Belief is what is accepted into the mind as true. Its starting point is the instability of perception. Of all of these perceptions, which are true, asks the mind. A fundamental premise, accepted as true, establishes a system of belief. Ex: Am I a body? Yes. Then my brain must be the source of consciousness. And I will some day cease to be because bodies are born and bodies die. And This body needs protection from other bodies. And This body is on a journey because it exists in time. Since I am this body, the journey is the hero's journey because it involves me, a separate body, who must face other bodies in the hunt for comfort and power. If I am not the hero, then I must be the conquered. And so on. The acceptance of subsequent beliefs are based on the first belief that you are a body. Without the willingness to question, the belief stays fixed in the mind.
That first believe is the axiom. We all have axioms, even atheists or ideas that are political or scientific. In the end, its a matter of what axiom is the most probable. Then you assume the axiom that sounds most probable to you, and build a belief system around it.
Very thought-provoking discussion about a topic that I care about and enjoy learning more. I was one of those brought up in a very orthodox religious environment but was fortunate to be educated in science up to my Ph.D. That changed everything over the years and I have deprogrammed to be an Agnostic
@@NotReallyJon You seem to automatically conform to the world-view around you. In Nazi Germany you would be reprogrammed into a Nazi; in Stalinist Russian you would have been reprogrammed as a Stalinist etc.. You appear to lack free-will and the ability to form your own concepts and opinions. What is next for you - a flat earther, a Muslim, will you identify as a donkey if trapped in a donkey sanctuary?
Something i think you should look into is control, manipulation, neuroliguistics, body language, suggestion etc because those things will also help people to understand beliefs. A great many, if not all of these things exist in religion and hence why, once people become believers, it is difficult for them not to! Written words can also be structured in such a way as to manipulate people and their beliefs.
Any belief system works with focus, intent and individual willpower. Human nature tends to want to define belief systems with visual aids and agreement. Both help focus the inner determination. The challenge, is to not suppose any belief system is correct except your own. The problem is discarding the tendency to adopt someone else's description or expression. Both Science and Religion are stonewalled against each other, because no matter the facts on either side, belief only needs the support of desire and choice. With no facts to support the decision other than because we want to. This makes noise and a market out of every conversation or disagreement. We argue over contradictions in literature or practice that should undermine beliefs, but it does not. Because belief , even irrational beliefs cannot be taken away. They become life support for the shared delusions. An aspect of herd mentality.
What all beliefs systems share in common-is that they all speak of a future that is perpetually in a state of arriving but never arrived. And all belief ends at death and thus the existence of perpetual certainty. This is one of the reasons why I believe in life after death because certainty is probably the ultimate purpose of reality, and Nature wouldn’t leave us with an eternal question…..
either we are in the most beautiful mechanism we can conceive ..or in the most sadistic one ... OR eternal death or eternal life ... OR a meaningful existence or a lack of any meaning ... OR an eternal purpose or a void experience ...
Why would you assume nature has a purpose, a will, puts us in the center of it all, owes us something, or is capable of supplying answers, or that the answers will be accepted by us? All those assumptions are derived from your post. I see no reason to hold any of them. Not about nature and not about any god.
@@adarwinterdror7245 why would you assume that existence itself (so all that exist) have no purpose, no meaning and is without answers ? We are not at the center of the universe BUT consciousness is surely, and by far, the most important thing in it. Without "something" observing a reality that reality itself would lose all his weight... would be almost non existent.
@@francesco5581 the burden of proof is on nature to show that it does have a purpose, otherwise we can reasonable assume that it doesn’t. And saying that existence is fundamentally based on something being sentient enough to ‘observe’ it is also an assumption. Does a falling tree make noise if no one is there? Yes of course! Will it affect anything that is not sensitive to its results or outputs? Probably not in a meaningful or tangible way
I agree that this was a thought-provoking discussion. And I also agree that many religious believers can become impervious to challenges to their belief system. But this certainly isn't the case with all who hold religious beliefs. William Lane Craig recently appeared on Closer To Truth, and his breadth of research certainly could have destroyed his belief in God. But, in fact, it has had the opposite impact. I would also say that scientists are not exempt from the argument used against religious people. Many scientists go beyond methodological naturalism and embrace philosophical naturalism, which is a world view in the same category as the theistic world view (both are faith-based). A scientist's philosophical naturalism (matter and energy are all there is) would never allow a creator--by definition.
Yes but if you notice, William Lane Craig's arguments are always based on the premise "God exists, therefore....". When he dips below that threshold, his arguments always go circular. "we have morality, and morals must come from an external source, therefore God must exist". These assertions, while possibly true, are also very possibly false. I personally could easily see how, what we term "morality", could be a natural product of human evolution, with no need for an external source. ua-cam.com/video/-b4brHrI61o/v-deo.html
I don’t see your concerns About scientists What difference does their personal view ( be is philosophical naturalism or theism ) make if they are committed to methodology naturalism ?
@@TBOTSS The word "destroyed", when referring to a debate, is a meaningless adolescent trope and immediately announces to the reader that you have nothing substantive to say on the subject. If you think WLCs arguments hold water, i'm sure everyone would be happy to hear your case on that. I have listened to pretty much everything WLC has to say on this subject and he could never "Destroy" anyone, Imo, because he has never made sense. I only referenced that particular debate to illustrate his persistent circular reasoning, not because I think the debate itself has any particular merit. WLC's whole spiel about how there can be no "objective morality" without a "supreme source of morality" is nonsense of the highest order because its based on the red herring premise that morality is and must be objective. History clearly shows that morality is not strictly objective, nor does it need to be, to serve its purpose.
when it comes to physical progress Humans are ready to believe and sacrifice,but when it comes to spiritual progress Humans refuse to do the exact same thing!!!this is why they'll never know thruth
Careful going that way. I wouldn't recommend it. You will become the lesser of two evils. It is because of unfairness that one may learn to be humble, exercise forgiveness and mercy. If there were no unfairness how would one ever find it within themselves, to show forgiveness or mercy. Is it really fair that you alone feel you deserve to be the judge of this -- where do you draw the line in the sand. You don't get material reward for fairness in this world, what you attain is Purity of Heart and Wisdom, and you should work on Purity of heart.
If the universe has no purpose, it's just irrationally created by nothing but chance which means it's not obligatory for the truth of the universe to be rational. I wonder where did we get the belief that truth must be rational? the universe doesn't owe any rational explanation to us, which makes truth is inherently irrational by default
From my understanding Mao Zedong's mother, Wen Qimei was a devout Buddhist, as well as, Mao having been raised in a devout Buddhist environment and at a very young age became a Buddhist himself early on in life...? It also seems some of his nearest family was killed by enemies that opposed his doctrines later in life. In some similarity of another dysfunctional belief system, Hitler went to the Glade of the Armistice to humiliate the French in Foch's private train in which the Armistice of 11 November 1918 was signed. There always seems to be an escalation of ruthlessness during any war during opposing beliefs. I had to look it up again to remember who mentioned the quote, but in addition to this, I have trouble imaging what it would be like to command an army going into war for any beliefs... wealth, territory and power over other humans. I just could not psychologically do this, anyway, the quote: “War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.” - William Tecumseh Sherman. I am sure other leaders throughout time and during conflict, [particularly Hitler] have realized this too in their own madness.
It’s not about religion. It’s about what the absolute truth is. I believe what is absolutely verifiable. Mindless matter and energy cannot make or direct themselves. An infinite regress of physical causes is irrational unscientific and nonsensical. Biology programming itself is no different. Biology reprogramming itself is no different. Naturalism is no different.
I think that the relation between Religion and Politics is more complex. Chinese Communism cannot be entirely understood without considering it's relation with another belif system such as Confucianism - by the way, a non theistic culture. As to Italy, it's true that the Churh fought hard against Communism, but in common people's experience there was a more subtle mutual influence betwee the two ideologies.
