Watch Dave Rubin's FULL INTERVIEW with BRET WEINSTEIN here: th-cam.com/video/yKWM76weXBc/w-d-xo.html&pp=gAQBiAQB Watch Dave Rubin's recent interview with Bret Weinstein here: th-cam.com/video/9EcsO-MoltE/w-d-xo.html&pp=gAQBiAQB
Whenever I listen to BW speak, I honestly have trouble understanding what he's even saying. It's like he's an expert at making vague, emotionally-charged, foreboding claimes which are like astrology...they can mean whatever the listener wants them to mean. He frequently references sources to back up these vague claims, but never specifically mentions them in a way that can be checked. I've never gotten stronger Ellsworth Toohey vibes from any TH-cam personality.
@@Pseudothink- That’s not what I get from Bret and I strongly dislike emotionally charged anything, especially emotionally charged and vague arguments. I may be a little on the spectrum with how much ambiguity totally baffles me. My mind races with all the possibilities to the point that I can’t settle on a meaning. It’s like dropping a tempest in my brain. To the contrary, Bret brings clarity to me and some very worthwhile perspectives to consider even if you don’t agree with them. As a leftist type, he’s the kind that I can see myself building a better world with or saving it if we’re fortunate. To each his or her own. I can respect your take even if I don’t agree with it.
The big mistake Atheists in the West made is that they went solely for Christianity and ignored the others. People need a Spiritual fix at some point in their lives and you do NOT want that fix coming from somewhere else.
Richard Dawkins has been the Aimee Semple McPherson of "Science Atheism". Chapter 4 of "The God Delusion" begins with RD deconstructing brilliant physicist/atheist Fred Hoyle's statement: "life beginning naturally on earth is as likely as a hurricane assembling a fully functioning Boeing 747 going through a junkyard". Dawkins says, 'Hoyle fails to recognize the power of "natural selection". NS NEVER,EVER,EVER results in inanimate objects resolving to life through "numerous, successive, slight, modification"; THE 2ND LAW NEVER allows it......EVER! RD has his "unchallenged, infinite regress" triumph. Problem is (among several) he literally is too ignorant to know its derivation. It's THE 1ST LAW: "heat NEVER originates de novo". In the 1st Chapter he stipulates that he will be referencing ONLY supernatural gods going forward. BUUTTT...the 1st law is THE most natural of all laws. "Supernatural" is unconstrained by the natural...that's WTF it means. Infinite regress/1st law is by definition not disqualifying of an omnipotent god. AND THAT'S ONE PAGE OF THE LITERAL FOOL...it gets better and better
C.S. Lewis talked about this in this book The Abolition of Man on the early 20th Century. Frederich Nietzsche understood the problem of atheism before Lewis. Fyodor Dostoevsky was a hero to Nietzsche. They all recognized the problem of life without Christ.
"Frederich Nietzsche understood the problem of atheism before Lewis." Thank you. I am so sick of hearing that Nietzsche was an atheist, or a nihilist. No, he saw these things as _problems_ , as serious problems that we needed to find a way to overcome or else it would destroy us.
And to those who are uncomfortable about the Idea of 'Christ', Christ means, in this context: the-moral-code-that-bound-us-together-as-a-society-for-2000-years
When people start believing the mythology of magic(rationality from irrationality) that we know of as evolution that mindless matter and mutation manifest code, then they'll believe any nonsense.
While I'm not religious, I recognized even back in the mid '90s that there was a good place for it because at least for a certain group of people borrowing the exceptions, it helped to give people moral and ethical compasses. Unfortunately around that same time religious groups kind of gave up and you can see the decline of when religion was forced out of schools for example and where we are today.
@@MajeedBelle Just Christian religion. They still teaching things like the ancient babylonian myth lightning struck a prebiotic pool and manifested life. It's just Christian belief that birthed modern science they want to get rid of ironically.
@@tomasrocha6139 Sorry but to put it nicely you haven't the vaguest clue about the state of evolutionary theory in the academic field. It doesn't work, it has countless foundational critical issues, and biologists have been trying to wholly replace the model for awhile now. There was a big conference on it back in 2016. I'll help you out further. Renowned biologist Denis Noble has given the explicit statement and given evidence for it "neo Darwinism doesn't need to be supplemented or extended, it needs to be replaced because it's completely inadequate. Why because scientists are beginning to see levels of complexity way beyond just the complexity of DNA, like epigenetic complexity." Genomes don't improve over time they degrade. Virus data like John Sanford on H1N1 the spanish flu shows this. Human genome from encode has shown every generation humans have 100 mutations. The only nobel laureate in the field Hermann J. Muller said just 1 mutation per generation in humans means there is no evolution explanation humanity is progressing in the opposite direction 1 per generation is deadly, yet we find out the number is 100. The human genome is degrading not progressing to a better state. This shouldn't be a shock, as information theory states information degrades, and information is the basis of life. All the beneficial mutations in biology like the famous citrate metabolism in ecoli or antibiotic resistance are not from gain or improvement in genetic information, but reductive evolution. A degrading or loss of information crippling a function in the organism that produces a beneficial effect while still being a loss of genetic function. As the famous Lenski experiment showed. There is no evolutionary pressure to create building blocks of mechanisms that don't yet exist. Evolution does not have foresight. Mindless matter and mutation can't manifest code. That's rationality from irrationality. That's a reality breaking concept. If you can get such a deus ex machina mechanism that does that it invalidates all human achievement and personhood because then the universe did it all. This is why the multiverse theory is so absurd. This is why all of naturalism is absurd because it's predicated on such a deus ex machina mechanism that does not exist. Darwin's Origin never explains the origin of species -- and this is stated by David Berlinski no less. How does chance determine when to stop at the "desired" outcome? The concept of evolution is nonsense. Could also point out y chromosome adam and mitochondrial eve data shows humans had two ancestors and did not evolve. Shocker the dating is roughly 6000-7500 years just like the biblical genealogy dating going back to Eden, and the dating is quite accurate in a general sense as it's just averaging mutations per generation then counting back to when they stop appearing. The list goes on and on and on. We could go into the Cambrian explosion, we could show random number generator studies for probability, or studies on evolutionary probability of mammals as size increases and so on. Darwinian evolution is a mythology of magic(rationality from irrationality), it's pseudo science and also invokes time of the gaps and god of the gaps along with all the other issues no less.
That would work. I entered the University of Minnesota in 1966 - the SAT scores peaked then (we didn't need them at UofM - they had a nasty homebrew) and standards were extremely high. My history PhD program at Berkeley starting in 1970 was very strong. (Both schools charged $140 a quarter - you'd often pay more for books.) JFK, LBJ and Nixon were Presidents - I'd take any of them over Biden. The US was top dog in wealth and technology and workers were very well paid. Of course there was Vietnam - but the world isn't perfect.
@@ryanprosper88 yeah people dn't realize this is the same idea present the whole time reaching critical mass, not that the ideas weren't there. People like weinstein (both of them) ignored it at their peril.
Glad you've never put a foot wrong and I'm absolutely certain that if you had, you would be as intellectually and morally honest to discuss it publicly here like Brett does. Must be difficult at the top looking down at all us mere mortals sinning all over the place, eh?
The older I get, the more religious minded I get. Not because I think my time is running out, but because the more I witness the radical left, the more I want to run screaming the other way.
Is your prior reticence to religion because you don't wish to be associated with religious people and the stories they believe? You don't have to do that, you can go a different way and still believe in something more, something transcendent. There is no requirement for you to fall in lock-step with every religious person that you meet. You have autonomy in this regard. In my view, the most important question everyone needs to answer for themselves is, "Do you HOPE there is a God?" Answering no to that question requires some explaining.
Beware ALL ideological extremes/absolutes. "Kind prince there is nothing in the realm of ideas that is absolute, therefore all efforts to form ideologies are ultimately futile." - Lao Tzu
Just because one group has gone more crazy, doesn't mean I've forgotten the previous groups crazy. I am fully capable of standing with christians to battle the current insanity, but still capable of remembering just how much they abused peoples rights the last time they were in full control. Don't get me wrong, I am talking about power structures here and not individuals. Most religious folk are or at least try to be good people. It is the people in or wanting power that are the problem on both sides of the fence.
I would normally agree, but in the interest of being charitable, I think he worded that a bit hastily/clumsily. I suspect that what he meant was that the current cultural milieu sees science and spirituality as mutually exclusive. That public perception makes it difficult for matters of faith to even get a fair hearing; ergo, the ideas of faith and spirituality can no longer be studied as legitimate frameworks for personal philosophy and ethics in the eyes of the public (because it's usually rejected out of hand as flat wrong by the vast majority of people).
@@dougcarey2233 The vast majority of people? This is where atheists get it so wrong and so backwards. Atheism is the fringe view for humanity, not theism. The vast majority of people believe in God, so obviously belief in God isn't flat our rejected by the vast majority of people because belief is held by the vast majority of people. Atheism is the weird view for humanity.
... and he has to be vague because the evidence against atheism has become overwhelming... and he knows it but can't bring himself to admit it... and even worse, it means there's someone - God - way smarter and way more powerful than him.
No, he is rtrdd when it comes to certain topics. I'd bet a 1000$ that he would be still a woke mf along with his wife if the woke crap he championed until then didn't bite him in the ass.
One of the best examples, is dads used to wrestle with their kids when they were young (usually under 5). That kind of ended. Research shows that kids that wrestle with their dads have way higher self esteem and way lower anxiety as adults. We have NO idea of the damage caused by getting rid of things that seem useless.
Wow! Thank you for mentioning this. I don't know why, but I had all but forgotten wrestling lovingly with my dad when I was a little kid in the late 70s and early 80s. It was one of the most fun things for me to do when I was right around the age you cite.
@@Matzes, no not at all. It's from not being more careful when we abandon traditions. Some may have evolved into traditions for very good reasons, that we have long since forgotten.
@@Matzes, because many traditions come from religion. The Protestant Religions are the ones that got the most things right. The Protestant nations (Germany, UK, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) have ruled the world for about 500 years. That means they got more right than wrong, or at least more right then any other religion. Abandoning all of their traditions is foolish and self destructive. Atheists believe in evolution of nature, I am amazed to see that many don't believe in evolution of human culture. In at least 10,000 years of human culture protestantism has won the survival of the fittest.
Some of this was predictable. We know because it was predicted. The notion of unrestrained post-modernism, growing from epistemological to ontological, eventually deconstructing what seemed to be the most basic distinctions that no sane person would question was very much something that some people were concerned about. Further, the notion of separating moral value from any objective ontological grounding, what sorts of vacuums that would create, and the sorts of things that would attempt to fill it, was also something some people were concerned about. For example, C.S. Lewis was concerned about both.
When religious people stop murdering eachother for land and when prisons in the US aren't 90 plus percent religious people then they can talk to atheists about morality. 😂
I am inclined to thing that it was not "some" people concerned by decosntruction; or "some" people worried about what sorts of vacuum would follow. There have been a mulltiplicity of influencers, not the least being the internet where ideas have been floated absent any moorings and absent any in-depth analysis of proposals.
@@captainkirk4271 "We can make our own purpose, as we see fit and need. " And the reason we shouldn't take up the same purposes as Jeffrey Dahmer is? This is the moral ontology problem. If Nihilism ("optimistic" being a psychological attitude towards it) is an accurate description of reality, then there exists nothing by which one can rightfully say that some purposes are better than others. There is no legitimate anchor or constraint.
The more and more I listen and talk to atheists, the more and more I'm positive that God's existence has little bearing on their choices; they just didn't want people telling them that doing drugs and having sex all the time was bad for them. If the Bible never mentioned touching their weiners in it, at most we'd simply have some agnostics.
Exactly. Religion is the same as politics. It is inescapable. You can get rid of all Governments and political parties, but that just means that your politics is anarchism and all political debates have to be settled among the people. The same with religion. Get rid of Religion, and all that happens is that you end up with secular religious ideologies, all of which are dangerous because there's no objective moral standard with which to temper extremism. The level of religion and politics in any society is always at 100%. The only question is which ideology/belief structure is preeminent.
The funny thing is, I remember listening to Rush Limbaugh in the 90's (I grew up in the Bible Belt) where he argued that all the affirmation of the homosexual agenda as it was presented in the mid-90's, using the specific form of argumentation being used, would lead to the affirmation of other sexual perversions as "orientations" because that's how a person *feels.* In retrospect, whatever else one might think of Limbaugh, I remember the criticism that affirming someone's sexual interests on the basis of "I was born this way" was laughed and dismissed by the mainstream liberal movement at the time. And here we are.
We knew Rush was right on pretty much everything. We could figure out that the direction things were going was not based on a firm, logical and consistent foundation.
Personally, I think the 'I was born a homosexual' makes as much sense as 'I was born to like strawberry ice cream'. It's that much of a 'choice'. We may be capable of eating other flavours, but we have a specific favourite, and we have no idea why. You may prefer the taste, but WHY do you prefer the taste? The answer is 'I just do'. It's a psychological topic, because if it was genetic, the gay gene would exist, and it does not despite all the stupid efforts to find it and scientifically explain the phenomenon of homosexuality.
Yeah. I remember trying to convince people that accepting gays and lesbians and bisexuals will not open a floodgate, and won't make "being gay mandatory". Alas, I was wrong, and they were right.
@@mortygoldmacher wrong question. The real question is how we know it has no purpose? The saying doesn't warn against tearing down a fence for which you know the purpose. If you know the purpose, then you can decide whether it's useful.
"But yours the cold heart, and the murderous tongue, The wintry soul that hates to hear a song, The close-shut fist, the mean and measuring eye, And all the little poisoned ways of wrong."
JC seemed to think the old testament still was in full force. Matthew 5:18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
@@wp5875 please don't take this the wrong way. I think you need to read the Bible through. Christ himself was the fulfillment of the Law, the law passed away in him. He was stating what he was about to do. Read, at least the New Testament. Please.
You can't have it both ways, Brett. That's it. You can't serve two masters. Ideas have consequences, and they have logical conclusions. These were always embedded within the enlightenment.
It's as simple as If I ask you the question what literally happened yesterday? The second you anwer... You just discounted an infinite amount of things You're now specifiying an infinitesimal number of things So, why those things, as opposed to the other infinite things? (just showing the absurdity of the term "literal")
We just need to get back to the ancient traditions of 1995, when we were soooo close to the realization of that wonderful dream of the Enlightenment. ~ Bret Weinstein, I guess
I enjoyed the condescension in the comment highlighted at the beginning. “What if we super smart atheists had told the religious dummies that, while what they believe clearly isn’t literally true, maybe we can pretend that it’s figuratively true because we want to extract some utilitarian value out of their sky daddy beliefs. Keep the rubes in their place and all that.”
To the extent that the practices that supported civilization for the past thousands of years are imperfect, keeping them is the preferred path if the alternative is the complete civilizational, moral, and intellectual collapse we're now seeing.
@@DerekS-kq3zh Theocracy: a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god. Not sure where this theocracy is you think might be kept alive. One might consider that the Muslim world is or seeks to be a theocracy; but other than that, the Americas, Europe, and a goodly part of Asia governments could not be considered theocracies. That the Americas andEurope have geneerally followed Judeo Christian ethics does not make them theocracies. However, secularism has been chipping away to the ethics base and we are seeing the results as that chipping gains more and more traction.
There is no "civilizational, moral, or intellectual collapse" happening now beyond fringe insanity on both the left and the right. For most everyone else, all the sane people in the middle, it's just business as usual: "progressives" trying to change everything and chucking all the babies out with the bathwater and "conservatives" trying to save every drop of the old bathwater as well. The rest of us are perfectly capable of picking and choosing between the wise and good from the past that's genuinely worth preserving and the ways in which we can indeed change and do better. This is the way it's always been and always will be. If anything, we're victims of our own success; by most all metrics we're living in the safest, most peaceful time in human history (see Steven Pinker on the subject) yet people still believe things are worse than ever. Go figure.
I've never watched this show before, and I was immediately struck by how amazing the sound engineering is. Aside from the engrossing topic, the audio experience alone was really fantastic. Rich, full tones and textures, crystal clear voices, and the subtle background white noise and gentle intro stings put everything into a refined harmony.
Sadly the reality is you don't choose your beliefs. Go up on the roof if a 5 story building and try to force yourself to believe gravity doesn't exist and jump. At best you might force your body off the ledge but you can't forcibly change your belief if it's how you honestly feel.
@@johnsonvids2010 You don't even have to make it far enough to choose to believe something if reality has proved it to you every day of your existence. I never "Chose" to believe that I couldn't fly and neither did you. We both have experienced the worlds evidence since birth which has shown us beyond any doubt that we cannot fly. No choice making was required.
@@sullainvictusSpoken like someone who thinks his religion is the one which should rule. You'd be singing a different tune if Islam was the law of the land.
@@DerekS-kq3zh Islam IS the rule of the land for 2 billion people. And will undoubtedly become the hegemon religion in the coming centuries for reasons that Bret dismisses, which could be best understood if you viewed ideologies as replicating viruses. Islam is simply violent at the core, immune to reformation, punishes apostates like crazy, violent conquest and forceful conversion are its core tenets.
