Penn Jillette: Why Tolerance Is Condescending | Big Think
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 09. 2024
- Penn Jillette: Why Tolerance Is Condescending
New videos DAILY: bigth.ink/youtube
Join Big Think Edge for exclusive videos: bigth.ink/Edge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Religion can cause "good people to do bad things," but Penn Jillette gets along better with fundamentalists than with liberal Christians who preach easy tolerance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PENN JILLETTE:
Penn Jillette is a cultural phenomenon as a solo personality and as half of the world-famous Emmy Award-winning magic duo Penn & Teller. His solo exposure is enormous: from Howard Stern to Glenn Beck to the Op-Ed pages of The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and the Los Angeles Times. He has appeared on Dancing with the Stars, MTV Cribs, and Chelsea Lately and hosted the NBC game show Identity. As part of Penn & Teller, he has appeared more than twenty times on David Letterman, as well as on several other TV shows, from The Simpsons and Friends to Top Chef and The View. He co-hosts the controversial series Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, which has been nominated for sixteen Emmy Awards. He is currently co host of the Discovery Channel's Penn & Teller Tell a Lie and the author of God, No! and Presto!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:
Question: Is religion responsible for a lot of the world’s problems?
Penn Jillette: What you've said, "a lot," sure. If you want to go to "most" or "all," then no but there is certainly people... there's a great quote by the physicist... What's his name? Weinberg. Steve Weinberg. The quote of with or without religion good people do good things and bad people do bad things but for good people to do bad things that takes religion. I'm not sure that's word-for-word, almost certain it isn't, but it's important. I think it's not religion. It's much deeper than that. My beef is not with religion per se; my difference of opinion is with objective and subjective reality.
Einstein said the big question is when you turn away is the tree still there? And I talk to Richard Feynman about this and Murray Goodman, there's a feeling that in particle physics the "experimenter effect," a lot of that stuff is distorted. I believe very strongly that there is a physical reality that my perception does not change. Now you can make the argument that we're all just brains in jars, the Matrix, and all of this is an illusion and that is an airtight argument. You can't refute it but let's just say it's not that. I think there's a real reality out there and the people who say "I believe in God because I feel that there's some higher power in the universe"-the problem I have with that is that once you've said you believe something that you can't prove to someone else you have completely walled yourself off from the world.
And you've essentially said no one can talk to you and you can talk to no one. You've also given license to everybody else who feels that. If you say to me "I can't prove it Penn, but I have a feeling in my heart that there is a power over everything that connects us," why can't Charlie Manson say "I can't prove it but I can have a feeling that the Beatles are telling us to kill Sharon Tate and that the race riots are coming?" Why can't Al Qaeda say "I have a feeling in my heart that we need to kill these particular infidels?" Why can't the men who tortured and disfigured Ayaan Hirsi Ali-why isn't what they feel in their heart valid?
The problem is if you have a sense of fairness simply by saying you believe in a higher power because you believe in it, you've automatically given license to anyone else that wants to say that. So I would rather be busted on everything I say and I am, you know, when you've put yourself out on television and on radio as someone who really does believe in objective truth there is not a sentence that I will say in this interview that won't get three or four tweets of somebody with information busting me on it. And they're right, you know, very rarely am I busted on something where I'm right. If someone is taking the trouble to let me know I've said something wrong, chances are I'm wrong.
But that's the world I live in. I want to live in a world of a marketplace of ideas where everybody is busted on their bullshit all the time because I think that's the way we get to truth. That is also what respect is. What we call tolerance nowadays, maybe always-I'm always skeptical about the "nowadays" thing. I don't think things get that much different. What we call "tolerance" is often just condescending. It's often just saying, "Okay, you believe what you want to believe that's fine with me." I think true respect... it's one of the reasons I get along so much better with fundamentalist Christians than I do with liberal...
Read the full transcript at bigthink.com/v...
Want to get Smarter, Faster™?
Subscribe for DAILY videos: bigth.ink/SmarterFaster
Pretty good big boi
I love being proven wrong. Truth is the only thing worth knowing.
That is called radical skepticism which only leads to dead ends in thought. This video addresses it and discards it because of that.
+Dark Garison well said
I wish I liked being proved wrong. But at the same time I am more comfortable being wrong then doubting most reality.
what is truth?
Good point well put.
Something that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
The problem is that Christainity does have evidence atheists just don't admit it.
bulldogsbob I'm all ears
Yes, I'm quite intrigued. So tell me, what evidence do you have? Secondly who is the authority to "interpret" the Bible? I mean it says I can own slaves. Secondly, why are there so many sects of Christianity? Also I'd like to know why people think the earth is on 5000 years old when in fact it's millions. The Bible also mentions Unicorns, where can I buy one?
Knight Fox
Do you want real answers or just rant because all the answers to your questions are available on this wonderful called the internet.
*****
It's all there you just will not admit it.
"Id rather be proven wrong, than be wrong my entire life."
If people honestly wish to help someone and in turn BE helped and wish help then respectfully disagreeing and talking things trough face to face.
Id rather (like Penn) be respected and proven wrong (or right) than be lipserved to and being in the lifeless static of PC.
Tolerance, IMHO, is putting up with an irritant or an annoyance. Acceptance is embracing something without resistance.
+Malcolm Nicoll I've never really understood the term ''tolerance' applied to people. Saying i 'tolerate' this person's belief or lifestyle makes you sound like you begrudgingly accept the fact that this person has thoughts and opinions that differ from your own. it seems rude and disrespectful. by the way is it just me or is that title a little misleading...
+Me Leah Semper begrudingly accepting someone's beliefs is still much better than fucking killing them over it.
You think tolerance is rude and disrespectful? Tolerance is the act of allowing other ideas to exist that run counter to your own. It is a sign of respect.
don't tolerate intolerance and we are good.
What do you call an intolerant tolerant person? A liberal.
I used to be hardcore religious. Now that I'm out, I wish that there was some way that I could explain to my family why I left. I left simply because I couldn't rationalize my religion, not because I was angry. I was at a point where I couldn't believe even if I tried. And before I knew it, I just simply didn't believe anymore. I wish I could explain that to my family. But I also know that when you're in religion that deep, you simply can't hear a rational argument. Some of it is plugging your ears. But some of it is also legitimately because all they've ever known is religion. So when they hear an argument against their religion, even if it is rational, it sounds like something evil to them. Simply because they've never ever been able to entertain rationality when it comes to their religion in that way. It's so strange being out of religion and watching these rational videos that I once met with hostility, and now simply watch them and appreciating what they have to say.
I still don't appreciate it when people are just condescending and they pretend like they want to help religious people but instead just bash them and make them feel like they're stupid. (Although I can understand the frustration. I just don't think its helpful.) I really appreciate these thoughtful critiques. I hope I can speak this way to my family one day.
Very similar experience to mine. People always assume that I was hurt or offended or angry, but none of that was the case. I just simply could not accept it as truth anymore.
I like to tell people that I didn’t lose my faith; I tossed it aside as the spent garbage that it was.
I really hope that issues with your family have gotten better.
You can't rationalize with people who are irrational.
If you want an angry version of you it's me lol
Even as a christian, I can appreciate this perspective. People should disagree, and that's great! People should not be forced to conform to someone else's lifestyle/perspective/religion/politics/etc.
