@@sammur1977 I don’t see what your point is or how your statements refute Trisha in any way? The term “broken” suggests that there is a specific way people are INTENDED to operate, and I have yet to see sufficient evidence that this is the case. We have largely collectively decided on some basic ideal ways to live a good life, but even those aren’t demonstrably “intended” for us. Something that doesn’t have a specific intent cannot be broken. For instance, we say that a train with a disfunctuonal engine is broken because we specifically designed a train with the intent to move and since it cannot serve it’s function, it’s considered broken (even though it can frankly serve other unintended functions, like perhaps being a shelter - it’s not “broken” in that sense unless the roof gets destroyed too). All of this is to say: given there’s no good evidence of humans being a design with intents, you can never consider a human “broken”.
@@sammur1977 Then what is the "truth about sin", as this episode attempts to address? I'm more interested in your definition of individual "sin" rather than the government's sin. And how do you decide what constitutes appropriate evidence for sin?
@@sammur1977 At every turn, you either made unsubstantiated claims or stated demonstrably false ideas. “Moral laws are hardwired in every person” - prove that. “Given to us by god” - prove that there is a god AND that it gave us morals. “We all know what is right and wrong” - this is demonstrably false, as there are plenty of people who genuinely disagree on various aspects of morality (especially the ones that are in more of a grey area, since theists usually like to think about only the most common/basic moral questions like killing and stealing since it makes everything look black and white when you only consider questions that almost everyone agrees upon). “You must be accountable” - a) prove that and b) biblical morality allows people to simply transfer all these “sins” to a gruesome blood sacrifice from ancient times - that’s NOT accountability and it doesn’t require you to make amends with those you’ve actually wronged. If I steal from someone, being accountable means going to the person I stole from and apologizing and trying to pay back however I can. That’s accountability, and that’s not a requirement from this moronic god character.
@@pidayrocks2235 Insert: Discrete, one-person, standing ovation. (Sorry, I had this exigent need to acknowledge someone making two excellent posts with excellent points, and expressed in such an eloquent way. Not to be "that" person (whoever, or whatever, "that" is, I have no idea, but anyway) - I just genuinely appreciate it.)
Scott thinks my bout with alcoholism was nothing more than sin, so he's not as nice of a guy as they got us to think...8.5 years ago I heard from so many Christian in AA support groups who told me I would never get or stay sober without a god or higher-power. Well, here I am 8.5 years later still sober, still an atheist, and feeling nothing but contempt for these theist assholes.
Good for you! I hope the contempt doesn't interfere with your life too much. I "failed out" of Juice Church myself, but I have an uncle ("former" crack addict) who's not only sober 30+ years, but he's an atypical long-hauler...he doesn't attend eleventeen meetings a day, has subsequently given up cigarettes and drinks a reasonable amount of coffee and has no problem hanging out with people who aren't living "clean" him aside, I know exactly what you mean about the higher power and (in my lay opinion) transferring one addiction to another (the group/meetings/12 steps). I'm not sober, but my life is manageable (I'm a pot head; as long as it's only pot, my life is manageable....been 5+ years since my last, $35,000, 90 day tumble out of the pot-wagon). I commend you on your accomplishment, and your honesty. *LIVE WELL* 👍👍👍
I'm a recovering alcoholic and an atheist. AA has been a huge part of my recovery. As for the 'higher power' aspect, I just take the AA organization to be my higher power. I believe that's even suggested in the 12x12. Historically, AA was developed by theists and was heavily influenced by the Oxford Group who were very much a theist organization. That doesn't mean I can't be part of AA and still be a non-believer. I have yet to have anyone in AA tell me that my non-belief is going to result in drinking again. It doesn't bother me when someone in AA credits 'God' for their sobriety. I know that it was the person who did all the hard work.
Loooooooooooooooooool this guy, he said some whoppers but as someone who’s autistic, when he said that “mental illness is the human being trying to avoid the fact that life is difficult” I fucking LOST IT 😂
It makes sense that people who think in such simple terms, and who are willing to accept “sin” as a substantive answer for why people do bad things (as opposed to looking into the evolutionary advantages of certain actions and the brain chemistry behind motivation), would be willing to reduce mental illness to such a simple answer as well.
I admit it, I'm loaded with sin. I love eating shellfish and regularly wear fabric with mixed materials. I also have no qualms about picking up sticks on a Sunday. I sometimes don't honor my mother and father when they are being douchebags and I refuse to take my child to be stoned by the community when he's unruly. I sometimes look upon women with lustful thoughts meaning I've committed adultery untold thousands of times. As I say I am absolutely full to the brim with sin.
This plays to the absurd notion of this as a "fallen world", despite the quality of human life being in the best place it's been since we've been sapient enough to notice. What they mean is "We no longer have absolute religious power over everybody and that makes me unhappy."
Yep, but only God's chosen people are allowed to do that when they see a particularly nice piece of land. Look, it's right here in the holy book wot I wrote, God wants me to take your stuff. How dare you question what I'm telling you God says?
When I was going through puberty, I asked my mother if it was wrong to masturbate. She told me it was, so I asked her if she could cut down a bit, she was keeping us awake at night.
"Tentacles of Sin" is an awesome name for: 1. A death metal band 2. A male strip club 3. A line of didos 4. A biker gang 5. A local knitting club comprised of old ladies
Yep, it beautifully pointed up Scott's position of 'we're all sinful, just look at all this sin, therefore we're all sinful (otherwise why is there all this sin?) and if we're not sinful, why are we always sinning?
Scott has a bizzare idea that the lack of government, somehow means a lack of consequences... and that people would be utterly unable to recognize long term self interest.
Scott also seems to think that if we didn’t have governments we wouldn’t be able to figure out how to organize ourselves into societies. Scott, we already did that. That’s what governments are.
@@theherald4340 no. Actually. What Christianity does is gaslight the person into thinking that they are sick and then selling the person the cure. Just another form of abuse. I know plenty Christian’s, I don’t know a single one that experiences “unspeakable comfort” or anything even close. Most of them suffer from persecution complex’s, and feeding into the mantra that “the world hates them for his sake.” Paul was a man who claimed to have had a vision. I wasn’t there, so I see no reason to take his words seriously. If I believe Paul, then I’d have to believe Joseph Smith, I’d have to believe Muhammad or any other clown who claims to have “divine visions.”
When I desired to cease my own existence, it was partly to end my own suffering, but also to relieve those around me from the burden of my continued living.
We need God to be peaceful Show me anywhere ever on earth that is heavily religious and peaceful The best countries in earth are almost entirely secular
When they think sin or evil are physical things thats scary Taking away sin where does that leave us ? It leaves us to TAKE RESPONSABILITY for our own actions !
"Sinful nature" (i.e., self-interested behavior) is what makes evolution work. Those individuals (be they cells or animals) that behave in ways that increase their long-term reproductive success will outcompete others. Often an organism can increase its long-term reproductive success by acting in a self-interested manner (greedy, or sinful, etc.). In other cases, an organism can increase its long-term reproductive success by acting as part of a group (cooperation, etc.). We, humans, live in complex environments (societies are part of our environment) and there are tradeoffs between benefits from self-interested behaviors and from cooperative behaviors. The advantages of cooperation are so great, though, that we have evolved to have cooperative and empathetic instincts - so to fully understand why we "feel bad" when we "sin" we must consider psychology and the evolution of complex cognition. TLDR, it's complicated. If you just apply intuition, you'll likely oversimplify and come to naive conclusions.
yes, the fundamental split between humans and other animals that Christianity (and other religions) preach leads them to ignore what we have learnt about how we humans are from how other animals are. Another consequence is to consider non-human life as dispensible or inferior.
The world isn't "broken" but it isn't perfect. I used the example for my young son that the human world is a lump of clay that started as mud and dirt, was formed into the lump of clay and we are trying to make it into a vase. I think we have a 6th graders ashtray for mother's day right now, but perhaps we will mold it into a fully functional glazed vase someday. It doesn't need mending, it needs shaping....and it could break so we must take care of it.
Whether or not it’s broken is also irrelevant to whether or not there’s a god or even sin; but also, he was making constant conflations between what the world should look like (in the sense of what we want it to look like) versus what is should look like (in the sense of some intended purpose/goal inherent to the world). He used those “shoulds” interchangeable (albeit probably unintentionally), which is the only way he could introduce this notion of a god/purpose/sin into all this.
