The Great Debate: "Has Science Refuted Religion?"
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 มี.ค. 2012
- / skeptic
CALTECH COSMOLOGIST AND PHYSICIST Sean Carroll teams up with Skeptic magazine publisher and science historian Michael Shermer in this epic debate with noted conservative author and King's College President Dinesh D'Souza and MIT physicist Ian Hutchinson as they go head-to-head over one of the most controversial issues of our age. As science pushes deeper into territory once the province of religion, with questions such as Why there is something rather than nothing?, Where did the universe come from?, How did life arise?, What was the origin of morality?, and others, inevitable conflicts arise over the best approach to answer them. Don't miss this great debate and come with your questions for the audience participation portion of the day!
Sean Carroll is an absolute intellectual beast. He is honest when he doesn't know, which is very refreshing.
Carroll like all atheists is clueless. He has to ignore alot of evidence of GOD and the reincarnating God-incarnate to push his dogma.
There are 4 primary lunar phases of roughly 7 days (~7.4 days) each, thus the 7-day week and 4 weeks in a 'moonth'. The 354 day lunar year + 7 day week + 4 days = 365 day solar year. Our Roman Calendar has 7 months with 31 days + 4 with 30 days + February's 28 (7x4). The ancients' 'Sacred 7 Luminaires'/'7 Heavens' - '7 Classical Planets' - and 4 can't be seen during the day/4 don't cast shadows on Earth. Orion is 7 stars with 4 being his shoulders and feet (+ Orion's Belt). The Big Dipper & Little Dipper have 7 stars with 4 in their ladles. The 4th most recognizable asterism is the Pleiades/7 Sisters.
GOD=GOOD=7_4, 7/4 is July 4th or 7 April 30 AD: Good Friday(74) when Jesus(74=J10+E5+S19+U21+S19) was nailed on(74) the Cross(74=C3+R18+O15+S19+S19).
See Seal #2 at 7seals.blogspot.com - only the returned Christ & Albert Einstein reincarnated could produce that. It's triggered The Apocalypse/Revelation which is NOT the 'end of the world'.
Sean doesn't even follow science. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
Your jiking the little idle that is too lazy to define his terms is wholly innocent of any sort if intellectual ability what soever
Sean Carroll's response to applause: "Don't take up my time, I'm in a hurry here!" Bad ass!
Carroll like all atheists is clueless. He has to ignore alot of evidence of GOD and the reincarnating God-incarnate to push his dogma.
There are 4 primary lunar phases of roughly 7 days (~7.4 days) each, thus the 7-day week and 4 weeks in a 'moonth'. The 354 day lunar year + 7 day week + 4 days = 365 day solar year. Our Roman Calendar has 7 months with 31 days + 4 with 30 days + February's 28 (7x4). The ancients' 'Sacred 7 Luminaires'/'7 Heavens' - '7 Classical Planets' - and 4 can't be seen during the day/4 don't cast shadows on Earth. Orion is 7 stars with 4 being his shoulders and feet (+ Orion's Belt). The Big Dipper & Little Dipper have 7 stars with 4 in their ladles. The 4th most recognizable asterism is the Pleiades/7 Sisters.
GOD=GOOD=7_4, 7/4 is July 4th or 7 April 30 AD: Good Friday(74) when Jesus(74=J10+E5+S19+U21+S19) was nailed on(74) the Cross(74=C3+R18+O15+S19+S19).
See Seal #2 at 7seals.blogspot.com - only the returned Christ & Albert Einstein reincarnated could produce that. It's triggered The Apocalypse/Revelation which is NOT the 'end of the world'.
In my opinion Sean Caroll is simply brilliant in this debate. Metaphysics(both Aristotle and Plato's versions) was a valid explanation of the universe when science was undeveloped and still largely dependent on philosophy. One of the key differences between philosophical and scientific inquiry is that the only tool of the philosopher is his mind, the scientist uses both his mind and empirical observation. I believe if Aristotle or Newton lived in modern times they would agree with Caroll
What's funny is no philosopher denies this but people say it like it's a marvellous revelation.
Excellent arguments by Sean Carroll.
Why?
Sean Carroll and Michael Shermer are militant atheists who are clueless. They won't be reincarnated as human for a loooooooooong time. See 7seals.blogspot.com - only the returned Christ & Albert Einstein reincarnated could produce that. GOD=7_4 or FOD=6_4 (on Planet Nestor) is Seal #2.
@@BradWatsonMiami wow, I can't believe you're still around. You must have been spamming youtube comments with the same nonsense for at least 10 years.
Carroll like all atheists is clueless. He has to ignore alot of evidence of GOD and the reincarnating God-incarnate to push his dogma.
There are 4 primary lunar phases of roughly 7 days (~7.4 days) each, thus the 7-day week and 4 weeks in a 'moonth'. The 354 day lunar year + 7 day week + 4 days = 365 day solar year. Our Roman Calendar has 7 months with 31 days + 4 with 30 days + February's 28 (7x4). The ancients' 'Sacred 7 Luminaires'/'7 Heavens' - '7 Classical Planets' - and 4 can't be seen during the day/4 don't cast shadows on Earth. Orion is 7 stars with 4 being his shoulders and feet (+ Orion's Belt). The Big Dipper & Little Dipper have 7 stars with 4 in their ladles. The 4th most recognizable asterism is the Pleiades/7 Sisters.
GOD=GOOD=7_4, 7/4 is July 4th or 7 April 30 AD: Good Friday(74) when Jesus(74=J10+E5+S19+U21+S19) was nailed on(74) the Cross(74=C3+R18+O15+S19+S19).
See Seal #2 at 7seals.blogspot.com - only the returned Christ & Albert Einstein reincarnated could produce that. It's triggered The Apocalypse/Revelation which is NOT the 'end of the world'.
@@rubenmartinez2994 because he makes good arguments.
why what? he's been asked to make good arguments, it's in his nature to make arguments. what are you asking about?
Sean Carroll is an amazing speaker, always a joy to listen to
that was a great way of voicing it "i have never met god, but i have met a lot of amazing people" - god really demeans humans, some aren't so good, but the good ones are really good.
@@HarryNicNicholas if you are just refuting your own idea of a god you made up in your head then maybe that one is demeaning to you.
But if you are saying the Christian God demeans humans Lol you sound like a criminal saying that about their judge. He thinks he’s better than me! Lol. Thinks he’s so much better that when He entered into His own creation, His people crucify Him, and He dies for each one of their sins, if they will just recognize that He is indeed the One who made us.
You have to realize, if there is a perfect afterlife, IF THERE IS, then every imperfect thought can’t even be allowed. Christ told us that we all are guilty unfortunately, but He came and told us that He was coming to be torn down and then be raised up for us after three days. And He backed it up. Without writing a single word. Even if He did write words you wouldn’t believe it.
Even if we had video evidence you would say it’s Hollywood. The ancient manuscripts of the the New Testament are earlier than any even CLOSE in history. A Pauline Creed is quoted that dates back to within a decade of the cross itself, which is UNHEARD of in ancient history. Google oldest book in the world. Lol just for fun.
God is not demeaning man. You are just insecure. Actually, no. That’s me. You are not humble enough.
@@jamespitts10 God chose to come down in human form to sacrifice himself to himself to serve as a loophole for rules he created. Don't forget - the god you say doesn't demean you still creates us all 'ill' and commanding us to be well. We are all born bearing the burden of original sin. Damn Eve, TRICKED by this non-demeaning god, was compelled to curiosity and bit an apple from the tree of knowledge. How dare she!!!
Carroll like all atheists is clueless. He has to ignore alot of evidence of GOD and the reincarnating God-incarnate to push his dogma.
