Soy alert. Wow he is so unique about changing his mind about religion as he got older! This is such a common phenomena its almost a cliche, mate look around, even on internet red pillers joke about women getting off ‘carousel’ and finding god later in their life. Its that common.
Christianity isn't about rituals though, it's literally about a man who claimed to be the God of Abraham in the flesh, was literally crucified by his own people for making that claim. His followers claim to have eye witnessed him risen from the dead, and were then willing to go out to the corners of the globe to tell people about it. Many even executed for it. At the end of the day, if your willing to accept that it is actual history, then you need to make a decision on who you believe Jesus is. He was either a lunatic and his followers made up a bunch of stuff, or he is God, in which case, what he said has got to be pretty important. Don't let someone else spoon feed you the answer.
Something destiny said was pretty accurate and it’s something a person told my fiancé, who’s Muslim and is “you’re lucky that you met Islam before you met Muslims”. Because damn, people that confuse culture with religion will ruin it very hard for you.
I've been an atheist for five years but I encountered Catholic theology recently and I've found it to be a stunningly competent thing, way more than I was expecting. I still have questions but now I really have something to grapple with.
@@spencerbuck1074 atheists love catholic theory because of it's roots in greek philosophy. i'm glad to hear that you're understanding what they're trying to say a little better now, and i hope you'll remember to carry your atheist's tools with you wherever you go from here: you'll still need 'em.
The ritual I most enjoy is during camping in cold weather. Chopping wood first thing in the morning in the dead silence is something you cant describe. You know you have to do it if you want breakfast, coffee, or warmth. But the satisfaction you get from working for it makes it 10x better. Bit of a departure from waking up in your house where everything is done for you.
I think you hit it right on the mark. I think the feeling that Destiny is trying to describe is the self satisfaction of earning your rewards. Going to a movie, you have to get in a car, drive to the theater, buy a ticket, then you watch the movie. This is opposed to turning on the tv and watching a movie. There is more effort one has to put into when going to a movie theater than watching a movie in your undies. Since you put more effort in, you feel more rewarded when watching the movie. Similar to when you chop wood while camping, you had to work to earn your breakfast rather than making it in your microwave
Tbone got it right, tasks like that which require effort, inuput and also especially tasks that are directly linked to living or staying alive (such as having to chop wood to be able to eat) release dopamine. The best meal ive ever eaten was while i was staying in the woods for 4 days in November. I had stayed the first night with a friend and then off the cuff another friend called and said he'd come down in a few days, first friend went after the first night and i just stayed in the woods and got really hungry, because i had no food, so i dug up a bunch of burdock roots got some nettles and caught 2 small crayfish (crawdads or whatever if you live in the US) No salt just nettle, burdock and crayfish soup, at the time it tasted better than anything id ever eaten, Because of the circumstances and the effort that went into getting that food. Dopamine receptors go burrrrr
I went through a similar track...I used to be anti religion and yes I will keep my old skepticism and logic but I can respect how religion has functioned and contributed to history from its philosophical thought to art to just providing a story to people
You keep going back to this “rEliGiOn hAs coNtRbuTed tO mAkiNg pEopLe hAvE mEanInG” It has not. Religious people are delusional they might tell you its helped but it hasent. If religion never existed You would see zero fucking change to how people act today and their desires. People don’t go in their mind and think of religion every single fucking time someone wants or does an action. Its more of a comfort thing that explains why people do what they do. They get a dopamine rush for doing something new. (Nothing to do with religion) And with that dopamine rush they start to engage in that activity. And since a human engages in an activity they enjoy they can expand on that activity which can lead to you liking something you never would have expected because some activities share things in common and that alone can drive people. Sometimes people can hate something and that can drive you. And after you have experienced most things all the things you liked will be added together and you will lean towards doing actions to get you the outcomes you liked. At no fucking point was the fairy tale useful or needed. And the only reason you guys think it helped is because it was there and its an easy answer to say.
Rabidly anti-religious people, in my experience, are pretty much the same kind of intolerant, arrogant bigots as hectoring evangelists. Extremists on the whole suck.
@@OdinWannaBe Yea this is just wrong and delusional. The same reasons human come together and work together is the same fucking reason other species come together and work together. You think a pack of wolves are thinking about god? LMAO.
Destiny, you're hitting on a lot of points the founder of philosophical Pragmatism William James did in regards to religion. I know nobody reads, but check out his 'Varieties of Religious Experience', as well as the philosophical schools of 'Fideism' and 'Reformed Epistemology'. James' position is that religious experiences seem to be an omnipresent aspect of the human experience, and that even rational actors can be stumped by them. As a psychologist, he wanted to work out what exactly was going on. He made sure to note two things, there is a difference between faith in doctrine, which he considered to be rote indoctrination, as it was merely the sociocultural lens through which religious experience and faith was magnified and structured around, and faith in personal experience with what one considers to be the divine. What you're hitting on when you say that 'there's something there' that can't just be irrational belief is what James termed 'over-belief', that is, insofar as religious understanding begets positive outcomes in the world, it makes sense for faith and reason to become separated; just as one can't falsify solipsism or the controlling demon, one who has undergone personal revelation can't falsify the experience, even if they understand it to be irrational. With this is of course the aforementioned understanding that religious institutions are probably pretty dangerous for spreading uncritical belief in doctrine and history that we know to be incorrect, but James is still quick to highlight that the individual, mystical experience should be analyzed and dwelled upon if we wish to gain a greater insight into this area. There are still some pitfalls with this mode of thinking, but I do believe it's what you're getting at in this video.
Great comment but even when I was religious and I, unlike other former christians, had a pretty fucking good time being religious, I never had a religious experience. Many of us don't hence why, for me at least, it just seems like some fuckery happening in the brain versus an actual physical aspect that is occurring in our dimension.
Its funny when i was in middle school/high school i was the only one of the "rationality nerds" in my friend group that wasn't a hardened atheist. But now that we are all in our 30s they are all much more appreciative and open to religion. Meanwhile, I've actually gotten more atheist if anything (although i still pray, i find it helps me a lot. I think the "rational" explanation is its just my personal form of meditation).. Either I'm way ahead or way behind.
@@Paradoxonification Not necessarily. With religions, the leader is typically legendary or long dead. But this is pretty irrelevant I’ll admit. The major difference I would say is a focus on spirituality and personal growth rather than serving the cult leader. Sure, Christianity has a lot of language that implies that the main goal is to serve the leader (god, Jesus), but really those are metaphors for personal growth and spiritual connection. It’s very similar to Buddhism, just clothed in the language of Judaism. “Giving yourself up to god” or “putting your life in gods hands” is a metaphor for letting go of the ego, and being at one with the senses and the world around you, and flowing with it rather than trying to control it. Something like Taoism doesn’t even really have a god. Buddhism is largely secular. Hinduism has a lot of myths and stories which are intended to get you in tune with your consciousness and be content with life. Same with Christianity Islam, and Judaism (although the abrahamic faiths do appear to be more explicitly cultish on true surface). So yeah, there are big differences between religions and cults. Religions like Scientology and jehovas witness function very similarly to cults though.
It is actually hilarious. when Destiny is talking about "internal carving of one's character", this is literally what virtue ethicists are saying when you should instill the virtues in you so you will act well. and he shits on it before describing it.
@@matthewsocoollike It really is sad when you realize that Destiny knows this stuff better than 99% of people solely by reading the wikipedia, yet he literally knows none of it
For the special experience part, it sounds like the criteria are: physical setting-specific, infrequent or unlikely to be frequent, and produces heightened positive states of mind before, during, and/or after the experience. For getting a physical copy of a game (compared to buying on steam) a series of physical locations is important (car-> game store -> car -> home), getting a game from a game store was likely infrequent as a child (or a game meriting the drive would be as an adult), and produces anticipation and excitement throughout the journey and afterwards. For the movie and the book examples you can fill these criteria too, I think most interestingly noting reading something physically in your hand is somehow different than something on a screen, and the physical setting of the movie is so important it's worth the effort of going to the theatre despite likely being what most could consider an objectively worse experience vs watching it in the comfort of your own home (people noises, smells, dirty, etc). If I had to guess, maybe the confluence of these three factors being uncommon in general subtly or subconsciously suggests you to value the experience more. Perhaps uncommon location + frequency + state of mind registers the event as in some way novel, and warrants more attention and provides more satisfaction than normal, compared to reading or watching something on the screen you spend 1/3+ of your life in front of, or the chair or couch you spend 1/3+ of your life sitting on just staving off boredom.
I think the "feeling" Destiny mentioned of buying a new game at a brick-mortar store may be a form of sensory stimulation and mood benefits you get from new experiences, meeting actual humans, the shopping "experience" and gratification of getting a physical object. There is something to be said about holding the game in your bare hands rather then owning a "virtual" one.
I think there is also something about having to work for it. Like buying a game on steam is instantaneous gratification versus buying it at a store which will take you a while. A cold coke tastes much better if you worked out before and are dehydrated than just drinking it whenever you want.
It's a whole intimate feeling that everyone has. Its why online communication could never replace real life interactions. You get entirely different nuerochems released
You should check out some commentary from Paul vanderklay and Paul Anleitner. I love the way they break down Christianity and respond to atheism compared to pop-christianity. It’s a breath of fresh air, and I think for non-Christian’s it can be encouraging as well.
One of the most amazing feelings was taking the plastic off a game case. My fucking god you just peel that sucker off and get the smell of the paper booklet inside and you're beyond hyped for your new game.