@@DerekS-kq3zh Actually, though, why? Is Islam opposed in its own countries? Do Muslims inherently want to rebel against their own religion? You're presupposing that you'd be born as an Individualistic Liberal with all its enlightenment priors. You had to learn those first. Liberalism is the Law of the land. You're delusional.
A few years ago, Bret tweeted something along the lines of, We need to convince the religious people to give up their religions because they aren't relevant anymore and they're impeding progress. I'm going by memory, so I can't quote him exactly, but that was the gist of it, and it came off as incredibly arrogant ("we" being himself and the other enlightened, non-religious special people) and also ignorant of the need and capacity some of have for religious faith. Has Bret forgotten that? In that tweet, he wasn't making a bridge: he was blowing one up.
Bret is kinda a hypocrite. He wants to pretend he comes from a rational science based worldview while at the same time holding to a literal mythology of magic. Rationality from irrationality, the magicaly dues ex machina mechanism that does not exist yet all of naturalism including darwinian evolution is predicated upon. Even further to pretend darwinian evolution is a real world concept is utterly absurd. It doesn't work. The math is there. Mutations degrade information, the genome it doesn't magically progress to a higher state that's magic being invoked we don't see it. All the beneficial mutations in biology like the famous citrate metabolism in ecoli or antibiotic resistance are not from gain or improvement in genetic information, but reductive evolution. A degrading or loss of information crippling a function in the organism that produces a beneficial effect while still being a loss of genetic function. As the famous Lenski experiment showed. And as information theory predicts the decay of information the genomes of species is all we see we don't see evolution. Genomes don't improve over time they degrade. Virus data like John Sanford on H1N1 the spanish flu shows this. Human genome from encode has shown every generation humans have 100 mutations. The human genome is degrading not progressing to a better state. This shouldn't be a shock, as information theory states information degrades, and information is the basis of life. List goes on and on. Mindless matter and mutation can't manifest code. That's a fantasy a mythology of magic. That's pseudo science. That is Bret's position he is holding on to because that's all he has as an Atheist and naturalist. He is a total hypocrite to make such statements as he did in this video about intelligent design. Mind is clearly required, it's the paradigm of all creation in this universe not magic. Does the author or video game programmer create their product out of nothing from magic? No, it's from their mind. Mind>magic God is the only answer. There is a reason intelligent design birthed modern science because it actually works unlike naturalism. Naturalism is a hindrance to the progression of science and needs to be thrown out already.
@@user-oe2wk5nu9s He isn't correcting anything. He still has an absolutely ignorant take. Atheism: "A magical nothing created everything and when I die I become nothing, becoming one again with my creator." lmao that's your worldview not mine. Atheism is a mythology of magic, rationality from irrationality. Atheism has been killed by science. Ones rational mind that you need to defend your position can't even be a product of Atheism! It's self defeating! Atheism is a belief of blind faith that goes against the paradigm of reality that mind is required for creation. Does the author or video game programmer make something out of nothing with magic? No they use their mind. Is the mind immaterial? Yes. Does that mean it's magic? No. Is information immaterial? Yes. Does that mean it's magic? No. Mind>magic. Science does not support the view the universe is a closed system and events can't be fed in aka miracles, that's your blind faith. Believe in magic all you want but don't pretend your illogical pseudo science worldview is the high ground to argue from when it's utter nonsense and self defeating it's so absurd haha.😄😄😄
Voltaire claimed he would end Christianity in his life time. After his death one of his places of residence was turned into a Bible bookstore. Atheists today can't compare to the might of Voltaire's skepticism. But they all end up the same in the end.
I was a consumer of atheist content on TH-cam in twenty teens, and I am still an atheist, however, I have noticed that Christians have a way better track record of opposing tyranny than the atheists here in the US. During the covid lockdowns, the church going christians were the only substantial group that was opposing the ridiculously massive government overreach. It was embarrassing and puzzling to watch atheists I used to respect not siding with the churches who were resisting government shutdowns and arrests. Instead they were regurgitating government talking pounts and cheering for a police state and essentially saying that christians in their ignorance were going to get us all sick.
And then you look at how atheist Western Europe is and how moral it remains. It's absolutely ridiculous to think religion has any causative power whatsoever. Religion is merely a symptom of how socially developed we were anyway thousands of years ago. It's a snapshot which has since been greatly improved upon. Nostalgics insist on still calling it what it was, but simply naming it differently adds absolutely nothing.
@@marlonmoncrieffe0728 Wrong context marlon of literal. Literal in context of the text is a nonsensical statement as the word literal literally is terrible to use in relation to the context of the text. It's a completely inadequate adjective to contextualize the narrative as a whole presented in the biblical text. To put it simply you go with the context the passage is written in. And to repeat that has nothing to do with the statement Herbert is even making. I'm sure you know all of this though since this is quite obvious stuff and are just a salty Atheist wanting to put your two cents in but have zero comment of actual value to contribute.
No, I do NOT know all of that and barely know what you are talking about, @@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep . Maybe do not jump to conclusions about people and assuming they are 'salty atheists'?
That is not the case. The entire Early Logos Christianity Neo-platonism did not take Christianity literal. Some of those ideas did not survive into the canon and others did. I frankly believe the literalism in Christianity is the epitome of idolatry. It mistakes a symbol of the holy for the Holy itself. If Jesus is the Logos and one of the aspects of the Logos is reason then irrational belief and abject ignorance is never the way. You can address the non-literal symbols with a great deal of reverence to a mystery that is intuitively true and take it seriously. This trust is the intuitive dimensions of the symbolic is faith.
I was following the atheist community on youtube starting in 2007-2008 (the amazing atheist, thunderfoot, nonstampcollector, etc). After some years i moved on, but i hear the community turned woke and destroyed itself (i think this happened before wokeness became mainstream). At the time it was fun mocking the dumb shit that religious people did, or believed. But nowadays, i think it wasn't as dumb as it seemed. Mostly it wasn't dumb at all. And between religion and unhinged society-destructing wokeness, i choose religion.
I have been thinking this was just my own personal arch of maturity. Maybe it’s an actual thing? Or maybe, everyone on this interview and in these comments have a similar arch and the YT recommender algorithm inferred that based on my history, and now I have “corroborative evidence” for my personal experience.
Wokeness is just secular Puritanism. The Theistic Puritans and The Secular Ones Both want a lot of ways to be able to look down on others; and to impose their code on others.
You should look into Carl Jung's book, Aion. We are literally living out the final chapters of that book. This is the end of an Aion. This is why Jordan Peterson says that Aion was the scariest book he had ever read.
He wants cultural Christianity, but without Christianity. Moving away from totally rejecting to pick and choose. he wants both the money and the sheep.
I dint know, ":Ancient stories to give people meaning and hope and also to coerce them into acting like they give a damn, maybe , sometimes.", just doesn't roll off the tongue as well as "cultural Christianity ".
@@halo_1232 On the other hand it's still very popular to be a believer in an ancient middle east theology. 233 million US citizens claim to be Christian , out of a 333 million population. More than two thirds. The numbers are estimated but that's the best offered for now.
Conservative Christians have warned and warned and warned and warned. "What possibly could we have done?" You could have listened to us. Dave, I love you, but who were you listening to in 1995?
Conservative Christians also enacted fascist legislation against anyone who didn't follow their religion. You have no right to control others. Learn that and maybe we can have a conversation
@@Jimmy-iy9pl I'm a libertarian. And if you define "just" as "in keeping with my feelings on religion," then it would be "just" for me to make a law outlawing any Christian from holding office. Because we can't have people who believe in magical sky daddies in charge of nukes. So if would be "just" to remove you from any position of power. And who cares if it's discriminatory, right?
Most conservative christians I know (i.e. most of my closest friends) have fathered ultra-leftist sons, which are now in their 20s/30s, who *hate* them. I think in part that invalidates the "We saw it coming" argument because, even if we did, we failed as much as everyone else to prevent it.
Pretending that morality is temporal as opposed to transcendent is exactly the fallacy that got us here. Continuing in that fallacy of "old morals are for old times" will not solve our problem it will necessarily make it worse.
@@apointofinterest8574 I would say how so right back to you. Truth is exclusive, what is, is. There can be different perspectives of truth like why something is made and how it's made, but those are complimentary not conflicting.
@@InMaTeofDeath How sure are you that the questions they get asked can be genuinely done in one single sentence? Have you considered that perhaps those 5 minutes answers are the sort that contain Chesterton's Fence?
@@Amoki86 How sure I am depends on the question, do some of them require longer explanations? Yes. Do some of them only require short ones? Yes. I've just seen enough talks with both men to see them do it often.
The are both INTPs which are informative types. Specifically, they don't want to come out and say something directly as they want to explain their ideas as well as have you come to the same conclusion. They use introverted thinking which is based on first principles, deductive logic and seeking truths. Those who are more direct tend to have extroverted thinking which is more rational (facts based), uses inductive reasoning (best explanation), and rationality (beliefs over truth). Te runs the risk of being wrong. Ti runs the risk of not being clear.
“What if what (Christians) believe is important but not literal?” That’s sort of where I’m at as a non-religious person. Society is a lot healthier when the beliefs of Christianity are more prevalent, whether or not I actually think Christianity itself is true. ❤
The Christian experience is a helpful spiritual possibility for people. A deep change of heart in the face of innocent suffering. The Roman soldier who looked up at Christ on the cross, breathing his last breath and having a change of heart. A modern day example, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was due, in part, to the country having a change of heart after the Birmingham Church bombing of 1963 in which 4 young black girls were killed. The country changed its collective heart in the face of innocent suffering. That change of heart is the Christian experience. The same change of heart that has an alcoholic never pick up a drink again after they see and feel the suffering they have caused themselves and others. It doesn't matter if Jesus Christ was literally crucified and resurrected from the dead. The spiritual truth of the Christian experience is real and helps people become better, helps them change their heart, helps them deeply. If believing in the resurrection as literally true helps them, fine by me. Anything that helps people pull themselves out of the pit of suffering many of us find ourselves in is good in my book.
Indeed. But the philosophical problem is, why call the sort of society we think of as "healthy" by that morally positive term? The sorts of things most people probably think about (peaceful, tolerant, just, productive, etc)...why call those "healthy?" If the response is that they tend to lead to continuing to have a society, then even if we assume that's true, then we have to ask, so what if a society is "healthy?" Why is having such a society truly good? Many people like it, of course. But something being desirable doesn't make it actually morally good. I submit there is an answer to that problem, but that it cannot be found in a Universe without something to ground the existence of moral value. And this question matters. In some ways, it is the question Western societies at large, and Mr. Weinstein himself in this video, are dealing with (even if obliquely and not head-on).
@@robinpage2730 Can you scientifically verify that truth or the laws of logic exist ? Can science explain the regularity in nature? I’m sure you still believe in those, though. What you’re asking for can’t logically exist.
@@juanmorebeers Indeed. I reflect on the fact that we can't indisputably prove we're not brains in vats, or in the Matrix, or in a simulation. Going back to Descartes, all anyone can prove, and only to themselves, is that they exist. They can't prove what exactly they are, even. Science looks at what "is." Moral values questions deal with what "ought." Science, as a discipline, does not have the tools, nor the scope of inquiry, necessary to give us what ruthie is asking for.
@@robinpage2730 In other words God. There is no other answer for moral values and duties and a rational intelligible universe, and rational mind that we require to even do science. Let that one sink in. The evidence for God is quite literally indisputable, it's woven in the fabric of everything that exists. Maybe that's why Jesus never said I have truth but said I am the truth, because he is the ultimate truth of everything and on top of that is called the Word and created everything through the transfer of information, and shocker we live in a word based universe. It's fascinating the extent people like you go to, to avoid the obvious answer of God, Jesus.
Before the coming of Abrahamic religions to Europe, it was understood that mythology is metaphor and not literal. They were stories that were true even though they never happened. So, there is a middle ground here that reconciles this. "Myths are things that never happened, but always are..." ~ Sallust, ancient Greek philosopher
Loved listening to Brett regularly inserting that medieval trigger word "evolution". He is clearly sticking to the orthodox line regardless of the latest biological and cosmological evidence. And yet, straight faced, sits there telling us New Atheist made a mistake in (effectively) throwing out the baby (religious practice that tends towards stable society) with the bathwater (liberal quest for ever more comprehensive exercise of individual human rights). Amen.
I know it's hilarious his own field has been proven essentially pseudo science yet he is being disingenuous about it or flat out willing ignorant. The only evolution we ever have seen is reductive evolution the degrading of genome that gives a benefit, that's not progress to a higher state that's "devolving" lol. That's what happened with the famous ecoli citrate experiment, that's how bacteria largely get antibiotic resistance, they aren't adapting they got cripple in some way the hurt how the antibiotic got taken into the cell or metabolized. Our best science is showing genomes of species are degrading not progressing to a higher state like evolution says. The encode project showed humans are getting 100 mutations per generation lmao that's devastating for the evolutionist. The premier nobel laureate on the subject said just 1 just1 mutation per generation would cause extinction to humans!!! And the list goes on and on and on.
The Wall (h/t Chesterton, Kipling, MLK, Grateful Dead, Tolkien) Once upon a time humanity built a Wall to separate just from unjust, good from evil, hope from despair, faith from nihilism, order from chaos, civilized from barbaric, and most of all truth from lie. This Wall was built with stories embedded with invaluable lessons, wise sayings passed down through the ages, exemplars to emulate, Laws to observe, and principles to internalize. It took thousands of years to build this Wall with untold volumes of blood, sweat, and tears that went into its construction. As it goes with such things the people protected by the Wall developed wondrously. They created arts, discovered philosophies, explored nature, and invented technologies beyond the wildest dreams of their forebears that had started building the Wall so long ago. In less than two millennia after completion of the Wall many of the people had forgotten why the Wall had ever been built and most didn’t know how the Wall was built let alone what it was built out of. Eventually enlightened voices said, “the wall is no longer needed; the people have individual rights, rule of law, meritocracy, advanced monetary systems, social safety nets, and free markets; let’s tear down this hideous Wall and build a stunning and brave bridge.” And so, the four horsemen led a mob to tear down the Wall. Oh, what a wonderful time it was. We were living the dream at least from my young, perhaps naïve, perspective; but then I started to notice some flecks of grey. In due time without the wall, long-standing bulwarks of truth are proved to be no longer trustworthy, oaths are broken without remorse, and corruption runs rampant. Mountains made of mole hills dominate the landscape. The empire of lies reigns supreme and crushes all decent. The ivory tower exiles cry for objectivity, but there is none to be found in high places. The horsemen now frantically gather allies to face the new foe that is the ancient foe. Will the phalanx of many colors stand fast or will The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return? Only time will tell, but as for me, what path to take? Ride the tiger some say, and it would seem like wisdom but for the warning in my heart. Others say take your place in formation, stand with your friends of many creeds, and fight the good fight; but I’ve done that before and lost for lack of affiliations willing to join the fight. The bubble of normalcy I’ve built in my corner of red America may last past the days I have left. Why not live out the rest of my days in blissful ignorance? Why come to the aid of those that failed to come to my aid? Because it’s the right thing to do. There may come a day when that no longer matters, but not this day, today we fight!
Lots of people navigate through life perfectly well with (ha) "Simple Atheism". It just means you don't need superstitious explanations for the wonderful world that surrounds us.
I know he’s a highly educated ex-professor and all and I’m just a bachelor-degree-holding, lifelong conservative and church-goer (which, just FYI-Catholics-who sponsored and developed the first universities, which in turn, founded scientific exploration-has always meshed quite companionably with evolution and biology)-I spent my young adult years feeling very Kassandra-like trying to talk about “Slippery Slopes” to my much more highly educated friends-who became academics-and was dismissed and told contemptuously (and it was the contempt that really annoyed me-not being contradicted) that the slippery slope didn’t exist except in the minds of religious dum-dums. So now, I listen to these guys and get irritated with their “consternation” of “how we got here.” GAH! It’s why C.S. Lewis declared Pride as the king of deadly sins.
Its very America centric view of atheism and religion. There are whole, mostly European, countries, nations and regions that are atheistic, in a sense many Americans would find hard to comprehend, like Czechia, Estonia, whole eastern half of Germany, where actual religion doesnt play any role in everyday lives and isnt ever in thoughts of majority of ppl and for several generations already and where majority ppl even doesnt know or even just met anyone religious. maybe if you look outside of American echo chamber youd see examples of what work and what doesnt instead of forever keep discussing in circles about atheism and irreligiosity as some unknown, unheard and never tried before thing.
