I can sympathize. Your statement feels to me like your aversion is with the organization and not with religion, as a whole. Like if I were to say "I've never been happier than when I left the ad agency and went freelance." And I also understand that, although humans collectively are built to observe religious belief, you are an individual and can choose your path as you will. We are human, after all, and have the privilege of choosing happiness regardless of our worldview. So be blessed! And thank you for watching and commenting. I appreciate it.
@@danieklerr yup. The organisation is also corrupt at the top. And one of its members in the local congregation we attended abused my daughter over a period of 4 years. He went to jail. So as far as ‘religion’ is concerned… I’m done with it. Besides… making music on my digitakt 2 and EMX is much more fun and less traumatic.
@@johncarter2741 .. I can imagine what it would feel like if any person abused my child, and it breaks my heart. And fills me with rage, to be honest, and it doesn't help that it was a person you trusted. I'm really sorry. I'm checking out some of your spelunking and diving videos. Man! I love it. I live in New Mexico USA, which is a spelunking paradise, and I've been wanting to explore for a long time.
I think, when anyone is in a situation where they are being told how to think, you question the reality around you. Everyone wants to feel apart of something bigger. Even people who say they don’t. Money makes me throw out religious aspersions of being the best catholic, or whatever religion. We all want to eat food..just like and dog, cat, alligator, bird….we all want to be satisfied. Humans are no different than anything. I’m full of electrons and water…earth is my home ,not heaven.
It's true that we are looking for something greater than ourselves, and I feel that. I also don't completely accept that the idea of "heaven" is separate from the earth that we live in, the physical reality that surrounds us. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and the famous particle "slit tests", these seem to confirm the idea that our consciousness shapes our physical reality. My own experience reinforces this for me. No one should be forced to accept a worldview that they didn't choose. Thank you for commenting, and for being supportive in general. I really appreciate it. :)
Thank you! Honestly, I'm not a super stickler about the Name, but I prefer to call him what his mother named him, haha. Also, I was saying "Yeshua", although my manner of speaking is not always the clearest. Thank you for watching. :)
What has held back humanity is faith-based thinking. I wouldn't oppose religion if there were some reason to think that any religion was actually _true._ I'd be right on board if it were evidence-based, rather than faith-based. But there is nothing - literally *nothing* - so crazy, so harmful, or so wrong that it _can't_ be defended by an appeal to faith. Oh, sure, theists always _claim_ that there's evidence. But that's because claims are easy. _Every_ religion makes claims, just because of how easy it is to make claims. And _vague_ claims are the easiest of all. But _is_ there any good evidence that a god exists - _any_ god, let alone a particular one? I have yet to hear any. Most theists - Christians and Muslims alike - run away as soon as I ask for *something* distinguishable from wishful-thinking backing up their religious beliefs. And this stuff is important. Faith-based thinking is destroying my country and my world. It's not like believing in magic leprechauns. Well, I suppose it _would_ be like believing in magic leprechauns if magic leprechaun believers controlled my country at every level of government and legislated based on what they thought magic leprechauns _wanted._ When I was a kid, I didn't know a single other person who wasn't a Christian - not _one,_ as far as I could tell. But no one seemed to take it very seriously. I fully expected religion to have faded away by now. Instead, religion got political. Now, it's _all_ about political and economic power. Right-wing politicians use Christianity, and right-wing Christians use those politicians - all to gain more power. Because power is all they seem to care about. And none of them seem to give a _crap_ what's actually true.
