Religion and science would be perfectly compatible, if only religion could be scientifically verified. What evidence would it take to make you believe in God?
CosmicSkeptic if there was actual proof of a god or many gods, i feel like wouldn't bow down to said being. After all, if s/he was a god, s/he isn't doing such a good job seeing as the world has gone to shit haha
I recently debated a Christian preaching in my town. He said he took the Bible literally true and both the Old and New testament to be true. Naturally I brought up slavery to which he said was moral. He said that he was glad that I (a 15 year old) was going to hell. We eventually got to a point where I brought up how I used to be a Christian, he said that I "wasnt a true Christian". Not only all this, but he thought that it was bad how Science always changes its mind. That somehow the Bible never changing is good. I debated the most twisted and disgusting human being I have ever met who condoned slavery and wanted to see me burn forever. This is why religion is dangerous, I understand this individual is highly immoral already, but he gets it from his religion. If you are a member of any religious organisation, please research fully what you are identifying in. Religion is harmful at its core. Dont be that preacher.
+-GrizzlyBear- Since he claimed slavery is moral, you should have then asked if you can enslave him and see what his reaction is. If he objects, point out how slavery is allowed in the bible and since he thinks slavery is moral he therefore has no reason to object. You will either have shown him his own hypocrisy or gotten yourself a nice housekeeper. :)
johnelee2k93 I dont think its necessary to show the irony in your insults. No atheist abides by any rule saying that we think "slavery is ok". We dont have any rules in writing that only talk about us. What I do have is my own moral code. I base my decisions and morality off of the consequences for my actions and the effect they have on others.I follow the laws set by our society as to avoid any punishments. If anything, religion goes against this. The Bible for example, condones slavery. The moral argument has been refuted many times and holds no weight in the argument of a divine being.
John ama a Jesucristo "according to atheism slavery and murder and rape and incest and mass genocide is a okay" why do you say this? which atheist told you this? I'm asking because I am an atheist, from an 100% atheist family with many atheists friends and NO1 of these people think that way. "you have no moral foundation to say any thing is evily." why? gods and holy books are not necessary for a moral foundation. some decent and caring adults in your childhood, that's all you need to have a moral foundation. Again, the people in my life are the proof for this: with all their atheism and without any religious teaching, we don't hurt or steal or rape or kidnap or kill. Sometimes, many of us help random, unknown people in need. A behaviour which definitely needs solid moral foundations. help where you can don't be a jerk to people who ain't jerks to you. do not start violence see? the very basic is in these 3 lines. no gods mentioned. sure, you can be a moral person with religion in your head. but religion is not necessary to be a moral person
-GrizzlyBear- A Christian is not bound by the Old Testament Law. Some of the law still apply today, and some of the laws only applied to the people of the time. Things like dietary restrictions and things like slavery dont bind Christians today. However, moral laws, such as ‘Don’t murder’ or ‘Don’t steal’ still apply today because they still have relevance to us today. Where the line blurs, one can ask God or ask a reliable person at a church. Also, one problem I see with the atheist’s view of subjective morality, is that you can’t tell someone else that what u think is right and wrong is superior to what they think is right and wrong. In this sense, we cannot condemn someone who has done something we believe to be evil, because they might think it to be good. If we extend it to the national law, the government is imposing its view of morality at times on criminals. A criminal may not think his murder was unjustified. However, the government does and the government is evil in the eyes of the murderer. You can tell someone, “in my opinion, what ur doing is wrong”, however, your opinion is only based on feelings.
youth do not attain wisdom,...that comes from age lived. this very young person ( alex ) meerly has a sharp mind. i only hope with time, that alex understands that science and religion can co-exist. he still has to live more life, as there are things he has to experience yet. he debates very well for his age. however he should ponder upon the first sentence in genesis: in the beginning = TIME, god created the heavens = SPACE, and the earth = MATTER. now you can look at it as it is.. or you can dissect this statement and create myriad of logical conundrums.
+d ot I did answer you. You just made an Argument from Personal Incredulity, which means "I/we don't understand it, therefore it must be this thing I say it is". I said that you had a poor grasp of both English and physics because you said "for being exist", which isn't grammatically correct, and because you said, "X and Y are any two atoms connected with each other by any means at any time" which is simply gibberish. If you refer to the fact that all matter exerts forces on other matter, it is physics, but if you are suggesting that the existence of one piece of matter is contingent on the existence of another piece of matter, then you need to brush up on your physics just as much as your English. So 1) Go learn English. 2) Go learn physics. 3) Try again. Edit to Add: If you don't wish to be mocked, don't say things worthy of ridicule.
Science makes nature seem far more beautiful that religion does. For example, look at a tree, appreciate the tree. "God designed this large tree for us to appreciate"", or "Through hundreds possible thousands of years this tree has been consuming carbon dioxide, making its own food, and emitting oxygen for humans to breath, and we're here to enjoy just a small fraction of its life." Which one is more beautiful? Witch understanding, and appreciation is more in tune with the world around them?
Which is more beautiful, contemplating the mysteries of our universe and acknowledging that we don't know what we don't know, or ending the adventure with three words: "God did it"? "Mystery creates wonder and wonder is the basis of man's desire to understand." - Neil Armstrong
Well certainly the Bible makes claims about the real world. These claims can be tested. On the origin of the universe, the Earth and life, the Bible gets it wrong ! Why should we trust it for any other claims it makes ?
Exactly! I'm actually very excited that more and more people are starting to realize these things. It means that our civilization is evolving intellectually.
Well over the last 400 years or so science has explained far more about the universe and life than all the theologians and philosophers of the past ever could. The Bible is wrong on so many things, but no room for that here.
I've been an atheist for some 8 years (I'm 19 now), but I was never quite able to explain my skepticism and my ever growing disgust for religion and their advocates, thank you for giving me arguments and ideas 😁
it seems that most religious people are still in religion because they are comfortable with this routine, you can give a thousand scientific reasons, moral, etc. and not see any reaction because it is how they lived all their lives, only my personal experience
Sawas Forn and he doesn't really want to show disrespect to them believing in religion, at first he was here to support the side of atheism when there were people of faith insulting the people not. But know he is here just to be able to input his thoughts and ideas into this (mostly) peaceful debate
Thats exactly right. Iv noticed its comforting believing in a deity and following a religion. They feel a sense of community and a personal cheerleader following you around. Some people need that.
Sawas Forn Many fall into this category. I just talked to one recently irl. Very nice person. We had a great and civil conversation. Simply realize many people believe things for many different reasons. His belief was based on personal experience and faith. My position is based on evidence.
its just easier when you have a bag of given ideas, morals and rules to follow and don't have to actually think, debate, complex issues. The sense of being part of a group of people with no differences also helps a lot.
You're the only person near my age that I've met (well not even that) that has the same views and opinion as I do. It is truly a breath of fresh hair in all the mess where I have to live everyday.
well i would assume you're close to 18, that's Alex's demographic so there are a lot of us, it's just that most don't make youtube videos about it, we should make a discord group or something
You are just a western godless and Souless idiot who does not know where his morals come from... Can you tell me why what you think isright or wrong in terms of morals? Your morals can change, for good or bad (our morals do not change) what about yours??? Has any godless and Souless his own morals?? (Despite we act differently our morals do not change) what about yours??? If you do not believe in God, what do you believe (as we believe in Science too, you have something less then us, right??? Do you think God to exist cares whatever you Believe in him and host Book, the Bible, western Godless idiot??? And why are you so obsessed with God??? You do not have God and a soul, just be continue your life as a Godless idiot which does not know where is morals comes from, Right??? Please answer to those questions and do not deflect you western Godless and Souless idiot. (Because be a western godless idiot is a new concept never existed before, and now you for very well, do you know idiot that believe you comes from nothing and if there is a creation there is not a creator?? 🙂... Money, west, materialism and the modern stupidity 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😏....
when someone tells me he is a philosopher with specification in theology im equally impressed as if he told me he was an doctor with specification in homeopathy. no matter how much time he studied or teached any of both. calling the scholastics "great philosophers of medi evil" is an oxymoron itself, let alone calling neurobiology "brainscience".
You are just a western godless and Souless idiot who does not know where his morals come from... Can you tell me why what you think isright or wrong in terms of morals? Your morals can change, for good or bad (our morals do not change) what about yours??? Has any godless and Souless his own morals?? (Despite we act differently our morals do not change) what about yours??? If you do not believe in God, what do you believe (as we believe in Science too, you have something less then us, right??? Do you think God to exist cares whatever you Believe in him and host Book, the Bible, western Godless idiot??? And why are you so obsessed with God??? You do not have God and a soul, just be continue your life as a Godless idiot which does not know where is morals comes from, Right??? Please answer to those questions and do not deflect you western Godless and Souless idiot. (Because be a western godless idiot is a new concept never existed before, and now you for very well, do you know idiot that believe you comes from nothing and if there is a creation there is not a creator?? 🙂... Money, west, materialism and the modern stupidity 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😏....
@Rawlings You are just a western godless and Souless idiot who does not know where his morals come from... Can you tell me why what you think isright or wrong in terms of morals? Your morals can change, for good or bad (our morals do not change) what about yours??? Has any godless and Souless his own morals?? (Despite we act differently our morals do not change) what about yours??? If you do not believe in God, what do you believe (as we believe in Science too, you have something less then us, right??? Do you think God to exist cares whatever you Believe in him and host Book, the Bible, western Godless idiot??? And why are you so obsessed with God??? You do not have God and a soul, just be continue your life as a Godless idiot which does not know where is morals comes from, Right??? Please answer to those questions and do not deflect you western Godless and Souless idiot. (Because be a western godless idiot is a new concept never existed before, and now you for very well, do you know idiot that believe you comes from nothing and if there is a creation there is not a creator?? 🙂... Money, west, materialism and the modern stupidity 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😏....
You should have seen the one where he drank a quarter of a pint of lager shandy, passed out, and woke up on a boat to Belgium dressed in a rhinoceros outfit.
Do you ever think the reason why people only type the word "first" as the first comment is because by the time they have thought about and typed anything else, they probably have missed the chance to actually be first...
Aha! But one can type out a comment to have copied, ready for a video to be posted. So they can also produce recycled shit-posts, not just say first. ;)
I am an atheist who wants to believe in God. To be forthright, this desire is for selfish and even cowardly reasons: I want an afterlife and a God is the most likely way that can happen. I think that in reality, most of us would want a god, if we thought about it a bit more. For example: I would want the god to be my kind of god. I would not want a god who provides insufficient, ambiguous evidence for his existence, and then punishes for disbelief. I would like a god with a sense of humor. The god would provide afterlife pepperoni pizzas along with a decent merlot or zinfandel. No pain, no illnesses, and rainy days only upon request. I would very much want for that god to exist.