There are 4 primary lunar phases of roughly 7 days (~7.4 days) each, thus the 7-day week and 4 weeks in a 'moonth'. The 354 day lunar year + 7 day week + 4 days = 365 day solar year. Our Roman Calendar has 7 months with 31 days + 4 with 30 days + February's 28 (7x4). The ancients' 'Sacred 7 Luminaires'/'7 Heavens' - '7 Classical Planets' - and 4 can't be seen during the day/4 don't cast shadows on Earth. Orion is 7 stars with 4 being his shoulders and feet (+ Orion's Belt). The Big Dipper & Little Dipper have 7 stars with 4 in their ladles. The 4th most recognizable asterism is the Pleiades/7 Sisters.
GOD=GOOD=7_4, 7/4 is July 4th or 7 April 30 AD: Good Friday(74) when Jesus(74=J10+E5+S19+U21+S19) was nailed on(74) the Cross(74=C3+R18+O15+S19+S19).
See Seal #2 at 7seals.blogspot.com - only the returned Christ & Albert Einstein reincarnated could produce that. It's triggered The Apocalypse/Revelation which is NOT the 'end of the world'.
After listening to Dinesh, I now believe in miracles. Apparently, it really is possible to speak out of one's ass
The way he thinks he is so superior while he's chatting complete bullshit makes my blood boil
14neutrol lol nice burn
14neutrol evolution has given you the feeling of being right. then i have no choice but to disagree with you 😂
not an argument. brown noser
Spiracles matters will never make sense to the spiritually blind...
D'Souza becomes more convincing the less he talks.
Not an argument.
@@Jamie-Russell-CME : It's an observation with which I agree.
😁😆
1:31:09 "nicely done" came from his opponent and here you go spitting a slogan that is very "convincing" in your own ears
74% of everything in this Universe is not dark matter (69% dark energy + 5% ordinary matter). 74% of this Universe's elemental mass is hydrogen + 24% helium + 2% other.
🔷 The Conglomerate of Universes - Universe Creation Theory 🔷
combining GOD/Nature, ancient religions/Bible prophecy, astronomy, cosmology, fined-tuned laws of physics: general relativity/quantum mechanics/ string theory, chaos theory/fractals, laws of biology & chemistry, programming the universes/GOD=7_4 or FOD=6_4 (on Planet Nestor) - 'Theory of Everything', linguistics/code-breaking (gematria), intelligent design, mysticism, and philosophy/biocentric-anthropic principle
"Energy can’t be created or destroyed, only transformed/transferred in an isolated system." General relativity's black holes, white holes, Big Bang and wormholes.
‘The BIG Bang-Bit Bang’ inflation/expansion of energy₇₄* and information into the void 13.77 billion years ago was a supermassive white hole spawned by a supermassive black hole at the heart of a galaxy in our ‘parent₇₄ universe’. This duality combines general relativity’s singularity point₇₄s of infinite density breaking through spacetime in ‘Cosmic Egg hatchings’ of all created universes within ‘The Conglomerate’: multiverse with no random quantum fluctuation bubble universes, no parallel universes or parallel worlds, and all universes have similar physical laws. Our Universe is 1-in-2 trillion ‘self-similar offspring’ each with alike inherited traits/‘DNA’.
“In the beginning”, the Planck density of the core of a SBH is a birth canal. ‘Quantum bounce SBH-SWH seed transitions’ are ‘quantum tunneling umbilical wormholes’ with energy-matter and data transformed /transferred, albeit scrambled and encoded. The ubiquitous cause-and-effect ‘circle of life cycle’: birth-life-death-transformation-rebirth explains infinite space and eternity - a necessity. Reproduction is GOD/Nature’s plan for greatly spreading life from cells to universes.
GOD=7_4 or FOD=6_4 (on Planet Nestor) is the number 1₇₄ program₇₄/law/ initial₇₄ condition - the 'Theory of Everything' (Seal #2). Under its umbrella is M-theory's 7D hyperspace + 4 common dimensions. Unified String Theory 21 or 19 Dimensions & Aspects of Spacetime adds an analysis of the dimensional aspects of time₄₇ (DATE): 7 aspects of 'regular time' + 4A 'hypertime' (Seal #3).
Why does this Universe exist? It’s our playground (god + run = ground₆₄).
- This is Seal #1a of the 7seals.blogspot.com . Only the returned Christ & Einstein reincarnated could produce this - it's triggered The Apocalypse/ Revelation which is NOT the 'end of the world'. COVID-19 is part of Seal #4: S=19 (18.6) Theory.
*Simple6,74 English7,74 Gematria8,74
GOD=7_4=G the 7th letter. A circle O is either 15, zero or an operation. D4.
GOD=7_4 is the #1 algorithm.
energy=74=E5+N14+E5+R18+G7+Y25
parent=74=P16+A1+R18+E5+N14+T20
point=74=P16+O15+I9+N14+T20
"I suspect it's probably impossible for science to refute religion."
Then religion is so nebulous as to be useless.
Opening speach of Sean Carroll is just great. Simple, elegenat, friendly and meaningful. I love ti.
Final score: Science 1000 vs Religion 0
Why would you pit science and religion against one another? Religion has to do with the origin of the universe and knowing the creator, not understanding the mechanisms of God's creation. If the universe is the result of a random accidental explosion or expansion, why would you expect the universe to be intelligible and make sense? Why does everything have a purpose and function? You would only expect that if it was designed. Just because you understand how the universe works, isn't evidence it wasn't designed. Just like knowing a light bulb works isn't evidence Thomas Edison didn't exist or knowing how a Ford engine works isn't evidence Henry Ford didn't exist. You've got it backwards. Whenever you Google, what is the purpose of something in the universe, e.g. what is the purpose of lightning?, you are assuming that the universe is designed, so if the universe is an accident with no design, why assume you can't make sense of it?
“Has science refuted religion?” I would think a better question is; Did religion ever make a case for god in the first place?
No.
But Science (speaking as an Atheist) made such a rubbish case for virtually everything that Theism won by default.
Whose science of what and what are you calling religion?
What would it take to convince you that God created the universe?
@johnmeeks2799 For starters, that god can come and tell us himself. So far, I only hear people talking about that imaginary guy.
@@johnroemeeks_apologetics Stupid question, because we know for a fact that it is hokus pokus manmade religion, stupid philosophy for the masses
D'Souza's arguments are so weak & flawed it astonishes me that he still trots out the same ones.
i don't even bother listening to the theist's, i can get the gist of the errors they're making from "my guys" responses.
Now after watching a number of these Atheists/theist debates, I m finding something quite intriguing. What the theists argue in these debates is just simply the same logically fallacious nonsense they feed their followers-simply for the purposes of sustaining the faith in those followers. They seem to have no regard whatsoever for the opponents from the atheist side who share same stage. Within five minutes of his opening remarks, Hutchison hit the four biggies of fallacious arguments theists are guilty of committing. Special pleading, circular argument, arguing from ignorance, strawman argument. And top that all off D'Souza not only re-iterates all four of those fallacies almost immediately, he then goes into this bizarre never-never land of committing the fallacy of four terms. I found this absolutely astounding that someone would try this against the likes of Shermer and Carroll.
And here I thought I just MIGHT hear some interesting perspectives from the theists side that have never been addressed before--but no, it's the just the same ridiculous arguments we have all heard and seen demolished over and over again.
“Demolished” Hilarious
Shermer's readiness and response at 1:27:00 is just awesome! Dinesh had elaborately set up a whole lawyer kind of question to expose him, and Shermer just demolished him! He blew my mind with his answer!
Shermer can't even follow science. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
Actually, de Souza's reply to that was perfect. It shows the absurdity of determinism.
@@cdb5001 explain how the universe created itself. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can only change forms, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
@@2fast2block yeah I don't disagree. I just think that Carroll and Sherner (especially Sherner who is a moron), are intellectually dishonest.
@@cdb5001 sorry that I misread your comment. It's very telling that people who accept Sean and Michael as intellectuals when they are the ones that reject science.