@@andreasplosky8516 When he went to scool he went with the faith that he could learn,he had faith in his teachers and in the education system....etc,if he didn't have faith he wounldn't have gone to school
@@علي-ش7ث8ب I suspected as much. You are just obfuscating through word play. It is meaningless if you confuse "religious faith" with simple wordly belief or confidence. Religious faith is something quite different, because it involves invisible magical fantasy beings, like gods, or other nonsense.
Many atheists say we don't have a religion, but whatever we believe in is a religion. But someone else knows how true what we believe is. Belief is associated with truth or falsity. A person can be said to have true faith only if what he believes has an eternal reality. Because it is not enough to just believe, it is necessary to know whether the belief we believe is connected to the truth reality For example, scientists are divided in their opinion about the existence of God, that is, about half of scientists believe in a creator, while half do not believe in a creator. These scientists are 100% the same in their scientific opinion, but they differ in the level of belief because they both believe that they have their own reality. There are those who believe that there is a creator or not, but only the creator knows the true believer. One who stands with the truth believes in the existence of a creator and knows, but one who does not stand with the truth denies that there is a creator. So the important thing is to come to the truth in order to have true faith. Because only reality reveals true belief, we cannot find true belief unless we first come to reality, reason, the belief in which the creator is only found when we reach reality. Jesus said truth shall set you free from a false beliefs system. it does not matter what religion background you have.
@@andreasplosky8516 No it doesn't. A religion is an organized firm belief in something or someone. The something or someone does not have to be a deity. All Atheists claim they follow the facts & science that show there is no "almighty" deity and definitely no Creation over 6 day less than 6000 years ago. But there is no evidence proving abiogenesis 4 billion years ago and evolution of the Species from this "fictional" simple life. You all know nature & natural processes can never make & operate the simplest machine made by a intelligence ( called Man). You all know the three types of machines are mechanical, electrical & molecular ( LIFE ) and a machine is simply a physical Function. And yet you all claim nature & natural processes did make & operate the simplest MOLECULAR machine billions of years ago with ZERO evidence ... and then say "Machine Analogies" are fake science and has no scientific merit. And of course, most Atheists insist Man doesn't have free will ... because everything is due to the "almighty" Nature. smh. Man has always known ... the origin of Laws & rules and anything that has clear & obvious function, form, design, purpose ( ie INFORMATION). All functions & information ... come from the mind of an intelligence. This is what the facts & sciences are telling us about the Universe & Life .. which are both Thermodynamic systems ... Functions ... and originate from the surrounding System(s) that must provide the matter, energy, space, time & Laws of nature to exist & to function. Atheism is a religion ... that has a firm belief in a UNNATURAL origin of the Universe & Life. Nature can never make & Function.
@@andreasplosky8516 Religion is not only related to those who believe in a creator. But it's something that happens to people who believe in something. Because belief is related to religion, whether the belief is real or imaginary is not known. Belief is something we know to believe. Those who say there is no God, that is their religion, the one who knows the creator believes in the existence of the creator, that is called the religion of belief in the creator, and on the contrary, those who say there is no creator, their disbelief is their belief or religion. Those who say there is a creator believes, and those who say there is no creator deny it. On the other hand, who says there is a creator is a disbeliever for the person who says there is no creator. Atheists do not have scientific proof that they may say there is no creator. They have ideas, but no facts or reasons. That is why they have not arrived at the reality of the existence of a creator. Conversely, those who believe there is a creator have more evidence than those who deny it. Where the evidence leads. Going back to the beginning of history, there are many sources and proofs of the existence of a creator. Those who believe that there is creator have more reason to believe than those who say that there is no creator. Those who say that there is no creator have no reason, only deny it, and this is their faith and religion.
Whatever we believe is a belief, maybe even a belief system. In order for it to be a "religion", it has to include a larger extent of metaphysical dogmas and moral prescriptions, which a simple "I don't believe in a deity" doesn't include.
@@vauchomarx6733 Says the Atheist who doesn't believe in deities ... but ... firmly believes ( ie faith) that nature & natural processes made & operated the simplest abstract & physical Function 4 billion years ago? If you have no evidence proving this firm belief then you are a religion. The Function & Mind Categories with causal links ... prove the Universe & Life are Functions composed of Functions are were made by an intelligence. What is the metaphysical dogma with God being identified an UNNATURAL & non-physical Intelligence?
I distinguish between "Western religion" (there is really only one Western "religion" as all the sects worship the same power of their god above all else and especially human life) and the spiritual practices of the East which do not worship power as more sacred than human life. The spiritual practices of the East are not "religions." To me there are huge differences between the two. While they do share the characteristics of "belief systems" one elevates the power of a supernatural being to the ultimate exalted position of power over all human life while the other values human life above all else. While both are "systems" one demands domination over human life by the "god"(read power) while the other does not recognize the supernatural as ruling our lives or even recognize the supernatural at all. Religions are no different from other human institutions, they were created by human beings for the purpose of controlling and dominating and having the power of life and death over all humanity. god = power over human life and that power is what is sacred and holy not life itself.
House is the body, enemies the desires, strife, envy, lust of worldly possession and control, these hold back the Soul to spiritual attainment. Anger, resentment, jealousy doesn't exist out there in nature, on in one's mind. A sense of lack only comes from seeing somebody who has more than you -- all this effects the Soul and are the foes.
I don't like when people ask me my religion. My religion is God. I didn't convince myself. God hit me over the head and wizened me abundantly. There are a many recipes to God as there are egg dishes for breakfast. L'chaim. God exists. Your perception is shaped by your environment.
@@keithrelyea7997 ..just being honest. I know them better than they know themselves. Sincerely some chick Enlightened like the Buddha and Yeshua of Nazareth. Sacrificial kind and funny. I even visit libraries and museums.
Oh come on, we convinced ourselves in the same way of different stuff. We aren't better than China. It's only the fact that monolithic beliefs are stark from the outside and the fact that our venerators are more diverse and not venerating is punished in subtler ways.
What the hell are you trying to say? Simplify/clarify/edify. The endless blood letting under Mao amounted to 20,000.000 corpses. Stack them up, those lives ended and why? We need to have some standard of justice to be able to judge the value of differences. I go with representive democracy and the rule of law. it isn't perfect and nether are humans, but it is the best system yet devised.
@@keithrelyea7997 you do understand that when you say "we need to have some standard of justice to judge..." You are hitting the nail in the head. The ideology isn't in the choice the ideology is how you got to the choice. Our obsession with using deaths and the way in which we assign responsibility or even conceive of freedom right or wrong though it may be if it lacks competition in you, you have the same type of belief system. To have a different type of belief system your morals shouldn't match with your peers to the degree that they do when projected onto a real issue. Representative democracy for example is something you value and I don't and we could have a debate on it. I value the ideals that move you to value representative democracy but I take a look at the democratic process in representative democracy and see that it doesn't reflect the will of the people but the will of the smallest majority it can manufacture which is not even cohesive but an aggregate of compromises from within that in the end result in minority interests always being favored within a representative democracy of our scales. I consider representative democracy a contradiction in terms the moment these representatives need to be elected and aren't magically arrived at. Does our government act based on the will of the majority of our citizens? I would argue that there are plenty very clear examples that it doesn't. We are merely given our pick of which type of undemocratic oligarchy we want within a very limited set of options. In my opinion representative democracy looks amazing on paper but it doesn't take into account the limitations of the political process and the influence of the economy and how they play together to make it undemocratic. Personally I think a system where representatives are elected at random and can only be voted out but not in would give much better results as far as democracy goes, and you could argue that it falls under the umbrella of possible representative democracies but clearly we are talking about a much different system. Here lies another possible critical difference between our ideologies and those of the supporters of communist China, can you recognize in my words that are clearly in stark opposition with yours when it comes to valuing our democracy someone who shares your underlying values or is the attack of their embodiment triggering an allergic reaction? If you can then I agree there is something different in the same way in which there is something different with science in how it is able to auto-correct but can you say the same about your neighbours? I know many who are unable to separate an attack to the embodiment of their ideals with an attack to their ideals. That's where the subtle line is, not in the content of our ideals which is vastly shaped as you pointed out by the options we have available as presented to us. I also have my critiques on the rule of law but enough to unpack here, the idea is the same, I share the ideals behind the rule of law but unfortunately the rule of law is in clear breach of them by design as well.
