Richard Carrier "Why Science is Better Than Religion and Always Has Been" Skepticon One Redux
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 жов 2024
- New Richard Carrier Interview here:
• Richard Carrier Interv...
Filmed and edited by Rob Lehr of Hambone Productions. Re-uploading any portion of this video is not allowed unless consent is given by Hambone Productions. If you would like to use some of my footage, please send me a PM and we can most likely work something out.
Please visit Skepticon.org
Purchasing calenders and making donations enable us to keep Skepticon 3 free to the public. If you liked the videos and/or the event, please consider donating or purchasing merchandise.
![Would We Be Better Off Without Religion? - Christopher Hitchens [2007] ✝️ | Intelligence Squared](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DIR7_X-ahy4/mqdefault.jpg)
![Would We Be Better Off Without Religion? - Christopher Hitchens [2007] ✝️ | Intelligence Squared](/img/tr.png)
![The Origin of Life: Evolution vs. Design [Full Debate]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2CnZ3n8I5b8/mqdefault.jpg)
This guy makes complete sense. You really have no basis to argue his points. The best atheist ever. Thank You, Richard.
Daniel Griffith I have no basis to argue his points? What points? He considers nothing. He just says enough that non-thinking people listen and have a brain fart. Good luck with your growth. P.S. God can help.
+Thomas Troxel:
"P.S. God can help."
==When?
Another example > We live in the third dimension, right? Well God is outside of it( maybe in the fourth or even further ). He is always above us and outside of us. Think about it like this. Take 2 HOSES.. And put the one with the smaller diameter inside the one with the bigger. See? we, our universe exist in the smaller one and God is in the bigger. We are limited by ours and we can't see outside of it but God can оbserve us. And also in such way our thinking and knowledge is limited. Just because we can't see outside of the present level of science DOES NOT mean that there is nothing outside of it!
@@thetruthwillblowyouaway6028 give even the slightest bit of verifiable evidence or you are one of the people he is describing in the video. Everything the religious side has claimed, that can be tested, has been proven wrong and now we have yet another religious claim. What are the odds some guy posting on UA-cam comments has it all figured out? Please just state a single test you used to confirm you god hose hypothesis
Another example > We live in the third dimension, right? Well, God is outside of it( maybe in the fourth or even further ). He is always above us and outside of us.
Think about it like this. Take 2 HOSES.. And put the one with the smaller diameter inside the one with the bigger.
See? we, our universe exist in the smaller one and God is in the bigger. We are limited by ours and we can't see outside of it but God can оbserve us.
And also in such way our thinking and knowledge is limited. Just because we can't see outside of the present level of science DOES NOT mean that there is nothing outside of it!
Questions like but where God came from and what was before the big bang are so immature.
Maybe we are not supposed to know that! Let me ask you > if right now we have some advanced quantum computer and we simulate a universe and the beings inside of it have consciousness just like us, they won't know more than what we have given them to know. They won't know that they are inside of some computer and that outside of this computer there is existence.
Maybe we are the same. WE ARE NOT PROGRAMMED to ever know what is outside of our universe and what caused the so-called big-bang.
See? We just lack that in our source code. It is not embedded there by our creators. AND THIS IS WHY WE WALK BY FAITH NOT BY SIGHT.
We must be tested, to see who of us are good(think of each one of us as a separate program). And just as programs are tested to see which are good and ready for further development so we are also being tested in this life.
It is impossible that everything happened by chance. There must be someone to cause it or at least to kick it forward, you know.
Some people refuse to believe in a creator because their ego, pride and self-esteem is too high. THEY CANNOT ACCEPT THAT THERE IS SOMEONE GREATER THAN THEM.
Yeah this camera work is rough. But the talk is fascinating. It's best to treat it like a podcast.
The idea of connecting "is" and "ought" statements by proposing the whole thing as a conditional statement was brilliant.
Or I'm just easily impressed :p
Whoever was operating the camera should be banned from operating a camera ever again for the rest of their life until the end of time.