Faith and trust are synonyms. Anyone who has any beliefs at all, about literally anything, has faith that what they believe is true. Any person who sits on a chair has faith that the chair will hold them. Any person who shows up for a job has faith that the employer will pay them. Any person who marries a spouse has faith in that spouse, and trusts the spouse to be "faithful". In other words, "faith-based thinking" is literally not a thing at all. Purely from a language standpoint, it describes everything any person has ever believed, ever. Now, your feelings about whether any given evidence points to a master, all-pervasive intelligence is completely another matter. And the individual can choose to operate against human nature, and choose not to accept the existence of this intelligence based on their interpretation of the available data. This is completely acceptable, of course, and understandable. It's the same as adults deciding not to have children, etc. Although I presented my own conclusions about the data, especially near the end of the video, the crux of the video is not to point to the existence of God. The main point of the video is that humans are genetically predisposed to believe in God, and attempting to force society to abandon their religious traditions will lead to overwhelming tragedy. In fact, it will cause as many or more problems as using religion to control the society. Both are wrong. This is made evident by the death tolls of atheistic regimes (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot et al) which far outweigh the body count of the Roman Church, even considering the Crusades and Inquisition. In the end, it's not a finger-pointing death contest, of course, but it **is** a testament to the dark side of humanity. Anyway, I love a decent, civil discussion, and I really appreciate your input.
@@danieklerr _"Faith and trust are synonyms."_ No, they're not. Not always. Like most words, "faith" has multiple meanings. And in casual conversation, "faith" _can_ mean "trust, based on the evidence." But that's not the religious sense of the word. In the religious sense of the word, I'd say it means belief without evidence or despite the evidence. Or, as the Bible puts it, "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Faith is what you "hope for," not what you have good reason to think is actually _true._ After all, if you have evidence, you don't _need_ faith. If I asked you why you believed something, and you had good evidence backing it up, you wouldn't tell me you had faith. You'd just tell me the evidence. Faith is the excuse people give when they have no good evidence, but they want to believe it anyway. _"In other words, "faith-based thinking" is literally not a thing at all."_ Rather than argue over the definition of a word, if you've actually _got_ good evidence that your god is real, why not just provide *one specific example?* After all, it doesn't _matter_ what the word means if you can demonstrate that you actually _have_ something distinguishable from wishful-thinking backing up your religious beliefs. Do you? Just *one* piece of good evidence, specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself? _"And the individual can choose to operate against human nature, and choose not to accept the existence of this intelligence"_ Don't be silly! Belief isn't a choice. I can demonstrate that to you, if you want, but it should be obvious. We're either convinced of something or we're not. We can be convinced for good reasons (like good evidence) or for bad reasons (because we were taught to believe it as a child), but either way, it's not a choice. You could choose to _pretend_ to believe something, sure. Pretending _is_ a choice. But belief isn't. _"It's the same as adults deciding not to have children"_ No, it isn't. It's not even _close_ to being like that. I'm sorry, but that's just silly. Go ahead. "Decide" to believe that Paris is the capital of England. "Decide" to believe that Spiderman is real. Or "decide" to believe that dogs are just imaginary. You can't do it, because belief isn't a choice. _"The main point of the video is that humans are genetically predisposed to believe in God, and attempting to force society to abandon their religious traditions will lead to overwhelming tragedy."_ I disagree with all of that. Human beings might be predisposed to assume _agency,_ but not to believe in your god. They're _taught_ to believe in your god - or in any of the other gods people have believed in. Being predisposed to assume agency makes perfect sense in an evolutionary sense, and so does the clear tendency of most human beings to cling to the beliefs of their tribe. But none of that means your _specific_ beliefs. And none of it means that those beliefs are _true,_ either. And as far as I can tell no one - *no one* - is trying to "force" society to abandon their religious traditions. Not here in the west, at least. Even China isn't doing that. They're just desperate to maintain control. (As a dictatorship, _that's_ what's important to them.) Indeed, it's commonly the exact opposite of that. Right-wing Christians in my country are trying to force their own religious beliefs on the rest of us - including into grade schools, attempting to indoctrinate little kids before they reach the age of reason. They're not satisfied with having the right to indoctrinate their _own_ kids. They want to force their own beliefs on everyone else, too. Of course, they don't want _other_ religions doing that. Heh, heh. But they've pretty much abandoned freedom of religion and the strict separation between church and state in America because they think they have the political power to control which beliefs get advantaged. _"This is made evident by the death tolls of atheistic regimes (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot et al) which far outweigh the body count of the Roman Church, even considering the Crusades and Inquisition."