Who Would Start A Religion?
Uploader Comments (philhellenes)
Video Responses
All Comments (621)
-
Let's reinvent the gods,
All the myths of the ages
Celebrate symbols from deep elder forests
[Have you forgotten the lessons of the ancient war] James Douglas Morrison (1943-1971)
-
@philhellenes I'm going to start a religion.
-
Whenever I get into a discussion about religion, I like people to this video.
You'd be surprised how fast that can end a conversation when a Godnut realises where their religion might have come from. Suddenly, they have new things to discuss, rather than trying to push others down with their religion.
Thank you Philhellenes, you are their "savior". :D
-
Organised religion causes more negative than positive on our planet.
-
@philhellenes ...Question. Do you realize your(our) unity with Cosmos? :D
-
@philhellenes Beautiful comeback. Congratulations on that. :D
-
I totally agree with every word to said. However if you look at the nature world you know that death is as natural as life. Death is normal. As intelligent human beings we have study nature and found this to be so. I can understand why human invented a religion for the sake of the bonding of his fellow humans and invent a story as your describe. Having not come from any religion, I know all my ancestors/family members/Pets no longer exists. I would like to believe in reincaration though !
-
again a good video ....thanks and well done !! and I get your point !
-
@chiendeguerre I agree, it is the height of vanity to claim to be the source of truth - Just like Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, and countless others have done when claiming to reveal divine truth, claiming they speak for "god". Jesus even said he was truth itself. In contrast, those pursuing science are not claiming to be the source of truth, but merely uncovering what is already there using our limited scenes, our intelligent minds, and tools that extend our senses.
This comment has received too many negative votes show
For it is the height of vanity to claim that human beings are the source of truth. It is not unreasonable to suggest we are the source of our truth but how reasonable is it claim, empirically if you like, that a Zebra is Zebra because we say it is? By extension how is it reasonable to say that anything is what it is because we perceive it that way? In this respect Religions are modest in that they only claim that 'God' is the source of all truthes, God itself, in the end, being a symbol for life
chiendeguerre 1 year ago
@chiendeguerre I decided to block you when I saw, "Religions are modest in that they only claim that 'God' is the source of all truthes." I can ONLY assume you MUST be kidding, having a joke! All you have put is rhetorical, vapid. Also, you are slowly ramping up the insanity under a calculated veil of "reasonableness". That's slimy.
Could be wrong. If I am I apologise. But you're "style" is to bombard. I refuse to play.
philhellenes 1 year ago 21
Philosophy acknowledges this and it is recognised, particularly in Islam, that we reach up to heaven, symbolically speaking with Philosophy and Heaven reaches down from where Philosophy cannot extend too due to the limitations of language and other human forms of communication. The beef I have with atheists is that they tend to be rationalists and empiricists and maintain that human perception is the measure of everything. In this respect they are even more conceited than religions
chiendeguerre 1 year ago
@chiendeguerre Perception comes through the senses. It is NOT reliable, but it's all we have. You are proposing belief (and the love of) something that cannot be perceived through sense. That's close to literal "nonsense". It is also "that with NO evidence", by your own reasoning. You suggest demoting perception in favour of emotions.
Religion: "See my dragon?"
Atheist: "No."
Religion: "How CONCEITED!"
philhellenes 1 year ago 30
1:50 i didnt. and i regret it.
ivann198 1 year ago
@ivann198 Sometimes we have to make the mistake to learn the lesson. The "you" that you WERE made the mistake. The "you" NOW will not make the mistake again. So, in a loose sense, it was not the current "you" that was insensitive. Don't beat your (current) self up.
philhellenes 1 year ago 5