Martin , you have just asserted something as fact - can you not understand that not everything in the Bible is fact and thats demonstrable as it contradicts itself on so many occasions that cant be reconciled , so your question is a non sequitur.
Shane L the sea of reeds is the correct translation and the Jews referred to the Red Sea that goes north and separates the Sinai from Saudi Arabia as the sea of reeds. So Exodus does show the correct translation in English by using 'Red Sea'. There is archaeological evidence that points to a crossing there and a large Jewish existence in the west of Saudi Arabia. That is the intriguing thing, there is a lot of circumstancial archaeological evidence that points to Joseph through to Moses and the pharaoh Thutmose III.
jon fromtheUK no but we have no evidence, even circumstancial, at all that he did not exist either. Egyptians never proclaimed their defeats and losses but there is strong evidence of Semetics settling in northern Egypt one of which was the son of Jacob and was a high official. A Semetic who died at that time was allowed to be buried in a lavish tomb having lived in a mansion (the bones of whom are missing). This was followed by slavery of Semetics which suddenly stopped in Thutmose III's time. There is then evidence of a crossing of the red Sea, and in addition markers set up by Solomon at that point referring to this crossing with evidence of many Jews living In one place in Saudi Arabia, that fit Exodus, etc. As you stated, there is no direct evidence whatsoever but there is evidence of Semetics doing what is explained in late Genesis and Exodus. Given that archaeology where it does provide direct reliable evidence always corroborates the bible fully as an accurate historical document back to King David and in addition this Egyptian time line perfectly fits the destruction of Jericho, etc. then it would be accepted as fairly reasonable proof by normal scholar that Exodus did in fact happen. It never will be though because it is the most bound up story of divinity in the Tanakh, even though the same scholars accept stories of other ancient civilisations that include large aspects of divinity.
I much admire the moderator, it is a rare quality to stay so unbiased and ask genuinely insightful questions to both sides that are both critical and respectful. If you are reading this, mate, chapeau.
don't be fooled, he's good at appearing unbiased while being biased. watch more derren brown if you want to learn more about when people are pulling the wool over your eyes. watch his interuptions in particular, and the number of times "we'll come back to that" but doesn't.....don't get me wrong he's better than most and i like him, watched numerous debates witth him moderating, everybody says the same thing you have, but i say the same thing i have, he's biased, just more subtle than most, i'm not sure if he's aware himself he's doing it, but he's doing it.
Just lovely, British gentleman holding a civilised discourse. They easily reached some profound moments and so lovely to witness the respect flowing between them and seemingly a true desire to understand the point of view of the other. SO much more enjoyable than the usually armed and aggressive bashing of one side by the other - more such pairings please!
I love magic acts. Derren is great. Unfortunately, once they get successful they think they are experts on the philosophy of God which is really strange because most have high school diplomas and haven't a clue except that they fool people. I guess actors/actresses/sports athletes, etc... all go through similar syndromes. Trying to make up for their guilt of making so much money doing something so trite for a living?
I am a Gnostic I met him years ago and said to him why do you not take your show to America they will love you there. He replied, I am doing nicely here. 12 months later he was in America I also worked as a Clinical Hypnotherapist.
I just love the fact that both men have very different views but can still respect each others beliefs. They maintain totally civil discourse and become aware and open of the similarities in their views. It is beautiful to watch.
I'm not a Christian, I'm an atheist, but Richard Coles lays out the best case for Christianity I think I've heard here. Intelligent, thoughtful, humorous - what a wonderful discussion. If only this was how all debates were conducted we'd be living in a much better, and richer world.
Polite. Profound. Articulate. A true exposition of open-minded, non-judgmental inquiry by two people who respect each other and are genuinely interested in the others viewpoint.
I'm not a Peterson supporter, but if you are you might like the discussion between him and Aubrey Marcus - he is very relaxed and they have an interesting discussion. After watching it I understood much better why people like Peterson. th-cam.com/video/BymDPZ7TyNM/w-d-xo.html
If he does then he is the devil in disguise, his ideology supports the misgivings of a racist, genocidal, totalitarian egoist. Its name is Yahweh, and his book is the bible. No matter how sweet the proponent of a religion appears, i can not abide by the fact that they are supporting, whether they realize it or not, a malevolent ideological principle.
Perhaps you should read some of the Stoic writings, then you will realize that one should not take themself so seriously. Chill out, he is one of my heros too. I'm serious about the stoic part tho. My rip was on the priest.
Ironically you do exactly what you aim to, or already seem hard-wired to, parody. Keep in mind that it's always a projection of yourself by you types anyway... Grow up. The world is not just your YT recommendations and starting page.
Wonderful conversation. The first discussion on this channel where both people appeared to use the same language and understood each other completely. Very fruitful. My thoughts: 51:50 Good observation (the fact that this is symptomatic of our times). We live in the age of individualism. We no longer relate to the symbols and rituals that propped up our greatest myths in the past. In an age where god is dead (as well as culture, community or any other secular meaningful endeavor), we can only relate to the _individual_. We have become too aware of symbolism, its history and its purpose (to reinforce otherwise ethereal myths). In other words, we now know how the sausage is made, and so every attempt at symbolism is contrived. The cross has become something you wear around your neck, your countries flag has become something you wear on a t-shirt, yet zeal for god and country seem to be a novelty. This is all a product of our progress in thought, from all disciplines. The more we know, the more we must discard old ideas: increased nuance in thought means increased uncertainty. We're continuously pushing ourselves ever closer to the void (we're still digesting that fruit from the tree of knowledge), and so institutions rely ever more on the power of symbols to compensate for the diminished draw that myths now have. Think about all the iconic consumerist symbols, like designer brands and luxury vehicles, and how they have forced religion to compete on their terms. I guess it's not totally unprecedented: think of the gigantic stone and marble monuments attributed to gods, men and nations, like the pyramids, etc. 56:36 Astute observations once again. He even slips out that "death" is at the core of these issues of meaning.
I appreciate Derren Brown coming on and doing this interview. His book Trick of the Mind and his videos have been a key voice in why I had left my christian background. I'm happy to see him take an open-minded stance on meaning rather than go towards the modern reductionist claims. There is so much meaning to be found in life outside of institutions and dogma. Derren should do an interview with Jordan Peterson. I'd like to see them talk.
I think living a spiritual life doesn't necessary need any mystical power or a big guy that create everything. But life and nature is a remarkable thing, and what is GOD really. Having so many type of life form on Earth, this is the power of nature , and if you ask me, this is GOD. Having the appreciation of life and nature, I think this is what spiritual mean to me. And different religion today, I feel that it is just different flavour of the spiritual path, but it is not necessary, and the true teaching in the religion is what is important.
i think what's happened, particularly in the states, is that belief and atheism have become polarised, i've mentioned in comments already in the states they take religion much more seriously, way too seriously in some cases, whereas in the UK i think even most of the church takes religion with a pinch of salt, we are much more open to science and the church doesn't do a lot of gymnastics to include science, whereas in the US religion has been hijacked by politics and the polarity has been ramped right up. again i've been saying JP is a carnival act, he has a random house dictionary collection for a brain but at the end of the day he's there to sell you a book. having said that i watched him in conversation with eric (or his brother, i get their names mixed up) weinstein on the joe rogan show and i didn't find myself disagreeing with anything he said, a three hour show, on topical matters he makes an awful lot of sense and some really sharp points. but - book sale please. :)
@Llucius1 I agree with that. I think you can be "spiritual" without believing in any mystical forces. It can simply be your view of the world, your creativity, and how you experience life. I know it's very general, and some people may believe that a God is required to be spiritual, but I very much consider myself a spiritual atheist.
Derren puts his finger on the dichotomy of the key question at 33:30 in that in our modern times we have outgrown the existential transcendental nature of the epistemology and psychology of Christianity and that it doesn't provide for many the belief or meaning that they did for earlier eras.
Great conversation. Mr Cole strikes that dissonant note of knowingness of his god, that always follow christians, but there is a nearly harmonious ringing between these two contemplative guys. Often people who have lived a life of excess debauchery, etc seem to need to put a face on the one whom they wish to repent to, to wash their hands of those indiscretions. Thanks for this program.
Stoicism is presented by Derren Brown as a secular philosophy; but some of the most important Stoic thinkers, such as Epictetus, were clearly religious thinkers who believed in God (or something approximating what we usually mean by God). The universe is seen as a manifestation of mind or logos.
That is nothing like what 'we' mean by 'God'. Alan Watts spoke of this clearly. The West has completely ruined what 'God' means. Although, in pre-history, 'God' would have meant 'nature' or such, to the tribes of the West some 3,000 years ago. This we have a strong idea of. Again, many people speak about this, as well.
Alan Watts? You mean the hippy charlatan? He was a half-decent populariser- and by no means an expert on Western Theology. The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church have much in common with Islamic and Indian conceptions of God, such as Advaita Vedanta (sat chit ananda). I am not sure what Mr Watts really means- unless he means "God" as understood in the popular imagination, rather than in formal theology?
No idea why you think he is a charlatan. No evidence of this to my knowledge. And, the Islamic and Catholic gods are completely different from the Indian gods. To make clear to you, Alan is talking about the Catholic/Christian god. That being, the divine, all-knowing, actual being/entity, which moves things and makes actions within the real world. In short, the personal, monotheistic god. India does not have personal monotheistic gods. And, of course, the Islamic and Catholic gods are a bit different in both theory and practice (and the religions are quite different, even though Islam is, of course, based on Judeo-Christian mythology). I also fail to see what Islam has to do with anything (I assume its Eastern nature) but, of course, Islam is very Western. Non-Western or at least non-modern gods would be the Greek gods, the African, the Indian, the Chinese, and Japanese gods, for the most part. These being impersonal, oftentimes, non-theistic gods.
With all due respect you have a singularly naive understanding of monotheism as understood by Jews, Christians and Muslims. You appear to assume that Christians think of God as a maximally powerful disembodied person (theistic personalism); but if you consult the tradition you will discover that mainstream Catholic and Orthodox theology is radically apophatic: we know that God exists but we do not know what God is. Thomas Aquinas, for instance, was agnostic as to the nature or essence of God. Gregory of Nyssa taught that our incomprehension of God is our comprehension of God, paradoxically. Yes, of course there are substantial theological differences between Judaism, Christianity and Islam, but nevertheless there is a broad area of agreement which I would categorise as "classical theism". Professor David Bentley Hart (Notre Dame University) outlines this in his book The Experience of God. The framework he uses for his book on classical theism is precisely that of Advaita Vedanta (Indian/Hindu): Sat (being) Chit (consciousness) and bliss (love). One finds this triad in all the great theologians: in Augustine, in Ibn Arabi, and in Jewish thinkers as well. To describe non-Western forms of religion as non-theistic is merely to subsume these religions under Western categories. Again D B Hart in the above mentioned book points to a number of Mahayana Buddhist conceptions of ultimate reality that are fully consonant with classical theism, as mentioned above. The personal/impersonal dichotomy assumes that Christian religion believes God to be somehow a "person" but this really is just a form of anthropomorphism (as the Church Fathers make clear). Islam is even clearly that God is _not_ a person. However, neither is God sub-personal. God is by definition sui generis; outside all of our categories.
