M Harclerode Atheists pretend to know something that they don't know: that no God exists. And don't try that ridiculous dodge about "Atheism is a lack of belief." Whenever you reject one proposition, you simultaneously affirm its opposite. You reject the proposition that an intelligent being created the universe, then you are affirming the proposition that the universe came into existence without the agency of an intelligent being. Unless you can prove that the universe came into existence without such intelligent agency, then you are pretending to know something that you don't know.
Ok, then why would you assume a "god" made the universe? Fantastic claims, such as those made by all religions (ie- Cults) require serious proof. Not the questioning of fantastic claims.
M Harclerode God is actually not a fantasy claim but has been proven by logic. Hence, 1) The universe either exist or it doesn't. (I take that you have taken the position that it does, because of your question) 2) the universe either came/made from nothing or from something. 2a)nothing can not ever become something for these two states are contradictory. 3) That something that universe came from must be wholly or in part super-universe. MY definition (so does many other people) of "God" is the origin of all things in the universe; so how does believing in logic make me a cult member?
One huge consequence of faith is softening people up for authoritarianism; all guidance comes from the top down, from an absolute leader. Christianity teaches that people are born in sin...evil, etc and gotta spend their lives trying to be good according to a endlessly contradictory ancient text so as to avoid horrible punishment by a rigid enforcer threatening you with HELL hence "living in fear"
@Not Steve Stalin was trained in theology I think he had the support of the orthodox church. Pam R comment made me realise how the masses were sucked in so easily. If you are indoctrinated to believe without question, it follows that the new leader has an easier task to manipulate the primed targets.
@@wynnhorton1208 It would be good if you substantiate your claim. I have no faith in human nature or the state, I am sure that reality (and Santa) are the only things I can use to manage my life. You are the same. If your faith is more reliable, you could try this test. Run your automobile on empty for two months. If you look at the fuel gauge, you are using a reality technique. Your biology comment is probably based on the fallacy of incredulity from the ID-religion and is not based on measurable knowledge.
I'm not sure what evidence for what you're speaking of but belief plays a huge part in everything. It takes a belief that a cure for a disease can be found to motivate people to find it, along with the hope it can be found.. It took a belief in DNA for science to pursue and find it. The language of life. Being skeptical is good to a degree, but to be skeptical because of lack of evidence and never change is just giving up. Belief and hope are far more powerful than skepticism
Mr. Boghossian, for whom I have great respect, asserts that faith and reason are exclusive of one another. As a Christian, I exercise both all the time. The Bible is clear that hope and faith are different as it says in Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." So, I hope that a tree doesn't fall on my house (like during a storm), and I exercise my faith to bring that about. So, if it falls on my house, that means there is no God? My answer is no, it simply means that I didn't have enough faith to avert the incident. Mathew 8:26 "Oh you of little faith." He didn't say they didn't have any faith, he said they had little faith. One of the 10 commandments is "You shall not murder." I not only take it on faith that this is correct, I reason that the tenet is sound (I don't murder you, you don't murder me). I'd rather be a man of great faith, than a great man of faith.
Although your reply to me isn't here, I read it in my email. You have a different definition of faith than the atheist professor's. I think he should know that!!
Unfortunately, that consists of circular and false reasoning with an unfalsifiable get out of jail free excuse. You have made a number of unsupported assertions related to your unspecified or described invisible friend in the sky (or heavenly father), but you forgot to demonstrate that your invisible friend in the sky actually exists or, indeed, ever existed. If you follow the instructions in the bible, why are you not stoning stroppy children to death at the city gates? Why are you not out killing homosexuals? Your god thing lied to Adam that he would die the same day he ate the fruit, yet your god also claims a few pages later that Adam lived to be 930 years old. Both those claims cannot be correct and true. If either of them is wrong, then the bible is not perfect and the god thing described therein is not perfect and cannot be the perfect god thing the bible describes.
+Truth Matters "+Sweence "Faith is the intentional suspension of critical thinking." Really? You're so ignorant you probably don't even understand what is being said. Haha
Truth Matters By your argument we should have "faith" in the Tooth Fairy and Pink Unicorns. Hiding behind faith to prop-up your religious assertions is idiotic.
Truth Matters Atheism is the default position. We are all born Atheists until our parents and communities fill our heads up with ancient bible garbage. I don't believe in a god for the same reason I don't believe in Pink Unicorns. There is NO evidence.
Truth Matters "Why do you gave such great faith that atheism is true? What evidence and arguments do you have - much less proof? Why do you believe no God exists?" You don't need faith to have a lack of belief, a disbelief in gods. The definition of atheist has been shown to you and other creationists many times, and you still ask the same stupid questions over and over again. WE DON'T NEED FAITH TO HAVE A DISBELIF IN A GOD/GODS. We are not saying a god or gods absolutely do not exist, we don't see any evidence that any gods have existed throughout history, so we lack a belief that any gods do exist. Do you understand it now? Are you absolutely sure your Christian god exists? If so, can you prove it, and that all the gods before and after your god have never existed? Think about that for a while and you'll understand why we go one god further. All gods throughout history are man made. Prove me wrong.
I love that Peter has been so influential and undermined faith. I also love that as a result we now have a society that harasses him on the street and out of his job. Good job Peter. You got the Portland you wanted.
@@_ncko Of course. Why do you think the woke fights the religious more than anyone? What do you think replaces religion? Fascism, Nazism and Communism replaced Christianity after it died in Europe.
@@_ncko You missed everything I said. I never said all Atheists think the same. I said that pushing atheism leaves the space for other ideologies. Usually worse than Judaism and Christianity.
i was christian for 20+ years and throughout those years i was under the impression that everyone around me believed in those things *because* they were true facts and actually happened in history. i only found out YEARS after my deconversion that this wasn't so. the majority of people believe in religions *regardless of what is true*. they care more about the feelings they get from it and less about accuracy of facts. virtually every person i had discussion with openly admitted this this was shocking to me and it will be equally shocking to millions of people today when they discover they are in the same camp with people who don't care about truth
I think in many cases you are correct. Especially in charismatic Christian denominations. There are others however that actually warn against trusting our emotions. A man named John Wesley once wrote that faith without verification may simply be a delusion. I was more of an agnostic for most of my life. Scripture and the religion of Jesus Christ simply did not make any reasonable sense to me. One of the many aspects that cleared up some of the contradictions was simply that Scripture is not a book of history or science. It was never intended to be. The Biblical literalists have a difficult time with this but The Bible was never intended to be solely literal. Whenever we take things out of their intended purpose of course there is a lack of truth. In context to the intention and purpose of Scripture, well, I find it to be very true based on my personal experience and the tangible experiences of others by observation. Much respect!
You need to be rebuked and turn back to Jesus Christ man. Don't you realize how wicked our hearts are? Everyone has sinned. Are you denying that you're a sinner? Return to Jesus man, think about it. We all have to stand before the judgment seat of the Lord.
+Samuraigamer Sir may I ask- what were some of the things that you thought were historical (that Christians accept) that you later found out were false, hence aiding in your deconversion?
Joseph Garrett i'm talking about *every* single event written in old testament and new. i'm sure this isn't exactly the answer you were looking for, but i wouldn't want to narrow it down. whatever event we pick we'll see this phenomenon taking place. for instance: the miracle of jericho walls. recently i saw a high priest in my country saying in an interview about this miracle : "it doesnt have to have happened exactly as stated in the bible, maybe to the people there it seemed like a miracle but it might not be miraculous at all" if you came to me 10 years ago and told me this i'd respond: "WAIT A MINUTE, what do you mean it might not be a miracle? it's either a miracle or it's not, and the bible certainly portrays it for a miracle. If we are not sure why have i been told my whole life with certainty that it IS a miracle?" example2: the story of jesus and the adulteress. all my life i've been hearing this story conveyed with certainty of its place in history. only later i found out this story didnt originaly belong in the text and is a later interpolation added by a scribe. this is common knowledge among the historians for centuries if you came to me 10 years ago and told me this i'd respond: "wait a minute, if we aren't certain this event even happened WHY am i only hearing this now? all my life i've been listening to people conveying the story with absolute certainty of its historicity" and it goes on to every miracle and story in the book. in conversations i had with people of faith where i pointed out our vast uncertainty and even contradictions in stories of the bible, they openly admitted in the end that the accuracy of the bible is irrelevant with their belief in it,because their feelings strongly tell them there's some deep truth in it. This is shocking to me to say the least.
Interesting thought challenge. I think one can have faith (as a word in common usage) as being synonymous with confidence. "I have faith that my friend will succeed" would translate as "I am confident my friend will succeed" if you posess the knowledge that your friend is skilled in the task at hand. While not entirely similar to "I hope my friend will succeed" it comes fairly close since it is an expectation of an outcome based on your knowledge of the skill of your friend.
DID YOU HAVE FAITH IN YOUR MOTHER FEEDING YOU WHEN YOU WERE HUNGRY ? OR DID YOU JUST TAKE IT FOR GRANTED ?? WE JESUS WILL FEED YOU IF YOU HAVE FAITH !!
I'm care provider and work in behavioral modification. Modeling is the number one tool of influence we use in the field. So if you wondering if it works its does.
1:23 People of Faith are neutral 1:59 Reason > Faith 2:26 Slippery Definitions Faith - Belief without evidence Faith - Pretending to know things you don’t know 4:12 Life has no meaning without Faith 5:20 Crisis of Faith 5:59 7:25 Atheism 8:35 9:28 True For Me 10:29 Faith and Hope 11:43 Faith Claims are Knowledge Claims 13:04 16:29 idk 17:56 Linguistic Level, Stigmatization, Erode The Structure 25:58 We live in A Society, Delusions should not be a part of Society 27:28 Orange County True Hope Through Rationality 32:33 Mental Illness Model The Behavior You Would Like To See In Them 34:13 Adversarial Engagement does not work 36:37
This guy is great, a very good teacher. I've been watching debates and talks about religion and atheism for a while now. This is the first time I've seen him talk. I'm impressed. 👍
I'm an atheist. I went to this Catholic meeting on the Portland State campus out of curiosity. It was interesting mildly. These people are so gone it's a bit scary. They really believe that the bibical stories are historical fact. One guy actually said that Jesus's ascension is the most well documented historical fact ever. I couldn't believe my ears. That is pretending to know things you don't know. The people in the meeting were very nice and I sort of feel sorry for them. They are terrified of the world around them and they just can't handle reality. They are basically children that could never accept that Santa isn't real.
+MisterBinx Being a Catholic meeting, they at least accept that we evolved. That is one thing positive I can say about Catholics. They're getting all their information from the bible and creation sites when it comes to Jesus' ascension, and other miracles. If they would only take off the blinders and start to question what they've been told is true. It set me free from religion, as well as many others I have seen here and on other forums.
Kristen Michelle, please explain to me in clear and plain speak how it is possible to know "god" personally? I was a so called born again Christian for a time and genuinely pursued a way to know god personally and came away with more questions than answers. When I asked the Pastor questions about contradictions in his sermons and in the interpretation of the bible he got angry and made me feel like an idiot despite me giving him the respect the other church goers gave him. He preached on the same passage in the bible about 4 months apart and his sermons were as different as night and day. Different message, different meanings and so on. When I asked him about this respectfully he brushed me aside and started telling other church members to beware of me as I was "backsliding" Backsliding for asking questions? WTF?
Ragnar, so your pastor couldn't answer your questions about God and he preached contradictory messages? Well, I can't comment as I don't know what the contradictions were. Maybe I can answer your questions, or at least try to find the answer for you. As far as knowing God personally, for me it was simple. I really wanted to know what God was like personally. I had heard so many things _about_ God, but I wanted to see for myself what Jesus was really like, so I went to the Gospels. Somebody gave me a New Testament and I just started in the beginning which was the Book of Matthew. I continued with Mark, Luke and John and during that time I really came to know Jesus. And to know him is to love him. I felt like I knew him just as I knew my own family members. I had a deep sense of knowing him and loving him just from reading the New Testament. I now realize it was the Holy Spirit revealing the attributes of his personality to me. Jesus was humble. I didn't know this in a real sense till I read the Gospels. Jesus was gentle, caring, loving, and Jesus had great authority and power. He was self-controlled. He was full of wisdom. He was so strong. I learned so much about him. None of this did I know before I took the time to learn about Jesus for myself. I only knew what other people said about him -- like preachers and teachers. But it made a world of difference to me to get into the New Testament and discover Jesus for myself. As the Bible tells us in the Old Testament and this applies to you: *"For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future...And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for me with all your heart."*
I know this is an old video but Faith isn't just used to mean Hope it can also mean Trust. "I have faith (trust) that my doctors training will allow him to perform a sucessfull surgery on my father." I am not merely hoping as I would have to with alternative medicine nor am I pretending to know the outcome of the surgery for certain.
Give me an example where the word Faith can't be replaced by the word Hope and isn't an example of pretending to know things someone doesn't know. Here goes: Have you met my wife, Faith, and her sister, Hope?
Forgive me, but I would rather cut out my tongue and salt it and eat it for supper than type one word for those people. BOWDLERized books for the masses
And yet, people more intelligent than you and me... Do believe. So thinking of theists as stupid means you haven't understood them and hence won't be able to engage them. They need to be guided towards critical thinking about their belief which means listening to them and then placing a subtle seed of doubt there. Pebble in their shoe (Street epistolography). See also...
@@DarkMatter1919 Yes, believers come in all states of mind and brainpower but "inside the box" is what I would like to know more. I might have put my comment in the wrong level ie to notsteve
@@flatearth9140 Many religious people believe that there can’t be morality without religion. This video is for those people. You might not personally believe that, but there are many out there that do.