_ Heh, heh. Right. And the fact that there were a lot more people in the 20th Century - and a technology level which allowed a far greater capacity for killing - had nothing to do with it, I suppose? Besides, note that those regimes didn't kill people on behalf of _atheism._ As far as I can tell, they were officially atheist only because religions held the power which they wanted. Dictators seldom want to share. Also, I notice that you didn't mention the Nazis, who were Christians - Protestant and Catholic alike - who'd been taught antisemitism from the pulpit for generations. And you conveniently left out the holocaust of the Native American tribes and of African slave-trading, too. I don't discount _any_ of those horrors, myself. But there's a lot of blame to go around! _"In the end, it's not a finger-pointing death contest, of course, but it _*_is_*_ a testament to the dark side of humanity."_ I agree. Of course, it's also a testament to the rest of humanity which fought back - and to the improved morals of modern times which recognizes the horrors of the past. There's a _reason_ why it took Christians nearly two thousand years to decide that slavery was wrong. And here in America, the Bible Belt was the most racist part of our country long, long after that, too. But they got there, eventually. (Well, not so much the Bible Belt. But the rest of us, at least.) These days, we are _better_ than your Bible. Even _Christians_ are better than your Bible. And we are _far_ better than your god. _"Anyway, I love a decent, civil discussion"_ Me, too. I enjoy talking to intelligent people who disagree with me about religion. So thanks for the reply!
The definition of faith has nothing to do with the lack of evidence. Oxford definies it first as an assumption **based** on available evidence. In second of four definitions, it connects the word to religious belief, but still connect the word itself to "trust", citing as an example the phrase "faith in somebody/something He started questioning his faith in God." Oxford further extrapolates on its definition, connecting it to "blind faith", which is what you are describing. "Blind" being literally "without evidence". Faith and trust are synonyms. Hebrews 11:1 was written in Koine Greek, not English. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". Faith is πίστις (pistis), and is trust or conviction, and "hoped for" is ἐλπίζω (epidzo), meaning something expected that you have confidence in. A better translation is "We trust in the foundation (ὑπόστασις) upon which we expect certain results, BUT we base this (ἔλεγχος) upon things we can't see". Meaning, they're talking about blind faith, not faith itself. I realize this doesn't help my cause, but language is very important. Faith and trust are synonyms. Name one other system in nature that gets refined and increases in complexity when left to its own devices, and doesn't devolve into entropic chaos. From a purely naturalistic worldview, this conversation is the product of water running on rocks. There are myriad points of evidence which suggest a creator, and not a single shred of evidence that there is not a creator. Science doesn't care about our feelings, honestly. Science simply weighs evidence. It certainly takes blind faith (trust) to believe in MY God, or any specific deity, but the evidence for the existence of A GOD, is pretty overwhelming. Yes, human nature is such that religious expression is accounted for in our genetic makeup. If, after examining the presented data, an individual chooses to disregard an inclination toward the veneration of a deity, this is indeed a choice. That doesn't mean that person "chooses to believe" something, don't read too deeply into what I said. :) Regarding Nazis, etc., I find it very difficult to label a faction with a certain ideology when they act in direct opposition to said ideology. If someone doesn't act like Christ, they're not a Christian. Just because a rat gets in the cookie jar, does not mean it's a cookie.
@@danieklerr _"The definition of faith has nothing to do with the lack of evidence."_ OK, then how about *one piece of good evidence, specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself,* that your god is real, rather than just imaginary? Or *one piece of good evidence* that _any_ of the magical/supernatural stories in the Bible actually happened? Just *one* please - one at a time is all we can discuss here - but be specific. After all, what difference does it make how you want to define the word if you don't _have_ anything distinguishable from wishful-thinking backing up your religious beliefs? I see no reason to waste time arguing about definitions when it doesn't make the slightest difference _anyway,_ as long as you have no good evidence backing up your beliefs. _"There are myriad points of evidence which suggest a creator"_ Well, that's easy to _claim._ Of course, that's just because claims _are_ easy - especially extraordinarily vague claims like that! That's probably why _every_ religion makes claims, not just your own. It's just so very _easy_ to make claims, huh? But I'm still waiting for one piece of good evidence that your claims are actually _true._ Why is *one* too much to ask? _"If someone doesn't act like Christ, they're not a Christian."_ Heh, heh. That sounds like the No True Scotsman fallacy to _me._ But I'll let you Christians fight that out among yourselves. I don't have a dog in that fight.