@Marianne Havisham I agree that there are lots of ways people find meaning, but I think they are all limited and temporary, whereas true eternal meaning we find in God's plan for us as He was the one who created us and knows best!
Like I've said in another comment - upper hand intellectually but psychologically (usually his forte) the professor, for the first time, would be out of his depth.
I couldn't care less. J.P. is a run-of-the-mill, maybe even discrediting psychologist/psychiatrist. It's not an accident that he's a hero or intellectual "god" for retards who neither have ever seen a university from inside nor read a book, but hang around on YT all day (and debate gutter-ideologies, as a delusional expression of their own Freudian shortcomings and immaturity, ironically, and pseudo-intellectual topics like atheism vs. religion).
It always surprises me when I hear people saying what a nice man that priest or vicar is , have you ever met a rude inpolite salesman before youv purchased the car ? as I have not , or a conman with no likeable personality 🤔, religious preachers are human and obviously are open to the feeling of power and Influence aswell as having a standing within a community , buy above all that they are salespeople
In Unbelievable?'s first video with Jordan Peterson, Peterson quickly answers the question being asked in this video. His response: "God is what you use to make sense of your life. You have a hierarchy of values and the value at the top serves the function of god for you..." In other words, the meaning in your life is derived from your set of values and the most important value serves as god. In this sense, Christ is the embodiment of top tier values, so to speak - the values that a vast majority of people see as "good". You can never embody all of these values ( you will never be god ) but you can embody some of those values ( you can be close to god ).
Yes, but that clearly has nothing at all to do with Christ or God or the Romans, therefore, it means nothing and you can't use that as a Christian arugment.
The public debate and exchanges with folk who express a view, I wouldn't want a God who is unfeeling and vindictive either. So my understanding was a gradual awakening over many years of questioning why I was born? The purpose of all of us was first revealed when Adam made out of the dust and the breathe of God was life giving choice by the Godhead.. NAMELY let us make man in our image. With a ability to hear instruction and make choices. All the animals were if not loyal certainly no threat. EVE was a help meet to Adam and completed him. I was just wrapped up under Adam,`s curse, along with everyone else sin pays wages, death and separation eternally from my Creator. Denying by my behaviour lifestyle, God`s authority to speak into my life. It was reading the Bible for myself that confirmed my belief in a higher power that had intervened and rescued me from danger death disease and doom. Ask Yourself are you unbelieving and wiser than so many folk who acknowledge that all the wonders of this planet and continual expanding knowledge still we can't bring and end to greed and corruption in ourselves How much disposable entertainment will satisfy? JESUS had to pray and mothers in labour know anguish and anxiety. When the child is delivered, the pain may lessen but the ordeal of nurturing a child, has to be taken seriously. I'm a born again sinner, a recipient of grace mercy and peace. And the object of my faith is the character of God. You will find Him if you seek Him with the goal of knowing the truth for certain. And freedom is living a life that honours your heart/conscience.
Without "a" god....we as humans have many... and are mostly picked geographically and often not even our own decision but instructed by the specific country we happen to be born in. It's a nonscence , a crutch and a disciplinarian technique used to hang over a society.
Happiness is fine but one has to be aware that what you deem brings happiness must not negatively affect the community as a whole. The problem is that many ignore that and apply subjective morality to this which will always fail. Objective ethics actually meet these issues and I've found judeochristian beliefs specifically meet these. I am a stoic at heart but I have also through becoming a Christian become more aware of these philisophical issues and found the natural happiness in who I am, even though I don't love who I am, I am happy in trying to become a better person for the benefit of others.
You prove only one thing: you are no different to all the other mindless, lost apes. In the same thought, you state the following: 1. I am a Stoic. 2. I am a Christian. 3. I don't love myself. 4. I am happy in trying to become a better person. What an emotional and intellectual sad mess, indeed. Also, to make you feel even better, and it will in the end, in fact. God or whatever you want, itself is subjective morality, by definition.
Retro Workshop subjective morality is false. Plain and simple. I know who I am, I don't need materialism to find happiness and I love those who are close to me. Most people fail to reach this state because they are groundless and have yet to know themselves and what is important in life There is nothing wonderful in what I have done - I have just made the journey that I needed to make. Unfortunately many people have not and our current culture does not help people in anyway - it promotes stardom where there is little to admire, materialism that adds no true value to life and egotistical individualism without any guidance to benefit from the freedom it gives.
@@Matthew24.4 how do you mean? Can you offer an example - I'm not sure I agree with your opinion so am very interested to understand your point of view
I came to a profound realisation a few weeks ago. Let me explain.. Here in kildare Ireland there's a story about a man called Dan donnely he was a boxer he fraught another man on the curragh in a place now called donnelys hollows as a kid we would go there for picnics and I guess when someone was telling me the story that did happen in the early 1900s or I was hearing adults speaking about him so I guess what happened was I heard someone say something like Dan donnely was a giant of a man... I always thought that he was an actual giant made more plausible by the fact after his death some doctor took his arm it was on display in a pub for years till it was taken to the States.. But I as a kid assumed that was because he was so huge... It wasn't I made a lot of childhood assumptions about all sorts... So time passed I raised my daughter and her aunt was always with us.. So I came across a piece on Dan donnely who was not a giant but a boxer they took the right arm that won the boxing match so I asked the girls who they taught he was they both said a giant... If I can by mistake change who n what a man was for the next generation and have no clue I'm doing so how can we believe any history from thousands of years back when in 1 generation 1 person can change so many facts as humans we imbelish we add stuff so how can we believe any even written word knowing how this can work against us even with the best of intentions it's impossible... Its all impossible.. To belive humans didn't add with every generation who told all the stories from history be it religion or politics or just life...... Love derren brown never knew the TV mass priest was 1 of the comunards mad...
A scientific person would say; the energy of the universe is not outside us, it’s in us and through us. A religious person would say; the energy of God is not outside us, he is in us and through us.
Richard Coles always reminds me of a religious Richard Osman. Just in the way Jimmy Somerville reminds me of Wayne Rooney. But without God involved. Or something. 😳
I could feel the tension why did they have to have a mediator it would of been better to let them talk it sort of ruined it was a very polite conversation I could see Derren holding back when they had to try and convince him about God I don’t know 🤷♂️ I like Micheal and Derren
Belief is only relevant from the perspective of honest learning. Once belief is discussed in terms of motivation, that which is discussed is not belief at all. Derren is speaking from his own honesty, which I appreciate, yet this reveals him. I find this form of supposed respect, which Darren holds, to be the ultimate condescendance and the ultimate disrespect; even to the extant that Derren is not discussing anything of who a Christian is. He is believing, simply, that Christians do not exist, and for this reason he is not saying anything of any value about personality, because personhood is a real phenomenon and Derren does not believe in one bit of Reality. It's true that all institutions, except the Holy Spirit Of Christ All Truth, are demonic. On this topic Derren truely speaks and has much insight; and this is due to the demonic nature of what he is. I'm not using the word demonic to cast accusation, but rather in the same clarity in which it was used in the conversation. This contrast between unbelief in the persons of Christians and full insightful awareness of unChristian yet supposedly Christian institutions; this contrast clearly demonstrates the darkness of the worldly perspective. The valuing of subjective supposition is perfectly contrary to belief in Christ, so that hard-line atheists are actually far less deep in darkness than adherents to subjective values. We see that there is no debate here because Derren is so absent of Truth claim there is nothing to debate. Subjective meaning is less meaningful than incorrect objective meaning, and subjective "theistic" considerations are far more atheistic than objective atheism. Any objectivity is ultimately a portion of theism, ultimate objectivity is ultimate theism, so that true Christianity is the most objective personality type there is. This really explains why "science" has become more a name for a religious myth-system than it is a name for an objective process; and this is why the best scientists of objective processing are true Christians, because science and true Christianity are both purely self-honest interactions with The Spirit Of Truth. It's due to objectivity that God is not a respecter of persons. Lastly this calls notice to the fact that false Christians are not truely Christian. We see Derren holds full respect for the persons of false Christians, yet in blindness he has zero respect for true Christianity; indeed he cannot even imagine the Reality of true Christians. If Derren could imagine true Christianity, I'm certain imagination would graduate into learning and thus into passing from death into Life; such is to be taken captive by Christ. Much love to all ♥️.
Has Ravi Zacharias been on this channel? I'd love to see him, Andu Murray, and Vince Vitale talk. I'm a new subscriber and enjoy Unbelievable's content!
I really like to know if Derren Brown ever used psychedelics. I also didn't believe the fairytailes in the bible. But after psycedelics my perception was changed. I didn't believe like god is a man or heaven and hell like christianity but from a different point of view. You can experience that love is the source of everything and that it is yourself who create a heaven and hell here on earth and that i am everything. And maybe it in my brain but you can experience this and you know that the fairytailes are true even if it is real or not.
Agreed, it is funny that we say, May your kingdom come, on Earth as if in Heaven. Yet, everyone just focus on afterlife and throw their lives away. I don't know if there is afterlife , but I do think that everything on Earth is just a recycle. If I appreciate my life and live the best of this life, no matter there is or not a afterlife, that is not important at all. The journey counts, that is what that matter.
Derren said people without meaning in their lives are likely to throw themselves off buildings and credit to Richard ,reminded him that people with deep meaning throw other people off buildings . Derren seems to be saying that people’s supernatural beliefs have utility ,I’m not convinced
Why not convinced? The mere existence of religion proves it has a value. What you might be trying to say is that your world view is even better than all sorts of religious world view. Of that I am not convinced.
Morten Simonsen not sure the existence of something does prove it has value. I might be trying say that my worldview is better ,again I’m not sure ,not being convinced is a worldview ,I just think of myself as a truth seeker but you and I being in the position were we are not easily convinced of things I think make us less likely to be delusional. Cheers.
Paul Andrews: I love truth seekers! Nothing is better. I say that as a Christian. However, if I were Nietzsche I wouldn't have said the same - I would have swallowed the blue pill (Matrix-movie reference). That is to say - truth seeking is perfectly fine when the ultimate truth is good. That aside, let me focus on your objection to the value of religious world-view: From a natural, evolutionary perspective; everything that survives has proven it's worth. Religion has permeated human culture for a reason: it has been valueable to people. I cannot see how a believer (like Dawkins) in evolution can refute that. From a more philosophical angle, I would suggest that what religion offers is the broadest possible world-view - the backdrop of our existence - to it's "users". Since humans think, they naturally ask: Where do we come from? And religion is an answer to that - right or wrong. It simply fills in the missing pieces, and even if the pieces are wrong, it seems better to people than no pieces at all (agnosticism). If you look at religion like a product, the "agnosticism-world-view" can only stand a chance if people do not have much to worry about. You're only sales pitch for uncertainty is really the "Truth" - we should stay undecided if we don't know. If you are an honest truth-seeker, please state your world-view to make it open for scrutiny.