Czech Republic has been part of the illiberal Visegrad group for years. East Germany has the majority of its population ready to vote for the AFD or Sara Wagenknecht. Estonia is a highly nationalistic ethnocracy. It's not like those parts of Europe are inherently your progressive americans dream. Furthermore, in Europe the more religious one is the more likely they are to vote for a Center or Center Right party. It's the Cultural Christians and the non-religious who show more of a voting correlation with the far right. Even in Europe theism has been replaced by Hyper-Nationalism, Authoritarianism and lifestyle-leftism depending on the person. Marriage numbers have been destroyed as has union membership. Military enrollment is down. Labor Union Membership is a small fraction of what it was. The working class have been hit the hardest. In America 54% of college graduates are church members and only 44% of non-college graduates. The working class is in a terrible state right now. Countries in Central Europe and Eastern Europe are not paradises. They are not as rich as their Western European neighbors yet their fertility rates are down and there is sluggish economic growth. These people aren't living the dream completely away from the confines of religion. Rather, the miners in similar places like Wales used religion as a motivator to form their unions and local Labor party branches and fight for a better tomorrow. Now these communities are just broken. Crushed by decades of union busting, unfair trade deals and without anything to provide them hope.
@Joeshapiro7 TLDR but from few snippets it's obvious you have deep and personal knowledge of the region, local socioeconomic conditions and native politics and culture, lived there for years or at least regularly travelled there in recent decades to actually witness the terrible state of local working class. So im assured your response is 100% factual and result of your own experience and research and not at all merely few of your superficial preconceived notions solely based on your personal ideological preference, elementary school history lessons and few english news and Wikipedia articles you read sometime in past.
@@rehurekj I mean that's what statistics and qualitative research are for, proving those sorts of things. But I have been to 7 different countries in Europe so there is a degree of personal experience as well.
@@Joeshapiro7 Europe is diverse continent, specially considering its size, and unless one of those countries was one of those we speak about and you been there for more than just typical touristy visit and did actually learn and studied at least a bit of local language and culture to somehow understand what you see and hear in streets around you and in news then the level of personal experience is the same like me visiting Thailand to spend 2 weeks in Bangkok and Koh Lanta and suddenly becoming expert on all and every SE Asian matter...
Periods of great social upheaval are always marked by large amounts of moral panic. This cycle has repeated endlessly throughout human history. To point to the last 30 years as somehow being the linchpin that holds civilization together smacks of hubris and short-sightedness.
The Founders recognized a liberal govt would only work within the ethical bounds of a religious and moral culture. They left it to the People to cultural limit the freedoms of liberalism. Atheist ask why is the world so broken if there is a God. It's because He gave man free will and WE have chosen to make it so.
Great to see Mr. Weinstein on the show! There are plenty of beliefs that I do not share with him, but he approaches issues sincerely and with an very informed "wide lense," willing to look at all aspects and change adjust his viewpoint.
The solution to the confusion of the western world isn't to pick the best parts of old religious traditions, but to foster humility in relation to truth where it reveals itself.
Is it unfair for me to say this seems to place truth and religious tradition in mutually exclusive camps? As a follower of Jesus, the “religion” and the truth are one and the same to me.
@@Papa-dopoulos I too am a Christian, but Christian arguments don't work in debates with secular people. A fruitful debate needs common ground. That's why you can't debate the Woke. They have zero regard for their opponents views.
Exactly...one of the only few comments on here that make sense. First off there hasn't been a turn back towards religion since the new atheism movement...it's just that people got bored discussing the same things over and over on the internet You can only have some of your debates on a subject.... Just like you're seeing with a flat earth a couple years ago in the red pill now... People get bored and move on to the new trendy subject but there isn't less agnostic people in America than then ...if you go my church membership religion in America is slowly rescinding. Now we can take and cherry pick the good ancient wisdom that is included in parts of these religious text without having to except the unjust or ridiculous teachings/claims.
You can't magically create a better truth. Truth is exclusive not all inclusive. It is what it is. There has to be a standard for morals, that means God. Same with rationality. This is why naturalism and Atheism is utterly ridiculous it's self defeating. Science has killed Atheism. So it's ironic how Bret talks.
Bret's comments to the religious people and the conversation about the hopeless state of affairs in western civilization remind me of a wise man's words. “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.” And when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes." Matthew 7:24-29. Western civilization developed and the Enlightenment happened because of its foundation on Judeo-Christian values and God's foundation. Atheists in the west merely repeat the massive mistake of secular humanism and communism-there is no God and man has replaced him. As the millions of deaths under communism reveal the same tragic results as any false religion. Jesus is the only sure foundation on which to build one's life and any civilization.
In the Bible, every time people abandoned God, and became their own gods it brought destruction. We are no different, we are just repeating inevitable evil.
@9:44 "You can't embrace the solutions of the past to get out of the problems of the present, and you can't abandon the solutions of the past because they're outdated, because you'll end up abandoning all sorts of stuff that matters in ways you don't know about." - Bret Weinstein
@ladyphoenixgrey3923 It is interesting that these are now your advocates given their pasts and there is significant validity to your statement. But I have to ask, if you know they are clowns, why are you here so early in the video's history? What would compel you to say, "Look two idiots are talking. Let's watch the video and tell everyone they are clowns"
@@myratsalad What could any of us do to stop anything that happened? Everything we say is ignored. Our votes are ignored. They just carry on with their own Agenda to destroy the foundations of society and enslave humanity.
Who is he even talking about? The main four atheists all agreed that atheism was not a belief system in itself and had no content. Dawkins: wanted to start "The Brights," to provide content that could guide lives. Harris: warned against treating atheism as anything beyond just the absence of a single belief, and recommended Buddhism. Hitchens: recommend western literature and arts as a rich source of moral guidance and purpose. Dennett: I actually can't remember his take, but he certainly wasn't in disagreement with the other three. This is just believers projecting thoughts into the minds of atheists so they can pat themselves on the back.
@@incomingincoming1133 I know right? You'd think he would want to interact with such a life form after making a whole universe just so this tiny pocket could support life and this singular species unlike all the rest could exist with such a unique capacity to contemplate beyond their naturalistic survival. I wonder how such a God would go about communicating with them? Maybe he'd have to becoming like them...
@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep That would be what I would do if I were the creator of the universe, but that is me projecting my human thoughts unto a non-human entity. I really don't know what a creator of a universe would do. I however know your speculation sounds reasonable, as it would coming from, and to, a human brain. It sounds just like the kind of explanation we could come up with intuitively. But as for the real origin and nature of the universe, I have few clues.
@@incomingincoming1133 It's almost like truth is exclusive not all inclusive, thus a creation has a shared reality of truth with said creator. Otherwise how could we trust anything we think? Our rationality is dependent on it.
@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep You said: "it is almost like truth is exclusive not all inclusive, thus a creation has a shared reality of truth with said creator. Otherwise how can we trust what we think. Our rationality is dependent on it." Your language is now beyond me. I can't respond to the overall point because I don't understand it. But I can respond to individual words. 'thus' means the conclusion that follows comes from the foregoing. Could you help me out by fleshing out how the phrase before 'thus' leads to the phrase after 'thus' in your comment. 'otherwise how could we trust anything we think' suggests that we only have the option of accepting your premise or all rationality collapses. You make your point louder by saying "our whole rationality is dependent on it." What is this essential thing our entire rationality depends upon, and why? EDIT 'your' language is now beyond me...
To provide context, Bret holds a point of view he calls Metaphorical Truth. That an individual can believe something that's not literally true, but the behaviors resulting from it can cause an individual or a group to out-compete others from an evolutionary perspective. He's used the example of the Moken people of the Andaman Sea, who survived a tsunami because they believed in a spirit of their ancestors who became hungry periodically to taste human flesh, and when the sea receded prior to the tsunami, the Moken people ran upslope because they were terrified and weren't wiped out by the tsunami. He went on to say, obviously, that's not true, it's tectonic plates that caused the tsunami, but it worked out for the Moken people. Here, he's saying the same thing about religion. It's not literal (i.e., real/true), but the metaphors/wisdom in the stories were useful. It seems his criticism is that "new Atheism" didn't replace these useful metaphors, or compendium of wisdom, with something else.
Yeah, as another example, tortoises and hares don't race each other but Aesop's fables have lasted for thousands of years because of their simply told but important messages.
Telling me that my beliefs are necessary though not literal wouldn't work. That's no different than just telling me I'm wrong and stupid, just like every atheist out there loves to do.
"How do I get the goyim to behave while also keeping them exactly where I want them" -Bret Weinstein and Dave Rubin, two Jewish men without any tribal interests, whatsoever
Atheism never had a real intent to resolve anything at all. The root of atheism was to redirect people away from guidance. Whether you believe in religion or not doesn't matter. It's underpinning is NOT whether you believe in god or not. Religion provides a framework for guidance. it provides a framework and a foundation of thought. Without it, your mind spiders in all directions. Some find the good, many find the bad. Over time, MOST end up on the bad end of the spectrum.
@@beerboots Yes. If you don't have a better idea, then we have to live with the best we have. The problem with "new" ideas is that they're often old ideas that never worked out before but are "new" again because people fail to learn from history, or bad ideas that haven't been vetted before they're implemented. Many ideas floating around today, like digital currency, easily lead to 1984 or worse. The road to hell is often paved with good intentions. Better the devil you know rings true most of the time.
In the book of judges, it describes the cycle that we experience. When we are with God, we prosper. When we forget, God, we begin to suffer. That suffering leads us back to God, then we are back to prospering with God, and the cycle continues. What the Bible is teaching us, is that suffering is necessary for us to see the errors of our ways, because some lessons cannot be taught. We must learn them through experience. To reinforce this, Solzhenitsyn Describes this in the Gulag archipelago. When asked where we went wrong, he stated “we have lost God”. People need a highly good and moral doctrine to look to. The constitution is good, but we also need faith and good understanding in order to want to follow those ethics and morals. This idea that we are inherently moral, is not a complete truth. The Bible teaches us that we are also inherently evil, and some folks cannot differentiate between tragedy, good, and evil.
It’s referred to as the “pride cycle”. The root of the problem is pride - the rejection of acknowledging that we don’t know something. We don’t know everything and that is where religion came from - to fill in the voids and codify the underlying principles we had discovered. We still don’t know everything and so we still need to fill in the voids somehow without abandoning the core principles we have discovered.
I can't imagine what family dinner conversations must be like with the Weinsteins (Eric & Bret) present. Their level of learning and intellect is so impressive, as well as their ability to organize and articulate what they are thinking. I am so impressed! I don't necessarily agree with all they say but it is so impressive to hear them talk about various issues.
I am an atheist, and I read Nietzche's writings a long time ago. I've always recognized the role of the logos that God and religion has played for humanity, and was careful during my transition out of religion to not lose that. Shedding religion was not the mistake. The mistake was not taking the time to reframe our humanity and make it work without God. You may not agree it's possible, but it is. But the millions that didn't stop and think, they abandoned themselves to mindless hedonism and live like beasts. And they were then given a megaphone with the advent of social media. The result of this intellectual laziness and bombastic exhuberance is complete moral degeneracy.
The answer was always in front of us. In president, eisenhower's final address to the nation when he said "the enemies of the United States are atheistic in nature." The atheists love to talk about the 2 minute portion of his speech. Where he mentions the military industrial complex. But they avoid also the portion where he discusses how dangerous it is that the federal government is spending money on education. And he describes how this federal money is a corrupting influence on our college and university systems.
@@Elrog3 Do you worship Richard Dawkins? Do you worship Sam Harris? The one who says he is okay with dead tortured children in the basement of Joe Biden. Atheists are worshippers of the state. They would rather have a government industrial welfare complex. Instead of private religious based charity. Which requires people to change their behavior in both public and private.
They get silenced because a message that says your wrong behavior is admissible is appealing to the base human. You even see it within the different sects of world religions…the born again Christian belief is so much more appealing than traditional Christianity where you are expected to participate in the atonement process through some sort of repentance.
Maybe we as a civilization are just grappling with all of the information and possibilities and it’s overwhelming and causing us to deliberate. Perhaps the issue is we don’t have intelligent, useful moderators for this debate. Instead we have anxious, manipulative, selfish politicians vying to keep their cushy high paid jobs on both sides. Maybe this is just a phase in the evolution of humanity’s thought process. I used to panic about all of the discontent and disconnection. Maybe this really is just the adolescent phase of human civilization and we will learn from this and do much better in the future.
Atheism is not a religion, not a belief system, nor any kind of doctrine or dogma. The term itself would not even need to exist except in opposition to silly institutionalized superstitions (e.g. christianity, judaism, buddhism, islam, etc.).
As an ex atheist I can now proclaim that Jesus Christ is Lord and did literally walk this earth to die for our sins! Atheism is not the absence of religion but a new form of religion of selfishness and is futile.
The stories of what Jesus was and what he did only stared many generations AFTER his death almost exclusively by St Paul who never even met Jesus, EARLY Christianity taught that Jesus was a man who lived and died like any ordinary man, historical records apart from St Paul support this, Jesus had living relatives after all, these relatives lived on to become normal Jews, not Christians!
@@foxfriendzanimaltown9859 So why did Ignatius of Antioch write (in the letters of which we still have the originals, written between 106 and 108 AD) that St John taught that Christ was God? That's not "from St Paul" nor is it "many generations" after Christ.
@@Si_Mondo If Christ was God and oh brother is that ever a bloated statement people were not even saying that a century ago, that seems to be another new load of BS, and if he committed suicide by allowing himself to be tortured and killed then he's a really bad example of anything good!
When I took Psychology as a required course for my Criminal Justice studies I was actually fascinated when I reached the chapter about Consciousness and Unconsciousness. What fascinated me about it is the fact that you literally can have arguments with yourself and one of the two sides of your mind, keep in mind we are talking about consciousness, can in fact refuse to agree with your conscious mind and it shows up in different ways usually in behaviors you simply do without thinking about them. It's just like when you try to lie and for whatever reason your body does these things, and it's different for different people, for example some will scratch themselves for no reason, or make unnecessary movements and so on, well that's what I am referring to when I mention behaviors your unconcsious mind does when it refuses to agree with your conscious mind. So I honestly think that's a daily struggle atheists constantly have and it shows whenever their idea of religion clearly conflicts with what actually tends to be the reality. For example some atheists I argue with insist Christianity is violent at it's core except this argument immediately comes to an end when I ask them why is it in countries where Christians are a clear minority and no one would blame them for fighting back because that country's government is already guilty of a number of different human rights violations but these very Christians simply don't really do anything really considered violent. China would be a good example of this. Sometimes I throw this in, "For your statement to be true shouldn't these same minorities be doing something that would be violent even if it was just a barfight?" I even reference research groups that study terrorism like the START institute which maintains lists on current terrorist groups and point out that there are barely a handful of Christian groups at any given time meanwhile left wing and jihadist groups dominate these lists in the 100s sometimes 1000s. They literally have no answer for this as if even they don't truly believe their own claim. This is just one example but there are a ton of others with similar results showing that same mental struggle between their conscious minds and their unconscious minds. They just blurt them out as though they do believe them but retreat the second it get's challenged using actual facts they can't refute. I even argued with one who kept repeating the same argument over and over and each time I would bring up that contradictory fact and they just kept retreating and it wouldn't be until the 3rd or 4th time I used the same contradictory fact that they either gave some half @$$ed rant posing as a credible response in which case I just threw another irrufutable fact at them and then they finally went away realizing they weren't getting away from this, whatever it was, or they just refused to answer and simply changed to a different argument.
Perhaps you should have taken a few writing courses during your Criminal Justice studies. Perhaps you could have learned about paragraphs and what they're for.
So to be what, a policeman, you had to take Psych 101 and now you think you can refute atheism based on human social behavior and because there are non-christian terrorist groups? True Dunning-Kruger on display. The reason for atheism is because there is no valid evidence for gods or the supernatural. Everything else is irrelevant. An atheist could snuff half of the humans on earth in a fit of rage and it still wouldn't make christianity true. You've been arguing with people who don't believe in god because they escaped indoctrination or weren't indoctrinated, but that doesn't make them good at debate. Too bad you didn't learn about editing and brevity in your criminal justice studies. Your professor might have pointed out what a run-on sentence is, since that wasn't a something you learned in high school.
"The nine scariest words you can hear are....I'm from the future and I am here to help"-Alternate universe Bill Clinton after meeting grown up Bret Weinstein in 1995
9:42 The issue with this framing is that it presupposes that wisdom - which is religious belief, doctrine, and dogma - is manmade. In other words, that atheism or, at least, agnosticism is true. This reduces religion to nothing more than a noble lie. And most religions look quite poorly on lying, in general. So, you’re left with a paradox: you need to rely on people who believe lying is wrong to keep lying for the sake of civilization, and to do so convincingly enough to protect civilization.
"The princes of Judah have become like those who removed the ancient landmark..." Hosea 5:10 Unfortunately, the Secular Jew has been overrepresented in the cartel largely responsible for the deterioration of the moral consensus that once moderated social and personal attitudes and behavior in the West. From the Frankfurt School through the leadership of the ACLU, through guys like Lenny Bruce to Howard Stern and Sam Harris and the like, the pattern has been clear. Rabbi Daniel Lapin has argued for decades now, beginning with his book, "America's Real War" wherein he appeals to his Jewish brethren to stop "de-Christianizing the West" since it has been the single greatest force for the success of the Jewish person in America and its removal will only create a moral vacuum into which only the worst aspects of human nature will flow.