+A Ghost Without a Past A fear of the unknown is uncomfortable enough that given an option to satisfy that discomfort, I would. Also, the god I described would be an all-around good guy. There is nothing wrong with having such a person in one's life.
Well I am a deist I believe in the concept of God's existence but chose to live off virtues rather than religious doctrines. Some of my friends call me an atheist I do not mind because it would be hard to explain to them my perspective, even though that is not the correct term. I was actually meaning to become a Buddhist, Buddhist nun, and a Hindu for a while just to acquire wisdom from them. Buddhism gave us meditation, and Hindu yoga. I really like insight this is why. When I look at religion I take things with a grain of salt and only apply things that are insightful or seen as wise. When it comes down to it no matter our stance we can learn from what we agree and disagree with it helps us learn how to think, of ourselves, and for ourselves.
@hamid saadi - Religion tells you who you are and you're not allowed to disagree. The problem is, it lies. Sometimes deliberately. Sometimes through indoctrination, unchallenged tradition and/or wilful ignorance. The good thing about science is that it reflects reality. Religion, in contrast, twists reality, in order to preserve belief. The best thing about science is that, being grounded in reality, it actually works! Hence we are able to have this conversation. ;) :)
Infact science make things even better for observations within nature. Someone whose scientifically may be able to guess how many rings a tree might have, if it has rigs, how old it may be, what kind it would it, and the properties of such wood. Religion helps no deeper appreciation of nature than the surface, on the other hand science provides incite and a story, of the likes you can not get with religion.
I was agreeing with you. I think that seeing the entire earth from that perspective can give someone a greater appreciation of nature. If every human on earth could see the earth from that perspective we probably wouldn't be so careless with our environment as a species.
Industrialisation has funded and created modern science, but it has also begun to destroy the world. Science has even started to acknowledge this: hence the proposals of the Anthropocene epoch and the Holocene extinction event. Ironic that the very process that gives us our modern tools is also the thing that is destroying that which we wish to observe.
4:20 People love being told what to do. Most people just don't have what it takes to find their own goals and beauty in our universe. A book that has all the answers and sticks you into a small and comfortable world is appealing to many people. Its sorta like the suburban dream in the United States
You are just a western godless and Souless idiot who does not know where his morals come from... Can you tell me why what you think isright or wrong in terms of morals? Your morals can change, for good or bad (our morals do not change) what about yours??? Has any godless and Souless his own morals?? (Despite we act differently our morals do not change) what about yours??? If you do not believe in God, what do you believe (as we believe in Science too, you have something less then us, right??? Do you think God to exist cares whatever you Believe in him and host Book, the Bible, western Godless idiot??? And why are you so obsessed with God??? You do not have God and a soul, just be continue your life as a Godless idiot which does not know where is morals comes from, Right??? Please answer to those questions and do not deflect you western Godless and Souless idiot. (Because be a western godless idiot is a new concept never existed before, and now you for very well, do you know idiot that believe you comes from nothing and if there is a creation there is not a creator?? 🙂... Money, west, materialism and the modern stupidity 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😏....
You are just a western godless and Souless idiot who does not know where his morals come from... Can you tell me why what you think isright or wrong in terms of morals? Your morals can change, for good or bad (our morals do not change) what about yours??? Has any godless and Souless his own morals?? (Despite we act differently our morals do not change) what about yours??? If you do not believe in God, what do you believe (as we believe in Science too, you have something less then us, right??? Do you think God to exist cares whatever you Believe in him and host Book, the Bible, western Godless idiot??? And why are you so obsessed with God??? You do not have God and a soul, just be continue your life as a Godless idiot which does not know where is morals comes from, Right??? Please answer to those questions and do not deflect you western Godless and Souless idiot. (Because be a western godless idiot is a new concept never existed before, and now you for very well, do you know idiot that believe you comes from nothing and if there is a creation there is not a creator?? 🙂... Money, west, materialism and the modern stupidity 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😏.....
Not all religions are against science. Only the theistic religions are . Non theistic religions like Buddhism are vastly compatible with science and the scientific method.
Your argument that the recurrent laryngeal nerve is somehow ectopic form the ‘idealised’ position it should have is open to counterargument of course. Firstly, it is your opinion that the nerve should be in a particular position, and while a prim facia consideration of anatomy my indicate you are right, there may be other factors you have not taken into consideration. As you probably know, in 0.5 - 1% of people the right inferior laryngeal nerve is nonrecurrent, branching off the vagus much higher, around the level of the cricoid cartilage. This nerve variation is highly associated with variation in the arrangement of the major arteries in the chest. For example, the right subclavian artery may arise from the left side of the aorta and so have to cross to the right side, posterior to the oesophagus. Likewise, in the uncommon occurrence of a left nonrecurrent inferior laryngeal nerve there is a strong association with large arterial variations. This may indicate the foetal development of the recurrent laryngeal nerves and the major arterial vessels are linked, and in some way interdependent. If so, this would mean the adult position is a residue of necessary developmental processes. Any thoughts when you get time?
This is a distraction from the point, but if you wanted to discuss this idea with a medical professional it would be legitimately relevant. Unfortunately, this is not actually relevant to the argument for or against theism/religion. He could pick any number of other flawed "designs" that would have been better explained by natural selection and evolution than any actual intellectual design. Your gall bladder or appendix are equally viable examples, as they no longer serve necessary functions to human life in the same ways that they did millenia agom
Great job Alex. I really enjoyed this one. This gentleman expresses perfectly something I have been considering lately. The human mind is capable of holding two contradictory positions, well some of them. I feel there is a real difference between the mind of an atheist and that of a theist. I can not hold on to beliefs that contradict what I conclude to be true. Some do this apparently with out effort. I find this quit baffling.
"I'm a philosopher (...) i taught philosophy (...) i'm very interested in jewish philosophy and islamic philosophy" Alright, first minute and he already showed his true self, hiding behind the word "philosopher" it's just another believer who wants to seem neutral to gain credit and promote his ideas/ology...
People all the time assure me there is ample evidence for god, but they never present it. I have been waiting for 55 years. I am fairly sure there isn't any.
*Science as a process for deriving facts:* Did you know? The german word for science is "Wissenschaft" which you can translate into "creating knowledge".
FlyingTurtle Seen Mothra around lately? But seriously, I find it interesting that the root "Wi" is scattered around quite a bit to mean knowledge or wisdom. There's a word right there. I guess it's auto-reflexive. But there's witch and wif as in midwife, wise and wit. OED says these are Old English and I remember them in Chaucer. But they come from German. Thanks for the memories :)
I'd imagine "wissen" has the same root at "wise." On another note, it is sometimes called "Naturwissenschaften." I'm not gonna insult your intelligence by translating it.
Except that's not what science is. There is no such thing as a "scientific fact" and science doesn't "prove" anything. It just tells us what explanations for things in the natural world are least likely to be wrong. This is science, from the mouth of a master of it: ua-cam.com/video/0KmimDq4cSU/v-deo.html
Dan, the meaning of the word prove is not the strait claim you make it out to be, that's only "proof" in mathematics. Prove outside maths is just "sufficient compelling evidence in support of a claim". It ALSO means "to test", as in "whack the armour with a big hammer and if it has no significant dent, it's proven good". And even mathematical proofs are not ABSOLUTE, they require that the axioms be correct.
Sir Meow The Library Cat no, the earth is flat and time zones are a lie. Also, the solar eclipse was really just them changing the lightbulb. Also, dinosaurs were on the ark. Also, gravity is a lie. Also, drugs. Lots and lots of drugs. Basically all the drugs.
Let me start off by saying: I liked the video, I'm glad you are critically evaluating claims regardless of the credentials of who holds them, or what the social acceptability of your doing so may be. Furthermore let me clarify that I am an atheist/agnostic who finds classical theism and to a greater extent Abrahamic religions immensely improbable. However, I think a lot of your criticisms were made to some extent in ignorance of the common philosophical reasoning behind many of Lenn Goodman's points, and some of your arguments were simply highly flawed. I will go in no particular chronological order: 1. Your argument against the relevance of beauty as potential teleological evidence is entirely misdirected. It is not things like why food tastes good or water seems refreshing that philosophers have a hard time explaining in terms of naturalistic processes, but rather esoteric and aesthetic beauty, which often seems far more potent than that which is essential for survival. E.g. take one of Mozart's symphonies, the Mona Lisa, or the feeling of breathtaking beauty when gazing from the top of a mountain over a great expanse of uninhabited Nature's solitude spread forth below you. Or perhaps you might consider the sheer elegance of a concise and consistent, yet explanatory powerful mathematical theorem or equation. What about the stylistic grace of a verse of poetry? The philosophical problem is explaining those things which seem deeply valuable in a way that which is related to mere survival isn't. I'm not saying there aren't good explanations, but you'll have to take a different line or perhaps pursue the one you chose much farther in order to attempt to provide an answer. 2. The fact that humans evolved in a way which had no demarcations via natural processes doesn't disprove special significance. The special significance itself could be considered to have gradually become attached to humanity. The arguments used by secular and religious alike to show the special-ness of humanity generally rely on characteristics humans don't share with other animals like language (abstract symbolism if you want to be technical), reason (notions of causality combined with time), logic (more or less a combination of the former two), self-awareness (in the sense of being self-aware of one's own self-awareness), love (in the sense of deliberately choosing the good of another even potentially in the face of personal loss), and morality (beyond, or at least seemingly beyond, mere instinct, even if it did arise from such). Unless you can show that other animals share most of these traits (good luck with that), or that a gradual acquisition of "special-ness" is somehow logically fallacious, than I don't see why even non-religious people shouldn't consider humans special compared to other animals (as I do). 3. He said "scientistic" not "scientific" fundamentalists. What he's probably referring to are people who take the rather shallow intellectual view that science is all of real knowledge, thus intentionally eschewing most of aesthetics, ethics, philosophy, and sometimes even history, while also not realizing that a consistent formulation of their epistemology would also invalidate much of math, logic, and perhaps even the basis of science itself, not to mention cause most of their everyday beliefs to become unjustifiably held. For example, one might look to some of what Lawrence Krauss has written about to be essentially scientistic, such as when he criticizes philosophy as a useless endeavor, not realizing that he's engaging in (relatively poor) philosophy himself, nor what the implications of what he espouses are. I will say that some of what you said was really good though, the bit about science as a methodology of arriving at truth in a highly reliable fashion, or how any claim, religious or otherwise needs evidence before it ought to be seriously considered. If anyone actually read this far btw, good job, you are living proof that not everyone in modern society is incapable of concentrating for long periods of time, or engaging with substantive arguments. :)
Alex, keep up the good work, hopefully you will be our new younger version of the great and late Christopher Hitchens, All we need is your generation to listen and learn from your videos, Cheers
so what if you put your faith in a person? your definition of faith ins't very compatible with the real one but I get what you mean.. still not going to get you far in a debate
I love the video (as with all of your videos). One quip: nothing is 'proven' except in a court of law or math/logic. Shown or evidenced are more science-based words for provisions of fact. When someone wants me to 'believe' that souls exist, I don't want them to prove it to me. I want them to show me evidence of purported existence in a way that stands up to scientific scrutiny.