Morten Simonsen .A lot there will hit main points 1st paragraph. I replaced Christian with Mormon and sent it to my Mormon friend he agreed completely. 2nd paragraph. As religious views dwindle in western societies will we judge it as being worthy but ultimately wrong, although islam is a fast growing religion and my prove its worth I’m not convinced. 3rd paragraph. Religions do seem to offer whatever people seek but to me right or wrong question is more important as I think it is more important to believe true things. 4th paragraph. Not quite sure what you’re saying here but I do think it’s a healthy position to hold to say we should stay undecided if we don’t know. 5th paragraph . We both hope I’m not a dishonest truth seeker lol. I don’t have a single worldview as my views are diverse. The one that is of interest to you is that I don’t believe the supernatural exists. My definition of a truth seeker means I start from the standpoint that I could be wrong, are you a truth seeker from my standpoint. Cheers.
Paul Andrews: 1st paragraph: Quite understandable. What do you think of it? 2nd paragraph: You agree it might be worthy? Hard to understand your viewpoint there. 3rd paragraph: Truth is of ultimate importance to you - so that's part of your worldview. That's what I gather from your writing here. It points back to paragraph 1 - do you seek truth even if that truth will tell you meaning, love and purpose are null and void? This ties in with the 4th paragraph - essentially the same question. Please answer why truth is of ultimate importance. 5th paragraph: We now have established two things about your worldview: You believe pursuing truth is good in itself AND that no supernatural exists. Just to clarify: 5.1 Are mathematics and logic supernatural? If the answer is no, are they natural things? Do they exist apart from us finding out about them, or are they constructs that somehow fit us? 5.2 Is love supernatural or just an illusion or something else? 5.3 Do you have free will or are you a robot? 5.4 Is your view that the universe is uncaused or from eternity (which is the same as uncaused)? Happy to discuss this, if you are interested. Kind regards Morten S
Wasn't much of a debate, both always meeting in the middle where no actual ideas appears to weigh more than the other in the protagonists mind. I think positive and respectful debates can happen but you have to have ideas that you are actually deeply convinced about for that to happen I guess...
True but it's a better start then the shouting match most others have. I like to see debates like when fry and hitchens decimated the catholic church because they deserved to be taught some humility after what had happened and came to light. It was fun entertainment but no catholic watched it and changed their minds, neither will this over night but a few who grew up in it might experience a snowball effect which is the most reasonable outcome u can expect.
Ninja Briana , I strongly agree with here (not even using the tip you're giving above here to give in a little to the other one's idea 😉. I just had the impression here that none of them held strongly to any idea in particular. But that's what it is, only an impression as I don't know their hearts...
50:20 can I just also say Derren, that whilst you may have been a church goer, I don’t think it’s possible that you were ever actually a Christian. You see it’s not about what you do, it’s about what you believe, and if you actually believe that Jesus is God and that he died and rose again, then an actual spiritual transformation happens which it seems you never actually experienced. This is what Richard speaks about in his religious experience, he was clearly born again and met with God. You need to have this experience before any of Christianity will find genuine meaning and expression in your life.
It's remarkable and beyond ironic that you don't see the problem with your logic there -- if you can call it logic. Utterly mindless. Alas, not even your own words, for you just spoke the words of every Christian, they too, were forced to believe and say them without thought or regard.
Retro Workshop forced to believe!? That’s laughable! You really have no insight whatsoever as to what it is to be Christian do you?! The reason we all say the same thing, is because we all individually see it to be true, not because we all belong to the same cult! Ha! Don’t you know how diverse christianity is? You’ll struggle to find two christians who believe the same thing about anything! Ha!
Do you see how ironic that is? No, as always. I really want to 'force' you to re-read 'you have no insight whatsoever as to what it is to be Christian do you?', over and over again until you see the problems with it -- and there are many. 1. What if I am or have been one, thus do have insight, by definition? 2. What if I know what they believe and what their religions say, thus, by definition, have insight? 3. What if I know what they believe and how they act in the real world through personal experience, studies, and otherwise data collection, thus, by definition, have insight, regardless of what you think they believe or what books say about them? 4. What if I know the history of the creation of its many stripes and the fellow monotheisms, and where it got all its myths and histories from, and thus, by definition, have insight? 5. What if I live in a Christian country, which has been one of the main 'homes' of Christianity for over 500 years, and helped spread it across much of the world, and thus, have insight? Not to mention the rest of what you said is complete nonsense. And it's amazing you think that helps your case, that no two Christians can agree on anything or even believe the same thing. Question: How can Christianity be true or even meaningful if none of them can even agree with one another within the same type (such as two Muslims killing each other for one of them being 'the wrong kind of Muslim'). I wonder if you know the history... that it was invented by the Romans in two forms, 300 years part, Christianity and Catholicism. That there are half a dozen forms of Christianity all claiming to be the one true form. The Mormons believe they are correct and the correct kind and the other Christians are wrong, for example. You will struggle to find any truth, insight, morality, science, or consistency of any kind in any of the Christian works, texts, sects, churches, and so on. How you think this means anything at all, let alone its truthfulness is beyond me... you may as well talk to me about Islam -- it's just as insane and self-evidenrly man-made.
@@TheClassicWorld Just because Christian sects disagree with each other, how do you conclude that Christianity is false? It all goes back the new testament itself which dates less than 100 years after Jesus' death. You can know which "Christian" sects are inconsistent with biblical teachings. For example, Roman Catholics believe in the Trinity, despite the fact it is nowhere to be found in scripture, for there are persuasive verses that undermine that doctrine. That is how you test out modern-day doctrines of Christendom, you simply read the Bible and compare with today. If anything, I think me and you can agree that the vast majority of Christian sects contradict the Bible, however, you must not dismiss a faith because of petty infighting.
I really like DB and RC (as much as you ever can with TV personalities that you actually know very little about), but I find that I disagree with almost everthing that RC states. For example, a moral compass does not need religion at all, and that is very clear - but this question is side-stepped with an anecdote about ... doing unto others.
I regularly have moments of profound awe. These arise from the extraordinary fact of being alive, however briefly, in a universe that is vast and complex beyond our (present) understanding. I don’t believe any deities exist. Not just because there’s no evidence for any of these beings but also because the idea of a god diminishes the magnificence and glorious mystery of the universe and our own existence. I find it embarrassing that grown men can spend so much time poring over what is, for me, a fairytale, no more to be believed than that Hogwarts exists and pupils are assignedvto their houses by The Sorting Hat. All religion is manmade and almost exclusively, and especially in the cases of christianity and islam, created by profoundly ignorant men. Discussion of religious tenets is interesting but only for evoking wonder that so many humans remain so profoundly easy to lead to make-believe.
Moses myth originates from a previous about the son who Egyptian Goddess Ishtar adopted. Same details. Put in a basket by an ordinary woman floated up a river etc..
I love Darren, but his ideas are not very articulate and it's quite apparent that his learning on the subject is quite limited. The other gentleman also reveals a bit of misguided views of the biblical writings. That said, I really appreciated the discussion and got a few takeaways. Thank you!
I didn't know they (communards) were a 'gay' band and frankly even if I did I don't think it would have made me feel any different. Why should it, it's about people, human beings doing their thing, in Richard's case it was music and you either liked or didn't like the music, and as a practising Christian or any faith your orientation toward another sex is utterly unimportant in my eyes, and that applies in any facet of life. Sadly that doesn't for some inckyding certain 'religions'. Great chat between them.
Typical route to religion. Hedonism, followed by the realisation that it is an empty life without meaning, seduced by the woo of religion, meaning and a higher power. A cop out, as far as I'm concerned.
Interesting that Justin (married to a femaie Minister) provides the platform to an openly gay atheist, and an openly gay Minister who lived with his civil partner whilst being a minister. It was a thoroughly interesting conversation, however, it does also create the appearance that all of those positions are usual and accepted forms of Christianity. Are they? This is a serious question.
In america, particularly among the american fundamentalist movement it isn't the usual and accepted. I think it's more accepted among the european protestants.
Richard is like all theists , absolutely delusional. How can he state the fact that the resurrection seems "EXTREMELY unlikely " is part part of it's persuasivness ,and keep a straight face. This guy has came to religion in need of a crutch to help him deal with life and is prepared to move all the goalposts to make the narrative fit his chosen path. I wish him all the happiness he seeks but what a waste when someone chooses fiction over fact because of agenda. Also disappointed Derren let him of the hook so easily as I prefer a debate to a discussion. Richard spent two years praying in a monestry and didn't get "the returns" he thought he'd get , no shit, what a waste of two precious years.
I know it isn't real but I would really like to know how he does the faith healing trick with people who experience pain. To see if it's possible to trick your own brain to not feel, or notice chronic pain less.
Essentially you're swept up in the atmosphere of the ceremony and adrenaline does the rest. Simple tricks are also used like slide of hand and word play etc. IT can make pain go away but only temporarily. Also remember that the healer will pick specific people to heal. It's not like a gp surgery where you turn up, tell them what's wrong and they diagnose you and give you a fix of some sort. They don't touch those in wheelchairs or anything they can't cover up but they'll happily do people with back pain or classic uneven legs.
This has been known for 5,000 years. And, science does it all the time. Very easy to trick the brain, to feel less or more pain, and so on. All the brain. Nothing even special, let alone magically, about any of it. Of course, as many throughout history have noted, the only truly special thing about humans is twofold: we are the cruelest species, with taking pleasure in hurting others, and second, we have the ability to think about the fact we are thinking.
Plus, he had the whole audience do the thought experiment, then hand picked those who reported a change, easy really with a crowd. Harder with one on one.
I felt like Derren was very much pulling his punches here. The point he was trying to make, it seems to me, is that religious experience is an entirely subjective phenomenon. We are easily influenced by our beliefs and memories and people have a religious instinct, which, if left unfed, often leaves us profoundly unhappy. Derren meant that we need to cater to this instinct, because it is fundamental to our inner well-being, but ultimately it is satisfied by embracing a fiction. That is of course the tragedy of atheism. It's like giving up sex because you realise that actually every time you do it, you're just hallucinating.
From modern quantum electromagnetic physics' point of view, it won't hold water any longer to view God in the perspecitve of the third person historical figure or in the persepective of the second coming of Jesus. Jesus had taught his twelve disciples to see God from the first person in the present tense, that is, "I AM" Saul had had his eyes covered under the veil until he had encoutered a light on the road to Damascus. Saul asked: "Who are you, Lord?" The light replied and spoke Aramaic, "I AM Yahshua, whom you are persecuting. It is hard for you to kick against the pricks." It is indeed useless to kick againt himself. Saul and Jesus are one in Spirit. There is no dualism between him and Jesus. This experience enlightened his eye of understanding that made his name changed into Paul who began to walk in the Spirit. There is no other God beside "I AM" Shirely Bassey shouts at the top of her lung, "I AM what I AM."