@@owenwilliams105 First you would need to demonstrate that the world is meant to be a given specific way, which of course you cannot. However, if you claim god is the source of how the world is "meant to be" and he is the Christian god, then by definition the world must currently be exactly what he intends it to currently be. It can never be broken if your god built it exactly as it is on purpose, knew the outcome, knew every step along the way, and has the power to have built it differently to make it better than it is now.
@@arentol7 Tried to make some sense out of your comment but can't. I don't claim the world is meant to be given a specific way. What is ''given a specific way''? I don't claim God is the source of ''how the world is meant to be''. Where do you live - straw man city? God isn't a christian god as far as I know. God being the christian god doesn't entail the world being exactly as he intends it to be. Whose definition are you citing? My god didn't build it. Do you think he used hammer and nails? What can never be broken? I don't own God. Anyone with half a brain could make it better than it is now.
It irks me when people talk about "the human heart". WTF does a muscle that pumps blood have to do with anything?! We developed morals and ethics as we evolved as a species. Simple as that. There is no such thing as "sin" and we didn't get morals from any external source.
@@andrewwamser7075 I don't know man, these people seem to really think words are written on our hearts. I guess when you believe in magic anything is possible. It must be nice living in a fairytale world. 🙄
This was hard to digest. A perfect world that we can live with out locks, where everyone is good and in peace. This means that no one will have needs or suffer a disease, no pain or any kind of suffering. What he forgets is that in his head the god he believes in, is the creator of this not perfect world. We come to this world with cero knowledge, we are fed with the knowledge that is at our reach, we reach the point in life that we find the courage to star making decisions, we makes mistakes and learn from them, we age and keep making bad decisions because we are constantly learning. Our life time in this world is short and for some very short. This sin concept is ridiculous, it does not resolve anything. All it does is accuse people of being people, accuse our ignorants as if we knew when it’s clear that we didn’t, it is not rational and puts loads on us that are not in our capacity. The god concept and the sin concept does not fix the problem and maybe it will never be fixed. This is what it is and we need to learn to accept it.
His thought experiment, about having no government, IRS, or police... ...we experienced exactly that some 10, 12 thousand years ago during the neolithic era.
Here's the issue that I see in any conversation about the "existence" of sin. Theists more or less use "sin" as an adjective, rather than a noun. "Sin" is a word that describes "a bad thing that God especially disapproves of." But they THINK they use it as a noun. So when they have to define it, they think that all they have to do is point to the things that they associate with the state of "being sinful." It would be like somebody asked what does "red" mean, and their response is to list every red item they can think of. Yes, everything in their list is technically red, but "an apple, a firetruck, my sweater, a sunset" doesn't actually tell someone what you're talking about. Red is defined as "a color at the end of the spectrum, next to orange and across from violet." Coming up with that definition isn't easy, but listing red objects is. Theists are so accustomed to giving the easy answer, of listing things they deem as sin, because if anyone thought to independently define the aspect of "sin" on its own, they might realize it's a concept deserving of much more scrutiny than they thought.
If sin is part of human nature, then by his own mythology his god made humans with this nature as a design feature. We dont choose to be born or instil the human nature. Which means his god condemns humans for being exactly how he made them. Making his god is morally depraved. As Hitchens said, he makes us sick then commands us to be well.
Original sin is the guilt trap theist put on their followers. Identical to a toxic relationship with a narcissist and gaslighting. It's mental abuse. Lastly, if god was all forgiving as theist claim, then how come god didn't forgive Adam and Eve and set the story off on a great positive start?
Sooo, I've never entered someone's house and stolen stuff, or hit someone over the head, most people haven't because we recognize that our society doesn't work well that way. There are a very small percentage of people that do that kind of stuff, and when we catch them they get punished. I'm not getting where the concepts of god or sin help clarify anything here.
As I was told, no true believer in Christ would risk their eternal life and break one of god’s laws. But then you have to match up god’s laws vs civil laws. I thought of that pastor who kept people locked in the basement. Slavery is ok in the Bible, so although he broke civil laws I’m not sure he broke biblical laws. It’s all so ridiculous. Even animals that live in groups have a type of morality and rules.
@@trishayamada807 but it's not like it stops them from breaking "gods law". It certainly didn't stop catholic preists from rapping children since the 11th century. Jails are full of Christians not athiests.
@@russellward4624 see that’s just it. I know people though, who would say Catholics aren’t real Christian’s so priests raping children isn’t a Christian raping children. Then I have Christian family who think it was ok for Trump to cheat on his wife, get divorced because God picks flawed people, but Biden isn’t flawed he’s been taken over by Satan.
@@sammur1977 no our laws are in fact not Christian based and we are better for it. I for one am thankful my husband can’t sell our daughters out as slaves. We have freedom of religion and are not forced to worship your god. We are a society based on greed and listing and coveting what your neighbor’s have is called keeping up with the Jones’s as it’s such a big part of society. Your wrote a big, fat wall of Christian claptrap. And when did Jesus say not to own slaves? All he said was slaves OBEY your MASTERS even the cruel. You are a joke and a laughingstock; along with being a liar. Does your god love your lies?
@@sammur1977 slavery wasn’t ended because of the Bible it was ended over keep the USA a union. In fact the south USED THE BIBLE to prove how slavery was godly. You are a liar and outright liar.
Eric literally every time: *rationally and calmy explains how their arguments make zero sense Theist callers literally every time: "Incorrect.... i will not elaborate..."
I found your channel because Vi did a Midnight Mass review with Genetically Modified Skeptic that I watched just a few days ago. Since then I have binge watched/heard so many of your videos and gotten super frustrated with a lot of callers. But this one was simply lovely! I am amazed about how respectful and fluid the conversation was. I wish you had more Scotts calling.
Scott's take on mental illness being caused by an inability to accept that life is hard isn't just abhorrent and toxic, it's also demonstrably wrong. We know that certain types of mental illness and personality disorder can be triggered by certain types of brain injury. We know that other types can be attributed to abnormal brain chemistry, and that the use of certain chemicals can alleviate symptoms. We also know that the children of people with certain mental disorders can potentially suffer from the same condition, suggesting that there's a genetic component. We know children raised in abusive, neglectful or otherwise harsh living conditions are more likely to grow up suffering with mental issues than children raised in more stable environments, but that also the latter group isn't immune from such afflictions. Simon, whether he meant to or not, was essentially engaging in victim blaming. If you're mentally ill it's because you can't accept that life is hard. Suck it up and get with the programme. This attitude is honestly sickening to its core, and I'm sure that over the centuries it's led to many entirely avoidable suicides and other human suffering that could not possibly be condoned by anyone with a sense of empathy.
I would love a world with no government, laws, money, locks, etc. because the only way such a world could exist will be when we've finally grown enough that we don't need them and they've passed away into history. F*in' sweet!
@@Wix_Mitwirth It’s a lovely fantasy…. But here is a simple scenario: someone defrauds someone else. What authority deals with that in your no-government utopian society?
I think Scott just replaced the god of the gaps with the god of the bucket. Stuff you don't like goes in the 'sin' bucket, until we figure out ways to cope with or fix it. Coping and fixing still doesn't require a god, the god concept adds nothing to the cause or the solution.
The citizens of no other country naively contemplate a society without governments like Americans do. Many countries have governments specifically because of countries like America which would march their armies in and take over given the chance.
Other animals from primates like ourselves to whales in the sea; so many creatures create for themselves a structure so they might prosper. Often to be expelled from the group can mean certain death. This may not be how we like it, but survival is a bitch. It’s not broken…it just is and it’s not just us.
"So the world is the way it's supposed to be" is a massive begging of the question. First you have to show that there is a way that the world is supposed to be, and then you can ask this question.
Did Scott just say that aids and hurricanes are indirect manifestations of human sin? That those things were deserved? And that while suicide thing…Scott sounds like a guy whose never had a serious bad day or any discussions with someone with those serious problems.
I think there's a point to be made about religions growing alongside of law and government during earlier stages of human development. My only thing is I'd put a different level of importance on it during that period. Some would say that religion is the internal structure, the backbone of the society. I would say rather that religion is a kind of scaffold, useful when building up initial structures but ultimately not a necessary part of the overall end product once all is said and done. We teach children about all sorts of fables and stories during their formative years to help them develop their morality, but those fables and stories don't need to remain with them all of their life for them to continue to _be_ moral once they've reached adulthood. Put another way, I see mythical religious stories taken as literal into adulthood like a building that never had the scaffolding removed once it was finished. It's no longer needed and the building would look so much nicer once the no longer necessary aspects have been deconstructed.
