With due respect to everyone, some people focus on effects others on causes. This is natural, despite the fact both are the same thing in different scales. Each preference creates different perspectives and distinct focuses for convergence as a belief system. Materialists like to float on the surface of the effects. Believers, on the other hand, prefer to delve into the root cause of every cause. The surface is not enough for them. It's incompatible with the vastness of their experiences. Our understanding is framed by our perceptions, which, in turn, are framed by our most valuable senses. Both approaches are correct because each person is experiencing what is possible and safer for them. We defend what justifies our way of being and living.
I disagree with your assessment, but I will not be militant about it because believers often use that term because they have difficulty seeing the limitations of their presuppositions, so labelling is easier. Everyone is a materialist for six days of the week, and some feign magic on Sunday, as that is when believers are encouraged to conjure what they want to be accurate and bend their understanding of reality to fit their imagination. The apparent evidence is that churches send out unlimited hopes and prayers, knowing that they are an imaginary commodity with no value; they want something tangible-materialist-in return.
Once a thought appears, a belief system already formed. A thought can never fully describe reality. So any verbal human to human communication can never convey the real truth
Context and definition is so often assumed. Like when Robert said ok you can push the idea of Elvis on the moon, but before that he didn't accurately infer the contextual definition that was being ment by "consistent".
Then how do believers convert people? You can't convey belief but you can convert to belief. The method generally used is to convey the belief system details and that the convert will experience God feelings if they are worthy. Spreading belief is a very straightforward manipulation of the victim's emotions.
@@markhall2414, that is rather PRESUMPTUOUS of you, wouldn’t you agree, Slave? Presumption is evil, because when one is PRESUMPTUOUS, one makes a judgement about a matter, despite having insufficient facts to support one’s position.
@markhall2414 Ya, that guy ment that an elaborate conspiracy theory about Elvis on the cheese-moon could "agree" with scientific "possibilities" even if it was "improbable" and Robert didn't hear it as "agree" until later on. The guest was clearly disappointed in the way that Robert didn't heat what he meant before he elaborated on what he meant.
The different belief systems are important; they are each a shortened way of thinking through which Life itself intervenes on itself for the reasons self-transformation and self-realization. Science and religion are both different ways of self-alienation - both ways of stepping next to itself for operating on itself for reason of self transformation.
Mixing issues! Science doesn't have nothing to do with belief systems framework. Any try to put both at the same level usually ends in pseudoscience...🤔😵
Gibberish! Belief is acceptance without knowledge. Knowledge is where we find fax. Science rebukes belief. Science rebukes religion. Religion is mythology. Mythology is fiction. What you are speaking of is pseudoscience. Fake science. Fake science is what you find in the indoctrinated media. Real science is what we find when humans observe nature. Read more non-fiction. Dictionary. Encyclopedia. Study linguistics. Check your semantics.
2 things remain for me after this conversation. 1 is his closing comment about how dependable our evolutionary senses are, where he essentially compares the intuitive validity of evolutionary senses with "spirtual intuition", yet he failed to mention how counter intuitive all of atomic and subatomic physics is to the intuition of our evolutionary senses. Spirtually reality is a different level of order from our evolutionary senses, as is theoretical physics and it's philosophical postulates. 2 is I have had spirtual experiences were I have seen future events, and tried to skeptical ignore the data for decades and it WAS NOT MY BELIEF that brought these identical moments to pass. Seeing the future does not require belief or reasoning and science has no ability to prove or disprove these experiences, so how does the doctor recommend I describe or account for my experiences?
(1:45) *JB: **_"If you can find the thing that the person will not give up ... they can fit their other beliefs around that."_* ... Which is what I've been stating all along. The two *core beliefs* that people cling to are *atheism* and *theism.* All other beliefs (scientific or metaphysical) are carefully selected to coincide with their core belief. ... I can accurately predict who is an atheist and who is a theist merely by what "other beliefs" they subscribe to. ... It's the ease of "ideological predictability" that's preventing us from getting "Closer to Truth."
You can probably win a most even money bets that way, but you would not win all the bets. A lot of the founding fathers were deists, who are basically materialists that thought a 'divine watchmaker' had set everything in motion. The philosopher Colin McGinn popped up on CTT recently and he's an atheist who is essentially a dualist. Stuart Kauffman was on CTT a few months ago and is a bit like that, definitely not a theist but he believes in a form of strong emergence beyond physicalism. That's humans for you, we're all over the map.
@@simonhibbs887 *"You can probably win a most even money bets that way, but you would not win all the bets."* ... True, but I do believe the overwhelming majority can be ideologically pigeonholed based on their core beliefs. *"That's humans for you, we're all over the map. I think you have a too reductive a view of how people think."* ... I know I'm not 100% accurate, so I do allow for the outliers. However, I take the *majority* and form my basis on that. The statistics I've seen regarding ideological predictability result in at least a 70% accuracy. You can search the percentage of atheists who are pro-life and compare that to the theists that are pro-choice and clearly see an ideological distinction. *"A lot of the things that you've said about what, or how, or why physicalists think X or Y genuinely do not apply to me, for sure."* ... Maybe so, but I keep testing your thinking with "nonphysical scenarios" that end up going unanswered. I posted a reply today to your "Ultimate Reality" reply which I'd really like to know your thoughts. I think YT might have censored it, but you still might have been able to read it. ... I'll try rewording it and post it again. *"There are plenty of posters here that just turn up to blatantly attack and malign anyone with different views from their own and you're not like that."* ... I like to challenge people's views with various scenarios, but I have no basis to attack their views. Most of the time it's to get people _off the fence_ and make a commitment. I often find myself on the business end of attacks, but that's mostly because I'm so adamant about my opinions. You are so low-key I'm surprised anyone would viscously go after you. I like "poking the bear" with you to get a response, but I always do so with great respect.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC All's cool. Ive noticed sometimes YT doesn't notify of replies for some reason, and I only find replies addressed to me when I look through a thread. The thing is it's a "silent failure". There's no way to know how often that happens without checking every thread all the time.
It will be fascinating to study the gods relation with earths magnetic field. Also is there any sort of possibility that, the earths is storing its states in the silicon repositories and some how we are able to access to states using same magnetic field. In the case of dreams , It will be fascinating to study correlation between gut movements in early morning hours where gut flora is adjustments are done to the dreams that hints to wake up for feces.
in reality, it's perfectly normal to expect manifestation of someone's social/cultural and economical/political influences in their sensitivity toward certain topics...
Well, we all have the same 5 senses. May be the foundation of belief systems? The 5 senses might be what we have in common; however learned biases differ from one person to another.
Belief is acceptance without knowledge. Knowledge is where we find fax. Belief is a disease. Belief is a brain virus. That causes irrational and illogical thinking. Avoid belief because belief is a plague. The remedy is to read more non-fiction. Dictionary. Encyclopedia. Study linguistics. Perfect your dialect. Check your semantics. For example, we are our star. No star no oxygen. No oxygen, no consciousness. Don’t test nature by holding your breath. Breathe! While breathing read more non-fiction.