@@Jasonsmith-sr1ke YES MORALITY IS TAUGHT. MANY PEOPLE THINK THEY CAN MAKE THEIR OWN MORALITY,HOMOSEXUALS,ABORTIONS, ECT BUT RULES OF MORALITY COMES FROM THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF TRIAL AND ERROR THEN PUT IN BOOKS FOR US TO LEARNE FROM,
"Right now, you can stop pretending to know things that you don't know." This is true and it is false. In the realm of truth claims, one can certainly respond with "I don't know," when asked for certainty about a particular bit of knowledge. However, in the realm of action, we are often put in the position to make decisions with less than perfect certainty about the correct action. This is precisely where a degree of "faith" is inescapable and required of all human beings to navigate life.
Faith is strong confidence in any belief. You use faith to say the sun exists, anything about yesterday or that anyone believes in a god. You can't prove any of those. Also you might wish to improve your concept of what evidence is. Evidence can be an outright lie. Also, you may wish to upgrade your grasp of facts. Facts are properties of material objects. No fact is true. Lastly, reasoning works. Please use it. You didn't even try to here.
+Jim Hampton "Tell me, how did life arise from non-life without intelligent intervention through natural processes? No one knows the answer to that question without faith." If you had stopped typing two words short of the end you would have been bang on the money. The actual answer is "Nobody knows"; the answer is not "Nobody knows *without faith*" because faith isn't knowing - otherwise it would be called knowing and there would be no need for faith. Because it would be knowing. I can't believe that I'm even having to explain this.
4:15- Life has no meaning without Faith. Correct. Life doesn't have an intrinsic meaning. It doesn't have to. Why do religious people hang on this so badly? Life is whatever you want it to be.
+57ashdot That and, more instrumentally, I think it has more to do with Fear. The idea that when you die-YOU DIE, is a very, very scary thought to the vast majority of people. They actually don't ever think of it at all frankly. But when they approach this thought they reject it. It simply just can't be true... b/c that means, heaven is here, now, on Earth - and how would everyone act if this was their one true chance to make the best of it?
Truth Matters Mussolini talked in several different Mass speeches, of reviving the HOLY Roman empire. Why do you think he joined Hitler, because Hitler was also a Catholic Christian.
Truth Matters no,Hitler was a devout Catholic, and believed he was doing God's work. Read his book mein kamph.listen to his speeches about God ..even the Nazis uniforms had a God slogon on it.
57ashdot. And after this earthly realm? The wages of sin is death! We all must face it, and comes when we least expect it. Even the stars die!!! For christians, "Don't fear the reaper" is true. Why? Because We're very sure that all souls merge into the next realm. We're not just here to procreate, trash the earth, and evolve, and that's it! And I have clearly seen what we are evolving to, and it's not promising at all. Atheist do have a dim view of life, if they think THIS is all there is. Glad I'm not of that grim mentality of indifference!
Faith can only be realistic if that or who you have faith in or on. For example, I have faith in winning the race because I have prepared myself to win. Faith can be real if it is based on previous knowledge that you will beat the competitors because you are better and worked harder to win the race. Faith and hope are not interchangeable because hope is also based on the unknown. Hoping is like praying. I hope you don't die, knowing that a terminal illness is unsurvivable. Hoping is wishing for the best or worst outcome depending on the target. Faith can only be real if it is provable by merit.
And even then, you have to hope that nothing happens to quash your faith in the outcome because you don’t know what can happen between now and the faith that you have in the future outcome.
I was a proud, happy atheist for decades. Thankfully Christ rescued me. Nothing can even compare to a relationship with God. So happy my eyes were opened. Never turning my back. You can seek Him anytime if you do so with a genuine and humble heart
@@Kaymen1980 lets just accept her truth, she used science to achieve it... applied philosophy led to a state that wasn't resonant. so she changed her philosophy... tada... she is because she is... and that's it... because is. And it matters not what others choose, because she isn't making their choice. acceptance=love=is=am= infinite potential to express infinite form... all true... in essence.... love....
Faith is not pretending. Pretending, is pretending. Faith is more so connected to knowledge, whereas Pretending is wholly "imaginary". I wish the Dr. gad started off with a solid understanding of what faith actually is, because it wouldn't prevented him from steering into a mental ditch concerning the topic. But it was interesting listening to him explain his journey of thought while trying to come to a better understanding for what faith actually is, even though he arrived at an incomplete conclusion. Seeking to understand what faith is all about, is a VERY worthy endeavor. So please, keep searching Dr. Boghossian.
I do too, but what affect will it have on a theist who refuses to accept any term you use? Experience shows they will simply reject your term/try to accuse you of the same approach/tell you it's out of context/etc.
***** That's where it gets confusing. What good is faith when someone claims to know? If I know I have $10 in my wallet because I've checked numerous times, I don't need faith to believe I have $10, yet believers will still claim to "know" while utilizing "faith." It's no wonder people of reason don't think that way.....it's *because* we're people of reason.
Well at least even religious leaders can admit that they "don't know 100% & that there's no evidence of deity or afterlife, that's why you have to have "faith" they exist". Some of these ppl here on u tube that claim to "know"? And then say they're being persecuted when asked for evidence, is just plain ridiculous...I've heard so many things here that Christians have claimed the Bible says..when it doesn't..it really does make you wonder about their intellect & sanity.. lol
***** As a former believer I suspect it has to do with interpreting our subjective experiences as objective reality. People of faith tend to think that if it feels or sounds right to THEM, it must be true. The problem is, they don't seem to realize (or care!) that people on the other side of the planet hold diametrically opposing views, yet utilize the same faith-methodology to defend their position. It's frustrating to see people do that while still believing they (in most cases) mean well. They need some nudging in the right direction so they may begin rethinking their accepted knowledge, replacing it with a reasonable understanding based on evidence, not faith.
I used to call myself an atheist and thought Darwin was a genius. Let's look at the "Bible" of evolutionism, The Origin of Species. Maybe because it is so mind numbingly boring, people rarely notice something, namely that it never shows the origin of anything! Darwin's finch beaks are supposed to support goo through the zoo to you, but what do they really show? Zero. . Research reveals that the beaks grow back and forth in size depending on climate variations. The evidence that finches or Galapagos Island Turtles et al have ever been or ever will be anything but finches, and turtles et al? Zero again. . Oh, and btw, as usual in evolutionary theory you are being told one thing while the opposite is true, as about natural selection. It does not lead to evolution as Darwin claimed. It only shuffles, or sometimes eliminates, pre existing information that has always been in the genomes. It never creates new DNA as would be necessary, for ex., to turn a fin into a foot or a leg into a wing. Nothing ever observed creates new DNA. All DNA is just a copy of a copy of a copy which can be altered by things like mutations. . Beneficial mutations? They are said to be the second force for evolution. However, Charles Muller, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on them, said "The good ones are so rare that we can consider them all bad." . Darwin was nothing but an armchair theorist who, unlike his contemporary Mendel, never supported his theory through the scientific method and cast doubts on it himself. Yet he is an icon of evolution, like another contemporary, a lawyer named George Lyell, who came up with the totally fictional Geologic Column. . The GC exists only in art work. The real evidence? Fossils are jumbled, in no neatly organized pattern whatsoever. There really are no such things as Cambrian, Jurassic, and so on "periods." Like the GC those are just fictions presented as facts. Giant shark fossils are found with dino fossils in Montana, for ex. Whales' fossils are found in wildly improbable places like the Andes mountains, the Sahara and a desert in Chile. Deep sea "Cambrian" fossils, such as sea shells and mollusks, are found at every level on the planet, including on most mountain tops - like the world's highest, the Himalayans. Fossils of ocean floor life forms, like trilobites. are found in the hills of mid America and countless other places world wide, high and far inland. . Take a look. See the ocean floor dwelling, now extinct, so called "Cambrian", trilobites found on mountain tops all over the world. (They are supposed to be at the bottom of the GC.) www.bing.com/images/search?q=trilobites%20On%20Mountains&qs=n&form=QBIR&sp=-1&pq=trilobites%20on%20mountains&sc=0-23&sk=&cvid=9008D75298A54105AD924CA3AACAE385 Notice the exquisitely preserved details on many. This is also seen with innumerable sea shells, mollusks, etc. . Now some claim "plate tectonics" moved, intact and conjoined, vast stretches of ocean dwelling, bottom floor, marine life fossils in the countless billions to travel for millions of years and then wrap around the tops of mountains. Not uncommonly they are in their original shape with perfect details as you see in the link. It's like the theorists never heard of erosion. Others claim, "Well, if there are whale fossils in the Sahara, and Nautilus fossils in the Grand Canyon, etc. that shows an ocean was present." Oceans don't create fossils! Fossils are created when life forms are rapidly buried with water and sediment. That way no animals can eat them, natural forces can't erode them, and the chemistry of fossilization can begin . (And please do not send me a post quoting Talk Origins, which I call Talk Spin. Yes, I know that they claim to have found one GC on this entire, vast, planet. But they didn't. If you will check thoroughly you will see them saying "Some of the strata are out of place", i.e. there ain't any GC there, either. I am very familiar with TO. They have no problems with flat out lying and are not even an authentic science source. If you can find an authentic science source that shows a GC, include that with a link to a photo. Then explain why the rest of the planet shows the exact opposite of a GC. My experience is that knowledgeable evolution defending people will say "Well, the GC is just a model. We know none really exists." When I ask "How can you make a model of something that has no evidence whatsoever that it existed?" they don't respond.) . The Bible says that flood waters completely covered the whole earth after, for one thing, "the fountains of the deep broke forth." (Did you know there is an ocean below our commonly known oceans, or have you seen the mid Atlantic ridge which looks like it used to be a great crack on the ocean floor? Probably not.). The fossil record shows that marine life fossils are at every level on the planet, everywhere around the globe, and that, in fact, over 90% of the fossils on land are marine. And they say the Bible is not historical and not backed by science. And btw there are almost 300 Great Flood legends around the world. Even the one by the Aborigines of Australia is highly similar to what the Bible reports. . So you've been told a book showed the origin of species, but it didn't. You've been told G.I. animals show evolution but they only show they are having, at most, minimal changes that leave them basically what they were before. . You were told there is a Geological Column, but there is not one on the planet. You're told over and over that natural selection shows evolutionism when it actually just somewhat modifies the organism through shifting already present information, or sometimes through loss of information, in the genomes, leaving it essentially what it was before. It may eventually become a new species of fish, or bee, or tree, etc., but it will always stay a fish, a bee or a tree etc. We see no evidence whatsoever of any species in a Genus moving up to the next step on the Animal or Plant Kingdom to become a new Family. (Not to mention never seeing any transitions from any order, class, phylum or Kingdom.) . Yet that would have had to have happened for evolution to occur, and it is claimed, with no evidence whatsoever, that it did happen over and over and over. . We have trillions of life forms out there. So why don't we see mutations causing any Lifeform of Family A to turn into a Lifeform of Family B? After all, their ancestors have supposedly had hundreds of millions of Darwin years to make the switch and be moving around as part A and part B. But eagles stay eagles, bullfrogs stay bullfrogs, dolphins stay dolphins, eboli bacteria stay eboli bacteria, tulips stay tulips, chimps stay chimps, fruit flies stay fruit lies, and of course people stay people, no matter how much they change. This fits in with what the Bible says about creation having been halted. . What else does evolutionism offer besides unsubstantiated theories, in fact theories that defy the real evidence, presented as facts? Logical fallacies. Logical fallacies always, always, undergird evolutionism defense. . The favorites are Correlation Does Not Imply Causation and Presuming Omniscience, though it uses many. . Correlation Does Not Imply Causation goes like this: "Look! Fossil A has some similarities to Fossil B! We'll use big words to sound impressive about that, like 'similar homology.' We have exactly zero evidence Fossil A even had a descendant, much less one significantly different from it, much less that it turned into B, C, D etc. But we are going to tell you, as gawd's truth scientific fact, that we know all about what happened to its evidenceless, unverifiable descendants. We'll call that science." . This leads right into the Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy. Another example of a use of that fallacy is when an evolutionary paleontologist will pick up a fossil from the ground and tell you with absolute authority that they know all about what happened to it's invisible "descendants" in the untestable past - for over 100 million Darwin years. . "Missing links" (2 to 5 million Darwin years' worth of them between you and Lucy or some other such "transition" du jour) is a Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy phrase. How do you tell missing links from never existed links? Have...faith...brothers and sisters! And be so grateful that YOU ain't religious! . Learn how to spot logical fallacies and you will see them used in every defense in evolutionary literature. . Ignoring the actual data is also part of evolutionism. For just one of innumerable examples, they say life can come from inorganic matter (and don't say they do not - who came up with the antiscientific primal pond, creationists?) The data, what real science uses, shows life, always and only, comes from life and life of the same kind. . Pile theories presented as facts on top of logical fallacies, ignore the real data or try to spin it away, and stir well with sophistry. Then you have evolutionary theory. . You're not a fish update. You have a Creator Who made you and loves you and wants you to know Him, and to love Him too. Don't trade that in for pseudo science mumbo jumbo.
@@loricalass4068 "Don't trade that in for pseudo science mumbo jumbo." says the person on a computer connected to a global network provided by science.....please never fly , never go to a doctor or a hospital - just pray for everything and it will magically appear.........
@@SNORKYMEDIA Your post is typical of TH-cam evolution supporters. You are given a bunch of observable, scientific data, and you evade even mentioning it. Also typical is that you think you are a big time science defender but demonstrate you don't even understand the most basic things about it. Airplanes and medicine involve what is testable, repeatable and observable. If evolutionism were a science, instead of a pseudo science, it would fall into the realm of historical sciences which do not involve that which is testable, repeatable and observable. You can pick up a fossil from the ground and say that it turned into this or that. Where is the observable data to show it had even one descendant significantly different from it? Well, as in The Emperor's New Clothes, you are told something exists and you believe it, though the evidence is totally lacking. Instead you get "similar to....looks like...may have...." to support the evolutionary narrative through what is unverifiable and conveniently from the distant and invisible so called past. Friend, you are the one who believes in magic because you believe in the religion of evolution. I have seen over and over that such posters as yourself never, ever say a single thing based on actual data. Learn to think. I suggest starting with Wazooloo vids. They have real science and real critical analysis. You don't even understand how those work at present. Welcome to mute. Bye!