"simple atheism was somehow a sophisticated way of navigating through life" Straw Man Alert! No one ever claimed that not believing in the Easter Bunny "was somehow a sophisticated way of navigating through life". Nor did they claim that there is no value to be had in an Easter Egg hunt. But still, the Easter Bunny doesn't exist.
“A series of events unfolded” That is always suspicious when people won’t explain.. Why isn’t he saying what happened? Dave even directly asks him and he just gives another non specific answer. He did something he doesn’t want to explain.
I think it is obvious that humanity managed to produce horrible cruelty notwithstanding religion, and often because of religion. "Good people will do good things, evil people will do evil things.. it takes religion to have good people do evil things"
Bret’s logic would seem to compel him to say we shouldn’t have freed the slaves, because their labor was so woven into our economy. Next is, preserve racism bc, disgusting as it is, its evolutionary underpinnings mean it houses a necessary truth. Next is, domestic violence has to be endured, bc the rent has to get paid. Maybe what he wants is something like adults, knowing full well the truth, still celebrating the magic of Xmas…. Also bc our economy depends on it. Though it still fits to see religion as a vanishing mediator.
@@QED_ The 1.0 version of Woke was first noticeable around 1987 was peaking around 1991-92, so even 1993 would have been too late. This is why Dave's suggestion of 1995 falls short. ▀͡ QED
That 'objective basis' is still entirely contingent on human judgement. The assertion that said basis is 'True'. Why do you think believing in God using your human perception, somehow exempts you from relying on human perception? There is no objective basis that we can demonstrate, only subjective assertions about what should be considered objective.
@@zacsimillion You can make an objective standard up, but there's simply no way to avoid a subjective interpretation of what constitutes morality. It remains 'made up'. If God is your objective standard for example, that is based upon your subjective concept that God constitutes objective moral guidelines, because you cannot definitively prove God exists, nor that he is 'truly' moral. So I would agree with your first post - you cannot have truth without an objective basis for truth outside of human opinion. But I would add to this - And that is the reality of our situation. Being humans with human limitations, human opinion is the best/only operating system we've got. We do not have absolute access to truth. We can only make educated guesses at best.
Imagine an "intellegent" ant in a ten store cruiser ship, could it ever get to understand where is it and who could have designed and built the boat, its "world"? Well, we are even smaller in relation to the Universe and are pretending to decipher and comprehend how it all works and how it was created or started. We are still very far from being able to have a mere idea!
I think it's a human misconception that it was created or started. If it was, you still have to explain the creator so you’re basically in a chicken or egg situation.
@@torreyintahoe probably us humans cannot comprehend God or anything out of the space-time limits because of our self limitations to which we are tied, we can't comprehend anything with more than 3 dimensions or something atemporal, or in the case of God something or someone omniscient, omnipresent and all-mighty. Also, your second statement is dependent on time, what if time is a consequence of the Big Bang and there isn't anything before the Big Bang because there wasn't a before. To me is very interesting how there are constants in the math world like pi, e, the golden ratio and some others as if they were part of a computer program or a simulation with some given parameters, they are so abitrary but random, unintelligible but logical, and also seems like they have infinite digits meaning we will never know the exact number, and the more I look into it, the more I think all this was created intentionally.
@@torreyintahoe Right, "something" as a concept has to be eternally present in order for anything to exist. Whether that be the matter that formed our universe, or a god who created it. Or an even bigger god who created that god. In a way I don't blame people for inventing religious stories to try and explain this stuff because the reality is we'll almost certainly never have all of the real answers. As humans we like to have our questions answered, we're problem solvers by nature. A lot of people would prefer to try and smash the corners off of a square peg than face up to the fact that the round peg is missing.
@@torreyintahoe Who created your creator is an Atheist misconception. That is actually truly the argument of the Theist to the Atheist is the irony. God logically doesn't need a creator. That argument redefines God, nor is it the God described in this conversation or described by cosmology. The spacetime theorems prove that the cosmic spacetime dimensions were created at the beginning of the universe. These theorems imply that the cosmic spacetime dimensions came from One who has the power to create spacetime dimensions. Clearly, that One is not subject to the spacetime dimensions he created. It's a poor argument that is redefining God to be constrained by their own space time creation which is never the claim at least the Christian one or one from a scientific perspective, so that would be a good argument against Hinduism for example. But not the Christian God, the first cause of the big bang. It's only a valid argument in reverse, who created your creator the universe and biology who created you? Since you hold to the argument of created needing a creator.
This really resonated with me. It’s somewhat comforting to know that if this is the conversation now, many, many people are feeling the same intuition. I was right there, though the nineties and the turn of the century. I followed, and loved Dawkins, Sam, and Hitch. My father and sister where staunch atheists (and still are). I was on the atheist train for many years (the logic seemed clear and made sense) but years ago I moved to live in South East Asia (where I still am after 10 years), and having experienced multiple cultural traditions on a daily basis (Philippine Catholics, Malay Muslims, Chinese Taoists, Thai Buddhists, Western Christians, and Indian Hindus) all of them almost every day, I have found myself very much agnostic. I don’t take any of the myths literally, but I find wisdom and guidance in many of the stories… and actually, these traditions do a lot good. They bond families, and give routine and grounding. So, I was recently back in Australia and I went to a Church here (something I would have found embarrassing and uncomfortable years ago) and it was a completely fine and relaxing experience… the free air conditioning was also nice to be fair. But I ended up buying a cross necklace which I now wear (hidden) under my shirt. I haven’t gotten to the point to displaying it openly. It also doesn’t mean I have suddenly become a dedicated follower of god or Christ, for me it is just more of a connection to a cultural tradition of which generations of my family would have followed. Further more given the erosion and attacks on my own Western culture I am in some respects digging my heals in. So I guess it is a bit of a tribal thing for sure, and I guess maybe my hand has been forced a bit with all the nonsense in the world right now. Like I feel I am taking my own quiet stance against the breaking down of society or something like that. Perhaps that’s the wrong reason , perhaps it’s as good a reason as any. But I’m open to see where this goes. Christopher Hitchens would have called it ‘religion al la carte’, which he didn’t care for … but maybe I think ‘al la carte’ is exactly the right approach. Sorry Hitch, but I still love you anyway. And so the story continues…A Western Christian, living in a Muslim country, regularly attending Buddhist and Taoist temples. 🤷🏻♂️
Thank you both for this thoughtful discussion. We are doomed by the taint of the unresolved human gap. Earlier today I was back filling my septic tank with a shovel and as the soil hit the wooden box I built over the access cover I thought about my approaching death and the soil that will eventually backfill my time on earth. I didn’t cry or anything like that but the sound of earth hitting my destiny shook me to the core. I had no choice so I kept at it until the gap was restored to its previous orderly state.
I honestly don't think there is anything anyone could have done to prevent 1995 from becoming 2023. Pendulums will swing, especially if there are outside forces pushing them, and I think there are spiritual outside forces.
You'd have to go back much farther that 1995. There are plenty of Christians that take the Bible seriously without having to take it literally. That will change the way we interpret the Bible based on what we discover in Creation. (i.e. us Creation by Evolution Christians). But we've been vastly out numbered for centuries, if you could go back and change that then perhaps 1995 wouldn't have inevitably become this 2023.
I will agree on the second point but not the first. It's quite possible you're right that it was always going to happen because of the unseen forces at work, but I don't think this was just a pendulum swing. The pairing of leftist activists with corporate CEOs is not a natural one. It took the housing crisis to set it in motion, when the 1% hit on a strategy of superficially supporting leftist causes to convince the Occupy activists to stop disrupting their business. It worked and everyone started to care about race instead of caring about the financial crimes that caused the recession.
I think it's been series of decisions/events going back to the 1960's, some intentional and some unplanned but seized upon to push us to where we are today. Interestingly, many were macro financial decisions that untethered us as a society from our government and each other. I agree that things were too far along by 1995 to do anything about today. The chronology below undoubtedly excludes some cultural things but hits the big things that have polarized and divided us. 1960's - LBJ unleashes the welfare state and the Vietnam War 1970's - Nixon ends the gold standard and enables runaway debt-financed spending, massive inflation follows, Watergate 1980's - Reagan defense build-up, government spending accelerates, 1987 market crash (spawns President's Working Group on Capital Markets - the "plunge protection team") 1990's - Clinton and Bob Rubin get Glass-Steagall repealed, weapons of mass financial destruction unleashed, LTCM hedge fund collapse (enshrined "too big to fail") 2000's - 9/11, Patriot Act, Gulf War, Great Financial Crisis, Barack Obama, debt spirals out of control 2010's - Social media, social/corporate media capture by permanent government, Trump, COVID and its aftermath
Have not finished listening to this but alls I gotta say is I am so grateful for Bret and his wife, Heather, for speaking out against Covid madness and the dangerous jabs. Forever grateful.
He’s like the hero character in the movie who disarmed the first villain, only to stumble blindly into an ambush where he face plants in front of a pack of armed bad guys.
Also Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Pierre Kory, etc. :) Atheism isn't just not true, it's also harmful for society. Also, there is plenty of evidence for God/Jesus from a scientific perspective, as well as philosophical, moral, historical/archaeological, etc. I would recommend everyone reading this to look into Dr. Frank Turek, Dr. Hugh Ross, Dr. William Lane Craig, Dr. Stephen Meyer, Dr. James Tour, Dr. John Lennox, J Warner Wallace, Lee Strobel. They have lots of vids on here, as well as sites, books. All amazing! I pray that both Dave and Brett come to the Truth about this, repent and trust in Jesus as their Lord and Savior! I want to see them in heaven one day, they are great guys and have been a fan since I started watching their content around 2015/16. God bless!
Christianity: Plant a tree that will bear fruit for others. Islam: Force people to eat only your fruit Judaism: Keep all of the fruit for yourself Atheism: Take the fruit you want, cut down the tree.
Where does Bret get the idea that rejecting religion (by the Atheist movement as you brand it) meant throwing away all important traditions. This is a straw man argument. We had/have strapping bombs to their bodies, rejecting medicines and medical advancement and particularly in parts of America treating one religion as if it was a state religion. Dawkins, Hitchens & Harris seemed to only promoted science over ignorance, facts over fiction, upholding the constitution when it comes to freedom of religion. Both Sam & Hitchens in their books & essays repeatedly talk about the beauty of tradition. Both of them acknowledge there may be wisdom in religious teaching but that wisdom can only be there if we are willing to look at religion through a modern lens, if you don't you can end up with Islamic state or another Crusade. In the end, you can go this route of claiming that Christianity is some sort of foundation of Western civilisation, I am not convinced. Even if this is the case it doesn't mean that God is real and that the bible is some non fiction text that knows the origins of the universe, life and where we go when we die.
In the mid 90s I was calling out a bit of this with some of my roommates and friends. I was dismissed out of hand. I keep getting called back to those bible quotes that God turned them over to their own desires.
This gentleman still displays the same Hubris that got us in this Predicament in the first place. Sounds silly to me that you realize that you removed some restrictions and then realize. Oh, those are there for good reasons. It is the other ones we still disagree with that have go away now. It sounds like we'll be having the same conversation in the future. Oh, those taboos were a good thing too.
If Bret doesn't know what parts of Christianity will "evolve" but recognises the importance of Christian tradition, wouldn't a better use of his time be working out who the God of actual Christianity is, rather than trying to guess about what parts of Christianity supposedly need to be deleted?
Watch Dave Rubin's FULL INTERVIEW with BRET WEINSTEIN here: th-cam.com/video/yKWM76weXBc/w-d-xo.html&pp=gAQBiAQB
Watch Dave Rubin's recent interview with Bret Weinstein here: th-cam.com/video/9EcsO-MoltE/w-d-xo.html&pp=gAQBiAQB
Whenever I listen to BW speak, I honestly have trouble understanding what he's even saying. It's like he's an expert at making vague, emotionally-charged, foreboding claimes which are like astrology...they can mean whatever the listener wants them to mean. He frequently references sources to back up these vague claims, but never specifically mentions them in a way that can be checked. I've never gotten stronger Ellsworth Toohey vibes from any TH-cam personality.
@@Pseudothink- That’s not what I get from Bret and I strongly dislike emotionally charged anything, especially emotionally charged and vague arguments. I may be a little on the spectrum with how much ambiguity totally baffles me. My mind races with all the possibilities to the point that I can’t settle on a meaning. It’s like dropping a tempest in my brain.
To the contrary, Bret brings clarity to me and some very worthwhile perspectives to consider even if you don’t agree with them. As a leftist type, he’s the kind that I can see myself building a better world with or saving it if we’re fortunate.
To each his or her own. I can respect your take even if I don’t agree with it.
Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe.
The big mistake Atheists in the West made is that they went solely for Christianity and ignored the others. People need a Spiritual fix at some point in their lives and you do NOT want that fix coming from somewhere else.
Richard Dawkins has been the Aimee Semple McPherson of "Science Atheism".
Chapter 4 of "The God Delusion" begins with RD deconstructing brilliant physicist/atheist Fred Hoyle's statement: "life beginning naturally on earth is as likely as a hurricane assembling a fully functioning Boeing 747 going through a junkyard". Dawkins says, 'Hoyle fails to recognize the power of "natural selection". NS NEVER,EVER,EVER results in inanimate objects resolving to
life through "numerous, successive, slight, modification"; THE 2ND LAW NEVER allows it......EVER!
RD has his "unchallenged, infinite regress" triumph. Problem is (among several) he literally is too ignorant to know its derivation. It's THE 1ST LAW: "heat NEVER originates de novo". In the 1st Chapter he stipulates that he will be referencing ONLY supernatural gods going forward. BUUTTT...the 1st law is THE most natural of all laws. "Supernatural" is unconstrained by the natural...that's WTF it means. Infinite regress/1st law is by definition not disqualifying of an omnipotent god.
AND THAT'S ONE PAGE OF THE LITERAL FOOL...it gets better and better
*“Social Engineering - The art of replacing what works with what sounds good.”*
- Thomas Sowell
- Thomas Sowell, atheist, proving that even great thinkers have their weaknesses
Thomas Sowelll, "When engineers or construction fail, they get fired. When intellectuals ideas fail, they get promoted and celebrated"
So questioning the existence of god is just something that "sounds good"? Got it.
“Never change what works.”
- Benny The Jet Urquidez
Sowell, a great thinker? Never heard that one.
"Whenever you remove a fence, always pause long enough to realize why it was put there to begin with." - GK Chesterton
BEFORE you remove a fence...
Because people are stupid monkies who need a space cop to watch them 24/7 or they lose their minds?
@dumbidois And in this instance, a fence = feel-good superstition.
The Atheist has no rationality inherent to their worldview so they are just acting the part lol.
@@apointofinterest8574 in essence, yes.
C.S. Lewis talked about this in this book The Abolition of Man on the early 20th Century. Frederich Nietzsche understood the problem of atheism before Lewis. Fyodor Dostoevsky was a hero to Nietzsche. They all recognized the problem of life without Christ.
"Frederich Nietzsche understood the problem of atheism before Lewis."
Thank you. I am so sick of hearing that Nietzsche was an atheist, or a nihilist. No, he saw these things as _problems_ , as serious problems that we needed to find a way to overcome or else it would destroy us.
There is truly nothing new under the sun.
And to those who are uncomfortable about the Idea of 'Christ', Christ means, in this context: the-moral-code-that-bound-us-together-as-a-society-for-2000-years
@@jcelektronixExcept for modern science.
Facts
Faithful Christians *did* see this coming. Not many listened.
When people start believing the mythology of magic(rationality from irrationality) that we know of as evolution that mindless matter and mutation manifest code, then they'll believe any nonsense.
While I'm not religious, I recognized even back in the mid '90s that there was a good place for it because at least for a certain group of people borrowing the exceptions, it helped to give people moral and ethical compasses.
Unfortunately around that same time religious groups kind of gave up and you can see the decline of when religion was forced out of schools for example and where we are today.
@@MajeedBelle Just Christian religion. They still teaching things like the ancient babylonian myth lightning struck a prebiotic pool and manifested life. It's just Christian belief that birthed modern science they want to get rid of ironically.
@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep Evolution is an observed reality, look up Darwin's finches or the London Underground Mosquito.
@@tomasrocha6139 Sorry but to put it nicely you haven't the vaguest clue about the state of evolutionary theory in the academic field. It doesn't work, it has countless foundational critical issues, and biologists have been trying to wholly replace the model for awhile now. There was a big conference on it back in 2016. I'll help you out further.
Renowned biologist Denis Noble has given the explicit statement and given evidence for it "neo Darwinism doesn't need to be supplemented or extended, it needs to be replaced because it's completely inadequate. Why because scientists are beginning to see levels of complexity way beyond just the complexity of DNA, like epigenetic complexity."