Whenever Dinesh gets applauded my faith in humanity dips ever lower
1:31:09 come on, you re better than that
@@lingonryanandysobredo1717 74% of everything in this Universe is not dark matter (69% dark energy + 5% ordinary matter). 74% of this Universe's elemental mass is hydrogen + 24% helium + 2% other.
🔷 The Conglomerate of Universes - Universe Creation Theory 🔷
combining GOD/Nature, ancient religions/Bible prophecy, astronomy, cosmology, fined-tuned laws of physics: general relativity/quantum mechanics/ string theory, chaos theory/fractals, laws of biology & chemistry, programming the universes/GOD=7_4 or FOD=6_4 (on Planet Nestor) - 'Theory of Everything', linguistics/code-breaking (gematria), intelligent design, mysticism, and philosophy/biocentric-anthropic principle
"Energy can’t be created or destroyed, only transformed/transferred in an isolated system." General relativity's black holes, white holes, Big Bang and wormholes.
‘The BIG Bang-Bit Bang’ inflation/expansion of energy₇₄* and information into the void 13.77 billion years ago was a supermassive white hole spawned by a supermassive black hole at the heart of a galaxy in our ‘parent₇₄ universe’. This duality combines general relativity’s singularity point₇₄s of infinite density breaking through spacetime in ‘Cosmic Egg hatchings’ of all created universes within ‘The Conglomerate’: multiverse with no random quantum fluctuation bubble universes, no parallel universes or parallel worlds, and all universes have similar physical laws. Our Universe is 1-in-2 trillion ‘self-similar offspring’ each with alike inherited traits/‘DNA’.
“In the beginning”, the Planck density of the core of a SBH is a birth canal. ‘Quantum bounce SBH-SWH seed transitions’ are ‘quantum tunneling umbilical wormholes’ with energy-matter and data transformed/ transferred, albeit scrambled and encoded. The ubiquitous cause-and-effect ‘circle of life cycle’: birth-life-death-transformation-rebirth explains infinite space and eternity - a necessity. Reproduction is GOD/Nature’s plan for greatly spreading life from cells to universes.
GOD=7_4 or FOD=6_4 (on Planet Nestor) is the number 1₇₄ program₇₄/law/ initial₇₄ condition - the 'Theory of Everything' (Seal #2). Under its umbrella is M-theory's 7D hyperspace + 4 common dimensions. Unified String Theory 21 or 19 Dimensions & Aspects of Spacetime adds an analysis of the dimensional aspects of time₄₇ (DATE): 7 aspects of 'regular time' + 4A 'hypertime' (Seal #3).
Why does this Universe exist? It’s our playground (god + run = ground₆₄).
- This is Seal #1a of the 7seals.blogspot.com . Only the returned Christ & Einstein reincarnated could produce this - it's triggered The Apocalypse/ Revelation which is NOT the 'end of the world'. COVID-19 is part of Seal #4: S=19 (18.6) Theory.
*Simple6,74 English7,74 Gematria8,74
GOD=7_4=G the 7th letter. A circle O is either 15, zero or an operation. D4.
energy=74=E5+N14+E5+R18+G7+Y25
parent=74=P16+A1+R18+E5+N14+T20
point=74=P16+O15+I9+N14+T20
He did very well. Sorry
honestly he wasn't too bad here. There was a different debate that he really struggled in
For someone of faith I agree with him on a lot of things, just not religion. What's wrong with the man?
Sean Carroll is a BEAST!
Why is it that what Sean Carroll and Micheal Shemrer have to say makes more sense to me than what Dinesh D'Souza and Ian Hutchinson has to say?
Because you're using the smart side of your brain.
Because it does make more sense.
You did not listen.
Because dinesh is talking nonsense
"Yes" save yourself 2hrs
40 minutes in, I have to ask: what the hell are Sean Carroll and Dinesh D'Souza doing on the same stage? This is like having a third-grader and an english major compete in a spelling bee, it's so unfair it's not even funny.
Carroll did pretty good while being interrogated by Hutchinson.
*****
Sorry, I didn't make it clear that in my analogy, the third-grader is D'Souza, not Carroll.
seban678 Okay, makes way more sense now. Totally agree.
Yeah the confusion above pretty much reflects the confusion of your image. You think Carroll is the knight in armor because he glorifies "Science" despite being largely clueless and sloppy about "epistemic subjects." Mathematics is his "non-Science" discipline? Then he concludes that one day Physics will figure out morality? Yeah, mommy, take your third-grader off the stage. You make even clearer the reason Dinesh didn´t use more polysyllabic words than his mention of "epistemology." He kept it simple for ya in the kitchen. He really should make his terminological follow up heftier, though. His concluding references to emotions, thoughts, and the inner life and images of the kitchen and the village could all be mounted into a cage around Carroll and labeled, the Social Sciences which feed and operate in conjunction with the Philosophy of Religious Studies.
@@robinhoodstfrancis You're about 5 years late with this bullshit spewing mate.
My god, how can Mr Hutchinson be a scientist? It's unbelievable. If I was taught by him I'd be worried.
You can't refute religion. It's a social construct, and not a proposition. You can however refute claims made _by_ religion.
Good phrase, "social construct." Except that term represents how religion is a a universal human behavior based on relating to a facet of the Universe, usually through prayer and meditation, at least, among other components. Atheist-type arrangements are usually subcultures of presumed materialists. They would be limited in their use of shamanic Transpersonal psychosomatic rituals, presumably. Modern psychotherapy has consistently generated Transpersonal orientations like post-Reichians like Perrakos´Core Energetics and the post-Rogerian Rosenberg´s NVC. Science for its part has emerged as a form of Christian modern Philosophy conducted at post-Monastic School Universities that led to the modern versions, and so is a Christian subcultural form of Empirical Philosophy and practice. Wherever Religion oversteps its bounds, it can be refuted. The same goes for Science. It is the Christian-derived modern forms of Philosophy that guide the logical reasoning, and its different epistemological forms, to make sense of it all, it should be pointed out.
@@robinhoodstfrancis just because religion is universal doesn't mean it represents something that actually exists or correspond to anything real
There are many cognitive errors which are Universal. People have all sorts of cognitive mistakes and perceptual illusions
But often times these are more beneficial for our survival and reproduction
So religion and the common human tendency to personify Nature, 2 assign agency to the natural world. It clearly can give us survival and reproductive advantages and it also can clearly not be an accurate representation of reality
Just like we don't naturally feel that the Earth is spinning, we don't naturally feel that the Earth is revolving around the sun, we don't naturally feel that space and time are relative, we don't naturally feel the effects of quantum mechanics, there's many things that we don't naturally perceive or experience that nevertheless we have found out to be a more accurate understanding of the world
Religion is just a bunch of claims based on our history and psychology, and the overwhelming majority of those claims do not jive with science
@@origins7298 You try to evaluate “religion” with an absolute and final invalidating judgment by associating it simplistically with “personification” a psychological term in fact, in a presumptuous and dismissive sense, and “jiving with science” that itself reveals your unexamined assumptions and projected fallacies. The meaning of “universal behaviors,” “(Universal) Cognitive mistakes,” “what we don´t feel,” and “perceptual illusions” “agency” have similar baggage in psychology´s own subdisciplinary divisions, all of which operates as epistemological subdisciplines of Philosophy. That ultimately applies no less to your ultimately conformism to the presumption that the physical sciences establish the “most accurate” basis for evaluating claims.
