Richard Carrier "Why Science is Better Than Religion and Always Has Been" Skepticon One Redux
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 окт 2024
- New Richard Carrier Interview here:
• Richard Carrier Interv...
Filmed and edited by Rob Lehr of Hambone Productions. Re-uploading any portion of this video is not allowed unless consent is given by Hambone Productions. If you would like to use some of my footage, please send me a PM and we can most likely work something out.
Please visit Skepticon.org
Purchasing calenders and making donations enable us to keep Skepticon 3 free to the public. If you liked the videos and/or the event, please consider donating or purchasing merchandise.
This guy makes complete sense. You really have no basis to argue his points. The best atheist ever. Thank You, Richard.
Daniel Griffith I have no basis to argue his points? What points? He considers nothing. He just says enough that non-thinking people listen and have a brain fart. Good luck with your growth. P.S. God can help.
+Thomas Troxel:
"P.S. God can help."
==When?
Another example > We live in the third dimension, right? Well God is outside of it( maybe in the fourth or even further ). He is always above us and outside of us. Think about it like this. Take 2 HOSES.. And put the one with the smaller diameter inside the one with the bigger. See? we, our universe exist in the smaller one and God is in the bigger. We are limited by ours and we can't see outside of it but God can оbserve us. And also in such way our thinking and knowledge is limited. Just because we can't see outside of the present level of science DOES NOT mean that there is nothing outside of it!
@@thetruthwillblowyouaway6028 give even the slightest bit of verifiable evidence or you are one of the people he is describing in the video. Everything the religious side has claimed, that can be tested, has been proven wrong and now we have yet another religious claim. What are the odds some guy posting on RUclips comments has it all figured out? Please just state a single test you used to confirm you god hose hypothesis
Another example > We live in the third dimension, right? Well, God is outside of it( maybe in the fourth or even further ). He is always above us and outside of us.
Think about it like this. Take 2 HOSES.. And put the one with the smaller diameter inside the one with the bigger.
See? we, our universe exist in the smaller one and God is in the bigger. We are limited by ours and we can't see outside of it but God can оbserve us.
And also in such way our thinking and knowledge is limited. Just because we can't see outside of the present level of science DOES NOT mean that there is nothing outside of it!
Questions like but where God came from and what was before the big bang are so immature.
Maybe we are not supposed to know that! Let me ask you > if right now we have some advanced quantum computer and we simulate a universe and the beings inside of it have consciousness just like us, they won't know more than what we have given them to know. They won't know that they are inside of some computer and that outside of this computer there is existence.
Maybe we are the same. WE ARE NOT PROGRAMMED to ever know what is outside of our universe and what caused the so-called big-bang.
See? We just lack that in our source code. It is not embedded there by our creators. AND THIS IS WHY WE WALK BY FAITH NOT BY SIGHT.
We must be tested, to see who of us are good(think of each one of us as a separate program). And just as programs are tested to see which are good and ready for further development so we are also being tested in this life.
It is impossible that everything happened by chance. There must be someone to cause it or at least to kick it forward, you know.
Some people refuse to believe in a creator because their ego, pride and self-esteem is too high. THEY CANNOT ACCEPT THAT THERE IS SOMEONE GREATER THAN THEM.
The most coherent refutation of God and Faith (aka nonsense) EVER. Even more articulate and compelling than the great Christopher Hitchens.
Yeah this camera work is rough. But the talk is fascinating. It's best to treat it like a podcast.
When people don't need god anymore...god ceases to exist. When there is no more god to believe in, human beings grow with knowledge and wisdom. It is at this point as an intelligent species we regain our human dignity.
Porslice56 : You are sooooo right!
Whoever was operating the camera should be banned from operating a camera ever again for the rest of their life until the end of time.
Yeah! I stopped watching about 2 minutes in and just opted to listen to the presentation. But to be fair, such camera movements were effective for "NYPD Blue" and "The Blair Witch Project".
g1a1r1y3 So where's my +1 or thumbs up? :D
On another note, I watched another R. Carrier lecture where he frequently guzzles water. That is so rude! It's like someone repeatedly burping in your ear. I've run across that in lectures from other people as well. I really hate it.