Dillahunty is a joke. His arguments have not evolved in 10 years and are still based on arguments that are no longer relevant. His discussion with Peterson shows how one-dimensional his arguments are and he completely failed to understand what Peterson was actually stating.
jon fromtheUK actually he was making perfect sense but was talking about a number of issues at the same time. All independent reviews of that meeting including between atheists agreed he was talking above Dillahunty's level, the only criticism he got was that he did not unpack it sufficiently because it was clear Dillahunty did not understand his multi-faceted arguments. I watched many reviews because people stated he did not make sense so I wanted to see if I read more into his arguments than what he actually said and watched key parts again but that was not the case. The only review that went against st this was by Dillahunty himself who stated he defended his position brilliantly and that Peterson was unable to win any real points. This fully confirmed the other reviews that stated that Dillahunty performed to his best level but literally missed the multi-faceted arguments of Peterson that clearly went over him.
Prove that you have (found) meaning, to someone other than you. Any time you reduce it to “There you go,” or worse, “Easy, wasn’t it?”, you have either lost meaning or deny that “Meaning” has meaning.
With all due respect to those without the information/evidence, I know someone who has seen an angel and my personal testimony is even greater than seeing an angel one time Obviously seeing an angel grants special leverage to believe, but let's no be stupid now, God obviously exists
good for you, can you send one over to my place cos i have some questions. did you think to ask your angel if he has to go to the toilet, does god have to take breaks, does he delegate, and if he has a divine plan why is everyone trying to give him advice and get him to change it? can't wait for the answers.
I saw a Being in my bedroom one night it woke me up by whispering into my left ear and its voice sounded like it was underwater. We have these anecdotal experiences they get far more interesting when people are able to produce veridical information that is then corroborated by others as in the Pam Reynolds NDE. When you have these experiences you then experience Gnosis. There was never a Jew named Jesus the Romans created him at Nicea in 324. You learn that when you understand that there is no letter J in the Hebrew alphabet and that J appeared in the English language as late as the early 17th century. For me, Christ is a State of Mind which everyone can attain to as everything emanates from Consciousness which is primary with matter being secondary. This is how the Gnostics knew God they never claimed to believe in God or have faith in God theirs was an intimate personal experience, you can have the same using entheogens and /or by experiencing an NDE.
There is a reason Simon Magus talked big smack, and got smacked down. There is a reason Derren sticks to the shallow end of the low-hanging fruit-pool, and doesn't dance with catholic heavy hitters like E. Mikey Jones or Mike Voris. And mind you, I am a fan of Derren's. But not in this area. He's way out of his league. No amount of nu-age freemasonry based on Pythagoras's imaginary flying sky-turtles in time machines all the way down can float him in a head to head. Best for him to stick with random talk show hosts and pagan LARPing out here.
Slappy, you have to be the most delusional person I have ever seen. The line 'Catholic heavy hitters' alone is the most stupid thing any human has ever said... or close. Going for a Christ Award or something?
I hear your whining. It's why you are whining to me, as person most likely to win Devoutly Atheist Imaginary Sky-Chimp God of Booty Hurt Award, and not whining to Voris or Jones.
i can remember the period of my disassociation with god. i had recurrant dreams about dracula and me locking myself in a coffin and holding a loft a crucifix. I had quite a few and over a few dreams i started getting the effect that i was dracula, that was my inner belief slipping away. it was quite painless.
28:31 No Derren, the deciphering factor between those things that we continue to accept and live by and those that we discard is not determined by an objective external morality, but by virtue of the different covenants that are given in the bible. Two very clear and different contracts are made between God and mankind. The Old Testament was for the Jews who lived before Jesus, and the new covenant is the post-cross reality that Jesus came to bring into effect. We don’t still accept an eye for an eye, because Jesus revealed that a greater reality is found in forgiveness. It pains me that so few Christians let alone atheists and agnostics understand this critical separation between texts within the bible, even within some of Jesus’ own teachings. In some places he speaks the law of Moses to the Jews, and in some places he reveals the new covenant message of grace to the gentiles.
The majority of this conversation is bullet points. Almost every comment made by all parties could be discussed at great, great length: picked apart and unpacked and ultimately neither proved nor disproved. Who’s got the time, the resources, the platform or even the inclination?
This reverend will not stop your rights, will not lambast evolution, he will simply say god is love and who has to have a problem with that? This difference of cultures and adoption and adaptation of religious belief can be shown to nullify any real concerns one would have of religion playing out in a collective of people that hold stringent dogmas from 2000 years ago, that purposely commands to convict peoples actions in a moral structure that is now not as nuanced as the one we have carved out. There is no evidence of god. Religious people have started to embark on a journey of trying to use science, and this hopefully will lead to a better theory for them and everyone whatever that maybe, however I worry that science will be as it can be so easily manipulated to look like it just supporting the bias of those religioous people. It seems to me that the religious scientist is a new attempt probably conscious from groups to make the intellectual argument and try to bend science to its favour. Of course the one being that could prove Their existence to everyone and his followers seems to not want to play a part(strange as he was so active in the past), which is to no recourse of faith to the people who still commit everything to its existence. Derren makes a good point about cherry picking and that being an outside moral arbiter, and does somewhat imply within the context of reason of history its context and how we observe it going back hundreds of thousands of years for ourselves let alone for our genetic cousins into the millions and billions. I must remind people that god has nothing to say about this, nor does he lay out the future or indeed the co-ordinates of our position or our destination(something a universal creating celestial being would surely enthuse about). Instead he laments turn of the 1st millennium philosophies, and squirms about certain types of foods, and no greater than the men and women before the creator of the universe, and less poetic and meaningful until many more humans gives unto their meaning that makes it such, gods version is scrambled chaotic dry of morality and meaning. The fact that this is ignored by religious people, the history of many civilizations before, galvanised by more ingenious building methods beautiful written forms and knowledge, is only held in less regard because something, (the one thing no one can really tell you why) about christianity judaism galvanised people better(Darwinian sense not morally good) and longer to have it last out is pretty much the only reason people now hold onto. Those historical legs of monotheism have been run ragged, and are still performing but Im afraid in truth, this is all people now cling to, when talking about the context of what we know from observation historical records and our own improvement and efficiency in technology and understanding of the nature and the real world (without psychological sciences attempts to subvert that). There is nothing wrong with religiosity, as there is nothing wrong with conservatism, or any ideal held as long as it can be held up to any criticism and skepticism within the framework we now know works and has been tested. Somethings might be to far away or we too limited to get past but that shouldnt mean a throwing of what we know works and resorting to the myths of our ancestors. In a continuum of time and with the clear understanding of the past it should not surprise us to see the shrinking of god as the absolute ruler of this reality, and the more reasonable attributation of personal needs to ones own self or god as a means of improvement. One last thing, whenever god is used to exclaim bad actions or terrorism we should not let this escape the senstivities of the people of that religion or religons in general. If you make the claim we are made from god, which ever one, and he is real you cant then disclaim him or his followers when it doesnt suit you for risk management. This corruption shows up the very nature that you say god is universally relevant to our planet and ourselves. You must say yes this man a follower of god did this wrong thing.
For the full video, more debates and a bonus clip from Derren and Richard about the funny side of death sign up www.thebigconversation.show
Would you guys PLEASE set up a conversation between Jordan Peterson and Derren Brown, as well as one with Jordan and Ricard Coles?
Martin , you have just asserted something as fact - can you not understand that not everything in the Bible is fact and thats demonstrable as it contradicts itself on so many occasions that cant be reconciled , so your question is a non sequitur.
Shane L the sea of reeds is the correct translation and the Jews referred to the Red Sea that goes north and separates the Sinai from Saudi Arabia as the sea of reeds. So Exodus does show the correct translation in English by using 'Red Sea'. There is archaeological evidence that points to a crossing there and a large Jewish existence in the west of Saudi Arabia. That is the intriguing thing, there is a lot of circumstancial archaeological evidence that points to Joseph through to Moses and the pharaoh Thutmose III.
We dont have reliable evidence that Moses even existed !
jon fromtheUK no but we have no evidence, even circumstancial, at all that he did not exist either. Egyptians never proclaimed their defeats and losses but there is strong evidence of Semetics settling in northern Egypt one of which was the son of Jacob and was a high official. A Semetic who died at that time was allowed to be buried in a lavish tomb having lived in a mansion (the bones of whom are missing). This was followed by slavery of Semetics which suddenly stopped in Thutmose III's time. There is then evidence of a crossing of the red Sea, and in addition markers set up by Solomon at that point referring to this crossing with evidence of many Jews living In one place in Saudi Arabia, that fit Exodus, etc. As you stated, there is no direct evidence whatsoever but there is evidence of Semetics doing what is explained in late Genesis and Exodus. Given that archaeology where it does provide direct reliable evidence always corroborates the bible fully as an accurate historical document back to King David and in addition this Egyptian time line perfectly fits the destruction of Jericho, etc. then it would be accepted as fairly reasonable proof by normal scholar that Exodus did in fact happen. It never will be though because it is the most bound up story of divinity in the Tanakh, even though the same scholars accept stories of other ancient civilisations that include large aspects of divinity.
I much admire the moderator, it is a rare quality to stay so unbiased and ask genuinely insightful questions to both sides that are both critical and respectful. If you are reading this, mate, chapeau.
don't be fooled, he's good at appearing unbiased while being biased. watch more derren brown if you want to learn more about when people are pulling the wool over your eyes. watch his interuptions in particular, and the number of times "we'll come back to that" but doesn't.....don't get me wrong he's better than most and i like him, watched numerous debates witth him moderating, everybody says the same thing you have, but i say the same thing i have, he's biased, just more subtle than most, i'm not sure if he's aware himself he's doing it, but he's doing it.
@@HarryNicNicholas everyone is biased.
Just lovely, British gentleman holding a civilised discourse. They easily reached some profound moments and so lovely to witness the respect flowing between them and seemingly a true desire to understand the point of view of the other.
SO much more enjoyable than the usually armed and aggressive bashing of one side by the other - more such pairings please!
Depends what you mean by British. Do you mean Norman raiders, Saxon raiders, Celts? Wink wink.
👍🏼🌅
@@TheClassicWorld
✌️How far back shall we go, Neanderthal? wink wink 😉
I am a Christian and I have always loved Derren Brown and his shows.
you don't have to "out" yourself, emjoyment is allowed.