I accept that my faith is not logical, that's why it's called "faith," and not "logic." When it comes to politics/societal issues, we should rely on logic, and not faith.
+John Doe You are a Christian. Your faith is completely logical. Try reading The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel. He makes solid points on the logical reasoning of believing in God.
N Mats Cool, will do.
iamsosorry4u
REBECCA Davis
I'm sorry for your English teacher's wasted time.
That was well played but "faith" is not a virtue, its opposite of virtue.
Dick Gregory said: "I never learned hate at home, or shame. I had to go to school for that."
Yep
That's a very naive viewpoint that has been disproven. No, we're not inherently good.
@@Cyrus_II we are neither inherently good or bad. We are. Then we make choices.
On the other hand, every primate ever tested had shown to have a sense of equity and a perception of injustice in a given situation.
And western society does not represent the whole of humanity, it is a far more individualistic place, although it has done a good job of exporting it's view of things and disrupt more community centered societies. Which then also turn incredibly violent in response.
A sad state of affairs, but not hopeless. Yet.
@@Cyrus_II
That hasn't been proven at all, the study most frequently used to "prove" that is the Zimbardo Prison experiment, which has been shown to have been incredibly flawed in it's methodology.
The only way to prove it would be to raise children in completely controlled conditions from birth, something witch is incredibly unethical.
@championchap That's not the point of the quote.
I sort of get what he's saying, but tolerance is not supposed to equal acceptance. Sometimes it's really about picking your battles. It can mean agreeing to disagree and letting it go just for the sake of social harmony. Some things aren't worth fighting over. It's only a problem if you compromise your integrity in order to tolerate the intolerable.
true to that
Snaps to you. Too true
"Believe in what you want but kindly respect the laws in your country"
@@crc9564 my bad, in Italy to "respect" a law means not to break it, that's what I meant.
Tolerance and acceptance both allow people to express themselves, but acceptance goes a step further by denouncing critique, denouncing conflicts, denouncing truth really (if we can all believe in everything then we don't believe anything). Tolerance accepts conflict, accepts critique - even strives for it. A tolerant society is still very much one that fights interally - it just does so with words, not power.
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Evelyn Hall
Thank you for quoting her properly. It’s such a relief to see this not credited to Voltaire
I love being proven wrong.
It means I get to learn something and not be wrong anymore.
It's simple. The non aggression principle.
You can believe whatever you want without proof, but you can't violate somebody else's rights because if it.
+vexx506 And yet the government does this every day
+vexx506 You're living in a fantasy world, all actions are based on beliefs, if you believe bullshit you will, at some point, do harm, it is unavoidable.
"Religions are experts at analogies, once science has found the actual truth."
I forgot who said that, but it always resonated with me.
Total bullshit
@@PikesvilleAl How so?
I'm a firm believer who Jesus is, and I really appreciated this video. Thank you for your honesty and transparency. I truly believe there is a lesson for us all in here
Who is Jesus to you, and how do you know what you believe is true?
@@madman2u they probs wont reply so ill reply for them; jesus is their god and they know by faith/dont know but believe to be true by faith
@Condom Arms i mean u dont have to believe i have no proof and dont believe i was just answering the reply cuz it wouldnt be answered otherwise
but there has to be a difference between acceptance, tolerance, and rejection; at least when it comes to ideas. Rejecting an idea would be 'forcing' another person to 'believe' what you want them to (however effective that might be...) Accepting all ideas is the same as saying they are all correct and all truth (and therefore there is no 'real' truth; at least not within reason and contradiction) Tolerance to me is the middle ground between these, and I know there are many that share this perspective. Tolerance from this definition is no more condescending than simply disagreeing and believing another person is wrong, yet respecting their right to that belief (how that results in practice is a whole other discussion).
that being said, definitions are the root of so many 'disagreements' anyways..
when it comes to behavior, I would argue civilization depends on tolerance. These things are important to keep in mind I feel.
Sorry this is late to the party, but I feel compelled to argue that rejecting someone else's idea is not the same as forcing them to believe something else. I know a woman who truly believes in everything to do with cryptozoology - bigfoot, yeti, chupacabra, the moth man, all of it. I reject that belief, unequivocally, but she has not changed her belief one iota, nor did I expect her to. If rejection were equivalent to forcing a change in belief, she would no longer believe in bigfoot.
@@Dwayne_Bearup I don't think I agree at all with 6 years past me; It's hard to read, frankly. I think what I wrote then was a thin veiled argument for being bigoted and rejecting others' rights while hiding behind semantics. Hard to tell now.
In previous time when I've "come out" and declared my atheism in letters to a newspaper letters column, almost invariably I would find letters in my mailbox telling me to "believe in god", and often quite abusive in their tone, and in EVERY instance, anonymous with no return address, often hand-delivered. I rank such letter-writers among the cowards of the world.
also felons, the hand delivered ones
"The more I know the more I realize that I know nothing at all"
I love Penn, but the problem with his thinking here is obvious: there is a world of difference between saying, "I believe in a particular idea/concept" and "I get to inflict things on other people because of what I believe." Jillette says he believes in the physics of matter outside himself. How is this different than someone saying they believe in a power beyond themselves? Neither notion can be proved or disproved, and both are only personal statements. It's when ANY notion moves beyond the personal and turns into a hierarchal, shared, dogmatic system ("I believe X, so you have to believe it too, and by the way, here are some rules you have to follow, and if you believe in X you're obligated to hurt other people for the cause of X.") that there are problems. Whether the system is one of religion, antireligion, or science, it will operate by the same rules, with the same hideous results.
I mentioned this above, but to agree with your statement, by Penn's logic, love is equally illogical. It cant be proven, people believe in it's existence without proof, many many bad things have happened because of the idea of love.
And he said "Once you said you believe something you cant prove to someone else, you've completely walled yourself off from the world." So.. love = bad
SiouxWarlord Wonderful observation! I'm surprised that Penn didn't pick up on what was bound to be some of the critique aimed at his statement; he's a talented, bold thinker, and I would have thought he'd catch the pitfalls in this argument before he made it...
Thank you for saying so. As far as Penn goes I also think he is talented and a bold thinker. And i am always interested in seeing what others have to say about topics.
Not that i always want to argue about things but just the way he said it reminded me of how it resembles the concept of love.
***** Penn is Libertarian, Not an anarchist.
I'm a Libertarian. Limited Government like murder, theft, robbery, etc. End the war on drugs, End the NSA, End IRS, End the Patriot Act.
Penn Jillette is my favorite atheist. Love that guy!
Yeah, he's pretty cool. I like people you can disagree with and neither side gets all mad about it.
I like some of his video clips - just not this one.
His whole argument in this video is built on a strawman. Sounds smart but its not that deep. He's a better magician than he is a philosopher.
@@alan9garcia Penn is actual stupid. He claims to love his kids, but there is no proof love exists.
If this a joke you’re funny if not, i feel bad for you
You can only tolerate from a position of power, otherwise you just have to suffer. So be careful whom you tolerate because if you allow them into a position to tolerate you, they may not
I've always thought this but part of me has always been doubtful about it.
I always want to keep an open mind but I need to have the courage to take more action, even if I turn out to be wrong sometimes. Thanks for the extra push!
if someone does believe in a subjective truth, that doesn't mean it validates the actions of others, based on there subjective truths.