Duly +1d. ;) I think I know which other presentation to which you refer. I saw one where he gave a lecture on the existence of Jesus and he would guzzle water down like gas down an SUV! Worse was that he would stop mid-sentence to drink water, smack his lips, and it would echo through the microphone. I had to "listen" to that one too!
EdWittenen 🤣😂🤣😂🤣
Just thought I'd leave a reply 4 years later to say that the camera man/woman is still causing pain. Ugh.
The idea of connecting "is" and "ought" statements by proposing the whole thing as a conditional statement was brilliant.
Or I'm just easily impressed :p
I think who videoed this must have just discovered how the zoom works.
"Faith,Intuition and Insight,untested and unsupported,are insufficient guarantee of Truth"....Bertrand Russell(1872-1970)
Ha ha! Jesus didn't know washing his hands kills germs and prevents illnesses. That's just gross!! 😲
when 'some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem' and found the disciples of Jesus ignoring the rabbinical rules about cleanness, they objected and made their objections known to Jesus: 'They don't wash their hands before they eat!' This is not a reference to defective hygiene. They were not suggesting that the disciples' hands were actually dirty, but merely that they had not performed a ritual cleansing before eating.Then Jesus called to the crowd to come and hear. “Listen,” he said, “and try to understand. It’s not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; you are defiled by the words that come out of your mouth.”It has nothing to do with being clean.. Bible readers understand this..
Medical students and their professors at the elite teaching hospitals of this era typically began their day performing barehanded autopsies on the women who had died the day before of childbed fever. They then proceeded to the wards to examine the laboring women about to deliver their babies.
Just trying to get Doctors to wash their hands proved almost impossible..
Dr. Semmelweis was brilliant but had two strikes against him when applying for a position at the Vienna General Hospital in 1846: he was Hungarian and Jewish. Medicine and surgery were considered to be the premier specialties in Vienna but because of his background and religion Semmelweis was relegated to running the less desirable division of obstetrics. Nevertheless, his claim to immortality was the result of an obsession with finding the means to end the childbed fever epidemics that were killing nearly a third of his patients. So thousands of people died needlessly because this man was Jewish.. it took decades for them to realize this man was right..
I wish these guys wouldn't drag out these ridiculous terms like "scientific religion". I mean I know what he's getting at, but it's imprecise and vague.
This is Carrier's best talk as it doesn't gratuitously poke fun at religion and doesn't fail to show and explain the validity of his archeological findings. Here, he builds each of them, religion and science, from the ground up and compares them, using simple reasoning and common human intuition to show the comparison, religion defeated by science time after time. Morality from the ground up as well. Nice talk.
wish i had open my eyes long ago!!!!
All eyes and brains are subjective so don't be too sure your eyes are open to anything other than the dangers of credulity and supposition that you do or can 'Know' anything.
@Toughen Up, Fluffy not a hard solipsist...just a diligent skeptic
Seyton Seek an exorcist priest role open you're eyes to a lot of things.
watch the devil and father amorth trailer.
The comments for this video are delicious.
An Historian who quotes Bill & Ted...? Excellent!...
ralphyetmore a historian...not "an" historian
@@tshirtfactory07 don't be a asshole
Most excellent!
3:50 I think the merchants run out of the marketplace would disagree that Jesus rejected "any and all violence".
Don't forget right before that when Jesus comes across a fig tree that's out of season and he curses it because it didn't have fruit for him when he was hungry.
And of course Luke 19:27
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. Says gentle loving Jesus...
goodfella21f One almost gets the impression he was schizophrenic, or may be, just maybe, the words attributed to him, came from several other people.
No surely not Tony...
Or we aren't reading the text in the correct context, or of course the tried and tested broken god goggles problem...
Tony Hopkinson Indeed, the context is a parable that Jesus is telling his followers, the line you quoted is from a fictional allegorical story inside the fictional biblical story. The words of Luke 19:27 are spoken by a character in that parable who is not Jesus himself (although he can be interpreted as an allegory for a figure like Jesus). The parable is also featured in Matthew 25. See wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_talents_or_minas. I am not trying to defend christianity in any way, I just think is it easier and better to criticize it in an informed manner.:-)
ivorysand I shall amend my language when using it henceforth. So basically we have yet another passage in the bible that someone can justify squinting at?