Except that YOUR kind of claim that “science” is the “MOST ACCURATE BASIS” of evaluating “truth,” held by many as an “absolutely objective” basis, is nevertheless equally misguided despite your care with the nuance of “accuracy.” You aren´t aware of your slipping and sliding, but your foundational reliance on “science” is itself a foundational illusion, something you not only don´t feel and perceive, but don´t understand and definitely neglect. Personally, I perceived that problem personally as early as 10th grade, that science and objectification did´t address my angst, existential and so on. The History of Science illuminates the point well, as T Kuhn pointed out in his landmark work most famously known in terms of scientific paradigms and their shifts. Philosopher of Science M Pigliucci nails the point by noting that Darwin, like Newton and all their colleagues, were called “natural philosophers” in their time still. “Scientific Philosophy” also is plausibly accurate, while “Science” gets exposed as a term that has played a popularizing role, and was switched through its delusions of grandeur of “all truth” and judge of all else as mere “pseudoscience.” Sorry, you´ve got big muscles in “scientific philosophy´s accomplishments, but you´re not quite able to secure some things more broadly as crucial as social and environmental sustainability from techhie and greedy biz influences, along with attacks on Social Science (also subdisciplines of phil), classical Philosophy, all in addition to Religion (especially its phil forms). Moreover, you´re not clear that it is sci phil´s larger empirical philosophical method that is discernible and transferible.
Thus in Therapeutic Psychology, “feelings” weren´t a term the pioneer Freud used, but “instincts.” “Passions” was used by DesCartes et al. Those are “phenomena,” and “introspection” and “empathy” are part of the relevant empirical philosophy.
Psychology´s emp phil demonstrated its religious insights early as W James did a comparative study, and Freud (of non-Christian roots) found himself retreating from his invalidating stance of absolute reductionism to allowing for “historical” reality. Jung superseded him and Transpersonal Psychology began to be articulated by Maslow and others.
The discussion of Religion, thus, is best put in the context of the multi- and inter-disciplinary Philosophy of Comparative Religion. In empirical terms, it involves meditative and prayerful states , often in relation to ritual and spiritual-religious materials and practices. While sci phil orients its practitioners to try to objectify the Universe´s phenomena, spiritual-religious activity in the phil of comp rel involves relating to the Universe´s Creator and sustaining aspect. Modern Christian Philosophy of Religion was developed, like scientific philosophy, by Christian monastic schools that led to modern University-based society. Simple reductio ad absurdum arguments reveal your fallacies. All mothers and fathers of all species, human (animal), tree-living primate monkey, and all non-human animal can also be termed “maternal and paternal units.”
Your desire surely, a common one, NOT to call your mom and dad “maternal unit” despite its depersonalized “objectivity” raises questions about legitimate psychosocial processes, “What are legitimate?” “Mommy” is a term used by children. “Maternal unit” is a term used by, well, freaks, to put it in popular terms, or those harboring intense rationalized anger and resentment, as the psychologically literate might say. Just as you don´t take seriously the notion that “maternal unit” should be used for “mommies,” “moms,” or “mothers” except as young adult scientistic slang, subjects like environmental sustainability, stakeholders, and Human Rights have raised alerts about problems because of unsustainable profiteering objectification of natural resources and non-shareholder employees and citizens who are stakeholders with Human Rights. A kind of spectrum should be obvious already that involves epistemological Levels of Explanation and complexity, all part of philosophical disciplines.
Meanwhile, you say that “we don´t naturally feel the Earth spinning, … and quantum mechanics.”
The Chinese Tao is associated with a non-objective spiritual philosophy and human activity systems like Tai Chi, Chi medicine, and Chi Gong that have demonstrable effects in context. Buddhism, as well. Both spiritual-religious systems are more systematized than traditional shamanic practices, although anthropologist M Harner, and perhaps others, have started Western systems. Western scientists are studying psychosomatic healing and stress, based on broader reported phenomena often based on direct spiritual-religious phenomena, and always indirectly. Harner, and the reporting and study of Chinese, Buddhist, shamanic, psychosomatic, and diverse spiritual-religious knowledge and phenomena also involve a modernization process in University philosophical and empirical scholarship.
As for Christianity, the Jewish Jesus in the Abrahamic-Mosaic prophetic tradition reported consistently that God Commands “Love God first,” and “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” Harry Harlow´s monkey mother-infant experiments showed that mother´s love matters, and any mechanical maternal unit provides a deficient relationship. Humanistic Psychology was developed because of the problem of dehumanizing objectification in therapy techniques. Thus, again, the spectrum from “maternal unit-mom” to environmental sustainability to shareholder-stakeholder-Human Rights leads to the effects on people of secular materialism in an objectified Universe. Fragmented, disconnected rationalists exploited by business profiteers supporting Fundamentalists. Identifying the Universe´s Creator and Sustainer based especially on the teachings that underlie modern University-based modern empirical forms of philosophy including the very prominent scientific philosophy, i.e. Jewish Jesus Christ´s Commandments about love and spiritual practice, isn´t simplistic “personification” and fantasized “agency.” That is recognition of the coherent and consistent spiritual and religious experience that underlies the Universe´s relationship to Western culture and the individuals that have been building it. Trying to invalidate religion is like trying to call your mom a “maternal unit” and the rest, and invalidate psychology because humans are evolved animals with classifiable survival characteristics and traits. Humans evolved sweat, too. Don´t invalidate human cognition just because of that, along with your anti-religious and anti-theist errors and epistemological fallacies. “Humans sweat, só of course they don´t need to think like their maternal units try to teach them.” That´s an analogy of your fallacy, só you know.
@@robinhoodstfrancis hey man thanks for the reply
Yeah I'm responding to the traditional sense of religion
The idea that there is a supernatural agent. And communication with a God or multiple divinity's can grant us magical powers in this world
It's not a hard concept to understand that there's no evidence that God or prayer can actually affect the world
So if your car breaks down you take it to a mechanic not a priest
If you want to communicate with someone use a cell phone or a computer you don't try to use magical powers like ESP divine revelation
It's just a basic fact that the natural explanations are the ones that work
Go to any research institution any respected University and no one tries to invoke God to explain the causal reality of our world
Go to any college and ask how the universe works and no one tries to say God makes things happen
The natural explanations are the ones that work
Lightning is not caused by Thor it's caused by meteorological conditions
Computers are not built by God they are built by our understanding of quantum mechanics
All our technology and infrastructure is based on science
If you want to understand the worlds there's no evidence that magical thinking will help you
Anyway man I could go on and on
Sure if you want to have your own definition of religion and think of religion in very nuanced terms to make it fit certain preconceived notions then yeah you can spin it
But again I'm responding to the traditional ideas of religion that the majority of people in this world hold
The idea that there is a supernatural agent who directly intervenes and grants us favors based on allegiance to certain rituals.
@@origins7298 Yeah, good to hear your thoughts, "spinning religion" like I do is actually modernizing it, but it is all using Christianity´s own tools that the view you use has severed artificially. Christians were able to build unprecedented networks because their "core culture beliefs" were fueled by "Love thy neighbor as thyself" and "Love God first." Luther´s Reformation and the Enlightennment, Scientific Empirical Philosophy, and the huge Freedom of Religion and Comparative Religious Studies. "Science," or Psychology, has discovered that prayer and meditation have mental health, and general health benefits. That leads naturallly back to Religion and its need to be reformulated and modernized like George Fox´s Quaker-Friends already began to do.
Secular University scholarship shows one of the arbitrary and imprudent problems of forgetting interconnectedness and indulging in "specialized" knowledge: fragmentation and amnesia. The great effect is in Sustainability. Science shows that modern industrial practices and proction methods and consumer lifestyles are UNSUSTAINABLE, yet many people are fooled by CORPORATE profiteers and their propped up or subservient religious/philosophical ideology. Meditation and prayer, that can be encouraged by ministers, give a person a relationship with a Higher Power.
Prayer doesn´t work? That´s myopic and based on a faulty evaluation of experimental study significance and methodology. A sample of hospital-related testimonies, and qualitative analysis of trivialized "spontaneous remissions" exposes that fallacy and refutes its presumptions.
Critiquing traditional religious doctrines and anti-humanistic extremism doesn´t invalidate religion and God, but requires modernizing the philosophical approach that already has rich resources. Much of your anti-religious critique makes that mistake and is Scientism and rationalism. Transpersonal Psychology and Eco-social Sustainability Sociology, along with Comparative Religious Studies are good bases for studying the need for spiritual modernization.