@@8698gil That was a very short post which is totally typical of almost all evoltion defenders on You Tube. I.e. 1st there was no attempt whatsoever to refute any of the scientific data presented. 2nd there was no reference to any scientific data whatsoever period. 3rd Personal, meaningless and irreelvant insults are used to replace logic, information and civility. Welcome to mute as you currently do not know how to thnk or articulate, demonstrate zero understanding of the scientific issues relevant here, and like troll talk. Bye!
@8:40 I'm not sure what he's defining in that cumbersome statement but it doesn't seem right to me. The last part defines an Atheist and the first part says he's not one of those so presumably he's defining a Theist. In which case the first part should read *_"I pretend to know things I don't know too much to be a person..."_* Agree?
That is his point in fact. The original is the "clever" quip that "I do not have enough faith to be an atheist" However as Peter shows, and you also point out, they are essentially saying "I don't pretend enough to be someone who doesn't pretend", i.e. it is a contradictory statement.
I want to be wrong about this, but experience shows I'm not: no matter how you define faith, the theist you're talking with will simply dismiss it as wrong. It's as simple as that. They will NOT allow you to crack their delusion-shell, so any attempt to make inroads into their faulty beliefs will be shut down by them simply telling you, "That's not faith," or, "You're taking it out of context," or, "You have faith too." You cannot have an honest discussion with a person who's being dishonest.
I agree, earlier I logged onto Facebook just to see the following, and I quote: "What is an Atheist ? I am a firm believer in God and I do not understand what you clowns believe in. Please enlighten me." This isn't someone looking for a discussion, this is a person who wants to belittle others and say they were right before the discussion even began.
@@pobster88j94 Through testing and evidence. You repeat an action to see if it results the same way each time. If it does, it's reliable. If the findings change or become inconsistent, it's faulty.
I see what you're saying but it in my experience I can't have a discussions with an Atheist cause they imminently get on their high horse and disregard everything I say just because I'm religious. They will NOT break out of there egotistic mindset that they are imminently smarter then you just because they're Atheist, they are so closed-minded and refuse to think that they might be wrong so they just shut you down by stating "that's a claim and not evidence" or "that evidence isn't strong enough" or "You believe in fairy-tales". You can't have a dialogue with someone who is close-minded.
The meaning of "hope" in the Evangelical setting is "a confident expectation". It is regarded as faith in a future state of affairs. This is a common teaching in Bible classes. It is the false representation of an unlikely future as certain.
People need to put their belief in supernatural claims under the same scrutiny they put other religions supernatural claims. I claim all religions have behind them - power, money, control, need for esteem and taking advantage of people's fear of death for them and their loved ones.
its always easy to divest this... when someone asks me if i have faith in science, i say i don't need faith in it, i have evidence. faith a chair will hold me up, or faith in love/wife/etc.... nope i have evidence that those things occur. then i turn it around and ask them for the evidence for what they have faith in... they never have any and become starkly aware of that contrast (if they aren't stupid).
That's not really true, though, is it? You invest belief or confidence in the chair on the basis of past chairs plus inductive inference. Where is the evidence that your confidence is justified?
Thank you Dr. Boghossian for your many contributions to our world. I love the idea of not attacking those who believe in their religion, but more in the ideas within religion. The experience of homosexuals is quite prescient. I believe that most LGBTs have experienced the effects of homophobia from a person who appears to be evenhanded, but harbors beliefs against them.
There is a problem lumping LGB in with T as the first three are sexualities and the latter isn't. Current direction has seen a lot of homophobia FROM the T's, especially towards the L's, evident in the Autogynophile M-t-Fs who insist that L's not wanting penis is a prejudice they should "get over", which is reminiscent of previous gay conversion strategies.
I may be reading too much into your adding a T to LGB but... Is it not faith to say that feminine boys will be happier growing up to be transwomen rather than gay men?
And yet You don't Realise ow Bohgossian's Approach is Him Concealing His Own Beliefs Against others by pretending to be Even Handed. he even tells You to Think of Yourself as a Doctor Treating a Patient afflicted with The Faith Virus, which is a Transmittable mental Illness, and to View them as the patient. They are Clearly Wrong and Your job is to heal them by getting them to Agree with You. if they don't, they are either irrational and won't Listen, or else they are Literally Brain Damaged. he also wants to set up an Authoritarian Dictatorship where people are Actively Discriminated Against unless they Agree with Him.
It was my love for logic and reason which led me to discover things about world around me that I have never known before. And ironically, Those things that I discovered also brought me to something that I could not ever explain, and as a result, I found faith in God and his goodness that defies all logic and reason. And I will admit that freely. It doesn’t mean that I don’t examine the numbers, make the calculations, and come to conclusions. But I conclusions have only lead me to more questions, and that cycle seems inexhaustible. Reason comes to conclusions, but conclusions only find more questions. And when one feels bewilderment or a sense of helplessness as a result, faith in God comes in really handy.
I'm comfortable with admitting "I don't know" for unexplainable phenomena, instead of throwing out logic and reason and pretending to know things I don't know. Just because faith may be pragmatic in certain situations does not make it true.
It's all a fairy tale just made up by humans to make people "feel"okay about death.....nothing more.....slaves didn't build the pyramids and there's no boat big enuff to hold the world's animals.....period
@@flatearth9140 believe what? You have to have some facts in order to believe something, you don't just believe in things for the hell of it or because others believe it. When I left the Mormon church they said I just don't believe, same thing happened again when I left a Baptist church, and a Catholic church, then a non-denominational church. All these different beliefs out there. People tend to believe in whatever religion they were raised in or grew up hearing. Think for yourself people! Example, just because you were born into a Mormon family and culture doesn't mean your Mormon beliefs are correct, same with any other church or religion. It's time we wake up folks
@@youtoo2233 YOU WENT FROM RELIGION TO RELIGION ? NO WONDER YOU DONT KNOW !! ALL THE RELIGIONS ARE SPEAKING ABOUT THE SAME GOD !! YOU BOUNCED AROUND LOOKING FOR THE TRUTH WHEN IT WAS RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF YOU ALL THE TIME !! YOU MUST SEEK JESUS !!
I don’t know if the word faith is always defined by the word “know”, which is needed to make peters definition sound so ridiculous. But I think faith can be anything from “I think...” to “I know... “, so I’m not sold on Peters replacement being accurate. But it’s definitely funny.
Michael Patton i think faith in the christian sense has more to do with hope than evidence . in romans it says 'For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have?' so faith is not only blind, it specifically denies evidence.
Michael Patton modern christians may use faith differently than early christians, who relied more on hope that was not a prerequisite for salvation. Modern Christians, especially protestants focus mainly on faith as the only requirement , but older orders still talk about repentance, good works and hope. Like you can have faith that it's true for a kind of comfort (self delusion) but focus on repentance and good works for salvation.
+Michael Patton I have read your remarks with great care. Without meaning to argue the point, I find that I must stand by my original statement. I can find no difference, semantically or otherwise, between the two terms. That being said, whichever term one chooses to use, either frame of mind is beyond merely useless - it is harmful. It eschews logical thought and substitutes whatever the believer wants to believe. This leads to NON-thought, NON-logic, LACK of testing any theory for hard evidence, and worst of all, to my way of thinking, RELIGION! If I was about to be allowed on a jury, and was being questioned by a judge, and I said that I "have faith that the defendant is totally innocent", there would be a loud thud as I hit the sidewalk. From your remarks I gather that you and I are basically on the same page, which means that you have spent a lot of time and energy preaching to the choir - or perhaps more appropriately in my case a NON-choir.
Anthony, remember when you were afraid of the monster under your bed and were relieved as you matured when you realized your fears were baseless? Maybe it's time to grow another step in life's realities.
Sir, You are educated. You are taught from words from others. You have the ability to speak a confession of your beliefs. Reason or no reason you have the thoughts that create a picture for you in your mind. I believe that living my life in my body and in my mind. I have the desire to believe in a change in others through Godly intervention.
I watched about 7 minutes and went back to sleep. Now after waking, i am fairly certain the appropriate comment to make is that Peter is pretending to know what faith is. Perhaps after walking for a few days in a direction with nothing but the clothes he is wearing he might get a new perspective. He might, but it took me much longer than a few days of that. Perhaps he is quicker to catch on than i was.
I lived for years thinking I had faith and did not have it and was pretending and truly convinced I did have faith. I was a Sunday school teacher even, until I finally heard the Holy Spirit and received my faith and spiritual sight and hearing and have not been the same since. Praise the name of Jesus!
+Rick Myres Hearing voices? Better consult with a psychiatrist. Like the video explains VERY CLEARLY, "faith is pretending to know things you don't know".
Rick Myres Sorry sir, it's you that is a laugh. We can't hear things with our heart. And are you absolutely positive we have a spirit? Which god was it that spoke to you, Jesus, or his Dad? And are you sure it wasn't one of the many gods that were created by man before or after your Christian god?
+Eddie Schultz The spirit is the soul. God Jehovah, Yahweh the only God in three God is the Father Son and Holy Spirit. There is one God and many gods the gods were made up by man.
I think you have a very one-dimensional view of faith, Peter. Defining a word in a way that you believe is correct does not mean it is correct. The way you define faith you made into that definition by defining it that way.
Right. Straw-maning the meaning and use of the word is not a beneficial way to argue against it not only for those listening to the argument but for the person himself who makes the argument. You rob yourself from the depths of critical thinking you may have the ability to reach and therefore a stronger, richer argument. I was taught you better make your opponent argument as strong as possible, even more than those who hold it, before you begin dismantling it, for your own sake. I have faith that you can do better Professor. ☺️
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.” I Peter 1:3-5 NKJV
That sounds like some weird manifesto you read from a school shooter before he breaks in to an elementary school. None of the shit you quoted has any meaning. Like if a Charles Manson were the original writer of that, would you still follow it word for word?
When talking about non-religious things I use the word "trust" instead of faith. For instance, I have trust that science will one day find the answers to quantum physics and I have trust that science will one day provide us with an understanding of dark matter and dark energy.
You can do the same with those Religious Things. And the Only Difference between a Religious Thing and a Non-Religious Thing is You saying one is Religious and the other is Non-Religious. The actual People You call Religious People Trust, they do not Pretend to Know what they do not Know.
"Blessed are they that have not seen, but do believe." Faith: You either have it, or you don't!!! Hope: Something of our hearts desire, we hope to share or be part of. Love: First to God the Father; and Love our neighbors as ourselves. It's not about how much we think we know. For many of us; the Faith in that, "One Solitary Life" is the reason for our walk "Day by Day" and it's enrichment. Faith is a good thing to have!
What a bunch of nonsensical assertions. Nope. Lying about what you can know is not honest. What's worse, is that you cannot identify or correct an error. With "faith," correct and incorrect are indistinguishable. How can you use faith to determine an error? You can't. You simply assert that you're not. Since "faith" makes correct and incorrect indistinguishable, you can never claim to be correct. You literally have no idea what's true, because you've committed to the nonsense of faith in order to prop up your delusions. Because you don't care what's actually true, only with what you like to lie to yourself about, to soothe your existential angst. Faith cannot result in truth.
Yes! And faith does not imply the absence of any evidence. It implies the absence of PROOF. Science works toward evidence and without proof. Faith is the same as science in that regard.
10 years later, I hope that Peter realizes that when there is a vacuum of moral and religious orientation, all kinds of derangement takes over as we are now experiencing in 2022.
It funny how you automatically connect morality and religiosity. Despite attempts by the religious these two things are not interconnected. Religion is often just the cloak used to obfuscate desired behavioural conditioning. Not any different than the Maoists or Leninists when they created their zealots. It's actually very easy to determine moral behaviour. All one has to do is analyze an action against the amount of harm that action causes to their self and other individuals. No religion required.
@@ClockworkWyrm1. The entire purpose of religion is morality. It's purpose is to provide guardrails for human behaviour. It is stupid to say they aren't connected. 2. "It's actually very easy to determine moral behaviour". Actually determining what is moral is useless if there's no standard for what is moral. If the previous generations thought "slavery" was moral but you determined it to be immoral because of its harm, it will still be subjective.. ie. Your opinion. The only way morality "improves", but not "change" is if there's a God who provides the standard of right and wrong.
ahh id never get a coin in that 'faith jar' i dont remember ever putting any thought into doing it but ever since my deconversion, i only use the word 'faith' regarding religion, even when people claim 'you have to have faith in something' i answer 'no, i dont' i dont even acknowledge 'you have faith in science' because i dont - i either _understand_ the science or i learn about it as defined in the bible itself, its belief without evidence - so its rather stupid when people claim someone has 'faith' in science when science provides tons of evidence thats _why_ its science (course, these are the same idiots claiming science is a religion, so wtf, let them write up their own dictionary and see how well that goes)
Wow, this guy doesn't even understand how Christianity works... People that are Christians don't have faith to be "good people" Christianity specifically teaches that no one can earn their way to God through being good enough. No one is pretending to believe, they actually do believe in it.
He did talk about that. He pointed out that some people are pretending (he's right), and that some people are delusional. And that there's no way to reliably measure how many of them are delusional that we know of.
PB didn't say that religious believers are pretending to believe. He said they're pretending to KNOW things they don't know. I do agree that "pretending" is not a good description, because it suggests that believers are _aware_ that they're pretending to know things they don't know. "Pretending" implies that someone is aware of what they're doing, and believers are (usually, I would say) NOT aware that they're claiming knowledge they don't actually have.
I agree that faith SHOULD be constrained and not used in place of hope. Faith should only be used to account for a sincere belief that lacks the ability to be empirically known. There’s no room for faith in science. No scientist should, in the name of science, make a statement such as the origin of the universe is random, order derived from chaos, and without intelligent design. To make such a claim would be unscientific and rather a statement of their faith. In that sense, we must separate scientific claims from faith claims within the scientific community same as we must with any other group. A more honest and dispassionate scientist might say, “there’s evidence that all matter in the universe had a high density, singular origin that exploded into the universe as we know it today. I *hope* that means that everything is random and there’s no god or anything.”