Hurrah, there weren't enough of them, christians were starting to struggle when trying to make the book of their gods thought conveniently match their own...
From the beginning he points out that religion is not based on objective facts or science and this observation applies to all major religions. Agree or disagree with his conclusions, but a belief without evidence is irrational. Scientific method is a means of understanding the world rationally. Given the choice, I would prefer to base my world-views on empirical evidence.
Videos like this always bring the creationists and believers running to try and discredit the speaker and the ideas presented, and this one was no different. It's disheartening to me, seeing all these poor delusional people spreading the misinformation and lies propagated by creationist websites and apologists in a vain attempt to maintain their delusions, but I'm gladdened to see the number of responses to those untruths by rational and sane people. Maybe there IS hope for us after all.
@Steve - 1) If some choice he makes actually hurt someone that does not disprove all the FACTS that he brings to light about the great deception you are under and all the harmful effects your belief brings to you, your kids ( if you have them) and society at large. 2) people are individuals so it possible that the women he has relations with are evolved to the point that they are not only not harmed but are actually benefiting. You are practicing moral absolutism and YOU ARE judging by a standard that has a) been prove to be a lie and b) is your uninformed opinion because you do not know these individuals. 3) the old testament can't possibly be the beginning story to the new testament for the simple reason that it clearly says that "the most high" is the only true GOD and the new testament turns around and invents two new GODS. Case closed.
@ great points - nicely written
@Steve - so, where is the line>? would it be anyone who is atheist can't know morality>? would it anyone who doesn't believe in some form of Christianity>? would be anyone that doesn't believe in your form of Christianity? can you see how slippery the slope is?
@Steve - wow, I guess I struck a nerve - frankly you are to stupid to waste my time trying to educate
@Steve - you are a big bag of assumptions
You're right that an atheist has no reason to be honest when no one is looking. An atheist is only concerned with one thing, and that is the rejection of theories that rely on god. However, no atheist is just an atheist. I'm an atheist, but I'm also a humanist, a naturalist, an empiricist, a rationalist. I'm a brother and a son. I'm a lover, I'm a fighter. It's not those things which we refuse to believe in that define who we are and what we do, it's the things we do believe in.
While I am not an Atheist I have vast respect for this man and the way he presents, and his information and his speaking style.
I would love to attend one of his live speeches.
Presented with new information that cucks god into oblivion n you still bend the knee to a being that isnt even there? 2+2=5 if jesus says so type huh?
Are you human?
Are you familiar with us?
We are the largest group on the planet
and the dominant species.
If you are a Human Being, then say so?
Learn what you really are????
OH MY (if you'll pardon the term) GOD! Who is operating the camera? YOU DON'T NEED TO ZOOM IN ON EVERYTHING. AND STOP MOVING IT. Treat a camera as if it was someone's head. Would you push that person to the front of the room and put their head 14 inches from Richard's? No.
If we can see him and the slides, then leave the camera alone (or, better yet, get a second camera).
Batmandeltaforce, every sentence you wrote is false. Nine sentences. Every one false.
It's interesting how he also blocked replies. shows how much value his vacuous statements really have.
"If there was anything that Jesus was ever at all clear about, it was an absolute rejection of all violence whatsover.... " Not true at all. Luke 22: 36: "He [Jesus] said to them, 'But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; *and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one*.' " I'm atheist but that's a major fail from a supposed biblical researcher. Still, good talk; thanks.
@deemzje My pleasure, Thank you for your appreciation. Everything that I do is volunteer so It is very nice to receive encouragement.
I might have to re-upload this talk, aspect ratio issues. My raws are in 16x9 and somehow this got cut in 4x3. If the consensus among viewers is such were it is fine the way it is, please let me know and I will leave it be.