Disappointing video. If you want to debate him, then invite him to do so. Sniping at his comments when he doesn't have the opportunity to provide a rebuttal seems cowardly.
Some kid without qualifications does know better indeed! I don't know why but it's extremely satisfying when stubborn social assumptions are thrown out the window (i.e. that only academics have the authority to retain and validate knowledge). Keep up the good work you are smashing it.
You can't think of any logical arguments so you just fling insults around? science noun the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. faith noun strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. Peace
@johnloves jesus Someone has not been reading their Bible have they John, · Matthew chapter 5 v 22 "but whoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell-fire" as the carpenter of Nazareth said, and I'm sure adding retarded doesn't help either.
Yet to hear an Atheist claim a Theist should, will and deserves to burn forever for using their own mind. That to me is one of the most "Ugly" contention ever made.
My thoughts: Why did god show himself and/or talk to certain humans (according to the bible) but he doesn’t now? There is no logical reason why he can’t now. If god created all creatures on the earth, why did he create tapeworm which are parasites that live inside humans. Surely no loving god would create such a creature. I used to be super religious (a Jehovah’s Witness) but I left the religion years ago as I wanted to live my own life my own way. However I still believed in god, but over the years have changed my way of thinking, have become more analytical and now I am essentially an atheist. Of course the internet helps to open everyone’s mind and become more knowledgeable about all manner of subjects. Alex is so eloquent. He talks like an academic who has been privately educated. I agree with him that that old man who is a philosopher just seemed to ramble on and actually none of anything he said made sense. Thanks for the video Alex. I came here as I saw you on JWSurvey channel.
Why isn't God showing himself today? Well, it's actually quite simple. You see, God did show himself 2000 years ago, and sinful man crucified him. Because of this, God suffered great pain. Not physical pain, mind you, since an omnipotent being probably couldn't feel that. I'm talking about the emotional pain of being rejected by the mortals at the time. As a result, God has spent the last few days in Heaven, alone, crying into his pillow. "But wait," you ask, "if he only spent a few days crying like a teenage girl, why is he still not here?" Well, you have to remember that a day to us is a thousand years to God. Or...wait...scratch that, it's the other way around. Or something. Look, the point is, God is going to be sitting at home with the lights off, eating a bucket of ice cream while watching romantic comedies for a while, so don't expect to see him anytime soon.
I was a devout atheist for a very long time until I was forced to confront a question that you seem to sidestep, as indeed most all atheists seem to: the origins of the universe. The Big Bang theory cannot explain what happened before its occurrence to account for what caused it, and all resulting matter, to be produced. Likewise if something existed before the Big Bang, and triggered the Big Bang itself, then from whence did that energy originate? If we concede that something cannot materialize from true nothingness, then no matter how far we proceed down the chain leading to the origin of all existence we will always be left with the same question: from whence did that energy originate? Something can not come from nothing, and such a notion completely contradicts our understanding of chemistry and thermodynamics. As hard as it is to live by the Bible, because the flesh screams out to sin, I have had to concede to this fact in my own life, and submit to Christ. Following Jesus is seen as the easy path, a cop out to hide from "reality", or a step taken in ignorance. Truth be told you will never see how much of a stranglehold sin has on your life until you try to turn from it only to realize that you truly can not do it alone.
+Freaky Facts "If we concede that something cannot materialize from true nothingness," Then you would be forced to explain where god comes from and what created god, otherwise you are guilty of special pleading. Also, even I was to 100% concede that your "argument" proves without a shadow of a doubt that god exists, how in the hell do you jump from that to "therefore the bible is true"? Are you saying you can't figure out a way for the god that created the universe to be a different god from your bible? Because I sure can, it's not that hard.
Freaky Facts Most atheists do not sidestep the origins of the universe. They just don't jump to unfounded conclusions about it. The Big Bang theory cannot explain what happened before its occurrence because it is not intended to. It explains what happened after that initial singularity, about which we know very little. Pointing this out as if it were a deficiency in the theory, as you have here, is like pointing out that the owner's manual of your car doesn't tell how to make a souffle. Your other fallacious points have already been addressed by Clade Starfish and David Stagg, but David Stagg's point bears repeating. Tell us what steps of logic got you from "something that triggered the Big Bang" to Jesus Christ and the Bible, and then we'll have an interesting conversation. I'd consider it almost virtually certain that you chose Christianity for far more irrational and circumstantial reasons than the logical thought process you apply to the origin of the universe.
Freaky Facts Just flick a lighter: Where do you think the flame came from? It apeared from nothingness.. it's the effect of combustion, it's neither fuel nor oxygen, it is fire. And where do you think it goes when you let the button go? Nowhere, it just stops. I don't know about you but if fire can pop in and out of existence, why not the universe...
The big bang did not create something from nothing. It was an infinitely dense singularity that become so dense it had to expand. It did not go "boom" and then create new matter.
Bluemonsoon *God's existence is self-evident.* No, it isn't. Do you even know what "self-evident" means? It means no other evidence is required. Pointing at the universe or DNA or anything else besides God himself is using other evidence. *By definition, God is eternal, the universe is not by definition.* Also wrong. The universe is not a human concept that came into being by us defining it. It may or may not be eternal, but we have to observe it sufficiently to determine that one way or the other, and so far we haven't. By contrast, God is a concept that some people _have_ defined as eternal, but doing so is not proof that he actually exists. *Obviously, something or another has always existed. Logic calls that God.* If you want to strip away all other traits that are commonly associated with "God" and just say that whatever has always existed is what we'll label "God," then I suppose you can do that. Just be sure you're clear that you're not then giving "God" back those characteristics, such as consciousness, morality, involvement in events on Earth, or the authorship of certain books, without further evidence of them. Freaky Facts has yet to explain how we get from "something that started the universe" to Jesus Christ and the Bible.
Alex, speaking as someone with degrees in both Philosophy and Physics, I'm extremely impressed by your analysis. Your use of logic is far superior to the weak arguments of this particular PhD in philosophy. Keep up the good work! (Yes, yes, yes, I realize my credentials are argument for authourity...I include them merely to give background information on my knowledge level.)
Hi Alex you probably wont read this but I study philosophy in year 12 and your videos have been such a help to me! holy shit (no pun intended) you have opened my eyes to many different aspects of philosophy and how to refute arguments. I've been trying to figure out why I think you cant be religious and a scientist and I think this answered my belief. still no puns intended
He looks and sounds like a stoned, sedated, half awake kid, but he words flow like a savant. (I think 💭 he may even be beyond brilliant) love this channel. Thank you 💯
One day you’re on the top of everything, not only because I wish it, but because you deserve it. How you spread your precious knowledge is astonishing and we follow you closely every day, pure admiration :-)
Hello, I want to explain why I am not believing: What is the boiling point of water ? If it is pure water under 1 atm atmosphere pressure, it is 100 degrees Celsius. You can repeat it 1000 times and you will find out that it is always the same result. But as soon as you change the atmospheric pressure, e.g. by doing the heating on mount Everest, you will find out it is boiling earlier, you can again repeat it and get the same results. By adding salt, you will find out that it is now boiling later. But under same conditions you will again get the same results. That's why it is possible to make measuring devices like a thermometer. Imagine you try to measure a temperature and you get different results under the same conditions; the measuring device would be useless. So under same conditions you get the same results F(x), under different conditions or initial variables or parameters (x) you get different results. Now to the problem, religions are promising two different results, heaven (F1) or hell (F2). What are the parameters for going to heaven (or hell), being good, having faith, being patient, being helpfull, being adequate intelligent (to have faith or not to have faith), live long enough to go to hell (babies go to heaven) etc. So, if there are two results, the initial (given) parameters (or the resultant of them) cannot be the same. So if the initial parameters for heaven or hell are differntly distributed to people, can we speak about a fair god ? Do you believe in an unfair god ? I don't.
Tbh I felt this was a bit nitpicking on the guy. I get the arguments made against him, but didnt read his arguments the same way. Like the one about a soul. I took it as more of his way of describing individuality. And I think he has a slight point. We arent all mindless robots who all think, sound, and act the same. We are all unique with our own personality. This goes for all life really. I can see it being described as a metaphorical soul.
Hey there Alex. Thank you for your video, your videos are always entertaining to watch. To your “soul” concerns, there’s a strong argument made in favor of the existence of the soul made by some rather brilliant people. I’m sure you’ve been exposed to these arguments in one form or another, but- as a recovering strict materialist myself- of for you to give a heart to what Carl Jung, David Bentley Hart and Friedrich Nitzche had to say about the existence of the soul. These are relatively modern thinkers- Nietzches the exception- who thought it was EMPIRICALLY evident that soul exists. Some claim that one must be willfully ignorant to deny the existence of one- especially after being faced with the evidence. I know this challenge interested me enough to listen. I hope it does you too
"Science is not an accumulation of facts, it is a process for deriving facts". Damn straight Lawrence. I say this every time I get the opportunity. It is, fundamentally, the difference between science and religion; science starts with evidence, then forms a conclusion, while religion starts with a conclusion and forms the evidence. That is why religious people cannot honestly claim that they rigorously examine the facts of their beliefs; the theist will study their beliefs forever and not change their beliefs because they just do not look for the evidence against their theistic claims, only seemingly positive claims that appear to bolster their beliefs.
Ok everyone, I came here just to ask a question to both sides of this argument in a civil manner. I think science has a way of answering the many questions we have in the world that are typically debated amongst many religions. For example, human origins can be widely debated in terms of creationism or evolution. Yet both serve a similar purpose it seems. To create a better understanding in a world that is so unknown to us. Religion focuses on a broader expanse of the topic while science targets the minute details that can therefore be woven for clarity. I’m not stating science disproves religion, considering science is only as effective as the mind studying the topic, but many things cause me to question religion. One being the words “God” AND “Goddess”, God implying male, and Goddess implying female. If we are looking at the world as masculine and feminine (in terms of sex and not an individuals gender identity), does something that is referred to by the masculine or feminine name imply we were not necessarily created in a creators image, but a descendant of a “higher being”? I do believe both science and religion can hold flaws, but religion is much more unorganized in my mind (not holding one specific religious affiliation but rather religion as a whole) which makes it much more confusing than a simplistic two sided (typically at most) scientific explanation. It’s all very confusing to me and I haven’t come to create conflict but rather enlighten me on your personal opinions and what I am potentially lacking. And no comments regarding ignorance of a subject should be used in this scenario considering you cannot lack knowledge on a subject that doesn’t hold 100% factual information but is rather left to speculation (religious beliefs based on preference/scientific theories that aren’t entirely backed by evidence).