FAITH IS THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE THAT CAN BE ACHIEVED WHEN INFERRING A CONCLUSION BASED ON PERSONAL EXPERIENCES. this may beat your challenge, but I am ATHEISTIC 100%
So what is a good, decent, meaningful life? Is there a uniform set of rules that usually apply or is every situation unique and every perspective acceptable?
Nonsense. Reason is completely different from faith. There is no atrocity some people would not commit on the basis of faith alone. The evidence for that is all around us with the actions of Hamas, Isis and some Israeli settle who believe that some invisible god thing gave them some land.
I mean the opposite of a theist. I theist believes there is a God; an atheist believes there is no God. And by God, I mean a supernatural being with a mind powerful enough to create time and space out of nothing.
Mike Millington Ah, you seem to be mistaken - an atheist simply rejects a belief in a god or gods, they don't claim categorically that there is no god (well some soi disant 'atheists' do, but they don't understand the term either). Hope that helps.
Artur Sixpence But if you reject a belief in something then that means you don't believe in something. How do you answer the question 'Do you believe there is a God?' You don't have much choice as an atheist but to answer that you do not. Therefore you believe there is no God.
Mike Millington Nope, I don't know if there's a god or not. I think it most unlikely but I wouldn't rule out the possibility entirely. I, and other atheists simply reject the positive claim that there is a god until I'm shown evidence to the contrary.
In answer to Peter’s challenge. If I hold a brick out at arms length and drop it I have “faith” it will fall to the ground, I base the conclusion on the fact that having done the experiment several times before I have always had the same result, I do not “hope” it will fall. Have I met the criteria?
This was a little surreal. I have been an atheist for many years, since I was in my early teens. I grew weary of the inevitable debates when people would ask if I believed in god. Sometime in my twenties, when I was in the military, I answered with the phrase "I don't pretend to know." This generally offended the person that asked about my faith to the point that they would just go away. I've lost from friends and one job, but it is now my response every time. This is the first I've heard of you, Dr. Boghossian; I am seriously intrigued by your ideas. I have subscribed to your channel.
Where does consciousness come from? How did gradual incremental changes on to cells eventually produce consciousness and self-awareness in human beings?
missionary came to me and invited me to weekly Bible study. Although I believed in the existence of God, I had not by any means believed in His existence in my life. It took a while for the word of God to sink in for me to put it into practice in my life, but as I began to be sanctified by the truth, as God’s word is truth, not only did the power of sexual immorality lose its control over me, but by the age of 23 whenever I see advertisements with sex appeal I am only filled with sorrow at the
So what? All of your post consists of unsupported assertions without a single piece of valid and verified evidence for any of it. Unfortunately, you happen to have been convinced by lies. Are you trying to say believing demonstrable lies is a 'good' thing? I invite you to demonstrate that your particular and so far undescribed god thing ever existed with at least some type of the valid and verified evidence I have for the existence of my dog.
I was thinking the same thing, though, do you REALLY know the chair will hold you? It always has, and seems likely that it will. But chairs have broken. Can you really know this chair will not break?
He is omitting, I think, the word “trust” from the discussion. “I don’t have faith that I will pass the test tomorrow” is not a synonym for hope and is not a knowledge claim or claim of not having knowledge. If is s statement that even though I hope to do well, the evidence I have makes me doubt a good outcome. It’s not really a statement that you really know or don’t know, it’s more about trusting that known and unknown things both have influence on reality and the outcome and people use faith in this more pedestrian way to talk about trust. Trust, faith, confidence are all synonyms and I think it would be interesting to hear him include them in his discussion.
So is the agenda to kill hope in everyday life? Once I gave up my faith i have had a very difficult time being hopeful about any dreams i used to pursue. Dont get me wrong i will never go back to my faith unless something absolutely convincing happened, but how do you hope without some kind of faith? You pursue your dream and have faith that it will work out after you put in all this work.
SO IS THE AGENDA TO KILL HOPE IN EVERYDAY LIFE? That is the observed outcome in many instances. ONCE I GAVE UP MY FAITH I HAVE HAD A VERY DIFFICULT TIME BEING HOPEFUL ABOUT ANY DREAMS I USED TO PURSUE. The more I see, the more I find things are far worse than I ever imagined. Sometimes the only thing that keeps me going is that I remember dreams I’ve had. DONT GET ME WRONG I WILL NEVER GO BACK TO MY FAITH UNLESS SOMETHING ABSOLUTELY CONVINCING HAPPENED, BUT HOW DO YOU HOPE WITHOUT SOME KIND OF FAITH? Much in Religion takes the qualities of nature/reality and personifies it in a shadow or conceptual form. The substance of reality is so sure that we can know that if we do things in accordance with the ways of nature, the results are certain. (i.e. it's a matter of learning the real ways of reality/nature to walk in them with a new type of confidence. I'm not there, but have made some steps in the right direction.) YOU PURSUE YOUR DREAM AND HAVE FAITH THAT IT WILL WORK OUT AFTER YOU PUT IN ALL THIS WORK. Inaction makes zero effect certain Some action gives hope Actions in line with causality makes desired results very certain. Work through the fog to know with clarity then take the steps to get the results one desires. There is also the loss of one’s friends, family and society when leaving faith for truth. And regular society is a bigger cult and mindless faith system, in many ways, than religion ever was. Learning to see things for what they are has made me afraid in many ways, because so many people think they can see, when they don’t even have the cognitive perceptions and fact based reasoning in place to start seeing.
@@davidfenton3910 thanks for the response. I see that attempting to stand outside of humanity and dissect it causes a lot of disturbance. I think love, acceptance, and forgiveness seems to be the only way to transcend the depths of negativity we encounter on a regular basis. I am always tempted to just not care or feel anything any more and totally pursue my own wants and desires, but something stops me.
Hi @@jms4406. I SEE THAT ATTEMPTING TO STAND OUTSIDE OF HUMANITY AND DISSECT IT CAUSES A LOT OF DISTURBANCE. I value truth and for this reason try to see things objectively. The core of human nature needs to be understood to live optimally so going into it to understand and gain knowledge to live most functionally makes a lot of sense to me. If “HUMANITY” describes the collective consciousness and “DISSECT IT” moves people to individual consciousness then I think “DISTURBANCE” Is a move in the right direction. I THINK LOVE, ACCEPTANCE, AND FORGIVENESS SEEMS TO BE THE ONLY WAY TO TRANSCEND THE DEPTHS OF NEGATIVITY WE ENCOUNTER ON A REGULAR BASIS. *Love* ... some major things in my life were done to me for love but because they were not knowing and in alignment with human functionality they did harm. *Acceptance* must be in accordance with truth, i.e. no compromise of truth for acceptance or it becomes acceptance of untruth which will only produce untrue or negative fruits. *Forgiveness* is not something I see as being in accord with living in the truth of reality, it is a covering or denial of it. I prefer to accept people as trustworthy when they change their thinking and doing to live in honest alignment with truth. I prefer to keep it all real. It's human to stuff up and immature irresponsibility is overcome by open acceptance of one's failings and doing better which leads to acceptance as honest and hence more reliable. Of course I see most people as victims of violation in their childhood and not responsible for their state of being. There is no need to forgive victims of violation, but the still need to take on a mature and reliable nature to warrant trust. I AM ALWAYS TEMPTED TO JUST NOT CARE OR FEEL ANYTHING ANY MORE AND TOTALLY PURSUE MY OWN WANTS AND DESIRES, BUT SOMETHING STOPS ME. The living of one’s life for the collective is programmed into people in various ways. It is natural to live for Familial and close friends as one’s personal or natural collective, but I believe this nature in us has been deliberately hijacked and redirected to change the relations of people in society to an artificially conditioned state where that affection and desire is unnaturally directed. Cheers Sincerely David
Have I misunderstood? In response to the thought challenge, I could say, "The definition of 'faith' can be found in a dictionary; it is not defined under the definition of 'hope'." Professor Boghossian thinks his challenge cannot be met. Can anybody help? I must be missing something.
Something that people need to understand is that there is a huge difference between faith and trust. Faith is believing without knowing whereas trust is based on knowledge and/or experience. Trust can be earned, lost, won back again, etc but it is based on knowledge and experience. Of course there is misplaced trust or trusting that some stranger you just met and handed your wallet to will not steal it. I'd say that falls more under the idea of hope. You hope the guy doesn't rip you off and maybe he doesn't. That experience may lead to trust so you hand the guy your wallet again. This time he runs off with it and you've now lost your trust in him. See what I'm getting at?
Really enjoyed the lecture but I do have a questions about the restriction of time machines. As far as I understand, time machines are not prevented by our current understanding of physics. Assuming this is true, why is it that when an answer is given to your question you then provide a stipulation preventing it? A difficult question such as this would likely require a creative solution as long as a basis can be founded in reality
"I, for 1, do not believe the kids will be OK ". Your quote. Nobody knows they will make it there and back, but we hope that at that time in the morning, the drunk drivers are not out on the road and we hope our schools will keep our kids safe while they're there. This is easy faith because we know many people do it daily without any problems. So we feel somewhat secure to do it based on their stats, but there's no guarantees.
I once read a really interesting thought, though I can't remember where and it's one I use often when talking to religious people. Faith was created by people who could not handle the harsh realities of the world.
Faith is one of our spiritual attributes. Emotions and feelings are others. Science can't prove emotions or feelings, but we know they exist. Therefore, they have substance.
I don't know if the speaker is familiar with Epicurus' idea that our main goals are pleasure and friendship, and that many people who take part in faith based organizations may be more interested in the friendship than the silly things stated in the bible.
Good point. They are willing to "belong to" and "believe in", although they probably couldn't define much of it. When confronted with hard to grasp portions of the bible, they are ok with not delving in to research, or question it!
Great stuff! I stopped pretending to know things I don't know, a long time ago.
Yes. 100%. Not a member of any cults.
M Harclerode Atheists pretend to know something that they don't know: that no God exists. And don't try that ridiculous dodge about "Atheism is a lack of belief." Whenever you reject one proposition, you simultaneously affirm its opposite. You reject the proposition that an intelligent being created the universe, then you are affirming the proposition that the universe came into existence without the agency of an intelligent being.
Unless you can prove that the universe came into existence without such intelligent agency, then you are pretending to know something that you don't know.
Ok, then why would you assume a "god" made the universe? Fantastic claims, such as those made by all religions (ie- Cults) require serious proof. Not the questioning of fantastic claims.
M Harclerode God is actually not a fantasy claim but has been proven by logic. Hence,
1) The universe either exist or it doesn't. (I take that you have taken the position that it does, because of your question)
2) the universe either came/made from nothing or from something.
2a)nothing can not ever become something for these two states are contradictory.
3) That something that universe came from must be wholly or in part super-universe.
MY definition (so does many other people) of "God" is the origin of all things in the universe; so how does believing in logic make me a cult member?
Because you are personifying your "origin"- Your logic does not prove that "god" made anything. It could be a random occurrence.
One huge consequence of faith is softening people up for authoritarianism; all guidance comes from the top down, from an absolute leader. Christianity teaches that people are born in sin...evil, etc and gotta spend their lives trying to be good according to a endlessly contradictory ancient text so as to avoid horrible punishment by a rigid enforcer threatening you with HELL hence "living in fear"
@Not Steve Stalin was trained in theology I think he had the support of the orthodox church. Pam R comment made me realise how the masses were sucked in so easily. If you are indoctrinated to believe without question, it follows that the new leader has an easier task to manipulate the primed targets.
@@wynnhorton1208 It would be good if you substantiate your claim. I have no faith in human nature or the state, I am sure that reality (and Santa) are the only things I can use to manage my life. You are the same. If your faith is more reliable, you could try this test. Run your automobile on empty for two months. If you look at the fuel gauge, you are using a reality technique. Your biology comment is probably based on the fallacy of incredulity from the ID-religion and is not based on measurable knowledge.
What a misrepresentation. I see this information is really "helpful" . Clueless
Peter Singer, is it true that he wants to justify the killing of an infant outside the womb?
@Steve Stalin and Hitler didn't run their hateful agenda for the sake of atheism and humanism but because God was their competition.
‘True hope through reason’ - Love it. There are so many goodies in this clip! I’ll be re watching it and learning from it for days to come!
I'm not sure what evidence for what you're speaking of but belief plays a huge part in everything. It takes a belief that a cure for a disease can be found to motivate people to find it, along with the hope it can be found.. It took a belief in DNA for science to pursue and find it. The language of life.
Being skeptical is good to a degree, but to be skeptical because of lack of evidence and never change is just giving up. Belief and hope are far more powerful than skepticism
Mr. Boghossian, for whom I have great respect, asserts that faith and reason are exclusive of one another. As a Christian, I exercise both all the time. The Bible is clear that hope and faith are different as it says in Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." So, I hope that a tree doesn't fall on my house (like during a storm), and I exercise my faith to bring that about.
So, if it falls on my house, that means there is no God? My answer is no, it simply means that I didn't have enough faith to avert the incident. Mathew 8:26 "Oh you of little faith." He didn't say they didn't have any faith, he said they had little faith.
One of the 10 commandments is "You shall not murder." I not only take it on faith that this is correct, I reason that the tenet is sound (I don't murder you, you don't murder me).
I'd rather be a man of great faith, than a great man of faith.
you really think you can outfaith a falling tree falling on your house?
Although your reply to me isn't here, I read it in my email. You have a different definition of faith than the atheist professor's. I think he should know that!!
@@fukpoeslaw3613 Strange that my reply is missing. And, thank you FPL, I will take that under consideration.
@@fukpoeslaw3613 - His Faoth here means he takes Action.
Unfortunately, that consists of circular and false reasoning with an unfalsifiable get out of jail free excuse.
You have made a number of unsupported assertions related to your unspecified or described invisible friend in the sky (or heavenly father), but you forgot to demonstrate that your invisible friend in the sky actually exists or, indeed, ever existed.