Genomes don't improve over time they degrade. Virus data like John Sanford on H1N1 the spanish flu shows this. Human genome from encode has shown every generation humans have 100 mutations. The only nobel laureate in the field Hermann J. Muller said just 1 mutation per generation in humans means there is no evolution explanation humanity is progressing in the opposite direction 1 per generation is deadly, yet we find out the number is 100. The human genome is degrading not progressing to a better state. This shouldn't be a shock, as information theory states information degrades, and information is the basis of life.
All the beneficial mutations in biology like the famous citrate metabolism in ecoli or antibiotic resistance are not from gain or improvement in genetic information, but reductive evolution. A degrading or loss of information crippling a function in the organism that produces a beneficial effect while still being a loss of genetic function. As the famous Lenski experiment showed.
There is no evolutionary pressure to create building blocks of mechanisms that don't yet exist. Evolution does not have foresight.
Mindless matter and mutation can't manifest code. That's rationality from irrationality. That's a reality breaking concept. If you can get such a deus ex machina mechanism that does that it invalidates all human achievement and personhood because then the universe did it all. This is why the multiverse theory is so absurd. This is why all of naturalism is absurd because it's predicated on such a deus ex machina mechanism that does not exist.
Darwin's Origin never explains the origin of species -- and this is stated by David Berlinski no less.
How does chance determine when to stop at the "desired" outcome? The concept of evolution is nonsense.
Could also point out y chromosome adam and mitochondrial eve data shows humans had two ancestors and did not evolve. Shocker the dating is roughly 6000-7500 years just like the biblical genealogy dating going back to Eden, and the dating is quite accurate in a general sense as it's just averaging mutations per generation then counting back to when they stop appearing.
The list goes on and on and on. We could go into the Cambrian explosion, we could show random number generator studies for probability, or studies on evolutionary probability of mammals as size increases and so on. Darwinian evolution is a mythology of magic(rationality from irrationality), it's pseudo science and also invokes time of the gaps and god of the gaps along with all the other issues no less.
By 1995 the humanities and most of the social sciences were badly corrupted on the major college campuses. I watched history die.
Yea, I know, it's weird these guys saying let's go back to 95. By then it was already far too late. I'd say early 60's.
That would work. I entered the University of Minnesota in 1966 - the SAT scores peaked then (we didn't need them at UofM - they had a nasty homebrew) and standards were extremely high. My history PhD program at Berkeley starting in 1970 was very strong. (Both schools charged $140 a quarter - you'd often pay more for books.) JFK, LBJ and Nixon were Presidents - I'd take any of them over Biden. The US was top dog in wealth and technology and workers were very well paid. Of course there was Vietnam - but the world isn't perfect.
@@ryanprosper88 yeah people dn't realize this is the same idea present the whole time reaching critical mass, not that the ideas weren't there. People like weinstein (both of them) ignored it at their peril.
TV started to get a lot dirtier in the mid 90's it seemed to me.
Its hilarious watching the tolerant intellectuals realize everything they did has been a failure
I think it's mostly elite morons seeing dumbass mediocre humans voice their opinions for the first time.
Absolutely! 👀
Glad you've never put a foot wrong and I'm absolutely certain that if you had, you would be as intellectually and morally honest to discuss it publicly here like Brett does.
Must be difficult at the top looking down at all us mere mortals sinning all over the place, eh?
@@liamsouthwell27 - I've never heard a progressive apologize for what they wrought.
@@jrstf I've never seen that happen either.
The older I get, the more religious minded I get. Not because I think my time is running out, but because the more I witness the radical left, the more I want to run screaming the other way.
Is your prior reticence to religion because you don't wish to be associated with religious people and the stories they believe? You don't have to do that, you can go a different way and still believe in something more, something transcendent. There is no requirement for you to fall in lock-step with every religious person that you meet. You have autonomy in this regard.
In my view, the most important question everyone needs to answer for themselves is, "Do you HOPE there is a God?" Answering no to that question requires some explaining.
Beware ALL ideological extremes/absolutes. "Kind prince there is nothing in the realm of ideas that is absolute, therefore all efforts to form ideologies are ultimately futile." - Lao Tzu
Just because one group has gone more crazy, doesn't mean I've forgotten the previous groups crazy. I am fully capable of standing with christians to battle the current insanity, but still capable of remembering just how much they abused peoples rights the last time they were in full control. Don't get me wrong, I am talking about power structures here and not individuals. Most religious folk are or at least try to be good people. It is the people in or wanting power that are the problem on both sides of the fence.
@@OmegaGamingNetwork I agree that it's people who crave POWER that is the big problem. Rich people I can live with; power hungry people are scary.
I feel that same way.
The presupposition that we are no longer in the environment in which religion evolved is absurd on its face.
Agreed. That makes no sense.
I would normally agree, but in the interest of being charitable, I think he worded that a bit hastily/clumsily. I suspect that what he meant was that the current cultural milieu sees science and spirituality as mutually exclusive. That public perception makes it difficult for matters of faith to even get a fair hearing; ergo, the ideas of faith and spirituality can no longer be studied as legitimate frameworks for personal philosophy and ethics in the eyes of the public (because it's usually rejected out of hand as flat wrong by the vast majority of people).
And the premise that religion arose from a process of natural selection is at least highly questionable.
@@elmike-o5290 Yes, but when your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
@@dougcarey2233 The vast majority of people? This is where atheists get it so wrong and so backwards. Atheism is the fringe view for humanity, not theism. The vast majority of people believe in God, so obviously belief in God isn't flat our rejected by the vast majority of people because belief is held by the vast majority of people. Atheism is the weird view for humanity.
Bret is really vague here and it doesn’t help his argument.
... and he has to be vague because the evidence against atheism has become overwhelming... and he knows it but can't bring himself to admit it... and even worse, it means there's someone - God - way smarter and way more powerful than him.
No, he is rtrdd when it comes to certain topics.
I'd bet a 1000$ that he would be still a woke mf along with his wife if the woke crap he championed until then didn't bite him in the ass.
@@petermathieson5692lol
Maybe he's vague because he's still feeling his way towards the Light.
@@petermathieson5692 “The evidence against atheism” 😂 What you’re claiming is that there is overwhelming evidence that god exists? lol, ok sure.
One of the best examples, is dads used to wrestle with their kids when they were young (usually under 5). That kind of ended. Research shows that kids that wrestle with their dads have way higher self esteem and way lower anxiety as adults.
We have NO idea of the damage caused by getting rid of things that seem useless.
That's atheists fault? Lol
Wow! Thank you for mentioning this. I don't know why, but I had all but forgotten wrestling lovingly with my dad when I was a little kid in the late 70s and early 80s. It was one of the most fun things for me to do when I was right around the age you cite.
@@Matzes, no not at all. It's from not being more careful when we abandon traditions. Some may have evolved into traditions for very good reasons, that we have long since forgotten.
@@maphezdlin what do traditions have to do with not being Covinced of the evidence for god?
@@Matzes, because many traditions come from religion. The Protestant Religions are the ones that got the most things right. The Protestant nations (Germany, UK, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) have ruled the world for about 500 years. That means they got more right than wrong, or at least more right then any other religion. Abandoning all of their traditions is foolish and self destructive. Atheists believe in evolution of nature, I am amazed to see that many don't believe in evolution of human culture. In at least 10,000 years of human culture protestantism has won the survival of the fittest.
Some of this was predictable. We know because it was predicted.
The notion of unrestrained post-modernism, growing from epistemological to ontological, eventually deconstructing what seemed to be the most basic distinctions that no sane person would question was very much something that some people were concerned about.
Further, the notion of separating moral value from any objective ontological grounding, what sorts of vacuums that would create, and the sorts of things that would attempt to fill it, was also something some people were concerned about.
For example, C.S. Lewis was concerned about both.
When religious people stop murdering eachother for land and when prisons in the US aren't 90 plus percent religious people then they can talk to atheists about morality. 😂
As Nieche wrote, nihilism is at the door.
I am inclined to thing that it was not "some" people concerned by decosntruction; or "some" people worried about what sorts of vacuum would follow. There have been a mulltiplicity of influencers, not the least being the internet where ideas have been floated absent any moorings and absent any in-depth analysis of proposals.
@@captainkirk4271 "We can make our own purpose, as we see fit and need. "
And the reason we shouldn't take up the same purposes as Jeffrey Dahmer is?
This is the moral ontology problem. If Nihilism ("optimistic" being a psychological attitude towards it) is an accurate description of reality, then there exists nothing by which one can rightfully say that some purposes are better than others. There is no legitimate anchor or constraint.
When I hear Mike Johnson dog whistling the believers to violence, I'm thankful he has a strong, objective ontological grounding.
Atheism didn't make people less religious.
It just made politics the religion.
And abandoned spirituality completely.
Indeed. Removing belief in God doesn't remove humanity's need to believe in something.
Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. Atheism cannot make people less religious because atheists are not religious by definition
The more and more I listen and talk to atheists, the more and more I'm positive that God's existence has little bearing on their choices; they just didn't want people telling them that doing drugs and having sex all the time was bad for them.
If the Bible never mentioned touching their weiners in it, at most we'd simply have some agnostics.
It made politics and “the science” religion
Exactly. Religion is the same as politics. It is inescapable. You can get rid of all Governments and political parties, but that just means that your politics is anarchism and all political debates have to be settled among the people. The same with religion. Get rid of Religion, and all that happens is that you end up with secular religious ideologies, all of which are dangerous because there's no objective moral standard with which to temper extremism. The level of religion and politics in any society is always at 100%. The only question is which ideology/belief structure is preeminent.
The funny thing is, I remember listening to Rush Limbaugh in the 90's (I grew up in the Bible Belt) where he argued that all the affirmation of the homosexual agenda as it was presented in the mid-90's, using the specific form of argumentation being used, would lead to the affirmation of other sexual perversions as "orientations" because that's how a person *feels.*
In retrospect, whatever else one might think of Limbaugh, I remember the criticism that affirming someone's sexual interests on the basis of "I was born this way" was laughed and dismissed by the mainstream liberal movement at the time.
And here we are.
Y did it become so accepted?
@@Bell_plejdo568pread Romans 1:18-32 and contemplate the 60s until today for the answer to your question
We knew Rush was right on pretty much everything. We could figure out that the direction things were going was not based on a firm, logical and consistent foundation.
Personally, I think the 'I was born a homosexual' makes as much sense as 'I was born to like strawberry ice cream'. It's that much of a 'choice'. We may be capable of eating other flavours, but we have a specific favourite, and we have no idea why. You may prefer the taste, but WHY do you prefer the taste? The answer is 'I just do'.
It's a psychological topic, because if it was genetic, the gay gene would exist, and it does not despite all the stupid efforts to find it and scientifically explain the phenomenon of homosexuality.
Yeah. I remember trying to convince people that accepting gays and lesbians and bisexuals will not open a floodgate, and won't make "being gay mandatory".
Alas, I was wrong, and they were right.
"we unhooked the safeties". It's literally the classic "Don't tear down the fence if you don't know what it's for".
This is one of the best sentences I heard in a long time. Thank you.
The Chesterton statement that has proven prescient.
I almost cause a $100M booboo because of this. Luckily I worked with some scary smart people 😮
How many generations need to live with fence that has no apparent purpose before someone removes it?
@@mortygoldmacher wrong question. The real question is how we know it has no purpose? The saying doesn't warn against tearing down a fence for which you know the purpose. If you know the purpose, then you can decide whether it's useful.
"Thinking themselves wise, they became fools."
"But yours the cold heart, and the murderous tongue,
The wintry soul that hates to hear a song,
The close-shut fist, the mean and measuring eye,
And all the little poisoned ways of wrong."
Did I miss the part where Brett recommended we return to Levitical law?
@@wp5875 exactly what about a quote from the New Testament of the Bible, would make you infer a desire to return to the law of the Old Testament.
JC seemed to think the old testament still was in full force. Matthew 5:18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
@@wp5875 please don't take this the wrong way. I think you need to read the Bible through. Christ himself was the fulfillment of the Law, the law passed away in him. He was stating what he was about to do. Read, at least the New Testament. Please.
You can't have it both ways, Brett. That's it. You can't serve two masters. Ideas have consequences, and they have logical conclusions. These were always embedded within the enlightenment.
What was always embedded in the Enlightenment?
It's as simple as
If I ask you the question
what literally happened yesterday?
The second you anwer...
You just discounted an infinite amount of things
You're now specifiying an infinitesimal number of things
So, why those things, as opposed to the other infinite things?
(just showing the absurdity of the term "literal")
We just need to get back to the ancient traditions of 1995, when we were soooo close to the realization of that wonderful dream of the Enlightenment. ~ Bret Weinstein, I guess
I enjoyed the condescension in the comment highlighted at the beginning. “What if we super smart atheists had told the religious dummies that, while what they believe clearly isn’t literally true, maybe we can pretend that it’s figuratively true because we want to extract some utilitarian value out of their sky daddy beliefs. Keep the rubes in their place and all that.”
Sometimes the truth has bad or even catastrophic consequences.
It is written, " there is a way that seems right to man but in the end it leads to death".
To the extent that the practices that supported civilization for the past thousands of years are imperfect, keeping them is the preferred path if the alternative is the complete civilizational, moral, and intellectual collapse we're now seeing.
How do you know that those are the only two options? Or should we just keep theocracy alive "just in case"?
@@DerekS-kq3zh You can pretty much roll atheism into the same category as communism when talking about imperfect beings. It will never work.
@@DerekS-kq3zh Theocracy: a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god. Not sure where this theocracy is you think might be kept alive. One might consider that the Muslim world is or seeks to be a theocracy; but other than that, the Americas, Europe, and a goodly part of Asia governments could not be considered theocracies. That the Americas andEurope have geneerally followed Judeo Christian ethics does not make them theocracies. However, secularism has been chipping away to the ethics base and we are seeing the results as that chipping gains more and more traction.
@@DerekS-kq3zh "Theocracy"?
There is no "civilizational, moral, or intellectual collapse" happening now beyond fringe insanity on both the left and the right. For most everyone else, all the sane people in the middle, it's just business as usual: "progressives" trying to change everything and chucking all the babies out with the bathwater and "conservatives" trying to save every drop of the old bathwater as well. The rest of us are perfectly capable of picking and choosing between the wise and good from the past that's genuinely worth preserving and the ways in which we can indeed change and do better. This is the way it's always been and always will be. If anything, we're victims of our own success; by most all metrics we're living in the safest, most peaceful time in human history (see Steven Pinker on the subject) yet people still believe things are worse than ever. Go figure.
I've never watched this show before, and I was immediately struck by how amazing the sound engineering is. Aside from the engrossing topic, the audio experience alone was really fantastic. Rich, full tones and textures, crystal clear voices, and the subtle background white noise and gentle intro stings put everything into a refined harmony.
“When men choose not to believe in God they do not thereafter believe in nothing; they then become capable of believing in anything.”- G.K.Chesterton.
Sadly the reality is you don't choose your beliefs. Go up on the roof if a 5 story building and try to force yourself to believe gravity doesn't exist and jump. At best you might force your body off the ledge but you can't forcibly change your belief if it's how you honestly feel.
@@InMaTeofDeath The statement you just made is your belief. If you didn’t choose to believe it then how did you come to that conclusion?
@@johnsonvids2010 You don't even have to make it far enough to choose to believe something if reality has proved it to you every day of your existence. I never "Chose" to believe that I couldn't fly and neither did you. We both have experienced the worlds evidence since birth which has shown us beyond any doubt that we cannot fly. No choice making was required.
@@jscott4081 Can't you write?
@@InMaTeofDeathare you saying belief in God is predetermined? I don’t necessarily disagree.
To put it briefly, and without all the erudite word salad: We threw out the baby with the bath water at Woodstock.
It was all baby. There was no bathwater.
@@sullainvictusSpoken like someone who thinks his religion is the one which should rule. You'd be singing a different tune if Islam was the law of the land.
@@DerekS-kq3zh ??? Yes of course I would. Is this some kind of dunk? I think my worldview is good and other worldviews are bad. Shocking!
@@DerekS-kq3zh
Islam IS the rule of the land for 2 billion people. And will undoubtedly become the hegemon religion in the coming centuries for reasons that Bret dismisses, which could be best understood if you viewed ideologies as replicating viruses.
Islam is simply violent at the core, immune to reformation, punishes apostates like crazy, violent conquest and forceful conversion are its core tenets.
@@DerekS-kq3zh Actually, though, why? Is Islam opposed in its own countries? Do Muslims inherently want to rebel against their own religion? You're presupposing that you'd be born as an Individualistic Liberal with all its enlightenment priors. You had to learn those first. Liberalism is the Law of the land. You're delusional.
A few years ago, Bret tweeted something along the lines of, We need to convince the religious people to give up their religions because they aren't relevant anymore and they're impeding progress. I'm going by memory, so I can't quote him exactly, but that was the gist of it, and it came off as incredibly arrogant ("we" being himself and the other enlightened, non-religious special people) and also ignorant of the need and capacity some of have for religious faith. Has Bret forgotten that? In that tweet, he wasn't making a bridge: he was blowing one up.