Robert cannot distinguish the intelligence levels between militant materialists vs theists/believers. Julian Baggini's reply makes sense with interconnecting logics of consistency. Pure common-sense on the parts of both of them. Let's see if my humble take can add anything productive to this intelligent conversation. So what is the interconnecting logic of consistency that accounts for the physicalists quagmire? It's the failure to understand entropy. The hard, physicalist world provides its own evidence of physicalist reality, with the stochastics of dumb-luck randomness (natural selection) being sufficient to explain it, in a self-consistent web of interconnecting assumptions. Their command over the physical (engineering & technology) confirms their physicalist narrative, with its foundations in physics and chemistry. The physicalists, however, have failed to factor in entropy. The dumb luck that they assume is sufficient to explain complexity is the same dumb luck that would undo it. Raise the topic of entropy with these people, and typically, their classic counter is thermodynamic entropy, blah blah, Boltzmann, blah, closed vs open systems, more blah. They just don't get it. What's the interconnecting logic of consistency that accounts for the theistic/believer quagmire? A large component of it is physicalism's contribution to the "instinct" narrative (see above). Animals are governed by instinct, but humans are speshul, made in God's image (typically, the Judeo-Christian model). The self-consistent logic of interconnecting beliefs, driving their narrative, is the apparent impulsiveness of animals contrasted against human-cultural complexity governed by planning, forethought, science, religion and technology. The belief in their intelligent, structured superiority, against the impulsiveness of our goofy animal friends, is sufficient to seal the fate of the non-human as "unconscious" and instinct-governed. Only humans have free-will, dontcha know? Their "evidence" culminates in a self-fulfilling closure, and they fail to understand that the same principles that govern animals also govern them. They also just don't get it. What do both camps have in common? Human exceptionalism. Judeo-Christianity's "Man made in God's image" provided the foundations for the Occidental paradigm and its physicalist sciences and technologies, culminating in a God vs not-God duality. Human exceptionalism has been a curse to progress in the life sciences. When Buddhists talk about the problem of ego, this is the problem that they are alluding to. One thing that might help to undo the ignorance of both is a large asteroid colliding with Earth. Humanity will be thrust into a new hunter-gatherer dark-age, from which there will be little hope of reprieve, and both camps (among those that survive) might be forced into the realization, "hey we really are, at core, just as primitive as the hunter-gatherers that preceded us, all those millennia ago, and there never really was any substantial difference between us and them, we never really learned anything new!" And history repeats, with the re-awakening of a primal dark-age, as if Christianity, the Viking, Hunnic, Mongol and barbarian invasions, the Roman Empire, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein and Charles Darwin had never existed before.
Physicalist here, so I'll put that up front. I get that the emergence of ordered structure in the universe has to be reconciled with the second law of thermodynamics, but I think we pretty conclusively have that now through. Seth Lloyd talks about this here, though the whole interview covers this more comprehensively. ua-cam.com/video/wIoDO1kIS6M/v-deo.htmlsi=NO-_LLgA2vGtxLmh&t=361 >"What do both camps have in common? Human exceptionalism. " As a physicalist I think people are sophisticated physical systems, much like animals or computers. Massively more sophisticated and with some powerful additional capabilities, but no different in fundamental nature. The difference is just in some emergent behaviours. What is the exceptionalism you see in this?
@@simonhibbs887 Engineer here. Thanks for the link. Engineers are those pesky problem-solvers who demand that the bridges they build stand. They extend that same problem-solving obsession to theories. Some of them, when they venture beyond their confines in engineering, demand that theories stand. At 6:11, in that link you provided, Seth says, "Where did all this complexity come from? And that is explained by the fact that the universe is computing." Easy-peazy is Seth's mood. Calm and self-assured the answer flows from him with all the certainty of the Nile. It's computing. Really, now. Where is that computer? Is it in the DNA? In the atoms, molecules or subatomic particles? Is it in the wider universe, wiring up across planets and galaxies? Where are that computer's Boolean logic gates, its circuits and hardware? Before anyone contemplates conjecturing about computers as the basis for living systems, the onus is on them to identify what aspects of biology reflect the sorts of structures that we associate with computers and software. My answer is unequivocal. There is no computer. For all their purported calls for rigor and empirical verification, it's a remarkably flimsy tangent for physicalists to go off on, asserting that it's all just about computing. Incidentally, do we know who else started off life in the physical sciences and engineering? That outstanding American philosopher and semiotician, Charles Sanders Peirce. Engineering, don't knock it :) I'm sure Peirce would say what I'm saying now. Show me that darned computer, nay, show me anything even remotely resembling a computer, or its components, or its software. >"What is the exceptionalism you see in this?" This is separate topic that would take too long to unpack, but it is not unrelated to easy assumptions that people lock onto without regard to the wider evidence, or how it all hangs together, without regard for the evidence that *contradicts* the assumptions that they take for granted.
@@TheTroofSayer Information exists as the structured organisation of physical systems. The spin of a proton, the number and arrangement of atoms in a molecule, a DNA sequence, holes in a punched card, beads in an abacus, the patterns of electrical charge in a computer memory. These are all structured information. Physical processes transform physical systems, which changes the information encoded in that structure. When he says that physics is computational, what he means is that physical processes by their nature transform information. They take an existing physical encoding and transform it into a new encoding. That applies to chemical processes, nuclear reactions, whatever. What we call computers are cleverly constructed physical systems that have been engineered to exploit this process, in order to do transformations of information that are useful to us. So we can feed in information encoded in one physical structure, and get the physical system to output information encoded in a different physical structure, that's been transformed in specific ways that we want.
I really don't understand why it can be called crazy (or silly if you like) if a grownup person beliefs in Santa, but you cannot call him that if he believes in gods.
Because even if you believe in all the most advanced scientific theories, we still have no explanation for what - if anything - the universe came from, what consciousness *is*, why anything exists at all, or whether anything has purpose. God provides a comforting answer to existentially terrifying questions.
@@Alex-js5lg We don't know, therefore god. We don't know the cause of thunder and lightning, Thor! . We don't know what causes diseases, so some god must be punishing us. We don't know why our crops die, present more offerings to the gods! We don't know why the sun rises, Ra does it! Yes, you are right, there are still many things that humanity doesn't know. It used to be much, much more. Traditionally gods where always the perfect answer until we learned how things really are. Why on earth would you defend an ancient proposition that has been proven wrong so many times - and never has been proven right? I don't have to *believe* in advanced scientific theories: I can verify them myself. Although some of the proof is not in reach of a single person, and not all of it can be proven in a single human's life, anyone can, in principle, personally, verify every scientific theory. (And if you find a better explanation for any, science will gladly adapt and accept a new theory.) On the contrary: no-one has ever, or will ever be able to verify the existence of any god, except in your own faith. Why is your god the one and only real one, and not one of the other hundreds (or even thousands) that other religions claim to be their one and only real one? What makes your one different? The answer is simple: your one is in your head, while the other ones are in the heads of other people and so the others are just imagination .... I also have a simple answer to everything: I personally created the universe, this morning just before breakfast. Including an uncountable number of billions years old stars, million years old fossils hidden all over the world, the internet, and of course also you. Perfect explanation, isn't it? Although you may prove me wrong if you can.