Yeah! I stopped watching about 2 minutes in and just opted to listen to the presentation. But to be fair, such camera movements were effective for "NYPD Blue" and "The Blair Witch Project".
g1a1r1y3 So where's my +1 or thumbs up? :D
On another note, I watched another R. Carrier lecture where he frequently guzzles water. That is so rude! It's like someone repeatedly burping in your ear. I've run across that in lectures from other people as well. I really hate it.
Duly +1d. ;) I think I know which other presentation to which you refer. I saw one where he gave a lecture on the existence of Jesus and he would guzzle water down like gas down an SUV! Worse was that he would stop mid-sentence to drink water, smack his lips, and it would echo through the microphone. I had to "listen" to that one too!
EdWittenen 🤣😂🤣😂🤣
Just thought I'd leave a reply 4 years later to say that the camera man/woman is still causing pain. Ugh.
I wish these guys wouldn't drag out these ridiculous terms like "scientific religion". I mean I know what he's getting at, but it's imprecise and vague.
When people don't need god anymore...god ceases to exist. When there is no more god to believe in, human beings grow with knowledge and wisdom. It is at this point as an intelligent species we regain our human dignity.
Porslice56 : You are sooooo right!
The most coherent refutation of God and Faith (aka nonsense) EVER. Even more articulate and compelling than the great Christopher Hitchens.
This is Carrier's best talk as it doesn't gratuitously poke fun at religion and doesn't fail to show and explain the validity of his archeological findings. Here, he builds each of them, religion and science, from the ground up and compares them, using simple reasoning and common human intuition to show the comparison, religion defeated by science time after time. Morality from the ground up as well. Nice talk.
I think who videoed this must have just discovered how the zoom works.
"Faith,Intuition and Insight,untested and unsupported,are insufficient guarantee of Truth"....Bertrand Russell(1872-1970)
The comments for this video are delicious.
Mr. Lehr, thank you for re-uploading this lecture in one piece. It will be featured.
wish i had open my eyes long ago!!!!
All eyes and brains are subjective so don't be too sure your eyes are open to anything other than the dangers of credulity and supposition that you do or can 'Know' anything.
@Toughen Up, Fluffy not a hard solipsist...just a diligent skeptic
Seyton Seek an exorcist priest role open you're eyes to a lot of things.
watch the devil and father amorth trailer.
Thanks for posting these talks, Hambone. I have been really enjoying them.
@deemzje My pleasure, Thank you for your appreciation. Everything that I do is volunteer so It is very nice to receive encouragement.
I might have to re-upload this talk, aspect ratio issues. My raws are in 16x9 and somehow this got cut in 4x3. If the consensus among viewers is such were it is fine the way it is, please let me know and I will leave it be.
The first thing I learned in English 101 in college: you can't make an argument that something is "better." You may prefer it, but that doesn't make it "better."
3:50 I think the merchants run out of the marketplace would disagree that Jesus rejected "any and all violence".
Don't forget right before that when Jesus comes across a fig tree that's out of season and he curses it because it didn't have fruit for him when he was hungry.
And of course Luke 19:27
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. Says gentle loving Jesus...
goodfella21f One almost gets the impression he was schizophrenic, or may be, just maybe, the words attributed to him, came from several other people.
No surely not Tony...
Or we aren't reading the text in the correct context, or of course the tried and tested broken god goggles problem...
Tony Hopkinson Indeed, the context is a parable that Jesus is telling his followers, the line you quoted is from a fictional allegorical story inside the fictional biblical story. The words of Luke 19:27 are spoken by a character in that parable who is not Jesus himself (although he can be interpreted as an allegory for a figure like Jesus). The parable is also featured in Matthew 25. See wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_talents_or_minas. I am not trying to defend christianity in any way, I just think is it easier and better to criticize it in an informed manner.:-)
ivorysand I shall amend my language when using it henceforth. So basically we have yet another passage in the bible that someone can justify squinting at?
Hurrah, there weren't enough of them, christians were starting to struggle when trying to make the book of their gods thought conveniently match their own...
You're right that an atheist has no reason to be honest when no one is looking. An atheist is only concerned with one thing, and that is the rejection of theories that rely on god. However, no atheist is just an atheist. I'm an atheist, but I'm also a humanist, a naturalist, an empiricist, a rationalist. I'm a brother and a son. I'm a lover, I'm a fighter. It's not those things which we refuse to believe in that define who we are and what we do, it's the things we do believe in.