If you follow the instructions in the bible, why are you not stoning stroppy children to death at the city gates? Why are you not out killing homosexuals?
Your god thing lied to Adam that he would die the same day he ate the fruit, yet your god also claims a few pages later that Adam lived to be 930 years old. Both those claims cannot be correct and true. If either of them is wrong, then the bible is not perfect and the god thing described therein is not perfect and cannot be the perfect god thing the bible describes.
Faith is the intentional suspension of critical thinking.
+Truth Matters "+Sweence "Faith is the intentional suspension of critical thinking." Really?
You're so ignorant you probably don't even understand what is being said. Haha
Truth Matters I have faith in many things that are testable and probable- like me intellectually demolishing you in this exchange.
Truth Matters By your argument we should have "faith" in the Tooth Fairy and Pink Unicorns. Hiding behind faith to prop-up your religious assertions is idiotic.
Truth Matters Atheism is the default position. We are all born Atheists until our parents and communities fill our heads up with ancient bible garbage. I don't believe in a god for the same reason I don't believe in Pink Unicorns. There is NO evidence.
Truth Matters "Why do you gave such great faith that atheism is true? What evidence and arguments do you have - much less proof? Why do you believe no God exists?"
You don't need faith to have a lack of belief, a disbelief in gods. The definition of atheist has been shown to you and other creationists many times, and you still ask the same stupid questions over and over again. WE DON'T NEED FAITH TO HAVE A DISBELIF IN A GOD/GODS. We are not saying a god or gods absolutely do not exist, we don't see any evidence that any gods have existed throughout history, so we lack a belief that any gods do exist. Do you understand it now?
Are you absolutely sure your Christian god exists? If so, can you prove it, and that all the gods before and after your god have never existed? Think about that for a while and you'll understand why we go one god further.
All gods throughout history are man made. Prove me wrong.
I want to hear more of his lectures. I love this stuff!
I love that Peter has been so influential and undermined faith. I also love that as a result we now have a society that harasses him on the street and out of his job. Good job Peter. You got the Portland you wanted.
@@_ncko Yes.
@@_ncko Of course. Why do you think the woke fights the religious more than anyone?
What do you think replaces religion? Fascism, Nazism and Communism replaced Christianity after it died in Europe.
@@_ncko You missed everything I said. I never said all Atheists think the same. I said that pushing atheism leaves the space for other ideologies. Usually worse than Judaism and Christianity.
@@sethgyanlol yeah so instead we should make this a Christian country. Sounds great 😂 you guys are so lost
i was christian for 20+ years and throughout those years i was under the impression that everyone around me believed in those things *because* they were true facts and actually happened in history.
i only found out YEARS after my deconversion that this wasn't so. the majority of people believe in religions *regardless of what is true*. they care more about the feelings they get from it and less about accuracy of facts. virtually every person i had discussion with openly admitted this
this was shocking to me and it will be equally shocking to millions of people today when they discover they are in the same camp with people who don't care about truth
I think in many cases you are correct. Especially in charismatic Christian denominations. There are others however that actually warn against trusting our emotions. A man named John Wesley once wrote that faith without verification may simply be a delusion. I was more of an agnostic for most of my life. Scripture and the religion of Jesus Christ simply did not make any reasonable sense to me. One of the many aspects that cleared up some of the contradictions was simply that Scripture is not a book of history or science. It was never intended to be. The Biblical literalists have a difficult time with this but The Bible was never intended to be solely literal. Whenever we take things out of their intended purpose of course there is a lack of truth. In context to the intention and purpose of Scripture, well, I find it to be very true based on my personal experience and the tangible experiences of others by observation. Much respect!
You need to be rebuked and turn back to Jesus Christ man. Don't you realize how wicked our hearts are? Everyone has sinned. Are you denying that you're a sinner? Return to Jesus man, think about it. We all have to stand before the judgment seat of the Lord.
Jesus Is Alive Forevermore
+Jim Hampton
how did you come to the conclusion that god exists?
+Samuraigamer Sir may I ask- what were some of the things that you thought were historical (that Christians accept) that you later found out were false, hence aiding in your deconversion?
Joseph Garrett
i'm talking about *every* single event written in old testament and new.
i'm sure this isn't exactly the answer you were looking for, but i wouldn't want to narrow it down. whatever event we pick we'll see this phenomenon taking place.
for instance: the miracle of jericho walls. recently i saw a high priest in my country saying in an interview about this miracle : "it doesnt have to have happened exactly as stated in the bible, maybe to the people there it seemed like a miracle but it might not be miraculous at all"
if you came to me 10 years ago and told me this i'd respond: "WAIT A MINUTE, what do you mean it might not be a miracle? it's either a miracle or it's not, and the bible certainly portrays it for a miracle. If we are not sure why have i been told my whole life with certainty that it IS a miracle?"
example2: the story of jesus and the adulteress. all my life i've been hearing this story conveyed with certainty of its place in history. only later i found out this story didnt originaly belong in the text and is a later interpolation added by a scribe. this is common knowledge among the historians for centuries
if you came to me 10 years ago and told me this i'd respond: "wait a minute, if we aren't certain this event even happened WHY am i only hearing this now? all my life i've been listening to people conveying the story with absolute certainty of its historicity"
and it goes on to every miracle and story in the book. in conversations i had with people of faith where i pointed out our vast uncertainty and even contradictions in stories of the bible, they openly admitted in the end that the accuracy of the bible is irrelevant with their belief in it,because their feelings strongly tell them there's some deep truth in it. This is shocking to me to say the least.
Interesting thought challenge. I think one can have faith (as a word in common usage) as being synonymous with confidence. "I have faith that my friend will succeed" would translate as "I am confident my friend will succeed" if you posess the knowledge that your friend is skilled in the task at hand. While not entirely similar to "I hope my friend will succeed" it comes fairly close since it is an expectation of an outcome based on your knowledge of the skill of your friend.
This was very good
FAITH= gullibility
DID YOU HAVE FAITH IN YOUR MOTHER FEEDING YOU WHEN YOU WERE HUNGRY ? OR DID YOU JUST TAKE IT FOR GRANTED ?? WE JESUS WILL FEED YOU IF YOU HAVE FAITH !!
FAITH is also fear of the unknown. Afraid to face the things they can not understand.
@LawlessLee BABIES DONT HAVE FAITH !! RELIGIOUSLY OR OTHERWISE .
@LawlessLee ????? wtf?
I'm care provider and work in behavioral modification. Modeling is the number one tool of influence we use in the field. So if you wondering if it works its does.
1:23 People of Faith are neutral
1:59 Reason > Faith
2:26 Slippery Definitions
Faith - Belief without evidence
Faith - Pretending to know things you don’t know
4:12 Life has no meaning without Faith
5:20 Crisis of Faith
5:59
7:25 Atheism 8:35
9:28 True For Me
10:29 Faith and Hope
11:43 Faith Claims are Knowledge Claims
13:04
16:29 idk
17:56 Linguistic Level, Stigmatization, Erode The Structure
25:58 We live in A Society, Delusions should not be a part of Society
27:28 Orange County
True Hope Through Rationality
32:33 Mental Illness
Model The Behavior You Would Like To See In Them
34:13 Adversarial Engagement does not work
36:37
This guy is great, a very good teacher. I've been watching debates and talks about religion and atheism for a while now. This is the first time I've seen him talk. I'm impressed. 👍
I'm an atheist. I went to this Catholic meeting on the Portland State campus out of curiosity. It was interesting mildly. These people are so gone it's a bit scary. They really believe that the bibical stories are historical fact. One guy actually said that Jesus's ascension is the most well documented historical fact ever. I couldn't believe my ears. That is pretending to know things you don't know. The people in the meeting were very nice and I sort of feel sorry for them. They are terrified of the world around them and they just can't handle reality. They are basically children that could never accept that Santa isn't real.
+MisterBinx Being a Catholic meeting, they at least accept that we evolved. That is one thing positive I can say about Catholics. They're getting all their information from the bible and creation sites when it comes to Jesus' ascension, and other miracles. If they would only take off the blinders and start to question what they've been told is true. It set me free from religion, as well as many others I have seen here and on other forums.
We're not pretending to know something we don't know, MisterBinx, it really is possible to know God personally.
Kristen Michelle, please explain to me in clear and plain speak how it is possible to know "god" personally?
I was a so called born again Christian for a time and genuinely pursued a way to know god personally and came away with more questions than answers.
When I asked the Pastor questions about contradictions in his sermons and in the interpretation of the bible he got angry and made me feel like an idiot despite me giving him the respect the other church goers gave him.
He preached on the same passage in the bible about 4 months apart and his sermons were as different as night and day. Different message, different meanings and so on. When I asked him about this respectfully he brushed me aside and started telling other church members to beware of me as I was "backsliding"
Backsliding for asking questions?
WTF?
Ragnar, so your pastor couldn't answer your questions about God and he preached contradictory messages? Well, I can't comment as I don't know what the contradictions were. Maybe I can answer your questions, or at least try to find the answer for you.
As far as knowing God personally, for me it was simple. I really wanted to know what God was like personally. I had heard so many things _about_ God, but I wanted to see for myself what Jesus was really like, so I went to the Gospels. Somebody gave me a New Testament and I just started in the beginning which was the Book of Matthew. I continued with Mark, Luke and John and during that time I really came to know Jesus. And to know him is to love him. I felt like I knew him just as I knew my own family members. I had a deep sense of knowing him and loving him just from reading the New Testament. I now realize it was the Holy Spirit revealing the attributes of his personality to me. Jesus was humble. I didn't know this in a real sense till I read the Gospels. Jesus was gentle, caring, loving, and Jesus had great authority and power. He was self-controlled. He was full of wisdom. He was so strong. I learned so much about him. None of this did I know before I took the time to learn about Jesus for myself. I only knew what other people said about him -- like preachers and teachers. But it made a world of difference to me to get into the New Testament and discover Jesus for myself. As the Bible tells us in the Old Testament and this applies to you:
*"For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future...And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for me with all your heart."*
There have been dozens of studies showing non-religious people have higher iqs, than religious. Google it.
I know this is an old video but Faith isn't just used to mean Hope it can also mean Trust.
"I have faith (trust) that my doctors training will allow him to perform a sucessfull surgery on my father."
I am not merely hoping as I would have to with alternative medicine nor am I pretending to know the outcome of the surgery for certain.
Give me an example where the word Faith can't be replaced by the word Hope and isn't an example of pretending to know things someone doesn't know.
Here goes: Have you met my wife, Faith, and her sister, Hope?
+Mandolinic Hope acknowledges reality. Faith denies it.
Hellstrom Carbunkle You should consider submitting that to the Reader's Digest. ;-)
Forgive me, but I would rather cut out my tongue and salt it and eat it for supper than type one word for those people.
BOWDLERized books for the masses
Hellstrom Carbunkle Tongue - yeuk! I never could get over the thought of tasting something that might be tasting me back!
Just my subtle way of expressing distain for those who butcher books, even if they do have permission from the author
"Faith is believing something that nobody in their right mind would believe." ~Archie Bunker
And yet, people more intelligent than you and me... Do believe.
So thinking of theists as stupid means you haven't understood them and hence won't be able to engage them.
They need to be guided towards critical thinking about their belief which means listening to them and then placing a subtle seed of doubt there. Pebble in their shoe (Street epistolography).
See also...
@@DarkMatter1919 Very intelligent people, in the academic sense, can still have troubled lives and delusions are not precluded.
@Not Steve Good if you could expand and support this claim, as you might be right
@@VaughanMcCue
So you're saying you agree with me?
@@DarkMatter1919 Yes, believers come in all states of mind and brainpower but "inside the box" is what I would like to know more. I might have put my comment in the wrong level ie to notsteve
"Faith has nothing to do with being moral." Great statement, great lecture.
WHO SAID IT DID? LOL
@@flatearth9140 Many religious people believe that there can’t be morality without religion. This video is for those people. You might not personally believe that, but there are many out there that do.
@@Jasonsmith-sr1ke YES MORALITY IS TAUGHT. MANY PEOPLE THINK THEY CAN MAKE THEIR OWN MORALITY,HOMOSEXUALS,ABORTIONS, ECT BUT RULES OF MORALITY COMES FROM THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF TRIAL AND ERROR THEN PUT IN BOOKS FOR US TO LEARNE FROM,
"Right now, you can stop pretending to know things that you don't know." This is true and it is false. In the realm of truth claims, one can certainly respond with "I don't know," when asked for certainty about a particular bit of knowledge. However, in the realm of action, we are often put in the position to make decisions with less than perfect certainty about the correct action. This is precisely where a degree of "faith" is inescapable and required of all human beings to navigate life.
My definition of faith:
Duping oneself into believing something that is contrary to evidence, reason, or fact.
Nothing wrong with offering your own definition. I like the old: "Faith is evidence and conviction of things unseen".
Faith is strong confidence in any belief. You use faith to say the sun exists, anything about yesterday or that anyone believes in a god. You can't prove any of those.
Also you might wish to improve your concept of what evidence is. Evidence can be an outright lie.
Also, you may wish to upgrade your grasp of facts. Facts are properties of material objects. No fact is true.
Lastly, reasoning works. Please use it. You didn't even try to here.
Atheist On Demand I merely offered you another definition of faith that differs from your own.
Peace!
Ian Alan You can't see numbers, logic, language, truth or false... so they are all faith?
Cool bro. Read my first entry again.
+Jim Hampton "Tell me, how did life arise from non-life without intelligent intervention through natural processes? No one knows the answer to that question without faith."
If you had stopped typing two words short of the end you would have been bang on the money. The actual answer is "Nobody knows"; the answer is not "Nobody knows *without faith*" because faith isn't knowing - otherwise it would be called knowing and there would be no need for faith. Because it would be knowing.
I can't believe that I'm even having to explain this.
4:15- Life has no meaning without Faith.