Well, dang Bill. You seem to have smashed face-first into the point and still managed to miss it. :) You keep saying "your god". I have zero interest in trying to argue the existence of "my" God with anyone. In fact, I believe my exact quote was "It certainly takes blind faith (trust) to believe in MY God, or any specific deity, but the evidence for the existence of A GOD, is pretty overwhelming." Which brings us to the myriad points of evidence which suggests a creator. To be honest, to arrive at atheism means a person is dishonest or ignorant, and again, you either know how to interpret data or you don't. I can put the food on your plate, I can lift it by fork to your mouth, I can even manually make your jaw go up and down, but.. if you refuse to swallow, it's all in vain. Being a scientist, I'm not concerned with finding "proof" of God, or anything else. Science doesn't deal in proofs, but in the evolution of best-guess ideas, based on observable evidence. The overwhelming likelihood, based on evidence, points to a universal consciousness. Here are some examples, off the top of my head: 1. The second Law of Thermodynamics provides necessary criteria for spontaneous processes. The idea of a spontaneous universe, ultimately creating life and consciousness, without the influence of a mind, violate the concept of entropy. There is no other system which, in and of itself, increases in complexity and refinement. Order can only emerge from chaos through the influence of intelligence. 2. The universe has an origin. The event known as the Big Bang occurred an estimated 13.8 billion years ago, through which the entirety of all existence, including space, time and every fundamental particle, sprang from a point of singularity billions of times smaller than an atom, in a tiny fraction of a second. This is in line with a myriad of religious traditions, in which "God" created the universe, ex nihilo. 3. Relativity and quantum mechanics suggest that physical reality can not objectively exist without an observer. That consciousness creates and augments matter is confirmed by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and the famous double-slit experiments. If there is an underlying reality that exists whether we measure it or not, this underlying reality requires a conscious observer. 4. While working on superstring equations, S James Gates (Brown University Theoretical Physics Center Director and the Ford Foundation Professor of Physics) found computer code in the mathematics which govern our fundamental reality. This was not simply binary, but a specific type of error-correcting code used to build browser software. 5. While we're on the topic of mathematics.. While specific techniques and methods of explaining math were invented by various mathematicians, we also know that math itself was in existence before its discovery. Math is a language sufficient to explain the nature of the universe, and existed before human discovery. It is unlikely to have created itself. 6. Speaking of computer code and language.. DNA strands have all the hallmarks of hyperadvanced software. Computer code is made up of binary digits (bits) of ones or zeros. DNA is built on 4 nucleotides (adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine). This DNA system is "commented out" and linear, and read from start to end like a written language. These sequences store and transmit information, instructing computers or cells on what action to perform. Some analogies between DNA and computer programming include: --Transposing code: Similar to dynamically linked libraries in computer programming --Epigenetics and imprinting: Similar to the Linux kernel, which disables parts of its binary when it discovers what CPU it is running on --Dead code: Similar to the start of a comment, followed by a lot of non-coding DNA --Each cell is a universe: Similar to each cell being a CPU, running its own kernel DNA has been used to store data, and 1 gram of DNA can store 215 million gigabytes. In 2017, researchers at University of Washington successfully infected a computer with a malicious program coded into a strand of DNA. Stumbling upon a written language in nature points to an intelligent author.
Never been happier since leaving organised religion.
