Religion vs Science - Sam Harris & Brian Greene
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 кві 2023
- Religion vs Science - Sam Harris & Brian Greene
#samharris #briangreene #religion #science
Full discussion here: • Aliens, God & Science ...
Sam Harris & Brian Greene - Toronto - Sept 5th 2018
For the first time ever, Sam Harris & Brian Greene sit down for a conversation. They discuss science, reason, AI & more.
Remember to drop a like & consider subscribing if you enjoyed the clip 🙂✌
No intention of watching any video with Sam Harris in it, just stopping by to say phuck Sam Harris who thinks dead kids, societal collapse and corruption are "funny" Sam Harris is not a "keen mind" he is a pseudointellectual grifter and fraud.
maybe don't pin you're own promotion bit tacky
Its free. Don't complain.
- NICE with a video WITHOUT Jordan Peterson !!!
Nice a beta showing their real colors
BETA
@@ParagonRex jp just uses 97 words to say literally nothing of substance.. you dumb idiot lol
He’s there, in the spaces between the sense they are making.
@@Theactivepsychos 😂
The carrot line was very good.
Smart format. I think folks shy away from videos because they're too long when they'd otherwise be interested in them..
Two great minds having a constructive and wide-ranging conversation in an even-handed and reasoned way. Beautiful to watch. 🔥
God bless
@@CountMeCurious as in God blesses me, or you hope God will bless me?
@@CountMeCurious
What a bizarre expression. You are expressing a wish that an imaginary supernatural being should confer some sort of nonspecific supernatural benefit on this person? Why?
Is it like saying "May you have many potatoes"? But is that necessarily what that person needs or wants? Perhaps there are so many potatoes that the person suffocates and dies. Perhaps the potatoes were collected from places where starvation will now result.
It seems to me that these vaguely magical and vaguely positive sayings are just code for "I'm not willing to engage meaningfully here, so I'll just drop this fuzzy token of what I might do if I were to actually do something, and slip away."
Well, bravo. Bless your little heart for trying. Or pretending to try.
Brian for sure. Harris… very good in many aspects, completely ignorant in many others.
This is so fun and I know they both enjoy talking to each other about thesd subjects.
Brian makes so much sense, there are ethics to speak with religious people and help understand the other views, not butchering people with insults and call them names, that’s not how we educate society
Harris has many limitations, and has to do that (including comic relief) to avoid the fact he is poor in many kind of discussions.
I have to disagree with Brian, somewhat. It's getting to a point where the evidence is overwhelming that there are no gods or deities and yet public policy continues to be made in their names. At some point society has to begin pushing back with some determination. Religion causes real harm to real people and it has to end.
And you are going to use a weapon or a stick like a true Marxist?
@@smackyayAre you going to use a vengeful god and eternal damnation as a cudgel and justified righteousness like a good christian?
"It's getting to a point where the evidence is overwhelming that there are no gods or deities" What a nonsense sentence that is. I'll take your assertion in the best possible interpretation I can think of, which is that you mean there is strong evidence against literal interpretations of specific religious dogma; eg, creationism - that the Earth and all life was literally created piece by piece in literally 6 Earth days. But the literal part is very important. That is such a tiny fraction of possibility of how those stories can be understood, let alone the solution space of something existing that would constitute 'god' by any reasonable definition. Plus - if I presume that you strongly favour science and empiricism, you should then know that you can never disprove an unfalsifiable hypothesis (you cant PROVE there's no such things as fairies). So " It's getting to a point where the evidence is overwhelming that there are no gods or deities " is a really silly thing to say.
Not only that but "Religion causes real harm to real people and it has to end" is also just absurd. What you just wrote is also true of politics of any stripe, capitalism, water. Of course it does hArM tO rEaL pEoPle. And it does a lot of good for a lot of people. It's been around for thousands upon thousands of years, and it still around today.. what, while being entirely harmful? Then why are people still doing it? If you've had negative experiences, know people - no doubt the majority of whom agree with you theologically - who also share those experiences, thats unfortunate. But I am 100% sure if you go into a church and ask around there about what religion has done in the lives of those people, they're not going to be talking about harm. At least not initially or as the main thrust, ofcourse they may have some negative experiences because nothing in life is ever perfect. Acceptable to you also, in every other domain except this one for some reason.
A friend of mine once said something similar to your final line, which was "all religion is dogma and must be destroyed." Pause for a moment and consider if you agree.