I love magic acts. Derren is great. Unfortunately, once they get successful they think they are experts on the philosophy of God which is really strange because most have high school diplomas and haven't a clue except that they fool people. I guess actors/actresses/sports athletes, etc... all go through similar syndromes. Trying to make up for their guilt of making so much money doing something so trite for a living?
I am a Gnostic I met him years ago and said to him why do you not take your show to America they will love you there. He replied, I am doing nicely here. 12 months later he was in America I also worked as a Clinical Hypnotherapist.
Richard Coles has such a charming and pleasant character, and so articulate. I also have huge respect for Deren Brown for how he approached this.
Reverend Richard Coles is the kind of sophisticated I genuinely like listening to.
Love this conversations. Huge fan of Derren Brown, and am a christian. I love hearing both sides of any argument, and this was a prime example of one.
I just love the fact that both men have very different views but can still respect each others beliefs. They maintain totally civil discourse and become aware and open of the similarities in their views. It is beautiful to watch.
I'm not a Christian, I'm an atheist, but Richard Coles lays out the best case for Christianity I think I've heard here. Intelligent, thoughtful, humorous - what a wonderful discussion. If only this was how all debates were conducted we'd be living in a much better, and richer world.
The Rev. Richard Coles might be my favourite person on the planet right now.
I know what you mean.
Polite. Profound. Articulate. A true exposition of open-minded, non-judgmental inquiry by two people who respect each other and are genuinely interested in the others viewpoint.
Refreshing, isn't it?
Haha. Derren Brown resisting the urge to turn everyone into his slaves. Guy's a national treasure.
"and sleep" now, as i was saying, send cheques to.... i wouldn't be able to resist.
Another atheist subscriber! Great conversations, great show. Great to see profound and respectful dialogue across the divide.
A Smart and well thought out conversation! God Bless.
I agree. God b less
Would like to see Derren Brown take on Jordan Peterson...
growlinghands They would agree about most things....Derren is saying a lot that Peterson says...just from a different perspective....
I'm sure Uri Geller liked to think he was on par with the Amazing Randi...
I'm not a Peterson supporter, but if you are you might like the discussion between him and Aubrey Marcus - he is very relaxed and they have an interesting discussion. After watching it I understood much better why people like Peterson.
th-cam.com/video/BymDPZ7TyNM/w-d-xo.html
growlinghands I love how subtile you said what you said...
growlinghands btw Derren Brown just shared a talk between Peterson and Harris on facebook. Maybe we give the too much credit 😂
Cole has gone up 1000% to me. How he responds is poetry
If he does then he is the devil in disguise, his ideology supports the misgivings of a racist, genocidal, totalitarian egoist. Its name is Yahweh, and his book is the bible. No matter how sweet the proponent of a religion appears, i can not abide by the fact that they are supporting, whether they realize it or not, a malevolent ideological principle.
A magician and a priest, it's an illusionist bonanza! Life after death v.s. life after getting sawed in half. well done!
Perhaps you should read some of the Stoic writings, then you will realize that one should not take themself so seriously. Chill out, he is one of my heros too. I'm serious about the stoic part tho. My rip was on the priest.
Death is illusion like being sawed in half?
😂😂😂
a magician a preist and a belief system go into a pub....
Not one christian in the room either. Two fakes and Derren.
Glad Derren didn't storm in like a new-atheist warrior. He was very reflective and nuanced. Bring on the Brown-Peterson podcast
Ironically you do exactly what you aim to, or already seem hard-wired to, parody. Keep in mind that it's always a projection of yourself by you types anyway... Grow up. The world is not just your YT recommendations and starting page.
Wonderful conversation. The first discussion on this channel where both people appeared to use the same language and understood each other completely. Very fruitful. My thoughts:
51:50 Good observation (the fact that this is symptomatic of our times). We live in the age of individualism. We no longer relate to the symbols and rituals that propped up our greatest myths in the past. In an age where god is dead (as well as culture, community or any other secular meaningful endeavor), we can only relate to the _individual_. We have become too aware of symbolism, its history and its purpose (to reinforce otherwise ethereal myths). In other words, we now know how the sausage is made, and so every attempt at symbolism is contrived. The cross has become something you wear around your neck, your countries flag has become something you wear on a t-shirt, yet zeal for god and country seem to be a novelty. This is all a product of our progress in thought, from all disciplines. The more we know, the more we must discard old ideas: increased nuance in thought means increased uncertainty. We're continuously pushing ourselves ever closer to the void (we're still digesting that fruit from the tree of knowledge), and so institutions rely ever more on the power of symbols to compensate for the diminished draw that myths now have. Think about all the iconic consumerist symbols, like designer brands and luxury vehicles, and how they have forced religion to compete on their terms. I guess it's not totally unprecedented: think of the gigantic stone and marble monuments attributed to gods, men and nations, like the pyramids, etc.
56:36 Astute observations once again. He even slips out that "death" is at the core of these issues of meaning.
I appreciate Derren Brown coming on and doing this interview. His book Trick of the Mind and his videos have been a key voice in why I had left my christian background. I'm happy to see him take an open-minded stance on meaning rather than go towards the modern reductionist claims. There is so much meaning to be found in life outside of institutions and dogma.
Derren should do an interview with Jordan Peterson. I'd like to see them talk.
I think living a spiritual life doesn't necessary need any mystical power or a big guy that create everything. But life and nature is a remarkable thing, and what is GOD really. Having so many type of life form on Earth, this is the power of nature , and if you ask me, this is GOD. Having the appreciation of life and nature, I think this is what spiritual mean to me. And different religion today, I feel that it is just different flavour of the spiritual path, but it is not necessary, and the true teaching in the religion is what is important.
i think what's happened, particularly in the states, is that belief and atheism have become polarised, i've mentioned in comments already in the states they take religion much more seriously, way too seriously in some cases, whereas in the UK i think even most of the church takes religion with a pinch of salt, we are much more open to science and the church doesn't do a lot of gymnastics to include science, whereas in the US religion has been hijacked by politics and the polarity has been ramped right up.
again i've been saying JP is a carnival act, he has a random house dictionary collection for a brain but at the end of the day he's there to sell you a book. having said that i watched him in conversation with eric (or his brother, i get their names mixed up) weinstein on the joe rogan show and i didn't find myself disagreeing with anything he said, a three hour show, on topical matters he makes an awful lot of sense and some really sharp points. but - book sale please. :)
@Llucius1 I agree with that. I think you can be "spiritual" without believing in any mystical forces. It can simply be your view of the world, your creativity, and how you experience life. I know it's very general, and some people may believe that a God is required to be spiritual, but I very much consider myself a spiritual atheist.
Derren puts his finger on the dichotomy of the key question at 33:30 in that in our modern times we have outgrown the existential transcendental nature of the epistemology and psychology of Christianity and that it doesn't provide for many the belief or meaning that they did for earlier eras.
Much more interesting than the Peterson/Harris debates anyway...
Agree, High brow conversation doesn’t always entertain!
These chaps are way too civilised and respectful!!
Can one really be too civilized?
A polite discussion on such subject. Is it a sign that the end is near?
I love it.
I really really like you Richard Coles. Pete 🇬🇧
I would love to see derren in a serious debate on religion! He'll crush his opponent so badly!!!
brilliant
Great conversation. Mr Cole strikes that dissonant note of knowingness of his god, that always follow christians, but there is a nearly harmonious ringing between these two contemplative guys. Often people who have lived a life of excess debauchery, etc seem to need to put a face on the one whom they wish to repent to, to wash their hands of those indiscretions. Thanks for this program.
I wouldn’t ever try to debate Derren Brown on anything. The guy is a genius and charming advocate for whatever he’s arguing for.
I don't understand how Derren Brown looks simultaneously friendly and evil :D
Because you know what he's capable of doing 😂😂😂
Because hes a sociopath
That’s how he wanted you to perceive him 😉
*vin diesel voice* "it's an atheist thing"
Why is the podcast on the podcast app 1hr and half and this is just over an hour.
Stoicism is presented by Derren Brown as a secular philosophy; but some of the most important Stoic thinkers, such as Epictetus, were clearly religious thinkers who believed in God (or something approximating what we usually mean by God). The universe is seen as a manifestation of mind or logos.
That is nothing like what 'we' mean by 'God'. Alan Watts spoke of this clearly. The West has completely ruined what 'God' means. Although, in pre-history, 'God' would have meant 'nature' or such, to the tribes of the West some 3,000 years ago. This we have a strong idea of. Again, many people speak about this, as well.
Alan Watts? You mean the hippy charlatan? He was a half-decent populariser- and by no means an expert on Western Theology. The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church have much in common with Islamic and Indian conceptions of God, such as Advaita Vedanta (sat chit ananda). I am not sure what Mr Watts really means- unless he means "God" as understood in the popular imagination, rather than in formal theology?
No idea why you think he is a charlatan. No evidence of this to my knowledge. And, the Islamic and Catholic gods are completely different from the Indian gods. To make clear to you, Alan is talking about the Catholic/Christian god. That being, the divine, all-knowing, actual being/entity, which moves things and makes actions within the real world. In short, the personal, monotheistic god. India does not have personal monotheistic gods. And, of course, the Islamic and Catholic gods are a bit different in both theory and practice (and the religions are quite different, even though Islam is, of course, based on Judeo-Christian mythology). I also fail to see what Islam has to do with anything (I assume its Eastern nature) but, of course, Islam is very Western. Non-Western or at least non-modern gods would be the Greek gods, the African, the Indian, the Chinese, and Japanese gods, for the most part. These being impersonal, oftentimes, non-theistic gods.
With all due respect you have a singularly naive understanding of monotheism as understood by Jews, Christians and Muslims. You appear to assume that Christians think of God as a maximally powerful disembodied person (theistic personalism); but if you consult the tradition you will discover that mainstream Catholic and Orthodox theology is radically apophatic: we know that God exists but we do not know what God is. Thomas Aquinas, for instance, was agnostic as to the nature or essence of God. Gregory of Nyssa taught that our incomprehension of God is our comprehension of God, paradoxically. Yes, of course there are substantial theological differences between Judaism, Christianity and Islam, but nevertheless there is a broad area of agreement which I would categorise as "classical theism". Professor David Bentley Hart (Notre Dame University) outlines this in his book The Experience of God. The framework he uses for his book on classical theism is precisely that of Advaita Vedanta (Indian/Hindu): Sat (being) Chit (consciousness) and bliss (love). One finds this triad in all the great theologians: in Augustine, in Ibn Arabi, and in Jewish thinkers as well.
To describe non-Western forms of religion as non-theistic is merely to subsume these religions under Western categories. Again D B Hart in the above mentioned book points to a number of Mahayana Buddhist conceptions of ultimate reality that are fully consonant with classical theism, as mentioned above. The personal/impersonal dichotomy assumes that Christian religion believes God to be somehow a "person" but this really is just a form of anthropomorphism (as the Church Fathers make clear). Islam is even clearly that God is _not_ a person. However, neither is God sub-personal. God is by definition sui generis; outside all of our categories.