Bret is kinda a hypocrite. He wants to pretend he comes from a rational science based worldview while at the same time holding to a literal mythology of magic. Rationality from irrationality, the magicaly dues ex machina mechanism that does not exist yet all of naturalism including darwinian evolution is predicated upon.
Even further to pretend darwinian evolution is a real world concept is utterly absurd. It doesn't work. The math is there. Mutations degrade information, the genome it doesn't magically progress to a higher state that's magic being invoked we don't see it. All the beneficial mutations in biology like the famous citrate metabolism in ecoli or antibiotic resistance are not from gain or improvement in genetic information, but reductive evolution. A degrading or loss of information crippling a function in the organism that produces a beneficial effect while still being a loss of genetic function. As the famous Lenski experiment showed. And as information theory predicts the decay of information the genomes of species is all we see we don't see evolution. Genomes don't improve over time they degrade. Virus data like John Sanford on H1N1 the spanish flu shows this. Human genome from encode has shown every generation humans have 100 mutations. The human genome is degrading not progressing to a better state. This shouldn't be a shock, as information theory states information degrades, and information is the basis of life. List goes on and on. Mindless matter and mutation can't manifest code. That's a fantasy a mythology of magic. That's pseudo science. That is Bret's position he is holding on to because that's all he has as an Atheist and naturalist.
He is a total hypocrite to make such statements as he did in this video about intelligent design. Mind is clearly required, it's the paradigm of all creation in this universe not magic. Does the author or video game programmer create their product out of nothing from magic? No, it's from their mind. Mind>magic God is the only answer. There is a reason intelligent design birthed modern science because it actually works unlike naturalism. Naturalism is a hindrance to the progression of science and needs to be thrown out already.
@@user-oe2wk5nu9s He isn't correcting anything. He still has an absolutely ignorant take.
Atheism: "A magical nothing created everything and when I die I become nothing, becoming one again with my creator."
lmao that's your worldview not mine. Atheism is a mythology of magic, rationality from irrationality. Atheism has been killed by science. Ones rational mind that you need to defend your position can't even be a product of Atheism! It's self defeating! Atheism is a belief of blind faith that goes against the paradigm of reality that mind is required for creation. Does the author or video game programmer make something out of nothing with magic? No they use their mind. Is the mind immaterial? Yes. Does that mean it's magic? No. Is information immaterial? Yes. Does that mean it's magic? No. Mind>magic. Science does not support the view the universe is a closed system and events can't be fed in aka miracles, that's your blind faith. Believe in magic all you want but don't pretend your illogical pseudo science worldview is the high ground to argue from when it's utter nonsense and self defeating it's so absurd haha.😄😄😄
Voltaire claimed he would end Christianity in his life time. After his death one of his places of residence was turned into a Bible bookstore. Atheists today can't compare to the might of Voltaire's skepticism. But they all end up the same in the end.
Sure, but Christianity is still a false, lying, idolatrous and self-refuted religion filled with lies and liars.
I was a consumer of atheist content on TH-cam in twenty teens, and I am still an atheist, however, I have noticed that Christians have a way better track record of opposing tyranny than the atheists here in the US. During the covid lockdowns, the church going christians were the only substantial group that was opposing the ridiculously massive government overreach. It was embarrassing and puzzling to watch atheists I used to respect not siding with the churches who were resisting government shutdowns and arrests. Instead they were regurgitating government talking pounts and cheering for a police state and essentially saying that christians in their ignorance were going to get us all sick.
And then you look at how atheist Western Europe is and how moral it remains. It's absolutely ridiculous to think religion has any causative power whatsoever.
Religion is merely a symptom of how socially developed we were anyway thousands of years ago. It's a snapshot which has since been greatly improved upon. Nostalgics insist on still calling it what it was, but simply naming it differently adds absolutely nothing.
“What if what you believe is important but not literal?”…..well, you still end up being your own God which is the kind of where we are now.
He just doesn't get it lol.
So you MUST believe in things like Genesis and Exodus LITERALLY?
@@marlonmoncrieffe0728 Wrong context marlon of literal. Literal in context of the text is a nonsensical statement as the word literal literally is terrible to use in relation to the context of the text. It's a completely inadequate adjective to contextualize the narrative as a whole presented in the biblical text. To put it simply you go with the context the passage is written in. And to repeat that has nothing to do with the statement Herbert is even making. I'm sure you know all of this though since this is quite obvious stuff and are just a salty Atheist wanting to put your two cents in but have zero comment of actual value to contribute.
No, I do NOT know all of that and barely know what you are talking about, @@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep .
Maybe do not jump to conclusions about people and assuming they are 'salty atheists'?
That is not the case. The entire Early Logos Christianity Neo-platonism did not take Christianity literal. Some of those ideas did not survive into the canon and others did.
I frankly believe the literalism in Christianity is the epitome of idolatry. It mistakes a symbol of the holy for the Holy itself.
If Jesus is the Logos and one of the aspects of the Logos is reason then irrational belief and abject ignorance is never the way.
You can address the non-literal symbols with a great deal of reverence to a mystery that is intuitively true and take it seriously. This trust is the intuitive dimensions of the symbolic is faith.
I was following the atheist community on youtube starting in 2007-2008 (the amazing atheist, thunderfoot, nonstampcollector, etc). After some years i moved on, but i hear the community turned woke and destroyed itself (i think this happened before wokeness became mainstream).
At the time it was fun mocking the dumb shit that religious people did, or believed. But nowadays, i think it wasn't as dumb as it seemed. Mostly it wasn't dumb at all. And between religion and unhinged society-destructing wokeness, i choose religion.
Fair enough
I have been thinking this was just my own personal arch of maturity. Maybe it’s an actual thing?
Or maybe, everyone on this interview and in these comments have a similar arch and the YT recommender algorithm inferred that based on my history, and now I have “corroborative evidence” for my personal experience.
Wokeness is just secular Puritanism.
The Theistic Puritans and The Secular Ones Both want a lot of ways to be able to look down on others; and to impose their code on others.
I felt this. Same. One thing that I wish I would have practiced better that I learned from religion is, "My body is my temple."
You should look into Carl Jung's book, Aion. We are literally living out the final chapters of that book. This is the end of an Aion. This is why Jordan Peterson says that Aion was the scariest book he had ever read.
He wants cultural Christianity, but without Christianity. Moving away from totally rejecting to pick and choose. he wants both the money and the sheep.
Giving it the name 'cultural christianity' is giving christianity too much credence. We should come up with some new name.
I dint know, ":Ancient stories to give people meaning and hope and also to coerce them into acting like they give a damn, maybe , sometimes.", just doesn't roll off the tongue as well as "cultural Christianity ".
He's a Jew, so this tracks. They both are.
@@FoursWithin yea its really popular these days to dismiss christianity as stories to coerce people. some even say they are fairy tales.
@@halo_1232
On the other hand it's still very popular to be a believer in an ancient middle east theology.
233 million US citizens claim to be Christian , out of a 333 million population. More than two thirds.
The numbers are estimated but that's the best offered for now.
Bret proves that if you speak slow enough, pause dramatically, and stay vague, people will think you're smart.
Atheism is not a tool for navigating through life.
It is the reaction of "I don't believe you" when you hear unbelievable God Stories.
Some want to insist Atheism is a religion. Only if not collecting stamps is a hobby.
They replaced religion with wokeness. George Floyd is the new Jesus
Wokeism is just a symptom/tentacle of the underlying Fundamentalist Death Cult called Marxism that controls the entirety of our cultural lives.
Well Floyd was real.
@@terryschofield1922 which makes it even worse.
@@rosihantu1 How so?
This is a much needed discussion. Glad to see Bret back on.
Conservative Christians have warned and warned and warned and warned. "What possibly could we have done?" You could have listened to us. Dave, I love you, but who were you listening to in 1995?
Conservative Christians also enacted fascist legislation against anyone who didn't follow their religion. You have no right to control others. Learn that and maybe we can have a conversation
@@DerekS-kq3zhYou sound like a progressive. There's nothing wrong with legislation that is discriminatory if that legislation is just.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl I'm a libertarian. And if you define "just" as "in keeping with my feelings on religion," then it would be "just" for me to make a law outlawing any Christian from holding office. Because we can't have people who believe in magical sky daddies in charge of nukes. So if would be "just" to remove you from any position of power. And who cares if it's discriminatory, right?
@@DerekS-kq3zh Never happened, buddy. All the fascism--the political pairing of mega-corps with the Party--has been on the Left.
Most conservative christians I know (i.e. most of my closest friends) have fathered ultra-leftist sons, which are now in their 20s/30s, who *hate* them. I think in part that invalidates the "We saw it coming" argument because, even if we did, we failed as much as everyone else to prevent it.
This man is a hero. Not enough people know of him.
Hero? The Weinstein brothers are interesting, but heroic? C’mon
He is part of the problem.
@@JT-bc5cd Brett is. He’s sacrificed his self and saved many.
@@somethingawesome9547 saved whom and from what?
@@JT-bc5cd Some things I can’t say because YT will auto delete the comment. But thanks to him, I’d say I did not suffer a second heart attack.
Pretending that morality is temporal as opposed to transcendent is exactly the fallacy that got us here. Continuing in that fallacy of "old morals are for old times" will not solve our problem it will necessarily make it worse.
Dogmatic morality is worse than a fallacy, it's pernicious.
@@apointofinterest8574 How so? Truth is exclusive not all inclusive.
@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep How so? Truth is not all inclusive but not absolutely exclusive.
@@apointofinterest8574 I would say how so right back to you. Truth is exclusive, what is, is. There can be different perspectives of truth like why something is made and how it's made, but those are complimentary not conflicting.
@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep At this point, we'll leave you in your playpen, with words as your toys...
The fact that it took the man almost 11 minutes to say nothing is most assuredly part of the problem.
Sure, but luckily it's his problem, not ours. Just don't send him any money to enable his nonsense.
Yeah he and Jordan Peterson share that trait, they'll get asked something that requires a single sentence to answer and talk for 5 minutes.
@@InMaTeofDeath How sure are you that the questions they get asked can be genuinely done in one single sentence? Have you considered that perhaps those 5 minutes answers are the sort that contain Chesterton's Fence?
@@Amoki86 How sure I am depends on the question, do some of them require longer explanations? Yes. Do some of them only require short ones? Yes. I've just seen enough talks with both men to see them do it often.
The are both INTPs which are informative types. Specifically, they don't want to come out and say something directly as they want to explain their ideas as well as have you come to the same conclusion.
They use introverted thinking which is based on first principles, deductive logic and seeking truths.
Those who are more direct tend to have extroverted thinking which is more rational (facts based), uses inductive reasoning (best explanation), and rationality (beliefs over truth).
Te runs the risk of being wrong.
Ti runs the risk of not being clear.
“What if what (Christians) believe is important but not literal?”
That’s sort of where I’m at as a non-religious person. Society is a lot healthier when the beliefs of Christianity are more prevalent, whether or not I actually think Christianity itself is true. ❤
The Christian experience is a helpful spiritual possibility for people. A deep change of heart in the face of innocent suffering. The Roman soldier who looked up at Christ on the cross, breathing his last breath and having a change of heart. A modern day example, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was due, in part, to the country having a change of heart after the Birmingham Church bombing of 1963 in which 4 young black girls were killed. The country changed its collective heart in the face of innocent suffering. That change of heart is the Christian experience. The same change of heart that has an alcoholic never pick up a drink again after they see and feel the suffering they have caused themselves and others. It doesn't matter if Jesus Christ was literally crucified and resurrected from the dead. The spiritual truth of the Christian experience is real and helps people become better, helps them change their heart, helps them deeply. If believing in the resurrection as literally true helps them, fine by me. Anything that helps people pull themselves out of the pit of suffering many of us find ourselves in is good in my book.
Indeed. But the philosophical problem is, why call the sort of society we think of as "healthy" by that morally positive term? The sorts of things most people probably think about (peaceful, tolerant, just, productive, etc)...why call those "healthy?" If the response is that they tend to lead to continuing to have a society, then even if we assume that's true, then we have to ask, so what if a society is "healthy?" Why is having such a society truly good? Many people like it, of course. But something being desirable doesn't make it actually morally good.
I submit there is an answer to that problem, but that it cannot be found in a Universe without something to ground the existence of moral value.
And this question matters. In some ways, it is the question Western societies at large, and Mr. Weinstein himself in this video, are dealing with (even if obliquely and not head-on).
Fancy way of saying we need God
We need something with the authority of God, but is scientifically verifiable, and therefore indisputable.
@@robinpage2730 Can you scientifically verify that truth or the laws of logic exist ? Can science explain the regularity in nature? I’m sure you still believe in those, though. What you’re asking for can’t logically exist.
@@juanmorebeers Indeed. I reflect on the fact that we can't indisputably prove we're not brains in vats, or in the Matrix, or in a simulation. Going back to Descartes, all anyone can prove, and only to themselves, is that they exist. They can't prove what exactly they are, even.
Science looks at what "is." Moral values questions deal with what "ought." Science, as a discipline, does not have the tools, nor the scope of inquiry, necessary to give us what ruthie is asking for.
@@robinpage2730 In other words God. There is no other answer for moral values and duties and a rational intelligible universe, and rational mind that we require to even do science. Let that one sink in. The evidence for God is quite literally indisputable, it's woven in the fabric of everything that exists. Maybe that's why Jesus never said I have truth but said I am the truth, because he is the ultimate truth of everything and on top of that is called the Word and created everything through the transfer of information, and shocker we live in a word based universe. It's fascinating the extent people like you go to, to avoid the obvious answer of God, Jesus.
Which one?
Before the coming of Abrahamic religions to Europe, it was understood that mythology is metaphor and not literal. They were stories that were true even though they never happened. So, there is a middle ground here that reconciles this.
"Myths are things that never happened, but always are..."
~ Sallust, ancient Greek philosopher
Loved listening to Brett regularly inserting that medieval trigger word "evolution". He is clearly sticking to the orthodox line regardless of the latest biological and cosmological evidence. And yet, straight faced, sits there telling us New Atheist made a mistake in (effectively) throwing out the baby (religious practice that tends towards stable society) with the bathwater (liberal quest for ever more comprehensive exercise of individual human rights). Amen.
I know it's hilarious his own field has been proven essentially pseudo science yet he is being disingenuous about it or flat out willing ignorant. The only evolution we ever have seen is reductive evolution the degrading of genome that gives a benefit, that's not progress to a higher state that's "devolving" lol. That's what happened with the famous ecoli citrate experiment, that's how bacteria largely get antibiotic resistance, they aren't adapting they got cripple in some way the hurt how the antibiotic got taken into the cell or metabolized. Our best science is showing genomes of species are degrading not progressing to a higher state like evolution says. The encode project showed humans are getting 100 mutations per generation lmao that's devastating for the evolutionist. The premier nobel laureate on the subject said just 1 just1 mutation per generation would cause extinction to humans!!! And the list goes on and on and on.
The Wall (h/t Chesterton, Kipling, MLK, Grateful Dead, Tolkien)
Once upon a time humanity built a Wall to separate just from unjust, good from evil, hope from despair, faith from nihilism, order from chaos, civilized from barbaric, and most of all truth from lie. This Wall was built with stories embedded with invaluable lessons, wise sayings passed down through the ages, exemplars to emulate, Laws to observe, and principles to internalize. It took thousands of years to build this Wall with untold volumes of blood, sweat, and tears that went into its construction. As it goes with such things the people protected by the Wall developed wondrously. They created arts, discovered philosophies, explored nature, and invented technologies beyond the wildest dreams of their forebears that had started building the Wall so long ago. In less than two millennia after completion of the Wall many of the people had forgotten why the Wall had ever been built and most didn’t know how the Wall was built let alone what it was built out of. Eventually enlightened voices said, “the wall is no longer needed; the people have individual rights, rule of law, meritocracy, advanced monetary systems, social safety nets, and free markets; let’s tear down this hideous Wall and build a stunning and brave bridge.” And so, the four horsemen led a mob to tear down the Wall. Oh, what a wonderful time it was. We were living the dream at least from my young, perhaps naïve, perspective; but then I started to notice some flecks of grey. In due time without the wall, long-standing bulwarks of truth are proved to be no longer trustworthy, oaths are broken without remorse, and corruption runs rampant. Mountains made of mole hills dominate the landscape. The empire of lies reigns supreme and crushes all decent. The ivory tower exiles cry for objectivity, but there is none to be found in high places. The horsemen now frantically gather allies to face the new foe that is the ancient foe. Will the phalanx of many colors stand fast or will The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return? Only time will tell, but as for me, what path to take? Ride the tiger some say, and it would seem like wisdom but for the warning in my heart. Others say take your place in formation, stand with your friends of many creeds, and fight the good fight; but I’ve done that before and lost for lack of affiliations willing to join the fight. The bubble of normalcy I’ve built in my corner of red America may last past the days I have left. Why not live out the rest of my days in blissful ignorance? Why come to the aid of those that failed to come to my aid? Because it’s the right thing to do. There may come a day when that no longer matters, but not this day, today we fight!