Science has no obligation to refute religion. There is no requirement to disprove something that has not been proven. The danger the religionists pose is that if there agenda succeeds, US children will graduate from high schools and universities totally and completely unable to compete for jobs and especially for jobs that require thinking ability.If America becomes a second rate nation it won't be because of corrupt business or corrupt politicians, it will be because of the fantasies of religion spread among a population that is too ill informed, too myopic to demand better.
Do you prefer the way them good-natured atheist folks have dealt, it in their due time, to their brother-humans in France, Cambodia, North Korea, China, Nazi Germany etc. Is that what you prefer? For better or for worse, atheist paradise always has the same face. Granted, though, those guys DO know how to "compete for jobs", I'm sure.
And yes, science CAN'T "refute religion". As I was given to understand here, what religion talks about is beyond the scientific method -- simply speaking, out of reach. That, indeed, is why it "has not been proven" by science. Make no mistake: it's not the power of science, it's its weakness and limitation.
Kostya Berger Not quite, science has no obligation to refute the tenants of religion because the existence of god has not been proven. Despite there being no obligation to refute, refutation has been done tens of thousands of times.
While you cite any number of failed political states, you fail to connect their failure to atheism.
On the other hand unfettered religion absolutely does not produce a paradise on earth, it produces the dark ages, the inquisition, burning people at the stake and the ownership of 3/4 of Europe by the "holy" church while the vast majority starved. Your precious religious doctrines do not produce a very good result to they?
Unfettered religion... I would prefer the terms "true religion" as opposite to the "false" one. The difference to be seen by the fruit -- as one universally known teacher pointed out some 2000 years ago.
Kostya Berger NO one cares what you prefer. The term "true religion" is presuppositionalits. Until you prove the existence of your pet deity no rational person is likely to use that term. Moreover, I think that as an adherent of the true religion you have an obligation to kill those who are not followers of the "true religion." That's what your magic book the Koran says.. right?
Fredrick Zinos Oh yes, there IS somebody who cares what I prefer. It's me, and that makes a big enough difference.
Further, the true religion doesn' t put an obligation to kill others on its adherent. It says "you must not murder", among other things. For two reasons at least: first, life belongs to the ONE who gave it; second, another human being has the right to live same as you.
Excellent debate! Best part is the Navy guy that reproved all the speakers in such a great way!! Gotta wait till the end though.
very good talks, thanks.
Sean Carroll is fantastic. We need more content from him.
There is an abundance of content from Carroll, through his books and podcast, in addition it countless conferences all available on TH-cam, etc.
@@cesarjomThe comment was written a decade ago, there was much less content of Sean back then
Ian Hutchinson is a great cook. I ate lots of word salad during this debate!
Excited to watch after reading these comments
So true, best conversation I had in Europe was in the cab from the airport in Dublin
Religion lost its best arguments when it lost the right to burn people at the stake.
David Roberts Atheism lost all arguments when it sent people to the guillotine during the French reign of Terror, Millions of dead Russian people during the RED TERROR in Russia from 1917-23, 1933-1939, 1946-1953, and the Red Terrors in China, and Africa.
David Roberts //Religion lost its best arguments when it lost the right to burn people at the stake.\\
Religion doesn't have any arguments.
As if Atheism has answers? And by the way more people were killed in the name of Atheism. Read a history book, oh wait,, you don't rely on history, only science.Peter Metcalfe
+Crusader Crusader Atheists have killed people, but no one kills in the name of atheism. And you are either ignorant or flat out lying, Christians have killed countless times more people than atheists.
Ryan E
I really recommend for you to go to your local library and to pick up a history book, or to take some history courses somewhere. Atheists have murdered in the name of Atheism. "Red Terror in Russia"- by Sergei Melgunov, "Marx and Satan"- by Richard Wurmbrand, and there are plenty of other books that will list in detail the crimes of atheists in the name of atheism, oh and sometimes in the name of "science"
Mr. Shermer, I may not agree with you on everything, but I admire the fact that you're able to constrain yourself from not lunging at D'Souza and not strangling him to stop the smug, self satisfied nonsense that's coming from him mouth at a very fast rate.
This was a great debate.
Dinesh, you pulled out a good argument! I was a little hesitant when you started, but fairly impressed with your opening statement. Good job!
Lmao his opening statement is most horse shit thing I ever heard
It looks/sounds like the organizer picked the first person he saw on the street (D'zousa) put a suit on him, and gave him $50 to convert O2->CO2. -_-
1:31:09 michael shermer disagrees a lot on you
you win the internet. lololol. i wish i had said that.
How do we measure a thought? WTF!?! Is D'Souza seriously arguing for substance dualism, here in the 21st century? If it wasn't for the fact that he is such an upstanding, morally superior 100% honest family man, it would be difficult to take him seriously.
D'Souza is a saint, the patron Saint of fallacious arguments.
+Robbie “D.B” Doshbags I really don't understand people like you, why do you simply assume the only alternative to materialism is dualism? I see this over and over.
soldatheero So, if you have a material brain interacting with something immaterial that can't be empirically measured. I'm sorry, but what else would you call this other than substance dualism?
*****
reductionism still applies except in the reverse. The material brain and all matter exists only as long as it is being perceived and perception and consciousness is what is fundamental in reality. This is Idealism and is the alternative to dualism and materialism. It is the truth,
soldatheero I think monism makes the most sense either way, but that's not what he was talking about
+Robbie “H.B” Desiato Let's just say that a lot of folks despise D'Souza for reasons going beyond his silly fallacies in religion. His political arguments are equally awful.
Intellectually challenging to watch!
When and where was this recorded?
Sean Carrol ROCKS! I'm also very, very glad that we have a physicist on [both] sides to keep one of them from woowoo-ing the audience.
There does exist some threshold to which humans can ever know--and for the deist at least, I believe they're saying that they can't [[imagine]] any reality occurring in the absence of some deity, at some point.
Hutchinson is only a mm away from being another lane-craig.
Dinesh and Sean did a great job. Dinesh particularly, really surprised me.
I think Dinesh is a douche. I don't think he believes a word he's saying.
Amazing debate!
Science has not refuted religion; science has obviated religion.
***** Science is FULLY qualified and armed to address questions of the existence of phenomena of any and all types.
No atheists I know (including myself) have "hopes of never falling into the hands of the Living God." Do you have fears of answering to Zeus some day?
***** There's only one thing that I would like you to know; only one thing that's relevant to our conversation for you to know: I believe you are either profoundly and completely brain-washed, or else you are insane. 1) I think it's only fair that you know that. 2) I think you should know that I'm UNINTERESTED in determining which of those two it is. 3) I want you to know that I have neither the time nor the inclination to try to penetrate the psychological wall which separates you from reality.
***** LOLOLOL. Well, I have no trouble at all believing you're a retired psychotherapist after seeing you delude yourself with semantics!
I do happen to know a tiny bit of science: I have an ivy league degree in a science, and a PhD in that same science from a world-class research university.
Thanks for your offer of help, but I see it from a slightly different perspective: 1) I don't need help (at least not to become "normal," lol), and 2) Normal or not, I'm quite sure that I can't make the same offer of help to you! You have placed yourself BEYOND REACH of rationality because, obviously, you are incapable of even recognizing the very substantial rationality (ultimately justified or not) of atheists. You are irredeemable, I'm sorry to say -- and beyond help. But...well...if you're otherwise happy, then good for you :D Praise Yahweh!
***** Well. It's a pleasant surprise that someone is interested in actually being informed. BTW, you ARE correct about "normal," of course -- when used in the statistical sense -- without semantic trickery. I also agree with your prediction of the use of normal, and I think that's wrong, as you do. I have no real problem with genuine believers -- but I do have the habit of instinctively regarding evangelizers as working just as hard to convinces THEMSELVES as to convince their targets.
My studies have been in cell biology, but I don't want to identify myself by being more specific than that.