@@Alex-js5lg That's nice for those who simply cannot bear not to have an answer, and many will accept the first story they are told as children in order to have one, but some of us are willing to accept that there are some thing we just don't know because accepting that is a prerequisite to being able to find out.
Maybe a better way to think about it is that a valid belief system can appear inconsistent at its face. For example, light acts as both a wave and a particle depending on how you interact with it. That seemed inconsistent until a theory of quantum mechanics was developed. I don't see how something can be inconsistent and correct at the same time. Also, inconsistency makes prediction (and therefore compliance with rules) very difficult. It also allows people who relay/direct the beliefs of the group to pick and choose their readings to suit their agendas.
All our "CONSCIOUS CHOICES" in all our lives have been based on a belief that these choices are the good, better, best, or right choices to make... there is no conscious choice, NONE, that is not based on a belief system.. ..and for materialists who have rejected belief systems did not even realize that all their conscious choices are based on a belief that these were the right choices to make before they decided to execute them.. ... the reason for all these is because our true being is NOT PHYSICAL, not bound by physical laws... this is why our WILL IS FREE - free to believe anything for any reason even for nonsensical or crazy reasons... Our opposing beliefs on same topic or same subject is testament to this truth... ..in other words, we are free immortal souls with "free will to believe" just dwelling temporarily inside these physical human vessels for a chance of salvation through faith in a loving Almighty Creator...
We're not free to choose what to believe. Here's a challenge for you: Let us know when you've successfully chosen to believe we're NOT free to choose what to believe.
@@brothermine2292 your challenge to dare me to believe what you want is your choice, not mine.... My will is free to believe or not to believe in my own choice, not yours... I won't be free if I am a slave to whatever you demand, sir..
@@jessiahstalbirds.j.794 if you are just a physical animal driven by natural laws, then you are not free and, so, UNACCOUNTABLE like a programmed robot... but because you can freely choose what to believe, then you are not physical... Good commonsense might help, if you have it..
Eveadam3635, you missed the point of my challenge. You CAN'T choose to believe anything. I could instead have challenged you to believe 2+2=5, or that you're the elected leader of the Earth, and you would be unable to choose to believe it. To eliminate your excuse that you don't want to serve as my puppet, here's a less-constrained challenge for you: Instead of me picking something for you to try to believe, you pick something you believe is false, and let us know when you've successfully chosen to believe it's true.
No one has ever said this as clearly as William James in The Will to Believe. IMO Baggini errs in saying that the phenomenal experience of the table is any different from the phenomenal experience of God. As Kant showed, we have no access to the noumenal table or the noumenal God. We interpret both through the prism of our understanding. It should surprise no one that someone raised Jewish should experience God differently than one whose understanding of the world is shaped by Christianity. It is a lot easier to agree about a table.
It never fails. When the faithful speak of their faith it's from their heart. And when an atheist speaks it too is from their heart. This atheist doesn't have a clue why he and people of faith sound the same. This atheist doesn't have a clue about belief systems. He doesn't have a clue about his own system of disbelief. All faiths including atheists are the same in that all of them accomplish the same goal. They all derive to the same result. This atheist is wrong faith is universal as well as his is. I'm being cagey I know, but the truth is for all to witness.
The difference between a puma and a lion a puma prefer to sleep high up in a tree safety reasons, Unlike lions rely on the pride and leader for protection and support. My point is some people are followers and some people are not this is the real reason there should be laws
Naturalistic matierialism is a belief system it seems to me, that life and the universe is the result of unconsciose unguided processes is a leap of faith.
Religion is mythology. Mythology is fiction based on human imagination. We have known this for eons. There is no mystery. There is no conundrum. Belief is a disease. Belief is a human brain virus that causes irrational and illogical thinking. The remedy is to read more non-fiction. For example, we are our star. No star no oxygen. No Oxygen no consciousness. Don’t test nature by holding your breath. Breathe! While breathing read more non-fiction. Dictionary. Encyclopedia. Thesaurus.
Please consider this : All our "CONSCIOUS CHOICES" in all our lives have been based on a belief that these choices are the good, better, best, or right choices to make... there is no conscious choice, NONE, that is not based on a belief system.. ..and all our loving Creator hopes for is for you to at least include Him as part of your beliefs that may even save you from the tyranny of evil forces... is this too much to ask ?
The five elements is a major contribution the welfare of your being. Harnessing it is another thing entire. Without patience and trust, you will be under the spell of the world rather than your being.
The problem is the what if. There is no what if. God is a mythological character. Fiction. There is no what if. There is no hypothesis. Religion is not science. Religion is the opposite of science. Scientists can study religion. We don’t have to Analyze religion any further, because after eons of analysis and experiment, the conclusion has determine religion to be allegory/fiction from its inception. Know if Ann’s or butts about it! Read more non-fiction. Science, rebukes hypothesis. Science has the answers and humans use the scientific method to discover the answers that have always been present. Time is the answer to all of your conundrum’s. You don’t have to believe us as a matter of fact, we recommend you avoid believe like the plague because believe is a plague. We recommend you read more nonfiction.
Science, rebukes, analogies, metaphors, allegory, imagination, and belief. Science is humans observing nature and nature provides the answers. Science rebukes atheism. Atheism is religion. Atheism and atheist is a religious term that the British monarchy labels humans who refuse to believe. Scientist are not atheist. Scientist are knowledgeable humans. Scientist know where intelligence comes from. Intelligence comes from our star the sun. We experience time through our star the sun. Time is the fabric of the universe. Time is everything and everything is time. There is no need to believe. Read more non-fiction. Dictionary. Encyclopedia. Thesaurus.
@@VaughanMcCue Hey Vaughan, what if the whole reason for the physical universe is for God not to be alone? And what if he wanted another being to be super intimate with him, like a bride. And if he, being the most powerful being in the universe, made it impossible for anyone not to believe in him; how would he know whether his bride was only loving him for his money, or just because he loved HER?
@@robertjoyce5629 I am confident that you recognised that you unloaded a Gish Gallop of compound questions for (failed) rhetoric purposes and are unlikely to be interested in any answers. The mixed metaphors are too complex to entertain, but I think you are implying something about a gay god and a gay jesus. Notwithstanding your convoluted comment, if your imagined entity existed, according to popular scriptural interpretations, its behaviour would be similar to an abusive partner who controls his victim with threats.
@@mattcorregan4760 There are atheist dualists. Coin McGinn is one, and a clip of him was posted on CTT recently. There are also Deists, who are basically physicalists in every other way, except they think that the universe was created by a divine being that exists outside it.
The Believe, is bound to the Ability to Believe, Instinct, Gravity and Strong Feeling, is the Base. The Development of Feeling-Experiences, gradually activates/wake the Intelligence, by the growing intelligence, the Beings are leaving, the Believe, they Want to Know. Two plus two is equal to Four, 2+2=4 everything else, is Religion. All Life-Unit's, Living Beings, know Instinctly, that they is part of 'something', reality, existence, Life, it is the 'Religious Instinct', the Dead-scream in the Jungle, is the first un-conscious prayer. Fear leads to Warning-words, Language and Consciousness is two sides of the Same Development. The Eternal Life, is Kernel, in the handful of old World-Religions, the Modern Life-Science, is on way, the Old Wisdom and Mysteries will be ful Cleared, Modern superstition and illiteracy still fill our space, but wont last.