@@federicopettinicchio I liked they way you explained this Federico. I have very similar thinking to you, but could not articulate it well, but your choice of words is very good, the way you put it together to explain. Thanks for your explanation.
I disagree with his view that Christians all have to think the same thing because even in the past we had Christian thinkers who made their own traditions and weren't immediately shunned because they thought differently and even if they were shunned they will just make their own community and then someone else would make their own community based off of the beliefs of that one and the cycle just repeats with a new belief systems based off of existing ones being created.
@@Paine137 it's not inconsistent all Christians at least believe that God raised Jesus from the dead and that the way to salvation is through Jesus but there are more specific things about the Bible like the nature of Jesus and his relationship with God that people disagree on but it's not inconsistent it's just people trying to figure out how to properly interpret the Bible just like how scientist I do experiments and then try to figure out what the results mean and just because scientists disagree with each other doesn't mean science is inconsistent.
Church corrected itself a lot during centuries and even decades ... We all correct ourselves as single people or community. Is the main purpose of life even from a materialistic standpoint. MAybe science correct itself ..in the long run too.. but what about science made to sell a product ? science made to write a book ? science made to have funds ? science made to be on the stage ? science tied to egos ? Isnt Grayling a fundamentalist himself when accusing others to fall into a "belief system" ? And as an Italian his claim that Catholics were/are against communists in Italy... well is a bit more complex than that ....
Because Church always failed to live up to the standards. So it had to adapt to a faster moving society. Religion was made better because of how society evolved and not the other way around. That says a lot of a divinely inspired organization (a paedophile nest, criminal, manipulative, ignorant)
@@ROForeverMan if you say consciousness is all there is and i say all there is ,is awareness,and someone else says all there is ,is God,and then someone else says all there is is experience,dont they all mean the same thing ?
Das Kapital, Grundrisse etc. are indeed economic and sociological works, but what "Marxism-Leninism" has become is very dogmatic, pretty far removed from Marx as a social scientist and philosopher.
@@vauchomarx6733 With the demise of the Soviet Union, there is no "Marxism-Leninism" and proof that "socialism in one country" did not work. However, "The Capital" and the "Comunist Manifesto" are scientific work which are as relevant (if not more relevant) as the time they were written. The capitalist ideology is yet to have an answer to these works. What is going on in the world right now shows how ineffective the capitalist mode of production is in providing good life for the inhabitants the world over.
A religious belief system does have a control/constraint. If the system does not work, humans stop practicing the system. Religious systems have been developed for a lot longer than most humans realize. They are tested by time to produce specific results.
"They are tested by time to produce specific results." I agree. Results like obedience, submission to power, the will to murder and torture innocents, etc.etc. Oh, and... love, of course... Love for those who agree with your specific theism.
@@andreasplosky8516 Don't be a fool, religions are not intended to cause murder and torture. Humans who misunderstand religion in the same way they misunderstand many other phenomena do such things. Obedience and submission to power are extraordinarily important for humans and only humans. All other living things behave according to their nature and with nature. I do not think you have any idea what the profound meaning of love is. I have been researching humans for a long time, few do.
@@breno2024 "I do not think you have any idea what the profound meaning of love is." You are right. I do not know what the profound meaning of love is. I don't think there is such a meaning, at all. "I have been researching humans for a long time" Oh really... "Don't be a fool, religions are not intended to cause murder and torture. " That is not what I said, but in the "holy" books we can all read how religion is used. And in history we can see this clearly too. Religion is a tool for the powerful and power hungry. This is even the reason christianity got a break, because a roman emperor saw this theistic horror as a useful tool. In medieval history we see this too, time and time again. Modern history... same thing.
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 1 Timothy 4:1-3 KJV Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and raiment let us be therewith content. But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. 1 Timothy 6:1-10 KJV
This is not terribly difficult to fix. Everyone stop using the words believe and faith. These words cause many problems, are terribly ambiguous, and serve no purpose. Stop using them.
*"This is not terribly difficult to fix. Everyone stop using the words believe and faith. These words cause many problems, are terribly ambiguous, and serve no purpose. Stop using them."* ... Do you believe that will solve the problem? How much faith do you have that everyone will ultimately agree with you?
Those concepts are nercessary. But they are rendered obscure and useless because of bad teaching. Truth is the absolute from where the real and the true originates. Faith is what is known as true. Believing is acting in faith and making it real.
@@brandursimonsen4427 *"Faith is what is known as true. Believing is acting in faith and making it real."* ... I see it differently: I 'believe" that I can build a chair that can support my weight. My "faith" in this belief is demonstrated the moment I sit in the chair.
The elephant in the room here, of course, or rather the whole herd, is: 1. Grayling's refusal to notice to the fact that all the 'belief systems' mentioned provide reasons that they should be thought correct. 2. RLK's willingness to join in the blindness. 3. Their not noticing that they have belief systems too. 4. Allowing themselves to be excused the much harder intellectual work of examining those reasons (including the one's for their own 'belief system'). 5. Talking of 'belief systems' (which just sounds very much like 'worldview' anyway) as though they are (necessarily) a kind of unfortunate infection to which they seem to take themselves to be suitably vaccinated against by science, when in fact we all have them. 6. Ignoring the fact that 'scientism' (the belief system involved in thinking that science alone has the only proper questions and answers we can reasonably enquire into) is itself an ideology, something not derived _from_ but applied _to_ science - alongside everything else. Thus, I find this to be one of the most intellectually bone idle and blind conversation I have ever heard.
At 1:38 the self-correcting nature of the scientific community & at 2:01 "external control on the belief system"? Let's distinguish between science & scientism. Scientism is little different to any other belief system. The big problems in the life sciences continue to be mostly overlooked: entropy, the binding problem, the nature of time, etc. Credentialism plays a major role in the persistence of assumptions that have far exceeded their use-by date. If you have the right credentials, then you have the authority to preach unfalsifiable conjectures, like multiverse theory, & be taken seriously. The only "controls" on multiverse theory are the credentials of the priests & the true believers who worship them.
Indeed the first two verses of Genesis say God ( plural) created (singular) the Heavens & the Earth, then said the Spirit of God hovered over the Surface of the Earth ... not ... Elohim or Eloah or Yahweh. And Bereshit ... also means "covenant" ... and the first three letter mean Son of God. Hmmmm? Man was made in God's likeness ... and it was not good for Man ( or God) to be alone .... so from Man can Woman ... and together they are ONE flesh. Hmmmm? lol.
01:00 Clearly when you believe that the woman who presented herself to you as your mother, is really your true mother, you are irrationaly creating a bubble around yourself that totally distorts the reality of your mother being your mother.
@@deanodebo Is that the one about the fooled says there is a God? Politics and religion are probably two of the most common things people get fooled by but there are plenty others. Then there are phone and internet scams. To this day people still get scammed.
@@deanodebo I already know where you are coming from so let's cut to the chase. Can you Demonstrate your God character existing in reality in real-time in a way that would be convincing to all? Are you willing to bet on it? I have a $10k offer on the table for anyone to accept. Demonstrate Yahweh or any god character existing in reality in real-time in a way that would be convincing to all, I will hand over $10k. For every failed attempt you give me $10k. Ready to accept?
@@oliviamaynard9372 really..okay. was Jesus of Nazareth a minority.? On this thread people are having a problem expressing their thoughts in detail. Since I was born March 11th in Bethlehem I'll teach you some Aramaic. Schlama means peace. Malkuth means Heaven. Hubba means love. What are you doing for it. God aka Elohim Adonai Hashem is my Father and Rabbi.