To me, everyone believes what they want to believe, as long as they do not act violently upon these believes, or force others to believe in the same subjective truths. I don't believe in a personal god, but I also don't dismiss the hypothesis that there is one. simply saying that something doesn't excist, creates a similar dogma.
just be, and withhold violent behavior. that way, we can discuss and figure out the moral truths of or decade, and change them when new knowledge arrives.
You have to know that Penn isn't saying with all confidence that there cannot possibly be a god, but rather that he doesn't think people should assume there is one based on subjective truth. And that the problem with accepting subjective truths is it just makes little sense to go on and say "my subjective reality is correct and justifies this, but your subjective reality cannot be right and thus cannot justify that" which is just senseless, because both sides have the same amount of credibility or proof to what they believe, yet one pretends to hold a moral high ground over the other. Of course this doesn't mean people who accept a subjective reality should allow people to justify unjustifiable things with their own subjective realities, Penn is really just trying to point out how hypocritical it is in all honesty for them to still refute others "wacky" beliefs
@@PolrisTired the problem is that this isn’t all subjective. You can look back at the history, the books, the word of god and make that call for yourself. Scientists aren’t the only people who can ascertain the truth, everyone can really. I mean who do you think scientists are in the first place ;)
@@marcar9marcar972 I can barely tell what you're saying honestly. This isn't all subjective? As in, implying the existence of god is objectively true?
Everyone can assert their own truth from their perspective, but that's what you call subjective reality, which just brings us back to the original point Penn was making
@@marcar9marcar972 I did have to try to interpret some of way you were saying as it didn't seem all that clear to me so feel free to correct me
Everyone has a right to believe what they want, it's what they do to others that has to be questioned. This is the ancient wisdom of keeping different cultures separate.
I believe that Penn is correct. I can't prove it, but I feel it in my heart.
That is what believe means. Your comment could have been a sentance shorter.
@@JukeboxJake well I believe it could also be a sentence longer.
That last comment about fundamentalists and liberalism irks me a bit.
I ask this without a trace of irony; how is it respectful when two parties (who are un-budging in their ideals mind you) tell each other that the other is wrong. I think what you mean to imply is that, if two parties can look each other in the eye and say 'You're wrong.' but still fundamentally get a long despite their difference, that is respect.
There is a big movement for 'tolerance' in this day and age. More than ever before, I believe that people are trying to figure out a way that we can all be one people and understand each other but, I will agree with you that tolerance(in so far as to say that tolerance is just like saying 'Meh, believe what you want.') is condescending because it gives the impression that people don't really give a shit about the others ideals and that is *wrong*. We need harmony, not tolerance. We need for people to be able to look at each other and say 'Oh, I see where your coming from but, doesn't this make a little more sense?' without being brash or offended. Religion kind of stymies that because it implies that if your wrong, you're going to eternally burn in hell. Universally, that's a bad thing. No one I've ever met has ever wanted to be subjected to fire for any amount of time, much less eternally.
My problem is not with religion but, with it's propensity to use scare tactics to control the masses. I wonder how many people maintain their good nature simply because they don't want to be punished and feel like it's a chore to be good. I wonder how many people actually exhibit true hearts of gold.
I want to believe that there is a God, or some afterlife of some sort; a reward to be had at the end of the game. I pray when I desire good to happen to myself or more especially, people I care about. However, I do not tell people I believe in God because I cannot possibly make that claim. I can't prove it, I can only place faith in it and hope for it to be true. I'll close this comment out with a proverb to match your quote. "Doveryai no proveryai" It's a Russian proverb that means, 'Trust but verify'
So it should be followed in day to day life as it should be with the church. Have faith in your church, but have even more faith in the ability you've been given, by God or by experience, to decipher right and wrong.
You wrote, "I want to believe that there is a God..." - Why? Why would anyone want that? Look at the suffering and torment in the world. There are only three possible scenarios:
1. God exists and doesn't care how much we suffer, or possibly takes pleasure in it as a sadistic monster.
2. God exists and is incapable of helping living people, but after you die you are going to be judged by this being who created you and let you suffer for decades.
3. There is no God.
Seems like #3 is the preferable condition, and without a doubt the far, far, far more likely of the three.
CookinginRussia
When people say, "I want to believe that there is a God..." they generally mean to speak about a being of supreme benevolence and as a listener to that kind of statement, you are supposed to assume that at face value. Those points undermine the value of that initial statement which really kind of makes your question come of as rhetorical and not really seeking an answer.
I followed up that statement however, with 'I cannot make that claim because I cannot prove it.' though, I didn't mean 'prove' in the sense that I can look at the being and be satisfied that 'Yup, that's god alright.' so much as there is simply a lack of proof that it exists.
You're missing the fourth possible course of action. You've got two negatives(points 1&2) and arguably either a neutral or a positive (we'll say positive for the sake of this argument) but you're neglecting the truest neutral of them all.
Everyone assumes 'God' is all powerful, all-encompassing and can, at the snap of his fingers or less, solve all the worlds problems. So then, an inquisitive mind may ask, why is there any problems at all.
Consider this: God is an intelligent being playing a highly intensive resource management sim game. Much like we play the Sims or Banished, we try to nurture our people that the game gives us license over and grow attached to them as the progress with our guidance. Assuming their provided for, left to their own devices these systems could run themselves for theoretical eternity until in-game variables, disasters and diseases create circumstances that have not been prepared for. If God is asleep at the wheel, the civilization perishes, if we have a smart God, we flourish. Every major action we do is queued up by the guy in a neatly or perhaps not so neatly organized priority bar.
Bottom line; God prepares. He cannot change the rules of the game, or if he can, he only cheats (preforms miracles) in situations where he feels like he doesn't want to lose the game. Yet, it is just a game to him as much as Banished is a simulation to us. He cares, but doesn't empathize. If we vanished, he'd be sad but, he could just start a new game.
Trixiehobbits Personally, my take on it is this. If we assume a benevolent but non-omnipotent god who guides humans (which is one of the only ways I can see to solve the old "problem of evil" debate) is there a real difference between God and "The Idea of Good"? Is there any real reason to assume all goodness comes from and is personified by a particular being?
I would almost think it a bit insulting to imply that human beings aren't capable of telling right from wrong or that simple acts of kindness are some alien concept to us.
I much rather people, if they worship anything, worship the collective idea of goodness, pray to that little spark born of our collective consciousness, then to try to place all our faith in a perfect being forever beyond our reach.
KilloZapit
A valid point. If you want my personal (admittedly ever-changing notion) of God, if I had to believe in one, it is likely that God is indifferent to us. It's not that he cares or doesn't care as a parent would their child (and I'm using masculine pronouns assuming gender neutrality.) but that they simply can't empathize. We don't register to him as life, but small programs in the way that gamers don't empathize with their sim characters as living beings but still desire for them to prosper, no less being excited that one passed away if they are not fulfilling a useful function to their entertainment. Again, it's not a matter of benevolence or malevolence it is simply the case of a higher being not being able to recognize the lower ones as living on a fundamental level.
I would agree, though I don't know if humans will ever get to that point, that believing in a collective 'good nature' within the human race would be much more beneficial and healthy for us but, I know of several people not religious eccentrics who I would wager couldn't understand the point of being good if god didn't exist. They're not bad people. But they're not necessarily the most intelligently mature and would rather believe god shaped the world than agree with complex theoretical physics that they can't completely grasp the concepts of as the progenitor of space and time.