Audio mixing is off. But to my question: In the example Carrier gives in the "is-ought" Hume problem, if you have an advanced vehicle that doesn't need oil, why would you consider it whether you ought to or not put oil in it?
Love his books though, have most of them. They're my go-to more than most.
How many times do I have to keep making the mistake of reading RUclips comments?
Argumentum in terrorem. Appeal to fear - logical fallacy. Great example here! Bravo.
Yeah, I really don't get how some religious people say the earth was created in 7 24 hour days and is only a few thousand years old. I believe Genesis is a metaphor and God was in control of the physical processes and the morphing of the energy to create the universe, but not that He waived a magic wand and boom stuff came up.
And I'm sure Hitchens was stumped in this scenario which probably never happened. Religious moralities are arbitrary, while Humanist morality is based on what is actually in the interest of humanity as a whole.
Because science gives appliable results, useful stuff, useful knowledge, instead of ancient pointless fairy-tales from incredibly primitive societies, maybe?: )
I simply believe that God built this universe with mathematics and physical sciences in mind. It sounds crazy to you, but feel free to believe otherwise.
2) and then they test the hell out of it. If the model provides accurate predictions ad utility, and is not falsified and passes all the tests*as evolution has, for instance) it is a vlaid theory(a theory is the highest form of knowledge in science, combining laws and facts together to make an explanatory framework). Please do not deign to lecture me on science when you do not have a working understanding of its methods or epistemology.
1) You seem to not understand what science is, or how it works(I've read some of your comments). First, I borrowed no arguments, only pointed out how religious people can be fine scientists, as long as they go where the evidence leads, as Dr. Miller does. Second, borrowing from the work of others, standing on the shoulders of those who came before you is how science works. Third. science doesn't :prove things", what science does is make models of reality, based on evidence and reason(...)
"Atheism is not a belief that deities do not exist, it is an assertion thereof though." - I have seen atheists like that but that only a narrow set of them. "Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist." - Wikipedia's definition and the definition of most dictionaries. The vast majority fall into the 2nd category (some only when pressed hard enough with questions).
Everyone of the scientists you mentioned accepted the evidence and would change position based on new evidence. Richard acknowledge these principles repeatedly, especially with Galen, who with science and the evidence available at the time, showed intelligent design to be a valid theory, and he would have changed his mind in the face of new evidence. Over and over he explains that the incompatibility is between unsupported supernaturalism and evidence based empiricism.
Being unreasonable isn't a virtue, but simply a constant to human existence.
Being reasonable is necessary to efficiently fix issues. Being perfectly reasonable all the time is tiring as fuck.
Perhaps most of the people who have been through academic environments in developed nations have adapted themselves out of the need for religiosity, but the rest of the world doesn't have a need to even explore or break down these concepts; only to experience them and link them to their everyday life.
Today's evidence roundup report on current species origins:
-- Species by natural selection and mutation: apx. 34,878,321
-- Species by supernatural design: 0
Today's report was brought to you by The Encyclopedia Britanica, Wikipedia, On the Origin of Species, several thousand biology textbooks, tens of thousands of other books and articles from libraries around thw globe, everything currently understood about natural selection, geology, archeology, chemistry, physics, botany, taxonomy, etc.
You made a claim. Your claim was, "You have provided proof to me that you have not really read the Bible." You then don't list the supposed "proof" I gave you as to I have never read the Bible. Fact is, I have read it. I was an Evangelical Christian for 6 years.
My whole point is that your religion isn't based on evidence, proof, or reasonable expectations. How did you refute my claim in your latest post?
I don't have "faith" in the pilot, because there can be things that happen to the plane that are outside the pilots control. I also don't get on a plane "knowing" that I'll get there in a safe manner, that's part of the risk. But that also doesn't mean I put "faith" in the pilot, the plane or anything. I have reasonable expectations based on evidence and past experience that I can get there safely, but it's not a guarantee.
Loser talk? Nice attempt at dodging the question. Does someone need to have credentials on a subject matter if they speak the truth? Simple question. Fortunately for the rest of the world, you do not get to decide when someone can and can not speak at a conference.
As said before, its your opinion and your entitled to it.