Just a quick point on "sin".... When Columbus bumped into N-America, the native peoples he encountered had NO concept of "sin"... Only the Roman Catholic dogma and forced conversion of the native folks instilled the concept.... Hope this helps...
It's an extremely small minority of people who cause the world to be the mess that it is. It isn't a humanity problem, it's the problem of a few humans.
Scott's reference to M Scott Peck's "The Road Less Travelled" at 24:10 was not incidental. Peck, although a psychiatrist, says he "made a firm Christian comitment" shortly after the book was published, and it is packed with Christian ideas, particularly that of "evil" as the cause of mental distress. Scott's remark that suicide is a deeply selfish act, and that Eric was displaying "wilful blindness" is part of Peck's thinking that one source of mental illness is an unwillingness to do the work needed to face life's difficulties, and that "evil" people are consistently self-decieving. Peck later came to believe in Satan, demonic possession and exorcism.
So my children are sinful? Right, well, what's the point of having them then?? Why do Christians keep having children if they are sinful? Isn't that doing the devil's work?
I don't have one ready, but I think a solid argument can be made that this world is perfect, that *dynamic* is one of the qualities that make it so, and that life (in the meta sense) is constantly evolving to best suit that dynamic environment. So the world isn't broken/fallen, it's perfect *and dynamic; always changing.* And those of us privileged enough to be alive in the world aren't broken or fallen either; we're in a constant state of flux, in accordance with our perfect, dynamic environment. For convenience we call this constant state of flux "evolving."
Agreed. We have to preface such a discussion by noticing that words like "broken" and "improvement" are colored by our human perspective as makers. (Dolphins might hardly spare a moment for such ideas, if they had words to express them.) So let's work from our human perspective, for the moment, and ask how do WE typically distinguish between "broken" and "having potential for improvement"? BEING BROKEN I'd say that a human artifact is broken if it no longer performs as we designed it. I could even say that it's broken "out of the box": meaning that the implementation never did fulfil the design. But mostly "broken" refers to component failure. The artifact WOULD operate as designed, except for this detail. For anything NOT an artifact, we humans extend the design versus operation distinction, AS IF it were an artifact. Here is where the trouble begins. We may not notice that this is an exercise of imagination. We're not seeing more deeply into reality, but trying to describe reality by reducing it to familiar terms. Here are two examples. • We see that a tree branch has been broken by the wind. The branch is no longer operating as "designed." That's sad. But a dolphin, having no notion of artifact, would perhaps think that branches grow, and wind breaks branches, and this is all a part of the natural order. Trees have evolved in such a way that the breaking of branches is not usually catastrophic but passively adaptive. Then, in some sense, it's a happy occurrence. • We see a rockfall. An entire face of shale breaks away from a cliffside, falling into a ravine and blocking the watercourse. Is that cliffside in any sense "broken"? Is the watercourse "broken"? So "broken" is not necessarily pejorative, not necessarily sad or happy, not necessarily a meaningful term. It seems to become more loaded where life is concerned, perhaps even where some ordering principle gives way to disorder. A very regular natural crystal which develops a thermal crack could be described as "broken." And it does seem a bit of a shame to lose something so perfect. But again, we're leaning here on our compulsion to design. Would dolphins care, or simply find it equally interesting both ways? HAVING POTENTIAL FOR IMPROVEMENT A human artifact could be operating exactly as designed - and therefore is not broken - but still have room for improvement. Notice, however, that this is always teleological. Improvement is measured against some design goal. Once an artifact achieves that goal, there can be no improvement until a new goal is set. And of course we, the makers, get to decide what that should be. If we turn to the natural world, evolution by natural selection seems to be engaged in a constant process of improvement. It's not that anything is "broken," because it's all simply doing what it's doing, operating according to the laws of biochemistry. But if there's a way to do it differently, and that happens to improve the prospects for survival to the next generation, then we human observers might call that an improvement. (Never mind that more aggressive mutations of COVID-19 might not seem like favorable "improvements" to the host species. It's still better for the virus.) So it would be fair to say that a virus, or any other species, before a favorable mutation had an evolutionary "potential for improvement." It clearly wasn't broken. This is a qualitatively different process. Of course, this evolutionary notion of "improvement" is not the only one we could apply. We could selfishly judge improvements in terms of their benefit to our species, or to any one of us individually. It's just that evolutionary improvement is conveniently objective. It favors what works, as long as we accept that "what works" means species survival. Thanks for reading this far. I'm pretty much done exploring these ideas. What's coming to light for me is that even if we take away our particular maker bias, there's still a recurring theme of life running through it all. Brokenness can, at a stretch, be contrasted with inorganic perfection or orderliness, but it's more poignant when contrasted with damage to living things. Going further, something which is operating as it has evolved is strictly not broken. It could have potential for improvement. That's what evolution is all about. But it cannot be broken merely because the evolutionary process is still running.
Scott, if a human had everything, eg food, shelter, warmth, health, relationships, etc, that human is way less likely to steal or offend others. The reason we would have anarchy under yr scenario of no laws, locks, jails, penalties etc, is because the world we live in requires us to work hard to get the stuff we need.
What I'm getting out of this is, sin is a descriptive word to categorize a bunch of behaviours and actions; it's not a 'force' or a 'thing' or something on its own... but people started to use the word sin in fuzzy language like with the word heart and started to ascribe more to it than it actually is.
The noun "sin" takes the same form as contemporaneous terms such as "good" and "evil" - as if they were not attributes but things with some kind of independent existence. I'm no expert in this etymology or in the history of philosophy, but the similarity to Platonic Forms seems hard to dismiss. People were starting to think seriously about how reality might be put together. Some of their ideas were creative indeed, and kind of trippy. If you were to meet an aggressive black dog, could it be a sort of volume of neutral "substance" that was filled with ingredients such as blackness, aggressiveness, dogness, aliveness? It seems weird now, only because we have a more empirically validated architecture of reality that we can take for granted. But there are still a few holdouts to the old ways of thinking, and "sin" is definitely one of them. Why? Because it has both specificity and emotional charge, and therefore makes for more persuasive storytelling.
I was abused by my neighbour for 4 years 6 thru 10. Thought that was what I was worth for more than 20 years. Destroyed every opportunity given. Self sabotage every relationship Drugs and life and now I'm old. Do something better than I did 😢😢😢
Also the caller actually is interested in a conversation not just working from a script like so many presupps do trying to catch the atheist in a gotcha moment.
People have evolved instinct, like other social animals, for both selfishness & for sacrificing for their group. Perhaps morality is the intersection of those two instincts. We each have to protect our own lives, and we also feel compelled to protect others as well. The problems come when those instincts contradict each other, and what choice we make then.
Sorry English isn't my language, but... So that the world is considered broken, you need to have prior to that a perfect world. Prove the existence of a perfect world before our and then you have a way to considere this one broken :)
Mate, I have camera on my bicycle and in my car. They are there to record events against someone who would wish me harm. That includes the time an unmarked police car pulled me over and the belligerent copper backed off when he saw my Navman and realised I had the evidence of speed and travel. He was intent on victimisation, but realised he would be held accountable instead.
It's the nature of ALL living creatures, it's called the survival imperative. Boil humanity down and remove our self-built systems of order and we are all fundamentally fair weather friends; we will revert to self preservation and the preservation of those few people who are the absolute most important to us (partners and children). We don't need religion to avoid sin, we need order and stability which can and is established by any form of social and societal order we can create.
Once again Erik lets the guy off the hook at 18:20. Vi had exposed the weakness in his argument and the guy responds with "What other options are there?" Bam! Game over! Lights out! Folded up like a folding chair! Argument from personal incredulity!!! But Erik lets him off the hook by actually attempting a substantive response to his fallacious question.
There is a tendency by true believers to think the world is getting worse all the time when in reality the opposite is true. By all the quality-of-life measures it just keeps on getting better. The spread of democracy, access to health care and education, the rule of law, human rights - it all just keeps improving. Crime rates and war casualties are at an all-time low. And all the while religiosity is in decline. In fact, the most successful societies are the most secular.
8:50 What the caller described... that's exactly the way things used to be if you go sufficiently far back in pre- history. As a result, we now have governments, police armed forces....
13:10 -ish "that chaos is happening", IMHO, because of resource shortages. If people had enough, they wouldn't need to create chaos by taking from others...MOST people wouldn't, anyway. IMHO, YMMV, etc.
Is funny how (almost) everybody agrees with "how things should be"... As if we could idealize that which makes one good and project it onto other beings like ourselves! And that is what we do.