Finkelstein's "The Bible Unearthed" is so valuable if you're looking for evidence that most of the Bible never happened or how it happened differently.
I vastly agree with you CosmicSeptic. I wonder however if religion is not only based on faith but on a foundation or even an application of imagination. If it is all fictional then there should be no reason for the imagination of religion continues to expand in order to make more compelling story telling. This would make more contribution to art, English literature, philosophy, community and music. Or even propose fantasy commentaries of real life through the iconography of a divine being? I agree with science over religion. But I still believe that religious ideas and stories can be relevant outside the boundaries of real life
Science strives for an accurate description of our world and religion is a tribalistic bond to a group identity. Every primitive tribe and civilized religion know that they are the true people with the true group identity. Science is intellectual and religion is based upon an instinctual drive which is why rational discussion rarely affects another person's religious views. Seeing beauty is an innate propensity that attracts us to an entity be it a mate, tree, or sky. Our intincts make us do what is needed for survival such as paying attention(beauty) to our surrounding to find something to eat and not be eaten or paying attention to the sky to figure out the weather. Excellent video.
Goodman's final assertion immediately brought to mind Sam Harris' brilliant analogy regarding brain injury objectively effecting our mental faculties and personality and yet in death we are to believe our "self" is entirely undamaged in the form of a soul that floats away.
btw: cosmicskeptic is simply code for oxforduniversity. this has to do with current geological, not infinity per se. these assertions are subject to continuing review, a fact establishing several implications somewhat familiar in this context.
"Conversely, I don't think there are many things more attractive than a glass of water on a hot, dehydrated [sic - dehydrating?] day and, what luck, this is also majorly beneficial to our survival - it's almost as if there were some process of selection which is natural that governs human evolution. Somebody should write that down." ~ Alex J. O'Connor of Cosmic Skeptic Brilliant! 🤯
I'm an atheist and I find your videos (along with Dawkins) useful for debunking the "science" of religious or creationist claims. But there is something each of you - or perhaps all of us - is missing: universal human awe at a grandiosity greater than ourselves. With religions everyone in society partakes, some forcibly sure, but for the most part in most religious societies in history most people believed and participated, and they were part of something grander. Look at the Egyptian pyramids, the Jewish temples, the intricate Islamic mosques, European Cathedrals. For that matter, even Stonehenge. Now I have no doubt that science is "true" and religion is not, but the only people who are permitted (or able) to partake in science are gatekeepers of incredible intellectual ability. Yes some amount of the low-level science is taught at school, and the occasional pop-scientist has a "for the masses" book to flog, but for the most part plebs are kept away from the most amazing parts of the frontiers of science in ways they were not kept away from religious institutions or advocates. Even the humblest of parish churches is a marvel of construction and ornamentation by even today's standards; the vicar or priest or mullah or rabbi were (are) people available to the masses throughout their entire lives. We know, from the psychological sciences, about the value and effects of ritual, community, etc., upon the mind, but whereas religions were (are) able to do this as core functions for many thousands of years it is a problem science is seemingly singularly incompetent to solve. From a social perspective, for many people reading the Bible (or other text) in leisure time has been replaced by watching Coronation Street, instead of going to Church (etc.) we take a weekly trip to the multiplex to watch computer-rendered robots beat each other up. Where as you studying? Oxford? Cambridge? Look at the buildings, inspired by the religious,and compare to the buildings of the newer universities inspired by modernity. Visit the Rosslyn Chapel outside of Edinburgh, then see how that neoclassical city is planning to dominate the skyline with a golden turd. I'm not entirely certain we have progressed half as much as we would like. files.stv.tv/imagebase/343/605x367/343071-proposed-view-from-calton-hill.jpg
I like and agree with 96% of what this guy says. I do find his delivery at times to feel...underscored with animosity. Many would say that disdain is valid in this situation so whatevs. My thing is...with naturally selected love and kindness...this kid is experiencing a noticeable deficit of charisma. I am returning to Valkai.
We have to remember though, that there's a difference between the ideas and methods of science and religion on the one hand and people who call themselves scientists and religious on the other. Actual humans don't completely encapsulate one idea or another. A religious person can be open to challenging a belief, while a scientist can be dogmatic. I believe it's important to bear that in mind when talking to people.
Alex, I'd really love to hear your thoughts on the Simulation Theory - It may not be religious but I came across it recently and it's quite a fascinating theory.
"Religion and science would be perfectly compatible, if only religion could be scientifically verified." DUDE, SCIENCE CANT EVEN EXPLAIN SCIENCE. SCIENCE CAN NOT EXPLAIN EVERYTHING
Alex, I don't argue with your points, I'm an atheist myself. I would just like to give a bit of editing advice when putting your vlogs together. Rather than a sudden jump from sequence to the next, add a fade transition. And a tip, when you cross between shots of yourself and those you may be featuring to argue a point, like Lenn Goodman, for instance, add a wipe transition effect, say, right-to-left when Mr Goodman is to appear, then left-to-right when crossing back to yourself. The use of transition effects smooths out segues from one scene or sequence to the next. I speak from experience of editing videos, initially to burn to DVD, then for upload to UA-cam. I mean no offence whatsoever.
I don't want to criticize that man much, but with the many, many times he uh-ed, paused, and stuttered, I feel like he wasn't really well prepared. I don't believe a sh*t of what he said, but I'm really satisfied when people actually argue with reasonable explanations. Even if they're arguing that their religion is the truth. But *you,* sir, -- points atAlex -- argued outstandingly. Thank you, for making my day. ^^
8:38 God - "I will cover 75% of Earth's surface with water" Humans - "Thanks a lot, god, land animals and plants need water to survive". God - "I think I will salinate all that water". ** Way to go, god, great design planning,
We don’t really know if the world is remarkably beautiful. For instance, if we lived in a world much uglier than this one, we might attribute the things that are slightly less ugly within that world as beautiful. In other words, we have no reference for beauty other than by comparison to the ugliness that exists in contrast.
Religion and science would be perfectly compatible, if only religion could be scientifically verified. What evidence would it take to make you believe in God?
Anything that's actually testable and falsifiable would be great
CosmicSkeptic if there was actual proof of a god or many gods, i feel like wouldn't bow down to said being. After all, if s/he was a god, s/he isn't doing such a good job seeing as the world has gone to shit haha
Absolute proof would be nice
I would believe in god if Caitlyn Jenner beat the 100m sprint world record currently held by Usain Bolt
CosmicSkeptic loving the content, just by the by
I recently debated a Christian preaching in my town. He said he took the Bible literally true and both the Old and New testament to be true.
Naturally I brought up slavery to which he said was moral. He said that he was glad that I (a 15 year old) was going to hell. We eventually got to a point where I brought up how I used to be a Christian, he said that I "wasnt a true Christian". Not only all this, but he thought that it was bad how Science always changes its mind. That somehow the Bible never changing is good.
I debated the most twisted and disgusting human being I have ever met who condoned slavery and wanted to see me burn forever.
This is why religion is dangerous, I understand this individual is highly immoral already, but he gets it from his religion.
If you are a member of any religious organisation, please research fully what you are identifying in. Religion is harmful at its core.
Dont be that preacher.
+-GrizzlyBear- Since he claimed slavery is moral, you should have then asked if you can enslave him and see what his reaction is. If he objects, point out how slavery is allowed in the bible and since he thinks slavery is moral he therefore has no reason to object. You will either have shown him his own hypocrisy or gotten yourself a nice housekeeper. :)
David Stagg Damn, shouldve thought of that haha
johnelee2k93 I dont think its necessary to show the irony in your insults.
No atheist abides by any rule saying that we think "slavery is ok". We dont have any rules in writing that only talk about us. What I do have is my own moral code. I base my decisions and morality off of the consequences for my actions and the effect they have on others.I follow the laws set by our society as to avoid any punishments.
If anything, religion goes against this. The Bible for example, condones slavery.
The moral argument has been refuted many times and holds no weight in the argument of a divine being.
John ama a Jesucristo
"according to atheism slavery and murder and rape and incest and mass genocide is a okay"
why do you say this? which atheist told you this? I'm asking because I am an atheist, from an 100% atheist family with many atheists friends and NO1 of these people think that way.
"you have no moral foundation to say any thing is evily."
why? gods and holy books are not necessary for a moral foundation. some decent and caring adults in your childhood, that's all you need to have a moral foundation. Again, the people in my life are the proof for this: with all their atheism and without any religious teaching, we don't hurt or steal or rape or kidnap or kill. Sometimes, many of us help random, unknown people in need. A behaviour which definitely needs solid moral foundations.
help where you can
don't be a jerk to people who ain't jerks to you.
do not start violence
see? the very basic is in these 3 lines. no gods mentioned. sure, you can be a moral person with religion in your head. but religion is not necessary to be a moral person
-GrizzlyBear- A Christian is not bound by the Old Testament Law. Some of the law still apply today, and some of the laws only applied to the people of the time. Things like dietary restrictions and things like slavery dont bind Christians today. However, moral laws, such as ‘Don’t murder’ or ‘Don’t steal’ still apply today because they still have relevance to us today. Where the line blurs, one can ask God or ask a reliable person at a church.
Also, one problem I see with the atheist’s view of subjective morality, is that you can’t tell someone else that what u think is right and wrong is superior to what they think is right and wrong. In this sense, we cannot condemn someone who has done something we believe to be evil, because they might think it to be good. If we extend it to the national law, the government is imposing its view of morality at times on criminals. A criminal may not think his murder was unjustified. However, the government does and the government is evil in the eyes of the murderer. You can tell someone, “in my opinion, what ur doing is wrong”, however, your opinion is only based on feelings.
Hey Alex, have you written a book? Are you going to write a book? You should write a book. Let me buy your book.
bb q If he wrote a book and asked you a penny for it, you still wouldn't get your money's worth. Alex has nothing valuable to add.
TAKE MY MONEY YOU BASTERRRDD
bb q give the boy a chance. He’s still at school! 😂
@@danieljackson3619 he has many interesting ideas and does have valuable things to add, you just don't like him.
Yeah he's such a smart atheist what a unpopular genius take wow we need more books about this
Alex is wise well beyond his years. I can only imagine 15-20 years down the road what he'll have done
youth do not attain wisdom,...that comes from age lived. this very young person ( alex ) meerly has a sharp mind. i only hope with time, that alex understands that science and religion can co-exist. he still has to live more life, as there are things he has to experience yet. he debates very well for his age. however he should ponder upon the first sentence in genesis: in the beginning = TIME, god created the heavens = SPACE, and the earth = MATTER. now you can look at it as it is.. or you can dissect this statement and create myriad of logical conundrums.