Correct. Life doesn't have an intrinsic meaning. It doesn't have to. Why do religious people hang on this so badly? Life is whatever you want it to be.
+57ashdot That and, more instrumentally, I think it has more to do with Fear. The idea that when you die-YOU DIE, is a very, very scary thought to the vast majority of people. They actually don't ever think of it at all frankly. But when they approach this thought they reject it. It simply just can't be true... b/c that means, heaven is here, now, on Earth - and how would everyone act if this was their one true chance to make the best of it?
+Truth Matters Mussolini was romen Catholic.
Truth Matters Mussolini talked in several different Mass speeches, of reviving the HOLY Roman empire. Why do you think he joined Hitler, because Hitler was also a Catholic Christian.
Truth Matters no,Hitler was a devout Catholic, and believed he was doing God's work. Read his book mein kamph.listen to his speeches about God ..even the Nazis uniforms had a God slogon on it.
57ashdot. And after this earthly realm?
The wages of sin is death! We all must face it, and comes when we least expect it. Even the stars die!!!
For christians, "Don't fear the reaper" is true. Why? Because We're very sure that all souls merge into the next realm.
We're not just here to procreate, trash the earth, and evolve, and that's it!
And I have clearly seen what we are evolving to, and it's not promising at all.
Atheist do have a dim view of life, if they think THIS is all there is.
Glad I'm not of that grim mentality of indifference!
Please do this amazing Video available in More Languages.
Faith can only be realistic if that or who you have faith in or on. For example, I have faith in winning the race because I have prepared myself to win. Faith can be real if it is based on previous knowledge that you will beat the competitors because you are better and worked harder to win the race. Faith and hope are not interchangeable because hope is also based on the unknown. Hoping is like praying. I hope you don't die, knowing that a terminal illness is unsurvivable. Hoping is wishing for the best or worst outcome depending on the target. Faith can only be real if it is provable by merit.
And even then, you have to hope that nothing happens to quash your faith in the outcome because you don’t know what can happen between now and the faith that you have in the future outcome.
it has been 10 years since, do you still think that faith is belief without reason?
Yes…there is no verifiable evidence that confirms the existence of God.
Reason, hope and charity.
I was a proud, happy atheist for decades. Thankfully Christ rescued me. Nothing can even compare to a relationship with God. So happy my eyes were opened. Never turning my back. You can seek Him anytime if you do so with a genuine and humble heart
No, real atheists doesn't become religious.
watch it again
Good for you Hannah.
Beautiful comment! God bless!
@@Kaymen1980 lets just accept her truth, she used science to achieve it... applied philosophy led to a state that wasn't resonant. so she changed her philosophy... tada... she is because she is... and that's it... because is. And it matters not what others choose, because she isn't making their choice. acceptance=love=is=am= infinite potential to express infinite form... all true... in essence.... love....
Faith is not pretending. Pretending, is pretending. Faith is more so connected to knowledge, whereas Pretending is wholly "imaginary". I wish the Dr. gad started off with a solid understanding of what faith actually is, because it wouldn't prevented him from steering into a mental ditch concerning the topic. But it was interesting listening to him explain his journey of thought while trying to come to a better understanding for what faith actually is, even though he arrived at an incomplete conclusion. Seeking to understand what faith is all about, is a VERY worthy endeavor. So please, keep searching Dr. Boghossian.
I heard Richard Dawkins amended himself from a 6 to a 6.9 on the faith scale.
This is a great talk. I love his definition of faith.
I do too, but what affect will it have on a theist who refuses to accept any term you use? Experience shows they will simply reject your term/try to accuse you of the same approach/tell you it's out of context/etc.
SubconsciousGatherer Most all of the Christians I've conversed with, say they "know" vs that they have "faith"..
***** That's where it gets confusing. What good is faith when someone claims to know? If I know I have $10 in my wallet because I've checked numerous times, I don't need faith to believe I have $10, yet believers will still claim to "know" while utilizing "faith." It's no wonder people of reason don't think that way.....it's *because* we're people of reason.
Well at least even religious leaders can admit that they "don't know 100% & that there's no evidence of deity or afterlife, that's why you have to have "faith" they exist". Some of these ppl here on u tube that claim to "know"? And then say they're being persecuted when asked for evidence, is just plain ridiculous...I've heard so many things here that Christians have claimed the Bible says..when it doesn't..it really does make you wonder about their intellect & sanity.. lol
***** As a former believer I suspect it has to do with interpreting our subjective experiences as objective reality. People of faith tend to think that if it feels or sounds right to THEM, it must be true. The problem is, they don't seem to realize (or care!) that people on the other side of the planet hold diametrically opposing views, yet utilize the same faith-methodology to defend their position. It's frustrating to see people do that while still believing they (in most cases) mean well. They need some nudging in the right direction so they may begin rethinking their accepted knowledge, replacing it with a reasonable understanding based on evidence, not faith.
"I like mustard on my hotdog" is actually OBJECTIVE.
"Mustard is the best condiment to put on hot dogs" is subjective.
idk why people want religion in their lives; religion is a prison for your mind, and opression learn truth and seek for yourself!
I used to call myself an atheist and thought Darwin was a genius. Let's look at the "Bible" of evolutionism, The Origin of Species. Maybe because it is so mind numbingly boring, people rarely notice something, namely that it never shows the origin of anything! Darwin's finch beaks are supposed to support goo through the zoo to you, but what do they really show? Zero.
.
Research reveals that the beaks grow back and forth in size depending on climate variations. The evidence that finches or Galapagos Island Turtles et al have ever been or ever will be anything but finches, and turtles et al? Zero again.
.
Oh, and btw, as usual in evolutionary theory you are being told one thing while the opposite is true, as about natural selection. It does not lead to evolution as Darwin claimed. It only shuffles, or sometimes eliminates, pre existing information that has always been in the genomes. It never creates new DNA as would be necessary, for ex., to turn a fin into a foot or a leg into a wing. Nothing ever observed creates new DNA. All DNA is just a copy of a copy of a copy which can be altered by things like mutations.
.
Beneficial mutations? They are said to be the second force for evolution. However, Charles Muller, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on them, said "The good ones are so rare that we can consider them all bad."
.
Darwin was nothing but an armchair theorist who, unlike his contemporary Mendel, never supported his theory through the scientific method and cast doubts on it himself. Yet he is an icon of evolution, like another contemporary, a lawyer named George Lyell, who came up with the totally fictional Geologic Column.
.
The GC exists only in art work. The real evidence? Fossils are jumbled, in no neatly organized pattern whatsoever. There really are no such things as Cambrian, Jurassic, and so on "periods." Like the GC those are just fictions presented as facts. Giant shark fossils are found with dino fossils in Montana, for ex. Whales' fossils are found in wildly improbable places like the Andes mountains, the Sahara and a desert in Chile. Deep sea "Cambrian" fossils, such as sea shells and mollusks, are found at every level on the planet, including on most mountain tops - like the world's highest, the Himalayans. Fossils of ocean floor life forms, like trilobites. are found in the hills of mid America and countless other places world wide, high and far inland.
.
Take a look. See the ocean floor dwelling, now extinct, so called "Cambrian", trilobites found on mountain tops all over the world. (They are supposed to be at the bottom of the GC.) www.bing.com/images/search?q=trilobites%20On%20Mountains&qs=n&form=QBIR&sp=-1&pq=trilobites%20on%20mountains&sc=0-23&sk=&cvid=9008D75298A54105AD924CA3AACAE385 Notice the exquisitely preserved details on many. This is also seen with innumerable sea shells, mollusks, etc.
.
Now some claim "plate tectonics" moved, intact and conjoined, vast stretches of ocean dwelling, bottom floor, marine life fossils in the countless billions to travel for millions of years and then wrap around the tops of mountains. Not uncommonly they are in their original shape with perfect details as you see in the link. It's like the theorists never heard of erosion. Others claim, "Well, if there are whale fossils in the Sahara, and Nautilus fossils in the Grand Canyon, etc. that shows an ocean was present." Oceans don't create fossils! Fossils are created when life forms are rapidly buried with water and sediment. That way no animals can eat them, natural forces can't erode them, and the chemistry of fossilization can begin
.
(And please do not send me a post quoting Talk Origins, which I call Talk Spin. Yes, I know that they claim to have found one GC on this entire, vast, planet. But they didn't. If you will check thoroughly you will see them saying "Some of the strata are out of place", i.e. there ain't any GC there, either. I am very familiar with TO. They have no problems with flat out lying and are not even an authentic science source. If you can find an authentic science source that shows a GC, include that with a link to a photo. Then explain why the rest of the planet shows the exact opposite of a GC. My experience is that knowledgeable evolution defending people will say "Well, the GC is just a model. We know none really exists." When I ask "How can you make a model of something that has no evidence whatsoever that it existed?" they don't respond.)
.
The Bible says that flood waters completely covered the whole earth after, for one thing, "the fountains of the deep broke forth." (Did you know there is an ocean below our commonly known oceans, or have you seen the mid Atlantic ridge which looks like it used to be a great crack on the ocean floor? Probably not.). The fossil record shows that marine life fossils are at every level on the planet, everywhere around the globe, and that, in fact, over 90% of the fossils on land are marine. And they say the Bible is not historical and not backed by science. And btw there are almost 300 Great Flood legends around the world. Even the one by the Aborigines of Australia is highly similar to what the Bible reports.
.
So you've been told a book showed the origin of species, but it didn't. You've been told G.I. animals show evolution but they only show they are having, at most, minimal changes that leave them basically what they were before.
.
You were told there is a Geological Column, but there is not one on the planet. You're told over and over that natural selection shows evolutionism when it actually just somewhat modifies the organism through shifting already present information, or sometimes through loss of information, in the genomes, leaving it essentially what it was before. It may eventually become a new species of fish, or bee, or tree, etc., but it will always stay a fish, a bee or a tree etc. We see no evidence whatsoever of any species in a Genus moving up to the next step on the Animal or Plant Kingdom to become a new Family. (Not to mention never seeing any transitions from any order, class, phylum or Kingdom.)
.
Yet that would have had to have happened for evolution to occur, and it is claimed, with no evidence whatsoever, that it did happen over and over and over.
.
We have trillions of life forms out there. So why don't we see mutations causing any Lifeform of Family A to turn into a Lifeform of Family B? After all, their ancestors have supposedly had hundreds of millions of Darwin years to make the switch and be moving around as part A and part B. But eagles stay eagles, bullfrogs stay bullfrogs, dolphins stay dolphins, eboli bacteria stay eboli bacteria, tulips stay tulips, chimps stay chimps, fruit flies stay fruit lies, and of course people stay people, no matter how much they change. This fits in with what the Bible says about creation having been halted.
.
What else does evolutionism offer besides unsubstantiated theories, in fact theories that defy the real evidence, presented as facts? Logical fallacies. Logical fallacies always, always, undergird evolutionism defense.
.
The favorites are Correlation Does Not Imply Causation and Presuming Omniscience, though it uses many.
.
Correlation Does Not Imply Causation goes like this: "Look! Fossil A has some similarities to Fossil B! We'll use big words to sound impressive about that, like 'similar homology.' We have exactly zero evidence Fossil A even had a descendant, much less one significantly different from it, much less that it turned into B, C, D etc. But we are going to tell you, as gawd's truth scientific fact, that we know all about what happened to its evidenceless, unverifiable descendants. We'll call that science."
.
This leads right into the Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy. Another example of a use of that fallacy is when an evolutionary paleontologist will pick up a fossil from the ground and tell you with absolute authority that they know all about what happened to it's invisible "descendants" in the untestable past - for over 100 million Darwin years.
.
"Missing links" (2 to 5 million Darwin years' worth of them between you and Lucy or some other such "transition" du jour) is a Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy phrase. How do you tell missing links from never existed links? Have...faith...brothers and sisters! And be so grateful that YOU ain't religious!
.
Learn how to spot logical fallacies and you will see them used in every defense in evolutionary literature.
.
Ignoring the actual data is also part of evolutionism. For just one of innumerable examples, they say life can come from inorganic matter (and don't say they do not - who came up with the antiscientific primal pond, creationists?) The data, what real science uses, shows life, always and only, comes from life and life of the same kind.
.
Pile theories presented as facts on top of logical fallacies, ignore the real data or try to spin it away, and stir well with sophistry. Then you have evolutionary theory.
.
You're not a fish update. You have a Creator Who made you and loves you and wants you to know Him, and to love Him too. Don't trade that in for pseudo science mumbo jumbo.
@@loricalass4068 "Don't trade that in for pseudo science mumbo jumbo." says the person on a computer connected to a global network provided by science.....please never fly , never go to a doctor or a hospital - just pray for everything and it will magically appear.........
@@SNORKYMEDIA Your post is typical of TH-cam evolution supporters. You are given a bunch of observable, scientific data, and you evade even mentioning it. Also typical is that you think you are a big time science defender but demonstrate you don't even understand the most basic things about it.
Airplanes and medicine involve what is testable, repeatable and observable. If evolutionism were a science, instead of a pseudo science, it would fall into the realm of historical sciences which do not involve that which is testable, repeatable and observable. You can pick up a fossil from the ground and say that it turned into this or that. Where is the observable data to show it had even one descendant significantly different from it? Well, as in The Emperor's New Clothes, you are told something exists and you believe it, though the evidence is totally lacking. Instead you get "similar to....looks like...may have...." to support the evolutionary narrative through what is unverifiable and conveniently from the distant and invisible so called past.
Friend, you are the one who believes in magic because you believe in the religion of evolution. I have seen over and over that such posters as yourself never, ever say a single thing based on actual data. Learn to think. I suggest starting with Wazooloo vids. They have real science and real critical analysis. You don't even understand how those work at present. Welcome to mute. Bye!
Lorica Lass That was a really long post going into great detail to show how incredibly stupid you are. Congratulations. You’ve won a Golden Crocoduck.