Scott is ignoring that we are a social species. Even chimp and gorilla tribes have rules and punishments for breaking them. Humans would not have survived with an 'every man for himself' attitude. Those who chose that path did not pass on their genes very easily. Human babies and children need years of care to survive, so those early tribes were all about protecting the next generation. If they failed, that tribe died out. BTW, those small tribes were 150 to 200 people strong, small enough for them to police each other and large enough for specialization of talents that benefited the tribe, whether child care, healing, hunting or craft making skills to create clothing, utensils and shelters. We only survived because we cooperated, like most primates do.
21:50 Nothing should be above scrutiny. And they're running like roaches when the lights come on. "Truth wanted." This sort of thing is why I don't like the ACA. When I find a comparable presentation, I'll be off like a shot....
Dr. Peck's Books are some of my favorite. The are now and they were when I wasn't an atheist. I just think his conclusions are wrong and causality. Doesn't have to be mutually exclusive.
Were all social structures negated in an instant and it was truly a land of each to their own, we'd see social structures reform within the first few days. After the first day of "wow, this freedom is neat", people would sooner rather than later realize that they're not fit to take care of themselves 100%. They don't know how to upkeep their fort, how to acquire food, how to defend themselves, etc. Few at the self-sufficient folks out there, as most people would find a gaping hole between their desired lifestyle and their innate set of skills. People would bunch up together. Strength is numbers, bound by principles of quid pro quo. Rules would be needed to maintain fairness among the group members. In my perception of the inception of religion, it formed around the rules establishment phase. "You have to do what I say not because I decided it arbitrarily, but because this big boss of the world decided it, and I'm just telling you that he wants you to do the stuff I say without questioning me".
The caller mentions retraints that we have imposed on ourselves that prevents chaos from ruling. However, those restraints are naturally imposed by society even without religion. Most humans are naturally empathetic and have a moral compass that arises from that empathy -- no religion is necessary. Sure, there are sociopaths and other people who may lack this -- or even just people who do bad things in general -- but most of those people would not be swayed by religion anyway.
Quote from Robert Heinlein (Yes, I know he is problematic, but the quote is good) “The only sin is hurting other people unnecessarily. Hurting yourself is not sinful, just stupid.”
the caller built a mental prison for himself by carrying the heavy burden of original sin that be believes is a curse from his deity and literally dictates his whole stance towards life. this is sad for modern standing apes.
To use the accepted English understanding and translation "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of god." All instances of theological and biblical examples of sin are actions that fall short of an expected standard. That is why jesus was said to be without sin because he is, ostensibly, the standard by which sin is measured. Thus even if he had committed sin it could not be attributed to him as sin because he is outside the paradigm while being the paradigm. How can an infection be an action and how can an infection fall short of a standard, even a standard of wellness? Also to have a standard of wellness you have to establish baselines which can't be done for sin. For "all" have sinned except jesus and one person does not a baseline make. Sin is paradigmatically dependent on religious belief. Thus if I do not adhere to your moral paradigm (morals such as consensual homosexuality being sinful even though neither the bible, nor jesus, the arbiter of your religious moral paradigm, ever say that is so and before someone says "but leviticus" well turns out that verse is about incestuous male rape by another male family member) then sin does not affect me because it is subjectively related to your religion.
I still cannot help to believe that religious people actualy don't see as a reality what they are talking about; like some Christians tell atheist "I know deep in you, you do believe in God". I say "I know deep in you, you are scared, you feel alone, and you need a magical father floating above you".
Sin is just as much a social construct as moral. That doesn't mean both concepts are completely fictional as both derive from psychological and philosophic prerequesites. But they are not absolute. They can be negotiated, they change and refine in any progressing society. The universal nature of social contracts makes one think about the existence of an underlying 'natural law' but isn't that only another way of describing the basic psychological necesseties of the social animal named human, developed alongside human evolution?
I’ve been an outspoken atheist my entire life and I am continually astounded how anyone with any hint of intellect could be duped into believing in some random “magical sky daddy” w/o a shred of verifiable data or empirical, science based evidence of its existence.
But also, that’s a colloquial use of the term “should be” and it kind of conflates two topics… because what we mean when we say the world “should be” a certain way is that we want it to be that way, NOT that this was some intended way the world was meant to be (which is a more religious notion that everything has some intentional purpose to it since all of it was created). I don’t think the caller was being dishonest as I’m pretty sure he made this conflation unintentionally by muddling concepts together in his mind (probably a product of all the cognitive dissonance from trying to bridge religious thinking with reality).
![ค้าง (STILL) - GEMINI [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ftxx3hk5vkU/mqdefault.jpg)
It’s so sad that people are taught and indoctrinated to believe they are broken. It’s truly abusive.
@@sammur1977 ok how is that religions telling people they are born horrible and without religion will remain horrible?
@@sammur1977 I don’t see what your point is or how your statements refute Trisha in any way? The term “broken” suggests that there is a specific way people are INTENDED to operate, and I have yet to see sufficient evidence that this is the case. We have largely collectively decided on some basic ideal ways to live a good life, but even those aren’t demonstrably “intended” for us.
Something that doesn’t have a specific intent cannot be broken. For instance, we say that a train with a disfunctuonal engine is broken because we specifically designed a train with the intent to move and since it cannot serve it’s function, it’s considered broken (even though it can frankly serve other unintended functions, like perhaps being a shelter - it’s not “broken” in that sense unless the roof gets destroyed too). All of this is to say: given there’s no good evidence of humans being a design with intents, you can never consider a human “broken”.
@@sammur1977 Then what is the "truth about sin", as this episode attempts to address? I'm more interested in your definition of individual "sin" rather than the government's sin. And how do you decide what constitutes appropriate evidence for sin?
@@sammur1977 At every turn, you either made unsubstantiated claims or stated demonstrably false ideas. “Moral laws are hardwired in every person” - prove that. “Given to us by god” - prove that there is a god AND that it gave us morals. “We all know what is right and wrong” - this is demonstrably false, as there are plenty of people who genuinely disagree on various aspects of morality (especially the ones that are in more of a grey area, since theists usually like to think about only the most common/basic moral questions like killing and stealing since it makes everything look black and white when you only consider questions that almost everyone agrees upon). “You must be accountable” - a) prove that and b) biblical morality allows people to simply transfer all these “sins” to a gruesome blood sacrifice from ancient times - that’s NOT accountability and it doesn’t require you to make amends with those you’ve actually wronged. If I steal from someone, being accountable means going to the person I stole from and apologizing and trying to pay back however I can. That’s accountability, and that’s not a requirement from this moronic god character.
@@pidayrocks2235 Insert: Discrete, one-person, standing ovation.
(Sorry, I had this exigent need to acknowledge someone making two excellent posts with excellent points, and expressed in such an eloquent way. Not to be "that" person (whoever, or whatever, "that" is, I have no idea, but anyway) - I just genuinely appreciate it.)
Scott thinks my bout with alcoholism was nothing more than sin, so he's not as nice of a guy as they got us to think...8.5 years ago I heard from so many Christian in AA support groups who told me I would never get or stay sober without a god or higher-power.
Well, here I am 8.5 years later still sober, still an atheist, and feeling nothing but contempt for these theist assholes.
You fucking rule dude.
Good for you! I hope the contempt doesn't interfere with your life too much. I "failed out" of Juice Church myself, but I have an uncle ("former" crack addict) who's not only sober 30+ years, but he's an atypical long-hauler...he doesn't attend eleventeen meetings a day, has subsequently given up cigarettes and drinks a reasonable amount of coffee and has no problem hanging out with people who aren't living "clean" him aside, I know exactly what you mean about the higher power and (in my lay opinion) transferring one addiction to another (the group/meetings/12 steps). I'm not sober, but my life is manageable (I'm a pot head; as long as it's only pot, my life is manageable....been 5+ years since my last, $35,000, 90 day tumble out of the pot-wagon). I commend you on your accomplishment, and your honesty.
*LIVE WELL*
👍👍👍
Bruce: And give yourself a pat on the back for being able to stay sober and getting rid of the alcohol vice.
I was a heroin addict in the 1990's. Just stopped.
I'm a recovering alcoholic and an atheist. AA has been a huge part of my recovery. As for the 'higher power' aspect, I just take the AA organization to be my higher power. I believe that's even suggested in the 12x12. Historically, AA was developed by theists and was heavily influenced by the Oxford Group who were very much a theist organization. That doesn't mean I can't be part of AA and still be a non-believer. I have yet to have anyone in AA tell me that my non-belief is going to result in drinking again.