The thing is, that statement is the very definition of dogmatic. It is absolute, unilateral, and extreme. I'm sure the irony is as lost on you as it was on him. I don't think I'll ever understand why people like you are so determined to throw the baby out with the bath water, but I suppose that's for you to consider. By all means, take issue with people trying to push creationism into science class. But your neighbour down the road who is always super kind to you and finds their faith a great avenue to help them better themselves and improve as people should not give you some existential crisis. And no, I did not imply that faith is the only road to those things. Nor did I say whether I'm religious or not. A screwdriver and a wrench are both extremely useful tools, but you'd be a damned fool to try to use one in lieu of the other.
The difference is Brian...you think it, Sam says what he's thinking...
More respect for honesty and yes, gut punch 👊 can be effective.
Sadly....most people who have been fooled, conned, deceived, indoctrinated or subjugated rarely like to hear or be told the truth ...especially if not sugar coated 😂😂😂😂😂
Yeah, but atheists believe ignorance is the superior position and would rather be indoctrinated with science fiction and sexual depravity.
You've described every human being on the planet.
I think it depends on the reason you have to debate, If you want to win an argument in congress or in public the stick is better because it shows the flaws more evidently, if you want to convince someone in a one to one conversation, the carriot is much better since you don't activate their I-have-to-defend-my-fairies-mode, the stick is more fun though
I love that Brian Greene brought up the rarity of religion/science confrontation in, "Abstract Science," versus Biology (particularly Evolution). Just before he mentioned it, I was actually thinking, "Why is the String Theory guy discussing this issue with Sam Harris?" Of course, in addition to the fact that most theists understand String Theory about as well as they do Evolution, they simply don't see as obvious a contradiction between Greene's research as opposed to...say...Dawkins.
Most atheists understand string theory & evolution?
@@kundakaps Oh, I definitely didn't say that. However, you did catch me in an accidental Logical Fallacy known as the Hasty Generalization, so allow me to clarify. Of the thousands of theists I've ever known or interacted with online, only a handful correctly understand Evolution beyond a rudimentary high school level (if that), and fewer understand even the basics of String Theory. Conversely, again based solely on my own observations, atheists generally demonstrate a higher overall level of scientific understanding. This is partly because learning science (particularly Scientific Method) is often the "gateway" that leads people _out_ of the religions in which they were raised...myself included.
Having said that, I don't mind admitting that I only have an Entry Level understanding of String Theory, _but_ I can _also_ say that most of the theists I've ever known or interacted with online couldn't tell me the first thing about the subject.
Of course, your question is a bit of a Red Herring...whether intentional or not. The overall point is that _if_ theists generally dislike Evolution _more_ than String Theory (as seems to be the case), it's likely because they misunderstand the latter even _more_ than the former. String Theory is still technically, at best, a hypothesis according to the rules of Scientific Method, while Evolution is the most evidently supported Theory in the history of science...more than Plate Tectonics, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and even Gravity itself. Then again, maybe the fact that Evolution _isn't_ as abstract as String Theory is _why_ theists see it as a greater threat to their beliefs. Something that _can't_ be directly observed or demonstrated is far easier to write off than something that can be...and repeatedly has been.
@@OmniphonProductions I suppose you also are an expert on the fine tuning problem and consciousness?
@@Jenniferab32 You mean the Puddle Argument and Psychology as an Emergent Property of Complex Biology? I'm definitely _not_ an expert, but I'd be happy to provide links to reference material created by people who _are._ Until then and/or otherwise, I ask you to honestly consider the following. One's own inability to explain something doesn't mean there's no explanation, and even the absence of an explanation doesn't _by default_ validate an alternative that can't otherwise be objectively validated. (See Also: Logical Fallacies; Argument from Ignorance and/or False Dichotomy)
@@OmniphonProductions above in the comments you were boasting how “atheist” are versed on the ways of science and that’s what leads them to be atheists. I find it puzzling that you would make a statement like that and not know what the fine tuning problem and the mind body problems are. I would argue that atheist are arrogant and lazy. In my experience people who identify with the church of atheism typically know only enough “science” to boost their ego but when it comes to real questions of reality y’all are woefully ignorant.
The stick is simply truth telling. The carrot is avoiding the matter altogether. It's no wonder believers prefer the carrot as it never directly challenges their worldview.
Good to see Religion defended by.... erm.
It's up to us as humans to decide our lives
Definitely sounds like a neuroscientist talking to a physicist.
Thanks Sam.