An Historian who quotes Bill & Ted...? Excellent!...
ralphyetmore a historian...not "an" historian
@@tshirtfactory07 don't be a asshole
Most excellent!
Ha ha! Jesus didn't know washing his hands kills germs and prevents illnesses. That's just gross!! 😲
when 'some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem' and found the disciples of Jesus ignoring the rabbinical rules about cleanness, they objected and made their objections known to Jesus: 'They don't wash their hands before they eat!' This is not a reference to defective hygiene. They were not suggesting that the disciples' hands were actually dirty, but merely that they had not performed a ritual cleansing before eating.Then Jesus called to the crowd to come and hear. “Listen,” he said, “and try to understand. It’s not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; you are defiled by the words that come out of your mouth.”It has nothing to do with being clean.. Bible readers understand this..
Medical students and their professors at the elite teaching hospitals of this era typically began their day performing barehanded autopsies on the women who had died the day before of childbed fever. They then proceeded to the wards to examine the laboring women about to deliver their babies.
Just trying to get Doctors to wash their hands proved almost impossible..
Dr. Semmelweis was brilliant but had two strikes against him when applying for a position at the Vienna General Hospital in 1846: he was Hungarian and Jewish. Medicine and surgery were considered to be the premier specialties in Vienna but because of his background and religion Semmelweis was relegated to running the less desirable division of obstetrics. Nevertheless, his claim to immortality was the result of an obsession with finding the means to end the childbed fever epidemics that were killing nearly a third of his patients. So thousands of people died needlessly because this man was Jewish.. it took decades for them to realize this man was right..
Batmandeltaforce, every sentence you wrote is false. Nine sentences. Every one false.
It's interesting how he also blocked replies. shows how much value his vacuous statements really have.
Beautiful arguments. No hate. It's a pleasure to watch this.
While I am not an Atheist I have vast respect for this man and the way he presents, and his information and his speaking style.
I would love to attend one of his live speeches.
Presented with new information that cucks god into oblivion n you still bend the knee to a being that isnt even there? 2+2=5 if jesus says so type huh?
Are you human?
Are you familiar with us?
We are the largest group on the planet
and the dominant species.
If you are a Human Being, then say so?
Learn what you really are????
Yeah, I really don't get how some religious people say the earth was created in 7 24 hour days and is only a few thousand years old. I believe Genesis is a metaphor and God was in control of the physical processes and the morphing of the energy to create the universe, but not that He waived a magic wand and boom stuff came up.
Videos like this always bring the creationists and believers running to try and discredit the speaker and the ideas presented, and this one was no different. It's disheartening to me, seeing all these poor delusional people spreading the misinformation and lies propagated by creationist websites and apologists in a vain attempt to maintain their delusions, but I'm gladdened to see the number of responses to those untruths by rational and sane people. Maybe there IS hope for us after all.
@Steve - 1) If some choice he makes actually hurt someone that does not disprove all the FACTS that he brings to light about the great deception you are under and all the harmful effects your belief brings to you, your kids ( if you have them) and society at large. 2) people are individuals so it possible that the women he has relations with are evolved to the point that they are not only not harmed but are actually benefiting. You are practicing moral absolutism and YOU ARE judging by a standard that has a) been prove to be a lie and b) is your uninformed opinion because you do not know these individuals. 3) the old testament can't possibly be the beginning story to the new testament for the simple reason that it clearly says that "the most high" is the only true GOD and the new testament turns around and invents two new GODS. Case closed.
@ great points - nicely written
@Steve - so, where is the line>? would it be anyone who is atheist can't know morality>? would it anyone who doesn't believe in some form of Christianity>? would be anyone that doesn't believe in your form of Christianity? can you see how slippery the slope is?
@Steve - wow, I guess I struck a nerve - frankly you are to stupid to waste my time trying to educate
@Steve - you are a big bag of assumptions
Lone Rook If you want to disagree with the speaker then disagree with his message but not with his right to deliver it
How many times do I have to keep making the mistake of reading UA-cam comments?