@@chrisconklin2981The Catholic Church is not God or Jesus. Jesus was kinder and smarter. Alot of people love Jesus and are jealous. Tell someone you heard the voice of God and then miracles start happening..people get jealous. It happened to me. Then when you have gifts appear in front of your lap from the ether people are astounding, start talking themselves out of what they just witnessed and think, why not me God. People have no idea how hard it is to be prescient.. Fortunately I try to timestamp as many as possible. I know the meaning of empirical.
@@andreasplosky8516 Lol no. God (a supremely perfect being) does exist, though likely not the character to whom we are introduced in the scriptures. As for Grayling, he’s especially useless when criticising Jesus’s teachings.
there is a new religion built by the dominants apes "to keep the apes as irrational apes", through the new technology of the apes, the apes are unaware of that too.
the Belief Systems are similar, but religions have different story because there is who manipulated, misled, and abused humans since thousands of years ago taking advantage of very advanced technology (the origin is other galaxies) and no one can even dream to reach the planet earth without deciphering gravity, not only that they deciphered consciousness type one for sure, their main goal is the precious "core building blocks" it is very clear that even cycle two is not eternal "has life cycle too". no one interested in the apes life, but they studied human kind thoroughly "experience of thousands of years", they turned part of the apes into hunting tools "not apes anymore (reached the brain-stem of the apes)", they use X substance which is more advanced than so called nanotechnology for hunting, the number of victims is very high, hard to determine a specific percentage but by guessing about 20% of human population, they keep themselves hidden because they have to manipulate mankind through cycle one "the apes call it material world", not only that: reaching cycle two through science means the ability to predict the future in high accuracy but they have no control else the apes wouldn't be able to read what have been mentioned above "correct 100%". the apes can not understand what does reaching cycle two means! "means the ability to make what the apes call: miracles, supernatural, magic, .....etc. the apes can not reach this even after millions of years "free for the apes", actually that is for future generations. lucky apes ! unaware of anything even themselves ! "apes' paradise"!
(1:00) *ACG: **_If you've adopted a belief system, it's going to make you see things systematically in terms of that system"_* ... Obviously, a belief system emerges from an initial belief in _something._ A "belief" is only having a fractional amount of information and using that limited amount of data to formulate (predict) the rest of the whole. *RULE:* _The amount of information used to produce a belief system is in direct relation to the overall credibility of the belief system._ *Theism:* A belief in an almighty entity that created everything only has a tiny amount of information to work with. All you essentially have is the presence of everything along with the mind's ability to conceive at the highest possible levels. The human mind naturally concludes, _"Everything created must have been created by something that's able to create everything, thus God!"_ ... even though there is no empirical evidence in support of said claim. *Science:* The origin of the universe also provides limited information, so science fills in the gaps with speculation that coincides with whatever data happens to be available. Science then takes a page from theism by using the mind to conceive at the highest possible levels. The human mind naturally concludes, _"If there can be one universe, then there can be many, and if there can be many, there must be an infinite number of universes, thus Multiverse!"_ ... even though there is no empirical evidence in support of said claim. *Conclusion:* Based on our unique ability to conceive at the highest possible levels, I believe that "belief systems" are a necessary part of our biological makeup and a powerful, data-producing characteristic of our species ... even though there is no empirical evidence in support of said claim.
That's not the definition of theism...nice try in making it only about one god when the word theism doesn't mean one or many it just means the belief in one of the two categories I mentioned
@@Texasmade74 *"That's not the definition of theism."* ... Correct, nor was it ever intended to be a "definition." My comment is an "explanation" for how theism became a belief system and nothing more. *"nice try in making it only about one god when the word theism doesn't mean one or many it just means the belief in one of the two categories I mentioned"* ... You can swap-out "monotheism" if that makes you happy? However, in 2022 the consensus among those of faith is that there is a "single god" because more than one God is superfluous. Ironically, science has taken the empirical evidence of a "single universe" and turned it into a speculation-laced "multiverse." ... Go figure? I guess the belief in a single universe should be called "monoscience?"
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Hinduism and Shinto are both religious traditions that have more than one god in 2022 and Hinduism is the 3rd largest religion so that's most definitely not superfluous
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC wrong no science save Christian creationism have ever sided with monotheism or monotheistic realities and most science finds the concept of an all powerful/all knowing/all good God to be highly illogical and clashing with our observable reality
@@Texasmade74 *"Hinduism and Shinto are both religious traditions that have more than one god in 2022"* ... Then swap-out monotheism if you want. Regardless, any more than a single omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being is not only superfluous, it's not logically possible. *Example:* How can two "omnipresent" Gods exist? Which one yields to the other? Logic states that any "gods" that don't meet this "single God" definition are necessarily lesser.
What he said made zero sense. As if “science” is the only skeptical system. Give me a break. Wars were fought over beliefs. People argue all the time about their gods exist and yours do not. Science needs to calm down, be less arrogant and realize that “science” is 100% just another belief system trying to answer the same exact question many religions have asked for thousands or years.
Imagine, calling yourself a philosopher and mockingly identifying the word "and" as the petty cause for massive division between two religious systems without mention of the near incomprehensibly deep significance of that word in context. Fool.
Belief is what is accepted into the mind as true. Its starting point is the instability of perception. Of all of these perceptions, which are true, asks the mind.
A fundamental premise, accepted as true, establishes a system of belief.
Ex:
Am I a body?
Yes.
Then my brain must be the source of consciousness.
And
I will some day cease to be because bodies are born and bodies die.
And
This body needs protection from other bodies.
And
This body is on a journey because it exists in time. Since I am this body, the journey is the hero's journey because it involves me, a separate body, who must face other bodies in the hunt for comfort and power. If I am not the hero, then I must be the conquered.
And so on.
The acceptance of subsequent beliefs are based on the first belief that you are a body. Without the willingness to question, the belief stays fixed in the mind.
Belief is the answer to the question of fear!!
That first believe is the axiom.
We all have axioms, even atheists or ideas that are political or scientific.
In the end, its a matter of what axiom is the most probable. Then you assume the axiom that sounds most probable to you, and build a belief system around it.
Very thought-provoking discussion about a topic that I care about and enjoy learning more. I was one of those brought up in a very orthodox religious environment but was fortunate to be educated in science up to my Ph.D. That changed everything over the years and I have deprogrammed to be an Agnostic
That is good to hear. To me agnosticism seems to be the most logical viewpoint one can have.
Reprogrammed into agnosticism. You have only absorbed the world-veiw of those around you.
@@NotReallyJon You seem to automatically conform to the world-view around you. In Nazi Germany you would be reprogrammed into a Nazi; in Stalinist Russian you would have been reprogrammed as a Stalinist etc.. You appear to lack free-will and the ability to form your own concepts and opinions. What is next for you - a flat earther, a Muslim, will you identify as a donkey if trapped in a donkey sanctuary?
Something i think you should look into is control, manipulation, neuroliguistics, body language, suggestion etc because those things will also help people to understand beliefs.
A great many, if not all of these things exist in religion and hence why, once people become believers, it is difficult for them not to!
Written words can also be structured in such a way as to manipulate people and their beliefs.
Always good to hear a voice of reason once in a while, instead of the theistic fantasists we get so regularly on here.
Excellent discussion
Any belief system works with focus, intent and individual willpower. Human nature tends to want to define belief systems with visual aids and agreement. Both help focus the inner determination. The challenge, is to not suppose any belief system is correct except your own. The problem is discarding the tendency to adopt someone else's description or expression. Both Science and Religion are stonewalled against each other, because no matter the facts on either side, belief only needs the support of desire and choice. With no facts to support the decision other than because we want to. This makes noise and a market out of every conversation or disagreement. We argue over contradictions in literature or practice that should undermine beliefs, but it does not. Because belief , even irrational beliefs cannot be taken away. They become life support for the shared delusions. An aspect of herd mentality.
Good to hear someone talking sense for a change
Did you hear his debate with Wiliam Lane Craig? Grayling was slaughtered and even lied that the debate never took place.
What all beliefs systems share in common-is that they all speak of a future that is perpetually in a state of arriving but never arrived. And all belief ends at death and thus the existence of perpetual certainty. This is one of the reasons why I believe in life after death because certainty is probably the ultimate purpose of reality, and Nature wouldn’t leave us with an eternal question…..