In my limited understanding, I don't feel our knowledge as a species is anywhere near a level of absolute certainty and dominance of the various levels of existence (in that we have merely figured out how to operate within and govern matter on our little planet and often arrogantly presume our derivations be comprehensive when generations from today we won't have had adequate solutions).
Therefore consider it incautious to discount spirit vehemently - and therefore the main proponent of which being religion; though religious arguments tend to often be easy to argue against (and often pertaining to a single self-referencing set of closed off understandings) - thus I don't think this dichotomy be so necessary to impose, though I appreciate the value of spreading rational thinking, and vice versa that of reminding of our limitedness.
I hate when people go "Not to interrupt. But blah blah blah..." for a minute. You're interrupting.
It’s not literally meant to communicate non interruption it’s just an acknowledgment meant to make the interruption less rude. I get it tho. Maybe people should say “sorry to interrupt” instead.
@@motorhead48067 “With all due respect,” that’s stupid.
@@wades2132 It really isn’t but ok
@@motorhead48067 what’s the emoji for watching a comment go over someone’s head
@@wades2132 It didn’t go over my head lol I’m just assuming that you’re using your joke to make a point. If was only a joke with no point intended behind it at all then that’s fine too.
I depends on what you mean by Brian Greene.
Do most people sit around reading science papers then? And assuming they do, they do it to try eventually put it ALL together to somehow know how to live?
It’s a rhetorical question because I know they don’t. How religion and science even get compared I just don’t know.
Because science teaches facts and religion preaches fiction. Religion introduces fundamentally irrational, and many times harmful, ideas into the human mind. It is a mechanism for mental slavery that has been used to control and subdue the masses for thousands of years. The good things religion does teach are not unique to religion, so overall it represents an assault not only on reason and truth, but also on the freedom and dignity of humanity.
Some of us do. It’s not a recommended way to have a lot of friends, lol.
You don’t have to read papers to appreciate cosmology and evolution.
We have visual evidence of the cosmos and our solar system and once you understand you are traveling around the sun and you can see at night with your own eyes Venus and Jupiter your perspective of your own self awareness and your position and importance in the universe is altered forever.
To give a concrete example, what importance do borders have in the grand scheme of time and space?
So yes understanding makes your more inclusive and appreciative of life.
@@kassios yeah but my point was most people don’t. How many homes do you go in and see a big bookshelf? I think my point is pretty common sense
The whole enterprise seems so absurd, and so childish. Why the "sides" are cut up this way, as if these are alternatives for doing the same job, seems so stupid.
Max Planck states: "Consciousness is fundamental and matter is derived from Consciousness".
The moment a particle is a wave; it has to be a conscious wave!
Gravity is the conscious attraction among waves to create the illusion of particles,
and our experience-able Universe.
Life is the Infinite Consciousness, experiencing the Infinite Possibilities, Infinitely.
We are "It", experiencing our infinite possibilities in our finite moment.
Our job is to make it interesting!
The way humans sit is funny actually.
“Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.” -Isaiah 1:18
This is not clarifying.
I always like the way Hitch put it, and I believe he was quoting Stephen Jay Gould, when he said "Religion and science belong to non-overlapping majisteria." Each one represents different methods of inquiry, asserts different facts, holds different priorities and values, and so there is a difference between the areas over which they have a legitimate magisterium or authority, such that the two domains simply do not overlap.
What truths does religion give that science does not?
I don't recall Hitch saying that, but regardless I find the claim rather patently untrue. Religion makes all kinds of claims about all kinds of things, many of which fall into the purview of science. The superiority of science should've consigned all of those beliefs to the trash dump of history, but it hasn't for a great many people. Further, the moral failings of religion aren't exactly inconsequential, beliefs like the inferiority of women and the evilness of homosexuality, and most of them stand on the legs of those controversial "facts," like the notion that a godly being sacrificed himself to save mankind from sin and was resurrected three days later. This isn't about a separate magisterium, because if Christianity is right about that, then science is wrong about a great many things, starting with the fundamental observation that the dead are not resurrected. The fact is that irrational beliefs about gods tend to engender irrational beliefs about everything else including erroneous moralities that do great harm to people. If so many people didn't believe in the supposed factual bases for their religions they probably wouldn't believe in the morality they espouse either.
I'd also highly recommend Eliezer Yudkowsy's article entitled "Religion's Claim to be Non-Disprovable." It's a pretty brutal and, IMO, irrefutable takedown of the "Non-Overlapping Magisteria" position and how it's basically a big honking lie.