Your comment is gibberish! What you were speaking on is intuition. Belief is a disease. Belief is a human brain virus that causes illogical and irrational, thinking. Delusion! The remedy is to read more non-fiction. For example, we are our star. No star no oxygen. No oxygen, no consciousness. Don’t test nature by holding your breath. Breathe! While breathing read more non-fiction. Dictionary. Encyclopedia. Thesaurus. The brain disease known as belief is spread by the colonizers/invaders of planet earth. Religion is mythology. Mythology is fiction. Read more non-fiction.
A belief system (or memeplex) is simply knowledge in our mechanism of intelligence (our brain), that we cannot eliminate. Brains are fundamentally prone to acquiring them. Any implementation (e.g. electronic rather than biological) of our mechanism of intelligence would have the same vulnerability (to acquiring belief systems it cannot get rid of). Being unable to get rid of a belief system doesn't make it true.
If the guest thinks that those who are convinced that God exists are doing so solely based on feelings (Emotions), he still has a lot to learn. I think he could do better if he starts reexamining why he is bent on preaching atheism. Could he perhaps be the one who bases his atheistic BELIEFS solely on emotions rather than digging up facts? He will do well to examine why he exists as a conscious human being and yet he thinks that the source from which everything came forth could never be conscious. Let him put aside his emotions and carefully examine that.
Nothing of what i say is "spam", even lies are interesting. I am a poet that writes prose to be understood better, all my work is poetry. I am God and humanity have to act swiftly and efficiently to avoid deaths. From now on all the executions in the world are cancelled to save lives. Who would disagree with that? Humanity would have a debate and referendum on the abolition of the death penalty. In my curriculum I have that I was religious and atheist and I have discovered that the greatest knowledge of all time, that is going unnoticed, censored and not understood, is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. Would you do me a favor and tell your innocent and vulnerable children what i just told you? They would understand what humanity don't.
You obviously don’t know the definition of science. Science is humans observing nature. This video is pseudoscience. If you don’t understand what pseudoscience is, I suggest you look up the word pseudo. The propaganda media on earth is saturated with pseudoscience. Real scientists know religion is mythology. God is a mythological character from Greek mythology, particularly the colonizers/invaders of planet earth. We suggest you read more nonfiction. Dictionary. Encyclopedia. Thesaurus. Belief is a disease. Do you see the word lie and belief? The word lie and belief is intentional. Belief is a human brain virus that causes illogical and irrational, thinking. Delusion! The remedy is to read more non-fiction. For example, we are our star. No star no planet. No planet no atmosphere. No atmosphere no oxygen. No oxygen, no consciousness. Don’t test nature by holding your breath. Breathe! While breathing read more non-fiction.
He spends the entire interview downplaying consistency as anything important, and then seizes on lack of consistency as his argument against people’s reported direct experiences of “God.” People seeing the table in front of him which he mentions, would report completely different descriptions of it three weeks after seeing it, but he expects people’s experiences of God to be consistent between different cultures? The idea that “God” is a thing or an object of perception that can be described at all is known by any religious scholar to be a lower conception of God than the formless infinite presence which takes on forms according to the symbols of people’s belief systems.
Well said. Also, if you flip a table over, is it still a table? Here is an even clearer example. Let's say I have a large plastic cap. If I simply flip it over, I could say it's a cup, and to prove it, I can pour water into it, so it literally and physically "holds water." So is it a cap or cup, both or neither, or does it depend on its utility in the eyes of the beholder? In the context of this example, I'd say it's plastic.
@@GlobRes That's why I used the example of the Cap/Cup because what an object is can be validly interpreted in different ways. The point of saying it was "plastic" was to point out a deeper truth.
No, consistency isn't especially important if it is there, but clearly it's important when it's not. After all, people can arrange for their alibis and excuses and fibs(including the ones they tell themselves) to be consistent. That just shows a certain thoughtfulness. That does not mean that these fibs are actually true. In fact, you actually watch for what seems like a rehearsed story when you're trying to catch someone out. But if consistency is MISSING then clearly we know that what the person claims CANNOT be true
Nobody will ever know any- thing in itself, be them religious people or scientists. Broadly speaking, both religion and science are interpretations. Science is a system more coherent than religion, but not completely coherent because if that were the case, scientific ‘progress’ wouldn’t be possible. My critique of both is that they miss THE point which is grounding in proper relevance ie the realities of human living. Both are inadequate; religion is immoral, science is purportedly beyond good and evil ‘objectivity’, hence a-moral. Same ridiculous and damaging zealotry wearing different hats.
I don't believe in Jesus because of emotional experience. I've never had a strong religious experience. I am biased towards Christianity because I was raised in it but I can also see the points why people would be athiests. I believe the preponderance of probabilistic evidence is greater for theism in general and the historical/archeological recorded existence of YHWH is strong (Jews exist and so does the ruins of their temple). I stay a loyal to Yeshua as The Christ of Hebrews that came to join loyal gentiles into the family because the unique testimony of the witnesses that doesn't match the way someone would manufacture a 1st century contemporary narrative (e.g. embarrasing stories about the Christian apostles and leaders and women being witnesses). They didn't care about convincing people thousands of years in the future. Keep in mind that even if someone is presented with evidence of something they don't want to believe, most will find a reason to dismiss it. Heck, the claim is that Jesus came in person and he was still rejected by the majority because he didn't meet their expectations! Even in the Hebrew scriptures it says that the experience of extradimentional visitation was VERY rare.
Good interview and great subject matter.
This guy is amazing… he asks the right questions…
Julian's replies were even more amazing. Strength of belief does not make a proposition true..
With due respect to everyone, some people focus on effects others on causes. This is natural, despite the fact both are the same thing in different scales. Each preference creates different perspectives and distinct focuses for convergence as a belief system. Materialists like to float on the surface of the effects. Believers, on the other hand, prefer to delve into the root cause of every cause. The surface is not enough for them. It's incompatible with the vastness of their experiences. Our understanding is framed by our perceptions, which, in turn, are framed by our most valuable senses. Both approaches are correct because each person is experiencing what is possible and safer for them. We defend what justifies our way of being and living.
I disagree with your assessment, but I will not be militant about it because believers often use that term because they have difficulty seeing the limitations of their presuppositions, so labelling is easier.
Everyone is a materialist for six days of the week, and some feign magic on Sunday, as that is when believers are encouraged to conjure what they want to be accurate and bend their understanding of reality to fit their imagination.
The apparent evidence is that churches send out unlimited hopes and prayers, knowing that they are an imaginary commodity with no value; they want something tangible-materialist-in return.
Once a thought appears, a belief system already formed. A thought can never fully describe reality. So any verbal human to human communication can never convey the real truth
Context and definition is so often assumed. Like when Robert said ok you can push the idea of Elvis on the moon, but before that he didn't accurately infer the contextual definition that was being ment by "consistent".
Then how do believers convert people? You can't convey belief but you can convert to belief. The method generally used is to convey the belief system details and that the convert will experience God feelings if they are worthy. Spreading belief is a very straightforward manipulation of the victim's emotions.