1) You seem to not understand what science is, or how it works(I've read some of your comments). First, I borrowed no arguments, only pointed out how religious people can be fine scientists, as long as they go where the evidence leads, as Dr. Miller does. Second, borrowing from the work of others, standing on the shoulders of those who came before you is how science works. Third. science doesn't :prove things", what science does is make models of reality, based on evidence and reason(...)
"Atheism is not a belief that deities do not exist, it is an assertion thereof though." - I have seen atheists like that but that only a narrow set of them. "Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist." - Wikipedia's definition and the definition of most dictionaries. The vast majority fall into the 2nd category (some only when pressed hard enough with questions).
Everyone of the scientists you mentioned accepted the evidence and would change position based on new evidence. Richard acknowledge these principles repeatedly, especially with Galen, who with science and the evidence available at the time, showed intelligent design to be a valid theory, and he would have changed his mind in the face of new evidence. Over and over he explains that the incompatibility is between unsupported supernaturalism and evidence based empiricism.
Being unreasonable isn't a virtue, but simply a constant to human existence.
Being reasonable is necessary to efficiently fix issues. Being perfectly reasonable all the time is tiring as fuck.
Perhaps most of the people who have been through academic environments in developed nations have adapted themselves out of the need for religiosity, but the rest of the world doesn't have a need to even explore or break down these concepts; only to experience them and link them to their everyday life.
You made a claim. Your claim was, "You have provided proof to me that you have not really read the Bible." You then don't list the supposed "proof" I gave you as to I have never read the Bible. Fact is, I have read it. I was an Evangelical Christian for 6 years.
My whole point is that your religion isn't based on evidence, proof, or reasonable expectations. How did you refute my claim in your latest post?
I don't have "faith" in the pilot, because there can be things that happen to the plane that are outside the pilots control. I also don't get on a plane "knowing" that I'll get there in a safe manner, that's part of the risk. But that also doesn't mean I put "faith" in the pilot, the plane or anything. I have reasonable expectations based on evidence and past experience that I can get there safely, but it's not a guarantee.
Loser talk? Nice attempt at dodging the question. Does someone need to have credentials on a subject matter if they speak the truth? Simple question. Fortunately for the rest of the world, you do not get to decide when someone can and can not speak at a conference.
As said before, its your opinion and your entitled to it.
I simply believe that God built this universe with mathematics and physical sciences in mind. It sounds crazy to you, but feel free to believe otherwise.
Richard Carrier, Education: BA (History), MA (Ancient history), MPhil (Ancient history), PhD (Ancient history)
Alma mater: University of California, Berkeley, Columbia University
Very easy to find for those willing to look before blathering on about things of which we're willfully ignorant.
Evolution is observable, testable, and repeatable. It is also observed, tested, and repeated. Reasonable expectation is not faith. Faith is belief without or despite evidence. For evolution, the evidence is there, no faith required. For creationism, the evidence is not there, and faith is required.
Whats the difference between him waving a magic wand, and creating a universe from nothing via magic?
If you believe in purely naturalistic process creating the universe just set into motion by a god then whats the difference if said god isn't involved?
Just curious.
Today's evidence roundup report on current species origins:
-- Species by natural selection and mutation: apx. 34,878,321
-- Species by supernatural design: 0
Today's report was brought to you by The Encyclopedia Britanica, Wikipedia, On the Origin of Species, several thousand biology textbooks, tens of thousands of other books and articles from libraries around thw globe, everything currently understood about natural selection, geology, archeology, chemistry, physics, botany, taxonomy, etc.
From the beginning he points out that religion is not based on objective facts or science and this observation applies to all major religions. Agree or disagree with his conclusions, but a belief without evidence is irrational. Scientific method is a means of understanding the world rationally. Given the choice, I would prefer to base my world-views on empirical evidence.
You obviously don't subscribe to any scientific journals. Let alone on anything about abiogenesis because that field is awesome and is a lot farther along than you seem to realize.
Argumentum in terrorem. Appeal to fear - logical fallacy. Great example here! Bravo.
OH MY (if you'll pardon the term) GOD! Who is operating the camera? YOU DON'T NEED TO ZOOM IN ON EVERYTHING. AND STOP MOVING IT. Treat a camera as if it was someone's head. Would you push that person to the front of the room and put their head 14 inches from Richard's? No.