@@jonathanhenderson9422 You're misunderstanding what Hitchens and Gould both meant by "non-overlapping magisteria." Hitchens obviously spent much of his career using science, logic, reason, and evidence to directly refute the foundations and claims of religion. You obviously know this, right? So obviously by his use of that phrase he was most certainly NOT saying that science has nothing to bring to bear on the validity of religion or on its claims about the cosmos. Hitchens was NOT AT ALL saying that religion cannot be addressed by science. The magisterium is the official teachings, beliefs, and methods of deriving knowledge of the Catholic church. Hitchens's point was that science and religion have completely non-overlapping ways of deriving and determining truth, the one being through empirical evidence and the other being through "revealed" truths from God without any need for empirical evidence. That's why he always called out Christians for BS when they'd try to use scientific knowledge to back up their beliefs instead of them just proudly saying it's based on faith and science doesn't matter. If you believe in a God who is not subject to being empirically observed, then you're playing by totally different rules than science; that's what they meant by non-overlapping magisteria. That's all it means, not that science can't directly challenge and be used to disprove the specific claims of religion. Obviously, Hitch and Gould made whole careers doing exactly that, so they would never use that phrase meaning it the way you're suggesting.
@@cortical1 I've read Gould's original essay in which he coined the term. Here's how he defined it: "The net of science covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for starters, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)."
The problem is that this claim is patently wrong, as I argued in my previous post. Religion is in no way limited to values. It never was and never has been, and many of its values and teachings are founded on the authority of the empirical claims they make. Jesus isn't considered an authority just because Christians liked what he taught, but because he claimed to be the son of God who died and was resurrected for our sins. Those claims reside within the empirical world of science, and if they didn't happen that calls into question the entire authoritative foundation upon which the Christian religion is based.
As the article I referenced mentioned, most people who genuinely believe in their religions have, in the past, gone looking for empirical evidence to confirm those beliefs. It was only once they ran into disconfirming evidence--like the fact that Jews were never slaves in Egypt--did many believers start trying to make their religion unfalsifiable. It's worth noting that both Dawkins and Harris are other notable critics of NOMA.
@@jonathanhenderson9422 Yes, I understand and have read all of that. And I'm aware of the critics of NOMA. And I agree with you entirely. What I'm suggesting is that Hitchens, regardless of what others have meant by that phrase, clearly did not mean by it that religion cannot be challenged by science, since as we all know very well that he toured the world and lectured and wrote countless famous books dedicated precisely to the goal of challenging religion using scientific evidence. What he obviously meant in the context he provided, given all his other work, is that science and religion have non-overlapping methods for arriving at truth, not what others have meant, which is that science cannot weigh in on the claims of religion. He very clearly did NOT believe this latter position.
Brian means well, or wants to mean well, but if the goal is the same, Harris as far more experience and knows more about the escapade.
religion is the sum science is the parts u need both and both are incomplete
Culturally, sometimes, the stick works better than the carrot... just a thought
you can not meet a common understanding with these argument because it has differrent factors and aspects. religion is business while science is ressearch.
Jesus suggestions: Understand your creator with heart, soul. and MIND! and treat your neighbor as yourself, everything is your neighbor!
Religion and science are diametrically opposed to one another on content but, more importantly, on cognitive orientation. And you don't have to be a scientist to have the basic cognitive orientation of a scientist.
If religious leaders would speak of honoring parents, not killing, committing adultery, stealing, lying, or coveting another’s property and forget the nonsense that defies reason, nature, and science, I might be interested in hearing what they have to say.
Differing beliefs isn't the problem, it's the way it's approached.
It was nice to see Brian try to teach Sam, although I don't think Sam was able to understand.
When you approach a discussion with anger, arrogance and insults you are inspiring anger, arrogance and insults and there's nothing progressive about that.
I think Sam fully agrees with your last sentence. I have never seen Sam approach a discussion with anger, arrogance and insult.
Sam Harris is the last person I would say approaches discussions like that. I believe his point was, we need to be criticising people’s beliefs so they can understand the truth, whereas Brian was more saying we need to provide the truth, and if someone understands that and makes it work with their faith then who cares about getting rid of their beliefs?
Can’t say I think Harris approaches discussions with arrogance, anger, and insult. He more than anyone I’ve seen tries to use reason exclusively. This makes it very hard for people to get angry and it forces them to respond with reason themselves. When they see they can’t marshal good reasons to defend their beliefs, their beliefs give way.
Like was said in the video, I think both ways of bringing people towards reason and science and away from religion are valid and work for different people.