In your own words, define “REALITY”. ☝️🤔☝️
@@markhall2414, that is rather PRESUMPTUOUS of you, wouldn’t you agree, Slave?
Presumption is evil, because when one is PRESUMPTUOUS, one makes a judgement about a matter, despite having insufficient facts to support one’s position.
@markhall2414 Ya, that guy ment that an elaborate conspiracy theory about Elvis on the cheese-moon could "agree" with scientific "possibilities" even if it was "improbable" and Robert didn't hear it as "agree" until later on. The guest was clearly disappointed in the way that Robert didn't heat what he meant before he elaborated on what he meant.
The different belief systems are important; they are each a shortened way of thinking through which Life itself intervenes on itself for the reasons self-transformation and self-realization. Science and religion are both different ways of self-alienation - both ways of stepping next to itself for operating on itself for reason of self transformation.
Mixing issues! Science doesn't have nothing to do with belief systems framework. Any try to put both at the same level usually ends in pseudoscience...🤔😵
It's ironic that the myth of the garden of Eden tells us that in the first few pages of the Bible.
Gibberish! Belief is acceptance without knowledge. Knowledge is where we find fax. Science rebukes belief. Science rebukes religion. Religion is mythology. Mythology is fiction. What you are speaking of is pseudoscience. Fake science. Fake science is what you find in the indoctrinated media. Real science is what we find when humans observe nature. Read more non-fiction. Dictionary. Encyclopedia. Study linguistics. Check your semantics.
2 things remain for me after this conversation.
1 is his closing comment about how dependable our evolutionary senses are, where he essentially compares the intuitive validity of evolutionary senses with "spirtual intuition", yet he failed to mention how counter intuitive all of atomic and subatomic physics is to the intuition of our evolutionary senses. Spirtually reality is a different level of order from our evolutionary senses, as is theoretical physics and it's philosophical postulates.
2 is I have had spirtual experiences were I have seen future events, and tried to skeptical ignore the data for decades and it WAS NOT MY BELIEF that brought these identical moments to pass. Seeing the future does not require belief or reasoning and science has no ability to prove or disprove these experiences, so how does the doctor recommend I describe or account for my experiences?
(1:45) *JB: **_"If you can find the thing that the person will not give up ... they can fit their other beliefs around that."_* ... Which is what I've been stating all along. The two *core beliefs* that people cling to are *atheism* and *theism.* All other beliefs (scientific or metaphysical) are carefully selected to coincide with their core belief. ... I can accurately predict who is an atheist and who is a theist merely by what "other beliefs" they subscribe to.
... It's the ease of "ideological predictability" that's preventing us from getting "Closer to Truth."
You can probably win a most even money bets that way, but you would not win all the bets. A lot of the founding fathers were deists, who are basically materialists that thought a 'divine watchmaker' had set everything in motion. The philosopher Colin McGinn popped up on CTT recently and he's an atheist who is essentially a dualist. Stuart Kauffman was on CTT a few months ago and is a bit like that, definitely not a theist but he believes in a form of strong emergence beyond physicalism. That's humans for you, we're all over the map.
@@simonhibbs887 *"You can probably win a most even money bets that way, but you would not win all the bets."*
... True, but I do believe the overwhelming majority can be ideologically pigeonholed based on their core beliefs.
*"That's humans for you, we're all over the map. I think you have a too reductive a view of how people think."*
... I know I'm not 100% accurate, so I do allow for the outliers. However, I take the *majority* and form my basis on that. The statistics I've seen regarding ideological predictability result in at least a 70% accuracy. You can search the percentage of atheists who are pro-life and compare that to the theists that are pro-choice and clearly see an ideological distinction.
*"A lot of the things that you've said about what, or how, or why physicalists think X or Y genuinely do not apply to me, for sure."*
... Maybe so, but I keep testing your thinking with "nonphysical scenarios" that end up going unanswered. I posted a reply today to your "Ultimate Reality" reply which I'd really like to know your thoughts. I think YT might have censored it, but you still might have been able to read it.
... I'll try rewording it and post it again.
*"There are plenty of posters here that just turn up to blatantly attack and malign anyone with different views from their own and you're not like that."*
... I like to challenge people's views with various scenarios, but I have no basis to attack their views. Most of the time it's to get people _off the fence_ and make a commitment. I often find myself on the business end of attacks, but that's mostly because I'm so adamant about my opinions.
You are so low-key I'm surprised anyone would viscously go after you. I like "poking the bear" with you to get a response, but I always do so with great respect.
@@simonhibbs887 I think my watered-down reply to the other CTT video finally went through.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC All's cool. Ive noticed sometimes YT doesn't notify of replies for some reason, and I only find replies addressed to me when I look through a thread. The thing is it's a "silent failure". There's no way to know how often that happens without checking every thread all the time.
Belief system as tribe, as in-group. Perhaps as a place of reciprocal rationalization of doctrine.
It will be fascinating to study the gods relation with earths magnetic field. Also is there any sort of possibility that, the earths is storing its states in the silicon repositories and some how we are able to access to states using same magnetic field.
In the case of dreams , It will be fascinating to study correlation between gut movements in early morning hours where gut flora is adjustments are done to the dreams that hints to wake up for feces.
in reality, it's perfectly normal to expect manifestation of someone's social/cultural and economical/political influences in their sensitivity toward certain topics...
Well, we all have the same 5 senses. May be the foundation of belief systems? The 5 senses might be what we have in common; however learned biases differ from one person to another.
Objectivity. And in regards to disabilities: Often, a missing sense is compensated by others.
Belief is acceptance without knowledge. Knowledge is where we find fax. Belief is a disease. Belief is a brain virus. That causes irrational and illogical thinking. Avoid belief because belief is a plague. The remedy is to read more non-fiction. Dictionary. Encyclopedia. Study linguistics. Perfect your dialect. Check your semantics. For example, we are our star. No star no oxygen. No oxygen, no consciousness. Don’t test nature by holding your breath. Breathe! While breathing read more non-fiction.
Robert cannot distinguish the intelligence levels between militant materialists vs theists/believers. Julian Baggini's reply makes sense with interconnecting logics of consistency. Pure common-sense on the parts of both of them. Let's see if my humble take can add anything productive to this intelligent conversation.
So what is the interconnecting logic of consistency that accounts for the physicalists quagmire? It's the failure to understand entropy. The hard, physicalist world provides its own evidence of physicalist reality, with the stochastics of dumb-luck randomness (natural selection) being sufficient to explain it, in a self-consistent web of interconnecting assumptions. Their command over the physical (engineering & technology) confirms their physicalist narrative, with its foundations in physics and chemistry. The physicalists, however, have failed to factor in entropy. The dumb luck that they assume is sufficient to explain complexity is the same dumb luck that would undo it. Raise the topic of entropy with these people, and typically, their classic counter is thermodynamic entropy, blah blah, Boltzmann, blah, closed vs open systems, more blah. They just don't get it.