@@8698gil That was a very short post which is totally typical of almost all evoltion defenders on You Tube. I.e. 1st there was no attempt whatsoever to refute any of the scientific data presented. 2nd there was no reference to any scientific data whatsoever period. 3rd Personal, meaningless and irreelvant insults are used to replace logic, information and civility.
Welcome to mute as you currently do not know how to thnk or articulate, demonstrate zero understanding of the scientific issues relevant here, and like troll talk. Bye!
@8:40
I'm not sure what he's defining in that cumbersome statement but it doesn't seem right to me. The last part defines an Atheist and the first part says he's not one of those so presumably he's defining a Theist. In which case the first part should read
*_"I pretend to know things I don't know too much to be a person..."_*
Agree?
That is his point in fact. The original is the "clever" quip that "I do not have enough faith to be an atheist" However as Peter shows, and you also point out, they are essentially saying "I don't pretend enough to be someone who doesn't pretend", i.e. it is a contradictory statement.
I want to be wrong about this, but experience shows I'm not: no matter how you define faith, the theist you're talking with will simply dismiss it as wrong. It's as simple as that. They will NOT allow you to crack their delusion-shell, so any attempt to make inroads into their faulty beliefs will be shut down by them simply telling you, "That's not faith," or, "You're taking it out of context," or, "You have faith too." You cannot have an honest discussion with a person who's being dishonest.
I agree, earlier I logged onto Facebook just to see the following, and I quote: "What is an Atheist ? I am a firm believer in God and I do not understand what you clowns believe in. Please enlighten me."
This isn't someone looking for a discussion, this is a person who wants to belittle others and say they were right before the discussion even began.
Religious people are just plain stupid
How do you decide what is faulty?
@@pobster88j94 Through testing and evidence. You repeat an action to see if it results the same way each time. If it does, it's reliable. If the findings change or become inconsistent, it's faulty.
I see what you're saying but it in my experience I can't have a discussions with an Atheist cause they imminently get on their high horse and disregard everything I say just because I'm religious. They will NOT break out of there egotistic mindset that they are imminently smarter then you just because they're Atheist, they are so closed-minded and refuse to think that they might be wrong so they just shut you down by stating "that's a claim and not evidence" or "that evidence isn't strong enough" or "You believe in fairy-tales". You can't have a dialogue with someone who is close-minded.
Perhaps you should understand that most people are not seeking truth.
How would one know this?
Steve Payne
Spend time with them as something other than a bobble-head for starts.
shaqpopcorn34 ... whereas in your case something much closer in time appears to be the case.
shaqpopcorn34 No, Planet of the Apes was entertainment ... much like your attempts to write posts in English, in fact.
Your posts are in English? What kind?
Your posts being bad isn't the opposite of evolution, they're the opposite of intelligence and education.
The meaning of "hope" in the Evangelical setting is "a confident expectation". It is regarded as faith in a future state of affairs. This is a common teaching in Bible classes.
It is the false representation of an unlikely future as certain.
But do we have absolute 100 percent evidence that planes will deliver us safely to our next destination every time we fly?
It's amazing how students of Philosophy come to the same conclusion even when they have never met..
BECAUSE ITS A CULT !!
People need to put their belief in supernatural claims under the same scrutiny they put other religions supernatural claims.
I claim all religions have behind them - power, money, control, need for esteem and taking advantage of people's fear of death for them and their loved ones.
its always easy to divest this... when someone asks me if i have faith in science, i say i don't need faith in it, i have evidence.
faith a chair will hold me up, or faith in love/wife/etc.... nope i have evidence that those things occur.
then i turn it around and ask them for the evidence for what they have faith in... they never have any and become starkly aware of that contrast (if they aren't stupid).
That's not really true, though, is it? You invest belief or confidence in the chair on the basis of past chairs plus inductive inference. Where is the evidence that your confidence is justified?
where is the evidence that evidence is justified?
You are Redefining Faith as belief Without Evidence and No One else uses it that way., Even in what You decide is Religion.
Amazing how continuing to be intellectually bb honest is why you can still have the conversations you have.
Thank you Dr. Boghossian for your many contributions to our world.
I love the idea of not attacking those who believe in their religion, but more in the ideas within religion. The experience of homosexuals is quite prescient. I believe that most LGBTs have experienced the effects of homophobia from a person who appears to be evenhanded, but harbors beliefs against them.
There is a problem lumping LGB in with T as the first three are sexualities and the latter isn't. Current direction has seen a lot of homophobia FROM the T's, especially towards the L's, evident in the Autogynophile M-t-Fs who insist that L's not wanting penis is a prejudice they should "get over", which is reminiscent of previous gay conversion strategies.
I may be reading too much into your adding a T to LGB but... Is it not faith to say that feminine boys will be happier growing up to be transwomen rather than gay men?
And yet You don't Realise ow Bohgossian's Approach is Him Concealing His Own Beliefs Against others by pretending to be Even Handed. he even tells You to Think of Yourself as a Doctor Treating a Patient afflicted with The Faith Virus, which is a Transmittable mental Illness, and to View them as the patient. They are Clearly Wrong and Your job is to heal them by getting them to Agree with You. if they don't, they are either irrational and won't Listen, or else they are Literally Brain Damaged.
he also wants to set up an Authoritarian Dictatorship where people are Actively Discriminated Against unless they Agree with Him.
It was my love for logic and reason which led me to discover things about world around me that I have never known before. And ironically, Those things that I discovered also brought me to something that I could not ever explain, and as a result, I found faith in God and his goodness that defies all logic and reason. And I will admit that freely. It doesn’t mean that I don’t examine the numbers, make the calculations, and come to conclusions. But I conclusions have only lead me to more questions, and that cycle seems inexhaustible. Reason comes to conclusions, but conclusions only find more questions. And when one feels bewilderment or a sense of helplessness as a result, faith in God comes in really handy.
I'm comfortable with admitting "I don't know" for unexplainable phenomena, instead of throwing out logic and reason and pretending to know things I don't know. Just because faith may be pragmatic in certain situations does not make it true.
Yeah that’s called an “argument from ignorance”, a logical fallacy
I didn't become skeptical until I put many religious things to the test and it all kept failing
THATS ONLY BECAUSE YOU DIDNT BELIEVE !!
It's all a fairy tale just made up by humans to make people "feel"okay about death.....nothing more.....slaves didn't build the pyramids and there's no boat big enuff to hold the world's animals.....period
@@gregdowd939 you definitely could be right
@@flatearth9140 believe what? You have to have some facts in order to believe something, you don't just believe in things for the hell of it or because others believe it. When I left the Mormon church they said I just don't believe, same thing happened again when I left a Baptist church, and a Catholic church, then a non-denominational church. All these different beliefs out there. People tend to believe in whatever religion they were raised in or grew up hearing. Think for yourself people! Example, just because you were born into a Mormon family and culture doesn't mean your Mormon beliefs are correct, same with any other church or religion. It's time we wake up folks
@@youtoo2233 YOU WENT FROM RELIGION TO RELIGION ? NO WONDER YOU DONT KNOW !! ALL THE RELIGIONS ARE SPEAKING ABOUT THE SAME GOD !! YOU BOUNCED AROUND LOOKING FOR THE TRUTH WHEN IT WAS RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF YOU ALL THE TIME !! YOU MUST SEEK JESUS !!
I don’t know if the word faith is always defined by the word “know”, which is needed to make peters definition sound so ridiculous. But I think faith can be anything from “I think...” to “I know... “, so I’m not sold on Peters replacement being accurate. But it’s definitely funny.
FAITH = unsubstantiated BELIEF.
ALL belief is unsubstantiated. FAITH=BELIEF! They're synonymous...
+EPSTEINISMS # Not exactly. I hold many beliefs that are well substantiated, though I'm not dogmatically locked into those beliefs.
Michael Patton i think faith in the christian sense has more to do with hope than evidence . in romans it says 'For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have?' so faith is not only blind, it specifically denies evidence.
Michael Patton modern christians may use faith differently than early christians, who relied more on hope that was not a prerequisite for salvation. Modern Christians, especially protestants focus mainly on faith as the only requirement , but older orders still talk about repentance, good works and hope.
Like you can have faith that it's true for a kind of comfort (self delusion) but focus on repentance and good works for salvation.
+Michael Patton I have read your remarks with great care. Without meaning to argue the point, I find that I must stand by my original statement. I can find no difference, semantically or otherwise, between the two terms. That being said, whichever term one chooses to use, either frame of mind is beyond merely useless - it is harmful. It eschews logical thought and substitutes whatever the believer wants to believe. This leads to NON-thought, NON-logic, LACK of testing any theory for hard evidence, and worst of all, to my way of thinking, RELIGION! If I was about to be allowed on a jury, and was being questioned by a judge, and I said that I "have faith that the defendant is totally innocent", there would be a loud thud as I hit the sidewalk.
From your remarks I gather that you and I are basically on the same page, which means that you have spent a lot of time and energy preaching to the choir - or perhaps more appropriately in my case a NON-choir.
Anthony, remember when you were afraid of the monster under your bed and were relieved as you matured when you realized your fears were baseless? Maybe it's time to grow another step in life's realities.
Sir, You are educated. You are taught from words from others. You have the ability to speak a confession of your beliefs. Reason or no reason you have the thoughts that create a picture for you in your mind. I believe that living my life in my body and in my mind. I have the desire to believe in a change in others through Godly intervention.
You are delusional.
10 years later and this is more relevant than ever.
I watched about 7 minutes and went back to sleep. Now after waking, i am fairly certain the appropriate comment to make is that Peter is pretending to know what faith is.
Perhaps after walking for a few days in a direction with nothing but the clothes he is wearing he might get a new perspective. He might, but it took me much longer than a few days of that.
Perhaps he is quicker to catch on than i was.
Beautiful speech! Thanks for uploading.
Faith is the wilful suspension of critical thinking.
I lived for years thinking I had faith and did not have it and was pretending and truly convinced I did have faith. I was a Sunday school teacher even, until I finally heard the Holy Spirit and received my faith and spiritual sight and hearing and have not been the same since. Praise the name of Jesus!
+Rick Myres Hearing voices? Better consult with a psychiatrist. Like the video explains VERY CLEARLY, "faith is pretending to know things you don't know".
+Eddie Schultz You are a real laugh. It is not audible voice it is heard in the heart (spirit).
Rick Myres Sorry sir, it's you that is a laugh. We can't hear things with our heart. And are you absolutely positive we have a spirit?
Which god was it that spoke to you, Jesus, or his Dad? And are you sure it wasn't one of the many gods that were created by man before or after your Christian god?
+Eddie Schultz The spirit is the soul. God Jehovah, Yahweh the only God in three God is the Father Son and Holy Spirit. There is one God and many gods the gods were made up by man.
Rick Myres " There is one God and many gods the gods were made up by man."
Thank you for backing up my point, all gods are man made. :)
I think you have a very one-dimensional view of faith, Peter. Defining a word in a way that you believe is correct does not mean it is correct. The way you define faith you made into that definition by defining it that way.
Right. Straw-maning the meaning and use of the word is not a beneficial way to argue against it not only for those listening to the argument but for the person himself who makes the argument. You rob yourself from the depths of critical thinking you may have the ability to reach and therefore a stronger, richer argument. I was taught you better make your opponent argument as strong as possible, even more than those who hold it, before you begin dismantling it, for your own sake. I have faith that you can do better Professor. ☺️
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.” I Peter 1:3-5 NKJV
That sounds like some weird manifesto you read from a school shooter before he breaks in to an elementary school. None of the shit you quoted has any meaning. Like if a Charles Manson were the original writer of that, would you still follow it word for word?
that is the best definition I've ever heard of "Christian apologist"
Its Self Serving. it also assumes the same cannot be said of Atheists like Bohgossian.
When talking about non-religious things I use the word "trust" instead of faith. For instance, I have trust that science will one day find the answers to quantum physics and I have trust that science will one day provide us with an understanding of dark matter and dark energy.
You can do the same with those Religious Things. And the Only Difference between a Religious Thing and a Non-Religious Thing is You saying one is Religious and the other is Non-Religious.
The actual People You call Religious People Trust, they do not Pretend to Know what they do not Know.
"Blessed are they that have not seen, but do believe."
Faith: You either have it, or you don't!!!
Hope: Something of our hearts desire, we hope to share or be part of.
Love: First to God the Father; and Love our neighbors as ourselves.
It's not about how much we think we know.
For many of us; the Faith in that, "One Solitary Life" is the reason for our walk "Day by Day" and it's enrichment.
Faith is a good thing to have!
What a bunch of nonsensical assertions.
Nope. Lying about what you can know is not honest. What's worse, is that you cannot identify or correct an error. With "faith," correct and incorrect are indistinguishable. How can you use faith to determine an error? You can't. You simply assert that you're not. Since "faith" makes correct and incorrect indistinguishable, you can never claim to be correct. You literally have no idea what's true, because you've committed to the nonsense of faith in order to prop up your delusions.
Because you don't care what's actually true, only with what you like to lie to yourself about, to soothe your existential angst. Faith cannot result in truth.
@SweatinCowboy Amen to that my friend!
Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.
Yes! And faith does not imply the absence of any evidence. It implies the absence of PROOF. Science works toward evidence and without proof. Faith is the same as science in that regard.
@@glennsimonsen8421no lol, faith is belief with an absence of evidence, no matter your word games
10 years later, I hope that Peter realizes that when there is a vacuum of moral and religious orientation, all kinds of derangement takes over as we are now experiencing in 2022.
It funny how you automatically connect morality and religiosity. Despite attempts by the religious these two things are not interconnected. Religion is often just the cloak used to obfuscate desired behavioural conditioning. Not any different than the Maoists or Leninists when they created their zealots.
It's actually very easy to determine moral behaviour. All one has to do is analyze an action against the amount of harm that action causes to their self and other individuals. No religion required.
Well... he's now fighting the ideology that's replaced religion. I.E. leftism.
@@ClockworkWyrm1. The entire purpose of religion is morality. It's purpose is to provide guardrails for human behaviour. It is stupid to say they aren't connected.