Richard Carrier, Education: BA (History), MA (Ancient history), MPhil (Ancient history), PhD (Ancient history)
Alma mater: University of California, Berkeley, Columbia University
Very easy to find for those willing to look before blathering on about things of which we're willfully ignorant.
Evolution is observable, testable, and repeatable. It is also observed, tested, and repeated. Reasonable expectation is not faith. Faith is belief without or despite evidence. For evolution, the evidence is there, no faith required. For creationism, the evidence is not there, and faith is required.
Whats the difference between him waving a magic wand, and creating a universe from nothing via magic?
If you believe in purely naturalistic process creating the universe just set into motion by a god then whats the difference if said god isn't involved?
Just curious.
You obviously don't subscribe to any scientific journals. Let alone on anything about abiogenesis because that field is awesome and is a lot farther along than you seem to realize.
Lone Rook If you want to disagree with the speaker then disagree with his message but not with his right to deliver it
The first thing I learned in English 101 in college: you can't make an argument that something is "better." You may prefer it, but that doesn't make it "better."
With out science you wouldn't have medice, cars, and that fancy little computer you're sitting behind,
This is mistitled. It should really be called "Why Science is Better Than Christianity" since he never talks about any religion other than Christianity.
Beautiful arguments. No hate. It's a pleasure to watch this.
about the Loch Ness monster, i don't believe it. i just like the picture.
There is no conflict between Christianity and science. Science is simply the study of what God created and how it works.
if there is a god he would bless Richard carrier.
" We can all see there's a god " ?????
Actually... no, " we " can't.
And no, none of those odds you gave are zero.
Almost fell off my chair when he said 'the giant spaghetti monster will burn me with it's delicious boiling sauce'!
My right ear loves the audio.
This guy needs Toastmasters training. He simply reads from his notes. I'm not being flippant, but it's just something to think about. I'm finding it hard to follow. Also, I wish he would give more examples instead of just saying they said this or did that. I cannot verify most of the history he is sharing, nor can I find them in context if he doesn't provide the resources. Furthermore, Richard is advocating for science over religion, but science is all about facts. It's not about what Richard says.
One final thought. I don't know what he thinks religion is. The Catholic church, for example, believes in scientific curiosity. Science does not oppose religion and vice versa. Look it up for yourself. Who gave us the Big Bang Theory? He was a Catholic priest. Look it up!
Hint: Georges Lemaître
I enjoyed the speech, but the guy on the camera seems to discovered the zoom-button just few seconds before this started. ;)
I think he forgot that he was speaking at SKEPTICON when he labelled is findings "shocking." H'e preaching to the choir.
I have a lucky charm. His name is Jesus. If I need something really bad I pray to my lucky charm. Somethings I can feel him near me. Other times his near my other lucky charm, his father. I even have another lucky charm, a ghost, which kind of fills the gap between the other 2 lucky charm.... Fuck, am I luck or want.... I have 3 lucky charms.... And all 3 only cost a 10th of my salary a month
IF the author of universe and authentic religion is same, therefore a true divine religion CANT possible contradict with PURE SCIENCE.
* A pure science is an empirical observation of relevant reality.
You're right, I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say though. I was replying to someone who stated that the big bang theory was a "magic accident" and therefore used that as leverage to support the link between science and supernatural claims like the bible. I wasn't downplaying the Big Bang theory's credibility, I accept it as the truth. I was defending it by telling that person that there are logical ways to explain how the big bang theory could have occurred.
A striking fact involving religion is the high number of Laureates of the Jewish faith-over 20% of total Nobel Prizes (138); including: 17% in Chemistry, 26% in Medicine and Physics, 40% in Economics and 11 % in Peace and Literature each. Of Nobel Prize winners 65.4% have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference. Overall, Christians have won a total of 78.3% of all the Nobel Prizes in Peace, 72.5% in Chemistry, 65.3% in Physics, 62% in Medicine, 54% in Economics and 49.5% of all Literature awards. Atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers comprise 10.5% of total Nobel Prize winners.