I can sympathize. Your statement feels to me like your aversion is with the organization and not with religion, as a whole. Like if I were to say "I've never been happier than when I left the ad agency and went freelance." And I also understand that, although humans collectively are built to observe religious belief, you are an individual and can choose your path as you will. We are human, after all, and have the privilege of choosing happiness regardless of our worldview. So be blessed! And thank you for watching and commenting. I appreciate it.
@@danieklerr yup. The organisation is also corrupt at the top. And one of its members in the local congregation we attended abused my daughter over a period of 4 years. He went to jail. So as far as ‘religion’ is concerned… I’m done with it. Besides… making music on my digitakt 2 and EMX is much more fun and less traumatic.
@@johncarter2741 .. I can imagine what it would feel like if any person abused my child, and it breaks my heart. And fills me with rage, to be honest, and it doesn't help that it was a person you trusted. I'm really sorry. I'm checking out some of your spelunking and diving videos. Man! I love it. I live in New Mexico USA, which is a spelunking paradise, and I've been wanting to explore for a long time.
I think, when anyone is in a situation where they are being told how to think, you question the reality around you. Everyone wants to feel apart of something bigger. Even people who say they don’t. Money makes me throw out religious aspersions of being the best catholic, or whatever religion. We all want to eat food..just like and dog, cat, alligator, bird….we all want to be satisfied. Humans are no different than anything. I’m full of electrons and water…earth is my home ,not heaven.
It's true that we are looking for something greater than ourselves, and I feel that. I also don't completely accept that the idea of "heaven" is separate from the earth that we live in, the physical reality that surrounds us. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and the famous particle "slit tests", these seem to confirm the idea that our consciousness shapes our physical reality. My own experience reinforces this for me. No one should be forced to accept a worldview that they didn't choose. Thank you for commenting, and for being supportive in general. I really appreciate it. :)
Great video, I like how you cite the scientific/genetic studies.
Curious why you use the name/pronunciation "Yashua"(?) over Jesus or even Yeshua.
Thank you! Honestly, I'm not a super stickler about the Name, but I prefer to call him what his mother named him, haha. Also, I was saying "Yeshua", although my manner of speaking is not always the clearest. Thank you for watching. :)
What has held back humanity is faith-based thinking. I wouldn't oppose religion if there were some reason to think that any religion was actually _true._ I'd be right on board if it were evidence-based, rather than faith-based. But there is nothing - literally *nothing* - so crazy, so harmful, or so wrong that it _can't_ be defended by an appeal to faith.
Oh, sure, theists always _claim_ that there's evidence. But that's because claims are easy. _Every_ religion makes claims, just because of how easy it is to make claims. And _vague_ claims are the easiest of all. But _is_ there any good evidence that a god exists - _any_ god, let alone a particular one? I have yet to hear any. Most theists - Christians and Muslims alike - run away as soon as I ask for *something* distinguishable from wishful-thinking backing up their religious beliefs.
And this stuff is important. Faith-based thinking is destroying my country and my world. It's not like believing in magic leprechauns. Well, I suppose it _would_ be like believing in magic leprechauns if magic leprechaun believers controlled my country at every level of government and legislated based on what they thought magic leprechauns _wanted._
When I was a kid, I didn't know a single other person who wasn't a Christian - not _one,_ as far as I could tell. But no one seemed to take it very seriously. I fully expected religion to have faded away by now. Instead, religion got political.
Now, it's _all_ about political and economic power. Right-wing politicians use Christianity, and right-wing Christians use those politicians - all to gain more power. Because power is all they seem to care about. And none of them seem to give a _crap_ what's actually true.
Faith and trust are synonyms. Anyone who has any beliefs at all, about literally anything, has faith that what they believe is true. Any person who sits on a chair has faith that the chair will hold them. Any person who shows up for a job has faith that the employer will pay them. Any person who marries a spouse has faith in that spouse, and trusts the spouse to be "faithful". In other words, "faith-based thinking" is literally not a thing at all. Purely from a language standpoint, it describes everything any person has ever believed, ever.