This is beautiful. Is this specifically Chesterton? Or an amalgam you put together of Chesterton, Kipling, MLK, Grateful Dead, Tolkien
@@thesilverfish Thank you. Indeed it is an amalgamation, just a few of the influencers of my POV.
I love both you guys. Thanks for having this conversation and making this content.
Sincere thanks Brett and Heather for your sane voices throughout Covid.
Lots of people navigate through life perfectly well with (ha) "Simple Atheism". It just means you don't need superstitious explanations for the wonderful world that surrounds us.
I know he’s a highly educated ex-professor and all and I’m just a bachelor-degree-holding, lifelong conservative and church-goer (which, just FYI-Catholics-who sponsored and developed the first universities, which in turn, founded scientific exploration-has always meshed quite companionably with evolution and biology)-I spent my young adult years feeling very Kassandra-like trying to talk about “Slippery Slopes” to my much more highly educated friends-who became academics-and was dismissed and told contemptuously (and it was the contempt that really annoyed me-not being contradicted) that the slippery slope didn’t exist except in the minds of religious dum-dums. So now, I listen to these guys and get irritated with their “consternation” of “how we got here.” GAH! It’s why C.S. Lewis declared Pride as the king of deadly sins.
His whole statement “how can we get the truth without going to the source of truth”
The Bible is a lie.
Its very America centric view of atheism and religion. There are whole, mostly European, countries, nations and regions that are atheistic, in a sense many Americans would find hard to comprehend, like Czechia, Estonia, whole eastern half of Germany, where actual religion doesnt play any role in everyday lives and isnt ever in thoughts of majority of ppl and for several generations already and where majority ppl even doesnt know or even just met anyone religious.
maybe if you look outside of American echo chamber youd see examples of what work and what doesnt instead of forever keep discussing in circles about atheism and irreligiosity as some unknown, unheard and never tried before thing.
Czech Republic has been part of the illiberal Visegrad group for years. East Germany has the majority of its population ready to vote for the AFD or Sara Wagenknecht. Estonia is a highly nationalistic ethnocracy. It's not like those parts of Europe are inherently your progressive americans dream. Furthermore, in Europe the more religious one is the more likely they are to vote for a Center or Center Right party. It's the Cultural Christians and the non-religious who show more of a voting correlation with the far right. Even in Europe theism has been replaced by Hyper-Nationalism, Authoritarianism and lifestyle-leftism depending on the person. Marriage numbers have been destroyed as has union membership. Military enrollment is down. Labor Union Membership is a small fraction of what it was. The working class have been hit the hardest. In America 54% of college graduates are church members and only 44% of non-college graduates. The working class is in a terrible state right now. Countries in Central Europe and Eastern Europe are not paradises. They are not as rich as their Western European neighbors yet their fertility rates are down and there is sluggish economic growth. These people aren't living the dream completely away from the confines of religion. Rather, the miners in similar places like Wales used religion as a motivator to form their unions and local Labor party branches and fight for a better tomorrow. Now these communities are just broken. Crushed by decades of union busting, unfair trade deals and without anything to provide them hope.
@Joeshapiro7 TLDR but from few snippets it's obvious you have deep and personal knowledge of the region, local socioeconomic conditions and native politics and culture, lived there for years or at least regularly travelled there in recent decades to actually witness the terrible state of local working class.
So im assured your response is 100% factual and result of your own experience and research and not at all merely few of your superficial preconceived notions solely based on your personal ideological preference, elementary school history lessons and few english news and Wikipedia articles you read sometime in past.
@@rehurekj I mean that's what statistics and qualitative research are for, proving those sorts of things. But I have been to 7 different countries in Europe so there is a degree of personal experience as well.
@@Joeshapiro7 Europe is diverse continent, specially considering its size, and unless one of those countries was one of those we speak about and you been there for more than just typical touristy visit and did actually learn and studied at least a bit of local language and culture to somehow understand what you see and hear in streets around you and in news then the level of personal experience is the same like me visiting Thailand to spend 2 weeks in Bangkok and Koh Lanta and suddenly becoming expert on all and every SE Asian matter...
Periods of great social upheaval are always marked by large amounts of moral panic. This cycle has repeated endlessly throughout human history. To point to the last 30 years as somehow being the linchpin that holds civilization together smacks of hubris and short-sightedness.
Well, we’ve never had the power to exterminate all human life before..
..so there’s that.
the fact that Stefan Molyneux is not part of this discussion is a crime. He is an atheist that was arguing against the atheist creed ten years ago.
LOL what atheist creed?
The Founders recognized a liberal govt would only work within the ethical bounds of a religious and moral culture. They left it to the People to cultural limit the freedoms of liberalism.
Atheist ask why is the world so broken if there is a God. It's because He gave man free will and WE have chosen to make it so.
Great to see Mr. Weinstein on the show! There are plenty of beliefs that I do not share with him, but he approaches issues sincerely and with an very informed "wide lense," willing to look at all aspects and change adjust his viewpoint.
Agreed, you described my exact take on him.
Mine too.
You can’t only speak about the Enlightenment. The Great Awakening was just as important. Faith and Reason!
The solution to the confusion of the western world isn't to pick the best parts of old religious traditions, but to foster humility in relation to truth where it reveals itself.
Is it unfair for me to say this seems to place truth and religious tradition in mutually exclusive camps? As a follower of Jesus, the “religion” and the truth are one and the same to me.
@@Papa-dopoulos I too am a Christian, but Christian arguments don't work in debates with secular people. A fruitful debate needs common ground. That's why you can't debate the Woke. They have zero regard for their opponents views.
Exactly...one of the only few comments on here that make sense. First off there hasn't been a turn back towards religion since the new atheism movement...it's just that people got bored discussing the same things over and over on the internet You can only have some of your debates on a subject.... Just like you're seeing with a flat earth a couple years ago in the red pill now... People get bored and move on to the new trendy subject but there isn't less agnostic people in America than then ...if you go my church membership religion in America is slowly rescinding. Now we can take and cherry pick the good ancient wisdom that is included in parts of these religious text without having to except the unjust or ridiculous teachings/claims.
You can't magically create a better truth. Truth is exclusive not all inclusive. It is what it is. There has to be a standard for morals, that means God. Same with rationality. This is why naturalism and Atheism is utterly ridiculous it's self defeating. Science has killed Atheism. So it's ironic how Bret talks.
Bret's comments to the religious people and the conversation about the hopeless state of affairs in western civilization remind me of a wise man's words. “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.” And when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes." Matthew 7:24-29. Western civilization developed and the Enlightenment happened because of its foundation on Judeo-Christian values and God's foundation. Atheists in the west merely repeat the massive mistake of secular humanism and communism-there is no God and man has replaced him. As the millions of deaths under communism reveal the same tragic results as any false religion. Jesus is the only sure foundation on which to build one's life and any civilization.
I am an atheist. May I ask you a few questions concerning your comment?
In the Bible, every time people abandoned God, and became their own gods it brought destruction. We are no different, we are just repeating inevitable evil.
I think god got thrown off Twitter for misinformation.
@9:44 "You can't embrace the solutions of the past to get out of the problems of the present, and you can't abandon the solutions of the past because they're outdated, because you'll end up abandoning all sorts of stuff that matters in ways you don't know about." - Bret Weinstein
If only these people had listened 20 years ago when they were warned.
Stop listening to these clowns.
@ladyphoenixgrey3923 It is interesting that these are now your advocates given their pasts and there is significant validity to your statement. But I have to ask, if you know they are clowns, why are you here so early in the video's history? What would compel you to say, "Look two idiots are talking. Let's watch the video and tell everyone they are clowns"
@@myratsalad What could any of us do to stop anything that happened? Everything we say is ignored. Our votes are ignored. They just carry on with their own Agenda to destroy the foundations of society and enslave humanity.
Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. This athiesm is unhinged from the root and this is going to end badly for those untethered.
Really well said
Jesus is Risen!
Who is he even talking about? The main four atheists all agreed that atheism was not a belief system in itself and had no content.
Dawkins: wanted to start "The Brights," to provide content that could guide lives.
Harris: warned against treating atheism as anything beyond just the absence of a single belief, and recommended Buddhism.
Hitchens: recommend western literature and arts as a rich source of moral guidance and purpose.
Dennett: I actually can't remember his take, but he certainly wasn't in disagreement with the other three.
This is just believers projecting thoughts into the minds of atheists so they can pat themselves on the back.
Conservatives: "If we could just make the world be the way we want it and then stop ALL PROGRESS, everything will be perfect."
Isn't it weird that the Creator of man is the one who knows best how a man should live?
If only we could identify and communicate with such a creator someday.
@@incomingincoming1133 I know right? You'd think he would want to interact with such a life form after making a whole universe just so this tiny pocket could support life and this singular species unlike all the rest could exist with such a unique capacity to contemplate beyond their naturalistic survival. I wonder how such a God would go about communicating with them? Maybe he'd have to becoming like them...
@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep That would be what I would do if I were the creator of the universe, but that is me projecting my human thoughts unto a non-human entity. I really don't know what a creator of a universe would do. I however know your speculation sounds reasonable, as it would coming from, and to, a human brain. It sounds just like the kind of explanation we could come up with intuitively. But as for the real origin and nature of the universe, I have few clues.
@@incomingincoming1133 It's almost like truth is exclusive not all inclusive, thus a creation has a shared reality of truth with said creator. Otherwise how could we trust anything we think? Our rationality is dependent on it.
@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep You said: "it is almost like truth is exclusive not all inclusive, thus a creation has a shared reality of truth with said creator. Otherwise how can we trust what we think. Our rationality is dependent on it."
Your language is now beyond me. I can't respond to the overall point because I don't understand it. But I can respond to individual words.
'thus' means the conclusion that follows comes from the foregoing. Could you help me out by fleshing out how the phrase before 'thus' leads to the phrase after 'thus' in your comment.
'otherwise how could we trust anything we think' suggests that we only have the option of accepting your premise or all rationality collapses. You make your point louder by saying "our whole rationality is dependent on it."
What is this essential thing our entire rationality depends upon, and why?
EDIT 'your' language is now beyond me...
Notice how it’s suddenly only a serious problem now it’s an issue for their community, not as it ravaged gentiles
To provide context, Bret holds a point of view he calls Metaphorical Truth. That an individual can believe something that's not literally true, but the behaviors resulting from it can cause an individual or a group to out-compete others from an evolutionary perspective. He's used the example of the Moken people of the Andaman Sea, who survived a tsunami because they believed in a spirit of their ancestors who became hungry periodically to taste human flesh, and when the sea receded prior to the tsunami, the Moken people ran upslope because they were terrified and weren't wiped out by the tsunami. He went on to say, obviously, that's not true, it's tectonic plates that caused the tsunami, but it worked out for the Moken people.
Here, he's saying the same thing about religion. It's not literal (i.e., real/true), but the metaphors/wisdom in the stories were useful. It seems his criticism is that "new Atheism" didn't replace these useful metaphors, or compendium of wisdom, with something else.
Yeah, as another example, tortoises and hares don't race each other but Aesop's fables have lasted for thousands of years because of their simply told but important messages.
Telling me that my beliefs are necessary though not literal wouldn't work. That's no different than just telling me I'm wrong and stupid, just like every atheist out there loves to do.
"How do I get the goyim to behave while also keeping them exactly where I want them"
-Bret Weinstein and Dave Rubin, two Jewish men without any tribal interests, whatsoever
Atheism never had a real intent to resolve anything at all. The root of atheism was to redirect people away from guidance. Whether you believe in religion or not doesn't matter. It's underpinning is NOT whether you believe in god or not. Religion provides a framework for guidance. it provides a framework and a foundation of thought. Without it, your mind spiders in all directions. Some find the good, many find the bad. Over time, MOST end up on the bad end of the spectrum.
The new atheists make the same mistakes of the new socialists…
“My thing has never actually been tried and it can actually work.”
Yeah let's not try new things. Everything in our culture and society is perfect, there are no problems.
You are exactly the person weinstein is saying is going to bring the coming calamity.
@@beerboots What new things would you like to try? And why aren't you trying them?
@@spuriouseffect Would the fact that there are things I'd like to try but haven't yet tried, have any relevance to the comment I made?
@@beerboots Yes. If you don't have a better idea, then we have to live with the best we have. The problem with "new" ideas is that they're often old ideas that never worked out before but are "new" again because people fail to learn from history, or bad ideas that haven't been vetted before they're implemented. Many ideas floating around today, like digital currency, easily lead to 1984 or worse. The road to hell is often paved with good intentions. Better the devil you know rings true most of the time.
6:12 I fear we have only scratched the surface of evil. There is an ocean of darkness coming
In the book of judges, it describes the cycle that we experience. When we are with God, we prosper. When we forget, God, we begin to suffer. That suffering leads us back to God, then we are back to prospering with God, and the cycle continues. What the Bible is teaching us, is that suffering is necessary for us to see the errors of our ways, because some lessons cannot be taught. We must learn them through experience. To reinforce this, Solzhenitsyn Describes this in the Gulag archipelago. When asked where we went wrong, he stated “we have lost God”. People need a highly good and moral doctrine to look to. The constitution is good, but we also need faith and good understanding in order to want to follow those ethics and morals. This idea that we are inherently moral, is not a complete truth. The Bible teaches us that we are also inherently evil, and some folks cannot differentiate between tragedy, good, and evil.
It’s referred to as the “pride cycle”. The root of the problem is pride - the rejection of acknowledging that we don’t know something.
We don’t know everything and that is where religion came from - to fill in the voids and codify the underlying principles we had discovered. We still don’t know everything and so we still need to fill in the voids somehow without abandoning the core principles we have discovered.
I can't imagine what family dinner conversations must be like with the Weinsteins (Eric & Bret) present. Their level of learning and intellect is so impressive, as well as their ability to organize and articulate what they are thinking. I am so impressed! I don't necessarily agree with all they say but it is so impressive to hear them talk about various issues.
I am an atheist, and I read Nietzche's writings a long time ago. I've always recognized the role of the logos that God and religion has played for humanity, and was careful during my transition out of religion to not lose that.
Shedding religion was not the mistake. The mistake was not taking the time to reframe our humanity and make it work without God. You may not agree it's possible, but it is. But the millions that didn't stop and think, they abandoned themselves to mindless hedonism and live like beasts. And they were then given a megaphone with the advent of social media.
The result of this intellectual laziness and bombastic exhuberance is complete moral degeneracy.
The answer was always in front of us. In president, eisenhower's final address to the nation when he said "the enemies of the United States are atheistic in nature."
The atheists love to talk about the 2 minute portion of his speech. Where he mentions the military industrial complex. But they avoid also the portion where he discusses how dangerous it is that the federal government is spending money on education.
And he describes how this federal money is a corrupting influence on our college and university systems.
You should think for yourself rather than idolize people.
@@Elrog3 asinine comment
@@Elrog3
Do you worship Richard Dawkins? Do you worship Sam Harris? The one who says he is okay with dead tortured children in the basement of Joe Biden.
Atheists are worshippers of the state. They would rather have a government industrial welfare complex. Instead of private religious based charity. Which requires people to change their behavior in both public and private.
they also skip the "scientific and technical elite"
This was all well predicted in the 90's, the question is why did those voices get silenced, while the imbeciles got amplified.
They get silenced because a message that says your wrong behavior is admissible is appealing to the base human. You even see it within the different sects of world religions…the born again Christian belief is so much more appealing than traditional Christianity where you are expected to participate in the atonement process through some sort of repentance.
Maybe we as a civilization are just grappling with all of the information and possibilities and it’s overwhelming and causing us to deliberate. Perhaps the issue is we don’t have intelligent, useful moderators for this debate. Instead we have anxious, manipulative, selfish politicians vying to keep their cushy high paid jobs on both sides. Maybe this is just a phase in the evolution of humanity’s thought process. I used to panic about all of the discontent and disconnection. Maybe this really is just the adolescent phase of human civilization and we will learn from this and do much better in the future.
Some elements of Christianity were ALWAYS toxic. They haven't *become* toxic, they always were.
Atheism is not a religion, not a belief system, nor any kind of doctrine or dogma. The term itself would not even need to exist except in opposition to silly institutionalized superstitions (e.g. christianity, judaism, buddhism, islam, etc.).
As an ex atheist I can now proclaim that Jesus Christ is Lord and did literally walk this earth to die for our sins! Atheism is not the absence of religion but a new form of religion of selfishness and is futile.
The stories of what Jesus was and what he did only stared many generations AFTER his death almost exclusively by St Paul who never even met Jesus, EARLY Christianity taught that Jesus was a man who lived and died like any ordinary man, historical records apart from St Paul support this, Jesus had living relatives after all, these relatives lived on to become normal Jews, not Christians!
@@foxfriendzanimaltown9859 So why did Ignatius of Antioch write (in the letters of which we still have the originals, written between 106 and 108 AD) that St John taught that Christ was God?
That's not "from St Paul" nor is it "many generations" after Christ.
@@Si_Mondo Who says you have the originals, are you saying it wasn't processed through the Convention of Constantinople in the year 553 AD?!