I think we find meaning when we truly come to know Jesus by faith and repentance as He is our creator!
@Marianne Havisham I agree that there are lots of ways people find meaning, but I think they are all limited and temporary, whereas true eternal meaning we find in God's plan for us as He was the one who created us and knows best!
I'd love to see Derren Brown - Jordan Peterson debating fate.
Christian Arroyo I'm very biased but I think Peterson has the upper hand
Or he would if they had a debate 😂😂
Like I've said in another comment - upper hand intellectually but psychologically (usually his forte) the professor, for the first time, would be out of his depth.
I couldn't care less. J.P. is a run-of-the-mill, maybe even discrediting psychologist/psychiatrist. It's not an accident that he's a hero or intellectual "god" for retards who neither have ever seen a university from inside nor read a book, but hang around on YT all day (and debate gutter-ideologies, as a delusional expression of their own Freudian shortcomings and immaturity, ironically, and pseudo-intellectual topics like atheism vs. religion).
Once Peterson starts talking religion he turns into an idiot. He comes across as disingenuous to me.
Love this. :)
Yes. The answer is Yes.
"Hmm" -Derren Brown
It always surprises me when I hear people saying what a nice man that priest or vicar is , have you ever met a rude inpolite salesman before youv purchased the car ? as I have not , or a conman with no likeable personality 🤔, religious preachers are human and obviously are open to the feeling of power and Influence aswell as having a standing within a community , buy above all that they are salespeople
Good stuff!
CoE. It’s a comfort for the older lady.
In Unbelievable?'s first video with Jordan Peterson, Peterson quickly answers the question being asked in this video. His response: "God is what you use to make sense of your life. You have a hierarchy of values and the value at the top serves the function of god for you..."
In other words, the meaning in your life is derived from your set of values and the most important value serves as god. In this sense, Christ is the embodiment of top tier values, so to speak - the values that a vast majority of people see as "good". You can never embody all of these values ( you will never be god ) but you can embody some of those values ( you can be close to god ).
Yes, but that clearly has nothing at all to do with Christ or God or the Romans, therefore, it means nothing and you can't use that as a Christian arugment.
The public debate and exchanges with folk who express a view, I wouldn't want a God who is unfeeling and vindictive either. So my understanding was a gradual awakening over many years of questioning why I was born? The purpose of all of us was first revealed when Adam made out of the dust and the breathe of God was life giving choice by the Godhead.. NAMELY let us make man in our image. With a ability to hear instruction and make choices. All the animals were if not loyal certainly no threat. EVE was a help meet to Adam and completed him. I was just wrapped up under Adam,`s curse, along with everyone else sin pays wages, death and separation eternally from my Creator. Denying by my behaviour lifestyle, God`s authority to speak into my life. It was reading the Bible for myself that confirmed my belief in a higher power that had intervened and rescued me from danger death disease and doom. Ask Yourself are you unbelieving and wiser than so many folk who acknowledge that all the wonders of this planet and continual expanding knowledge still we can't bring and end to greed and corruption in ourselves How much disposable entertainment will satisfy? JESUS had to pray and mothers in labour know anguish and anxiety. When the child is delivered, the pain may lessen but the ordeal of nurturing a child, has to be taken seriously. I'm a born again sinner, a recipient of grace mercy and peace. And the object of my faith is the character of God. You will find Him if you seek Him with the goal of knowing the truth for certain. And freedom is living a life that honours your heart/conscience.
Of course we can and do have meaning without god .
Without "a" god....we as humans have many... and are mostly picked geographically and often not even our own decision but instructed by the specific country we happen to be born in. It's a nonscence , a crutch and a disciplinarian technique used to hang over a society.
Without God, we have nothing. Literally. Nothing exists without Him.
Happiness is fine but one has to be aware that what you deem brings happiness must not negatively affect the community as a whole. The problem is that many ignore that and apply subjective morality to this which will always fail. Objective ethics actually meet these issues and I've found judeochristian beliefs specifically meet these.
I am a stoic at heart but I have also through becoming a Christian become more aware of these philisophical issues and found the natural happiness in who I am, even though I don't love who I am, I am happy in trying to become a better person for the benefit of others.
You prove only one thing: you are no different to all the other mindless, lost apes.
In the same thought, you state the following: 1. I am a Stoic. 2. I am a Christian. 3. I don't love myself. 4. I am happy in trying to become a better person. What an emotional and intellectual sad mess, indeed. Also, to make you feel even better, and it will in the end, in fact. God or whatever you want, itself is subjective morality, by definition.
Retro Workshop subjective morality is false. Plain and simple. I know who I am, I don't need materialism to find happiness and I love those who are close to me. Most people fail to reach this state because they are groundless and have yet to know themselves and what is important in life
There is nothing wonderful in what I have done - I have just made the journey that I needed to make. Unfortunately many people have not and our current culture does not help people in anyway - it promotes stardom where there is little to admire, materialism that adds no true value to life and egotistical individualism without any guidance to benefit from the freedom it gives.
I’d love to challenge Darren on a lot of his assumptions/beliefs on what Christianity is
Its different for everybody, its all about perspectives.
@@mycologist1372 truth is objective, not subjective so you’re wrong.
@@Matthew24.4 , Some truth is personal, some is universal
@@Matthew24.4 how do you mean? Can you offer an example - I'm not sure I agree with your opinion so am very interested to understand your point of view
I came to a profound realisation a few weeks ago. Let me explain.. Here in kildare Ireland there's a story about a man called Dan donnely he was a boxer he fraught another man on the curragh in a place now called donnelys hollows as a kid we would go there for picnics and I guess when someone was telling me the story that did happen in the early 1900s or I was hearing adults speaking about him so I guess what happened was I heard someone say something like Dan donnely was a giant of a man... I always thought that he was an actual giant made more plausible by the fact after his death some doctor took his arm it was on display in a pub for years till it was taken to the States.. But I as a kid assumed that was because he was so huge... It wasn't I made a lot of childhood assumptions about all sorts... So time passed I raised my daughter and her aunt was always with us.. So I came across a piece on Dan donnely who was not a giant but a boxer they took the right arm that won the boxing match so I asked the girls who they taught he was they both said a giant... If I can by mistake change who n what a man was for the next generation and have no clue I'm doing so how can we believe any history from thousands of years back when in 1 generation 1 person can change so many facts as humans we imbelish we add stuff so how can we believe any even written word knowing how this can work against us even with the best of intentions it's impossible... Its all impossible.. To belive humans didn't add with every generation who told all the stories from history be it religion or politics or just life...... Love derren brown never knew the TV mass priest was 1 of the comunards mad...
got as far as "let me explain" and got bored, maybe a creative writing course? start with a car chase next time.
When you think about it religious belief is all about emotion getting in the way of logic?
john hammond indeed 👍
A scientific person would say; the energy of the universe is not outside us, it’s in us and through us.
A religious person would say;
the energy of God is not outside us, he is in us and through us.
We're a story we tell ourself.
Richard Coles always reminds me of a religious Richard Osman. Just in the way Jimmy Somerville reminds me of Wayne Rooney. But without God involved. Or something. 😳
The Church is the external objectivization of our categories of pure Reason. The difference lies in the form alone; the content is one and the same.
I could feel the tension why did they have to have a mediator it would of been better to let them talk it sort of ruined it was a very polite conversation I could see Derren holding back when they had to try and convince him about God I don’t know 🤷♂️ I like Micheal and Derren
Belief is only relevant from the perspective of honest learning. Once belief is discussed in terms of motivation, that which is discussed is not belief at all. Derren is speaking from his own honesty, which I appreciate, yet this reveals him. I find this form of supposed respect, which Darren holds, to be the ultimate condescendance and the ultimate disrespect; even to the extant that Derren is not discussing anything of who a Christian is. He is believing, simply, that Christians do not exist, and for this reason he is not saying anything of any value about personality, because personhood is a real phenomenon and Derren does not believe in one bit of Reality.
It's true that all institutions, except the Holy Spirit Of Christ All Truth, are demonic. On this topic Derren truely speaks and has much insight; and this is due to the demonic nature of what he is. I'm not using the word demonic to cast accusation, but rather in the same clarity in which it was used in the conversation. This contrast between unbelief in the persons of Christians and full insightful awareness of unChristian yet supposedly Christian institutions; this contrast clearly demonstrates the darkness of the worldly perspective. The valuing of subjective supposition is perfectly contrary to belief in Christ, so that hard-line atheists are actually far less deep in darkness than adherents to subjective values.
We see that there is no debate here because Derren is so absent of Truth claim there is nothing to debate. Subjective meaning is less meaningful than incorrect objective meaning, and subjective "theistic" considerations are far more atheistic than objective atheism. Any objectivity is ultimately a portion of theism, ultimate objectivity is ultimate theism, so that true Christianity is the most objective personality type there is.
This really explains why "science" has become more a name for a religious myth-system than it is a name for an objective process; and this is why the best scientists of objective processing are true Christians, because science and true Christianity are both purely self-honest interactions with The Spirit Of Truth. It's due to objectivity that God is not a respecter of persons.
Lastly this calls notice to the fact that false Christians are not truely Christian. We see Derren holds full respect for the persons of false Christians, yet in blindness he has zero respect for true Christianity; indeed he cannot even imagine the Reality of true Christians. If Derren could imagine true Christianity, I'm certain imagination would graduate into learning and thus into passing from death into Life; such is to be taken captive by Christ.
Much love to all ♥️.
"like my experience with KFC"
Joshua Lamsdale It's finger lickin' good 👍
Nuggets of truth
‘ Meaning ‘ is a product of interpretation.
Has Ravi Zacharias been on this channel? I'd love to see him, Andu Murray, and Vince Vitale talk. I'm a new subscriber and enjoy Unbelievable's content!
That's not going to happen now
It was Victor Frankl who said he who can find meaning can bear almost ........
I really like to know if Derren Brown ever used psychedelics. I also didn't believe the fairytailes in the bible. But after psycedelics my perception was changed. I didn't believe like god is a man or heaven and hell like christianity but from a different point of view. You can experience that love is the source of everything and that it is yourself who create a heaven and hell here on earth and that i am everything. And maybe it in my brain but you can experience this and you know that the fairytailes are true even if it is real or not.
Agreed, it is funny that we say, May your kingdom come, on Earth as if in Heaven. Yet, everyone just focus on afterlife and throw their lives away. I don't know if there is afterlife , but I do think that everything on Earth is just a recycle. If I appreciate my life and live the best of this life, no matter there is or not a afterlife, that is not important at all. The journey counts, that is what that matter.
Wohooo!
Derren said people without meaning in their lives are likely to throw themselves off buildings and credit to Richard ,reminded him that people with deep meaning throw other people off buildings . Derren seems to be saying that people’s supernatural beliefs have utility ,I’m not convinced
Why not convinced? The mere existence of religion proves it has a value. What you might be trying to say is that your world view is even better than all sorts of religious world view. Of that I am not convinced.