God is infinit.
either we are in the most beautiful mechanism we can conceive ..or in the most sadistic one ... OR eternal death or eternal life ... OR a meaningful existence or a lack of any meaning ... OR an eternal purpose or a void experience ...
Why would you assume nature has a purpose, a will, puts us in the center of it all, owes us something, or is capable of supplying answers, or that the answers will be accepted by us?
All those assumptions are derived from your post.
I see no reason to hold any of them. Not about nature and not about any god.
@@adarwinterdror7245 why would you assume that existence itself (so all that exist) have no purpose, no meaning and is without answers ?
We are not at the center of the universe BUT consciousness is surely, and by far, the most important thing in it. Without "something" observing a reality that reality itself would lose all his weight... would be almost non existent.
@@francesco5581 the burden of proof is on nature to show that it does have a purpose, otherwise we can reasonable assume that it doesn’t. And saying that existence is fundamentally based on something being sentient enough to ‘observe’ it is also an assumption. Does a falling tree make noise if no one is there? Yes of course! Will it affect anything that is not sensitive to its results or outputs? Probably not in a meaningful or tangible way
I agree that this was a thought-provoking discussion. And I also agree that many religious believers can become impervious to challenges to their belief system. But this certainly isn't the case with all who hold religious beliefs. William Lane Craig recently appeared on Closer To Truth, and his breadth of research certainly could have destroyed his belief in God. But, in fact, it has had the opposite impact. I would also say that scientists are not exempt from the argument used against religious people. Many scientists go beyond methodological naturalism and embrace philosophical naturalism, which is a world view in the same category as the theistic world view (both are faith-based). A scientist's philosophical naturalism (matter and energy are all there is) would never allow a creator--by definition.
Yes but if you notice, William Lane Craig's arguments are always based on the premise "God exists, therefore....". When he dips below that threshold, his arguments always go circular. "we have morality, and morals must come from an external source, therefore God must exist". These assertions, while possibly true, are also very possibly false. I personally could easily see how, what we term "morality", could be a natural product of human evolution, with no need for an external source. ua-cam.com/video/-b4brHrI61o/v-deo.html
I don’t see your concerns About scientists
What difference does their personal view ( be is philosophical naturalism or theism ) make if they are committed to methodology naturalism ?
@@rhyfelur William Lane Craig debated A C Grayling - Grayling was destoryed and even lied that the debate never even happened.
@@TBOTSS The word "destroyed", when referring to a debate, is a meaningless adolescent trope and immediately announces to the reader that you have nothing substantive to say on the subject. If you think WLCs arguments hold water, i'm sure everyone would be happy to hear your case on that. I have listened to pretty much everything WLC has to say on this subject and he could never "Destroy" anyone, Imo, because he has never made sense.
I only referenced that particular debate to illustrate his persistent circular reasoning, not because I think the debate itself has any particular merit.
WLC's whole spiel about how there can be no "objective morality" without a "supreme source of morality" is nonsense of the highest order because its based on the red herring premise that morality is and must be objective. History clearly shows that morality is not strictly objective, nor does it need to be, to serve its purpose.
Truth lies beyond belief. - Wald Wassermann
YOU are Truth
when it comes to physical progress Humans are ready to believe and sacrifice,but when it comes to spiritual progress Humans refuse to do the exact same thing!!!this is why they'll never know thruth
@@علي-ش7ث8ب 🙏
@@robertjsmith 🙏
@@Ekam-Sat 🙏🤍
Punishment for unfairness and reward for fairness. Everything else is unfairness.
WTF!!!
Careful going that way. I wouldn't recommend it.
You will become the lesser of two evils. It is because of unfairness that one may learn to be humble, exercise forgiveness and mercy. If there were no unfairness how would one ever find it within themselves, to show forgiveness or mercy.
Is it really fair that you alone feel you deserve to be the judge of this -- where do you draw the line in the sand.
You don't get material reward for fairness in this world, what you attain is Purity of Heart and Wisdom, and you should work on Purity of heart.
A true belief is reliable, testable and provides consistent, predictable results.
Religion only requires faith without testing for reliability.
If the universe has no purpose, it's just irrationally created by nothing but chance
which means it's not obligatory for the truth of the universe to be rational. I wonder where did we get the belief that truth must be rational?
the universe doesn't owe any rational explanation to us, which makes truth is inherently irrational by default
both the universe and faith are irrational, you got a problem with that?
From my understanding Mao Zedong's mother, Wen Qimei was a devout Buddhist, as well as, Mao having been raised in a devout Buddhist environment and at a very young age became a Buddhist himself early on in life...? It also seems some of his nearest family was killed by enemies that opposed his doctrines later in life. In some similarity of another dysfunctional belief system, Hitler went to the Glade of the Armistice to humiliate the French in Foch's private train in which the Armistice of 11 November 1918 was signed. There always seems to be an escalation of ruthlessness during any war during opposing beliefs. I had to look it up again to remember who mentioned the quote, but in addition to this, I have trouble imaging what it would be like to command an army going into war for any beliefs... wealth, territory and power over other humans. I just could not psychologically do this, anyway, the quote: “War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.” - William Tecumseh Sherman. I am sure other leaders throughout time and during conflict, [particularly Hitler] have realized this too in their own madness.
Religion to me is energy there's just different rituals but one thing remains
It’s not about religion. It’s about what the absolute truth is. I believe what is absolutely verifiable. Mindless matter and energy cannot make or direct themselves. An infinite regress of physical causes is irrational unscientific and nonsensical. Biology programming itself is no different. Biology reprogramming itself is no different. Naturalism is no different.
Name one absolute truth.
@@G_Demolished
God the One and Unique
States belief in what is absolutely verifiable. Follows up with incredulous takes on unfalsifiable claims.
@@rikconant1228 Prove otherwise. You would win $10 million dollars. 💸
@@G_Demolished The absolute truth is that you are not your own maker.
I think that the relation between Religion and Politics is more complex. Chinese Communism cannot be entirely understood without considering it's relation with another belif system such as Confucianism - by the way, a non theistic culture. As to Italy, it's true that the Churh fought hard against Communism, but in common people's experience there was a more subtle mutual influence betwee the two ideologies.
Andy, take another shot at this and try really hard to write your thoughts more clearly.
How does it work? Actually, as always , the answer is, we don't really know. We BELIEVE we know only
-*How has A.C. Grayling become a philosopher?*
-*Faith*
You sound very confused.
@@andreasplosky8516
Why is that,my comment is very clear
@@علي-ش7ث8ب No it is not.
@@andreasplosky8516
When he went to scool he went with the faith that he could learn,he had faith in his teachers and in the education system....etc,if he didn't have faith he wounldn't have gone to school
@@علي-ش7ث8ب I suspected as much. You are just obfuscating through word play. It is meaningless if you confuse "religious faith" with simple wordly belief or confidence. Religious faith is something quite different, because it involves invisible magical fantasy beings, like gods, or other nonsense.
Many atheists say we don't have a religion, but whatever we believe in is a religion. But someone else knows how true what we believe is. Belief is associated with truth or falsity. A person can be said to have true faith only if what he believes has an eternal reality. Because it is not enough to just believe, it is necessary to know whether the belief we believe is connected to the truth reality For example, scientists are divided in their opinion about the existence of God, that is, about half of scientists believe in a creator, while half do not believe in a creator. These scientists are 100% the same in their scientific opinion, but they differ in the level of belief because they both believe that they have their own reality. There are those who believe that there is a creator or not, but only the creator knows the true believer. One who stands with the truth believes in the existence of a creator and knows, but one who does not stand with the truth denies that there is a creator. So the important thing is to come to the truth in order to have true faith.
Because only reality reveals true belief, we cannot find true belief unless we first come to reality, reason, the belief in which the creator is only found when we reach reality. Jesus said truth shall set you free from a false beliefs system. it does not matter what religion background you have.