What's the interconnecting logic of consistency that accounts for the theistic/believer quagmire? A large component of it is physicalism's contribution to the "instinct" narrative (see above). Animals are governed by instinct, but humans are speshul, made in God's image (typically, the Judeo-Christian model). The self-consistent logic of interconnecting beliefs, driving their narrative, is the apparent impulsiveness of animals contrasted against human-cultural complexity governed by planning, forethought, science, religion and technology. The belief in their intelligent, structured superiority, against the impulsiveness of our goofy animal friends, is sufficient to seal the fate of the non-human as "unconscious" and instinct-governed. Only humans have free-will, dontcha know? Their "evidence" culminates in a self-fulfilling closure, and they fail to understand that the same principles that govern animals also govern them. They also just don't get it.
What do both camps have in common? Human exceptionalism. Judeo-Christianity's "Man made in God's image" provided the foundations for the Occidental paradigm and its physicalist sciences and technologies, culminating in a God vs not-God duality. Human exceptionalism has been a curse to progress in the life sciences. When Buddhists talk about the problem of ego, this is the problem that they are alluding to.
One thing that might help to undo the ignorance of both is a large asteroid colliding with Earth. Humanity will be thrust into a new hunter-gatherer dark-age, from which there will be little hope of reprieve, and both camps (among those that survive) might be forced into the realization, "hey we really are, at core, just as primitive as the hunter-gatherers that preceded us, all those millennia ago, and there never really was any substantial difference between us and them, we never really learned anything new!" And history repeats, with the re-awakening of a primal dark-age, as if Christianity, the Viking, Hunnic, Mongol and barbarian invasions, the Roman Empire, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein and Charles Darwin had never existed before.
Physicalist here, so I'll put that up front. I get that the emergence of ordered structure in the universe has to be reconciled with the second law of thermodynamics, but I think we pretty conclusively have that now through. Seth Lloyd talks about this here, though the whole interview covers this more comprehensively. ua-cam.com/video/wIoDO1kIS6M/v-deo.htmlsi=NO-_LLgA2vGtxLmh&t=361
>"What do both camps have in common? Human exceptionalism. "
As a physicalist I think people are sophisticated physical systems, much like animals or computers. Massively more sophisticated and with some powerful additional capabilities, but no different in fundamental nature. The difference is just in some emergent behaviours. What is the exceptionalism you see in this?
@@simonhibbs887 Engineer here. Thanks for the link. Engineers are those pesky problem-solvers who demand that the bridges they build stand. They extend that same problem-solving obsession to theories. Some of them, when they venture beyond their confines in engineering, demand that theories stand. At 6:11, in that link you provided, Seth says, "Where did all this complexity come from? And that is explained by the fact that the universe is computing."
Easy-peazy is Seth's mood. Calm and self-assured the answer flows from him with all the certainty of the Nile. It's computing. Really, now. Where is that computer? Is it in the DNA? In the atoms, molecules or subatomic particles? Is it in the wider universe, wiring up across planets and galaxies? Where are that computer's Boolean logic gates, its circuits and hardware? Before anyone contemplates conjecturing about computers as the basis for living systems, the onus is on them to identify what aspects of biology reflect the sorts of structures that we associate with computers and software.
My answer is unequivocal. There is no computer. For all their purported calls for rigor and empirical verification, it's a remarkably flimsy tangent for physicalists to go off on, asserting that it's all just about computing.
Incidentally, do we know who else started off life in the physical sciences and engineering? That outstanding American philosopher and semiotician, Charles Sanders Peirce. Engineering, don't knock it :) I'm sure Peirce would say what I'm saying now. Show me that darned computer, nay, show me anything even remotely resembling a computer, or its components, or its software.
>"What is the exceptionalism you see in this?"
This is separate topic that would take too long to unpack, but it is not unrelated to easy assumptions that people lock onto without regard to the wider evidence, or how it all hangs together, without regard for the evidence that *contradicts* the assumptions that they take for granted.
@@TheTroofSayer Information exists as the structured organisation of physical systems. The spin of a proton, the number and arrangement of atoms in a molecule, a DNA sequence, holes in a punched card, beads in an abacus, the patterns of electrical charge in a computer memory. These are all structured information. Physical processes transform physical systems, which changes the information encoded in that structure.
When he says that physics is computational, what he means is that physical processes by their nature transform information. They take an existing physical encoding and transform it into a new encoding. That applies to chemical processes, nuclear reactions, whatever.
What we call computers are cleverly constructed physical systems that have been engineered to exploit this process, in order to do transformations of information that are useful to us. So we can feed in information encoded in one physical structure, and get the physical system to output information encoded in a different physical structure, that's been transformed in specific ways that we want.
I really don't understand why it can be called crazy (or silly if you like) if a grownup person beliefs in Santa, but you cannot call him that if he believes in gods.
Because God takes the scary unknowns away.
Because even if you believe in all the most advanced scientific theories, we still have no explanation for what - if anything - the universe came from, what consciousness *is*, why anything exists at all, or whether anything has purpose. God provides a comforting answer to existentially terrifying questions.
@@Alex-js5lg We don't know, therefore god. We don't know the cause of thunder and lightning, Thor! . We don't know what causes diseases, so some god must be punishing us. We don't know why our crops die, present more offerings to the gods! We don't know why the sun rises, Ra does it!
Yes, you are right, there are still many things that humanity doesn't know. It used to be much, much more. Traditionally gods where always the perfect answer until we learned how things really are. Why on earth would you defend an ancient proposition that has been proven wrong so many times - and never has been proven right?
I don't have to *believe* in advanced scientific theories: I can verify them myself. Although some of the proof is not in reach of a single person, and not all of it can be proven in a single human's life, anyone can, in principle, personally, verify every scientific theory. (And if you find a better explanation for any, science will gladly adapt and accept a new theory.)
On the contrary: no-one has ever, or will ever be able to verify the existence of any god, except in your own faith. Why is your god the one and only real one, and not one of the other hundreds (or even thousands) that other religions claim to be their one and only real one? What makes your one different?
The answer is simple: your one is in your head, while the other ones are in the heads of other people and so the others are just imagination ....
I also have a simple answer to everything: I personally created the universe, this morning just before breakfast. Including an uncountable number of billions years old stars, million years old fossils hidden all over the world, the internet, and of course also you. Perfect explanation, isn't it? Although you may prove me wrong if you can.
@@Alex-js5lg That's nice for those who simply cannot bear not to have an answer, and many will accept the first story they are told as children in order to have one, but some of us are willing to accept that there are some thing we just don't know because accepting that is a prerequisite to being able to find out.
Santa Claus is a known fictional character
God is the source of all knowledge. Quite a bit different
Nice room. It's like in the Matrix
4:48 If "Elvis is on the moon" - where's he getting his oxygen supply from?:-)
A coherent collection of lies makes belief powerful
Julian takes no bs. Whatever you may call it.
A correct belief system does NOT have to be consistent. The consistency might not be so important as normally be thought.
Maybe a better way to think about it is that a valid belief system can appear inconsistent at its face. For example, light acts as both a wave and a particle depending on how you interact with it. That seemed inconsistent until a theory of quantum mechanics was developed.
I don't see how something can be inconsistent and correct at the same time. Also, inconsistency makes prediction (and therefore compliance with rules) very difficult. It also allows people who relay/direct the beliefs of the group to pick and choose their readings to suit their agendas.