Reminder that Carriers academic ''research'' is a joke:
His "research experience" is: (from his CV)
- "Extensive library use at universities and seminaries, digital databases (esp. Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, Brepols Latin Texts, L’Année Philologique),
- artifact examination and photographing at the British Museum, papyrus and manuscript analysis, and personal consultation with relevant experts."
LOL
That sounds the research experience of an high school students.
Reminder that to date there is only 1 (one) scholar (Lataster) in the entire academia who condones Carrier's methods and conclusions in academic literature. To call Carrier fringe would be an insult to fringe people.
Reminder that Carrier has sexually harassed a number of women, which led to him getting the perma-ban from Skepticon. He attepted to trade sex with his students for a recommendation letter.
this was a very enlightening and incredibly interesting video. Thank you.
I don't know what is Good in Thinking About Death and None Existence.and i don't know what is Wrong to Hope About Eternal Possibility even About GOD the CREATOR WHO can Give Eternal Life.is it Better to Think about none Existence than Thinking About Possible Eternal LIFE? But then,I wish Eternal Good Luck to Everyone.
Imagine where would the human race be today if the "great" monotheistic religions didn't crush these endeavours dr. Carrier talks about, for 1500 years? Imagine how would the world look like today men and women were allowed to be curious, to discover, to doubt and to pursue scientific methods like they did in the ancient world of Greece and Rome? We basically lost 15 centuries of progress because of these dogmatic religions like Christianity and Islam. Muslims even had a period of intense search for knowledge and discovery from the year 800 AD - 1200 AD when Baghdad was the center of the world's knowledge and science. Than a certain Muslim scholar came and said that Muslims should only read and teach Quran and it became forbidden to own or read another book. We all know how it all ended up for Muslims.. There are 1,5 billion of them in the world and they have 2-3 Nobel prize winners. On the other hand 15 million Jews managed to get over 25% of all the Nobel prize winnings..
Fortunately the Western world has managed to escape the grip of Christian doctrine and power 200 years ago and the results are self evident. Muslims are still where we were 300 years ago..
"Yet God chose the foolish things of the world so He might put to shame the wise" 1 Cor 1:27. Look up "THE CRUCIFIX FISH - WHAT THE CRUCIFIX FISH REVEALS"
Whoa! Gaff! The gravitational constant in other units is NOT larger. No more than you are richer if you express your bank account in pennies than in dollars. And his understanding of the "natural units" is actually dangerously wrong.
And if he can derive G from h then he should inform the physicists, because nobody in the physics depart I got my PhD in was aware of it.
He also repeats the perenial failure of "getting ought from is." And he does it by the usual question-begging dodge. He claims "you want to keep your car running" is an "is" and says it gets you to the "ought" of "you ought to put gas in it." But he does not tell us where the "ought" of "you ought to want your car to keep running" comes from. There is an answer in science, but either he does not know it or he didn't bother to report it.
Oh smeg. He says jails have lots of christians in them. They also have lots of athiests. Is this jerk aware of what a good argument looks like?
This guy is talking crap out of his ass.
"Science and God co-exist. They do not oppose each other."
What is the age of the planet Earth?
He lost me at 3:20. He starts saying "We all know people who claim to be religious" and then says "They'll do this bad thing and that". He is not talking about religion there but morality. Also, I've listened to probably five hours of Carrier on RUclips and he is a very dull speaker and plugs his books too frequently.
Regardless of what you read and your interpretation I find his lectures entertaining and very interesting. I'm interested in facts and ideas not backdoor drama.
His position that jesus didn't existed might be against the current scholar concencis but we will see when his new book comes out and goes through pier review.
Science does not have "values"... Hypothesis, experiment, empirical observation, peer review, are not moral values, its just how science is done. Sadly, this guy is not a special snowflake or really that brilliant. Check out Feynman lectures. Great scientist!
I've been listening/watching quite a few Carrier clips, and I find his arguments are usually convincing. However, in this one he lauds science over religion. I have a problem accepting that science is so perfect. I know that science is gradually moving towards a more correct answer about certain questions, but take nutrition for example. Eggs are bad and then good. Coffee is bad and then good. The amount of different things in a person's diet change constantly. Tobacco was almost a health product before it was found to cause cancer. Most of these were because of the stances of science and scientists.