@@novdt what in the world 🤦♂️
he will be a priest
I was just thinking, ‘Alex hasn’t posted in a while’
A miracle! Must have been God.
+Gregory Allan
He got tired of people saying he was going for the low-hanging fruit, and spent some time climbing waaaaayyy up the tree!
+d ot
I did answer you. You just made an Argument from Personal Incredulity, which means "I/we don't understand it, therefore it must be this thing I say it is". I said that you had a poor grasp of both English and physics because you said "for being exist", which isn't grammatically correct, and because you said, "X and Y are any two atoms connected with each other by any means at any time" which is simply gibberish. If you refer to the fact that all matter exerts forces on other matter, it is physics, but if you are suggesting that the existence of one piece of matter is contingent on the existence of another piece of matter, then you need to brush up on your physics just as much as your English.
So 1) Go learn English. 2) Go learn physics. 3) Try again.
Edit to Add: If you don't wish to be mocked, don't say things worthy of ridicule.
Ｍｕｓｔ ｈａｖｅ ｂｅｅｎ Ｇ Ｏ Ｄ
Science makes nature seem far more beautiful that religion does. For example, look at a tree, appreciate the tree. "God designed this large tree for us to appreciate"", or "Through hundreds possible thousands of years this tree has been consuming carbon dioxide, making its own food, and emitting oxygen for humans to breath, and we're here to enjoy just a small fraction of its life." Which one is more beautiful? Witch understanding, and appreciation is more in tune with the world around them?
Which is more beautiful, contemplating the mysteries of our universe and acknowledging that we don't know what we don't know, or ending the adventure with three words: "God did it"?
"Mystery creates wonder and wonder is the basis of man's desire to understand." - Neil Armstrong
Well certainly the Bible makes claims about the real world. These claims can be tested. On the origin of the universe, the Earth and life, the Bible gets it wrong ! Why should we trust it for any other claims it makes ?
Exactly! I'm actually very excited that more and more people are starting to realize these things. It means that our civilization is evolving intellectually.
Well over the last 400 years or so science has explained far more about the universe and life than all the theologians and philosophers of the past ever could. The Bible is wrong on so many things, but no room for that here.
too many, more like everything XD dont flame me im just kidding, or am i..?
I've been an atheist for some 8 years (I'm 19 now), but I was never quite able to explain my skepticism and my ever growing disgust for religion and their advocates, thank you for giving me arguments and ideas 😁
You look 49
You're 22 now, right? I'm a 22yo atheist.
it seems that most religious people are still in religion because they are comfortable with this routine, you can give a thousand scientific reasons, moral, etc. and not see any reaction because it is how they lived all their lives, only my personal experience
Yeah, people don't like to admit that they've believed in a lie their whole lives. It's a very shocking and difficult realization to deal with.
Sawas Forn and he doesn't really want to show disrespect to them believing in religion, at first he was here to support the side of atheism when there were people of faith insulting the people not. But know he is here just to be able to input his thoughts and ideas into this (mostly) peaceful debate
Thats exactly right. Iv noticed its comforting believing in a deity and following a religion. They feel a sense of community and a personal cheerleader following you around. Some people need that.
Sawas Forn
Many fall into this category. I just talked to one recently irl. Very nice person. We had a great and civil conversation. Simply realize many people believe things for many different reasons. His belief was based on personal experience and faith. My position is based on evidence.
its just easier when you have a bag of given ideas, morals and rules to follow and don't have to actually think, debate, complex issues. The sense of being part of a group of people with no differences also helps a lot.
You're the only person near my age that I've met (well not even that) that has the same views and opinion as I do. It is truly a breath of fresh hair in all the mess where I have to live everyday.
well i would assume you're close to 18, that's Alex's demographic so there are a lot of us, it's just that most don't make youtube videos about it, we should make a discord group or something
Santiago Ortiz I have one, if you'd join I'd be honored/honoured: discord.gg/QHwCmy6
There are plenty of teen atheists. Just very scattered across the globe
Nothing like a breath of fresh hair
@@elperaman227 we really should make some sort of discord server
You guys have no idea how long I've been waiting for this.
I 'm considering sharing your videos with my old bible teacher. You speak so well and give evidence and use logic in such a polished manner
You are just a western godless and Souless idiot who does not know where his morals come from... Can you tell me why what you think isright or wrong in terms of morals? Your morals can change, for good or bad (our morals do not change) what about yours??? Has any godless and Souless his own morals?? (Despite we act differently our morals do not change) what about yours??? If you do not believe in God, what do you believe (as we believe in Science too, you have something less then us, right??? Do you think God to exist cares whatever you Believe in him and host Book, the Bible, western Godless idiot??? And why are you so obsessed with God??? You do not have God and a soul, just be continue your life as a Godless idiot which does not know where is morals comes from, Right??? Please answer to those questions and do not deflect you western Godless and Souless idiot. (Because be a western godless idiot is a new concept never existed before, and now you for very well, do you know idiot that believe you comes from nothing and if there is a creation there is not a creator?? 🙂...
Money, west, materialism and the modern stupidity 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😏....
when someone tells me he is a philosopher with specification in theology im equally impressed as if he told me he was an doctor with specification in homeopathy. no matter how much time he studied or teached any of both. calling the scholastics "great philosophers of medi evil" is an oxymoron itself, let alone calling neurobiology "brainscience".
Bluemonsoon
i dont really get what youre trying to say. how can someone philosophy and be stupid the same time? it literally means " love for wisdom"
Thomas Herzog I think it's more the "theologic philosophy" basically just means your a preacher
Preach it!
You are just a western godless and Souless idiot who does not know where his morals come from... Can you tell me why what you think isright or wrong in terms of morals? Your morals can change, for good or bad (our morals do not change) what about yours??? Has any godless and Souless his own morals?? (Despite we act differently our morals do not change) what about yours??? If you do not believe in God, what do you believe (as we believe in Science too, you have something less then us, right??? Do you think God to exist cares whatever you Believe in him and host Book, the Bible, western Godless idiot??? And why are you so obsessed with God??? You do not have God and a soul, just be continue your life as a Godless idiot which does not know where is morals comes from, Right??? Please answer to those questions and do not deflect you western Godless and Souless idiot. (Because be a western godless idiot is a new concept never existed before, and now you for very well, do you know idiot that believe you comes from nothing and if there is a creation there is not a creator?? 🙂...
Money, west, materialism and the modern stupidity 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😏....
@Rawlings You are just a western godless and Souless idiot who does not know where his morals come from... Can you tell me why what you think isright or wrong in terms of morals? Your morals can change, for good or bad (our morals do not change) what about yours??? Has any godless and Souless his own morals?? (Despite we act differently our morals do not change) what about yours??? If you do not believe in God, what do you believe (as we believe in Science too, you have something less then us, right??? Do you think God to exist cares whatever you Believe in him and host Book, the Bible, western Godless idiot??? And why are you so obsessed with God??? You do not have God and a soul, just be continue your life as a Godless idiot which does not know where is morals comes from, Right??? Please answer to those questions and do not deflect you western Godless and Souless idiot. (Because be a western godless idiot is a new concept never existed before, and now you for very well, do you know idiot that believe you comes from nothing and if there is a creation there is not a creator?? 🙂...
Money, west, materialism and the modern stupidity 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😏....
I don't think you're even capable of making a bad video Alex.
Sting SniperScope he can do whatever he puts his mind to
ua-cam.com/video/AGgjj1scnsE/v-deo.html
CosmicSkeptic wait but that's a parody and a really good one
You should have seen the one where he drank a quarter of a pint of lager shandy, passed out, and woke up on a boat to Belgium dressed in a rhinoceros outfit.
CosmicSkeptic Oh noooooo......
Do you ever think the reason why people only type the word "first" as the first comment is because by the time they have thought about and typed anything else, they probably have missed the chance to actually be first...
Zach Nunns true
First
why comment at all then?
Aha! But one can type out a comment to have copied, ready for a video to be posted. So they can also produce recycled shit-posts, not just say first. ;)
John Nunns I don’t understand what’s so special about being the first comment
Bruh Alex could post a 2 second video of himself eating cherios id still leave a like
Him Next Door it’s a joke dumbass
@Him Next Door they were probably just referring to finding him attractive, not really blindly following his ideas... bruuuuh....
You sound exactly like a religous fanatic. Science is just another religion.
@@danie7kovacs except science isn't a religion because science actually leads to truth and is the most effective method of doing so
Thanks for this, I’ve been hearing so much regilious nonsense yesterday, I just needed to hear a normal person talk about reality and science 😅
Science is literally waffle
Fantastic rebuttal Alex, not much of a challenge admittedly but a great video again nonetheless. Keep up the good work 😉
I am an atheist who wants to believe in God. To be forthright, this desire is for selfish and even cowardly reasons: I want an afterlife and a God is the most likely way that can happen. I think that in reality, most of us would want a god, if we thought about it a bit more. For example: I would want the god to be my kind of god. I would not want a god who provides insufficient, ambiguous evidence for his existence, and then punishes for disbelief. I would like a god with a sense of humor. The god would provide afterlife pepperoni pizzas along with a decent merlot or zinfandel. No pain, no illnesses, and rainy days only upon request. I would very much want for that god to exist.
Yeah, a desire to be a theist hinges entirely on the god in question.
Is fear of the unknown that uncomfortable?
+A Ghost Without a Past A fear of the unknown is uncomfortable enough that given an option to satisfy that discomfort, I would. Also, the god I described would be an all-around good guy. There is nothing wrong with having such a person in one's life.
Well I am a deist I believe in the concept of God's existence but chose to live off virtues rather than religious doctrines. Some of my friends call me an atheist I do not mind because it would be hard to explain to them my perspective, even though that is not the correct term. I was actually meaning to become a Buddhist, Buddhist nun, and a Hindu for a while just to acquire wisdom from them. Buddhism gave us meditation, and Hindu yoga. I really like insight this is why. When I look at religion I take things with a grain of salt and only apply things that are insightful or seen as wise. When it comes down to it no matter our stance we can learn from what we agree and disagree with it helps us learn how to think, of ourselves, and for ourselves.
Have you ever had the same dream for multiple times?
You get sassier every video and I love it😂👌
Oh shit there are so many nekos.
XV30 Lowrider eh, I don't mind. He's turning in to Hitchens.
@@vidarkol indeed it be.
Science flies you to space,
Religion flies you into buildings.