It doesn't bother me when someone in AA credits 'God' for their sobriety. I know that it was the person who did all the hard work.
Loooooooooooooooooool this guy, he said some whoppers but as someone who’s autistic, when he said that “mental illness is the human being trying to avoid the fact that life is difficult” I fucking LOST IT 😂
It makes sense that people who think in such simple terms, and who are willing to accept “sin” as a substantive answer for why people do bad things (as opposed to looking into the evolutionary advantages of certain actions and the brain chemistry behind motivation), would be willing to reduce mental illness to such a simple answer as well.
@@pidayrocks2235 : Yes, what would the world have been like today if religion and the supernatural was not around.
I admit it, I'm loaded with sin. I love eating shellfish and regularly wear fabric with mixed materials. I also have no qualms about picking up sticks on a Sunday. I sometimes don't honor my mother and father when they are being douchebags and I refuse to take my child to be stoned by the community when he's unruly. I sometimes look upon women with lustful thoughts meaning I've committed adultery untold thousands of times.
As I say I am absolutely full to the brim with sin.
Well put ,l am a sinner too ,l thought l was all alone .What a ridiculous concept, it sets us up to be saved.
Having read your unforced confession, I can see that you are also filled with the sin of pride. Bad you. Say some telepathic words to be cleansed.
Bacon
How awful, bet you're so depraved you even have a haircut which shortens your sideburns....
Just human ,you’re allowed to live , you have to relieve your desires and needs
This plays to the absurd notion of this as a "fallen world", despite the quality of human life being in the best place it's been since we've been sapient enough to notice. What they mean is "We no longer have absolute religious power over everybody and that makes me unhappy."
“People shouldn’t just walk in and club you over the head and take your stuff?” Isn’t this exactly what god ordered on more than one occasion?
😀LOL I had to laugh.
Yep, but only God's chosen people are allowed to do that when they see a particularly nice piece of land. Look, it's right here in the holy book wot I wrote, God wants me to take your stuff. How dare you question what I'm telling you God says?
@@Roannais understood. Yahweh, what a guy!
The small print reads "Terms and Conditions of God apply. Please remember your soul is at risk if you don't get everything exactly right."
@@madoldbatwoman another reason why none of this could come from a loving deity.
When I was going through puberty, I asked my mother if it was wrong to masturbate. She told me it was,
so I asked her if she could cut down a bit, she was keeping us awake at night.
Jeez, do that under a bushel, ma!
"Tentacles of Sin" is an awesome name for:
1. A death metal band
2. A male strip club
3. A line of didos
4. A biker gang
5. A local knitting club comprised of old ladies
Only abusive relationships make you feel like you’re inherently evil/bad. I’m so glad I escaped the abusive relationship of Christianity!
WOW!!!!! Eric's argument of "Look at the Trees for god's nonexistence" was incredible. Great tactic!!!!
It’s like when transgenders say hey just because you were born with a penis doesn’t mean you are a man. And yes it does.
No it was not great . Hes an idiot . You can't just shift into reverse and hope to go forward.
Yep, it beautifully pointed up Scott's position of 'we're all sinful, just look at all this sin, therefore we're all sinful (otherwise why is there all this sin?) and if we're not sinful, why are we always sinning?
Argument from Look at the...
- Mistreemeanors
- Instabilitrees
- Sophis-trees
- Minis-trees
Fir-mament
@@brucebaker810
I don't believe corn exists.
Does that make me an acorn?
Scott has a bizzare idea that the lack of government, somehow means a lack of consequences... and that people would be utterly unable to recognize long term self interest.
Scott also seems to think that if we didn’t have governments we wouldn’t be able to figure out how to organize ourselves into societies.
Scott, we already did that. That’s what governments are.
“Scott, let’s just say that you’re wrong about that one,”
In fact Scott, let’s just say that you’re wrong about everything.”
"Theist Says We’re Infected With Sin!"
I agree, Theists are so depraved and sinful.
😂😂😂
🤣🤣🤣
And disgusting. Scott proved that on this call. He just dressed it up passively aggressively.
@@theherald4340 but how do we know it’s true? I mean how do you know that there’s “unspeakable comfort” in the Christian’s future?
@@theherald4340 no. Actually. What Christianity does is gaslight the person into thinking that they are sick and then selling the person the cure. Just another form of abuse.
I know plenty Christian’s, I don’t know a single one that experiences “unspeakable comfort” or anything even close. Most of them suffer from persecution complex’s, and feeding into the mantra that “the world hates them for his sake.”
Paul was a man who claimed to have had a vision. I wasn’t there, so I see no reason to take his words seriously. If I believe Paul, then I’d have to believe Joseph Smith, I’d have to believe Muhammad or any other clown who claims to have “divine visions.”
When I desired to cease my own existence, it was partly to end my own suffering, but also to relieve those around me from the burden of my continued living.
I’m with Vi: “tentacles of sin” is awesome, amazing phrase!! It feels so good on the brain: it needs to be a band name-so delicious!!
We need God to be peaceful
Show me anywhere ever on earth that is heavily religious and peaceful
The best countries in earth are almost entirely secular
It amazes me how in their own book their god kills at least 2.5 million yet he is the god of love
Exactly. That is why they never mention scandinavian countries. :)
Historically, how many wars have been justified as "Gods will"?
When they think sin or evil are physical things thats scary
Taking away sin where does that leave us ? It leaves us to TAKE RESPONSABILITY for our own actions !
"Sinful nature" (i.e., self-interested behavior) is what makes evolution work. Those individuals (be they cells or animals) that behave in ways that increase their long-term reproductive success will outcompete others. Often an organism can increase its long-term reproductive success by acting in a self-interested manner (greedy, or sinful, etc.). In other cases, an organism can increase its long-term reproductive success by acting as part of a group (cooperation, etc.). We, humans, live in complex environments (societies are part of our environment) and there are tradeoffs between benefits from self-interested behaviors and from cooperative behaviors. The advantages of cooperation are so great, though, that we have evolved to have cooperative and empathetic instincts - so to fully understand why we "feel bad" when we "sin" we must consider psychology and the evolution of complex cognition.
TLDR, it's complicated. If you just apply intuition, you'll likely oversimplify and come to naive conclusions.
One of the best responses I have read.
yes, the fundamental split between humans and other animals that Christianity (and other religions) preach leads them to ignore what we have learnt about how we humans are from how other animals are. Another consequence is to consider non-human life as dispensible or inferior.
Oh Eric, you've been so brilliant with this person. Earth is not broken, is what it is. Perfect.
The world isn't "broken" but it isn't perfect. I used the example for my young son that the human world is a lump of clay that started as mud and dirt, was formed into the lump of clay and we are trying to make it into a vase. I think we have a 6th graders ashtray for mother's day right now, but perhaps we will mold it into a fully functional glazed vase someday. It doesn't need mending, it needs shaping....and it could break so we must take care of it.
Whether or not it’s broken is also irrelevant to whether or not there’s a god or even sin; but also, he was making constant conflations between what the world should look like (in the sense of what we want it to look like) versus what is should look like (in the sense of some intended purpose/goal inherent to the world). He used those “shoulds” interchangeable (albeit probably unintentionally), which is the only way he could introduce this notion of a god/purpose/sin into all this.
You would need to demonstrate that the world isn't exactly as it is meant to be.
@@owenwilliams105 First you would need to demonstrate that the world is meant to be a given specific way, which of course you cannot. However, if you claim god is the source of how the world is "meant to be" and he is the Christian god, then by definition the world must currently be exactly what he intends it to currently be. It can never be broken if your god built it exactly as it is on purpose, knew the outcome, knew every step along the way, and has the power to have built it differently to make it better than it is now.
@@arentol7 Tried to make some sense out of your comment but can't. I don't claim the world is meant to be given a specific way. What is ''given a specific way''?
I don't claim God is the source of ''how the world is meant to be''. Where do you live - straw man city?
God isn't a christian god as far as I know.
God being the christian god doesn't entail the world being exactly as he intends it to be. Whose definition are you citing?
My god didn't build it. Do you think he used hammer and nails? What can never be broken?
I don't own God. Anyone with half a brain could make it better than it is now.
Thats a great comparison. Thank you
Hang on....since “sin” is defined as actions that transgress the will of God...how can we be infected by that?
It irks me when people talk about "the human heart". WTF does a muscle that pumps blood have to do with anything?!