If we can see him and the slides, then leave the camera alone (or, better yet, get a second camera).
With out science you wouldn't have medice, cars, and that fancy little computer you're sitting behind,
Rick has found the secret to eternal youth. He still looks like this.
Since I am studying psychology, this reminded me of another study I came across in my readings that the most "well off" countries in concerns of education, wealth, health, criminal activity, ect. were the highest "Athiest" or non-religious countries. (ie, Norway, Sweeden, Germany, Japan, ect.) And the "worst off" over all were highly religious countries. (ie, Iraq, Kenya, Brazil, ect)
There is no conflict between Christianity and science. Science is simply the study of what God created and how it works.
To show you how silly it is for someone who "Believes" and "has faith" to call someone else delusional, when that person looks for evidence and proof.
about the Loch Ness monster, i don't believe it. i just like the picture.
I am an atheist. Behavioral analysis to make inferences in mental phenomena makes the assumption that one's behavior is based in genuine expression of psychological stimulus. For example, that a claimed psychic believes they are a psychic, that a con-artist believes he is telling the truth, and that a faith healer believes there is a God. You asserted that the Vatican's acceptance of Evolution is compartmentalizing, when that is, in fact, acceptance of evidence contravening Genesis.
" We can all see there's a god " ?????
Actually... no, " we " can't.
And no, none of those odds you gave are zero.
This is mistitled. It should really be called "Why Science is Better Than Christianity" since he never talks about any religion other than Christianity.
Almost fell off my chair when he said 'the giant spaghetti monster will burn me with it's delicious boiling sauce'!
i uphold the scientific standards to which he adheres too. but i arrive at a different conclusion. A fitting analogy might be this: If man can empirically observe how information is processed, by making saltatory conduction visible- has he thus been able to explain how thoughts are generated? Has he demystified what "electricity" stands for ,or more precise, what lies behind the electric current permeating our neurons, braincells etc.? I strongly doubt it.
And I'm sure Hitchens was stumped in this scenario which probably never happened. Religious moralities are arbitrary, while Humanist morality is based on what is actually in the interest of humanity as a whole.
You're right, I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say though. I was replying to someone who stated that the big bang theory was a "magic accident" and therefore used that as leverage to support the link between science and supernatural claims like the bible. I wasn't downplaying the Big Bang theory's credibility, I accept it as the truth. I was defending it by telling that person that there are logical ways to explain how the big bang theory could have occurred.
Audio mixing is off. But to my question: In the example Carrier gives in the "is-ought" Hume problem, if you have an advanced vehicle that doesn't need oil, why would you consider it whether you ought to or not put oil in it?
Love his books though, have most of them. They're my go-to more than most.
"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding..."
senior,
If you ever come to Cambridge, please let me know i would like to meet you,I admire your work.
Prof.Dr.Nasir Fazal
Cambridge .
Much better quality audio.
best
Bruce Peek
Esuchar al Dr. Carrier no solo es un placer, es también una experiencia intelectual que le recomiendo tanto a ateos como a creyentes. Su trabajo sobre la historicidad de Jesús y sobre los evangelios son fantásticos. En esta charla en particular delinea su pensamiento con una claridad y una lucidez impresionantes. Felicitaciones.
Regardless of what you read and your interpretation I find his lectures entertaining and very interesting. I'm interested in facts and ideas not backdoor drama.
His position that jesus didn't existed might be against the current scholar concencis but we will see when his new book comes out and goes through pier review.
In a world of 'just thinking stuff up' there is a possibility of almost anything.
Have you ever noticed how atheist leaders never persecute Freemasons btw? Given that we're talking about faith, cognitive dissonance and the like.
if there is a god he would bless Richard carrier.