I see a lot of comments that seem to equate “Destiny changing his mind on religion” to being “Destiny believes in the existence of a god” which if you watched the video isn’t true. It kinda seems to me like him changing his mind is just him saying that people that engage in religion do receive some benefits from doing so, that’s all.
He seems to be saying that perhaps religion isn't as stupid and bad for people as much as some people say it is. It seems to be going along the lines of "friendly atheism", where said atheist appreciates the values religion brings and trying to find common ground with said indivduals while remaining unconvinced overall. A similar situation will be a Christian adopting the belief that atheists can be good people and that a lot of said are genuinely unconvinced and don't "stay in their atheism cause they just want to sin", all the while still retaining their belief in salvation via Christ and all that jazz.
Look into evolutionary psychology. Ppl can have euphoric feelings listening to songs in a group. Concerts and church. Praying, the part of the brain talking to yourself lights up. And lots of more atheistic society functions happily without faith.
Like how the USSR functioned when the commies took over? The communists unleashed terror far more evil than the previous rulers and Russian Orthodox church ever did. It's hilarious how those "happy countries" that are atheist are always European ones😂
Atheism can’t compete without a set prescribed moral system. I can go to a new church and talk their language meet new people I know aren’t going to screw me over and if they do I can rebuke them with Gospel. Atheism doesn’t have that and I notice most explicitly atheistic spaces always have a wolf running the show someone anti moralistic that saw an opening to the top
@@off6848 You can enforce moral principles without the fear of god, since most people don’t like social exclusion or being punished for breaking laws. But I must admit it is nice having religion as a sort of filter for people who may do scumbag tactics that aren’t easily punishable by law.
Old peterson was quite good when he talked about what he is an expert in, so i hope to get a new JP, because he fell off hard and turned sour. A new compassionate speaker would be great
@@Voljinable can you really blame the dude after all the hate hes gotten through the years? i certainly dont agree with his politics but ill always listen when he talks about psychology
@@Voljinable Yeah its kind of sad. I used to be a huge Peterson fan boy now it seems like he has a chip on his shoulder. His older lectures on psychology, religion, etc. really changed my perspective.
I never understood coming out of religion and then adopting the position that religion is entirely a hoax, or entirely a scam. I thought it was obvious to everyone coming out of it that religion was essentially Human_Understanding 1.0. It was literally the best we could do to understand a confusing world before newer methods of investigation came along, and it served a dual purpose of fostering community. But because it's inherently based on superstition, it comes with a huge host of problems that a cleaner understanding of reality can help alleviate.
Well it's rough because the people in power that are doing supernatural things... they know they aren't actually doing supernatural things. The people at the top know they aren't actually talking to a higher power... yet the push that narrative and deceive intentionally. It's totally reasonable to view it as a fraud, hoax, or scam. Maybe the sales people at the bottom truly believe, but the people in charge know better.
I don't think its quite right to describe religion as just a primitive way to understand the world before we began utilizing science. The main use of religion is in dealing with things that science cannot, such as morality and ethics as well as things we do not understand. As hard as you might try, you will never create as strong of a moral code from secularism as you would from religion.
@@SizzleD61 Thanks for reply, minor effort post incoming: "I don't think its quite right to describe religion as just a primitive way to understand the world before we began utilizing science." You're not contradicting me, you're arguing against something I didn't say. I said religion was essentially Human Understanding 1.0. I mean religion was our way of understanding EVERYTHING, both scientific and philosophical. Where does the sun go at night? (science question) Must be a god (religious answer). Why should I be nice to the family that lives next to me? (moral question) Because a god said so (religious answer). Both of these things relate to our understanding of the world. You're just assuming I am only talking about scientific understanding when I am not. "The main use of religion is in dealing with things that science cannot, such as morality and ethics as well as things we do not understand." Sure, now. But religion has existed for thousands of years, and a huge amount of it WAS used to answer scientific questions. What do you think a "creation myth" is? It's a religious explanation for physical reality. Literally hundreds of religions have stories or parables that provide supernatural explanations for natural phenomena. But now, with scientific explanations intellectually outpacing religious ones in testability and predictive power, religion likes to draw a hard line and say "well we only do the spiritual stuff, and science has to stay over there". So this point only works if you ignore all of religions' failed attempts to explain science, which are numerous. "As hard as you might try, you will never create as strong of a moral code from secularism as you would from religion." Your "strong moral code" you get from religion is literally a castle built on sand. It rests on an entirely baseless assertion that you've somehow escaped the limitations of human understanding by virtue of magic. You have a strong moral code because of God A. The man across the street has an equally strong moral code from God B. He disagrees with you about some moral question, and now you're stuck forever because both of your foundations rest on "because my God said so". At least as a secular person I can admit that I have to base my worldview on certain presuppositions I can't justify. But I can work with common human goals like "not enjoying suffering" and "living a prosperous, happy life" that 99% of other humans also share to build moral frameworks that other people will feel incentivized to buy into. The God framework just pretends it's not as faulty as mine because of magic, while also being totally rigid and not adaptive to new situations that arise all the time. I don't find that to be "strong" in any sense of the word.
@@sarinat3101 If I may jump in, I see a few fallacies in your reply. I can't really speak for all religions people but Christians don't use the word "magical" to describe God or his deeds. We use words like power/powerful. It's an important distinction because "magic" is a strawman that implies there is no scientific bases as to how God can perform his incredible actions. I'm not saying that you are intentionally strawmanning, I just wanted to clear that up. As for what you said about a secular framework, the issue is that the foundation isn't really there. Sure, you can rationalize a common shared moral framework however, you can also just as easily rationalize a totally selfish nihilistic framework. A secular person can easily justify the claim that "I only have one life, I might as well spend that life deriving as much pleasure as possible regardless of other people's moral position." So anything is on the table as long as they can get away with it, to maximize pleasure. I understand that all religions are unverifiable. Therefore, it's hard to trust an ancient book on all moral questions and apply those morals in our era. The thing is, there's good aspects to having unchanging scripture. One good thing is that no one's value as a person is questioned. If there's a person that is blind, deaf, mentally disabled, a vegetable, etc. Under a religious worldview, that person is seen as valuable by virtue of their personhood. I could give more examples but I feel like I've said enough. Do you agree/disagree?
Also Destiny, bro, Catholicism isn't the same as the Bible teaches if you read it. Catholicism and protestant Christians are way different in many ways. Personal reading of a kjv Bible will give you your own understanding. Rather than a big relious church, people will gain a new perspective.
i always thought its good to involve yourself more with a thing rather than just the part that gives dopamin. like, rather than watching re zero, i pause every now and then to try and understand whats happening and come up with theorys that would explain things
Why doesnt Destiny just study a bit of philosophy? He's trying to reinvent the wheel coming up with concepts people have already thought of and discussed. Is he basically talking about Structuralism?
This happens way more often than people realize, particularly when he talks about language and international relations (my professional area). If he would just engage more with the pre-existing literature he'd know some points he arrives at have been discovered and coded hundreds of years ago.
@@friend7120 this is a silly statement ngl, scientists do this too much, science cannot answer moral questions, science will tell you how to kill someone, what killing someone does to their family psychologically, how to save someone etc etc, science will not tell you it is wrong to kill someone or it is good to save someone, or in what scenarios you are morally justified in killing someone
I was an atheist. A real atheist not that " soft atheist" crap. But then I had a dream of a angel saving me when I was stuck in complete darkness floating in the sky. The Angel turned out to be a same person I had a dream of when I was about 5. The dream when I was small was of a giant flood in ancient greek like times. The buildings had columns like greek buildings. And people wore togas. During the flood I was with my current mother and the face changed to another face. The angel in the other dream had a blur face and changed to the other face from the dream in the flood. I am agnostic now ever since that dream.
Isn't this what Nietzsche was trying to get at , Nietzsche rejects the Christian God, he is not 'anti-religious. ' Rather, Nietzsche is a religious thinker precisely because he adopts Schopenhauer's analysis of religion as an intellectual construction that addresses the existential problems of pain and death, and gives authority to community-creating ethos.
I feel like 99% of this re-evaluation of religion happening now is downstream from Jordan Peterson. Same with the new red pill dudes. They always bring up points that are cartoony caricatures of stuff I was hearing from JP in like 2017.
Destiny has a real bad habit of not doing enough research then making statements as if they are some profound new development. When I’m actuality if he just reads some more literature on the particular subject he would find that lots of the stuff he talks about has already been discussed and analyzed by professionals for years and years.
But that's a good thing. Making some experiences and deriving from that the same fundamental truths that experts have made aswell. It's fun to think for yourself before reading the answer to it in a book.
Isn’t coming to the conclusion yourself a wholly different experience though? And he doesn’t claim no one has ever thought this way before, just that it’s a realization he recently came to
So? Thats what knokedge is you expand uppon the ideas of someone else righ? I dont understand what the critique is. I dont think he claimed it was new either.
you hit the nail on the head with the convenience of things ruins the ritual and the feelings you get. I think its simply our evolution being artificially modified by the times and whats going on. same with info, clearly some people are not ready for certain ideas but get told them from others without the context of figuring it out yourself.
The contradiction you are noticing is not in the concepts themselves, but in the differences between people, and how likely they are to be locked into different patterns of thinking.