We developed morals and ethics as we evolved as a species. Simple as that. There is no such thing as "sin" and we didn't get morals from any external source.
I know, right. Why do people associate the heart with love ?
@@doneestoner9945 😆
I'm sure he means "heart" metaphorically but doesn't want to use the word conscience because it implies a non-spiritual human component.
@@andrewwamser7075 I don't know man, these people seem to really think words are written on our hearts. I guess when you believe in magic anything is possible. It must be nice living in a fairytale world. 🙄
This was hard to digest. A perfect world that we can live with out locks, where everyone is good and in peace. This means that no one will have needs or suffer a disease, no pain or any kind of suffering. What he forgets is that in his head the god he believes in, is the creator of this not perfect world. We come to this world with cero knowledge, we are fed with the knowledge that is at our reach, we reach the point in life that we find the courage to star making decisions, we makes mistakes and learn from them, we age and keep making bad decisions because we are constantly learning. Our life time in this world is short and for some very short. This sin concept is ridiculous, it does not resolve anything. All it does is accuse people of being people, accuse our ignorants as if we knew when it’s clear that we didn’t, it is not rational and puts loads on us that are not in our capacity. The god concept and the sin concept does not fix the problem and maybe it will never be fixed. This is what it is and we need to learn to accept it.
Rib woman gets mud man to eat some fruit after talking to a snake and now everyone is born broken. It’s insane.
Theism is the infection.
His thought experiment, about having no government, IRS, or police...
...we experienced exactly that some 10, 12 thousand years ago during the neolithic era.
All great concepts - until he needs them.
This was my precise thought lol.
Our sample size is 1 and it happened. It has a 100% probability as far as we're aware.
To truly know SIN you must first learn the length of the opposite and the hypotenuse then divide.
What if you don't have a hypotenuse handy? Hypoteni are pretty scarce these days. They're an enjenga'd specious.
Brilliant - can I steal that ?
or as they say in native American culture, 'The squaw on the hippopotamus is equal to the sum of the squaws on the other two hides'.
@@margaretbarrett6087 ofcourse you can
@@owenwilliams105 Sorry if I'm an obtuse papoose. But doesn't the ride angle come innuit sum where?
Here's the issue that I see in any conversation about the "existence" of sin. Theists more or less use "sin" as an adjective, rather than a noun. "Sin" is a word that describes "a bad thing that God especially disapproves of." But they THINK they use it as a noun. So when they have to define it, they think that all they have to do is point to the things that they associate with the state of "being sinful."
It would be like somebody asked what does "red" mean, and their response is to list every red item they can think of. Yes, everything in their list is technically red, but "an apple, a firetruck, my sweater, a sunset" doesn't actually tell someone what you're talking about. Red is defined as "a color at the end of the spectrum, next to orange and across from violet." Coming up with that definition isn't easy, but listing red objects is.
Theists are so accustomed to giving the easy answer, of listing things they deem as sin, because if anyone thought to independently define the aspect of "sin" on its own, they might realize it's a concept deserving of much more scrutiny than they thought.
If sin is part of human nature, then by his own mythology his god made humans with this nature as a design feature. We dont choose to be born or instil the human nature. Which means his god condemns humans for being exactly how he made them. Making his god is morally depraved.
As Hitchens said, he makes us sick then commands us to be well.
Original sin is the guilt trap theist put on their followers. Identical to a toxic relationship with a narcissist and gaslighting. It's mental abuse. Lastly, if god was all forgiving as theist claim, then how come god didn't forgive Adam and Eve and set the story off on a great positive start?
This is so bizarre. It's like "sin of the gaps" except there aren't any gaps. "Sin of the imaginary gaps"??
Sooo, I've never entered someone's house and stolen stuff, or hit someone over the head, most people haven't because we recognize that our society doesn't work well that way. There are a very small percentage of people that do that kind of stuff, and when we catch them they get punished. I'm not getting where the concepts of god or sin help clarify anything here.
As I was told, no true believer in Christ would risk their eternal life and break one of god’s laws. But then you have to match up god’s laws vs civil laws. I thought of that pastor who kept people locked in the basement. Slavery is ok in the Bible, so although he broke civil laws I’m not sure he broke biblical laws. It’s all so ridiculous. Even animals that live in groups have a type of morality and rules.
@@trishayamada807 but it's not like it stops them from breaking "gods law". It certainly didn't stop catholic preists from rapping children since the 11th century. Jails are full of Christians not athiests.
@@russellward4624 see that’s just it. I know people though, who would say Catholics aren’t real Christian’s so priests raping children isn’t a Christian raping children. Then I have Christian family who think it was ok for Trump to cheat on his wife, get divorced because God picks flawed people, but Biden isn’t flawed he’s been taken over by Satan.
@@sammur1977 no our laws are in fact not Christian based and we are better for it. I for one am thankful my husband can’t sell our daughters out as slaves. We have freedom of religion and are not forced to worship your god. We are a society based on greed and listing and coveting what your neighbor’s have is called keeping up with the Jones’s as it’s such a big part of society. Your wrote a big, fat wall of Christian claptrap. And when did Jesus say not to own slaves? All he said was slaves OBEY your MASTERS even the cruel. You are a joke and a laughingstock; along with being a liar. Does your god love your lies?
@@sammur1977 slavery wasn’t ended because of the Bible it was ended over keep the USA a union. In fact the south USED THE BIBLE to prove how slavery was godly. You are a liar and outright liar.
Eric literally every time: *rationally and calmy explains how their arguments make zero sense
Theist callers literally every time: "Incorrect.... i will not elaborate..."
I found your channel because Vi did a Midnight Mass review with Genetically Modified Skeptic that I watched just a few days ago. Since then I have binge watched/heard so many of your videos and gotten super frustrated with a lot of callers. But this one was simply lovely! I am amazed about how respectful and fluid the conversation was. I wish you had more Scotts calling.
Scott's take on mental illness being caused by an inability to accept that life is hard isn't just abhorrent and toxic, it's also demonstrably wrong. We know that certain types of mental illness and personality disorder can be triggered by certain types of brain injury. We know that other types can be attributed to abnormal brain chemistry, and that the use of certain chemicals can alleviate symptoms. We also know that the children of people with certain mental disorders can potentially suffer from the same condition, suggesting that there's a genetic component. We know children raised in abusive, neglectful or otherwise harsh living conditions are more likely to grow up suffering with mental issues than children raised in more stable environments, but that also the latter group isn't immune from such afflictions.
Simon, whether he meant to or not, was essentially engaging in victim blaming. If you're mentally ill it's because you can't accept that life is hard. Suck it up and get with the programme. This attitude is honestly sickening to its core, and I'm sure that over the centuries it's led to many entirely avoidable suicides and other human suffering that could not possibly be condoned by anyone with a sense of empathy.
I would love a world with no government, laws, money, locks, etc. because the only way such a world could exist will be when we've finally grown enough that we don't need them and they've passed away into history. F*in' sweet!
@John Smith That's the spirit!🤦🏼♂️
We could have a world with no government , laws, money, locks, etc. if only we could get rid of religious people.
The reason there is government is part of the growth as a species, not the other way around.
@@KBosch-xp2ut If we do it right, one day the reason for it will be gone. I'm talking multimulti generations here, not next week.
@@Wix_Mitwirth
It’s a lovely fantasy…. But here is a simple scenario: someone defrauds someone else. What authority deals with that in your no-government utopian society?
I think Scott just replaced the god of the gaps with the god of the bucket. Stuff you don't like goes in the 'sin' bucket, until we figure out ways to cope with or fix it. Coping and fixing still doesn't require a god, the god concept adds nothing to the cause or the solution.
"the god of the bucket" has me rolling
The God of the Bucket is a Pail Excuse.
Or, as an apailagetic, it seems empty. And they're all wet.
Godspill. JC Soup. Or starve.
The citizens of no other country naively contemplate a society without governments like Americans do. Many countries have governments specifically because of countries like America which would march their armies in and take over given the chance.
@ 9:54 religion / fear to back up law / authority - When I was a L/cpl I often invoked the authority of the "Sgt said"
Other animals from primates like ourselves to whales in the sea; so many creatures create for themselves a structure so they might prosper. Often to be expelled from the group can mean certain death. This may not be how we like it, but survival is a bitch. It’s not broken…it just is and it’s not just us.
"So the world is the way it's supposed to be" is a massive begging of the question. First you have to show that there is a way that the world is supposed to be, and then you can ask this question.
The classic christian witchhunt! "Ignore science and blame something", all in the intent of gaining power!