27:50
Damn it, Richard. Why'd you have to go and talk about physics without first consulting a physicist? It isn't the case that "when you use natural units, the constants of nature magically become one," it's the other way around. Natural units are derived by defining the constants of nature (specifically the ones dealing with properties of free space: G gravitational constant; c speed of light; k Coulomb's constant; k Boltzmann's constant; and h Planck's constant) to be one in the first place
It's a silly premise. "Religion" is so broad that in includes fairy tales and witch doctors. And inspiration - even scientific inspiration - doesn't always come with a return address. I remember reading about how someone saved a person who had died from drowning. They prayed what to do, and were instructed by the Spirit of God to blow air into the dead person's lungs. It worked of course, and now it is the most common way to help a drowning victim.
this was a very enlightening and incredibly interesting video. Thank you.
Perhaps his best speech.
With all sincerity; you may well be the most honest youtube advocate for what can only described as a lie (asserting as fact without evidence or reason). If possible please explain how you're able to choose what to believe?
this is just a technicality, but psychology, at least as far as i understand it, is the study of the phenotypical features which just happen to be in the brain, and that are the result of biological processes. you're not wrong, but on the whole, studying DNA seems to be a more fundamental examination of an organism. it's the same thing with quantum mechanics; all the natural laws we experience in our macro-environment are the result of processes occurring on the scale of atoms.
Or they think that being religious will give them brownie points toward parole, or, there are a shit ton of cultural christians in the US and folks thoughtful enough to be atheists are often thoughtful enough to not get put in prison.
My right ear loves the audio.
Freemasonry is dominant. Christianity is prevalent. One of the beliefs expressed in Morals and Dogma is that no Christian can ever be trusted due to the fear of eternal damnation - I.E. people ought to do things out of a sense of honor and duty rather than fear of punishment. I sincerely doubt Freemasons are very Christian. I think it would be more accurate to say Christianity has adapted itself to Freemasonry than the other way around.
"Science and God co-exist. They do not oppose each other."
What is the age of the planet Earth?
Who else here lives richard and is going on a richard carrier marathon??
Loves*
@@Sammy_shammy24 Just put your mouse pointer on the r of richard carrier that you wrote in the upper comment.
Then move you pointer one inch to the right. It will turn on an edit/delete window shown by 3 dots straight up and down.
I think it would be better if Carrier had pointed out philosophers and alike as pillars, or beginnings, or influences to science. Usually what is recognized as science is a separated branch of philosophy at 17th century, not from the 1-2nd century and such.
Of Course if he uses another definition it is a different case, but then I think it would be better with an explanation.
Another problem comes with his def. of true scientists and true religious person. Again, I think he mix up some things
I changed one word in that comment and re-posted it as the sentence did not make sense as I had phrased it. I tend to write long sentences which results in grammar errors on occasion.
Shouldn't we base our beliefs on what can be demonstrated by evidence? Where we don't have good evidence to make a judgement isn't the honest answer 'I don't know'. Being 'free to believe' without evidence isn't helpful to finding out what's true.
Even if it was accurate, it's not obvious that suicide rate a useful measure of societal health though, because suicide may be vastly preferable to a range of medical outcomes and better medicare may in fact cause higher suicide rates merely because of accurate diagnostics such that people are able to make informed choices between suicide and pain/wasting away.
Right, but I have faith and that is my chosen theory. On the Richard Dawkins scale of 1-7 theist to atheist, I rank pretty theist at 1.8. You probably rank very high on that scale, but my point is, 1s and 7s are nut jobs, because we ultimately don't know God, who he is or what he looks like until we have an encounter with Him. Even a very prominent atheist Bill Maher claims to be about 6.9 on that scale, because he says "We ultimately don't know.". Where do you rank on that scale?
Nope. He's aware that any meaning and purpose he has is self-created. That isn't delusional. he is aware that good vs evil claims are cultural and based on the social nature of the human species. That isn't delusional.
IF the author of universe and authentic religion is same, therefore a true divine religion CANT possible contradict with PURE SCIENCE.
* A pure science is an empirical observation of relevant reality.
Science can tell us How, it can't tell us Why. - J cole
how were things created? science can deal with this. but why were things created? this is the one question that's the foundation of all religions, and science can't even mumble an answer to this.
Science and Religion need each other, just like two brothers who want to seperate but don't have the money to move. religion played a crucial role in the ''evolution'' of science, no matter how ''batshit crazy'' YOU feel it is.
Okay... Science and God co-exist. They do not oppose each other. If you want to say "Christians oppose science!!!111!!", then I wish to see the bible verse. Please, if you wish to debate with me, mature debate only.