Thus Spoke Zarathustra's meaning is ambiguous by design. No thesis is offered unequivocally; one of the apparent goals of the work is to propose that values are a challenge to be met joyfully rather than a system of rules to be memorized and obeyed. Destiny's trying to find Zarathustra.
I know exactly what Destiny is talking about, the indescribable feelings we get with ritualistic behavior associated with rewards. Maybe the disconnect is chat’s demographic. I’m not sure how old Destiny is, but I’d wager he’s relatively close to my age(38). We were both analog and digital kids. Whatever we gained in the digital era, it cost us something of equal value.
I was thinking Destiny was closer to 29-32 range like some of the other dudes I’ve seen struggling with this. Five years is massive when you are kids, but it doesn’t feel so bad when you get older.
14:56 this is almost like the philosophy of simulacrum or hyper reality. Which is where things lose their meaning and represent themselves (e.g. onions, onion rings, funyuns, funyun x lays collab)
It's the dogmatism that's working for people. It gives people peace of mind and a sense of resoluteness such that they don't have to put cognitive effort towards making sure they're not wrong about something. They just live in the certainty.
the weekly episode thing is absolutely true and something we need more of. Im glad shows like the boys are bringing it back and the new game of thrones house of the dragon will hopefully be the same.
The perfect "magical feeling example" is what it feels like to learn how to ride a bike and riding it for the 15th year. You might still enjoy it but you'll never get that experience once it's gone or not being used
It's actually funny that money is actually just an immaterial value and having power over others, and virtue ethics is actually just the same as that concept. Except money carve into a character, and virtue is carved into a character.
18:00 it's a delayed dopamine response. You get a hit of dopamine when you delay a stimulus then even more when you actually get the thing that your working for.
it's not delayed gratification. It's the building of anticipation and the calming effect of having secured that future experience/sure thing. Nothing bad is going to happen, you are going to experience this thing that you've been wanting, and now you're just passing time until it happens... but you're passing time in the presence of that thing that is going to facilitate the experience. (waiting in the theater, picking up new physical media/tech still in the box and then driving home with it, etc)
Wrong… so wrong. Christians worship a tortured man on a cross AND that is the best thing to happen in history. It is KNOWING bad things are going to happen and accepting it. That suffering can be decreased by delayed gratification, or chastity and sobriety. Unless I’m reading you wrong.
@@HolyWarrior1 you must be reading the comment wrong. In the context of what he's talking about in the video, I have no clue what you're going on about here. I'm specifically talking about the special experience part of the vid.
I think the biggest one for most people has got to be the feeling of walking home from school (especially on friday) knowing you have your own time ahead
i think the special thing about buying games in person is that you have to work for it a little bit and put some time in to get it. every human being feels good about themselves after they do some type of work or accomplishment, no matter how minor. also just being around people feels very valuable to me, even if we don’t interact.
The problem with 99.9% of Christian’s is that they aren’t Christian’s. Im not saying that I know better, far from it. What I am saying is people should analyse the faith, not the practitioner. We are all human. We all make mistakes, live in blindness and all fall far short of the grace of God.
@@1601tgc I should have worded it differently, my bad. I suppose I should of said the problem with 99.9% of Christian’s is that they a Christian in name only. Stating you are something does not make you that thing. That was my first point. As to what you would call them…… I don’t know. My main point was that if people wanna criticise Christianity then they should do just that. People are not Christianity.
As a religious person, I appreciate athiests who respect religion. But it is disappointing too, because they'll pat it on the back from afar and acknowledge some of its benefits, but they won't engage in it in order to keep the institutions functional for future generations. Please, if you can humble yourself enough to accept some aspects of faith, find a community to build that with. Churches, synagogues, mosques, all worship centers really need members. I'm sure you could find some that aren't insane fundamentalist cults.
Dude independently read through the Bible. I don't know if you want to go beginning to end, or old testament then new. Maybe new testament then old. Either way a full knowledge would give you a ton of understanding. Many never actually read the book, they just take things out of context. Best to know what and where people are coming from. You are a fast and voracious reader, it won't take you long.
At some point we grow out of our 20 something year old brain that thinks they know everything and realize that there is a reason why religion and everything around it has been around since the dawn of civilization.
First off, it’s not just people in their 20s that think this way. Secondly, religion has been around for a long time because simple and shallow ideas are easier for people to except than complex nuanced ones. Also, it’s a device for people who like to have power to control relatively uneducated and ignorant people. That’s why there is a direct correlation between how educated people are and how religious they are. The more educated, the less religious.
@@karthain5742 religion is not some simple shallow idea it is complicated i highly doubt someone like you for instance would be able to describe religions accurately going off your very clear biased response about it.
You totally forgot contractarianism (Rawls) or contract theory (Hobbes) in ethical theory. Virtue theory is problematic because you have to presuppose the virtues a priori which does not help identifying what is ethical or not in the first place. In essence, Virtue theory is just a form of moral intuition or a long term view of consequentialism. Also... 1- Just because "something is working" is entirely subjective. Working for what? Working for whom? In what way is it "working"? 2- Even if you can derive some sort of normative classification for "working" it does not follow that the belief system is true but merely some of the behavior inspired by the belief system might produce consequences that you deem to be "working". 4- Character may not exist. It may just be a probabilistic "guess" about why type of behavior will be in the future. CS Lewis was an amazing apologist for Christianity. He has converted many. However, his arguments have some serious problems that you need to read before you get sucked in.
Yes we can say that all of these people are wrong. More so why would I waste time on something that cannot be replicated in a controlled environment or through the scientific process. Religion is purely anecdotal interpretation. Wtf are you talking? about?🤣
Please consider Jesus Destiny… we are living in the last days and there isn’t any more time to accept salvation. I know this won’t be believed by many, but that is the truth.
He literally did change his mind on this 3 years ago after listening to Sean Carroll's podcast with the black youth pastor guy that became atheist. This is where he got his ideas about importance of rituals in secular society.
Most people don't derive moral from religion. Religion derive moral from people. If a religious person leave a religion, they don't discard all moral that aline with said religion. Religion is the frame for people to construct their virtues. And when a large portion of people convey their beliefs one way, religion changes. Interpreting the meanings differently so as to support their beliefs. I don't think the discovery of a new book of a religion saying slavery is good would change one's moral.
I’m not so sure. It’s difficult to imagine a religion adopting moral values like ‘love your enemies’, celibacy outside of marriage and monogamy from mere people.
@@LtDeadeye I don't know if you are religion or not, but the perspective I'm offering is one that’s is atheist. Meaning the religion in question is created by human not a God. The virtues of said people who created the religion is derive from their surroundings. The group already collectively agree to what is good and bad. So religion will always drive from human. One thing I want to clear up is that when a large group of religious people change their view, that doesn't necessarily mean everyone would agree to change their perception of their current Religion. Religion split off. Some will have more extreme views than others, but still technically in the same religion.
Well, the Catholic Church has its Catechism so Destiny would have his hands full if he wanted to read the current full version or add the Baltimore Catechism and the Roman Catechism from the Council of Trent. He could probably use a good teacher to follow in his footsteps ;)
its meaning. when you can just buy a game on steam or watch a movie on your other monitor, it doesnt mean as much. its just there. nothing went into it, you can just do it. if you go on a journey, have to convince your parents to buy it for you and take you to the store, or the movie theater, it means more. meaning is why religion exists, otherwise how could people make sense of a world without meaning
But why accept that its not true when you can’t disprove it ,a person of faith can’t prove that theirs a god but an atheist can’t disprove it. To simply accept the fact that there can’t be a god is ignorant and narrow minded in the way i see it.
Interesting. I didn't know CS Lewis used this analogy. I've also used a statue analogy to reference character. I had a disagreement with a friend once who asked me "can someone ever truly become a different person?" And I said "No." My reasoning was that a person who was a certain way might change their actions, but they are still bound to their past. So if I'm an alcoholic and quit alcohol, I'm not the same as someone who has been sober their whole life. Even though we both do not drink at all in this moment, I still have a history of alcoholism and they don't. This means we have different characters. The only way I got him to agree was because I said this: "Think of two statues. They are exactly the same statue and you cannot tell them apart from eachother. Accept one is made of White marble and one is made of White clay."
That’s more along the line of conversion. Someone doesn’t have to touch alcohol for whatever reason to remain completely sober, and the other has to touch the drink, taste the drink, and be swallowed up in a consumption that could kill you. It could be compared to the eating of the apple (or whatever the forbidden fruit was that granted such knowledge) in the Garden or knowing the intimacy of a lover. I read one of the saints named Catherine of Siena’s biographies who talks about being a great uniter of the Catholic Faith during a time when Three Men were claiming to be Pope. She also didn’t really know how to write or read before she performed such miracles.
@@MissPopuri I guess what I'm saying isn't as religious as what you were implying but I appreciate the response. What I was saying was that individual human nature can only be trained, and controlled, not changed. I am also a firm believer that the nature of a person is defined by whatever happens between ages 1-6, and everything is a game of catch-up from there.
HIs phrasing is a little weird, but I agree overall. I'd actually go a step further and say that everything you do and every decision you make slowly shapes who you are, not some metaphysical statue of yourself, but you as a person, physically and mentally.