I'm glad that we come together regarding misgivings about the directions of our government -- I witness that commonality often, with those whom I'm on opposite ends of the belief spectrum. I think people in these difficult days should focus more intently on how they can be aligned instead how they are divided. Best wishes to you.
Sean Carrol is a very good speaker. I enjoyed his part in this.
The real question is why is this topic still being debated! I'm an idiot and this has been evident for years.
very interesting listen
I'd love to see this debate over an unlimited time scale!
More important things to do
The closing statement mentioned that the son of god died on a cross for our sins, got me thinking, this all started from a dispute over a piece of stolen fruit. The son of god was sacrificed because of that fruit and the sin that all generations had to bear because of it and that if this is not acknowledged the person is doomed to trillions upon trillions of years of torture, eternal torture. Because of a piece of forbidden fruit. Sounds pretty fruity to me, but hey I'm no scholar, I haven't spent 30 or 40 years studying this fruit, what do I know of the great virtue of faith and belief?
Does it reminds you of Les Miserable?
Don't be silly, woofer, the issue was quite something else:
Betraying a friend Who met and shared with you daily.
Not believing the Creator over a fallen angel in disguise.
The Son of God is Himself God; He actually was the Created who died for us to get us back. He paid the price of sin, no sin can be tolerated in His eyes.
He gave His life for you. Give your life and friendship to Him. Believe Him this time and not die. Not die forever.
John
John Smith
that's not true, 'he gave his life' what does that mean he's dead? He didn't 'give his life' if he didn't die, you'll say he did but came back? What is that then? It isn't really death, if he just pretended to die and didn't really or even if he did really die, didn't coming back mean it was meaningless. If you can't die you can't die there is no sacrifice, what sacrifice? It didn't mean anything then.
The mere idea is sick, this 'loving' creator leaves his innocent children alone/unattended in a garden with a dangerous animal, the ALL knowing creator knows the snake is there and what will happen yet he does it anyway. And then is such a dick he blames them and he's such a psychopath he curses not only them but all generations. This can only be fixed by he himself becoming a man and allowing himself to be murdered, so if he could have stopped it he didn't therefore it was suicide and this because this thing needed to be paid for in blood, is this stupid and sick or what?
If you're not on board with this silly non-sense you're looking at never ever being saved from trillions upon trillions of years even longer than the expected life of the entire universe according to the observable laws of real life nature.
scotty oh wow, dude. That you come back to life doesn't take away that you were declared dead (thereby you are/were dead). This happens in all those rare times that someone dies in a hospital but they bring them back to life.
"leaves his innocent children alone/unattended in a garden with a dangerous animal" This is the Deist point of view, not the Theist point of view.
"the ALL knowing creator knows the snake is there and what will happen yet he does it anyway" Funny, I always wondered why did my teachers gave out test knowing we would all fail them. If you want to know the answer to that, may be you should ask one of those teachers. After all, mankind was made to God's image so they might be able to answer. Ah, and no. They future generations don't pay unless they don't believe. This was stated in the Bible somewhere in the New Testament, if memory doesn't fail me. Why is paying in blood such a bad thing for you anyway? Doesn't the jails were you live execute criminals? And if not, don't they hold criminals until they die? The point is, we, humans, do this. It's quiet hypocritical to speak about a God and His way of doing things if you can't see the way of your race.
And if you are not on board, you can still get the ticket. After all, you just said the price was already paid w blood, right? If you don't want it, that's on you. I do, however, love how you put, "observable laws of real life nature". Dude, don't speak about laws of out beloved nature. Any knowledgeable theist (like me) can go "checkmate atheist" or whatever you are to you just for that. I find the video a bit funny, but don't go there, read the article instead: www.everystudent.com/wires/organized.html
That's why Laws of nature aren't a good game. Well, nothing that you said was in the first place. Now, if you do wish to battle Theist in your future, have more knowledge about what and where they stand, because this was a piece of cake. I don't even have to be a Theist to reply to all that garbage, lol. Well, I'm out. May God bless you.
Justto Botheru
Are you under the delusion that youtube is a place of serious debate, me neither. But I don't believe my points were bad ones, not at all, and I don't feel you've really addressed them.
I think it would be difficult to get a person sentenced to eternity of torture, I certainly wouldn't expect that from a god of mercy and compassion and supposedly unconditional love. People are sent to prison for life sometimes but their crime has got to be really serious and/or they are a threat to society. Not believing the words in an accent book hardly qualifies as worthy of death or torture for eternity. And even those criminals sent up for life or even sentenced to death AREN't tortured.
If adam and eve where being tested they were to learn what? Never disobey god? That's one thing when god is standing before you and you know him to be real and quiet another to take strangers on their word isn't it? You teacher didn't threaten you with death or torture I bet. And what about parents and children? Children test their parents or may just make mistakes and disobey, they aren't held accountable forever their children aren't held accountable for what they have done are they? And for generations? This is ridiculous.
'future generations don't pay unless they don't believe' this sounds like cult mentality.
And I felt like writing 'laws of nature' instead of laws of physics, I thought you'd understand my meaning. There has never been an explanation accepted that demanded a supernatural explanation, certainly not in modern times and now more than ever. There are such things as observable natural laws, such as the laws of physics and very few real scientists seriously hold the belief that a supernatural being is behind them.
There is no proof of god whatsoever everything we have found appears to have a natural cause. Strange for there to be a real god and we not be aware of it. Why the silly hide and seek? Why the need for belief or faith? Are we supposed to believe everything see read? God wants some ignorant, gullible, obedient idiots to push around, god enjoys stupid foolS?
I see no checkmate in any theist or religious argument and duh there never has been or else the very existence of this god wouldn't be an issue, we don't debate the existence of George Lucas that's because there is no question and if god were real and not imaginary there wouldn't be a discussion.
There's no Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, or Santa either, sorry.
Dinesh had some experiences a while back in a hotel room where he was reported to have been yelling 'Oh God' over and over.
Yeah but they didnt see William Lain Craig sneak in & climb under the covers.
excellent debate.We should have many more like.
I’m just glad the comments are non-bias and we are all friends.
I love how EVERY religious person have personally experience a miracle. Absurd.
watching Ian Hutchinson read his entire speech from that paper is unbearable. how difficult is it to engage the audience with an improvised speech supported by facts?
the old coot at the 1 hr 42 minute mark is a absolute howl.
Dinesh's point on free will was really interesting! I laughed with Michael and Sean haha
Care to elaborate? Neurologically and behaviorally, freewill is a dubious concept.
I understand why you did that drive by, then ran away forever 😆😁
I must admit, although I am squarely on the side of science that D'Souza actually makes one point that I absolutely agree with, the part at 37:20 where he points out the the important thing is to try to poke holes in ones own dogmatic ideas. This doesn't affect the general debate but it is a good point (and I have seen no evidence that D'Souza himself practices what he preaches in this regard).
Literacy refutes religion.
Religion spreads by guns, disease, and child indoctrination. Science by reading, experimentation, and skepticism.
@@Ometecuhtli Yeap
You should get in touch and enlighten them.
How is this a debate? YES, science refutes magic. Done.
Well, you assume that science cannot disprove/prove such concepts. I whole heartedly agree. And so does, apparently, Sean Carroll. He, quite reasonably, refuted the idea of an afterlife, but did not prove that it doesn't exist. And what makes you think that science cannot make a claim on the existence of a god? Science doesn't deal in proofs. It deals in evidence.
Dinesh claims that assumptions drive facts. It's the other way around.
Well? In alot of cases yes and no. A common "assumption" is axioms - peano axiom for instance is an assumption - neccessary for basic arithmetic.