Now, your feelings about whether any given evidence points to a master, all-pervasive intelligence is completely another matter. And the individual can choose to operate against human nature, and choose not to accept the existence of this intelligence based on their interpretation of the available data. This is completely acceptable, of course, and understandable. It's the same as adults deciding not to have children, etc.
Although I presented my own conclusions about the data, especially near the end of the video, the crux of the video is not to point to the existence of God. The main point of the video is that humans are genetically predisposed to believe in God, and attempting to force society to abandon their religious traditions will lead to overwhelming tragedy. In fact, it will cause as many or more problems as using religion to control the society. Both are wrong. This is made evident by the death tolls of atheistic regimes (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot et al) which far outweigh the body count of the Roman Church, even considering the Crusades and Inquisition. In the end, it's not a finger-pointing death contest, of course, but it **is** a testament to the dark side of humanity.
Anyway, I love a decent, civil discussion, and I really appreciate your input.
@@danieklerr
_"Faith and trust are synonyms."_
No, they're not. Not always. Like most words, "faith" has multiple meanings. And in casual conversation, "faith" _can_ mean "trust, based on the evidence." But that's not the religious sense of the word. In the religious sense of the word, I'd say it means belief without evidence or despite the evidence.
Or, as the Bible puts it, "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Faith is what you "hope for," not what you have good reason to think is actually _true._
After all, if you have evidence, you don't _need_ faith. If I asked you why you believed something, and you had good evidence backing it up, you wouldn't tell me you had faith. You'd just tell me the evidence. Faith is the excuse people give when they have no good evidence, but they want to believe it anyway.
_"In other words, "faith-based thinking" is literally not a thing at all."_
Rather than argue over the definition of a word, if you've actually _got_ good evidence that your god is real, why not just provide *one specific example?* After all, it doesn't _matter_ what the word means if you can demonstrate that you actually _have_ something distinguishable from wishful-thinking backing up your religious beliefs.
Do you? Just *one* piece of good evidence, specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself?
_"And the individual can choose to operate against human nature, and choose not to accept the existence of this intelligence"_
Don't be silly! Belief isn't a choice. I can demonstrate that to you, if you want, but it should be obvious. We're either convinced of something or we're not. We can be convinced for good reasons (like good evidence) or for bad reasons (because we were taught to believe it as a child), but either way, it's not a choice.
You could choose to _pretend_ to believe something, sure. Pretending _is_ a choice. But belief isn't.
_"It's the same as adults deciding not to have children"_
No, it isn't. It's not even _close_ to being like that. I'm sorry, but that's just silly.
Go ahead. "Decide" to believe that Paris is the capital of England. "Decide" to believe that Spiderman is real. Or "decide" to believe that dogs are just imaginary. You can't do it, because belief isn't a choice.
_"The main point of the video is that humans are genetically predisposed to believe in God, and attempting to force society to abandon their religious traditions will lead to overwhelming tragedy."_
I disagree with all of that. Human beings might be predisposed to assume _agency,_ but not to believe in your god. They're _taught_ to believe in your god - or in any of the other gods people have believed in.
Being predisposed to assume agency makes perfect sense in an evolutionary sense, and so does the clear tendency of most human beings to cling to the beliefs of their tribe. But none of that means your _specific_ beliefs. And none of it means that those beliefs are _true,_ either.
And as far as I can tell no one - *no one* - is trying to "force" society to abandon their religious traditions. Not here in the west, at least. Even China isn't doing that. They're just desperate to maintain control. (As a dictatorship, _that's_ what's important to them.)
Indeed, it's commonly the exact opposite of that. Right-wing Christians in my country are trying to force their own religious beliefs on the rest of us - including into grade schools, attempting to indoctrinate little kids before they reach the age of reason. They're not satisfied with having the right to indoctrinate their _own_ kids. They want to force their own beliefs on everyone else, too.
Of course, they don't want _other_ religions doing that. Heh, heh. But they've pretty much abandoned freedom of religion and the strict separation between church and state in America because they think they have the political power to control which beliefs get advantaged.