You guys are awesome. Greetings from 🇦🇺
The world is not broken and never has been. What's broken are ideologies that dictate the world must conform to their mold.
Did Scott just say that aids and hurricanes are indirect manifestations of human sin? That those things were deserved? And that while suicide thing…Scott sounds like a guy whose never had a serious bad day or any discussions with someone with those serious problems.
I think there's a point to be made about religions growing alongside of law and government during earlier stages of human development. My only thing is I'd put a different level of importance on it during that period. Some would say that religion is the internal structure, the backbone of the society. I would say rather that religion is a kind of scaffold, useful when building up initial structures but ultimately not a necessary part of the overall end product once all is said and done. We teach children about all sorts of fables and stories during their formative years to help them develop their morality, but those fables and stories don't need to remain with them all of their life for them to continue to _be_ moral once they've reached adulthood.
Put another way, I see mythical religious stories taken as literal into adulthood like a building that never had the scaffolding removed once it was finished. It's no longer needed and the building would look so much nicer once the no longer necessary aspects have been deconstructed.
Just a quick point on "sin".... When Columbus bumped into N-America, the native peoples he encountered had NO concept of "sin"... Only the Roman Catholic dogma and forced conversion of the native folks instilled the concept.... Hope this helps...
"Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily." ~ Robert A Heinlein.
It's an extremely small minority of people who cause the world to be the mess that it is. It isn't a humanity problem, it's the problem of a few humans.
Scott's reference to M Scott Peck's "The Road Less Travelled" at 24:10 was not incidental. Peck, although a psychiatrist, says he "made a firm Christian comitment" shortly after the book was published, and it is packed with Christian ideas, particularly that of "evil" as the cause of mental distress. Scott's remark that suicide is a deeply selfish act, and that Eric was displaying "wilful blindness" is part of Peck's thinking that one source of mental illness is an unwillingness to do the work needed to face life's difficulties, and that "evil" people are consistently self-decieving. Peck later came to believe in Satan, demonic possession and exorcism.
His religion has made Scott really pessimistic. And it has made him love the sound of his own voice. Christopher Hitchens was correct.
Scott sounds angry with himself. The fact that he can't achieve his arbitrary goal of perfection leaves him unhappy.
So my children are sinful? Right, well, what's the point of having them then?? Why do Christians keep having children if they are sinful? Isn't that doing the devil's work?
The world is not broken, it is just what it is. We live in this planet. We are an evolved product of this world. All 4.5 billion years of it
Has anyone called "Tentacles of Sin" as their new metal band yet? If not...dibs!
Too late. I've already thought of two of the chords and am working on the third. My band is baptised with the perfect name.
I think there is a Christian folk band called Testicles of Sin.
I kind of want to hear Eric talk more about a world that is not broken and still needs improvement. I think it's an idea well worth exploring.
I don't have one ready, but I think a solid argument can be made that this world is perfect, that *dynamic* is one of the qualities that make it so, and that life (in the meta sense) is constantly evolving to best suit that dynamic environment. So the world isn't broken/fallen, it's perfect *and dynamic; always changing.* And those of us privileged enough to be alive in the world aren't broken or fallen either; we're in a constant state of flux, in accordance with our perfect, dynamic environment. For convenience we call this constant state of flux "evolving."
Agreed.
We have to preface such a discussion by noticing that words like "broken" and "improvement" are colored by our human perspective as makers. (Dolphins might hardly spare a moment for such ideas, if they had words to express them.)
So let's work from our human perspective, for the moment, and ask how do WE typically distinguish between "broken" and "having potential for improvement"?
BEING BROKEN
I'd say that a human artifact is broken if it no longer performs as we designed it. I could even say that it's broken "out of the box": meaning that the implementation never did fulfil the design. But mostly "broken" refers to component failure. The artifact WOULD operate as designed, except for this detail.
For anything NOT an artifact, we humans extend the design versus operation distinction, AS IF it were an artifact. Here is where the trouble begins. We may not notice that this is an exercise of imagination. We're not seeing more deeply into reality, but trying to describe reality by reducing it to familiar terms. Here are two examples.
• We see that a tree branch has been broken by the wind. The branch is no longer operating as "designed." That's sad. But a dolphin, having no notion of artifact, would perhaps think that branches grow, and wind breaks branches, and this is all a part of the natural order. Trees have evolved in such a way that the breaking of branches is not usually catastrophic but passively adaptive. Then, in some sense, it's a happy occurrence.
• We see a rockfall. An entire face of shale breaks away from a cliffside, falling into a ravine and blocking the watercourse. Is that cliffside in any sense "broken"? Is the watercourse "broken"?
So "broken" is not necessarily pejorative, not necessarily sad or happy, not necessarily a meaningful term. It seems to become more loaded where life is concerned, perhaps even where some ordering principle gives way to disorder. A very regular natural crystal which develops a thermal crack could be described as "broken." And it does seem a bit of a shame to lose something so perfect. But again, we're leaning here on our compulsion to design. Would dolphins care, or simply find it equally interesting both ways?
HAVING POTENTIAL FOR IMPROVEMENT
A human artifact could be operating exactly as designed - and therefore is not broken - but still have room for improvement. Notice, however, that this is always teleological. Improvement is measured against some design goal. Once an artifact achieves that goal, there can be no improvement until a new goal is set. And of course we, the makers, get to decide what that should be.
If we turn to the natural world, evolution by natural selection seems to be engaged in a constant process of improvement. It's not that anything is "broken," because it's all simply doing what it's doing, operating according to the laws of biochemistry. But if there's a way to do it differently, and that happens to improve the prospects for survival to the next generation, then we human observers might call that an improvement. (Never mind that more aggressive mutations of COVID-19 might not seem like favorable "improvements" to the host species. It's still better for the virus.)
So it would be fair to say that a virus, or any other species, before a favorable mutation had an evolutionary "potential for improvement." It clearly wasn't broken. This is a qualitatively different process.
Of course, this evolutionary notion of "improvement" is not the only one we could apply. We could selfishly judge improvements in terms of their benefit to our species, or to any one of us individually. It's just that evolutionary improvement is conveniently objective. It favors what works, as long as we accept that "what works" means species survival.
Thanks for reading this far. I'm pretty much done exploring these ideas. What's coming to light for me is that even if we take away our particular maker bias, there's still a recurring theme of life running through it all. Brokenness can, at a stretch, be contrasted with inorganic perfection or orderliness, but it's more poignant when contrasted with damage to living things.
Going further, something which is operating as it has evolved is strictly not broken. It could have potential for improvement. That's what evolution is all about. But it cannot be broken merely because the evolutionary process is still running.
Scott, if a human had everything, eg food, shelter, warmth, health, relationships, etc, that human is way less likely to steal or offend others.
The reason we would have anarchy under yr scenario of no laws, locks, jails, penalties etc, is because the world we live in requires us to work hard to get the stuff we need.
This "Human is a sinner" just makes me so frustrated that I just can't find a word to explain it.
What I'm getting out of this is, sin is a descriptive word to categorize a bunch of behaviours and actions; it's not a 'force' or a 'thing' or something on its own... but people started to use the word sin in fuzzy language like with the word heart and started to ascribe more to it than it actually is.
The noun "sin" takes the same form as contemporaneous terms such as "good" and "evil" - as if they were not attributes but things with some kind of independent existence.
I'm no expert in this etymology or in the history of philosophy, but the similarity to Platonic Forms seems hard to dismiss.
People were starting to think seriously about how reality might be put together. Some of their ideas were creative indeed, and kind of trippy. If you were to meet an aggressive black dog, could it be a sort of volume of neutral "substance" that was filled with ingredients such as blackness, aggressiveness, dogness, aliveness?
It seems weird now, only because we have a more empirically validated architecture of reality that we can take for granted. But there are still a few holdouts to the old ways of thinking, and "sin" is definitely one of them.
Why? Because it has both specificity and emotional charge, and therefore makes for more persuasive storytelling.
I was abused by my neighbour for 4 years 6 thru 10.
Thought that was what I was worth for more than 20 years.
Destroyed every opportunity given.
Self sabotage every relationship
Drugs and life and now I'm old.
Do something better than I did 😢😢😢
Yes Eric... U Crushed that shit!!! And yes it was kinda hot 🔥🔥🔥 Keep up the good work guys 💯
Don't know why Eric keeps telling him he's a 'wonderfull' caller.
Because it’s a good thing to do. Making him feel welcome despite the disagreement.