Without peanos axiom you dont really get math
34:50-35:15 that's pretty vague and very much a surrounding a bunch of postulates
lol the old vet at the end was brilliant :) 1:42:20 Make sure you hear the WHOLE thing. he saves the punchline for the very last :)
I really wish that in just one of these debates someone would bring up D'Souza getting busted taking his mistress to a family values conference and getting charged with election fraud.
why didn't the atheists simply ask them why would God choose to be so cryptic in his delivery of Revelation to man
We have people killing each other over competing ideologies and yet we are supposed to believe that God chooses to reveal himself to a handful of people historically and to send his son to one remote part of the earth instead of giving yumanity a clear message
This makes no sense. It is absurd. there's no way for a rational reasonable person who accepts historical evidence to even consider this as a remote possibility.
when it comes down to it it is the same sort of naivety and illogicalness that a child would have to have to accept that Santa Claus can deliver presents to all the kids on Earth in one night
You're telling me that God chooses not to intervene in the Holocaust the slave trade World War 1 & 2 the incredible brutality that goes on on this planet both human-caused and natural disasters
But does choose to cryptically deliver a message to a handful of people historically and 2 appear as a burning bush to someone ..... and to send his son to one remote part of the earth 2000 years ago ..... so people can spread the message in a telephone game style of human communication
Does this make any sense? How can any reasonable person defend this position? it is simply fantasy and something that flies in the face of any sober reflection on reality
the basic of the big religion aren't cryptic: love , respect , pray god, control your desires. God doesn"t intervene in the holocost because he can't or else it would contradict the basis of freedom of belief, you can't really believe in/love god if you are forced to, if theres something more then mortal life is it so important ?
MorpheusVector yeah but my point is that a lot of religions believe that God has sent Messengers and does intervene at times. They have all sorts of Legends and stories about God speaking through burning bushes and sending angels and sending profits and talking to people
So my point is if God is going to do this why not just send a coherent clear message to all of Humanity
Anyway if you're just going to have some general conception of God is love without ever intervening then that's fine but my comment was directed at people who do think that God has intervened at times in what seems to me like a cryptic or way that's going to certainly lead to a lot of human confusion
chris P again i believe that if the same God was clearly omnipresent in every culture, we wouldn't have the freedom of belief, at contrary religion came from a central place and widespread. Maybe all religions approach the same God in a different way , i think coexistence is the key of peace and freedom and not having an one track-thinking.
MorpheusVector not really sure what you mean there
Are you saying that we need diversity of thought and religion and it's just part of human nature
Anyway I'm not really sure what we're debating as it doesn't have that much relevance to my assertions
My point was just a highlight how improbable Christian doctrine would be
It really doesn't make sense if there was a god thatfollowed the description of being omnipresent omniscient omni-benevolent. Then why would he send his son to one remote part of the Earth 2000 years ago
Why not send a coherent message to all of Humanity at once
The point is just to illustrate how obviously human these stories and legends about the Divine are. And how they show no common sense in how a Divine being would seemingly want to approach Humanity.
I know you can make a lot of reasons for this such as the desire for free will and to not coerce humans. But I think these are just ways to justify peoples non-critical non evidence-based belief systems
Anyway we all had experience with the telephone game in that we see how humans distort information as they pass it along. Therefore again it doesn't make sense that God would intervene in such a haphazard and random way and human life
What you're talking about doesn't really seem on point with any of this
You seem to have some more new age type attitude about God being the source of things and just more abstract Concepts like love and people experienced this in different ways
That's all fine I'm not really arguing any of those points my points so much more about people who thinks that God appeared at certain times in human life in what seems like a haphazard and random way. And yet we live in a world with all sorts of natural disasters and human tragedies of which we see no evidence of divine intervention
In other words "God doesn't exist because he doesn't babysit us (especially when there's billions of other life-inhabited planets in just this galaxy alone)"
Watched all of it
make a new version? it's been 10 years.. like to hear new thoughts
I feel like ppl like Carol and Shermer assume that "believers" think as if they know positive, while they themselves are the ones actually doing it. They've lost self reflection. I think these 2 "believers"in the debate are the kind that actually realize that they dont know and this is why they postulate "god". One could see "god" as being the devine existence of that which we cannot know, and respect it for that reason
Now, this POV can be compared to the other side. Atheist Scientists seem to respect that which they can discover but not that which they cannot. From my perceptive, they're ego is playing the role of God. As if they think the righteous way to proceed is only through discovering a full circle connection of awareness and nothing else.
I vote for believers because they're the unpopular underdogs rn. Also, the huge majority of my species got this with far via spirituality.
Humanity is doing a a shitty job in everyway in modernity. I do not care about my smartphone or images of black holes when my own friends and family are fucking commiting suiside and my environment is becoming a wasteland.
This is why we should spend more time reflecting on and worshipping what we already have.
This whole debate should have gone wayyy deeper but ppl are to stuck on simplistic stereotypes. Michael Shermer is the dumbest smart person i know.
Lets plz all get past this microscopic view of old time religion. Regain your sense of spirit and experience and cherish it.
Consider this...consciousness (self awareness) might be the key to the next door. If one balances themselves by looking INWARD as well as outward, the universe will change for the better. I swear to this.
As insane as ik it sounds...we should imagine that we are all 1 consciousness...each of us being different disassociated parts that infect greater greater whole.
Let your ego dissolve...its holding us all back.
I used to like D'Souza but I've lost a lot of respect for him over the years. He's a panderer.
1:09:11 I didn't know they said "pose" like that in English, haha...well, I would have supposed it could be said, but I would have thought it was a rare thing...he said it so casually...that's more like something they would say in French...the main way they would say: "to ask a question"...
1:07:16 I have to say, haha, I think that's a good one too..."Dinesh wants to make a cup of tea"...of course, that's making the assumption the universe has to have a purpose, haha...so...pretty good/catchy, but I don't think it's a difficult to counter point...
@@archangecamilien1879 if you choose to think "the universe" has no purpose... You still end up at the exact same point of this whole argument. It always seems to end up to a personal understanding/attitude/directive. Either way its easy to counter point. We can chase our tails forever.
I personally think its very immature to pretend to live as if the universe has no purpose when you yourself go through life every single day with 100s maybe 1000s of purposeful actions. I hope i dont sound defiant im just sharing my opinion
The pattern seeking starts way before any belief system , it's how we learn to speak and we don't have many belief systems before we can speak . I am pretty sure apart from a few abnormalities most people get the same result when putting the hand in fire or head under water .
Brains can play tricks with us too , this is way scientific experiment is the safest way to conclude objective information .
Lol I love how in Dinesh's opening statement he didnt say anything besides refute the evidence that they DIDNT give, or talk about things that did not pertain to anything they had said.
Because it was a prepared opening statement. The point of an opening statement is not to rebut your opponent, it is to make your arguments known.
1:40:00 Great question. The young Christian just killed me by his answer. It clearly shows his inability to proof his ideas. It is so easy to say that you have the historical and philosophical evidence of God because no one can verify them.
What was the topic of the debate???
A better debate on this subject in my opinion. Carrol and shermer had a much more difficult position to defend. I'm surprised that current debate is pushing religious thinking against a wall, instead of debating on middle ground.
Interesting paradox. It reminds me of the knights and knaves paradox. If you were to receive sam back, that would mean youd have to predict his future accurately which means you'd have to say "you will return sam to me" or something like that. if you said "you will not return sam to me." then he couldn't be wrong, he has to be right, and doing so would lead into some type of paradox. in a way, he'd practically have to give him sam, and keep him at the same time.
religion refutes itself. using science is just an overkill.
I pray for you if you do not believe Jesus is your savior. Soon you will see the truth come to light!
@@vi683a said every religious person. Maybe God won't return cuz he doesn't exist?
@@vi683a I called science when my vision started to change. Now, thanks to optometry, I can see the truth much better.
Religion seems to drive people to crazyism and like a child shopping in a department store of gods, they will say the darndest things. My sister is absolutely convinced I'm making the biggest mistake of my life dissing her invisible powerful friend that is behind how lucky she is.