Trixiehobbits I don't really buy the argument of a higher being not being able to empathize. People empathize with game characters all the time, it's just mostly people choose not to, because it's easier that way. But really my attitude is if it doesn't have anything to do with me it might as well not exist, so I would probably be just as indifferent to god, unless he came down and messed with me.
Also, I think humans getting to that point is just a matter of what ideas we fill our kids with. People usually tend to grasp on whatever ideas they are taught and have a hard time letting go I think.
I really don't see the argument or point he's trying to make. In fact, before he began speaking, he wrapped his argument in some sort of safety net, that we must discard whether we believe that there are things above "reality". No offense to atheists, but why is it that you can't allow another human being alone to practice their own belief, whatever it may be? I believe in a higher power, I don't murder people, I don't question Atheists or start those annoying long debates, I don't spew hate onto people that don't agree with me, I just don't understand the need to dictate somebody else's life to the point in which you say that a human being is not allowed to "feel" a certain way.
You are the point he made lol
Formdesolver I love you haha
I'm an atheist and I fully agree with you. Having been exposed to many of these ideas, I know what kind of argument he's trying to put forth, although he doesn't articulate it very well at all. He's basically trying to say that a belief without evidence (i.e. God) is unjustified. His analogy with Charles Manson and Al Qaida is plain terrible.
ht bowser Ok then, if you think you can do it better then do it. He's not saying that it's unjustified to believe something with no proof, he's saying that it creates more people that believe like that, and he wants everyone to put everyone in check out of respect and not just let people go off of imagination, like what I'm doing for you, because you see him as someone lower than you when in fact he actually did articulate it well because the analogies don't even matter if the message gets across, and it did, I mean I don't think he has to make a video for middle school.
he is talking about how beliefs should be grounded in reality and facts, like the Late Great Christopher Hitchens said, "that which is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
you cannot debate smoke and mirrors
I have heard too many christians tell me God is like the wind on your face, you cant see it but you know it's there, you cannot have a rational discussion about why you don't believe with those people
Believing there are different paths to what you believe (not talking about religion exclusively) in is not condescending
I think that was his point. So much of what passes for "tolerance" is not believing there are different paths but rather a self righteous sense of condescension. I think the problem is that fundamentalist literal thinking is what leads to this. The good news, I think, is that those who are that way are at least trying to use logic and reason they are just mislead - have made some fatal errors in their fundamental "axioms". But hopefully they eventually will not be able to ignore the conflicting evidence and illogical conclusions their beliefs have lead to.
Speaking from experience that realization can be disruptive in someones life and my now realization that I don't "have all the answers" can be both liberating and create a great sense of loss at all the years I have spent fuxed up in the head thinking I do have all the answers.
At 2:25, my answer would be "Because believing or experimenting with something does not people license to push it onto other or use it as an excuse to treat others badly."
Secondly, having a feeling something is true & wanting to experiment with it can also go together with a desire to find out, and the logic that goes with that - but that is a choice.
It also means that we not very good at telling how honest ppl are to themselves.
Btw, I reckon that a lot of spiritual experiences are from interactions with spirits who used to be people with a physical body on earth. This, as a theory, explains a lot of things.
Love and truth-seeking need to go together, not one or the other.
see? now as a Christian, i'd just like to say...I have no problem living in a world like that. why can't we all just look each other in the face and say "you're wrong" then go our separate ways? I really don't care what others believe or don't believe, just let me believe what I do, tell me you think it's wrong, I tell you I think you're wrong we leave each other be. simple.
Edward Teach I have no problem with that either, except you are WRONG !
i don't have problem with believing i have a problem with the shit that comes from religion. such as teaching young earth creation in public schools, homophobia, childen dieing from cancer becasue there parents refuse to give medicene.
NBD, except that many of these religious people also believe in a heaven and a hell, and that for being a nonbeliever I am destined for everlasting torment. A person who would believe such a thing, yet passively permit me my 'folly', is in my eyes a goddamn sociopath.
well that's where 85% or more of "Christian" faiths get it wrong. your salvation or lack thereof depend entirely on the work of God, his choosing and working in and on you. and many MANY people who will be in heaven may never show belief in this life. that is entirely between you and God, and he may not work on you in this life (for whatever reason) and still take you into heaven.
Edward Teach Yes, that sounds wonderful, except that's not how it works. The religious people in this country don't just have these harmless beliefs that occupy the corner of their mind that are separated from the way that they act and live. They act in accordance with those beliefs.
They attempt to prevent the attainment of equal rights by opposing homosexual marriage; they not only indoctrinate their ignorant, innocent children into their ridiculous belief system and spawn another generation of deluded religious believers, but they attempt to get this garbage taught in schools because it's not enough their family beliefs it: everybody else has to be taught it and believe it too; they attempt to stall scientific progress by standing in the way of stem-cell research; they mutilate their children's genitals, etc. (In anticipation of the complaint that I'm just "targeting the extremists", keep in mind that something like 40% of Americans believe the aforementioned nonsense.)
Believe me, I haven't even gotten started, but I think I've made my point clear: there is no "leave each other be" among the religious people of this country. In one way or another, their beliefs are going to influence their actions in such a way that they affect other people.
And your claim that "that's where 85% of Christian of faiths get it wrong" is laughable. Who are you to say that those other sects of Christianity are wrong? After all, aren't we supposed to respect each others views equally? You are on no firmer ground in your belief system than the person who believes in eternal torment for nonbelievers. In fact, you're actually in the worse position, because (perhaps unbeknown to you) the Bible does in fact endorse that position that you're condemning, on many different occasions. The Bible unequivocally states that belief in God and the resurrection of Jesus is a prerequisite for "salvation" and that failing to do so results in never-ending torture as a punishment.
So if the Bible is in fact an accurate book (which it's not), then your particular flavor of Christianity is the one that gets it wrong. That position of yours really shows how divorced your belief system is from reality. Even from the warped, inaccurate position of being religious, you manage to take it a step further in irrationality by distorting what your own holy book says. But this is the very nature of religious beliefs: not caring about whether or not something is true, but simply asserting beliefs because they make you feel good. It doesn't matter what the Bible says on the subject of hell: you want to believe that your God is more moral than the monster portrayed within the Bible, so you reject what it says and falsely assert that nonbelievers in fact can escape hellfire.
You are even more wrong than the fundamentalists who you condemn.
Sure tolerance can be condescending, but I'm not going to really respect certain people anyway, even if I go through the futile effort to argue about something.
A lot of people are children, so tolerance is a way of letting them be, without conflict and overt condescension.
Not all of us have the personality to handle those people in a tactful way, and not all of us care to.
Tolerance is polite, covert condescension, and that's fine with me.
I'm a Christian and I like what Penn says here - to be able to call someone out and say they are wrong when they are wrong - without compromising our beliefs - is a sign of respect and maturity. The Atheist vs Christian battle has waged on and on and if we as humans think it is noble to try and change someone else because we don't like the other's viewpoints, we are WRONG. I propose we discuss, reason, and share our differences with one another to the betterment of the other. Not because our precious ego is hurt by an opposing belief system. Let's leave the name calling, the accusations and the insults behind and move towards a mutually respectful relationship with one another....because we all gotta share this planet we live on. :-) Peace!!!