Does dream feet
science builds you atomic bomb
religion tells you who you are
@@hamidsaadi2675 yes, religion told 2 guys to slam into the twin towers
@hamid saadi - Religion tells you who you are and you're not allowed to disagree. The problem is, it lies. Sometimes deliberately. Sometimes through indoctrination, unchallenged tradition and/or wilful ignorance. The good thing about science is that it reflects reality. Religion, in contrast, twists reality, in order to preserve belief. The best thing about science is that, being grounded in reality, it actually works! Hence we are able to have this conversation. ;) :)
science gets you off the ground
Great job Alex! Perfectly explained and well articulated, as always! Keep up the good work bro.
Infact science make things even better for observations within nature. Someone whose scientifically may be able to guess how many rings a tree might have, if it has rigs, how old it may be, what kind it would it, and the properties of such wood. Religion helps no deeper appreciation of nature than the surface, on the other hand science provides incite and a story, of the likes you can not get with religion.
Science puts motherfuckers on the moon.
i know, i'm arguing for science... although i'm not sure what achievements like going to the moon has to do with appreciating nature.
I was agreeing with you. I think that seeing the entire earth from that perspective can give someone a greater appreciation of nature. If every human on earth could see the earth from that perspective we probably wouldn't be so careless with our environment as a species.
True that, I was gonna explain how science also helps witch understanding how to treat the environment, but felt my comments were turning into essays.
Industrialisation has funded and created modern science, but it has also begun to destroy the world. Science has even started to acknowledge this: hence the proposals of the Anthropocene epoch and the Holocene extinction event. Ironic that the very process that gives us our modern tools is also the thing that is destroying that which we wish to observe.
4:20 People love being told what to do. Most people just don't have what it takes to find their own goals and beauty in our universe. A book that has all the answers and sticks you into a small and comfortable world is appealing to many people. Its sorta like the suburban dream in the United States
Thank you Alex. You’re giving us all a strong 💪 voice. I support you all the way!!
You continue to produce high quality videos and your work is deeply appreciated.
You are just a western godless and Souless idiot who does not know where his morals come from... Can you tell me why what you think isright or wrong in terms of morals? Your morals can change, for good or bad (our morals do not change) what about yours??? Has any godless and Souless his own morals?? (Despite we act differently our morals do not change) what about yours??? If you do not believe in God, what do you believe (as we believe in Science too, you have something less then us, right??? Do you think God to exist cares whatever you Believe in him and host Book, the Bible, western Godless idiot??? And why are you so obsessed with God??? You do not have God and a soul, just be continue your life as a Godless idiot which does not know where is morals comes from, Right??? Please answer to those questions and do not deflect you western Godless and Souless idiot. (Because be a western godless idiot is a new concept never existed before, and now you for very well, do you know idiot that believe you comes from nothing and if there is a creation there is not a creator?? 🙂...
Money, west, materialism and the modern stupidity 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😏....
You are just a western godless and Souless idiot who does not know where his morals come from... Can you tell me why what you think isright or wrong in terms of morals? Your morals can change, for good or bad (our morals do not change) what about yours??? Has any godless and Souless his own morals?? (Despite we act differently our morals do not change) what about yours??? If you do not believe in God, what do you believe (as we believe in Science too, you have something less then us, right??? Do you think God to exist cares whatever you Believe in him and host Book, the Bible, western Godless idiot??? And why are you so obsessed with God??? You do not have God and a soul, just be continue your life as a Godless idiot which does not know where is morals comes from, Right??? Please answer to those questions and do not deflect you western Godless and Souless idiot. (Because be a western godless idiot is a new concept never existed before, and now you for very well, do you know idiot that believe you comes from nothing and if there is a creation there is not a creator?? 🙂...
Money, west, materialism and the modern stupidity 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😏.....
“Soul” the meaning in reality. A musical genre
Just saw this now... Never too late.
It makes me happy to see that there is hope for the future of rational thinking.
good job Alex !
YO! Alex, make a disstrack on Ricegum.
Would make more sense if he does a diss track on religion
Alunya
I think he's joking
Alunya well Idubbbz revived it
Alunya idubbbz is the only true god boi
Alunya you can't really judge someone if you don't even know who they are
Not all religions are against science. Only the theistic religions are . Non theistic religions like Buddhism are vastly compatible with science and the scientific method.
This just shows how little a degree or fancy title can mean... A good smackdown Alex. Outstanding work, as always.
When you factor in an omnipotent being into the equation literally "anything" can become a possibility.
Your argument that the recurrent laryngeal nerve is somehow ectopic form the ‘idealised’ position it should have is open to counterargument of course. Firstly, it is your opinion that the nerve should be in a particular position, and while a prim facia consideration of anatomy my indicate you are right, there may be other factors you have not taken into consideration.
As you probably know, in 0.5 - 1% of people the right inferior laryngeal nerve is nonrecurrent, branching off the vagus much higher, around the level of the cricoid cartilage. This nerve variation is highly associated with variation in the arrangement of the major arteries in the chest. For example, the right subclavian artery may arise from the left side of the aorta and so have to cross to the right side, posterior to the oesophagus.
Likewise, in the uncommon occurrence of a left nonrecurrent inferior laryngeal nerve there is a strong association with large arterial variations.
This may indicate the foetal development of the recurrent laryngeal nerves and the major arterial vessels are linked, and in some way interdependent. If so, this would mean the adult position is a residue of necessary developmental processes. Any thoughts when you get time?
??
This is a distraction from the point, but if you wanted to discuss this idea with a medical professional it would be legitimately relevant. Unfortunately, this is not actually relevant to the argument for or against theism/religion. He could pick any number of other flawed "designs" that would have been better explained by natural selection and evolution than any actual intellectual design. Your gall bladder or appendix are equally viable examples, as they no longer serve necessary functions to human life in the same ways that they did millenia agom
Great job Alex. I really enjoyed this one. This gentleman expresses perfectly something I have been considering lately. The human mind is capable of holding two contradictory positions, well some of them. I feel there is a real difference between the mind of an atheist and that of a theist. I can not hold on to beliefs that contradict what I conclude to be true. Some do this apparently with out effort. I find this quit baffling.
Science > Religion
'Brain Science' - *coughs* You mean neuroscience?
Sebastian Thomas cough cough neurobiology? The brain is part of the body right
@@shanehull6235 cough cough *does dream feet*
*cough* *cough* can somebody get me some cough medicine?
Nice video, Alex. Appreciate your use of evidence and citations to back up your arguments :)
"I'm a philosopher (...) i taught philosophy (...) i'm very interested in jewish philosophy and islamic philosophy"
Alright, first minute and he already showed his true self, hiding behind the word "philosopher" it's just another believer who wants to seem neutral to gain credit and promote his ideas/ology...
Replace the word "philosophy" with "fairytale".
Theists: the most dishonest bunch of fools on the face of this planet :-D
Dr Jeckyll Wow you're a buffoon. You know nothing of philosophy, do you?
John Stopman That's a very dangerous typo there, you missed the "a" in front of theist.
No, I was referring to you :-D
Ouch! Seasoned philosopher picked apart by young kid. That gotta hurt!
That's a seasoned philosopher _wearing god glasses_ picked apart by young kid, that's like beating a one legged man in an arse kicking contest.
i think you are the best summarizer of extremely complicated topics ever. thats one of the traits that sets you apart.
People all the time assure me there is ample evidence for god, but they never present it. I have been waiting for 55 years. I am fairly sure there isn't any.
The Hebrew god Yahweh could easily appear any time he felt like it and end the argument.
He can but he won't.
@@JamesRichardWiley Why not?
@@ok-vr7byprobably bcoz he doesn't exist
As a Christian Thiest myself this is a good watch and I appreciate the opening statement.
God bless science.
Alex - I love all of your work, but this one may be your best effort to date. Well done.
*Science as a process for deriving facts:* Did you know? The german word for science is "Wissenschaft" which you can translate into "creating knowledge".
i did not know, thumbs up for imparting knowledge.
FlyingTurtle Seen Mothra around lately? But seriously, I find it interesting that the root "Wi" is scattered around quite a bit to mean knowledge or wisdom. There's a word right there. I guess it's auto-reflexive. But there's witch and wif as in midwife, wise and wit. OED says these are Old English and I remember them in Chaucer. But they come from German. Thanks for the memories :)
I'd imagine "wissen" has the same root at "wise." On another note, it is sometimes called "Naturwissenschaften." I'm not gonna insult your intelligence by translating it.
Except that's not what science is. There is no such thing as a "scientific fact" and science doesn't "prove" anything. It just tells us what explanations for things in the natural world are least likely to be wrong.
This is science, from the mouth of a master of it:
ua-cam.com/video/0KmimDq4cSU/v-deo.html
Dan, the meaning of the word prove is not the strait claim you make it out to be, that's only "proof" in mathematics. Prove outside maths is just "sufficient compelling evidence in support of a claim". It ALSO means "to test", as in "whack the armour with a big hammer and if it has no significant dent, it's proven good".
And even mathematical proofs are not ABSOLUTE, they require that the axioms be correct.
"Good morning"?? It's almost 2am.
Even still 2am is TECHNICALLY morning time
Azeyzel 😖 Yes, depending upon your location on the planet . . . easy, isn't it?
Sir Meow The Library Cat no, the earth is flat and time zones are a lie. Also, the solar eclipse was really just them changing the lightbulb. Also, dinosaurs were on the ark. Also, gravity is a lie.
Also, drugs. Lots and lots of drugs. Basically all the drugs.
@@cluckeryduckery261were you on crack when you said this?
I remember you when you were just a 7k-sub boy. Now look how you've grown!
Well deserved success!
Are you going to bring back Knowledge Box? The topics were always really interesting.
UGH I WAS SKYPING MY BOYFRIEND WHEN I GOT THE NOTIFICATION FOR THIS VIDEO WHOOPS LOL
Obviously this is more important.
Alex is much more important. lol
MiaLeht it's ok babe, just get back to me when you're done.
Alex is my waifu
Omg same!!
I love your videos Alex, thank you. I love when you make mincemeat of these arguments.
Let me start off by saying: I liked the video, I'm glad you are critically evaluating claims regardless of the credentials of who holds them, or what the social acceptability of your doing so may be. Furthermore let me clarify that I am an atheist/agnostic who finds classical theism and to a greater extent Abrahamic religions immensely improbable. However, I think a lot of your criticisms were made to some extent in ignorance of the common philosophical reasoning behind many of Lenn Goodman's points, and some of your arguments were simply highly flawed. I will go in no particular chronological order:
1. Your argument against the relevance of beauty as potential teleological evidence is entirely misdirected. It is not things like why food tastes good or water seems refreshing that philosophers have a hard time explaining in terms of naturalistic processes, but rather esoteric and aesthetic beauty, which often seems far more potent than that which is essential for survival. E.g. take one of Mozart's symphonies, the Mona Lisa, or the feeling of breathtaking beauty when gazing from the top of a mountain over a great expanse of uninhabited Nature's solitude spread forth below you. Or perhaps you might consider the sheer elegance of a concise and consistent, yet explanatory powerful mathematical theorem or equation. What about the stylistic grace of a verse of poetry? The philosophical problem is explaining those things which seem deeply valuable in a way that which is related to mere survival isn't. I'm not saying there aren't good explanations, but you'll have to take a different line or perhaps pursue the one you chose much farther in order to attempt to provide an answer.