2. "It's actually very easy to determine moral behaviour". Actually determining what is moral is useless if there's no standard for what is moral. If the previous generations thought "slavery" was moral but you determined it to be immoral because of its harm, it will still be subjective.. ie. Your opinion. The only way morality "improves", but not "change" is if there's a God who provides the standard of right and wrong.
He opposes all forms of unreason not just religious. Do a search for his more recent videos opposing postmodernism.
@@dambar7486 You missed the entire point of the comment.
Tha'ts a great video. It made me think about this question. Can someone have faith in his reason ?
Faith: The assurance of things hoped for and the conviction of things unseen.
Yes, Pretending to know things you don't know. Just as you said.
ahh id never get a coin in that 'faith jar'
i dont remember ever putting any thought into doing it but ever since my deconversion, i only use the word 'faith' regarding religion, even when people claim 'you have to have faith in something' i answer 'no, i dont'
i dont even acknowledge 'you have faith in science' because i dont - i either _understand_ the science or i learn about it
as defined in the bible itself, its belief without evidence - so its rather stupid when people claim someone has 'faith' in science when science provides tons of evidence
thats _why_ its science
(course, these are the same idiots claiming science is a religion, so wtf, let them write up their own dictionary and see how well that goes)
Truth Matters well i see youre trying really hard to get that dictionary thing going for you!
Wow, this guy doesn't even understand how Christianity works... People that are Christians don't have faith to be "good people" Christianity specifically teaches that no one can earn their way to God through being good enough. No one is pretending to believe, they actually do believe in it.
He did talk about that. He pointed out that some people are pretending (he's right), and that some people are delusional. And that there's no way to reliably measure how many of them are delusional that we know of.
PB didn't say that religious believers are pretending to believe. He said they're pretending to KNOW things they don't know.
I do agree that "pretending" is not a good description, because it suggests that believers are _aware_ that they're pretending to know things they don't know. "Pretending" implies that someone is aware of what they're doing, and believers are (usually, I would say) NOT aware that they're claiming knowledge they don't actually have.
Maybe they do, maybe it's the others who don't.
Garitt Tarver Apparently so do Muslims, Hindus, Jainists, and Tom Cruise.
You have a point, either way the argument gets old.
I agree that faith SHOULD be constrained and not used in place of hope. Faith should only be used to account for a sincere belief that lacks the ability to be empirically known. There’s no room for faith in science. No scientist should, in the name of science, make a statement such as the origin of the universe is random, order derived from chaos, and without intelligent design. To make such a claim would be unscientific and rather a statement of their faith. In that sense, we must separate scientific claims from faith claims within the scientific community same as we must with any other group. A more honest and dispassionate scientist might say, “there’s evidence that all matter in the universe had a high density, singular origin that exploded into the universe as we know it today. I *hope* that means that everything is random and there’s no god or anything.”
I don't always pretend to know things that I don't know, but when I do, I've drank like 10 dos equis.
Set up these lessons in schools ❤
FAITH IS THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE THAT CAN BE ACHIEVED WHEN INFERRING A CONCLUSION BASED ON PERSONAL EXPERIENCES. this may beat your challenge, but I am ATHEISTIC 100%
It does not.
False.
So what is a good, decent, meaningful life? Is there a uniform set of rules that usually apply or is every situation unique and every perspective acceptable?
The true meaning of faith = ( Finding An Instruction To Hearsay )
have you looked up the meaning of the word faith? a dictionary is a good place to look
Very good.
You can't have reason without faith.
Nonsense. Reason is completely different from faith. There is no atrocity some people would not commit on the basis of faith alone. The evidence for that is all around us with the actions of Hamas, Isis and some Israeli settle who believe that some invisible god thing gave them some land.
I still don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
What do you mean by atheist?
I mean the opposite of a theist.
I theist believes there is a God; an atheist believes there is no God.
And by God, I mean a supernatural being with a mind powerful enough to create time and space out of nothing.
Mike Millington
Ah, you seem to be mistaken - an atheist simply rejects a belief in a god or gods, they don't claim categorically that there is no god (well some soi disant 'atheists' do, but they don't understand the term either).
Hope that helps.
Artur Sixpence
But if you reject a belief in something then that means you don't believe in something. How do you answer the question 'Do you believe there is a God?' You don't have much choice as an atheist but to answer that you do not. Therefore you believe there is no God.
Mike Millington Nope, I don't know if there's a god or not.
I think it most unlikely but I wouldn't rule out the possibility entirely.
I, and other atheists simply reject the positive claim that there is a god until I'm shown evidence to the contrary.
In answer to Peter’s challenge. If I hold a brick out at arms length and drop it I have “faith” it will fall to the ground, I base the conclusion on the fact that having done the experiment several times before I have always had the same result, I do not “hope” it will fall. Have I met the criteria?
This was a little surreal. I have been an atheist for many years, since I was in my early teens. I grew weary of the inevitable debates when people would ask if I believed in god. Sometime in my twenties, when I was in the military, I answered with the phrase "I don't pretend to know." This generally offended the person that asked about my faith to the point that they would just go away. I've lost from friends and one job, but it is now my response every time. This is the first I've heard of you, Dr. Boghossian; I am seriously intrigued by your ideas. I have subscribed to your channel.
Peter had a great response to the last question by Richard. It's making me mentally ill because I'm surrounding faith believers.
You seemed to have missed his point when he was talking about not using the word "faith" when we actually mean "hope"?
And they also predicted what time period they would find it in, and the kind of environmenr
The thing with God is that it is impossible to debate and there is no way to prove or disprove it, nor is it important to do so.
Where does consciousness come from? How did gradual incremental changes on to cells eventually produce consciousness and self-awareness in human beings?
Been absorbed with your videos. You have found the fundamental cognitive way to best approach the “faithful.” Thank you Peter.
I have a question. Is behaving as if you know something you don't know, the same as pretending to know something you don't know?
What about Faith: Believing rather than pretending you know things you don't know? Is there a meaningful difference?
missionary came to me and invited me to weekly Bible study. Although I believed in the existence of God, I had not by any means believed in His existence in my life. It took a while for the word of God to sink in for me to put it into practice in my life, but as I began to be sanctified by the truth, as God’s word is truth, not only did the power of sexual immorality lose its control over me, but by the age of 23 whenever I see advertisements with sex appeal I am only filled with sorrow at the
So what? All of your post consists of unsupported assertions without a single piece of valid and verified evidence for any of it. Unfortunately, you happen to have been convinced by lies. Are you trying to say believing demonstrable lies is a 'good' thing?
I invite you to demonstrate that your particular and so far undescribed god thing ever existed with at least some type of the valid and verified evidence I have for the existence of my dog.
I was thinking the same thing, though, do you REALLY know the chair will hold you? It always has, and seems likely that it will. But chairs have broken. Can you really know this chair will not break?
Should I show this video to my religious friends?
He is omitting, I think, the word “trust” from the discussion. “I don’t have faith that I will pass the test tomorrow” is not a synonym for hope and is not a knowledge claim or claim of not having knowledge. If is s statement that even though I hope to do well, the evidence I have makes me doubt a good outcome. It’s not really a statement that you really know or don’t know, it’s more about trusting that known and unknown things both have influence on reality and the outcome and people use faith in this more pedestrian way to talk about trust. Trust, faith, confidence are all synonyms and I think it would be interesting to hear him include them in his discussion.
So is the agenda to kill hope in everyday life? Once I gave up my faith i have had a very difficult time being hopeful about any dreams i used to pursue. Dont get me wrong i will never go back to my faith unless something absolutely convincing happened, but how do you hope without some kind of faith? You pursue your dream and have faith that it will work out after you put in all this work.
SO IS THE AGENDA TO KILL HOPE IN EVERYDAY LIFE?
That is the observed outcome in many instances.
ONCE I GAVE UP MY FAITH I HAVE HAD A VERY DIFFICULT TIME BEING HOPEFUL ABOUT ANY DREAMS I USED TO PURSUE.
The more I see, the more I find things are far worse than I ever imagined. Sometimes the only thing that keeps me going is that I remember dreams I’ve had.
DONT GET ME WRONG I WILL NEVER GO BACK TO MY FAITH UNLESS SOMETHING ABSOLUTELY CONVINCING HAPPENED, BUT HOW DO YOU HOPE WITHOUT SOME KIND OF FAITH?
Much in Religion takes the qualities of nature/reality and personifies it in a shadow or conceptual form. The substance of reality is so sure that we can know that if we do things in accordance with the ways of nature, the results are certain. (i.e. it's a matter of learning the real ways of reality/nature to walk in them with a new type of confidence. I'm not there, but have made some steps in the right direction.)
YOU PURSUE YOUR DREAM AND HAVE FAITH THAT IT WILL WORK OUT AFTER YOU PUT IN ALL THIS WORK.
Inaction makes zero effect certain
Some action gives hope
Actions in line with causality makes desired results very certain.
Work through the fog to know with clarity then take the steps to get the results one desires.
There is also the loss of one’s friends, family and society when leaving faith for truth. And regular society is a bigger cult and mindless faith system, in many ways, than religion ever was. Learning to see things for what they are has made me afraid in many ways, because so many people think they can see, when they don’t even have the cognitive perceptions and fact based reasoning in place to start seeing.
@@davidfenton3910 thanks for the response. I see that attempting to stand outside of humanity and dissect it causes a lot of disturbance. I think love, acceptance, and forgiveness seems to be the only way to transcend the depths of negativity we encounter on a regular basis. I am always tempted to just not care or feel anything any more and totally pursue my own wants and desires, but something stops me.
Hi @@jms4406.
I SEE THAT ATTEMPTING TO STAND OUTSIDE OF HUMANITY AND DISSECT IT CAUSES A LOT OF DISTURBANCE.
I value truth and for this reason try to see things objectively. The core of human nature needs to be understood to live optimally so going into it to understand and gain knowledge to live most functionally makes a lot of sense to me.
If “HUMANITY” describes the collective consciousness and “DISSECT IT” moves people to individual consciousness then I think “DISTURBANCE” Is a move in the right direction.
I THINK LOVE, ACCEPTANCE, AND FORGIVENESS SEEMS TO BE THE ONLY WAY TO TRANSCEND THE DEPTHS OF NEGATIVITY WE ENCOUNTER ON A REGULAR BASIS.
*Love* ... some major things in my life were done to me for love but because they were not knowing and in alignment with human functionality they did harm.
*Acceptance* must be in accordance with truth, i.e. no compromise of truth for acceptance or it becomes acceptance of untruth which will only produce untrue or negative fruits.
*Forgiveness* is not something I see as being in accord with living in the truth of reality, it is a covering or denial of it. I prefer to accept people as trustworthy when they change their thinking and doing to live in honest alignment with truth. I prefer to keep it all real. It's human to stuff up and immature irresponsibility is overcome by open acceptance of one's failings and doing better which leads to acceptance as honest and hence more reliable.
Of course I see most people as victims of violation in their childhood and not responsible for their state of being. There is no need to forgive victims of violation, but the still need to take on a mature and reliable nature to warrant trust.
I AM ALWAYS TEMPTED TO JUST NOT CARE OR FEEL ANYTHING ANY MORE AND TOTALLY PURSUE MY OWN WANTS AND DESIRES, BUT SOMETHING STOPS ME.
The living of one’s life for the collective is programmed into people in various ways. It is natural to live for Familial and close friends as one’s personal or natural collective, but I believe this nature in us has been deliberately hijacked and redirected to change the relations of people in society to an artificially conditioned state where that affection and desire is unnaturally directed.
Cheers
Sincerely
David
Have I misunderstood? In response to the thought challenge, I could say, "The definition of 'faith' can be found in a dictionary; it is not defined under the definition of 'hope'." Professor Boghossian thinks his challenge cannot be met. Can anybody help? I must be missing something.
I have faith that my wife is faithful. Someone tell me if this works.
Something that people need to understand is that there is a huge difference between faith and trust. Faith is believing without knowing whereas trust is based on knowledge and/or experience. Trust can be earned, lost, won back again, etc but it is based on knowledge and experience. Of course there is misplaced trust or trusting that some stranger you just met and handed your wallet to will not steal it. I'd say that falls more under the idea of hope. You hope the guy doesn't rip you off and maybe he doesn't. That experience may lead to trust so you hand the guy your wallet again. This time he runs off with it and you've now lost your trust in him. See what I'm getting at?
I want to hear the time machine conjecture of faith.
Really enjoyed the lecture but I do have a questions about the restriction of time machines. As far as I understand, time machines are not prevented by our current understanding of physics. Assuming this is true, why is it that when an answer is given to your question you then provide a stipulation preventing it? A difficult question such as this would likely require a creative solution as long as a basis can be founded in reality
"I, for 1, do not believe the kids will be OK ". Your quote. Nobody knows they will make it there and back, but we hope that at that time in the morning, the drunk drivers are not out on the road and we hope our schools will keep our kids safe while they're there. This is easy faith because we know many people do it daily without any problems. So we feel somewhat secure to do it based on their stats, but there's no guarantees.
Awesome quilt, I want one?!
So who said this catchy tagline first? This guy, or Aron Ra?
where do I get that quilt? SO WANT
I once read a really interesting thought, though I can't remember where and it's one I use often when talking to religious people. Faith was created by people who could not handle the harsh realities of the world.
Old content.. but glad I found it. Thanks Peter.
Professor. First, thx for the work you do. I'm a deconverted christian. Do you have a younger brother or cousin in Scottsdale az named Chuck?
Faith is one of our spiritual attributes. Emotions and feelings are others. Science can't prove emotions or feelings, but we know they exist. Therefore, they have substance.
I don't know if the speaker is familiar with Epicurus' idea that our main goals are pleasure and friendship, and that many people who take part in faith based organizations may be more interested in the friendship than the silly things stated in the bible.
Good point. They are willing to "belong to" and "believe in", although they probably couldn't define much of it. When confronted with hard to grasp portions of the bible, they are ok with not delving in to research, or question it!