Morten Simonsen not sure the existence of something does prove it has value. I might be trying say that my worldview is better ,again I’m not sure ,not being convinced is a worldview ,I just think of myself as a truth seeker but you and I being in the position were we are not easily convinced of things I think make us less likely to be delusional. Cheers.
Paul Andrews: I love truth seekers! Nothing is better. I say that as a Christian. However, if I were Nietzsche I wouldn't have said the same - I would have swallowed the blue pill (Matrix-movie reference). That is to say - truth seeking is perfectly fine when the ultimate truth is good.
That aside, let me focus on your objection to the value of religious world-view: From a natural, evolutionary perspective; everything that survives has proven it's worth. Religion has permeated human culture for a reason: it has been valueable to people. I cannot see how a believer (like Dawkins) in evolution can refute that.
From a more philosophical angle, I would suggest that what religion offers is the broadest possible world-view - the backdrop of our existence - to it's "users". Since humans think, they naturally ask: Where do we come from? And religion is an answer to that - right or wrong. It simply fills in the missing pieces, and even if the pieces are wrong, it seems better to people than no pieces at all (agnosticism).
If you look at religion like a product, the "agnosticism-world-view" can only stand a chance if people do not have much to worry about. You're only sales pitch for uncertainty is really the "Truth" - we should stay undecided if we don't know.
If you are an honest truth-seeker, please state your world-view to make it open for scrutiny.
Morten Simonsen .A lot there will hit main points
1st paragraph. I replaced Christian with Mormon and sent it to my Mormon friend he agreed completely.
2nd paragraph. As religious views dwindle in western societies will we judge it as being worthy but ultimately wrong, although islam is a fast growing religion and my prove its worth I’m not convinced.
3rd paragraph. Religions do seem to offer whatever people seek but to me right or wrong question is more important as I think it is more important to believe true things.
4th paragraph. Not quite sure what you’re saying here but I do think it’s a healthy position to hold to say we should stay undecided if we don’t know.
5th paragraph . We both hope I’m not a dishonest truth seeker lol. I don’t have a single worldview as my views are diverse. The one that is of interest to you is that I don’t believe the supernatural exists. My definition of a truth seeker means I start from the standpoint that I could be wrong, are you a truth seeker from my standpoint. Cheers.
Paul Andrews:
1st paragraph: Quite understandable. What do you think of it?
2nd paragraph: You agree it might be worthy? Hard to understand your viewpoint there.
3rd paragraph: Truth is of ultimate importance to you - so that's part of your worldview. That's what I gather from your writing here. It points back to paragraph 1 - do you seek truth even if that truth will tell you meaning, love and purpose are null and void? This ties in with the 4th paragraph - essentially the same question. Please answer why truth is of ultimate importance.
5th paragraph: We now have established two things about your worldview: You believe pursuing truth is good in itself AND that no supernatural exists.
Just to clarify:
5.1 Are mathematics and logic supernatural? If the answer is no, are they natural things? Do they exist apart from us finding out about them, or are they constructs that somehow fit us?
5.2 Is love supernatural or just an illusion or something else?
5.3 Do you have free will or are you a robot?
5.4 Is your view that the universe is uncaused or from eternity (which is the same as uncaused)?
Happy to discuss this, if you are interested.
Kind regards
Morten S
Wasn't much of a debate, both always meeting in the middle where no actual ideas appears to weigh more than the other in the protagonists mind. I think positive and respectful debates can happen but you have to have ideas that you are actually deeply convinced about for that to happen I guess...
True but it's a better start then the shouting match most others have. I like to see debates like when fry and hitchens decimated the catholic church because they deserved to be taught some humility after what had happened and came to light. It was fun entertainment but no catholic watched it and changed their minds, neither will this over night but a few who grew up in it might experience a snowball effect which is the most reasonable outcome u can expect.
Ninja Briana , I strongly agree with here (not even using the tip you're giving above here to give in a little to the other one's idea 😉. I just had the impression here that none of them held strongly to any idea in particular. But that's what it is, only an impression as I don't know their hearts...
You must have missed the _very_ deep and meaningful discussion underneath their muted tones: _way_ more important than the spectacle of sophistry.
Philippe Larose
I don't think it's a debate.... it more resembles a conversation.
50:20 can I just also say Derren, that whilst you may have been a church goer, I don’t think it’s possible that you were ever actually a Christian. You see it’s not about what you do, it’s about what you believe, and if you actually believe that Jesus is God and that he died and rose again, then an actual spiritual transformation happens which it seems you never actually experienced. This is what Richard speaks about in his religious experience, he was clearly born again and met with God. You need to have this experience before any of Christianity will find genuine meaning and expression in your life.
It's remarkable and beyond ironic that you don't see the problem with your logic there -- if you can call it logic.
Utterly mindless. Alas, not even your own words, for you just spoke the words of every Christian, they too, were forced to believe and say them without thought or regard.
Retro Workshop forced to believe!? That’s laughable! You really have no insight whatsoever as to what it is to be Christian do you?! The reason we all say the same thing, is because we all individually see it to be true, not because we all belong to the same cult! Ha! Don’t you know how diverse christianity is? You’ll struggle to find two christians who believe the same thing about anything! Ha!
Do you see how ironic that is? No, as always. I really want to 'force' you to re-read 'you have no insight whatsoever as to what it is to be Christian do you?', over and over again until you see the problems with it -- and there are many.
1. What if I am or have been one, thus do have insight, by definition?
2. What if I know what they believe and what their religions say, thus, by definition, have insight?
3. What if I know what they believe and how they act in the real world through personal experience, studies, and otherwise data collection, thus, by definition, have insight, regardless of what you think they believe or what books say about them?
4. What if I know the history of the creation of its many stripes and the fellow monotheisms, and where it got all its myths and histories from, and thus, by definition, have insight?
5. What if I live in a Christian country, which has been one of the main 'homes' of Christianity for over 500 years, and helped spread it across much of the world, and thus, have insight?
Not to mention the rest of what you said is complete nonsense. And it's amazing you think that helps your case, that no two Christians can agree on anything or even believe the same thing.
Question: How can Christianity be true or even meaningful if none of them can even agree with one another within the same type (such as two Muslims killing each other for one of them being 'the wrong kind of Muslim').
I wonder if you know the history... that it was invented by the Romans in two forms, 300 years part, Christianity and Catholicism. That there are half a dozen forms of Christianity all claiming to be the one true form. The Mormons believe they are correct and the correct kind and the other Christians are wrong, for example.
You will struggle to find any truth, insight, morality, science, or consistency of any kind in any of the Christian works, texts, sects, churches, and so on. How you think this means anything at all, let alone its truthfulness is beyond me... you may as well talk to me about Islam -- it's just as insane and self-evidenrly man-made.
Retro Workshop You might be able to demonstrate the you have knowledge and information, but I stand by my statement that you lack insight.
@@TheClassicWorld
Just because Christian sects disagree with each other, how do you conclude that Christianity is false? It all goes back the new testament itself which dates less than 100 years after Jesus' death. You can know which "Christian" sects are inconsistent with biblical teachings. For example, Roman Catholics believe in the Trinity, despite the fact it is nowhere to be found in scripture, for there are persuasive verses that undermine that doctrine. That is how you test out modern-day doctrines of Christendom, you simply read the Bible and compare with today. If anything, I think me and you can agree that the vast majority of Christian sects contradict the Bible, however, you must not dismiss a faith because of petty infighting.
I really like DB and RC (as much as you ever can with TV personalities that you actually know very little about), but I find that I disagree with almost everthing that RC states. For example, a moral compass does not need religion at all, and that is very clear - but this question is side-stepped with an anecdote about ... doing unto others.
Can we have meaning without God?
That is a question that assumes that "God" is not the meaning, which it is.
'My Dinner with Derren.'
I regularly have moments of profound awe. These arise from the extraordinary fact of being alive, however briefly, in a universe that is vast and complex beyond our (present) understanding.
I don’t believe any deities exist. Not just because there’s no evidence for any of these beings but also because the idea of a god diminishes the magnificence and glorious mystery of the universe and our own existence.
I find it embarrassing that grown men can spend so much time poring over what is, for me, a fairytale, no more to be believed than that Hogwarts exists and pupils are assignedvto their houses by The Sorting Hat.
All religion is manmade and almost exclusively, and especially in the cases of christianity and islam, created by profoundly ignorant men.
Discussion of religious tenets is interesting but only for evoking wonder that so many humans remain so profoundly easy to lead to make-believe.
interesting but they never got to the question in hand...
there is no god, okay?
I dont have any meaning or purpose and i am not going t hurl myself off any building.
Moses myth originates from a previous about the son who Egyptian Goddess Ishtar adopted. Same details. Put in a basket by an ordinary woman floated up a river etc..
Nice and civilised. Almost boring..
I love Darren, but his ideas are not very articulate and it's quite apparent that his learning on the subject is quite limited. The other gentleman also reveals a bit of misguided views of the biblical writings. That said, I really appreciated the discussion and got a few takeaways. Thank you!
I didn't know they (communards) were a 'gay' band and frankly even if I did I don't think it would have made me feel any different. Why should it, it's about people, human beings doing their thing, in Richard's case it was music and you either liked or didn't like the music, and as a practising Christian or any faith your orientation toward another sex is utterly unimportant in my eyes, and that applies in any facet of life. Sadly that doesn't for some inckyding certain 'religions'.
Great chat between them.
here's the quick answer. we don't know. that's all there is.
Typical route to religion. Hedonism, followed by the realisation that it is an empty life without meaning, seduced by the woo of religion, meaning and a higher power. A cop out, as far as I'm concerned.
Interesting that Justin (married to a femaie Minister) provides the platform to an openly gay atheist, and an openly gay Minister who lived with his civil partner whilst being a minister.
It was a thoroughly interesting conversation, however, it does also create the appearance that all of those positions are usual and accepted forms of Christianity.
Are they?
This is a serious question.
In america, particularly among the american fundamentalist movement it isn't the usual and accepted. I think it's more accepted among the european protestants.
Richard is like all theists , absolutely delusional. How can he state the fact that the resurrection seems "EXTREMELY unlikely " is part part of it's persuasivness ,and keep a straight face. This guy has came to religion in need of a crutch to help him deal with life and is prepared to move all the goalposts to make the narrative fit his chosen path. I wish him all the happiness he seeks but what a waste when someone chooses fiction over fact because of agenda. Also disappointed Derren let him of the hook so easily as I prefer a debate to a discussion. Richard spent two years praying in a monestry and didn't get "the returns" he thought he'd get , no shit, what a waste of two precious years.
Nail on the head in all respects.
I know it isn't real but I would really like to know how he does the faith healing trick with people who experience pain. To see if it's possible to trick your own brain to not feel, or notice chronic pain less.