People are going to reply, "But science has the right attitude towards these things now!" But do we know that? Isn't the constant changing of attitudes towards different things based on the scientists' need to publish and work towards a PhD? The constant need for scholars and scientists to publish pushes them to come up with something new or changed.
Science is the process. Learn English better please.
@Steve a scientist has to separate their hobby from their work to do the job.
@@eatfrenchtoast Are you proud of your English?
Science is a method , not a set of beliefs
Jesus was born with tunnel vision, his peripheral vision was dark and shadowy, hazy images rather than the clarity Humans have at birth (most of us anyway, it seems the last to stand might still be being born with peripheral restrictions); then He went north and west to live with the ancestors of the pheonicians, gained the serenity that comes with wide range of vision, those restricted by tunnel vision exhibit extreme insecurity, The Christ gained the Human brain that automatically offers up alternatives with them being searched for or summoned; the Bully's brain and the brain of the last of our species to stand are different from the Human child's when born, all of us have parallel eyes at birth,... the bully's brain makes a human a freak of nature cuz its eyes are locked, mostly on humans, the brain rendered less than itself by classist/hierarchist parents' and grandparents' need to progenerate for their segment of the Species (less than human); the brain of the last to stand born with peripheral restrictions, then rendered locked by supremacy-seeking sectarian adults, Soooo the lesson for Humanity that we're supposed to learn is that humans can get tunnel vision, even lock our eyes when needed, and unless the our level of honor to the species and planet is minimal )sectarian), we'll regain peripherals, if we're deHumanized to a point where we can only nurture and protect a few, we're operating at less than Human capacity, a sectarian, a bully..
The modern scientific method was birthed from the protestant revolution, when questioning the catholic churches authority was born,& biblical evidence as proof for corrupt priestly assertions was demanded.
''Natural Philosopher'' was the 17 th century term for Scientist-Priest .Dominus illuminato mea is the motto of the University of Oxford and the opening words of Psalm 27, meaning The Lord is my light.
The words of JESUS NO MATTER how UNDER-MINED will abide fore ever. Science only discovers a little of GOD'S WORKS OF CREATION.
It's a silly premise. "Religion" is so broad that in includes fairy tales and witch doctors. And inspiration - even scientific inspiration - doesn't always come with a return address. I remember reading about how someone saved a person who had died from drowning. They prayed what to do, and were instructed by the Spirit of God to blow air into the dead person's lungs. It worked of course, and now it is the most common way to help a drowning victim.
27:50
Damn it, Richard. Why'd you have to go and talk about physics without first consulting a physicist? It isn't the case that "when you use natural units, the constants of nature magically become one," it's the other way around. Natural units are derived by defining the constants of nature (specifically the ones dealing with properties of free space: G gravitational constant; c speed of light; k Coulomb's constant; k Boltzmann's constant; and h Planck's constant) to be one in the first place
JESUS, the constant camera work, Zooming and Unzooming.... it makes watching the video unbearable! I had to alt tab to reddit while letting this video play.
U believe in things that you don’t understand then you suffer 🎼 superstition ain’t the way 🎼🎤💕🛸
Personally, we all created god (s) in our images. Our heaven and hell are internal because there's no spirit in our physical human world, there are, however, spirited human being. Our life and all life form started in their respective fluid like phase like a water droplet and the mountain dew.
I believe in a God being, not one personified as an angry murdering racist that forces you to love him or he'd torture you BUT above all of that, above gender, above slaughtering children, above insanely illogical behavior, above forced love, above everything any religion has ever imagined because man imagined religion.
Religion is not going any where. Europeans want a European Deity that looks like themselves, runs the universe and provides the happy ending . We are not getting rid of Santa's Claus for kids nor Jesus and heaven for Kids .