"but whatever we believe in is a religion"
No, it is not. That is only unnecessary obfuscating. Religion has specific attributes.
@@andreasplosky8516 No it doesn't. A religion is an organized firm belief in something or someone. The something or someone does not have to be a deity.
All Atheists claim they follow the facts & science that show there is no "almighty" deity and definitely no Creation over 6 day less than 6000 years ago.
But there is no evidence proving abiogenesis 4 billion years ago and evolution of the Species from this "fictional" simple life.
You all know nature & natural processes can never make & operate the simplest machine made by a intelligence ( called Man). You all know the three types of machines are mechanical, electrical & molecular ( LIFE ) and a machine is simply a physical Function. And yet you all claim nature & natural processes did make & operate the simplest MOLECULAR machine billions of years ago with ZERO evidence ... and then say "Machine Analogies" are fake science and has no scientific merit.
And of course, most Atheists insist Man doesn't have free will ... because everything is due to the "almighty" Nature. smh.
Man has always known ... the origin of Laws & rules and anything that has clear & obvious function, form, design, purpose ( ie INFORMATION).
All functions & information ... come from the mind of an intelligence. This is what the facts & sciences are telling us about the Universe & Life .. which are both Thermodynamic systems ... Functions ... and originate from the surrounding System(s) that must provide the matter, energy, space, time & Laws of nature to exist & to function.
Atheism is a religion ... that has a firm belief in a UNNATURAL origin of the Universe & Life. Nature can never make & Function.
@@andreasplosky8516 Religion is not only related to those who believe in a creator. But it's something that happens to people who believe in something. Because belief is related to religion, whether the belief is real or imaginary is not known. Belief is something we know to believe. Those who say there is no God, that is their religion, the one who knows the creator believes in the existence of the creator, that is called the religion of belief in the creator, and on the contrary, those who say there is no creator, their disbelief is their belief or religion.
Those who say there is a creator believes, and those who say there is no creator deny it. On the other hand, who says there is a creator is a disbeliever for the person who says there is no creator.
Atheists do not have scientific proof that they may say there is no creator. They have ideas, but no facts or reasons. That is why they have not arrived at the reality of the existence of a creator. Conversely, those who believe there is a creator have more evidence than those who deny it. Where the evidence leads. Going back to the beginning of history, there are many sources and proofs of the existence of a creator. Those who believe that there is creator have more reason to believe than those who say that there is no creator. Those who say that there is no creator have no reason, only deny it, and this is their faith and religion.
Whatever we believe is a belief, maybe even a belief system. In order for it to be a "religion", it has to include a larger extent of metaphysical dogmas and moral prescriptions, which a simple "I don't believe in a deity" doesn't include.
@@vauchomarx6733 Says the Atheist who doesn't believe in deities ... but ... firmly believes ( ie faith) that nature & natural processes made & operated the simplest abstract & physical Function 4 billion years ago?
If you have no evidence proving this firm belief then you are a religion.
The Function & Mind Categories with causal links ... prove the Universe & Life are Functions composed of Functions are were made by an intelligence.
What is the metaphysical dogma with God being identified an UNNATURAL & non-physical Intelligence?
I distinguish between "Western religion" (there is really only one Western "religion" as all the sects worship the same power of their god above all else and especially human life) and the spiritual practices of the East which do not worship power as more sacred than human life. The spiritual practices of the East are not "religions." To me there are huge differences between the two. While they do share the characteristics of "belief systems" one elevates the power of a supernatural being to the ultimate exalted position of power over all human life while the other values human life above all else. While both are "systems" one demands domination over human life by the "god"(read power) while the other does not recognize the supernatural as ruling our lives or even recognize the supernatural at all. Religions are no different from other human institutions, they were created by human beings for the purpose of controlling and dominating and having the power of life and death over all humanity. god = power over human life and that power is what is sacred and holy not life itself.
I agree with what you are saying. "Religions are no different from other human institutions." You make a good point.
Mat.10: 36 "And a man's foes shall be they of his own household"
Look, a verse!
@@hutchiejames1290 just to strengthen your belief system
House is the body, enemies the desires, strife, envy, lust of worldly possession and control, these hold back the Soul to spiritual attainment.
Anger, resentment, jealousy doesn't exist out there in nature, on in one's mind. A sense of lack only comes from seeing somebody who has more than you -- all this effects the Soul and are the foes.
WTF!!!
I don't like when people ask me my religion. My religion is God. I didn't convince myself. God hit me over the head and wizened me abundantly. There are a many recipes to God as there are egg dishes for breakfast. L'chaim. God exists. Your perception is shaped by your environment.
WTF!!!
@@keithrelyea7997 ..just being honest. I know them better than they know themselves. Sincerely some chick Enlightened like the Buddha and Yeshua of Nazareth. Sacrificial kind and funny. I even visit libraries and museums.
@@keithrelyea7997 okay.. WTF? I attend Jewish, Christian, Sihk, Krishna, and Buddhist temples.
♥️ 🙏🏽
Oh come on, we convinced ourselves in the same way of different stuff. We aren't better than China. It's only the fact that monolithic beliefs are stark from the outside and the fact that our venerators are more diverse and not venerating is punished in subtler ways.
What the hell are you trying to say? Simplify/clarify/edify. The endless blood letting under Mao amounted to 20,000.000 corpses. Stack them up, those lives ended and why? We need to have some standard of justice to be able to judge the value of differences. I go with representive democracy and the rule of law. it isn't perfect and nether are humans, but it is the best system yet devised.
@@keithrelyea7997 you do understand that when you say "we need to have some standard of justice to judge..." You are hitting the nail in the head. The ideology isn't in the choice the ideology is how you got to the choice. Our obsession with using deaths and the way in which we assign responsibility or even conceive of freedom right or wrong though it may be if it lacks competition in you, you have the same type of belief system. To have a different type of belief system your morals shouldn't match with your peers to the degree that they do when projected onto a real issue. Representative democracy for example is something you value and I don't and we could have a debate on it. I value the ideals that move you to value representative democracy but I take a look at the democratic process in representative democracy and see that it doesn't reflect the will of the people but the will of the smallest majority it can manufacture which is not even cohesive but an aggregate of compromises from within that in the end result in minority interests always being favored within a representative democracy of our scales. I consider representative democracy a contradiction in terms the moment these representatives need to be elected and aren't magically arrived at. Does our government act based on the will of the majority of our citizens? I would argue that there are plenty very clear examples that it doesn't. We are merely given our pick of which type of undemocratic oligarchy we want within a very limited set of options. In my opinion representative democracy looks amazing on paper but it doesn't take into account the limitations of the political process and the influence of the economy and how they play together to make it undemocratic. Personally I think a system where representatives are elected at random and can only be voted out but not in would give much better results as far as democracy goes, and you could argue that it falls under the umbrella of possible representative democracies but clearly we are talking about a much different system. Here lies another possible critical difference between our ideologies and those of the supporters of communist China, can you recognize in my words that are clearly in stark opposition with yours when it comes to valuing our democracy someone who shares your underlying values or is the attack of their embodiment triggering an allergic reaction? If you can then I agree there is something different in the same way in which there is something different with science in how it is able to auto-correct but can you say the same about your neighbours? I know many who are unable to separate an attack to the embodiment of their ideals with an attack to their ideals. That's where the subtle line is, not in the content of our ideals which is vastly shaped as you pointed out by the options we have available as presented to us. I also have my critiques on the rule of law but enough to unpack here, the idea is the same, I share the ideals behind the rule of law but unfortunately the rule of law is in clear breach of them by design as well.
@@federicopettinicchio I liked they way you explained this Federico. I have very similar thinking to you, but could not articulate it well, but your choice of words is very good, the way you put it together to explain. Thanks for your explanation.
@@picobarco4407 Surely thank you for the appreciative words, maybe drop a like to let youtube know xD
I disagree with his view that Christians all have to think the same thing because even in the past we had Christian thinkers who made their own traditions and weren't immediately shunned because they thought differently and even if they were shunned they will just make their own community and then someone else would make their own community based off of the beliefs of that one and the cycle just repeats with a new belief systems based off of existing ones being created.