Christians are bad at being Christians… it is baked into our theology. There is only one perfect representative for Christianity, Christ. The difference between secular dogmas and Christianity is the expectation of clumsy stupid (sinful) behavior and the expectation of forgiveness. I think our current political strain does not allow for the idea that humans are clumsy and imperfect AND the mob does not forgive. “Let him without sin cast the first stone.” John 8:7
You do realize that verse isn't saying if you are without sin cast the first stone? The woman that was brought before Jesus was being accused of cheating. According to the law of Moses, there are requirements in place to prevent either a husband or wife from being falsely accused. Per the law, witnesses to the act are needed (2-3) along with a test for the woman to see if she was carrying a child which would prove or disprove cheating. If the men were lying to Jesus they would be breaking two other commandments; thou shall not lie and thou shall not bear false witness. He was holding them accountable to the same Law as they were holding the woman to. Some suspect that what Jesus wrote in the sand was God's personal name as they were in the presence of God. So the modern interpretation is wrong and does not actually reflect what Jesus was saying. Since they were probably bearing false witness against the woman to trap Jesus, they would need to hold themselves to the same punishments the Law specified. That is why they left, not because of the modern interpretation of "thou shall not judge."
I'm non-religious, and even in my mid teens I realized the importance of religion in human history and what it can offer to people. You can be critical of religion while also acknowledging its pros. So destiny only now realizing that "instant gratification can be bad for you"(a take that's not even unique to religious people mind you) is kinda worrying.
In stream today he said he’s still atheist and religion is dog shit. This whole thing is him reading to see what other people have to say about character not the existence of god and where do morals come from
You have to keep in mind many religious people believe in god but dont put much thought on the religion itself, so i think at the end of the day believing the world was created by god and thinking what most people around you believe require less mental effort than fucking thinking about quantum phisics and how something can be born from nothing and all the blind watchmaker stuff. So i would except that most people would follow the former. Then atheism become mainstream and yes many people pick it up but the majority still think of it at a basic level. Most people wont put much effort into it, as in any things and only few will. Sure i think in religion there is much of value because it lasted from thousands of years and culture doesnt come from aliens it s a product of biology first, emotions. But most religious people in the west at least do not think of religion at the resolution of for example Jordan Peterson.
The antonym or I guess opposite of consequentialism wouldn't really be deontology technically... At least that's not how I was taught in my uni classes on morality... Deontology is a subset of what is known as 'non-consequentialism' in the same way that utilitarianism is a subset of consequentialist philosophy... Virtue ethics iirc falls under non-consequentialism alongside deontology... The reason being that virtue ethics doesn't concern itself with the consequences... Like deontology, virtue ethicists care about your motivations, principles, or ideals relating to a decision/action, not the consequences of such decisions/actions... Consequences can factor into it for non-consequentialists, but they aren't the deciding factor on if some action/decision is right or wrong... In some cases declaring war may be right and in other cases wrong... Virtue ethicists would declare war if it was the virtuous thing to do based on however you figure out what is virtuous (maybe you have a moral exemplar and uh-oh they turn out to be very wise but also a huge war hawk so now you associate that with virtue) and Kant himself had a fairly positive attitude towards war which makes the deontologist position for pascifism a little more rough... I mean I thought Kant would be against war since it seems to use humans to achieve ends and if everyone was constantly at war that seems like a bad maxim, but when I asked my professor apparently he was FAR from being pascifist... Kant saw it as great that someone would ignore their inclinations for self-preservation in order to help their community and this other stuff... Deontology is just weird to me... But obviously they're more concerned with acts rather than consequences... But for consequentialists they'll be concerned with like... Does God want this war? (divine command theory), Is this war in my self-interests? (ethical egoism), Will this war make me happy? (hedonism), Will this war promote the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people? (act utilitarianism), and so on... The consequences of the war, as the term consequentialism obviously suggests... BUT anyway that's just what I remember I was taught... You can go look up non-consequentialism, it's an actual philosophy term and it doesn't JUST mean deontology... But some websites seem to not acknowledge the terminology for some reason... So maybe it's something that's debated among academics, idk... I think it depends how you read those websites though... Like, it contrasts virtue ethics with consequentialism and deontology, but the reason it does that I don't think is because virtue ethics isn't categorized with deontology under non-consequentialism, I think it's because deontology might be the only other non-consequentialist theory worthy of note aside from virtue ethics... And obviously they have disagreements... So it makes sense to contrast them with deontologists as well as all the other notable philosophies which happen fall under consequentialism... But that doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't non-consequentialism within which both deontology and virtue ethics fall under...
You don’t need religion to prove existence has always existed, if it didn’t there’d no nothing and never be. It would have to always existed regardless of a God. Of course there’s reason to believe in religion because you can look at anything in a way of having reason. There’s so many morals you can’t see from them.
Sounds like Destiny needs to go watch Jordan Peterson's lecture series _Maps of Meaning,_ as well as _The Psychological Significance of the Biblical Stories._ Nobody that I know of has explored the topic Destiny is pondering more in depth than JP.
Seems a stretch to assign these feelings to religion when they seem firmly routed in human psychology. I’m not saying you shouldn’t look into it as a possibility, but you did make an argument for “God of the gaps” theory. I.e. Something unexplained is being attributed to something supernatural.
This subject matter is SO FAR OVER Destiny’s head, yet he approaches with an air of expertise and superiority; with the same zeal he approaches strength training theory 😂. That’s our Destiny, never change
In most cases, you should ignore the people and go to the ideology, but not in religion. Christian Religion pre-supposes the existence of an omnipotent and omnipresent being who blessed humanity (his chosen) with a set of guidelines to live by. If his ideology is so difficult to adhere too that virtually every Christian someone from the outside meets, is a repugnant ANTI example of the faith, that is a failing on gods part, and if he’s failed, that’s not “the god” as the text described him. Islam is especially egregious with this. He’s supposedly the end all be all, but his preferred vehicle of spreading his enlightening truth that he wants everyone to have and follow, is a dense book of metaphors in a language only a fraction of the population speaks, and even amongst that fraction; nobody can find any agreement with anyone else on fundamental aspects of the text.
![เปิดบ้าน พี่ตูน Bodyslam หลังใหม่คนแรก ที่ภูเก็ต l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/flFwcmyDQSk/mqdefault.jpg)
I like that Destiny is humble enough to rethink things like this at his age. Most people are set in stone with their beliefs.
Soy alert. Wow he is so unique about changing his mind about religion as he got older! This is such a common phenomena its almost a cliche, mate look around, even on internet red pillers joke about women getting off ‘carousel’ and finding god later in their life. Its that common.
@@wormsomaniak ...Calm down?
@@wormsomaniak I'm just speaking from personal experience my dude.
Wtf you on about lol. This guy is a content creator..... He talks shit
@@wormsomaniak you got some problems pent up
Christianity isn't about rituals though, it's literally about a man who claimed to be the God of Abraham in the flesh, was literally crucified by his own people for making that claim. His followers claim to have eye witnessed him risen from the dead, and were then willing to go out to the corners of the globe to tell people about it. Many even executed for it.
At the end of the day, if your willing to accept that it is actual history, then you need to make a decision on who you believe Jesus is. He was either a lunatic and his followers made up a bunch of stuff, or he is God, in which case, what he said has got to be pretty important.
Don't let someone else spoon feed you the answer.
He reads one book. Changes his mind. Not even the bible
He's read the bible
The Bible is openly corrupted anyone with half a brain knows that look it up genius worst source
@@EudaimoniaEntdecken Guts by Chuck Palahniuk
@@EudaimoniaEntdecken Not that bro. Don't look that up.
Our ancestors did a SHIT load of psychedelics. Not surprising that many people around the world came up with religion
Something destiny said was pretty accurate and it’s something a person told my fiancé, who’s Muslim and is “you’re lucky that you met Islam before you met Muslims”. Because damn, people that confuse culture with religion will ruin it very hard for you.
Religion is far more complicated. Looking at both. They have their clear flaws
Wait, are you not Muslim?
yes. and there really truly is a difference.
she should have said you’re lucky you just met this Muslim before Islam and gave him a burger
@@off6848 huh ?
when a person realizes that religion isn't actually talking about an invisible best friend, it suddenly becomes a much much more useful tool set.
I've been an atheist for five years but I encountered Catholic theology recently and I've found it to be a stunningly competent thing, way more than I was expecting. I still have questions but now I really have something to grapple with.
@@spencerbuck1074 atheists love catholic theory because of it's roots in greek philosophy. i'm glad to hear that you're understanding what they're trying to say a little better now, and i hope you'll remember to carry your atheist's tools with you wherever you go from here: you'll still need 'em.
The problem is that many christians do think of it like that.
Religion is still cringe regardless
@@spencerbuck1074 Cringe
The ritual I most enjoy is during camping in cold weather. Chopping wood first thing in the morning in the dead silence is something you cant describe. You know you have to do it if you want breakfast, coffee, or warmth. But the satisfaction you get from working for it makes it 10x better. Bit of a departure from waking up in your house where everything is done for you.
I wanted to start doing this, how did you get started/choose a location/etc?!
I think you hit it right on the mark.
I think the feeling that Destiny is trying to describe is the self satisfaction of earning your rewards. Going to a movie, you have to get in a car, drive to the theater, buy a ticket, then you watch the movie. This is opposed to turning on the tv and watching a movie. There is more effort one has to put into when going to a movie theater than watching a movie in your undies. Since you put more effort in, you feel more rewarded when watching the movie. Similar to when you chop wood while camping, you had to work to earn your breakfast rather than making it in your microwave
Tbone got it right, tasks like that which require effort, inuput and also especially tasks that are directly linked to living or staying alive (such as having to chop wood to be able to eat) release dopamine.