Belief means hallucinating.
All our "CONSCIOUS CHOICES" in all our lives have been based on a belief that these choices are the good, better, best, or right choices to make... there is no conscious choice, NONE, that is not based on a belief system..
..and for materialists who have rejected belief systems did not even realize that all their conscious choices are based on a belief that these were the right choices to make before they decided to execute them..
... the reason for all these is because our true being is NOT PHYSICAL, not bound by physical laws... this is why our WILL IS FREE - free to believe anything for any reason even for nonsensical or crazy reasons... Our opposing beliefs on same topic or same subject is testament to this truth...
..in other words, we are free immortal souls with "free will to believe" just dwelling temporarily inside these physical human vessels for a chance of salvation through faith in a loving Almighty Creator...
We're not free to choose what to believe. Here's a challenge for you: Let us know when you've successfully chosen to believe we're NOT free to choose what to believe.
Free Immortal Souls? ... Free Will? ... So now we're going to play the ... Game of, Linguistic Gymnastics.
@@brothermine2292 your challenge to dare me to believe what you want is your choice, not mine.... My will is free to believe or not to believe in my own choice, not yours... I won't be free if I am a slave to whatever you demand, sir..
@@jessiahstalbirds.j.794 if you are just a physical animal driven by natural laws, then you are not free and, so, UNACCOUNTABLE like a programmed robot... but because you can freely choose what to believe, then you are not physical... Good commonsense might help, if you have it..
Eveadam3635, you missed the point of my challenge. You CAN'T choose to believe anything. I could instead have challenged you to believe 2+2=5, or that you're the elected leader of the Earth, and you would be unable to choose to believe it. To eliminate your excuse that you don't want to serve as my puppet, here's a less-constrained challenge for you: Instead of me picking something for you to try to believe, you pick something you believe is false, and let us know when you've successfully chosen to believe it's true.
"If only people were rational they would think as I do."
@@markhall2414 yes, and they generally think of themselves as rational.
No one has ever said this as clearly as William James in The Will to Believe. IMO Baggini errs in saying that the phenomenal experience of the table is any different from the phenomenal experience of God. As Kant showed, we have no access to the noumenal table or the noumenal God. We interpret both through the prism of our understanding. It should surprise no one that someone raised Jewish should experience God differently than one whose understanding of the world is shaped by Christianity. It is a lot easier to agree about a table.
It never fails. When the faithful speak of their faith it's from their heart. And when an atheist speaks it too is from their heart. This atheist doesn't have a clue why he and people of faith sound the same. This atheist doesn't have a clue about belief systems. He doesn't have a clue about his own system of disbelief. All faiths including atheists are the same in that all of them accomplish the same goal. They all derive to the same result. This atheist is wrong faith is universal as well as his is. I'm being cagey I know, but the truth is for all to witness.
God is Not Objectively True...
God is only Subjectively True..
2nd view here😊
The difference between a puma and a lion a puma prefer to sleep high up in a tree safety reasons,
Unlike lions rely on the pride and leader for protection and support. My point is some people are followers and some people are not this is the real reason there should be laws
When you cant understand why Patience is called your God, you are doomed to understand life and expansion.
Naturalistic matierialism is a belief system it seems to me, that life and the universe is the result of unconsciose unguided processes is a leap of faith.
I laugh when I hear someone say that there is a definitive answer between whether or not God exists
Gnostic atheists are a rare breed . I know no atheist who is proclaims they are certain .
Theists on the other hand …..,
And btw . There is a definite answer . We just don’t know which one is correct
Religion is mythology. Mythology is fiction based on human imagination. We have known this for eons. There is no mystery. There is no conundrum. Belief is a disease. Belief is a human brain virus that causes irrational and illogical thinking. The remedy is to read more non-fiction. For example, we are our star. No star no oxygen. No Oxygen no consciousness. Don’t test nature by holding your breath. Breathe! While breathing read more non-fiction. Dictionary. Encyclopedia. Thesaurus.
@@tonyatkinson2210 and if it turns out to be the case that we can NEVER know the answer, then that means it's NO definitive answer.
@@UriyahRecords gods existence is an unfalsifiable claim, so I don’t think there’s any way how we can ever know
Please consider this :
All our "CONSCIOUS CHOICES" in all our lives have been based on a belief that these choices are the good, better, best, or right choices to make... there is no conscious choice, NONE, that is not based on a belief system..
..and all our loving Creator hopes for is for you to at least include Him as part of your beliefs that may even save you from the tyranny of evil forces... is this too much to ask ?
And who created the evil forces...?
The five elements is a major contribution the welfare of your being. Harnessing it is another thing entire. Without patience and trust, you will be under the spell of the world rather than your being.
What if there is a perfectly logical reason that God makes himself fall into the category of things that can be doubted?
The problem is the what if. There is no what if. God is a mythological character. Fiction. There is no what if. There is no hypothesis. Religion is not science. Religion is the opposite of science. Scientists can study religion. We don’t have to Analyze religion any further, because after eons of analysis and experiment, the conclusion has determine religion to be allegory/fiction from its inception. Know if Ann’s or butts about it! Read more non-fiction. Science, rebukes hypothesis. Science has the answers and humans use the scientific method to discover the answers that have always been present. Time is the answer to all of your conundrum’s. You don’t have to believe us as a matter of fact, we recommend you avoid believe like the plague because believe is a plague. We recommend you read more nonfiction.
Science, rebukes, analogies, metaphors, allegory, imagination, and belief. Science is humans observing nature and nature provides the answers. Science rebukes atheism. Atheism is religion. Atheism and atheist is a religious term that the British monarchy labels humans who refuse to believe. Scientist are not atheist. Scientist are knowledgeable humans. Scientist know where intelligence comes from. Intelligence comes from our star the sun. We experience time through our star the sun. Time is the fabric of the universe. Time is everything and everything is time. There is no need to believe. Read more non-fiction. Dictionary. Encyclopedia. Thesaurus.
I doubt that. 😉
@@VaughanMcCue Hey Vaughan, what if the whole reason for the physical universe is for God not to be alone? And what if he wanted another being to be super intimate with him, like a bride. And if he, being the most powerful being in the universe, made it impossible for anyone not to believe in him; how would he know whether his bride was only loving him for his money, or just because he loved HER?
@@robertjoyce5629
I am confident that you recognised that you unloaded a Gish Gallop of compound questions for (failed) rhetoric purposes and are unlikely to be interested in any answers. The mixed metaphors are too complex to entertain, but I think you are implying something about a gay god and a gay jesus.
Notwithstanding your convoluted comment, if your imagined entity existed, according to popular scriptural interpretations, its behaviour would be similar to an abusive partner who controls his victim with threats.
Is atheism a belief system? If it is not, please do a discussion on what upholds atheism. If you can find a word for it.
its a lack of any particular belief system
@@melonusk6120no it’s not, it is a belief in materialism
I would say agnostic is the lack of a belief system atheist is a belief just the belief that there is no higher power or other belief system.
@@mattcorregan4760So many atheists have been idealists for that matter, so what you are saying is simply incorrect...