2. The fact that humans evolved in a way which had no demarcations via natural processes doesn't disprove special significance. The special significance itself could be considered to have gradually become attached to humanity. The arguments used by secular and religious alike to show the special-ness of humanity generally rely on characteristics humans don't share with other animals like language (abstract symbolism if you want to be technical), reason (notions of causality combined with time), logic (more or less a combination of the former two), self-awareness (in the sense of being self-aware of one's own self-awareness), love (in the sense of deliberately choosing the good of another even potentially in the face of personal loss), and morality (beyond, or at least seemingly beyond, mere instinct, even if it did arise from such). Unless you can show that other animals share most of these traits (good luck with that), or that a gradual acquisition of "special-ness" is somehow logically fallacious, than I don't see why even non-religious people shouldn't consider humans special compared to other animals (as I do).
3. He said "scientistic" not "scientific" fundamentalists. What he's probably referring to are people who take the rather shallow intellectual view that science is all of real knowledge, thus intentionally eschewing most of aesthetics, ethics, philosophy, and sometimes even history, while also not realizing that a consistent formulation of their epistemology would also invalidate much of math, logic, and perhaps even the basis of science itself, not to mention cause most of their everyday beliefs to become unjustifiably held. For example, one might look to some of what Lawrence Krauss has written about to be essentially scientistic, such as when he criticizes philosophy as a useless endeavor, not realizing that he's engaging in (relatively poor) philosophy himself, nor what the implications of what he espouses are.
I will say that some of what you said was really good though, the bit about science as a methodology of arriving at truth in a highly reliable fashion, or how any claim, religious or otherwise needs evidence before it ought to be seriously considered. If anyone actually read this far btw, good job, you are living proof that not everyone in modern society is incapable of concentrating for long periods of time, or engaging with substantive arguments. :)
Alex the titan
♡.♡
Alex, keep up the good work, hopefully you will be our new younger version of the great and late Christopher Hitchens,
All we need is your generation to listen and learn from your videos, Cheers
Anyone else annoyed at how many times this old guy kept smacking his lips?
David Frey
Didn't notice until you said something! Damn you! Hehe
David Frey
A tick caused by dishonesty perhaps?
Fk now I hear it!
Scientific theories we have evidence for whilst religion is build on faith
Faith = Fiction
so what if you put your faith in a person? your definition of faith ins't very compatible with the real one but I get what you mean.. still not going to get you far in a debate
That is the gist of it. Well put.
Alex, I wish I had been able to pull it together a quarter as much as you have when I was your age. You've got a bright future ahead of you!
Step 1. Watch video
Step 2. Take IQ test.
Step 3. IQ test comes back with an higher score than before.
Step 4. Like video.
CosmicSkeptic, did you try to prank us?Did you picked a bum off the street and told him to ramble 5 minutes about nothing, so that you can debunk him?
I love the video (as with all of your videos). One quip: nothing is 'proven' except in a court of law or math/logic. Shown or evidenced are more science-based words for provisions of fact. When someone wants me to 'believe' that souls exist, I don't want them to prove it to me. I want them to show me evidence of purported existence in a way that stands up to scientific scrutiny.
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind" - Einstein
I’m good with science without it’s pseudo counterpart, thanks.
@@Jaaz7 What psuedo counterpart?
Disappointing video. If you want to debate him, then invite him to do so. Sniping at his comments when he doesn't have the opportunity to provide a rebuttal seems cowardly.
Some kid without qualifications does know better indeed! I don't know why but it's extremely satisfying when stubborn social assumptions are thrown out the window (i.e. that only academics have the authority to retain and validate knowledge). Keep up the good work you are smashing it.
The pure hypocrisy of theists telling atheists to study science to find their god.
Peace
You can't think of any logical arguments so you just fling insults around?
science
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
faith
noun
strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
Peace
@johnloves jesus
Someone has not been reading their Bible have they John, · Matthew chapter 5 v 22 "but whoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell-fire" as the carpenter of Nazareth said, and I'm sure adding retarded doesn't help either.
I've read ugly comments from both theists and atheists but I must say that if it were a contest the atheists win the "ugly comments award" hands down.
Nope, theists with the "ugly comments award" hands down. (this comment brought to you with exactly as much explanation as the OP's post.)
Yet to hear an Atheist claim a Theist should, will and deserves to burn forever for using their own mind.
That to me is one of the most "Ugly" contention ever made.
My thoughts: Why did god show himself and/or talk to certain humans (according to the bible) but he doesn’t now? There is no logical reason why he can’t now. If god created all creatures on the earth, why did he create tapeworm which are parasites that live inside humans. Surely no loving god would create such a creature. I used to be super religious (a Jehovah’s Witness) but I left the religion years ago as I wanted to live my own life my own way. However I still believed in god, but over the years have changed my way of thinking, have become more analytical and now I am essentially an atheist. Of course the internet helps to open everyone’s mind and become more knowledgeable about all manner of subjects.
Alex is so eloquent. He talks like an academic who has been privately educated. I agree with him that that old man who is a philosopher just seemed to ramble on and actually none of anything he said made sense. Thanks for the video Alex. I came here as I saw you on JWSurvey channel.
Why isn't God showing himself today? Well, it's actually quite simple. You see, God did show himself 2000 years ago, and sinful man crucified him. Because of this, God suffered great pain. Not physical pain, mind you, since an omnipotent being probably couldn't feel that. I'm talking about the emotional pain of being rejected by the mortals at the time. As a result, God has spent the last few days in Heaven, alone, crying into his pillow. "But wait," you ask, "if he only spent a few days crying like a teenage girl, why is he still not here?" Well, you have to remember that a day to us is a thousand years to God. Or...wait...scratch that, it's the other way around. Or something.
Look, the point is, God is going to be sitting at home with the lights off, eating a bucket of ice cream while watching romantic comedies for a while, so don't expect to see him anytime soon.
I was a devout atheist for a very long time until I was forced to confront a question that you seem to sidestep, as indeed most all atheists seem to: the origins of the universe.
The Big Bang theory cannot explain what happened before its occurrence to account for what caused it, and all resulting matter, to be produced.
Likewise if something existed before the Big Bang, and triggered the Big Bang itself, then from whence did that energy originate?
If we concede that something cannot materialize from true nothingness, then no matter how far we proceed down the chain leading to the origin of all existence we will always be left with the same question: from whence did that energy originate?
Something can not come from nothing, and such a notion completely contradicts our understanding of chemistry and thermodynamics.
As hard as it is to live by the Bible, because the flesh screams out to sin, I have had to concede to this fact in my own life, and submit to Christ. Following Jesus is seen as the easy path, a cop out to hide from "reality", or a step taken in ignorance. Truth be told you will never see how much of a stranglehold sin has on your life until you try to turn from it only to realize that you truly can not do it alone.
+Freaky Facts "If we concede that something cannot materialize from true nothingness,"
Then you would be forced to explain where god comes from and what created god, otherwise you are guilty of special pleading. Also, even I was to 100% concede that your "argument" proves without a shadow of a doubt that god exists, how in the hell do you jump from that to "therefore the bible is true"? Are you saying you can't figure out a way for the god that created the universe to be a different god from your bible? Because I sure can, it's not that hard.
Freaky Facts
Most atheists do not sidestep the origins of the universe. They just don't jump to unfounded conclusions about it.
The Big Bang theory cannot explain what happened before its occurrence because it is not intended to. It explains what happened after that initial singularity, about which we know very little. Pointing this out as if it were a deficiency in the theory, as you have here, is like pointing out that the owner's manual of your car doesn't tell how to make a souffle.
Your other fallacious points have already been addressed by Clade Starfish and David Stagg, but David Stagg's point bears repeating. Tell us what steps of logic got you from "something that triggered the Big Bang" to Jesus Christ and the Bible, and then we'll have an interesting conversation. I'd consider it almost virtually certain that you chose Christianity for far more irrational and circumstantial reasons than the logical thought process you apply to the origin of the universe.
Freaky Facts Just flick a lighter:
Where do you think the flame came from? It apeared from nothingness.. it's the effect of combustion, it's neither fuel nor oxygen, it is fire.
And where do you think it goes when you let the button go?
Nowhere, it just stops.
I don't know about you but if fire can pop in and out of existence, why not the universe...
The big bang did not create something from nothing. It was an infinitely dense singularity that become so dense it had to expand. It did not go "boom" and then create new matter.
Bluemonsoon
*God's existence is self-evident.*
No, it isn't. Do you even know what "self-evident" means? It means no other evidence is required. Pointing at the universe or DNA or anything else besides God himself is using other evidence.
*By definition, God is eternal, the universe is not by definition.*
Also wrong. The universe is not a human concept that came into being by us defining it. It may or may not be eternal, but we have to observe it sufficiently to determine that one way or the other, and so far we haven't. By contrast, God is a concept that some people _have_ defined as eternal, but doing so is not proof that he actually exists.
*Obviously, something or another has always existed. Logic calls that God.*
If you want to strip away all other traits that are commonly associated with "God" and just say that whatever has always existed is what we'll label "God," then I suppose you can do that. Just be sure you're clear that you're not then giving "God" back those characteristics, such as consciousness, morality, involvement in events on Earth, or the authorship of certain books, without further evidence of them. Freaky Facts has yet to explain how we get from "something that started the universe" to Jesus Christ and the Bible.
"The Laws of Nature are not designed but products of statistical averages"
Bertrand Russell
Alex, speaking as someone with degrees in both Philosophy and Physics, I'm extremely impressed by your analysis. Your use of logic is far superior to the weak arguments of this particular PhD in philosophy. Keep up the good work! (Yes, yes, yes, I realize my credentials are argument for authourity...I include them merely to give background information on my knowledge level.)
Absolutely, 100%, without a doubt one of the best channels on UA-cam.
Alex, i definitely believe you will become the next Hitchins. Great videos. Keep it up.
cb6airsoft Hitchens was an arrogant amateur, his arguments were absolutely frivolous and shallow.