The best meal ive ever eaten was while i was staying in the woods for 4 days in November. I had stayed the first night with a friend and then off the cuff another friend called and said he'd come down in a few days, first friend went after the first night and i just stayed in the woods and got really hungry, because i had no food, so i dug up a bunch of burdock roots got some nettles and caught 2 small crayfish (crawdads or whatever if you live in the US)
No salt just nettle, burdock and crayfish soup, at the time it tasted better than anything id ever eaten, Because of the circumstances and the effort that went into getting that food. Dopamine receptors go burrrrr
@@khalipsia9140 get into bushcraft
I went through a similar track...I used to be anti religion and yes I will keep my old skepticism and logic but I can respect how religion has functioned and contributed to history from its philosophical thought to art to just providing a story to people
You keep going back to this “rEliGiOn hAs coNtRbuTed tO mAkiNg pEopLe hAvE mEanInG”
It has not. Religious people are delusional they might tell you its helped but it hasent. If religion never existed You would see zero fucking change to how people act today and their desires. People don’t go in their mind and think of religion every single fucking time someone wants or does an action.
Its more of a comfort thing that explains why people do what they do. They get a dopamine rush for doing something new. (Nothing to do with religion) And with that dopamine rush they start to engage in that activity. And since a human engages in an activity they enjoy they can expand on that activity which can lead to you liking something you never would have expected because some activities share things in common and that alone can drive people.
Sometimes people can hate something and that can drive you.
And after you have experienced most things all the things you liked will be added together and you will lean towards doing actions to get you the outcomes you liked.
At no fucking point was the fairy tale useful or needed. And the only reason you guys think it helped is because it was there and its an easy answer to say.
Rabidly anti-religious people, in my experience, are pretty much the same kind of intolerant, arrogant bigots as hectoring evangelists. Extremists on the whole suck.
religion is for me the first form of social science, it helped humanity to be structured, we have much to learn from it.
I think it's just age and wisdom that makes you think that. You are now understanding things from a more mature standpoint.
@@OdinWannaBe Yea this is just wrong and delusional. The same reasons human come together and work together is the same fucking reason other species come together and work together. You think a pack of wolves are thinking about god? LMAO.
Destiny, you're hitting on a lot of points the founder of philosophical Pragmatism William James did in regards to religion. I know nobody reads, but check out his 'Varieties of Religious Experience', as well as the philosophical schools of 'Fideism' and 'Reformed Epistemology'.
James' position is that religious experiences seem to be an omnipresent aspect of the human experience, and that even rational actors can be stumped by them. As a psychologist, he wanted to work out what exactly was going on. He made sure to note two things, there is a difference between faith in doctrine, which he considered to be rote indoctrination, as it was merely the sociocultural lens through which religious experience and faith was magnified and structured around, and faith in personal experience with what one considers to be the divine.
What you're hitting on when you say that 'there's something there' that can't just be irrational belief is what James termed 'over-belief', that is, insofar as religious understanding begets positive outcomes in the world, it makes sense for faith and reason to become separated; just as one can't falsify solipsism or the controlling demon, one who has undergone personal revelation can't falsify the experience, even if they understand it to be irrational.
With this is of course the aforementioned understanding that religious institutions are probably pretty dangerous for spreading uncritical belief in doctrine and history that we know to be incorrect, but James is still quick to highlight that the individual, mystical experience should be analyzed and dwelled upon if we wish to gain a greater insight into this area. There are still some pitfalls with this mode of thinking, but I do believe it's what you're getting at in this video.
Great comment but even when I was religious and I, unlike other former christians, had a pretty fucking good time being religious, I never had a religious experience. Many of us don't hence why, for me at least, it just seems like some fuckery happening in the brain versus an actual physical aspect that is occurring in our dimension.
You know this isn't his channel and he doesn't read comments.
@@askers_ no, I dont think he does
Interesting stuff
Thanks for this
Its funny when i was in middle school/high school i was the only one of the "rationality nerds" in my friend group that wasn't a hardened atheist. But now that we are all in our 30s they are all much more appreciative and open to religion. Meanwhile, I've actually gotten more atheist if anything (although i still pray, i find it helps me a lot. I think the "rational" explanation is its just my personal form of meditation).. Either I'm way ahead or way behind.
What a relief to hear him more relaxed. Much better able to follow the good points he makes
You can also play him on 0.5x speed if you have trouble following.
I have also changed my opinion on religion. #notacult
Lul I’ve been spiritual since before finding destiny. It’s always been one of the biggest things I’ve disagreed with him on.
Lolwut
Only difference between religion and cults is the size
@@Paradoxonification Not necessarily. With religions, the leader is typically legendary or long dead. But this is pretty irrelevant I’ll admit. The major difference I would say is a focus on spirituality and personal growth rather than serving the cult leader. Sure, Christianity has a lot of language that implies that the main goal is to serve the leader (god, Jesus), but really those are metaphors for personal growth and spiritual connection. It’s very similar to Buddhism, just clothed in the language of Judaism. “Giving yourself up to god” or “putting your life in gods hands” is a metaphor for letting go of the ego, and being at one with the senses and the world around you, and flowing with it rather than trying to control it.
Something like Taoism doesn’t even really have a god. Buddhism is largely secular. Hinduism has a lot of myths and stories which are intended to get you in tune with your consciousness and be content with life. Same with Christianity Islam, and Judaism (although the abrahamic faiths do appear to be more explicitly cultish on true surface). So yeah, there are big differences between religions and cults. Religions like Scientology and jehovas witness function very similarly to cults though.
Thanks man. My people are finally understood.
It is actually hilarious. when Destiny is talking about "internal carving of one's character", this is literally what virtue ethicists are saying when you should instill the virtues in you so you will act well. and he shits on it before describing it.
I was literally thinking that while he was saying it. Lmao I’m glad someone else noticed
@@matthewsocoollike It really is sad when you realize that Destiny knows this stuff better than 99% of people solely by reading the wikipedia, yet he literally knows none of it
For the special experience part, it sounds like the criteria are: physical setting-specific, infrequent or unlikely to be frequent, and produces heightened positive states of mind before, during, and/or after the experience.
For getting a physical copy of a game (compared to buying on steam) a series of physical locations is important (car-> game store -> car -> home), getting a game from a game store was likely infrequent as a child (or a game meriting the drive would be as an adult), and produces anticipation and excitement throughout the journey and afterwards. For the movie and the book examples you can fill these criteria too, I think most interestingly noting reading something physically in your hand is somehow different than something on a screen, and the physical setting of the movie is so important it's worth the effort of going to the theatre despite likely being what most could consider an objectively worse experience vs watching it in the comfort of your own home (people noises, smells, dirty, etc).
If I had to guess, maybe the confluence of these three factors being uncommon in general subtly or subconsciously suggests you to value the experience more. Perhaps uncommon location + frequency + state of mind registers the event as in some way novel, and warrants more attention and provides more satisfaction than normal, compared to reading or watching something on the screen you spend 1/3+ of your life in front of, or the chair or couch you spend 1/3+ of your life sitting on just staving off boredom.
The true understanding of philosophy brings you right back to God.
Trueeeee
But not the personfied/embodied God. Rather the concept of God
Yes and no.
Edit: wait comment above said it. It’s more god on the conceptual level
I think the "feeling" Destiny mentioned of buying a new game at a brick-mortar store may be a form of sensory stimulation and mood benefits you get from new experiences, meeting actual humans, the shopping "experience" and gratification of getting a physical object. There is something to be said about holding the game in your bare hands rather then owning a "virtual" one.
I felt the same way about music records, cassettes and CDs.
I think there is also something about having to work for it. Like buying a game on steam is instantaneous gratification versus buying it at a store which will take you a while. A cold coke tastes much better if you worked out before and are dehydrated than just drinking it whenever you want.
@@capilah6285 True, i don't know what it is but sometimes it even tastes sweet.
It's a whole intimate feeling that everyone has. Its why online communication could never replace real life interactions. You get entirely different nuerochems released
@@SeyidAr Sweet? Might want to check your pipes for lead poisoning. It's a serious health risk.
You should check out some commentary from Paul vanderklay and Paul Anleitner. I love the way they break down Christianity and respond to atheism compared to pop-christianity.
It’s a breath of fresh air, and I think for non-Christian’s it can be encouraging as well.
One of the most amazing feelings was taking the plastic off a game case. My fucking god you just peel that sucker off and get the smell of the paper booklet inside and you're beyond hyped for your new game.
Ready for a Christian arc tbh
That would be so based. I want him to save his soul.
🤣🤣🤣
I see a lot of comments that seem to equate “Destiny changing his mind on religion” to being “Destiny believes in the existence of a god” which if you watched the video isn’t true. It kinda seems to me like him changing his mind is just him saying that people that engage in religion do receive some benefits from doing so, that’s all.
Yeah he's talking about the social, cultural and philosophical influence, eg taking the inspiration from the gita on elements like duty.
He’s agnostic though. So he doesn’t believe or disbelieve in God.
It's a slippery slope. Next he'll sing songs of christ
@@supremekhy6753 noise glitch for Christ
He seems to be saying that perhaps religion isn't as stupid and bad for people as much as some people say it is. It seems to be going along the lines of "friendly atheism", where said atheist appreciates the values religion brings and trying to find common ground with said indivduals while remaining unconvinced overall. A similar situation will be a Christian adopting the belief that atheists can be good people and that a lot of said are genuinely unconvinced and don't "stay in their atheism cause they just want to sin", all the while still retaining their belief in salvation via Christ and all that jazz.