Sam Harris is a fixture not likely to lose momentum in the short run with lines like the carrot
I believe in God and everything else needs proof beyond all doubt....
Watching top-level rhetoric makes me realize every single time how far ahead Hitchens was against his peers....
Science > Atheism
Team Sam's method. People need to be ready to have their mind changed to begin with. It would be ineffective to lecture atheism at a prison, since criminals need "magical forgiveness" to survive. That's why 99.9% of prison inmates believe in god
It's an interesting question [of how abrasive or placating you may be when debating a religious person]. Dawkins I think goes too far and may turn some people off that he may otherwise have been convinced. Basically calling people dumb asses. I used to be religious and have one friend who I credit for my current non-belief. He was incredibly pragmatic with our debates. He did not placate any of my positions or use the word "maybe". He just completely disagreed with me and didn't back down. Never was an asshole about it. And he just used facts. Completely broke me down eventually. But he was kind and polite and willing to have these debates with me. Without an ounce of arrogance or mocking me. It was nice. I miss those conversations with him.
We hope you subscribe ✌️
Im not sure how you connect capitalism to the global increase in living standards.
Why capitalism and not the distribution of voting rights to the masses? Or the fall of slavery?
He's right. As a theist I watch everything Greene puts out and would love to find the time to read his books. I cant watch Tyson or Harris unless its to watch John Lennox or William lane craig pummel them with their own carrot sticks. Michio Kaku is another great science teacher who doesnt feel the need to undermine his work with bad theology.
Harris has a point about the potential for Christian apathy towards major world events. But its not actually valid because what seems reasonable given the givens to an atheist is not how most christians behave. We do have a measure of peace in the face of a potential cataclysm but this doesnt breed apathy It isn't the conservatives shrugging their shoulders as WWIII looms. The vast majority of Christians are not Jehovahs Witnesses and Jesus warning of wars earthquakes and pestilence was to say that these were Not signs that the end has arrived.
Curious which debates you mean. In every debate I have seen between a Christian evangelist and Atheist, the Christian always loses the debate. All they have is one unsupported assertion after another. They look ignorant. It is very good that some atheists are willing to tackle evangelicals, because there is no evidence for God and yet most people are indoctrinated into these damaging beliefs at a young age.
Why aren’t you able to watch someone like Harris?
The religious in the US are particulary blind or indifferent to the suffering of people in other parts of the world.
The hallmark of science is parsimony. The notion of a god adds nothing to understanding the physical world.
Its sad that brian is religious
Is he?
So long it doesnt interrupt his work, i dont see a problem.
You didn't watch the video did you.
Im sorry i thought he was. I guess im wrong. I heard him say he was from different video
He’s not he just doesn’t hold any hostility towards it like Sam Harris does. I’m an atheist myself but I do find religious debates tiresome and unproductive so the hostility I used to hold towards religion has been moderated somewhat. I still get annoyed at people like Craig and Lennox for basing their whole world views around their own ignorance and biased but no one is gonna change their minds so why bother
In a sense religion and science are two ends of the same thread. These educated minds cannot identify the various shades of colors and unique traits that change with time and knowledge. However, these masters promote the line of the media for atheism (without even realizing how they are wrong).
religion is only harmful when it is fervently believed. why isn't it fervently believed any more? because of free discussion from men like Hitchens, Harris, Russell, Dawkins, etc.
I'm curious, what discoveries or understanding of modern science is there that serve to discredit the God hypothesis? It seems to me that the more science learns and discovers about the nature of the universe, the more it only serves to support it.
@Drengodr cosmology and astrophysics with the discovery of background radiation confirming the big bang aswell as the well known & demonstratable principle of entropy that all point to the universe having a begining.
Biology & genealogy with the mapping of the genome and the discover of DNA and the phenomenal complexity of the data coding system it contains is definitive evidence of design.
Not to mention all the advances in neurology with our understanding of consciousness and the breakthroughs in quantum physics that demonstrate the role of an observer serves in possibilities and reality. Plus there's the good old laws of thermodynamics which are well established and verifiable.
Of course individually, none of these constitute conclusive evidence of course, but they do only support the God hypothesis. We have never discovered anything that would work to discredit it.
It's like when plate tectonics was 1st proposed as a theory. Anybody could easily see that the continents fit together like puzzle pieces but there were still skeptics that demanded more evidence (which is good). And eventually the supporting data piled up until it was undeniable. Individualy, none of that evidence was conclusive on its own but cumulatively was enuf to confirm the theory.
Of course there will always be the flat earth types that will deny something regardless of how much evidence there is to support it.