Lovely
www.godisimaginary.com
Atheist vs Christian “battle” is a misnomer. There is no battle. You (and every other religion) believe in an invisible sky magician deity that created the entire universe with his magic wand and to who you can speak and petition for favors because you think he cares so much about what you do and how you do it. I don’t believe that. It’s that simple.
LOL Gerald you just proved Tommy that there is a battle. If there wasn't a battle there would be no need for you to disrespect and demonize his beliefs, when all you had to say I don't believe that there is a battle and it may be just a perception that you have.
blueeyedchaz: it’s always appropriate to “disrespect” bad ideas. Demonizing is the perception of one who believes in demons. There is no battle per se, it’s simply truth vs. mythology and if someone insists on promoting “illusions” then harsh criticism should be expected.
He's not against tolerance. He's against pluralism of truth. Good on him.
I was once explaining to a hardcore religious friend that I thought it was very important that one should always be aware of the fact that they may be wrong about something. Even about one's most deeply held core beliefs. I told her how difficult such a frame of mind was to maintain and mentioned that it does make me more tolerant of others. Her definition of tolerance, was however, the same as Penn's in this video. So she didn't think too much of that. And neither do I. But tolerance doesn't always mean that you think all points of view are equally valid. It's certainly not what I meant because I don't believe that to be true at all. I'm definitely with Penn on this. (one thing that drive's me up the wall is the idea that there are "alternate ways of knowing" - I could literally scream when I hear that). Just goes to show you how one word can mean such different things - and how difficult it can be to clarify those meanings. What I mean is that I think I am right and you are wrong but I can tolerate your views without hostility because I know the reverse might be true (no matter how unlikely I think that may be). Religious believers are often violently hostile because they KNOW they are right
This man has a great heart! Always awesome to hear his calm loving way of accepting someone, but not accepting their beliefs.
the human heart is wicked above all things.... who can know it.....
A world where you could call on someone's bullshit and not fear lethal or cultural punishment would be a much more serine world. We'd learn from our mistakes far faster.
I do have to agree and disagree with the use of the word Tolerance. Yes, it can be used as a mindset to dismiss others.... but it's also the word that helps people avoid being lynched because they can't be tolerated for [Insert Insane Bigotry].
+V Guyver Tolerance is not as bad as pluralism.
Kevin Wall Separation of Church and State. i wonder why the GOP ignores why it was created. I suppose they would agree with Puritans that setting Quakers on fire is a great activity.
He's not saying that tolerance is condescension. He's saying that people use the word to often mask their condescension because they don't have true tolerance. True tolerance is respect. Be very careful with that word. True tolerance is why we haven't completely blown ourselves up yet.
Wow, this is a great video, I'm glad to see Penn is opening his heart and still able to be logical at the same time.
As an atheist, it disappoints me how many atheists immediately turn to insults when someone says they're a Christian
The biggest problem is throughout the centuries governments and individual people have used religion as a means for control. Political Correctness also used that way. What I want to know is why is it so important that other people agree with you? Both Christians, atheists, and everyone in between seem to need others to see their point of view. I believe people need to believe in what they believe in.
I've been everything religiously: raised Baptist, became an atheist, and then went New Age. Fundamental Christians had a lot of respect for me when I was an atheist, but were very condescending to me when I became a New Ager. I think its because atheists have logic on their side and fundamentalists are afraid of that because deep down most fundamentalists don't believe fully in God they are just afraid not to. They mock New Age beliefs every chance they get. I've just learned to keep my beliefs to myself until I feel like I can trust someone. After all, in my system of beliefs, it doesn't matter, God judges people based on the goodness of their hearts not on their belief system. I admit I avoid talking to atheists because I feel like they are on seek and destroy mission, and like I said previous I need my beliefs.
Do I smell a theist around? Need... to destroy... fallacies...
so... what is it that you do believe? Do you have clarified beliefs, or is it more of an emotive curiosity? I'm not really sure what it means to consider ones self to have "gone New Age" or however it was put, but I'm curious!
The idea that we all share the same common physical reality seems valid to me. We could call this physical reality that we all share, perceive and interpret, "objective reality." Seems like a valid philosophical start.
If you feel that there is some higher power in the universe, then good for you! Just because you cannot prove it to someone else, you can express that feeling in your life. You can express it in your actions everyday, and you can express it in art, in dance, or how you smile. Life isn't only about carrying out a logical argument!
I think tolerance is a good idea, because it allows people to develop their ideas - as long as it doesn't oppress other people - lol - until they can finally give a more complete expression of that idea. I think of it as food. I am very picky about what I eat - I choose my food carefully according to my own taste and plans. I think of tolerance as simply letting other people choose what they want to eat (unless it oppresses others). Some things that people eat are disgusting and I think it is wrong, but I recognize that they have that freedom to explore life. That is what tolerance and respect is.
He says he gets along well with fundamentalists. I think it might be because, like them, he believes in an objective reality that can be formulated with accuracy and reduced to universal formulas. Nietzsche noticed this resemblance between rationalists and religious people.
Truth: we exist. That is an absolute fact, as is mathematics. Mathematics may also be debatable but existence is not. We clearly exist. for existence is just being. And to be here we are being. We may be a dream, an illusion, an projection, a program, but this does not change the fact that we exist.
Dong Wong yes. The ''sense of being'' and the experiences we live from moment to moment are the only things we really know…the rest is conjecture...
Dong Wong the only thing you can know for certain is that YOU exist you mint be imagining the rest of us and the same could be said for everyone. therefore the simple act of one person believing in the existence of another is an act of faith
Ya, Nietzsche noticed similarities between rationalists and theists, because it takes a true nut-job to convince himself that reality isn't *real*. The subset of "not completly fucking bonkers people" does (or a at least did), indeed, include both rationalists and theists during the time of Nietzsche.
Of course, many, many more theists have taken that route as their precious beliefs are continuously disproven by rationalist science, but that's neither here nor there.
Alec Coe
There's an issue with your reasoning. You can firmly deduct that others exist simply because you are not a closed system. You are not in control of every aspect of your environment, and, for others to be a figment of your imagination, that requires you to, in reality, be God: be all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-present. Take your death, for instance. It just happened. You didn't see it coming. In a normal "others exist" reality, it's just the end of your story, but in order for the events that lead up to your death to happen in a "only you exist" reality, you would have had to already know everything that was about to happen, effectively meaning you and everyone else is never just "killed" but actually commits suicide upon death or death does not occur, if it occurs at all, otherwise your "not seeing it coming" would be a paradox. Unfortunately fortunately, you are not God, you are just some random dude herpderping on the internet who will die someday like all other people before you.
Yes it is. Love thy Neighbor, not tolerate thy neighbor.
Have you met my neighbor? 😭
I so thoroughly enjoy listening to Penn, it always impresses me that his trade is the art of deception (ie "magic" tricks) and entertainment, but that allows him such a clear view of reality that he is capable of a level of honesty that if attempted by almost anyone else (myself included) they would trip over their own ego and fall.
I truly consider him a great role model on being both open minded yet capable of rational filtering and that character trait that is often so absent in so many, absolute honesty, even at expense of the ego.
In a world of people that possess those 3 qualities, there would be no war, everything would be handled through civil discussion. We'd all be willing to admit we're wrong, AND would be the first to do so when we busted our own wrongs.
My take away from this is to have a mind like a bucket, that scoops up as much information as possible. A thought process like a great filter, sifting out the BS, and a soul that can recognize when the filter has failed so that it can be repaired and reinforced with haste!