Hi Alex you probably wont read this but I study philosophy in year 12 and your videos have been such a help to me! holy shit (no pun intended) you have opened my eyes to many different aspects of philosophy and how to refute arguments. I've been trying to figure out why I think you cant be religious and a scientist and I think this answered my belief. still no puns intended
He looks and sounds like a stoned, sedated, half awake kid, but he words flow like a savant. (I think 💭 he may even be beyond brilliant) love this channel. Thank you 💯
One day you’re on the top of everything, not only because I wish it, but because you deserve it. How you spread your precious knowledge is astonishing and we follow you closely every day, pure admiration :-)
Hello, I want to explain why I am not believing:
What is the boiling point of water ? If it is pure water under 1 atm atmosphere pressure, it is 100 degrees Celsius. You can repeat it 1000 times and you will find out that it is always the same result. But as soon as you change the atmospheric pressure, e.g. by doing the heating on mount Everest, you will find out it is boiling earlier, you can again repeat it and get the same results. By adding salt, you will find out that it is now boiling later. But under same conditions you will again get the same results. That's why it is possible to make measuring devices like a thermometer. Imagine you try to measure a temperature and you get different results under the same conditions; the measuring device would be useless.
So under same conditions you get the same results F(x), under different conditions or initial variables or parameters (x) you get different results.
Now to the problem, religions are promising two different results, heaven (F1) or hell (F2). What are the parameters for going to heaven (or hell), being good, having faith, being patient, being helpfull, being adequate intelligent (to have faith or not to have faith), live long enough to go to hell (babies go to heaven) etc.
So, if there are two results, the initial (given) parameters (or the resultant of them) cannot be the same. So if the initial parameters for heaven or hell are differntly distributed to people, can we speak about a fair god ? Do you believe in an unfair god ? I don't.
16:07 ‘... and sharing and receiving.’
Tbh I felt this was a bit nitpicking on the guy. I get the arguments made against him, but didnt read his arguments the same way. Like the one about a soul. I took it as more of his way of describing individuality. And I think he has a slight point. We arent all mindless robots who all think, sound, and act the same. We are all unique with our own personality. This goes for all life really. I can see it being described as a metaphorical soul.
Hey there Alex. Thank you for your video, your videos are always entertaining to watch. To your “soul” concerns, there’s a strong argument made in favor of the existence of the soul made by some rather brilliant people. I’m sure you’ve been exposed to these arguments in one form or another, but- as a recovering strict materialist myself- of for you to give a heart to what Carl Jung, David Bentley Hart and Friedrich Nitzche had to say about the existence of the soul. These are relatively modern thinkers- Nietzches the exception- who thought it was EMPIRICALLY evident that soul exists. Some claim that one must be willfully ignorant to deny the existence of one- especially after being faced with the evidence. I know this challenge interested me enough to listen. I hope it does you too
"Science is not an accumulation of facts, it is a process for deriving facts". Damn straight Lawrence. I say this every time I get the opportunity. It is, fundamentally, the difference between science and religion; science starts with evidence, then forms a conclusion, while religion starts with a conclusion and forms the evidence. That is why religious people cannot honestly claim that they rigorously examine the facts of their beliefs; the theist will study their beliefs forever and not change their beliefs because they just do not look for the evidence against their theistic claims, only seemingly positive claims that appear to bolster their beliefs.
Ok everyone, I came here just to ask a question to both sides of this argument in a civil manner.
I think science has a way of answering the many questions we have in the world that are typically debated amongst many religions. For example, human origins can be widely debated in terms of creationism or evolution. Yet both serve a similar purpose it seems. To create a better understanding in a world that is so unknown to us. Religion focuses on a broader expanse of the topic while science targets the minute details that can therefore be woven for clarity.
I’m not stating science disproves religion, considering science is only as effective as the mind studying the topic, but many things cause me to question religion.
One being the words “God” AND “Goddess”, God implying male, and Goddess implying female. If we are looking at the world as masculine and feminine (in terms of sex and not an individuals gender identity), does something that is referred to by the masculine or feminine name imply we were not necessarily created in a creators image, but a descendant of a “higher being”?
I do believe both science and religion can hold flaws, but religion is much more unorganized in my mind (not holding one specific religious affiliation but rather religion as a whole) which makes it much more confusing than a simplistic two sided (typically at most) scientific explanation.
It’s all very confusing to me and I haven’t come to create conflict but rather enlighten me on your personal opinions and what I am potentially lacking.
And no comments regarding ignorance of a subject should be used in this scenario considering you cannot lack knowledge on a subject that doesn’t hold 100% factual information but is rather left to speculation (religious beliefs based on preference/scientific theories that aren’t entirely backed by evidence).
Finkelstein's "The Bible Unearthed" is so valuable if you're looking for evidence that most of the Bible never happened or how it happened differently.
I vastly agree with you CosmicSeptic.
I wonder however if religion is not only based on faith but on a foundation or even an application of imagination.
If it is all fictional then there should be no reason for the imagination of religion continues to expand in order to make more compelling story telling.
This would make more contribution to art, English literature, philosophy, community and music. Or even propose fantasy commentaries of real life through the iconography of a divine being?
I agree with science over religion. But I still believe that religious ideas and stories can be relevant outside the boundaries of real life
Well done, Alex. Your ability to be respectful but not a pushover serves you well in these response videos.
That end note transitioning to the sign off killed me 💀
Science strives for an accurate description of our world and religion is a tribalistic bond to a group identity. Every primitive tribe and civilized religion know that they are the true people with the true group identity. Science is intellectual and religion is based upon an instinctual drive which is why rational discussion rarely affects another person's religious views. Seeing beauty is an innate propensity that attracts us to an entity be it a mate, tree, or sky. Our intincts make us do what is needed for survival such as paying attention(beauty) to our surrounding to find something to eat and not be eaten or paying attention to the sky to figure out the weather. Excellent video.
Goodman's final assertion immediately brought to mind Sam Harris' brilliant analogy regarding brain injury objectively effecting our mental faculties and personality and yet in death we are to believe our "self" is entirely undamaged in the form of a soul that floats away.
btw: cosmicskeptic is simply code for oxforduniversity. this has to do with current geological, not infinity per se. these assertions are subject to continuing review, a fact establishing several implications somewhat familiar in this context.
Long time no see, I've did and watched other stuff, but it's nice to see you again, so hello!
"Conversely, I don't think there are many things more attractive than a glass of water on a hot, dehydrated [sic - dehydrating?] day and, what luck, this is also majorly beneficial to our survival - it's almost as if there were some process of selection which is natural that governs human evolution. Somebody should write that down."
~ Alex J. O'Connor of Cosmic Skeptic
Brilliant! 🤯
I'm an atheist and I find your videos (along with Dawkins) useful for debunking the "science" of religious or creationist claims. But there is something each of you - or perhaps all of us - is missing: universal human awe at a grandiosity greater than ourselves. With religions everyone in society partakes, some forcibly sure, but for the most part in most religious societies in history most people believed and participated, and they were part of something grander. Look at the Egyptian pyramids, the Jewish temples, the intricate Islamic mosques, European Cathedrals. For that matter, even Stonehenge. Now I have no doubt that science is "true" and religion is not, but the only people who are permitted (or able) to partake in science are gatekeepers of incredible intellectual ability. Yes some amount of the low-level science is taught at school, and the occasional pop-scientist has a "for the masses" book to flog, but for the most part plebs are kept away from the most amazing parts of the frontiers of science in ways they were not kept away from religious institutions or advocates. Even the humblest of parish churches is a marvel of construction and ornamentation by even today's standards; the vicar or priest or mullah or rabbi were (are) people available to the masses throughout their entire lives. We know, from the psychological sciences, about the value and effects of ritual, community, etc., upon the mind, but whereas religions were (are) able to do this as core functions for many thousands of years it is a problem science is seemingly singularly incompetent to solve. From a social perspective, for many people reading the Bible (or other text) in leisure time has been replaced by watching Coronation Street, instead of going to Church (etc.) we take a weekly trip to the multiplex to watch computer-rendered robots beat each other up. Where as you studying? Oxford? Cambridge? Look at the buildings, inspired by the religious,and compare to the buildings of the newer universities inspired by modernity. Visit the Rosslyn Chapel outside of Edinburgh, then see how that neoclassical city is planning to dominate the skyline with a golden turd. I'm not entirely certain we have progressed half as much as we would like.
files.stv.tv/imagebase/343/605x367/343071-proposed-view-from-calton-hill.jpg
Lol...Alex.
The sarcasm..."uhh no..we don't really need your help..."
I like and agree with 96% of what this guy says. I do find his delivery at times to feel...underscored with animosity. Many would say that disdain is valid in this situation so whatevs.
My thing is...with naturally selected love and kindness...this kid is experiencing a noticeable deficit of charisma.
I am returning to Valkai.
Wow. Truly very well-done. Intelligent, cohesive, and smooth. :)
We have to remember though, that there's a difference between the ideas and methods of science and religion on the one hand and people who call themselves scientists and religious on the other. Actual humans don't completely encapsulate one idea or another. A religious person can be open to challenging a belief, while a scientist can be dogmatic. I believe it's important to bear that in mind when talking to people.
I like how you have an anatomical shark model and a wooden play button in the background
Alex, I'd really love to hear your thoughts on the Simulation Theory - It may not be religious but I came across it recently and it's quite a fascinating theory.
Game: take a sip of water every time that man says "ah" because it is important to stay hydrated
"Religion and science would be perfectly compatible, if only religion could be scientifically verified." DUDE, SCIENCE CANT EVEN EXPLAIN SCIENCE. SCIENCE CAN NOT EXPLAIN EVERYTHING
says someone using a computer on a world-wide network
Alex, I don't argue with your points, I'm an atheist myself. I would just like to give a bit of editing advice when putting your vlogs together. Rather than a sudden jump from sequence to the next, add a fade transition. And a tip, when you cross between shots of yourself and those you may be featuring to argue a point, like Lenn Goodman, for instance, add a wipe transition effect, say, right-to-left when Mr Goodman is to appear, then left-to-right when crossing back to yourself. The use of transition effects smooths out segues from one scene or sequence to the next. I speak from experience of editing videos, initially to burn to DVD, then for upload to UA-cam. I mean no offence whatsoever.
I don't want to criticize that man much, but with the many, many times he uh-ed, paused, and stuttered, I feel like he wasn't really well prepared. I don't believe a sh*t of what he said, but I'm really satisfied when people actually argue with reasonable explanations. Even if they're arguing that their religion is the truth.
But *you,* sir, -- points atAlex -- argued outstandingly. Thank you, for making my day. ^^
onya alex, keep up the great work, you articulate and explain the things i often think about..ta bud
8:38 God - "I will cover 75% of Earth's surface with water"
Humans - "Thanks a lot, god, land animals and plants need water to survive".
God - "I think I will salinate all that water".
** Way to go, god, great design planning,
Ignorance about nature, oh well atheist in a nutshell 😂
@@ga4214 R/Whooosh
We don’t really know if the world is remarkably beautiful. For instance, if we lived in a world much uglier than this one, we might attribute the things that are slightly less ugly within that world as beautiful. In other words, we have no reference for beauty other than by comparison to the ugliness that exists in contrast.