_"This is made evident by the death tolls of atheistic regimes (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot et al) which far outweigh the body count of the Roman Church, even considering the Crusades and Inquisition."_
Heh, heh. Right. And the fact that there were a lot more people in the 20th Century - and a technology level which allowed a far greater capacity for killing - had nothing to do with it, I suppose?
Besides, note that those regimes didn't kill people on behalf of _atheism._ As far as I can tell, they were officially atheist only because religions held the power which they wanted. Dictators seldom want to share.
Also, I notice that you didn't mention the Nazis, who were Christians - Protestant and Catholic alike - who'd been taught antisemitism from the pulpit for generations. And you conveniently left out the holocaust of the Native American tribes and of African slave-trading, too. I don't discount _any_ of those horrors, myself. But there's a lot of blame to go around!
_"In the end, it's not a finger-pointing death contest, of course, but it _*_is_*_ a testament to the dark side of humanity."_
I agree. Of course, it's also a testament to the rest of humanity which fought back - and to the improved morals of modern times which recognizes the horrors of the past. There's a _reason_ why it took Christians nearly two thousand years to decide that slavery was wrong. And here in America, the Bible Belt was the most racist part of our country long, long after that, too.
But they got there, eventually. (Well, not so much the Bible Belt. But the rest of us, at least.) These days, we are _better_ than your Bible. Even _Christians_ are better than your Bible. And we are _far_ better than your god.
_"Anyway, I love a decent, civil discussion"_
Me, too. I enjoy talking to intelligent people who disagree with me about religion. So thanks for the reply!
The definition of faith has nothing to do with the lack of evidence. Oxford definies it first as an assumption **based** on available evidence. In second of four definitions, it connects the word to religious belief, but still connect the word itself to "trust", citing as an example the phrase "faith in somebody/something He started questioning his faith in God."
Oxford further extrapolates on its definition, connecting it to "blind faith", which is what you are describing. "Blind" being literally "without evidence".
Faith and trust are synonyms.
Hebrews 11:1 was written in Koine Greek, not English. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". Faith is πίστις (pistis), and is trust or conviction, and "hoped for" is ἐλπίζω (epidzo), meaning something expected that you have confidence in. A better translation is "We trust in the foundation (ὑπόστασις) upon which we expect certain results, BUT we base this (ἔλεγχος) upon things we can't see".
Meaning, they're talking about blind faith, not faith itself. I realize this doesn't help my cause, but language is very important. Faith and trust are synonyms.
Name one other system in nature that gets refined and increases in complexity when left to its own devices, and doesn't devolve into entropic chaos. From a purely naturalistic worldview, this conversation is the product of water running on rocks. There are myriad points of evidence which suggest a creator, and not a single shred of evidence that there is not a creator. Science doesn't care about our feelings, honestly. Science simply weighs evidence.
It certainly takes blind faith (trust) to believe in MY God, or any specific deity, but the evidence for the existence of A GOD, is pretty overwhelming.
Yes, human nature is such that religious expression is accounted for in our genetic makeup. If, after examining the presented data, an individual chooses to disregard an inclination toward the veneration of a deity, this is indeed a choice. That doesn't mean that person "chooses to believe" something, don't read too deeply into what I said. :)
Regarding Nazis, etc., I find it very difficult to label a faction with a certain ideology when they act in direct opposition to said ideology. If someone doesn't act like Christ, they're not a Christian. Just because a rat gets in the cookie jar, does not mean it's a cookie.
@@danieklerr
_"The definition of faith has nothing to do with the lack of evidence."_
OK, then how about *one piece of good evidence, specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself,* that your god is real, rather than just imaginary? Or *one piece of good evidence* that _any_ of the magical/supernatural stories in the Bible actually happened?
Just *one* please - one at a time is all we can discuss here - but be specific.
After all, what difference does it make how you want to define the word if you don't _have_ anything distinguishable from wishful-thinking backing up your religious beliefs? I see no reason to waste time arguing about definitions when it doesn't make the slightest difference _anyway,_ as long as you have no good evidence backing up your beliefs.