Essentially you're swept up in the atmosphere of the ceremony and adrenaline does the rest. Simple tricks are also used like slide of hand and word play etc. IT can make pain go away but only temporarily. Also remember that the healer will pick specific people to heal. It's not like a gp surgery where you turn up, tell them what's wrong and they diagnose you and give you a fix of some sort. They don't touch those in wheelchairs or anything they can't cover up but they'll happily do people with back pain or classic uneven legs.
This has been known for 5,000 years. And, science does it all the time. Very easy to trick the brain, to feel less or more pain, and so on. All the brain. Nothing even special, let alone magically, about any of it. Of course, as many throughout history have noted, the only truly special thing about humans is twofold: we are the cruelest species, with taking pleasure in hurting others, and second, we have the ability to think about the fact we are thinking.
In a sense, hence the famous adages? 'Intelligence is evil.' 'To think is to suffer.' And so on.
ye, but knowing about old philosophy isn't going to help me from my very real chronic pain condition unless I can learn the technique.
Plus, he had the whole audience do the thought experiment, then hand picked those who reported a change, easy really with a crowd. Harder with one on one.
LOL, I come from Kettering.
happy clappy.. :)
I felt like Derren was very much pulling his punches here. The point he was trying to make, it seems to me, is that religious experience is an entirely subjective phenomenon. We are easily influenced by our beliefs and memories and people have a religious instinct, which, if left unfed, often leaves us profoundly unhappy. Derren meant that we need to cater to this instinct, because it is fundamental to our inner well-being, but ultimately it is satisfied by embracing a fiction. That is of course the tragedy of atheism. It's like giving up sex because you realise that actually every time you do it, you're just hallucinating.
From modern quantum electromagnetic physics' point of view, it won't hold water any longer to view God in the perspecitve of the third person historical figure or in the persepective of the second coming of Jesus. Jesus had taught his twelve disciples to see God from the first person in the present tense, that is, "I AM"
Saul had had his eyes covered under the veil until he had encoutered a light on the road to Damascus. Saul asked: "Who are you, Lord?"
The light replied and spoke Aramaic, "I AM Yahshua, whom you are persecuting. It is hard for you to kick against the pricks."
It is indeed useless to kick againt himself. Saul and Jesus are one in Spirit. There is no dualism between him and Jesus. This experience enlightened his eye of understanding that made his name changed into Paul who began to walk in the Spirit. There is no other God beside "I AM"
Shirely Bassey shouts at the top of her lung, "I AM what I AM."
you can have meaning but no ultimate meaning like we are just objects just trying to survive and live because we are here
darren brown is a much better dillahunty
Kevin Carter I think they both have alot to bring to the table but are just different I think...
Agreed - besides Dillahunty would not have allowed Richard to make so many assertions without asking how do you know after each answer!.
Dillahunty is a joke. His arguments have not evolved in 10 years and are still based on arguments that are no longer relevant. His discussion with Peterson shows how one-dimensional his arguments are and he completely failed to understand what Peterson was actually stating.
That because Peterson wasn't making any sense , for example you cannot give up smoking without a religious experience .........utter tosh
jon fromtheUK actually he was making perfect sense but was talking about a number of issues at the same time. All independent reviews of that meeting including between atheists agreed he was talking above Dillahunty's level, the only criticism he got was that he did not unpack it sufficiently because it was clear Dillahunty did not understand his multi-faceted arguments. I watched many reviews because people stated he did not make sense so I wanted to see if I read more into his arguments than what he actually said and watched key parts again but that was not the case. The only review that went against st this was by Dillahunty himself who stated he defended his position brilliantly and that Peterson was unable to win any real points. This fully confirmed the other reviews that stated that Dillahunty performed to his best level but literally missed the multi-faceted arguments of Peterson that clearly went over him.
Can we have meaning without God? Yes.
There you go. Easy wasn't it?
Prove that you have (found) meaning, to someone other than you.
Any time you reduce it to “There you go,” or worse, “Easy, wasn’t it?”, you have either lost meaning or deny that “Meaning” has meaning.
How to spell that word, aphylatis or whatever it is?
Philatelist is a fancy word for "stamp collector."
I Am
With all due respect to those without the information/evidence, I know someone who has seen an angel and my personal testimony is even greater than seeing an angel one time
Obviously seeing an angel grants special leverage to believe, but let's no be stupid now, God obviously exists
Eric Smyth I like your hidden sarcasm!
good for you, can you send one over to my place cos i have some questions. did you think to ask your angel if he has to go to the toilet, does god have to take breaks, does he delegate, and if he has a divine plan why is everyone trying to give him advice and get him to change it? can't wait for the answers.
I saw a Being in my bedroom one night it woke me up by whispering into my left ear and its voice sounded like it was underwater. We have these anecdotal experiences they get far more interesting when people are able to produce veridical information that is then corroborated by others as in the Pam Reynolds NDE. When you have these experiences you then experience Gnosis.
There was never a Jew named Jesus the Romans created him at Nicea in 324. You learn that when you understand that there is no letter J in the Hebrew alphabet and that J appeared in the English language as late as the early 17th century. For me, Christ is a State of Mind which everyone can attain to as everything emanates from Consciousness which is primary with matter being secondary. This is how the Gnostics knew God they never claimed to believe in God or have faith in God theirs was an intimate personal experience, you can have the same using entheogens and /or by experiencing an NDE.
I wonder if Derren's could replicate the Turin Shroud using ancient techniques / tools.
He can make you see the image of Christ in the text of yesterdays newsprint... does that count?
uh... no.
There is a reason Simon Magus talked big smack, and got smacked down.
There is a reason Derren sticks to the shallow end of the low-hanging fruit-pool, and doesn't dance with catholic heavy hitters like E. Mikey Jones or Mike Voris.
And mind you, I am a fan of Derren's. But not in this area. He's way out of his league. No amount of nu-age freemasonry based on Pythagoras's imaginary flying sky-turtles in time machines all the way down can float him in a head to head. Best for him to stick with random talk show hosts and pagan LARPing out here.
Slappy, you have to be the most delusional person I have ever seen. The line 'Catholic heavy hitters' alone is the most stupid thing any human has ever said... or close. Going for a Christ Award or something?
I hear your whining. It's why you are whining to me, as person most likely to win Devoutly Atheist Imaginary Sky-Chimp God of Booty Hurt Award, and not whining to Voris or Jones.
i can remember the period of my disassociation with god. i had recurrant dreams about dracula and me locking myself in a coffin and holding a loft a crucifix. I had quite a few and over a few dreams i started getting the effect that i was dracula, that was my inner belief slipping away. it was quite painless.
Responding to the topic: Yes of course you can. There. Done.
Cnith I agree.
doch 45:00 ups
28:31 No Derren, the deciphering factor between those things that we continue to accept and live by and those that we discard is not determined by an objective external morality, but by virtue of the different covenants that are given in the bible. Two very clear and different contracts are made between God and mankind. The Old Testament was for the Jews who lived before Jesus, and the new covenant is the post-cross reality that Jesus came to bring into effect. We don’t still accept an eye for an eye, because Jesus revealed that a greater reality is found in forgiveness. It pains me that so few Christians let alone atheists and agnostics understand this critical separation between texts within the bible, even within some of Jesus’ own teachings. In some places he speaks the law of Moses to the Jews, and in some places he reveals the new covenant message of grace to the gentiles.
Sceptics!?
We are primates and thats how it is . GET OVER IT
Would someone please call the dude with glasses a mouth breather already!😨.
Non Religious ✔
50:00
The majority of this conversation is bullet points. Almost every comment made by all parties could be discussed at great, great length: picked apart and unpacked and ultimately neither proved nor disproved. Who’s got the time, the resources, the platform or even the inclination?
Um, me. Since I think I disagree. Some things can easily be proven/disproved.
Cool. Good for you :)
This reverend will not stop your rights, will not lambast evolution, he will simply say god is love and who has to have a problem with that? This difference of cultures and adoption and adaptation of religious belief can be shown to nullify any real concerns one would have of religion playing out in a collective of people that hold stringent dogmas from 2000 years ago, that purposely commands to convict peoples actions in a moral structure that is now not as nuanced as the one we have carved out.
There is no evidence of god. Religious people have started to embark on a journey of trying to use science, and this hopefully will lead to a better theory for them and everyone whatever that maybe, however I worry that science will be as it can be so easily manipulated to look like it just supporting the bias of those religioous people. It seems to me that the religious scientist is a new attempt probably conscious from groups to make the intellectual argument and try to bend science to its favour.
Of course the one being that could prove Their existence to everyone and his followers seems to not want to play a part(strange as he was so active in the past), which is to no recourse of faith to the people who still commit everything to its existence. Derren makes a good point about cherry picking and that being an outside moral arbiter, and does somewhat imply within the context of reason of history its context and how we observe it going back hundreds of thousands of years for ourselves let alone for our genetic cousins into the millions and billions. I must remind people that god has nothing to say about this, nor does he lay out the future or indeed the co-ordinates of our position or our destination(something a universal creating celestial being would surely enthuse about). Instead he laments turn of the 1st millennium philosophies, and squirms about certain types of foods, and no greater than the men and women before the creator of the universe, and less poetic and meaningful until many more humans gives unto their meaning that makes it such, gods version is scrambled chaotic dry of morality and meaning.
The fact that this is ignored by religious people, the history of many civilizations before, galvanised by more ingenious building methods beautiful written forms and knowledge, is only held in less regard because something, (the one thing no one can really tell you why) about christianity judaism galvanised people better(Darwinian sense not morally good) and longer to have it last out is pretty much the only reason people now hold onto. Those historical legs of monotheism have been run ragged, and are still performing but Im afraid in truth, this is all people now cling to, when talking about the context of what we know from observation historical records and our own improvement and efficiency in technology and understanding of the nature and the real world (without psychological sciences attempts to subvert that).
There is nothing wrong with religiosity, as there is nothing wrong with conservatism, or any ideal held as long as it can be held up to any criticism and skepticism within the framework we now know works and has been tested. Somethings might be to far away or we too limited to get past but that shouldnt mean a throwing of what we know works and resorting to the myths of our ancestors. In a continuum of time and with the clear understanding of the past it should not surprise us to see the shrinking of god as the absolute ruler of this reality, and the more reasonable attributation of personal needs to ones own self or god as a means of improvement.
One last thing, whenever god is used to exclaim bad actions or terrorism we should not let this escape the senstivities of the people of that religion or religons in general. If you make the claim we are made from god, which ever one, and he is real you cant then disclaim him or his followers when it doesnt suit you for risk management. This corruption shows up the very nature that you say god is universally relevant to our planet and ourselves. You must say yes this man a follower of god did this wrong thing.
have Dr. Richard Carrier on!
36:22 What? He read a book and felt the reality of it. Wtf?