Look into evolutionary psychology. Ppl can have euphoric feelings listening to songs in a group. Concerts and church. Praying, the part of the brain talking to yourself lights up. And lots of more atheistic society functions happily without faith.
Yeah there are underlying parts of church that are appealing, like music and community.
Like how the USSR functioned when the commies took over? The communists unleashed terror far more evil than the previous rulers and Russian Orthodox church ever did. It's hilarious how those "happy countries" that are atheist are always European ones😂
Atheism can’t compete without a set prescribed moral system. I can go to a new church and talk their language meet new people I know aren’t going to screw me over and if they do I can rebuke them with Gospel. Atheism doesn’t have that and I notice most explicitly atheistic spaces always have a wolf running the show someone anti moralistic that saw an opening to the top
@@off6848 You can enforce moral principles without the fear of god, since most people don’t like social exclusion or being punished for breaking laws. But I must admit it is nice having religion as a sort of filter for people who may do scumbag tactics that aren’t easily punishable by law.
Spite driven destiny at it again
Destiny is reminding me more and more of Jordan Peterson lol especially with this take.
Old peterson was quite good when he talked about what he is an expert in, so i hope to get a new JP, because he fell off hard and turned sour.
A new compassionate speaker would be great
@@Voljinable can you really blame the dude after all the hate hes gotten through the years? i certainly dont agree with his politics but ill always listen when he talks about psychology
@@Voljinable Yeah its kind of sad. I used to be a huge Peterson fan boy now it seems like he has a chip on his shoulder. His older lectures on psychology, religion, etc. really changed my perspective.
@@mikasasukasa4479 dunno about the hate, but blowing up your brain with Clonazepam was probably a major contributor
I never understood coming out of religion and then adopting the position that religion is entirely a hoax, or entirely a scam. I thought it was obvious to everyone coming out of it that religion was essentially Human_Understanding 1.0. It was literally the best we could do to understand a confusing world before newer methods of investigation came along, and it served a dual purpose of fostering community. But because it's inherently based on superstition, it comes with a huge host of problems that a cleaner understanding of reality can help alleviate.
I think a lot of people come out of religion as a teenager so they probably don't have the best understanding of this at that time.
Well it's rough because the people in power that are doing supernatural things... they know they aren't actually doing supernatural things. The people at the top know they aren't actually talking to a higher power... yet the push that narrative and deceive intentionally. It's totally reasonable to view it as a fraud, hoax, or scam.
Maybe the sales people at the bottom truly believe, but the people in charge know better.
I don't think its quite right to describe religion as just a primitive way to understand the world before we began utilizing science. The main use of religion is in dealing with things that science cannot, such as morality and ethics as well as things we do not understand. As hard as you might try, you will never create as strong of a moral code from secularism as you would from religion.
@@SizzleD61 Thanks for reply, minor effort post incoming:
"I don't think its quite right to describe religion as just a primitive way to understand the world before we began utilizing science."
You're not contradicting me, you're arguing against something I didn't say. I said religion was essentially Human Understanding 1.0. I mean religion was our way of understanding EVERYTHING, both scientific and philosophical. Where does the sun go at night? (science question) Must be a god (religious answer). Why should I be nice to the family that lives next to me? (moral question) Because a god said so (religious answer). Both of these things relate to our understanding of the world. You're just assuming I am only talking about scientific understanding when I am not.
"The main use of religion is in dealing with things that science cannot, such as morality and ethics as well as things we do not understand."
Sure, now. But religion has existed for thousands of years, and a huge amount of it WAS used to answer scientific questions. What do you think a "creation myth" is? It's a religious explanation for physical reality. Literally hundreds of religions have stories or parables that provide supernatural explanations for natural phenomena. But now, with scientific explanations intellectually outpacing religious ones in testability and predictive power, religion likes to draw a hard line and say "well we only do the spiritual stuff, and science has to stay over there". So this point only works if you ignore all of religions' failed attempts to explain science, which are numerous.
"As hard as you might try, you will never create as strong of a moral code from secularism as you would from religion."
Your "strong moral code" you get from religion is literally a castle built on sand. It rests on an entirely baseless assertion that you've somehow escaped the limitations of human understanding by virtue of magic. You have a strong moral code because of God A. The man across the street has an equally strong moral code from God B. He disagrees with you about some moral question, and now you're stuck forever because both of your foundations rest on "because my God said so".
At least as a secular person I can admit that I have to base my worldview on certain presuppositions I can't justify. But I can work with common human goals like "not enjoying suffering" and "living a prosperous, happy life" that 99% of other humans also share to build moral frameworks that other people will feel incentivized to buy into. The God framework just pretends it's not as faulty as mine because of magic, while also being totally rigid and not adaptive to new situations that arise all the time.
I don't find that to be "strong" in any sense of the word.
@@sarinat3101 If I may jump in, I see a few fallacies in your reply. I can't really speak for all religions people but Christians don't use the word "magical" to describe God or his deeds. We use words like power/powerful. It's an important distinction because "magic" is a strawman that implies there is no scientific bases as to how God can perform his incredible actions. I'm not saying that you are intentionally strawmanning, I just wanted to clear that up.
As for what you said about a secular framework, the issue is that the foundation isn't really there. Sure, you can rationalize a common shared moral framework however, you can also just as easily rationalize a totally selfish nihilistic framework. A secular person can easily justify the claim that "I only have one life, I might as well spend that life deriving as much pleasure as possible regardless of other people's moral position." So anything is on the table as long as they can get away with it, to maximize pleasure.
I understand that all religions are unverifiable. Therefore, it's hard to trust an ancient book on all moral questions and apply those morals in our era. The thing is, there's good aspects to having unchanging scripture. One good thing is that no one's value as a person is questioned. If there's a person that is blind, deaf, mentally disabled, a vegetable, etc. Under a religious worldview, that person is seen as valuable by virtue of their personhood. I could give more examples but I feel like I've said enough. Do you agree/disagree?
Also Destiny, bro, Catholicism isn't the same as the Bible teaches if you read it. Catholicism and protestant Christians are way different in many ways. Personal reading of a kjv Bible will give you your own understanding. Rather than a big relious church, people will gain a new perspective.
i always thought its good to involve yourself more with a thing rather than just the part that gives dopamin. like, rather than watching re zero, i pause every now and then to try and understand whats happening and come up with theorys that would explain things
Why doesnt Destiny just study a bit of philosophy? He's trying to reinvent the wheel coming up with concepts people have already thought of and discussed. Is he basically talking about Structuralism?
This happens way more often than people realize, particularly when he talks about language and international relations (my professional area). If he would just engage more with the pre-existing literature he'd know some points he arrives at have been discovered and coded hundreds of years ago.
yeah but philosophy is fake
I do this, reinventing philosophy yourself i feel is a good exercise in reasoning.
Nah, why do that when you can just confidently talk about things you know nothing about?
@@friend7120 this is a silly statement ngl, scientists do this too much, science cannot answer moral questions, science will tell you how to kill someone, what killing someone does to their family psychologically, how to save someone etc etc, science will not tell you it is wrong to kill someone or it is good to save someone, or in what scenarios you are morally justified in killing someone
I was an atheist. A real atheist not that " soft atheist" crap. But then I had a dream of a angel saving me when I was stuck in complete darkness floating in the sky.
The Angel turned out to be a same person I had a dream of when I was about 5. The dream when I was small was of a giant flood in ancient greek like times. The buildings had columns like greek buildings. And people wore togas. During the flood I was with my current mother and the face changed to another face.
The angel in the other dream had a blur face and changed to the other face from the dream in the flood.
I am agnostic now ever since that dream.
24:00 i just started watching breaking bad for the first time. hopefully its pog
Isn't this what Nietzsche was trying to get at , Nietzsche rejects the Christian God, he is not 'anti-religious. ' Rather, Nietzsche is a religious thinker precisely because he adopts Schopenhauer's analysis of religion as an intellectual construction that addresses the existential problems of pain and death, and gives authority to community-creating ethos.
I feel like 99% of this re-evaluation of religion happening now is downstream from Jordan Peterson. Same with the new red pill dudes. They always bring up points that are cartoony caricatures of stuff I was hearing from JP in like 2017.
He's correct here about "rituals". And 100% correct about people with a pleasure button.
Destiny has a real bad habit of not doing enough research then making statements as if they are some profound new development. When I’m actuality if he just reads some more literature on the particular subject he would find that lots of the stuff he talks about has already been discussed and analyzed by professionals for years and years.
Bro I can't believe ur still here lmao. I member u from the old days in Greeks channel. Why do u still have this user name 😅
But that's a good thing. Making some experiences and deriving from that the same fundamental truths that experts have made aswell. It's fun to think for yourself before reading the answer to it in a book.
Isn’t coming to the conclusion yourself a wholly different experience though?
And he doesn’t claim no one has ever thought this way before, just that it’s a realization he recently came to
So? Thats what knokedge is you expand uppon the ideas of someone else righ? I dont understand what the critique is. I dont think he claimed it was new either.
I’d trade watching a movie at home for a movie theater screening any day. A great experience and feeling.