_"There are myriad points of evidence which suggest a creator"_
Well, that's easy to _claim._ Of course, that's just because claims _are_ easy - especially extraordinarily vague claims like that! That's probably why _every_ religion makes claims, not just your own. It's just so very _easy_ to make claims, huh?
But I'm still waiting for one piece of good evidence that your claims are actually _true._ Why is *one* too much to ask?
_"If someone doesn't act like Christ, they're not a Christian."_
Heh, heh. That sounds like the No True Scotsman fallacy to _me._ But I'll let you Christians fight that out among yourselves. I don't have a dog in that fight.
Well, dang Bill. You seem to have smashed face-first into the point and still managed to miss it. :)
You keep saying "your god". I have zero interest in trying to argue the existence of "my" God with anyone. In fact, I believe my exact quote was "It certainly takes blind faith (trust) to believe in MY God, or any specific deity, but the evidence for the existence of A GOD, is pretty overwhelming."
Which brings us to the myriad points of evidence which suggests a creator. To be honest, to arrive at atheism means a person is dishonest or ignorant, and again, you either know how to interpret data or you don't. I can put the food on your plate, I can lift it by fork to your mouth, I can even manually make your jaw go up and down, but.. if you refuse to swallow, it's all in vain.
Being a scientist, I'm not concerned with finding "proof" of God, or anything else. Science doesn't deal in proofs, but in the evolution of best-guess ideas, based on observable evidence. The overwhelming likelihood, based on evidence, points to a universal consciousness. Here are some examples, off the top of my head:
1. The second Law of Thermodynamics provides necessary criteria for spontaneous processes. The idea of a spontaneous universe, ultimately creating life and consciousness, without the influence of a mind, violate the concept of entropy. There is no other system which, in and of itself, increases in complexity and refinement. Order can only emerge from chaos through the influence of intelligence.
2. The universe has an origin. The event known as the Big Bang occurred an estimated 13.8 billion years ago, through which the entirety of all existence, including space, time and every fundamental particle, sprang from a point of singularity billions of times smaller than an atom, in a tiny fraction of a second. This is in line with a myriad of religious traditions, in which "God" created the universe, ex nihilo.
3. Relativity and quantum mechanics suggest that physical reality can not objectively exist without an observer. That consciousness creates and augments matter is confirmed by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and the famous double-slit experiments. If there is an underlying reality that exists whether we measure it or not, this underlying reality requires a conscious observer.
4. While working on superstring equations, S James Gates (Brown University Theoretical Physics Center Director and the Ford Foundation Professor of Physics) found computer code in the mathematics which govern our fundamental reality. This was not simply binary, but a specific type of error-correcting code used to build browser software.
5. While we're on the topic of mathematics.. While specific techniques and methods of explaining math were invented by various mathematicians, we also know that math itself was in existence before its discovery. Math is a language sufficient to explain the nature of the universe, and existed before human discovery. It is unlikely to have created itself.
6. Speaking of computer code and language.. DNA strands have all the hallmarks of hyperadvanced software. Computer code is made up of binary digits (bits) of ones or zeros. DNA is built on 4 nucleotides (adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine). This DNA system is "commented out" and linear, and read from start to end like a written language. These sequences store and transmit information, instructing computers or cells on what action to perform.
Some analogies between DNA and computer programming include:
--Transposing code: Similar to dynamically linked libraries in computer programming
--Epigenetics and imprinting: Similar to the Linux kernel, which disables parts of its binary when it discovers what CPU it is running on
--Dead code: Similar to the start of a comment, followed by a lot of non-coding DNA
--Each cell is a universe: Similar to each cell being a CPU, running its own kernel
DNA has been used to store data, and 1 gram of DNA can store 215 million gigabytes. In 2017, researchers at University of Washington successfully infected a computer with a malicious program coded into a strand of DNA.
Stumbling upon a written language in nature points to an intelligent author.
Cool video. I was an atheist for over 20 years. Life’s so much better walking with Christ.
I think so, too. Thank you for watching!