I lik ethis guys thinking processes.. very refreshing too!
This guy has such a brilliant mind.
*had* a brilliant mind. He's just in over his depth these days.
How did you mean that?
I wonder if Penn believes that he has a freewill simply because he believes in it?
Sach966 So all we need to find is the first cause. I wonder who set things in motion at the very beginning?
Sach966 Let's hope we don't.
Sach966 "A chemical reaction in your mind causes you to react a certain way, and that was programmed by previou events in your life, as well as your genetic makeup. We are essentially just a very complicated program that believes it runs itself."
If you are right in your assertion above, then forget the moral implications of that for a moment and let's just grasp what you are essentially saying and you can correct me if I'm wrong, lol. You are saying that we're all complicated programs (I agree), programs however need a programer, operator. There still has to be a primal, sentient, causator. If conversely you are saying that we're all just molecules in motion randomly ping ponging around with no actual batsman at the crease, then that to me needs far more of a magical, fairytale, life, belief and faith, system than actually believing in a supreme causator.
Sach966 "This is like saying "The universe is like a clock winding down, so someone must have wound it up" (real example)."
No! No... it's not like saying that at all. When you wind up a clock the clock is already there, the universe didn't exist before it's creation, it wasn't wound up it was created to do God's will.
"What we do know, however, is that the fundamental bits of life can arise spontaneously, like amino acids and phospholipid bilayers. We don't know how that all comes together to form a cell, but we get closer to the answer every day."
Cell membranes amphipathic molecules can be hydrophobic or hydrophilic which can be comparatively like negative and positive charges are towards electricity, one is more soluble or positive in water than the other. Yes it's somewhat true to say that phospholipids spontaneously form bilayers in aqueous solutions to form the cell membranes but that spontaneity isn't out of nothing it's out of molecules within the cells that contain fatty acids and amino acids. Things don't spontaneously pop into something from nothing.
"In regards to a supreme causator, to me it seems you're injecting a needless cause. How do you know that the universe created itself, or always existed? How do you know that universes don't arise from dead universes, much like the fabled phoenix? How do you know that the theory of a multiverse is false? We can't assert that any of these are true any more than you can that a supreme causator exists. The difference is that we observe a universe, so we know that they somehow exist. We don't observe a supreme causator though."
You may think that God is pointless but I think that without God everything is pretty damn pointless. What I know is that if you think it's logical to theories about multiverses, etc, then it must also be fair to add God to those theories as a logical deduction. What if the universe is God??? I'm not asserting God as true, I'm merely suggesting that if all the other theories are relevant and to be taken into account, then so to must the God hypothesis. If God is the universe and the universe as you say clearly exists then we could have been looking at God all the time. :-).
Sach966 "I apologize if I was unclear. The example of the clock winding down is (obviously) a bad metaphor. I was using it as a comparison to your metaphor, showing how taking it too far makes the point fall apart. Much like the clock example goes one too far in requiring a 'winder', your example goes too far in requiring a 'programmer.' "
No apology is necessary bro we're just two guys sharing differing opinions, that's all. As for a program needing a programmer that is not a stretch too far it is actually an intuitive logical deduction based on repetitive, experiencial, observations, made by mankind over millennia. The primal law of 'Cause & effect' is not contradicted by things SUPPOSEDLY popping out of nothing. This notion is a red-herring. The universe is a constant something anything popping into it came from it.
"Actually, they do. Mulkidjanian demonstrated that phospholipids can spontaneously form, and then conform into bilayers. Urey and Miller famously demonstrated spontaneous amino acid formation, and though their experiment had it's flaws, the results have been repeated in improved experiments, such as in Bernal's work. Sidney Fox took it one step further, demonstrating spontaneous protein formation. "
As stated above things don't pop into something from nowhere they're just forming extremely quickly from the matter in the already existing universe in which we exist. Natural events can cause matter to for very quickly and therefore sub-atomic particles can for seemingly instantly, i.e., they appear to POP into existence. Cells have part to them that seem to appear instantly but they are actually forming rapidly, so rapidly that they POP into human sight. Hows that for an instant theory? lol.
"I never suggested this. If a god does exist, then there probably is a point to the universe (though not necessarily). I don't very much care what the implications of the truth are. I just want the truth, or as close to it as we can achieve.
I also do not believe that a universe without a god is pointless. What I believe is that with no inherent point to life, we are free to find meaning for ourselves, and I think that's even more beautiful than a creator."
Are you seriously, honestly, suggesting that God would create the universe, mankind, kill His only begotten spirit Son Jesus, prepare heaven for mankind, etc, with no point to it all? Don't make me laugh, ho! Ho!. That God Almighty would do such a thing without NECESSARILY doing it to a great end! You do care about the implications of absolute truth otherwise you wouldn't be debating me now would you? Self-honesty is important in finding truth. What meaning have you found to life so far then 'Sach' without God? We are not free to find meaning in life ourselves, we are caused to react by circumstances that we do not control, that is not freedom. Free Will does not exist, the will of God controls mankind absolutely. We all merely make choices but that is not a will that is free from causality. Freewill is just another false doctrine sadly one that is perpetuated greatly by Christendom and billions of people believers and non-believers alike fall for hook line and sinker 24/7.
"I've not said that the multiverse theory is true, just that it is a possible explanation. You too are free to suggest that a god is a possible, but neither of us can claim that these are definitively valid."
Ummm... let's see where you go with this seeming equality that you appear to be giving to my point, lol.
"Also, note that the multiverse theory is different from the speculation of a god. We have observed a universe, so it's not a stretch to assume that this is not the only one. We've not observed a god, so it's a large leap of faith to speculate on one at all."
Doh!!!! I knew it...no equality afterall, you just think that your multiverse pisses all over my God hypothesis because you want to frame it so. If you look at yourself 'Sach' do you honestly think that there are multiple exact 'YOU'S' all over wherever simply because you can observe you or do you think that you are indeed unique??? It is one ginormous stretch to think that there are multiple universes everywhere, what evidence is there for such theories? The 'dark flow', 'string theory', the 'Boltzmann brain', etc, that we are typical and therefore there must be more typical examples of the universe everywhere else with us all in them perhaps. Multiple Jesus' on a cross maybe or maybe not or not yet or never was. This is all what I would call a stretch too far 'Sach'.
"You're just shifting the goalpost. Define what a god is to you, and we can move forward. If you want to define a god as 'the universe' then why even use the term 'god'?"
I didn't define God as the universe, I merely stated that God could be the universe. What I do define about God is that there is no other, that there is only ONE God Almighty (no trinity bullshit) and that this God had always been. God is as far as our finite brains can go. Personally I do not believe that God is the universe as God made the universe but it is now part of Him as are we all.
"You can suggest that a god can exist as a hypothesis, but you cannot go further than that. It would be a weak hypothesis at best, with no supporting evidence, and thus there would be no good reason to believe in it. When I talk about the multiverse theory, I say that I like it, but I openly admit that I have no way of knowing it is right, and I probably never will. Most theists never say the same about their 'god hypothesis.'"