@@foxfriendzanimaltown9859 No. They have the originals. That's not disputed. Stop playing dumb.
@@Si_Mondo If Christ was God and oh brother is that ever a bloated statement people were not even saying that a century ago, that seems to be another new load of BS, and if he committed suicide by allowing himself to be tortured and killed then he's a really bad example of anything good!
When I took Psychology as a required course for my Criminal Justice studies I was actually fascinated when I reached the chapter about Consciousness and Unconsciousness. What fascinated me about it is the fact that you literally can have arguments with yourself and one of the two sides of your mind, keep in mind we are talking about consciousness, can in fact refuse to agree with your conscious mind and it shows up in different ways usually in behaviors you simply do without thinking about them. It's just like when you try to lie and for whatever reason your body does these things, and it's different for different people, for example some will scratch themselves for no reason, or make unnecessary movements and so on, well that's what I am referring to when I mention behaviors your unconcsious mind does when it refuses to agree with your conscious mind. So I honestly think that's a daily struggle atheists constantly have and it shows whenever their idea of religion clearly conflicts with what actually tends to be the reality. For example some atheists I argue with insist Christianity is violent at it's core except this argument immediately comes to an end when I ask them why is it in countries where Christians are a clear minority and no one would blame them for fighting back because that country's government is already guilty of a number of different human rights violations but these very Christians simply don't really do anything really considered violent. China would be a good example of this. Sometimes I throw this in, "For your statement to be true shouldn't these same minorities be doing something that would be violent even if it was just a barfight?" I even reference research groups that study terrorism like the START institute which maintains lists on current terrorist groups and point out that there are barely a handful of Christian groups at any given time meanwhile left wing and jihadist groups dominate these lists in the 100s sometimes 1000s. They literally have no answer for this as if even they don't truly believe their own claim. This is just one example but there are a ton of others with similar results showing that same mental struggle between their conscious minds and their unconscious minds. They just blurt them out as though they do believe them but retreat the second it get's challenged using actual facts they can't refute. I even argued with one who kept repeating the same argument over and over and each time I would bring up that contradictory fact and they just kept retreating and it wouldn't be until the 3rd or 4th time I used the same contradictory fact that they either gave some half @$$ed rant posing as a credible response in which case I just threw another irrufutable fact at them and then they finally went away realizing they weren't getting away from this, whatever it was, or they just refused to answer and simply changed to a different argument.
Perhaps you should have taken a few writing courses during your Criminal Justice studies. Perhaps you could have learned about paragraphs and what they're for.
@@mylesleggette7520perhaps your parents could have taught you better manners.
@@mylesleggette7520 you'll get over it
So to be what, a policeman, you had to take Psych 101 and now you think you can refute atheism based on human social behavior and because there are non-christian terrorist groups? True Dunning-Kruger on display. The reason for atheism is because there is no valid evidence for gods or the supernatural. Everything else is irrelevant. An atheist could snuff half of the humans on earth in a fit of rage and it still wouldn't make christianity true. You've been arguing with people who don't believe in god because they escaped indoctrination or weren't indoctrinated, but that doesn't make them good at debate.
Too bad you didn't learn about editing and brevity in your criminal justice studies. Your professor might have pointed out what a run-on sentence is, since that wasn't a something you learned in high school.
"The nine scariest words you can hear are....I'm from the future and I am here to help"-Alternate universe Bill Clinton after meeting grown up Bret Weinstein in 1995
9:42 The issue with this framing is that it presupposes that wisdom - which is religious belief, doctrine, and dogma - is manmade. In other words, that atheism or, at least, agnosticism is true.
This reduces religion to nothing more than a noble lie. And most religions look quite poorly on lying, in general. So, you’re left with a paradox: you need to rely on people who believe lying is wrong to keep lying for the sake of civilization, and to do so convincingly enough to protect civilization.
"The princes of Judah have become like those who removed the ancient landmark..." Hosea 5:10 Unfortunately, the Secular Jew has been overrepresented in the cartel largely responsible for the deterioration of the moral consensus that once moderated social and personal attitudes and behavior in the West. From the Frankfurt School through the leadership of the ACLU, through guys like Lenny Bruce to Howard Stern and Sam Harris and the like, the pattern has been clear. Rabbi Daniel Lapin has argued for decades now, beginning with his book, "America's Real War" wherein he appeals to his Jewish brethren to stop "de-Christianizing the West" since it has been the single greatest force for the success of the Jewish person in America and its removal will only create a moral vacuum into which only the worst aspects of human nature will flow.
So how did Buddhissm not collapse eastern countries?
"simple atheism was somehow a sophisticated way of navigating through life"
Straw Man Alert!
No one ever claimed that not believing in the Easter Bunny "was somehow a sophisticated way of navigating through life".
Nor did they claim that there is no value to be had in an Easter Egg hunt.
But still, the Easter Bunny doesn't exist.
“A series of events unfolded” That is always suspicious when people won’t explain.. Why isn’t he saying what happened? Dave even directly asks him and he just gives another non specific answer. He did something he doesn’t want to explain.
Tradition is a set of solutions for which we have forgotten the problems. Kingsbury
No. Traditions are just norms. Some might be solutions to forgotten problems.
There are no solutions, only tradeoffs.
I think it is obvious that humanity managed to produce horrible cruelty notwithstanding religion, and often because of religion. "Good people will do good things, evil people will do evil things.. it takes religion to have good people do evil things"
Bret’s logic would seem to compel him to say we shouldn’t have freed the slaves, because their labor was so woven into our economy. Next is, preserve racism bc, disgusting as it is, its evolutionary underpinnings mean it houses a necessary truth. Next is, domestic violence has to be endured, bc the rent has to get paid. Maybe what he wants is something like adults, knowing full well the truth, still celebrating the magic of Xmas…. Also bc our economy depends on it. Though it still fits to see religion as a vanishing mediator.
1995?? You need to go back to around 1987... things we're fully dysfunctional already by 1993
Sorry, I'm not following _any_ of these numbers: what specifically about 1995 . . . 1987 . . . and 1993 (?)
@@QED_ The 1.0 version of Woke was first noticeable around 1987 was peaking around 1991-92, so even 1993 would have been too late. This is why Dave's suggestion of 1995 falls short.
▀͡ QED
How does someone as smart as Bret not realize that you cannot even have truth without an objective basis for truth outside of human opinion.
That 'objective basis' is still entirely contingent on human judgement. The assertion that said basis is 'True'.
Why do you think believing in God using your human perception, somehow exempts you from relying on human perception?
There is no objective basis that we can demonstrate, only subjective assertions about what should be considered objective.
@@beerboots Regardless you still have to get back to an objective standard eventually unless you’re claiming to be a literal moral relativist
@@zacsimillion You can make an objective standard up, but there's simply no way to avoid a subjective interpretation of what constitutes morality. It remains 'made up'. If God is your objective standard for example, that is based upon your subjective concept that God constitutes objective moral guidelines, because you cannot definitively prove God exists, nor that he is 'truly' moral.
So I would agree with your first post - you cannot have truth without an objective basis for truth outside of human opinion. But I would add to this - And that is the reality of our situation. Being humans with human limitations, human opinion is the best/only operating system we've got. We do not have absolute access to truth. We can only make educated guesses at best.
Imagine an "intellegent" ant in a ten store cruiser ship, could it ever get to understand where is it and who could have designed and built the boat, its "world"? Well, we are even smaller in relation to the Universe and are pretending to decipher and comprehend how it all works and how it was created or started. We are still very far from being able to have a mere idea!
I think it's a human misconception that it was created or started. If it was, you still have to explain the creator so you’re basically in a chicken or egg situation.
Well said!
@@torreyintahoe probably us humans cannot comprehend God or anything out of the space-time limits because of our self limitations to which we are tied, we can't comprehend anything with more than 3 dimensions or something atemporal, or in the case of God something or someone omniscient, omnipresent and all-mighty.
Also, your second statement is dependent on time, what if time is a consequence of the Big Bang and there isn't anything before the Big Bang because there wasn't a before.
To me is very interesting how there are constants in the math world like pi, e, the golden ratio and some others as if they were part of a computer program or a simulation with some given parameters, they are so abitrary but random, unintelligible but logical, and also seems like they have infinite digits meaning we will never know the exact number, and the more I look into it, the more I think all this was created intentionally.
@@torreyintahoe Right, "something" as a concept has to be eternally present in order for anything to exist. Whether that be the matter that formed our universe, or a god who created it. Or an even bigger god who created that god.
In a way I don't blame people for inventing religious stories to try and explain this stuff because the reality is we'll almost certainly never have all of the real answers. As humans we like to have our questions answered, we're problem solvers by nature. A lot of people would prefer to try and smash the corners off of a square peg than face up to the fact that the round peg is missing.
@@torreyintahoe Who created your creator is an Atheist misconception. That is actually truly the argument of the Theist to the Atheist is the irony.
God logically doesn't need a creator. That argument redefines God, nor is it the God described in this conversation or described by cosmology. The spacetime theorems prove that the cosmic spacetime dimensions were created at the beginning of the universe. These theorems imply that the cosmic spacetime dimensions came from One who has the power to create spacetime dimensions. Clearly, that One is not subject to the spacetime dimensions he created. It's a poor argument that is redefining God to be constrained by their own space time creation which is never the claim at least the Christian one or one from a scientific perspective, so that would be a good argument against Hinduism for example. But not the Christian God, the first cause of the big bang. It's only a valid argument in reverse, who created your creator the universe and biology who created you? Since you hold to the argument of created needing a creator.
2:04
It's cool to be an atheist.
Edited:
I misstyped the 'f' with a 'c' there.
This really resonated with me. It’s somewhat comforting to know that if this is the conversation now, many, many people are feeling the same intuition.
I was right there, though the nineties and the turn of the century. I followed, and loved Dawkins, Sam, and Hitch. My father and sister where staunch atheists (and still are). I was on the atheist train for many years (the logic seemed clear and made sense) but years ago I moved to live in South East Asia (where I still am after 10 years), and having experienced multiple
cultural traditions on a daily basis (Philippine Catholics, Malay Muslims, Chinese Taoists, Thai Buddhists, Western Christians, and Indian Hindus) all of them almost every day, I have found myself very much agnostic.
I don’t take any of the myths literally, but I find wisdom and guidance in many of the stories… and actually, these traditions do a lot good. They bond families, and give routine and grounding.
So, I was recently back in Australia and I went to a Church here (something I would have found embarrassing and uncomfortable years ago) and it was a completely fine and relaxing experience… the free air conditioning was also nice to be fair. But I ended up buying a cross necklace which I now wear (hidden) under my shirt.
I haven’t gotten to the point to displaying it openly.
It also doesn’t mean I have suddenly become a dedicated follower of god or Christ, for me it is just more of a connection to a cultural tradition of which generations of my family would have followed. Further more given the erosion and attacks on my own Western culture I am in some respects digging my heals in.
So I guess it is a bit of a tribal thing for sure, and I guess maybe my hand has been forced a bit with all the nonsense in the world right now. Like I feel I am taking my own quiet stance against the breaking down of society or something like that.
Perhaps that’s the wrong reason , perhaps it’s as good a reason as any.
But I’m open to see where this goes.
Christopher Hitchens would have called it ‘religion al la carte’, which he didn’t care for … but maybe I think ‘al la carte’ is exactly the right approach. Sorry Hitch, but I still love you anyway.
And so the story continues…A Western Christian, living in a Muslim country, regularly attending Buddhist and Taoist temples.
🤷🏻♂️
Thank you both for this thoughtful discussion.
We are doomed by the taint of the unresolved human gap. Earlier today I was back filling my septic tank with a shovel and as the soil hit the wooden box I built over the access cover I thought about my approaching death and the soil that will eventually backfill my time on earth. I didn’t cry or anything like that but the sound of earth hitting my destiny shook me to the core. I had no choice so I kept at it until the gap was restored to its previous orderly state.
That’s heavy man - I like your perspective while engaged in that mundane task.
I honestly don't think there is anything anyone could have done to prevent 1995 from becoming 2023. Pendulums will swing, especially if there are outside forces pushing them, and I think there are spiritual outside forces.
You'd have to go back much farther that 1995. There are plenty of Christians that take the Bible seriously without having to take it literally. That will change the way we interpret the Bible based on what we discover in Creation. (i.e. us Creation by Evolution Christians). But we've been vastly out numbered for centuries, if you could go back and change that then perhaps 1995 wouldn't have inevitably become this 2023.
I will agree on the second point but not the first. It's quite possible you're right that it was always going to happen because of the unseen forces at work, but I don't think this was just a pendulum swing. The pairing of leftist activists with corporate CEOs is not a natural one. It took the housing crisis to set it in motion, when the 1% hit on a strategy of superficially supporting leftist causes to convince the Occupy activists to stop disrupting their business. It worked and everyone started to care about race instead of caring about the financial crimes that caused the recession.
I think it's been series of decisions/events going back to the 1960's, some intentional and some unplanned but seized upon to push us to where we are today. Interestingly, many were macro financial decisions that untethered us as a society from our government and each other. I agree that things were too far along by 1995 to do anything about today. The chronology below undoubtedly excludes some cultural things but hits the big things that have polarized and divided us.
1960's - LBJ unleashes the welfare state and the Vietnam War
1970's - Nixon ends the gold standard and enables runaway debt-financed spending, massive inflation follows, Watergate
1980's - Reagan defense build-up, government spending accelerates, 1987 market crash (spawns President's Working Group on Capital Markets - the "plunge protection team")
1990's - Clinton and Bob Rubin get Glass-Steagall repealed, weapons of mass financial destruction unleashed, LTCM hedge fund collapse (enshrined "too big to fail")
2000's - 9/11, Patriot Act, Gulf War, Great Financial Crisis, Barack Obama, debt spirals out of control
2010's - Social media, social/corporate media capture by permanent government, Trump, COVID and its aftermath
I agree. We've been boiling frogs for a long time. Indeed, boing frogs, by definition, takes a long time. @@dwboston1
Have not finished listening to this but alls I gotta say is I am so grateful for Bret and his wife, Heather, for speaking out against Covid madness and the dangerous jabs. Forever grateful.
He’s like the hero character in the movie who disarmed the first villain, only to stumble blindly into an ambush where he face plants in front of a pack of armed bad guys.
Also Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Pierre Kory, etc. :)
Atheism isn't just not true, it's also harmful for society. Also, there is plenty of evidence for God/Jesus from a scientific perspective, as well as philosophical, moral, historical/archaeological, etc. I would recommend everyone reading this to look into Dr. Frank Turek, Dr. Hugh Ross, Dr. William Lane Craig, Dr. Stephen Meyer, Dr. James Tour, Dr. John Lennox, J Warner Wallace, Lee Strobel. They have lots of vids on here, as well as sites, books. All amazing! I pray that both Dave and Brett come to the Truth about this, repent and trust in Jesus as their Lord and Savior! I want to see them in heaven one day, they are great guys and have been a fan since I started watching their content around 2015/16. God bless!
Somewhat simple. We moved from In God We Trust and teaching values that maintain strong families and freedom, to In ourselves and government we trust.
Christianity: Plant a tree that will bear fruit for others.
Islam: Force people to eat only your fruit
Judaism: Keep all of the fruit for yourself
Atheism: Take the fruit you want, cut down the tree.
Where does Bret get the idea that rejecting religion (by the Atheist movement as you brand it) meant throwing away all important traditions. This is a straw man argument. We had/have strapping bombs to their bodies, rejecting medicines and medical advancement and particularly in parts of America treating one religion as if it was a state religion.
Dawkins, Hitchens & Harris seemed to only promoted science over ignorance, facts over fiction, upholding the constitution when it comes to freedom of religion. Both Sam & Hitchens in their books & essays repeatedly talk about the beauty of tradition. Both of them acknowledge there may be wisdom in religious teaching but that wisdom can only be there if we are willing to look at religion through a modern lens, if you don't you can end up with Islamic state or another Crusade.
In the end, you can go this route of claiming that Christianity is some sort of foundation of Western civilisation, I am not convinced. Even if this is the case it doesn't mean that God is real and that the bible is some non fiction text that knows the origins of the universe, life and where we go when we die.
In the mid 90s I was calling out a bit of this with some of my roommates and friends. I was dismissed out of hand. I keep getting called back to those bible quotes that God turned them over to their own desires.
If it makes you feel any better, it looks like the out-of-its-mind left and fundamentalist religious right are in a race to trash our republic.
This gentleman still displays the same Hubris that got us in this Predicament in the first place. Sounds silly to me that you realize that you removed some restrictions and then realize. Oh, those are there for good reasons. It is the other ones we still disagree with that have go away now. It sounds like we'll be having the same conversation in the future. Oh, those taboos were a good thing too.
If Bret doesn't know what parts of Christianity will "evolve" but recognises the importance of Christian tradition, wouldn't a better use of his time be working out who the God of actual Christianity is, rather than trying to guess about what parts of Christianity supposedly need to be deleted?
Deconversion and demographics will completely reshape Christianity, likely the versions that survive will much more a hard religious tradition.