Yes, nothing says absolute truth like having an inconsistent diversity of opinions about everything.
@@Paine137 it's not inconsistent all Christians at least believe that God raised Jesus from the dead and that the way to salvation is through Jesus but there are more specific things about the Bible like the nature of Jesus and his relationship with God that people disagree on but it's not inconsistent it's just people trying to figure out how to properly interpret the Bible just like how scientist I do experiments and then try to figure out what the results mean and just because scientists disagree with each other doesn't mean science is inconsistent.
@@izzymosley1970 Not all Christians elieve that actually
@@oliviamaynard9372 what's your definition of a Christian then?
@@izzymosley1970 The definition of a Christian is someone who says they are Christian
A.C.Grayling also believes he's right. So what do his ideas prove ?
It was good but Me and my friend did'nt understand any thing
Church corrected itself a lot during centuries and even decades ... We all correct ourselves as single people or community. Is the main purpose of life even from a materialistic standpoint. MAybe science correct itself ..in the long run too.. but what about science made to sell a product ? science made to write a book ? science made to have funds ? science made to be on the stage ? science tied to egos ?
Isnt Grayling a fundamentalist himself when accusing others to fall into a "belief system" ?
And as an Italian his claim that Catholics were/are against communists in Italy... well is a bit more complex than that ....
Because Church always failed to live up to the standards. So it had to adapt to a faster moving society.
Religion was made better because of how society evolved and not the other way around.
That says a lot of a divinely inspired organization (a paedophile nest, criminal, manipulative, ignorant)
Yeah Grayling apparently isn't too good with history.
1:59 bookmark
Just suspend all thinking and belief systems and just watch with all ur senses
What exists?
@@ROForeverMan if you say consciousness is all there is and i say all there is ,is awareness,and someone else says all there is ,is God,and then someone else says all there is is experience,dont they all mean the same thing ?
It seems that neither of these gentlemen has studied "Da Capital"! It is not a blief system, it is science!!
Das Kapital, Grundrisse etc. are indeed economic and sociological works, but what "Marxism-Leninism" has become is very dogmatic, pretty far removed from Marx as a social scientist and philosopher.
@@vauchomarx6733 With the demise of the Soviet Union, there is no "Marxism-Leninism" and proof that "socialism in one country" did not work. However, "The Capital" and the "Comunist Manifesto" are scientific work which are as relevant (if not more relevant) as the time they were written. The capitalist ideology is yet to have an answer to these works. What is going on in the world right now shows how ineffective the capitalist mode of production is in providing good life for the inhabitants the world over.
A religious belief system does have a control/constraint. If the system does not work, humans stop practicing the system. Religious systems have been developed for a lot longer than most humans realize. They are tested by time to produce specific results.
"They are tested by time to produce specific results."
I agree. Results like obedience, submission to power, the will to murder and torture innocents, etc.etc.
Oh, and... love, of course... Love for those who agree with your specific theism.
@@andreasplosky8516 Don't be a fool, religions are not intended to cause murder and torture. Humans who misunderstand religion in the same way they misunderstand many other phenomena do such things.
Obedience and submission to power are extraordinarily important for humans and only humans. All other living things behave according to their nature and with nature.
I do not think you have any idea what the profound meaning of love is. I have been researching humans for a long time, few do.
@@breno2024 "I do not think you have any idea what the profound meaning of love is."
You are right. I do not know what the profound meaning of love is. I don't think there is such a meaning, at all.
"I have been researching humans for a long time"
Oh really...
"Don't be a fool, religions are not intended to cause murder and torture. "
That is not what I said, but in the "holy" books we can all read how religion is used. And in history we can see this clearly too.
Religion is a tool for the powerful and power hungry. This is even the reason christianity got a break, because a roman emperor saw this theistic horror as a useful tool. In medieval history we see this too, time and time again. Modern history... same thing.
@@breno2024 - which religion of the very many is true then?
@@bigboyshit1 they all are
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
1 Timothy 4:1-3 KJV
Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and raiment let us be therewith content. But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
1 Timothy 6:1-10 KJV
This is not terribly difficult to fix. Everyone stop using the words believe and faith. These words cause many problems, are terribly ambiguous, and serve no purpose. Stop using them.
*"This is not terribly difficult to fix. Everyone stop using the words believe and faith. These words cause many problems, are terribly ambiguous, and serve no purpose. Stop using them."*
... Do you believe that will solve the problem? How much faith do you have that everyone will ultimately agree with you?
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Ha ha, nice one.
Those concepts are nercessary. But they are rendered obscure and useless because of bad teaching.
Truth is the absolute from where the real and the true originates. Faith is what is known as true. Believing is acting in faith and making it real.
@@brandursimonsen4427 *"Faith is what is known as true. Believing is acting in faith and making it real."*
... I see it differently: I 'believe" that I can build a chair that can support my weight. My "faith" in this belief is demonstrated the moment I sit in the chair.
Agree, but by making the suggestion, I ask you to provide alternatives. You owe it to us. I await a response
Hard core beliefs are ant-factual. Got it.
💘
Rigid dogmatism is deadly
This guy just banned him from China for life 4:17 :D
The elephant in the room here, of course, or rather the whole herd, is:
1. Grayling's refusal to notice to the fact that all the 'belief systems' mentioned provide reasons that they should be thought correct.
2. RLK's willingness to join in the blindness.
3. Their not noticing that they have belief systems too.
4. Allowing themselves to be excused the much harder intellectual work of examining those reasons (including the one's for their own 'belief system').
5. Talking of 'belief systems' (which just sounds very much like 'worldview' anyway) as though they are (necessarily) a kind of unfortunate infection to which they seem to take themselves to be suitably vaccinated against by science, when in fact we all have them.
6. Ignoring the fact that 'scientism' (the belief system involved in thinking that science alone has the only proper questions and answers we can reasonably enquire into) is itself an ideology, something not derived _from_ but applied _to_ science - alongside everything else.
Thus, I find this to be one of the most intellectually bone idle and blind conversation I have ever heard.
I believe God gives everyone a choice what to believe that this is the whole point of creation that heaven will contain those who chose Him.
You have no evidence that heaven exists It is so man made and it shows
Which god
@@jeffamos9854 Amon Ra
@@merrybolton2135 The prophets are evidence, Jesus Christ is evidence, I believe, you dont believe, fair enough your choice I think..
@@mrshankerbillletmein491 Belief is not evidence.
At 1:38 the self-correcting nature of the scientific community & at 2:01 "external control on the belief system"? Let's distinguish between science & scientism. Scientism is little different to any other belief system. The big problems in the life sciences continue to be mostly overlooked: entropy, the binding problem, the nature of time, etc. Credentialism plays a major role in the persistence of assumptions that have far exceeded their use-by date. If you have the right credentials, then you have the authority to preach unfalsifiable conjectures, like multiverse theory, & be taken seriously. The only "controls" on multiverse theory are the credentials of the priests & the true believers who worship them.
I find this conversation to be rather nonsensical. God showed who he was in the scripture given to the Hebrew Nation.
israel.
Indeed the first two verses of Genesis say God ( plural) created (singular) the Heavens & the Earth, then said the Spirit of God hovered over the Surface of the Earth ... not ... Elohim or Eloah or Yahweh. And Bereshit ... also means "covenant" ... and the first three letter mean Son of God. Hmmmm?
Man was made in God's likeness ... and it was not good for Man ( or God) to be alone .... so from Man can Woman ... and together they are ONE flesh. Hmmmm? lol.
Oh really, thats it? Think you need to broaden your reading list.
Can you provide evidence ? Give us your single best piece of evidence that shows your bible is true
@@tonyatkinson2210 Potato
@@abelincoln8885 potato ?
01:00 Clearly when you believe that the woman who presented herself to you as your mother, is really your true mother, you are irrationaly creating a bubble around yourself that totally distorts the reality of your mother being your mother.