Also the caller actually is interested in a conversation not just working from a script like so many presupps do trying to catch the atheist in a gotcha moment.
It makes for better content.
People have evolved instinct, like other social animals, for both selfishness & for sacrificing for their group. Perhaps morality is the intersection of those two instincts. We each have to protect our own lives, and we also feel compelled to protect others as well. The problems come when those instincts contradict each other, and what choice we make then.
Sorry English isn't my language, but... So that the world is considered broken, you need to have prior to that a perfect world.
Prove the existence of a perfect world before our and then you have a way to considere this one broken :)
I don't think the world has to have been perfect before it 'broke', just be good enough. sounds like a semantics issue.
Mate, I have camera on my bicycle and in my car. They are there to record events against someone who would wish me harm. That includes the time an unmarked police car pulled me over and the belligerent copper backed off when he saw my Navman and realised I had the evidence of speed and travel. He was intent on victimisation, but realised he would be held accountable instead.
It's the nature of ALL living creatures, it's called the survival imperative. Boil humanity down and remove our self-built systems of order and we are all fundamentally fair weather friends; we will revert to self preservation and the preservation of those few people who are the absolute most important to us (partners and children). We don't need religion to avoid sin, we need order and stability which can and is established by any form of social and societal order we can create.
“It is what it is” is a tough concept. Sometimes I totally get it. Other times, not so much.
How apt for Scott to ride the no true Scotsman fallacy.
Once again Erik lets the guy off the hook at 18:20. Vi had exposed the weakness in his argument and the guy responds with "What other options are there?" Bam! Game over! Lights out! Folded up like a folding chair! Argument from personal incredulity!!! But Erik lets him off the hook by actually attempting a substantive response to his fallacious question.
Great stuff Eric!❤
There is a tendency by true believers to think the world is getting worse all the time when in reality the opposite is true. By all the quality-of-life measures it just keeps on getting better. The spread of democracy, access to health care and education, the rule of law, human rights - it all just keeps improving. Crime rates and war casualties are at an all-time low. And all the while religiosity is in decline. In fact, the most successful societies are the most secular.
Scott, I'll have you know sinning IS, winning❤
8:50 What the caller described... that's exactly the way things used to be if you go sufficiently far back in pre- history.
As a result, we now have governments, police armed forces....
13:10 -ish "that chaos is happening", IMHO, because of resource shortages. If people had enough, they wouldn't need to create chaos by taking from others...MOST people wouldn't, anyway.
IMHO, YMMV, etc.
He kept talking about sin, but made no effort to demonstrate a God to sin against.
That would be a pretty important first step.
They always forget that small step...... i wonder why....
I never take any notice of the concept of sin not ever! Do I enjoy it? Is it legal? Will it cause physical harm? That's all I care about.
"Let's talk about sin."
"I think we are getting caught up over the word sin."
Ok? What did you call in for then?
Why is Eric's mic always louder than everybody elses?
Is funny how (almost) everybody agrees with "how things should be"...
As if we could idealize that which makes one good and project it onto other beings like ourselves!
And that is what we do.
Scott is ignoring that we are a social species. Even chimp and gorilla tribes have rules and punishments for breaking them.
Humans would not have survived with an 'every man for himself' attitude. Those who chose that path did not pass on their genes very easily. Human babies and children need years of care to survive, so those early tribes were all about protecting the next generation. If they failed, that tribe died out. BTW, those small tribes were 150 to 200 people strong, small enough for them to police each other and large enough for specialization of talents that benefited the tribe, whether child care, healing, hunting or craft making skills to create clothing, utensils and shelters. We only survived because we cooperated, like most primates do.
I used to be infected with the spiritual disease of total depravity, but the doctor gave me some pills and I'm much better now.
Projection: I am an asshole, so everyone must be like me...
Awww, no you're not.
@@imfrcd of course not. It's about the dude who thinks everyone "sins" because he does... :-)
21:50 Nothing should be above scrutiny. And they're running like roaches when the lights come on.
"Truth wanted."
This sort of thing is why I don't like the ACA. When I find a comparable presentation, I'll be off like a shot....
"Eternity of people"??? -- Why can't I remember what I was doing 500 years ago?
Dr. Peck's Books are some of my favorite. The are now and they were when I wasn't an atheist. I just think his conclusions are wrong and causality. Doesn't have to be mutually exclusive.
Sin, a Christian construct that implants guilt in you for being human.
I lived on the Outer Banks for three years, never had a key to any of the places I lived. I never locked my car. I never had a problem.
Eric and Vi, if you haven't already, you might give Robert Nozick a read, "Anarchy, State and Utopia"
Were all social structures negated in an instant and it was truly a land of each to their own, we'd see social structures reform within the first few days. After the first day of "wow, this freedom is neat", people would sooner rather than later realize that they're not fit to take care of themselves 100%. They don't know how to upkeep their fort, how to acquire food, how to defend themselves, etc. Few at the self-sufficient folks out there, as most people would find a gaping hole between their desired lifestyle and their innate set of skills. People would bunch up together. Strength is numbers, bound by principles of quid pro quo. Rules would be needed to maintain fairness among the group members.
In my perception of the inception of religion, it formed around the rules establishment phase. "You have to do what I say not because I decided it arbitrarily, but because this big boss of the world decided it, and I'm just telling you that he wants you to do the stuff I say without questioning me".
The caller mentions retraints that we have imposed on ourselves that prevents chaos from ruling. However, those restraints are naturally imposed by society even without religion.
Most humans are naturally empathetic and have a moral compass that arises from that empathy -- no religion is necessary. Sure, there are sociopaths and other people who may lack this -- or even just people who do bad things in general -- but most of those people would not be swayed by religion anyway.
Look out for those sinteclles! They are very slippery and slidery.
Quote from Robert Heinlein (Yes, I know he is problematic, but the quote is good)
“The only sin is hurting other people unnecessarily. Hurting yourself is not sinful, just stupid.”
the caller built a mental prison for himself by carrying the heavy burden of original sin that be believes is a curse from his deity and literally dictates his whole stance towards life. this is sad for modern standing apes.
To use the accepted English understanding and translation "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of god." All instances of theological and biblical examples of sin are actions that fall short of an expected standard. That is why jesus was said to be without sin because he is, ostensibly, the standard by which sin is measured. Thus even if he had committed sin it could not be attributed to him as sin because he is outside the paradigm while being the paradigm.
How can an infection be an action and how can an infection fall short of a standard, even a standard of wellness? Also to have a standard of wellness you have to establish baselines which can't be done for sin. For "all" have sinned except jesus and one person does not a baseline make. Sin is paradigmatically dependent on religious belief. Thus if I do not adhere to your moral paradigm (morals such as consensual homosexuality being sinful even though neither the bible, nor jesus, the arbiter of your religious moral paradigm, ever say that is so and before someone says "but leviticus" well turns out that verse is about incestuous male rape by another male family member) then sin does not affect me because it is subjectively related to your religion.
"Proof isn't my goal, evidence is.."
Whhaaaatttt?!?!?!
I still cannot help to believe that religious people actualy don't see as a reality what they are talking about; like some Christians tell atheist "I know deep in you, you do believe in God". I say "I know deep in you, you are scared, you feel alone, and you need a magical father floating above you".
All the crazies that used to walk around wearing A boards are now on the net
Sin is just as much a social construct as moral. That doesn't mean both concepts are completely fictional as both derive from psychological and philosophic prerequesites. But they are not absolute. They can be negotiated, they change and refine in any progressing society. The universal nature of social contracts makes one think about the existence of an underlying 'natural law' but isn't that only another way of describing the basic psychological necesseties of the social animal named human, developed alongside human evolution?
I’ve been an outspoken atheist my entire life and I am continually astounded how anyone with any hint of intellect could be duped into believing in some random “magical sky daddy” w/o a shred of verifiable data or empirical, science based evidence of its existence.
The "should be" that Scott is looking for is a perfect world. It can't exist. Well at least it can't exist yet.
But also, that’s a colloquial use of the term “should be” and it kind of conflates two topics… because what we mean when we say the world “should be” a certain way is that we want it to be that way, NOT that this was some intended way the world was meant to be (which is a more religious notion that everything has some intentional purpose to it since all of it was created).
I don’t think the caller was being dishonest as I’m pretty sure he made this conflation unintentionally by muddling concepts together in his mind (probably a product of all the cognitive dissonance from trying to bridge religious thinking with reality).
How 'bout now?
"Tentacles of Sin" would make a great (vinyl) Heavy Metal album name in the 1980s.....