down. We are at the very root of it animals.

From your name, it seems you might be of Jewish origin. If it helps you to know, Charles Darwin's cousin, who helped him publish his "The Origin of Species", was a eugenist. Guess who bought into it big time, among other's, the Nazis, who in turn used it to do what exactly, now? Take a wild guess! Why argue with me, read it for yourself.

Good Luck!

[SolRosenberg84]

@jamessv2005

Nice demonstration of Godwin's law.

Evolution does not support eugenics. Evolution does not imply Nazism. If it did, every biologist today would be a eugenic Nazi. Understanding that all life has common ancestry does turn people into sociopaths monsters.

Even if evolution really did make people into Nazis, it would not remove the accumulation of almost two centuries of evidence in its favour.

[OcularNebula]

SolRosenberg84 would probably say that it's normal for certain theories to be disproven and for new theories that look better at the moment to be created. But this essentially means that there is a theoretically infinite amount of corrections to be made to the way we view the world right now, and everything we think we know is hypothetically wrong.

[SolRosenberg84]

@OcularNebula

>everything we think we know is hypothetically wrong.

Well, duh. Welcome to science. We don't find "reality" by doing science, we find models that best fit the evidence found. When new evidence shows new aspects of reality, the old models change.

[SolRosenberg84]

@OcularNebula

So you will have no trouble if I shoot you in the head with a nine millimetre bullet right? Since a belief without evidence, such as that you cannot be harmed by that bullet passing through your head, can be accepted as readily as one with evidence what would the problem be?

You sit writing on a machine based entirely on using what we learn from evidence, and question the entire endeavour. Thats pretty stupid bro.

[ilovetodraw555]

it pisses me off not knowing what I am or even if I'm me.how do I know it's me controlling myself, no way to tell.

[rose919191]

0 thumbs down? we'll have to fix that....

[jamessv2005]

@SolRosenberg84 - Question -- Have you seen your face? Seriously, have you? You will realize very soon, regardless of how you answer this question you are right, and wrong, at the same time.

"Perhaps there is something called truth - but you don't know it. I don't know it. No one does." By your definion, that is not true, or reliable, or both.

Do I have all the answers? No! Enough to know I'm right? Yes.

I don't need to know every turn on the road to know where I am headed.

[RuinSonic]

@sfg911 Idk, I agree with you, but it's hard to even talk about what is or isn't beyond our current bounded universe without making a fallacy. The closer god is arbitrary like a toothe fairy it/he/she doesn't exist but i can't just say yet that any sort of ordering power most likely doesn't exist.

"two halves of one thing."

The ying and the yang? jk...

[RuinSonic]

@sfg911 WLC argues that you don't need an explanation for the explanation in order to be the best explanation and that a mind is fundamentally simple. Dawkins is sort of simplistic and can make sweeping statements but he isn't as naive as WLC would like to believe. I've gotten more sick of atheists who are too simplistic and don't address theists, but more and more I see no need for it. The theist is like well of course God doesn't have to be explained!!!