First, the God assertion is not a hypothesis, because it's not testable by way of empirical evidence. Hypotheses are deemed as such only when they are falsifiable. Second, the God assertion is that a supernatural being exists with supernatural powers and knowledge. In the entire history of earth and humankind, there isn't one single piece of objective empirical evidence that suggests the existence of such a being or powers. So the God assertion remains just an assertion in the absence of evidence until someone can provide some shred of empirical evidence for it. Don't hold your breath. Free yourself from the childish fantasies and embrace the beauty of reality.
Which god?
@@andrewwilliams8986 ??? What do you mean "which god"? There could only be the one. The one that created everything. It seems pretty obvious that all the worlds diff religions are simply diff cultures attempts to conceptualize the same inexplicable phenomenon and address the same fundamental questions. Some did a better job than others and of course none of them got it perfect. How could they? I doubt humans even have the capacity to properly conceptualize such a thing in its totality, but they are all clearly describing the same fundamental concept: a creator.
The "too many gods " arguement is weak and displays a very juvenile perception of what a creator would actualy be.
Which god man ?
The arrogance of Sam Harris is striking. There are many rationale reasons to believe in a creating intelligence (God) or in the resurrection of Jesus. It doesn't mean these reasons are correct but they are, or least can be, based on rational inputs.
Name one 😂
@@weizenobstmusli8232 The extreme fine tuning of the universe. The alphabetic code at the center of organic life. Both manifest the kind of evidence that one would associate with mind or an active intelligence. Neither proves the existence of God, of course, but it is certainly a rational hypothesis to infer so.
You spelled “rational” wrong. Might wanna sit this one out, chief.
@@GENERICCEREAL67 Yikes. A spelling error. That cancels out the whole point I was making! Nice try Jay.
@@markrutledge5855 a few reasons yes, many reasons, not so much, there are some intellectual reasons but the thing is that an incredible mayority don't do it for that reason, most were just indoctrinated and "coincidentially" happen to have the same religion of their parents/communities
Brian has aged horribly since _90210._
Wondering what evidence these guys have to "reason" people out of their religion? Do they have a clue about abiogenesis? Do they have a clue about the universe? Can they explain why did the universe started from order and tending towards disorder? They even cannot explain the data sent back from James Webb. What a joke.
Creation scientists predicted exactly what James Webb "will see", while these guys only dropped their jaws upon receiving the data.
Nonsense. There is no "religion vs science". God as the creator is simply the agent or source of time, space, and matter. Science is simply the study of time, space, matter and how it all works. There's no conflict there. Science is simply studying what God made.
@@LukasOfTheLight "I recommend you take the slightest glance at the history of religion" 99% of all religion is false. Doesn't mean Christianity isn't true. The historical evidence of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is hard to ignore.
@@elkhuntr2816 Does your back not hurt after the hard task of moving those goal-posts?
@@LukasOfTheLight Just speaking the truth based on evidence.
@@elkhuntr2816 There is no evidence whatsoever to support the resurrection of Jesus. Or that he was born of a virgin. These are merely assertions.
@@glennthompson1971 "There is no evidence whatsoever to support the resurrection of Jesus. Or that he was born of a virgin. These are merely assertions." No, actually the resurrection itself is supported by good historical evidence. In fact, even the skeptic agree to the basic historical facts surrounding the resurrection. Jesus was buried in a tomb at a known location, and the tomb was found empty. If the jewish leadership could have presented his body as evidence that he was still dead, they certainly would have. In fact, they made sure a Roman guard was placed at the tomb and the tomb was sealed to prevent theft of the body. And there are accounts of over 500+ eye witnesses of Jesus alive from different people, different places over a time span of 40 days. Not visions of Jesus, but actual interactions with him physically. Here's a quote by Bart Ehrman who is not a Christian, and who does not believe the resurrection happened dispite the evidence. And he has no plausible explanation for those facts, even though he admits they are true:
"That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgment, a fact"
Sam thinks, a stick works. However,
in grand scheme of things it’s not the stick but the carrot. In believing people you have the carrot embedded but stick only pushes people. Let’s stay civilized without degrading others and continue the dialogue. We will get to the end of the tunnel.
Different things work for different people. Sometimes, one thing works and not the other, sometimes both work simultaneously…
Agree, it’s just the way people are being pushed around in dialogues.
There are levels of stupidity that make people think they are smart.
There are people who won't know they are stupid until someone tells them.
Harris acts a lot different when he knows the guy he’s talking to is smarter than him