I enjoyed the speech, but the guy on the camera seems to discovered the zoom-button just few seconds before this started. ;)
3:40 If it is specifically "charitable" healthcare (personally voluntary giving) then fine. But categorically denying healthcare to the poor includes totally reasonable positions on the topic when the greater consequences of doing so are considered.
“It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly.”-Einstein
From a logical standpoint, nothing really. However, inside I do believe God created the universe. Believe what you choose.
I really wish Einstein didn't so often use God as a metaphor for the laws of nature. Religious people continually fail to pick up on this.
This guy needs Toastmasters training. He simply reads from his notes. I'm not being flippant, but it's just something to think about. I'm finding it hard to follow. Also, I wish he would give more examples instead of just saying they said this or did that. I cannot verify most of the history he is sharing, nor can I find them in context if he doesn't provide the resources. Furthermore, Richard is advocating for science over religion, but science is all about facts. It's not about what Richard says.
One final thought. I don't know what he thinks religion is. The Catholic church, for example, believes in scientific curiosity. Science does not oppose religion and vice versa. Look it up for yourself. Who gave us the Big Bang Theory? He was a Catholic priest. Look it up!
Hint: Georges Lemaître
But, basic logic WOULD tell you that even if you don't believe at all, there is still some possibility of a god.
Suggest Wickie, T Edison. He was not a product of specialised education. I said; " many, and often". I was referring to the dominance today of over specialised education, and consequent bubble worlds, brought about, mainly by an over competitive mercantile society. To compete successfully today narrow specialisation gets you there, but leaves many woefully ignorant. You point out the "advances ". many would argue, at the same time, there have been societal retrograde steps.
Fanboy? This is the first video I've ever watched about Carrier. I don't know any more about him than you do.
Your credentials are entirely relevant if you hope for anyone to give your criticisms any merit whatsoever. You're bothering to spout them, I'm assuming you feel they should be given merit.
You're apparently happy to be an arrogant blog commentator who gets off talking like a fascist dictator online, who speaks with authority on topics you have no qualification in.
(cont5) One of the primary reasons I am an atheist is due to the rules of special relativity which indicate that time is an intrinsic physical property of the universe and, given that fact, no conscious being could exist outside of that universe due to the fact that time must exist for consciousness to even being to make sense. I have never independently verified time dilation. I do not have access to equipment which would allow me to do so. (cont6)
(cont4) Anyone who would believe me would have to take my word that it is true and then independently corroborate it through means other than those I have access too. For example, I don't have access to the technology which controls the broadcast lineup. I don't have access to the CIA's classified methods of torture. I don't have access to a huge variety of information and technology which could confirm my claim. This is similar to the atheist's position. (cont5)
(cont) A scientist's experiments must be truly believed as having been done by the amateur student of science and the results correctly rendered. Similarly, a religious individual who claims supernatural experiences must be believed by the adherent. Some people are capable of verifying some experiments, but no individual cannot attest, truly, to anything he has not personally witnessed. (cont2)
I think it is a poor attempt at labeling to include everything capable of abstract thought in "atheism" as it ascribes a position they may not wish to take. There is agnostic for a reason, because there are assertions of personal experience which much be believed from both scientists and religious individuals which are seldom performed by the convert/deconvert. Descartes "Evil Daemon" thought exercise is an example of this capacity of the mind to assimilate assumed belief structures. (cont)
That would imply that rocks and plants are capable of abstract thought which so far doesn't seem believable. You're extending the definition out of proportion. It's like saying music is anything that has a rhythm and pitch. Natural sounds can reproduce that on occasions but it's assumed that music is made by an intelligence. Such is the assumption for atheism: only a being capable of abstract thought can be an atheist.
My problem with Occam's Razor is not so much when it is applied in empirical science when selecting hypotheses, as it is a most sensible application therein. However, when it is applied to sociology and psychology, it becomes very error prone. For example, it is simpler to assume that N. Koreans who wept over Kim Jong-il were sincere and not coerced, but that is inaccurate. Similarly, the Martha-Mitchell effect is a situation where applying Occam's Razor results in damage to the patient.