If the God hypothesis is so weak then why are you debating it with me? Why hasn't it been kicked into touch millenia ago? There are lots of evidences for God and theories, models, etc, to make logical deductions that God may exist. Most people on earth believe in a god never mind God (YHWH) to them there must be legitimate reasons and evidences, personal experiences, etc, as to why they do. You say that your multiverse theory may have no way of proving that it's right but you are sure that is more right than a God hypothesis. I'm a Christian and I can't categorically prove even to myself that God exists, all I have is my minds experiences and the faith I've come to gain from that. So I guess that I'm not most theists, lol. I have however had many spiritual experiences, that is to say something happening to me that I felt was God's doing in me because I couldn't emphatically explain it any other satisfactory way.
What's wrong with there being a creator 'Sach' one that through His love is teaching us to be perfect via our life experiences? One who is making us perfect through Christ's example and sacrifice which ultimately is going to save all of mankind (1 Tim 2:3-6) from not existing after death? What's wrong with 'all being made alive' (1 Cor 15:22). What's wrong with being saved from all our sinful selves so that we can spend the ages of the ages to come with God as mature children walking with their Father? What's wrong with a happy ending for all creation??? (1 Acts 3:19-21).
God be with you as you search yourself for the truth. Amen:-).
The difference is somebody believing in God isn't the same as killing somebody based on beliefs.
Wow. I've never really liked this man, or many of his ideas-particularly his attacks on anything in the psychic field, and UFOs. But I must say, I found this piece quite illuminating. There's an actual brain working in there, which I now respect. I'm glad he made the effort to record this piece, even though we are miles apart on many issues. He has integrity.
I know right!
He's guessing! Lets ask a question here, ok? Who are we in relation to god? Anyone?
Scott R.
Here's my take, and I'm not saying it to convince anyone of anything. That's strictly an individual's right. For me, God didn't make us "in HIS image," it is we who made God in OUR image. In other words, I don't believe that God is an old guy with a white beard, sitting on a golden throne on high like he's depicted on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. That a lot of religious hooey. God has no body, he does not get arthritis, nor does he have temper tantrums as described in the Bible, which are merely scare tactics to keep the dumb and ignorant in line. Fear can control people, and no one knows it better than The Church. God is a totally spiritual entity (if there even is one) and has no use whatsoever of a body, anymore than a fish needs a bicycle. That is strictly a human contrivance to give us something to paint and look at, just as white men always show Jesus with brown hair and green eyes, which is a completely Caucasian construct and has nothing at all to do with the fact that he was a Semitic man with black hair and brown eyes and probably didn't look so much like Mel Gibson.
Christians believe that Jesus was "the son of God." But I only believe that term to the extent that I believe that we are ALL sons and daughters of God, and therefore part of God, one and indivisible.
Scott R. We are authors. God is the character we wrote. Questions?
Robert Martin How's god a dick?? last i checked god was forgiving and friendly to everyone.
I like the older style big think where whoever was being interviewed spoke their opinion on a subject instead of telling us how to do something
Man, this is the first thing I've heard Penn say that I disagree with.
Why? It's completely logical.
@@fluffynator6222 It’s a complex issues with a lot of rights and wrongs plus it covers such a variety of stuff it’s hard to get it right.
Two wrongs don`t make a right. But three lefts do! 👍
His discussion is about opening a dialog, not shutting the door on truth and respect. As he and teller discussed (in writing), the definition of intellectual “someone who can change their mind when given facts or logic” then say “I was wrong, I don’t feel that anymore.” It is not easy to say out loud “I am wrong” and then formulate a new truth in your mind? It is however a great step toward brilliance!
When I met with Penn after his show he discussed with me how much he enjoyed doing "Big Think". He and Teller distinguish themselves from other entertainers by being grateful for their fans. They enjoy taking the time after their performance and staying in the lobby until everyone has had the chance to get a photo, signature or to simply have the ability to talk to them. They are as open and inviting in real life as they are on TV or stage.
The difference between someone saying that they feel in their hearth that there is a god and someone else saying that they felt in their hearths that they had to kill those people is that the second one harms other people. A more likely comparison should be between someone who believes in a higher being and someone who believes in the sasquatch, and is the last one liscenced to believe in that? Yes, he is, and as long as he doesn't disturb our coexistance because of that belief, it is fine and no one should bother him about believing in what he wants to believe. One persons freedom ends where another persons freedom begins.
Indeed that sasquatch comparison would be closer, but at the same time don't forget people of all religions have used that as a justification for all kinds of atrocities including genocide. So by believing, they had an excuse to kill, just like Charlie Manson.
Kafanska TV Yeah, but that is not the same context anymore. I'm catholic and I too believe that the killing of the heretics was bold wrong. Still, in today's civilization religion won't do that kind of stuff anymore (at least christianity or catholicism) and if they do then they're just assholes and are in no way justified for what they have done.
MrComicsGuy
They say ''give a man some power to see who he really is''. The church had the power and showed it's face troughout the middle ages. There's no contextual defense, they were supposed to be guiding the world's biggest religion, one which calls it's god ''loving, compassionate'' and all that, and they used that same religion as a tool of war.
Not to mention that god himself engages in battles, orders the slaughter or tribes that are not of the same religion and helps in some battles. That can only mean two things:
1) That god is real and he prefers one tribe, thus allowing it to kill anyone else
2) He's not real and people wrote those stories to justify their military actions.
In both cases, I see no good in it.
Kafanska TV There is contextual defense, the mentality was different, those were war ages and religion wasn't the only cause of them. Besides you can't deny that the church has power nowadays, and you don't see them killing people. They have, more than once, apologized for the mistakes their PREDECESSORS did, the company back then was composed of other people, very different people, with very different ideas. The act alone of apologizing or regretting those acts that they weren't guilty of sustains the initial statement about how having an idealism that harms the freedom of other people is wrong, they are claiming that that's wrong.
The God thing could be engaged in another argument but it doesn't add anything to the matter in dispute, the bottom line is that God's main lesson is to love each other which contradicts (at least for the followers) the possibility of people nowadays going raiding tribes and commiting homicide on people with different religions.
MrComicsGuy
As I already said, the same ''god's message'' was available to them back then, as it is today. There were always wars, religion wasn't always the cause, but Church could have at least avoid contributing to them, but it did because it had most european armies at it's disposal when needed, and it used them often.
Today they don't have that kind of power, instead they have enough political power to protect pedophiles within their ranks so that they almost never go to court and jail where they belong, instead they get relocated to another church to continue their wrongdoing.
In both cases, wars and pedophilia, the Church as an organization and the highest authority on the world's biggest religion, chose to go against ''god's message'' of love and compassion and all that. THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT.
You can count on luck but the point is not about believe but about understanding because not everyone who want to be tolerated deserve respect, so there is no point in trying to understand something that is pointless.
Wow ... Well played and well put, Your Highness.
Roger Gillion I could give you my trust if you earn my respect, but this concept may probably work dependently of situation in both ways.
Roger Gillion The whole issue was more specifically about people who simply expect foolish tolerance those days instead of earn deserved respect, however you made some good point there.
Many other factors besides religion can cause a good person to do bad things.
Money is a major one. Good People may resort to robbery if that's what they feel is the only option to provide for his/her family.That is a fact, we can review cases where this has happened. That's just one of many circumstances that could make a good person act badly.
The statement that "It takes religion to make a good person do bad" is false and you can throw it in the garbage.
All I'm saying is that people can be brainwashed and influenced by many things.