Same! Going to the cinema engages so many parts of the human experience
you hit the nail on the head with the convenience of things ruins the ritual and the feelings you get. I think its simply our evolution being artificially modified by the times and whats going on. same with info, clearly some people are not ready for certain ideas but get told them from others without the context of figuring it out yourself.
I guess so. People don't just want to "survive" which I feel is convenience. We want to "live". Quoted from my favorite pixar movie lol
Lol. Gay4BigBoys
Oh no no noo 😂 we are loosing him.
Good. You don’t deserve that last name!!!
The contradiction you are noticing is not in the concepts themselves, but in the differences between people, and how likely they are to be locked into different patterns of thinking.
It’s the concept itself
Thus Spoke Zarathustra's meaning is ambiguous by design. No thesis is offered unequivocally; one of the apparent goals of the work is to propose that values are a challenge to be met joyfully rather than a system of rules to be memorized and obeyed. Destiny's trying to find Zarathustra.
I know exactly what Destiny is talking about, the indescribable feelings we get with ritualistic behavior associated with rewards.
Maybe the disconnect is chat’s demographic. I’m not sure how old Destiny is, but I’d wager he’s relatively close to my age(38). We were both analog and digital kids. Whatever we gained in the digital era, it cost us something of equal value.
I was thinking Destiny was closer to 29-32 range like some of the other dudes I’ve seen struggling with this. Five years is massive when you are kids, but it doesn’t feel so bad when you get older.
14:56 this is almost like the philosophy of simulacrum or hyper reality. Which is where things lose their meaning and represent themselves (e.g. onions, onion rings, funyuns, funyun x lays collab)
This has basically nothing to do with hyperreality
@@anguswilson1724 it doesn’t?
I think you’re reaching for the term post-modernism.
people interpret spiritual texts very varied. seems like the result is more up to the person
It's the dogmatism that's working for people. It gives people peace of mind and a sense of resoluteness such that they don't have to put cognitive effort towards making sure they're not wrong about something. They just live in the certainty.
the weekly episode thing is absolutely true and something we need more of. Im glad shows like the boys are bringing it back and the new game of thrones house of the dragon will hopefully be the same.
@Blue Trygve yeah :)
The perfect "magical feeling example" is what it feels like to learn how to ride a bike and riding it for the 15th year. You might still enjoy it but you'll never get that experience once it's gone or not being used
I love it when atheists admit the goodness in religion. Thank you Destiny.
Inching further and further right. I wonder how long before he embraces monogamy.
"you have to get past the people and look to the teachings. . ." My man knows what's up. That's how you actually evaluate a belief or theory.
It's actually funny that money is actually just an immaterial value and having power over others, and virtue ethics is actually just the same as that concept. Except money carve into a character, and virtue is carved into a character.
18:00 it's a delayed dopamine response. You get a hit of dopamine when you delay a stimulus then even more when you actually get the thing that your working for.
Destiny having a (mild) Jordan Peterson arc.
The Daliban is real. Inshallah!
it's not delayed gratification. It's the building of anticipation and the calming effect of having secured that future experience/sure thing.
Nothing bad is going to happen, you are going to experience this thing that you've been wanting, and now you're just passing time until it happens... but you're passing time in the presence of that thing that is going to facilitate the experience. (waiting in the theater, picking up new physical media/tech still in the box and then driving home with it, etc)
Wrong… so wrong. Christians worship a tortured man on a cross AND that is the best thing to happen in history. It is KNOWING bad things are going to happen and accepting it. That suffering can be decreased by delayed gratification, or chastity and sobriety. Unless I’m reading you wrong.
@@HolyWarrior1 you must be reading the comment wrong. In the context of what he's talking about in the video, I have no clue what you're going on about here. I'm specifically talking about the special experience part of the vid.
I think the biggest one for most people has got to be the feeling of walking home from school (especially on friday) knowing you have your own time ahead
august please post the rum1n8 conversation, he talks about this with him
He changed his mind again a few days later lmao
i think the special thing about buying games in person is that you have to work for it a little bit and put some time in to get it. every human being feels good about themselves after they do some type of work or accomplishment, no matter how minor. also just being around people feels very valuable to me, even if we don’t interact.
Destiny is just a character on a CW show
The problem with 99.9% of Christian’s is that they aren’t Christian’s. Im not saying that I know better, far from it. What I am saying is people should analyse the faith, not the practitioner. We are all human. We all make mistakes, live in blindness and all fall far short of the grace of God.
I don’t understand your point - if 99.9% of [self proclaimed] Christians are not truly Christians why aren’t they and what should they be called?
@@1601tgc I should have worded it differently, my bad. I suppose I should of said the problem with 99.9% of Christian’s is that they a Christian in name only. Stating you are something does not make you that thing. That was my first point. As to what you would call them…… I don’t know. My main point was that if people wanna criticise Christianity then they should do just that. People are not Christianity.
@@captainsolo7812 ohhh I see, I understand your point now, and it’s a point well taken.
As a religious person, I appreciate athiests who respect religion. But it is disappointing too, because they'll pat it on the back from afar and acknowledge some of its benefits, but they won't engage in it in order to keep the institutions functional for future generations. Please, if you can humble yourself enough to accept some aspects of faith, find a community to build that with. Churches, synagogues, mosques, all worship centers really need members. I'm sure you could find some that aren't insane fundamentalist cults.
Dude independently read through the Bible. I don't know if you want to go beginning to end, or old testament then new. Maybe new testament then old. Either way a full knowledge would give you a ton of understanding. Many never actually read the book, they just take things out of context. Best to know what and where people are coming from. You are a fast and voracious reader, it won't take you long.
At some point we grow out of our 20 something year old brain that thinks they know everything and realize that there is a reason why religion and everything around it has been around since the dawn of civilization.
First off, it’s not just people in their 20s that think this way. Secondly, religion has been around for a long time because simple and shallow ideas are easier for people to except than complex nuanced ones. Also, it’s a device for people who like to have power to control relatively uneducated and ignorant people. That’s why there is a direct correlation between how educated people are and how religious they are. The more educated, the less religious.
@@karthain5742 religion is not some simple shallow idea it is complicated i highly doubt someone like you for instance would be able to describe religions accurately going off your very clear biased response about it.
You totally forgot contractarianism (Rawls) or contract theory (Hobbes) in ethical theory. Virtue theory is problematic because you have to presuppose the virtues a priori which does not help identifying what is ethical or not in the first place. In essence, Virtue theory is just a form of moral intuition or a long term view of consequentialism.
Also...
1- Just because "something is working" is entirely subjective. Working for what? Working for whom? In what way is it "working"?
2- Even if you can derive some sort of normative classification for "working" it does not follow that the belief system is true but merely some of the behavior inspired by the belief system might produce consequences that you deem to be "working".
4- Character may not exist. It may just be a probabilistic "guess" about why type of behavior will be in the future.
CS Lewis was an amazing apologist for Christianity. He has converted many. However, his arguments have some serious problems that you need to read before you get sucked in.
Destiny doesn't read these comments, you should email him if you want him to read it.
Yes we can say that all of these people are wrong. More so why would I waste time on something that cannot be replicated in a controlled environment or through the scientific process. Religion is purely anecdotal interpretation. Wtf are you talking? about?🤣
Based and Christ-Pilled
The title is misleading. He’s still an atheist
@@ericstein8019 agonistic*** not atheist. Difference.
The ends do justify the memes
Please consider Jesus Destiny… we are living in the last days and there isn’t any more time to accept salvation. I know this won’t be believed by many, but that is the truth.
He literally did change his mind on this 3 years ago after listening to Sean Carroll's podcast with the black youth pastor guy that became atheist. This is where he got his ideas about importance of rituals in secular society.
Do you have a link to that? Sounds interesting, can't find it.
Most people don't derive moral from religion. Religion derive moral from people. If a religious person leave a religion, they don't discard all moral that aline with said religion. Religion is the frame for people to construct their virtues. And when a large portion of people convey their beliefs one way, religion changes. Interpreting the meanings differently so as to support their beliefs.
I don't think the discovery of a new book of a religion saying slavery is good would change one's moral.
So when Destiny say religion isn't fake, I think he's saying people's virtues came from the real world, but back by their religion's beliefs.
I’m not so sure. It’s difficult to imagine a religion adopting moral values like ‘love your enemies’, celibacy outside of marriage and monogamy from mere people.
U r sooo wrong...
@@oltch. then prove how he is ? I’m honestly curious lol
@@LtDeadeye I don't know if you are religion or not, but the perspective I'm offering is one that’s is atheist. Meaning the religion in question is created by human not a God. The virtues of said people who created the religion is derive from their surroundings. The group already collectively agree to what is good and bad. So religion will always drive from human.
One thing I want to clear up is that when a large group of religious people change their view, that doesn't necessarily mean everyone would agree to change their perception of their current Religion. Religion split off. Some will have more extreme views than others, but still technically in the same religion.
BY ACCIDENT!!!
or ON PURPOSE!!!
Don't cross the streams
This is quite different compared to the openly Islamophobic position of 2024 Destiny
one step closer to jordan peterson
Well, the Catholic Church has its Catechism so Destiny would have his hands full if he wanted to read the current full version or add the Baltimore Catechism and the Roman Catechism from the Council of Trent. He could probably use a good teacher to follow in his footsteps ;)
He doesn’t need that to be saved. He needs the Holy Spirit as a teacher and needs to be born again.