@@mattcorregan4760 There are atheist dualists. Coin McGinn is one, and a clip of him was posted on CTT recently. There are also Deists, who are basically physicalists in every other way, except they think that the universe was created by a divine being that exists outside it.
The Believe, is bound to the Ability to Believe,
Instinct, Gravity and Strong Feeling, is the Base.
The Development of Feeling-Experiences,
gradually activates/wake the Intelligence,
by the growing intelligence, the Beings are leaving,
the Believe, they Want to Know.
Two plus two is equal to Four, 2+2=4
everything else, is Religion.
All Life-Unit's, Living Beings, know Instinctly,
that they is part of 'something', reality, existence, Life,
it is the 'Religious Instinct',
the Dead-scream in the Jungle, is the first un-conscious prayer.
Fear leads to Warning-words, Language and Consciousness is
two sides of the Same Development.
The Eternal Life, is Kernel, in the handful of old World-Religions,
the Modern Life-Science, is on way, the Old Wisdom and Mysteries
will be ful Cleared, Modern superstition and illiteracy still fill our space,
but wont last.
Your comment is gibberish! What you were speaking on is intuition. Belief is a disease. Belief is a human brain virus that causes illogical and irrational, thinking. Delusion! The remedy is to read more non-fiction. For example, we are our star. No star no oxygen. No oxygen, no consciousness. Don’t test nature by holding your breath. Breathe! While breathing read more non-fiction. Dictionary. Encyclopedia. Thesaurus. The brain disease known as belief is spread by the colonizers/invaders of planet earth. Religion is mythology. Mythology is fiction. Read more non-fiction.
A belief system (or memeplex) is simply knowledge in our mechanism of intelligence (our brain), that we cannot eliminate.
Brains are fundamentally prone to acquiring them. Any implementation (e.g. electronic rather than biological) of our mechanism of intelligence would have the same vulnerability (to acquiring belief systems it cannot get rid of).
Being unable to get rid of a belief system doesn't make it true.
If the guest thinks that those who are convinced that God exists are doing so solely based on feelings (Emotions), he still has a lot to learn. I think he could do better if he starts reexamining why he is bent on preaching atheism. Could he perhaps be the one who bases his atheistic BELIEFS solely on emotions rather than digging up facts? He will do well to examine why he exists as a conscious human being and yet he thinks that the source from which everything came forth could never be conscious. Let him put aside his emotions and carefully examine that.
I expect you are an atheist when it comes to Thor and Zeus. How does it feel?
Guys believes in his interlocking holes and mutualy supporting . Guys please try again It is rambling giberrich. Back to phich proceending truly.
First
Nothing of what i say is "spam", even lies are interesting. I am a poet that writes prose to be understood better, all my work is poetry. I am God and humanity have to act swiftly and efficiently to avoid deaths. From now on all the executions in the world are cancelled to save lives. Who would disagree with that? Humanity would have a debate and referendum on the abolition of the death penalty. In my curriculum I have that I was religious and atheist and I have discovered that the greatest knowledge of all time, that is going unnoticed, censored and not understood, is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. Would you do me a favor and tell your innocent and vulnerable children what i just told you? They would understand what humanity don't.
Your guest does not seem to understand that belief systems have to be reasonable
The discussion as literally about what reasonableness and rationality are. Baggini sets that up from about 00:40.
Robert thinks “it’s impossible to prove God from physical facts”
Does he realize science cannot and does not prove anything at all, by definition?
You obviously don’t know the definition of science. Science is humans observing nature. This video is pseudoscience. If you don’t understand what pseudoscience is, I suggest you look up the word pseudo. The propaganda media on earth is saturated with pseudoscience. Real scientists know religion is mythology. God is a mythological character from Greek mythology, particularly the colonizers/invaders of planet earth. We suggest you read more nonfiction. Dictionary. Encyclopedia. Thesaurus. Belief is a disease. Do you see the word lie and belief? The word lie and belief is intentional. Belief is a human brain virus that causes illogical and irrational, thinking. Delusion! The remedy is to read more non-fiction. For example, we are our star. No star no planet. No planet no atmosphere. No atmosphere no oxygen. No oxygen, no consciousness. Don’t test nature by holding your breath. Breathe! While breathing read more non-fiction.
He spends the entire interview downplaying consistency as anything important, and then seizes on lack of consistency as his argument against people’s reported direct experiences of “God.” People seeing the table in front of him which he mentions, would report completely different descriptions of it three weeks after seeing it, but he expects people’s experiences of God to be consistent between different cultures? The idea that “God” is a thing or an object of perception that can be described at all is known by any religious scholar to be a lower conception of God than the formless infinite presence which takes on forms according to the symbols of people’s belief systems.
Good point. Would also add, that of course tables very widely across cultures too.
Well said. Also, if you flip a table over, is it still a table? Here is an even clearer example. Let's say I have a large plastic cap. If I simply flip it over, I could say it's a cup, and to prove it, I can pour water into it, so it literally and physically "holds water." So is it a cap or cup, both or neither, or does it depend on its utility in the eyes of the beholder? In the context of this example, I'd say it's plastic.
@@GlobRes That's why I used the example of the Cap/Cup because what an object is can be validly interpreted in different ways. The point of saying it was "plastic" was to point out a deeper truth.
No, consistency isn't especially important if it is there, but clearly it's important when it's not. After all, people can arrange for their alibis and excuses and fibs(including the ones they tell themselves) to be consistent. That just shows a certain thoughtfulness. That does not mean that these fibs are actually true. In fact, you actually watch for what seems like a rehearsed story when you're trying to catch someone out. But if consistency is MISSING then clearly we know that what the person claims CANNOT be true
Nobody will ever know any- thing in itself, be them religious people or scientists. Broadly speaking, both religion and science are interpretations. Science is a system more coherent than religion, but not completely coherent because if that were the case, scientific ‘progress’ wouldn’t be possible.
My critique of both is that they miss THE point which is grounding in proper relevance ie the realities of human living. Both are inadequate; religion is immoral, science is purportedly beyond good and evil ‘objectivity’, hence a-moral. Same ridiculous and damaging zealotry wearing different hats.
science is the one logically incoherent lol
@@aiya5777
I expect you got your words into this channel without electrons dancing.
I don't believe in Jesus because of emotional experience. I've never had a strong religious experience. I am biased towards Christianity because I was raised in it but I can also see the points why people would be athiests.
I believe the preponderance of probabilistic evidence is greater for theism in general and the historical/archeological recorded existence of YHWH is strong (Jews exist and so does the ruins of their temple). I stay a loyal to Yeshua as The Christ of Hebrews that came to join loyal gentiles into the family because the unique testimony of the witnesses that doesn't match the way someone would manufacture a 1st century contemporary narrative (e.g. embarrasing stories about the Christian apostles and leaders and women being witnesses). They didn't care about convincing people thousands of years in the future.
Keep in mind that even if someone is presented with evidence of something they don't want to believe, most will find a reason to dismiss it. Heck, the claim is that Jesus came in person and he was still rejected by the majority because he didn't meet their expectations! Even in the Hebrew scriptures it says that the experience of extradimentional visitation was VERY rare.