A follow up episode could be" why do we let ourselves be fooled?"
By Proverbs 1:7, I declare your post ironic.
So, what have you been fooled to believe?
@@deanodebo Is that the one about the fooled says there is a God?
Politics and religion are probably two of the most common things people get fooled by but there are plenty others.
Then there are phone and internet scams. To this day people still get scammed.
@@deanodebo I already know where you are coming from so let's cut to the chase.
Can you Demonstrate your God character existing in reality in real-time in a way that would be convincing to all? Are you willing to bet on it? I have a $10k offer on the table for anyone to accept.
Demonstrate Yahweh or any god character existing in reality in real-time in a way that would be convincing to all, I will hand over $10k. For every failed attempt you give me $10k. Ready to accept?
@@deanodebo or you can just admit your God is only an imaginary character.
@@scooby3133
Do you have any knowledge that you’re certain about?
I’m curious.
And do you think of yourself as soulless?
I can see why in Europe, Catholicism seems like the punishing faith, but in America it is the opposite.
How so?
I am an American and I am Pro-Choice. Tell me about Catholic Hospitals.
You aren't a minority then.
@@oliviamaynard9372 really..okay. was Jesus of Nazareth a minority.? On this thread people are having a problem expressing their thoughts in detail. Since I was born March 11th in Bethlehem I'll teach you some Aramaic. Schlama means peace. Malkuth means Heaven. Hubba means love. What are you doing for it. God aka Elohim Adonai Hashem is my Father and Rabbi.
@@chrisconklin2981The Catholic Church is not God or Jesus. Jesus was kinder and smarter. Alot of people love Jesus and are jealous. Tell someone you heard the voice of God and then miracles start happening..people get jealous. It happened to me. Then when you have gifts appear in front of your lap from the ether people are astounding, start talking themselves out of what they just witnessed and think, why not me God. People have no idea how hard it is to be prescient.. Fortunately I try to timestamp as many as possible. I know the meaning of empirical.
Everyone believes something. No one is exempt from belief. Naturalism is the belief in magical morphing monkeys.
Magical?
@@hutchiejames1290 Evolution is magic.
@@JungleJargon Sarcasm?
@@hutchiejames1290 Evolution is like something on the head of magicians pulling bunnies out of it
Tell me you don’t know what evolution is without telling me you don’t know what evolution is.
belief systems work when directed towards God, separate from human rule
Amen. L'chaim
He’s probably the worst commentator on religion alive 😂
No, the worst communicator on religion would be god himself. If the thing exists.
@@andreasplosky8516 Lol no. God (a supremely perfect being) does exist, though likely not the character to whom we are introduced in the scriptures. As for Grayling, he’s especially useless when criticising Jesus’s teachings.
there is a new religion built by the dominants apes "to keep the apes as irrational apes", through the new technology of the apes, the apes are unaware of that too.
Scientism is a religion
No such thing exists
Everything is about religion and faith,some people just pretend to be above religion like Atheists
@@علي-ش7ث8ب No not everything is about religion and faith. You project yourself onto others
@@oliviamaynard9372
Give me one example
@@علي-ش7ث8ب Curiosity, experience, freedom, learning, experimentation
the Belief Systems are similar, but religions have different story because there is who manipulated, misled, and abused humans since thousands of years ago taking advantage of very advanced technology (the origin is other galaxies) and no one can even dream to reach the planet earth without deciphering gravity, not only that they deciphered consciousness type one for sure, their main goal is the precious "core building blocks" it is very clear that even cycle two is not eternal "has life cycle too".
no one interested in the apes life, but they studied human kind thoroughly "experience of thousands of years", they turned part of the apes into hunting tools "not apes anymore (reached the brain-stem of the apes)", they use X substance which is more advanced than so called nanotechnology for hunting, the number of victims is very high, hard to determine a specific percentage but by guessing about 20% of human population, they keep themselves hidden because they have to manipulate mankind through cycle one "the apes call it material world", not only that: reaching cycle two through science means the ability to predict the future in high accuracy but they have no control else the apes wouldn't be able to read what have been mentioned above "correct 100%". the apes can not understand what does reaching cycle two means! "means the ability to make what the apes call: miracles, supernatural, magic, .....etc.
the apes can not reach this even after millions of years "free for the apes", actually that is for future generations.
lucky apes ! unaware of anything even themselves ! "apes' paradise"!
(1:00) *ACG: **_If you've adopted a belief system, it's going to make you see things systematically in terms of that system"_* ... Obviously, a belief system emerges from an initial belief in _something._ A "belief" is only having a fractional amount of information and using that limited amount of data to formulate (predict) the rest of the whole.
*RULE:* _The amount of information used to produce a belief system is in direct relation to the overall credibility of the belief system._
*Theism:* A belief in an almighty entity that created everything only has a tiny amount of information to work with. All you essentially have is the presence of everything along with the mind's ability to conceive at the highest possible levels. The human mind naturally concludes, _"Everything created must have been created by something that's able to create everything, thus God!"_ ... even though there is no empirical evidence in support of said claim.
*Science:* The origin of the universe also provides limited information, so science fills in the gaps with speculation that coincides with whatever data happens to be available. Science then takes a page from theism by using the mind to conceive at the highest possible levels. The human mind naturally concludes, _"If there can be one universe, then there can be many, and if there can be many, there must be an infinite number of universes, thus Multiverse!"_ ... even though there is no empirical evidence in support of said claim.
*Conclusion:* Based on our unique ability to conceive at the highest possible levels, I believe that "belief systems" are a necessary part of our biological makeup and a powerful, data-producing characteristic of our species ... even though there is no empirical evidence in support of said claim.
That's not the definition of theism...nice try in making it only about one god when the word theism doesn't mean one or many it just means the belief in one of the two categories I mentioned
@@Texasmade74 *"That's not the definition of theism."*
... Correct, nor was it ever intended to be a "definition." My comment is an "explanation" for how theism became a belief system and nothing more.
*"nice try in making it only about one god when the word theism doesn't mean one or many it just means the belief in one of the two categories I mentioned"*
... You can swap-out "monotheism" if that makes you happy? However, in 2022 the consensus among those of faith is that there is a "single god" because more than one God is superfluous.
Ironically, science has taken the empirical evidence of a "single universe" and turned it into a speculation-laced "multiverse." ... Go figure?
I guess the belief in a single universe should be called "monoscience?"
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Hinduism and Shinto are both religious traditions that have more than one god in 2022 and Hinduism is the 3rd largest religion so that's most definitely not superfluous
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC wrong no science save Christian creationism have ever sided with monotheism or monotheistic realities and most science finds the concept of an all powerful/all knowing/all good God to be highly illogical and clashing with our observable reality
@@Texasmade74 *"Hinduism and Shinto are both religious traditions that have more than one god in 2022"*
... Then swap-out monotheism if you want. Regardless, any more than a single omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being is not only superfluous, it's not logically possible. *Example:* How can two "omnipresent" Gods exist? Which one yields to the other?
Logic states that any "gods" that don't meet this "single God" definition are necessarily lesser.
What he said made zero sense. As if “science” is the only skeptical system. Give me a break. Wars were fought over beliefs. People argue all the time about their gods exist and yours do not. Science needs to calm down, be less arrogant and realize that “science” is 100% just another belief system trying to answer the same exact question many religions have asked for thousands or years.
No science isn't just another belief system. It's not the same thing as religion no.
Imagine, calling yourself a philosopher and mockingly identifying the word "and" as the petty cause for massive division between two religious systems without mention of the near incomprehensibly deep significance of that word in context. Fool.
Don't keep us hanging. Could you be more specific? What part of the video are you referring to?
@@andreasplosky8516 7:08
@@breno2024 I agree with you about that.
A C Grayling is a clown.
That's unfair. He's a pompous windbag.
And you’re a joke
UnSubscribed. This channel is by a person who only has no answer to all his questions. Its perpetual content for UA-cam
I suggest that your skepticism rather be directed at those who claim to sit on all the answers.
@@torstenfensby8081 What I said is not false either