He needs more drugs
its meaning. when you can just buy a game on steam or watch a movie on your other monitor, it doesnt mean as much. its just there. nothing went into it, you can just do it. if you go on a journey, have to convince your parents to buy it for you and take you to the store, or the movie theater, it means more. meaning is why religion exists, otherwise how could people make sense of a world without meaning
You're talking about "the journey"? Pretty sure that doesn't require religion in any way.
Read the bible, follow christ... Don't need religion...
Isn’t the chiseling analogy just Aristotle’s ethics?
This is just maturity in a nutshell.
Check out Classical theist he makes great arguments
Bishop Fulton sheen was cool too
I will unsub the second he becomes religious. Oh hell no.
"something there thats working" is much different than something being true.
But why accept that its not true when you can’t disprove it ,a person of faith can’t prove that theirs a god but an atheist can’t disprove it. To simply accept the fact that there can’t be a god is ignorant and narrow minded in the way i see it.
At that age you just start to mature and listen to other ideas? Interesting….
Destiny so scared to offend Muslims 🤣
It’s all because he ruined his brain with drugs Sadge…
Destiny has set himself upon the pathway to traditionalism. Soon he will be reading Guenon (PBUH) on stream.
Deus Vault!
Destiny's Jordan Peterson arc. Dumb.
Interesting. I didn't know CS Lewis used this analogy. I've also used a statue analogy to reference character. I had a disagreement with a friend once who asked me "can someone ever truly become a different person?" And I said "No." My reasoning was that a person who was a certain way might change their actions, but they are still bound to their past. So if I'm an alcoholic and quit alcohol, I'm not the same as someone who has been sober their whole life. Even though we both do not drink at all in this moment, I still have a history of alcoholism and they don't. This means we have different characters. The only way I got him to agree was because I said this:
"Think of two statues. They are exactly the same statue and you cannot tell them apart from eachother. Accept one is made of White marble and one is made of White clay."
That’s more along the line of conversion. Someone doesn’t have to touch alcohol for whatever reason to remain completely sober, and the other has to touch the drink, taste the drink, and be swallowed up in a consumption that could kill you. It could be compared to the eating of the apple (or whatever the forbidden fruit was that granted such knowledge) in the Garden or knowing the intimacy of a lover. I read one of the saints named Catherine of Siena’s biographies who talks about being a great uniter of the Catholic Faith during a time when Three Men were claiming to be Pope. She also didn’t really know how to write or read before she performed such miracles.
@@MissPopuri I guess what I'm saying isn't as religious as what you were implying but I appreciate the response. What I was saying was that individual human nature can only be trained, and controlled, not changed. I am also a firm believer that the nature of a person is defined by whatever happens between ages 1-6, and everything is a game of catch-up from there.
HIs phrasing is a little weird, but I agree overall. I'd actually go a step further and say that everything you do and every decision you make slowly shapes who you are, not some metaphysical statue of yourself, but you as a person, physically and mentally.
lol weird. I literally daydream debate Destiny in my head on this exact topic sometimes. You can't stop me from pretending this was @ me.
Religion must be cancelled
You made yourself a god to claim that. Vaush 3-tier sub I guess.
I'm just chillin.
Christians are bad at being Christians… it is baked into our theology. There is only one perfect representative for Christianity, Christ.
The difference between secular dogmas and Christianity is the expectation of clumsy stupid (sinful) behavior and the expectation of forgiveness.
I think our current political strain does not allow for the idea that humans are clumsy and imperfect AND the mob does not forgive.
“Let him without sin cast the first stone.” John 8:7
You do realize that verse isn't saying if you are without sin cast the first stone? The woman that was brought before Jesus was being accused of cheating. According to the law of Moses, there are requirements in place to prevent either a husband or wife from being falsely accused. Per the law, witnesses to the act are needed (2-3) along with a test for the woman to see if she was carrying a child which would prove or disprove cheating. If the men were lying to Jesus they would be breaking two other commandments; thou shall not lie and thou shall not bear false witness. He was holding them accountable to the same Law as they were holding the woman to. Some suspect that what Jesus wrote in the sand was God's personal name as they were in the presence of God. So the modern interpretation is wrong and does not actually reflect what Jesus was saying. Since they were probably bearing false witness against the woman to trap Jesus, they would need to hold themselves to the same punishments the Law specified. That is why they left, not because of the modern interpretation of "thou shall not judge."
My man is actually 14. I would’ve assumed most people think through this about a year after becoming an atheist
this comment sounds more like something I woulda said at 14 lol
I'm non-religious, and even in my mid teens I realized the importance of religion in human history and what it can offer to people. You can be critical of religion while also acknowledging its pros. So destiny only now realizing that "instant gratification can be bad for you"(a take that's not even unique to religious people mind you) is kinda worrying.
In stream today he said he’s still atheist and religion is dog shit. This whole thing is him reading to see what other people have to say about character not the existence of god and where do morals come from
Judging by this comment, I honestly doubt that you have.
@@gallusgallusdomesticus281 Why?
You have to keep in mind many religious people believe in god but dont put much thought on the religion itself, so i think at the end of the day believing the world was created by god and thinking what most people around you believe require less mental effort than fucking thinking about quantum phisics and how something can be born from nothing and all the blind watchmaker stuff. So i would except that most people would follow the former. Then atheism become mainstream and yes many people pick it up but the majority still think of it at a basic level. Most people wont put much effort into it, as in any things and only few will.
Sure i think in religion there is much of value because it lasted from thousands of years and culture doesnt come from aliens it s a product of biology first, emotions. But most religious people in the west at least do not think of religion at the resolution of for example Jordan Peterson.
The antonym or I guess opposite of consequentialism wouldn't really be deontology technically... At least that's not how I was taught in my uni classes on morality... Deontology is a subset of what is known as 'non-consequentialism' in the same way that utilitarianism is a subset of consequentialist philosophy... Virtue ethics iirc falls under non-consequentialism alongside deontology... The reason being that virtue ethics doesn't concern itself with the consequences... Like deontology, virtue ethicists care about your motivations, principles, or ideals relating to a decision/action, not the consequences of such decisions/actions... Consequences can factor into it for non-consequentialists, but they aren't the deciding factor on if some action/decision is right or wrong...
In some cases declaring war may be right and in other cases wrong... Virtue ethicists would declare war if it was the virtuous thing to do based on however you figure out what is virtuous (maybe you have a moral exemplar and uh-oh they turn out to be very wise but also a huge war hawk so now you associate that with virtue) and Kant himself had a fairly positive attitude towards war which makes the deontologist position for pascifism a little more rough... I mean I thought Kant would be against war since it seems to use humans to achieve ends and if everyone was constantly at war that seems like a bad maxim, but when I asked my professor apparently he was FAR from being pascifist... Kant saw it as great that someone would ignore their inclinations for self-preservation in order to help their community and this other stuff... Deontology is just weird to me... But obviously they're more concerned with acts rather than consequences...
But for consequentialists they'll be concerned with like... Does God want this war? (divine command theory), Is this war in my self-interests? (ethical egoism), Will this war make me happy? (hedonism), Will this war promote the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people? (act utilitarianism), and so on... The consequences of the war, as the term consequentialism obviously suggests...
BUT anyway that's just what I remember I was taught... You can go look up non-consequentialism, it's an actual philosophy term and it doesn't JUST mean deontology... But some websites seem to not acknowledge the terminology for some reason... So maybe it's something that's debated among academics, idk... I think it depends how you read those websites though... Like, it contrasts virtue ethics with consequentialism and deontology, but the reason it does that I don't think is because virtue ethics isn't categorized with deontology under non-consequentialism, I think it's because deontology might be the only other non-consequentialist theory worthy of note aside from virtue ethics... And obviously they have disagreements... So it makes sense to contrast them with deontologists as well as all the other notable philosophies which happen fall under consequentialism... But that doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't non-consequentialism within which both deontology and virtue ethics fall under...
You don’t need religion to prove existence has always existed, if it didn’t there’d no nothing and never be. It would have to always existed regardless of a God. Of course there’s reason to believe in religion because you can look at anything in a way of having reason. There’s so many morals you can’t see from them.
Cease these childish games and pledge allegiance to Rome.
Sounds like Destiny needs to go watch Jordan Peterson's lecture series _Maps of Meaning,_ as well as _The Psychological Significance of the Biblical Stories._ Nobody that I know of has explored the topic Destiny is pondering more in depth than JP.
Seems a stretch to assign these feelings to religion when they seem firmly routed in human psychology. I’m not saying you shouldn’t look into it as a possibility, but you did make an argument for “God of the gaps” theory. I.e. Something unexplained is being attributed to something supernatural.
This subject matter is SO FAR OVER Destiny’s head, yet he approaches with an air of expertise and superiority; with the same zeal he approaches strength training theory 😂. That’s our Destiny, never change
In most cases, you should ignore the people and go to the ideology, but not in religion. Christian Religion pre-supposes the existence of an omnipotent and omnipresent being who blessed humanity (his chosen) with a set of guidelines to live by. If his ideology is so difficult to adhere too that virtually every Christian someone from the outside meets, is a repugnant ANTI example of the faith, that is a failing on gods part, and if he’s failed, that’s not “the god” as the text described him. Islam is especially egregious with this. He’s supposedly the end all be all, but his preferred vehicle of spreading his enlightening truth that he wants everyone to have and follow, is a dense book of metaphors in a language only a fraction of the population speaks, and even amongst that fraction; nobody can find any agreement with anyone else on fundamental aspects of the text.