3:40 If it is specifically "charitable" healthcare (personally voluntary giving) then fine. But categorically denying healthcare to the poor includes totally reasonable positions on the topic when the greater consequences of doing so are considered.
darwin acutally had a fourth book, it was about how simular humans and animals are... not a lot of people know about the book because it is not teached at school... because people didnt care about that part of his evolution theory... the more i learn the more i start feeling disrespect for christian.... they are the reason for so much suffering in the world, just because they are not able to think outside of their box and dont even try to do so. Because of them the world lost so much... and they produced Hilter
Science will make you a loser at betting sports,while following God's days of the week will have you in the black betting baseball.Use the prophets for profit.
12 years later, my main question is still:
(ahem)
Was there really nowhere he could’ve put his water, other than the floor??
42:42 This is basically the best rebuttal to Jordan Peterson's typical rhetoric on religion. Isolate the good so you can do away with the bad. It's as though the idea has not even occured to him..
Medical Science is Better than religion ,until the surgeons can't bring you back the 5th time with electro shock (AED)
This guy and im trying to be as respectful as i can, but this person is not a friendly atheist, hes been laughing at Jesus during all his speech, for instance, when he refers to Jesus, when Jesus says that washing hands is not important, Jesus is referring to the fact that there is something worse than that is what gets out of your mouth, lies, cheating, hypocrisy, Efesios 4:29,
Simplistic response from a simple mind. What Spinoza conceived of as "God," and subsequently Einstein, is far more complex and sophisticated-a-thing to simply say that either of them, "believed in God." The thing is: God as defined by Spinoza is unrecognizable as ANY of the Gods organized religions believe in. Einstein means the mystery and wonder of the universe when he speaks of God. And when Einstein talks about "God" not playing dice he strictly means God metaphorically!
Esuchar al Dr. Carrier no solo es un placer, es también una experiencia intelectual que le recomiendo tanto a ateos como a creyentes. Su trabajo sobre la historicidad de Jesús y sobre los evangelios son fantásticos. En esta charla en particular delinea su pensamiento con una claridad y una lucidez impresionantes. Felicitaciones.
Good talk, too bad the cameraman is drunk.
Maybe the cameraman is a creationist fuming
Imagine born of a rib, virgin birth, the walking dead etc. People need hope and miracle wish under challenging circumstances.
Mr. Lehr, thank you for re-uploading this lecture in one piece. It will be featured.
According to 100 Years of Nobel Prize (2005), a review of Nobel prizes awarded between 1901 and 2000, 65.4% of Nobel Prize Laureates, have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference (423 prizes). Overall, Christians have won a total of 78.3% of all the Nobel Prizes in Peace, 72.5% in Chemistry, 65.3% in Physics, 62% in Medicine, 54% in Economics and 49.5% of all Literature awards.
Other numbers:
Jews - over 20% of total Nobel Prizes winners
Atheists, agnostics and freethinkers - 10,5% of total Nobel Prizes winners
Atheists, despite all their aggressiveness towards religion, going so far as to accuse religion of being something antagonistic to scientific progress, make up just 10.5% of Nobel Prize winners (when they are put together with Agnostics and Freethinkers), in other words, they are far behind the religious people in this regard. Having said that, is not unfoundedly hubristic on their part to regard religion as anathema?
What color hair did the prize winners have? Did they prefer coffee or tea? I see you are trying to take credit for someone else's work. That's all religion does. Takes credit for ethics. Takes credit for goodness. That is perhaps the most dishonest thing about it.
just say it richard, you want to be this new religions god, dare these words damn your lips, and feel so ripe to the taste, take it richard, take the crown...
36:13 Well that's just a crock of shit, *completely* ignoring the fact that some people are just selfish bastards.
Science can be proven. Religion=Allegory or myth. Learned a lot from studying history.
I hope evolution and other hypothesis remain theories, and we don't let science follow the static religious model because of our insecurity.
Right, but I have faith and that is my chosen theory. On the Richard Dawkins scale of 1-7 theist to atheist, I rank pretty theist at 1.8. You probably rank very high on that scale, but my point is, 1s and 7s are nut jobs, because we ultimately don't know God, who he is or what he looks like until we have an encounter with Him. Even a very prominent atheist Bill Maher claims to be about 6.9 on that scale, because he says "We ultimately don't know.". Where do you rank on that scale?