No kidding - watching apologists sometimes, I just can't fathom the levels of delusion they have to carry to say the things they do. They are so completely irrational in defense of their comforting beliefs, it's frustrating to listen to.
ericsclips and you believe we came from nothing... and that is not delusional ... wow...
OOPS4U2CNOW I don't know how the universe began. I know there are self-consistent models of reality that do match what we observe that DO imply the universe could arise from nothing.
What do you have that you believe is better? A make-believe sky-daddy that magiks things into being and has a personal interest in how I have sex and what food I eat? With ... NO evidence? That's insane.
OOPS4U2CNOW "and you believe we came from nothing" --- that statement only goes to show that you have done absolutely no research into the topic...so I'll put your asinine comment down to ignorance.
Dinesh D'Souza started with "divide and conquer" technique, and tried to make it subtle by appealing to the "mark of intelligence" in those who no longer will laugh or applaud when the others do. Charming.
The question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Has always seemed like a null question. There must be something for any questions to be asked.
In my opinion, Dinesh is the most intelligent person on that stage.
yes!
Good debate. congrats!
I don't like de Souza, he makes very conceded argumentations and has a very unclear path of reasoning. But I guess its natural, if you're a dualist believer (pun intended).
I agree, Dinesh D'Souza seems to have the mind of a conspiracy theorist. If you have ever read any of his new stuff on Obama then you will see this pretty clearly. And oh how religion loves the mind of a conspiracy theorist
And if you're a convicted conman.
@@markt5619 Well, religion preconditions you to be willing to believe anything without evidence that confirms what you already want to be true.
My favorite part was D'Souza's insinuation that sound waves transcend physical media. What he's getting at is that our mental conception of a song continues to exist even when the device holding it has been destroyed, despite the brain being just another recording medium! Little different from simply making a copy of the song. Brain or silicon, the song is just a configuration of electrons. Destroy every known recording and yes, those sound waves cease to exist.
Non overlapping magisteria as that which makes extraordinary claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence...
The atheists are open, brave, rational, and they look to the future. The believers are closed, fearful, hysterical, and bound by ancient traditions. The former give us a glimpse of what our species can grow into; the latter represents the childhood of humankind.
Jurassic wanderer Your postings betray your lack of science and any theology. All the evidence favors the Judaeo/Christian belief system. We are not talking about crazy or false christians, as I assume you are talking ONLY about "open, brave, rational, and they look to the future" atheists; right?
So your logic also shows itself ridiculous, because real Christians are open, brave, rational, and they look to the future. And we have evidence in what God has made, His eternal power and glory seen in all of nature (except where sin has entered in). We also have a deep intuition of His reality and presence from within, His moral law and beauty, His love and wisdom.
Atheists have destroyed the sense of God in their lives as is clear from the Scriptures: "Where they knew God, they refused to retain the knowledge of Him in their rebellion and went after the worship of the creature rather than the Creator.
Do some of your "open, brave, rational, and ... sound thinking about "the future." None of us have very long here before we will face Him and His evaluation of us. I would rather be forgiven by faith and loyalty to Jesus than stand on my own miserable goodness.
Do well,
John
Timothy Mostad, From your previous postings your opinions are really not worth answering. However, you are a person, and so, I am suggesting you get some education so that you might even say something convincing from your side of the ravine. Your analyses over the posts you have made are sophomorish at best.
You may use the following against me, but if you read the ancient documents you would realize that the so-called gods (that our fictional books have fun with), were and still are real beings, although mostly active in occultic circles in the West. These are the fallen angels the Bible and other ancient texts speak of, that rebelled against God and seek worship for themselves.
After the Babel incident in Shinar brought on God's dispersion of the post-Flood people over the face of the earth, He turned mankind over to the angels to be ruled by them. Basically He said, "You want to serve these losers rather than Me? then I will set them over you and the nations. As for Me, Israel (through Abraham), will be my inheritance. If you want to come back to Me, come through Israel; and later, through the Christian people.
Stop confusing everything you talk about,
John
John Smith Science has proven that your god is fictitious. Your god judges people based on their free will. Our scientific understanding of the mind has proven we don't have free will. It is not possible in this universe for free will to exist. If your book were the word of god, it would accurately describe the nature of this universe long before we could discover it for ourselves. This is not the case.
goaliedude32, As I have said before, the only reason your type is worth answering is because you are a human being made in God's image.
You really don't know very much, dude23, so a basic education on what science is currently saying is too laborious to initiate. If you would follow the latest science opinions you wouldn't just shoot your mouth off as though you know something. Check out some public science programs like "World Science Festival" for some not too technical but still technical discussions among prominent scientists that you actually may enjoy watching.
And by the way, there are a large number of Christian groups that do not believe in free will either. I am not among them, because by being connected to God through faith, we have access to many of His attributes like free will (within limits).
Be well,
John
h
LMAO the oldman @ 1:42:48 dropped some knowledge
hahahahaha
I love all the women yelling out horrified
Dinesh makes so much noise and actually says so little.
Short answer: YES!
Hahahahahahah Dinesh in his closing speaks about adultery and fornication! Hahahahahahah.
30 seconds into Dinesh's opening speech and he already pissed me off.
You didn't mention pirates :(
We know we know some things, we know we know we don't know some things...awesome.
I love the fact that Carl Sagan's deathbed confession(s) were brought up. The only one of significance that I can think of was the fact that he was a pothead, & admitted that he had some of his most profound & deepest ideas while high on weed. Carl is an example to us all of what a goodhearted, passive & truly tolerant human being we can can strive to become.
2:02:15 D'Souza's closing argument talks about adultery, I wonder if he was cheating on his wife at this point? In his mind, it's OK because he's just a disgusting sinful human & Jesus has already forgiven him.
+Robbie “D.B” Doshbags LOL yeah, he probably made the adultery argument because it was *fresh in his mind*
9:00
That's not an objection. That's a question.
so funny this debate.:)
Shermer is brilliant, as usual.
2:01:20 ok, haha...you learn something new every day...I didn't know that about Christopher Hitchens...
42:53 I have to say, haha...he always comes up with neat analogies...
Haha...yes...52:14...haven't watch Sean Carroll much in debates...
1:03:59 now, haha...I have to say that, while that's true in such a case, given the size of the universe, and the findings of so many exoplanets, etc, science has perhaps shown that there is likely aliens on other planets (though some say that they should have picked up radio waves by now, etc, given that the age of the universe relative to that of the earth and the time we have existed would suggest that they are likely more advanced than us)...so, haha, science on the contrary hasn't shown evidence there is a God, so...the analogy holds, but the example given is fairly different from what it is being compared to...
@@archangecamilien1879 It is a bad example because "science" doesn't say that aliens must or mustn't exist. There are scientists who interpret the information available to suggest either way, there is only one correct answer: we don't know. And that's what bothers theism the most, that so far and by all the knowledge that humanity has accumulated the jury is still out and probably will be for a very long time (if not by the whole of humanity's history).
I'm so grateful now that when I was a student at the University of California, Santa Cruz, we were taught NOT to roll our eyes and scoff. The goal was to educate a generation that believed history, poetry, science and spirituality are not mutually exlusive. The definition of an open mind was all encompassing. I don't think a professor that scoffed at science or religion woud survive long there. Survival of the fittest required people to NOT assume the hundreds of millions are all dolts.
that may be going deeper than needed. There are some things that pretty much all humans could claim "I have never observed anything like what you find in religion." No matter how hard you may want to observe somethings, such as a man walking on water, once you see the guy try, he will go down.
1:10:03 is one of the best moments in TV history
How do you conclude that the universe is designed simply from the fact that matter behaves in regular, predictable ways?
That's exactly what I would expect from a non-designed universe
I do feel like I am a very lucky person. The purpose of the discussion was to reveal the cracks or consolidate the way I perceive reality. But my subjectivity about this is as illusory as any human purpose. I have no choice but to create meanings and purposes to justify actions that scientifically have no other explanation other than cause and effect, meaning we had this conversation just because.