Without religion you could still have a travesty like 9/11 happen. I don't believe for a second that if religion were removed from society that we'd have less violence, we may even have more. People will find reasons to do bad things with or without a belief in god.
John Hinckley watched Taxi Driver then decided to shoot president Reagan. Certain types of people can be persuaded into evil for countless reasons.
Human violence is as natural as love, good morals are what's essential.
animaljp3 There are people who don't follow the bible that hate homosexuals, I'll bet there are Atheists out there who hate Homosexuals. There are Atheist murderers, thief's, pedophiles, etc. Humans can be evil with or with out religion. You ignore the many positives of religion and choose to embrace only the negatives to fuel you're own Atheist agenda.
Being an Atheist is just as silly and potentially dangerous as being religious.
I'm not religious and I'm no Atheist.
Joe Blow religion makes people evil whether they are or arnt. Besides, I made this CLEAR whenI said killings will still happen after religion, just LESS of them. Do you want LESS or the same amount of murders? ever heard of holy war?
animaljp3 Or for that matter, the Salem Witch Trials, the Spanish Inquisition, the fact that in Africa even NOW people are being burned at the stakes for being witches....Also, the Manifest Destiny, which was propagated by the idea that God willed the settlers of America to take over "from sea to shining sea" which ultimately led to horrific violence against Native Americans [resulting in... how much of their population has been destroyed? And they're still being treated pretty terribly] - although I'll grant that one's a bit more tangential, but still unmistakably influenced and spurred on with the help of religion. If I'm not mistaken, it was also the religious puritanical folks who got the prohibition to happen, which only succeeded in a new era of organized crime, which was responsible for how many deaths do you think?
And hell, I can go much earlier to when the Greek/Roman mythology was the big dog on campus and treated Jews, Pagans, Druids and Christians ruthlessly for their beliefs which interfered with the Romans', raiding their temples and making literal martyrs out of Christians.
I believe people should have the right to choose what, if anything they want to believe in, if it helps them come to terms with the world around them and their main passion in life is not to understand the complexities of nature/life itself, so long as it doesn't interfere with the rights and happiness of others. However, people get so... intense... about religions that really, sometimes I really do think we'd be better off without them, or just acknowledging them as fun stories with interesting themes about morality, honor, whatever else instead of as reality.
animaljp3 How would you know that less murders would happen and not more?
Humans go to war with out the need for it to be "Holy."Some NUTS go to war because they believe it's gods will. Take religion away from those same nuts and maybe they'll go to war because there's no god to stop them.
As I said before, unfortunately violence is natural in human society and it's impossible to remove. People who are psychotic and use religion as an excuse to do evil things will not become good people by simply removing their religion.
Should we remove science from society because it can and is being used to make weapons such as nuclear bombs? Of course not because science is also capable of enriching our lives. Should we remove religion because a small percentage of psychopaths decide to use it as an excuse to do evil? You'd say yes, I'd say no because for Billions of religious people it enriches their lives and helps them to be better people.
i LOVE this video. i have felt this way since forever. people can't take you challenging their ideas or feelings. many get angry, but if i'm taking the time to try to show you my opinion and give you an opportunity to show me yours, then i am showing you infinitely more respect than someone i just let spew whatever they want. In the former scenario, i'm saying i think you're smart enough to handle this conversation, i care that you might be wrong. in the latter, you're saying the exact opposite.
4:35 His body language from this point forward is interesting.
I can't believe in this day and age people still believe in god
Benedictine Monk and Buddhist Scholar, Willigus Jaeger in his book "The Search for the Meaning of Life" described the "many paths to enlightenment" model. Penn saying he's more comfortable debating a fundamentalist who will say "you are wrong" is a simplistic way to avoid having to have a respectable debate. In one sentence Penn has taken intellect out of the debate and copped out to emotionalism which he completely neglected to address.
+Jon Jacoby As much as "there are many paths" can be a valid position in itself, there are a lot of people who use that same phrase as a cop-out instead of an opening for the kind of debate you're talking about.
There are people who truly believe there is a "right way" to live, and that they're following it. There are people who believe there are multiple such "right ways", and they're following one. There are people who believe that following anything BUT their specific "right" path is objectively wrong, and will tell you so. There are people who believe that following a path that diverges too significantly from theirs is wrong, and will tell you so. But then, there are people who will see/hear/talk to you and realise you're doing something they view as wrong, but instead of being willing to explain what they see as wrong about it, they'll lie to you - and themselves - and say "there are many paths to truth" and convince themselves (but not you) that you're simply going through a child-like phase of rebelling against what's right, and will miraculously get over it without any guidance.
+blivvy You can also look at it like there is one source and one conclusion. We experience a spectrum of life and find our way through a confusing maze of illusions and intentional deception, Which is how Penn makes his living, intentionally deceiving audiences and amazing them with their own stupidity. Religion does the much the same thing but not for pure entertainment and they make way more money at it than Penn does. If you don't follow the righteous path of religion you are destine to hell regardless of your actions being pure and following the life Christ demonstrated, loving your neighbors as your self. Christianity though is built on self loathing and guilt so you must pay tithes your entire life to gain salvation so you can bribe St Peter to pass through the pearly gates. As much as this is just common sense it's not how salvation works. Forgiveness is a personal act much like living like Christ is and the act it's self is what gives life it's meaning and when it's all over you can finally rest in peace either enjoying a wonder after life which soon becomes boring or a great nothing at all depending on how well you cope with boredom. If you deal well with boredom you'll do good in the after life. That's the beauty, irony and ultimate truth of religion... it's learning to cope with boredom because the after life devastatingly boring so religion and church services condition us to accept boredom as a holy thing. That's why Church is so boring.
Tolerance is necessary because there are no factual, right-vs-wrong answers to many of life’s great questions. So if you want others to show respect for how you choose to live (as long as you don’t harm yourself or others) then you need to show them the same respect. With tolerance a society starts to careen towards dogmatism and ethnic conflict.
Very well said! Respect.
that makes no sense at all! who says Manson can't "say / believe the Beatles want him to kill joeblow"? ? Who said jihadist can't say or believe they should kill infidels?
just like a christian can say and believe that God is real. now if Manson ACTS ON HIS THOUGHTS .. ......THAT'S DIFFERENT! Saying I believe something and saying I'm going to DO something are very different!!
+American by Birth Southern by the Grace of GOD
Penn didn't literally mean "say", as in just speaking it aloud; acting upon what is said was implied. You can determine this by considering the analogous situation that he is referring to, specifically the situation in which a Christian (or anyone else) justifies their actions (in politics, school curriculum reform, etc.) solely on a feeling they have in their heart. I can all but guarantee that Penn would not be for controlling free speech and other people's thoughts :)
Any true follower of Christ worth a grain of salt knows its not their place to say "your wrong" they are taught if its not that persons time for their heart to accept God's word yet, to "shake the dust off their feet" and move on, maybe that persons heart will soften at a later date when they will be more receptive. You NEVER want to point fingers or get in a name calling match for the simple fact that EVERYONE is a potential brother or sister of Christ. That's why there is no place for racism or bigotry. People have to live and die with the choices they make, we can not force anyone to believe what they don't want to believe,
but if you dont tell them"they are wrong" then who will? i understand what your saying and you are right that if someone is not ready to make a change in their mindset then you cannot make them but if you dont let them know they are wrong in the way they are thinking and inform them of what you believe is right then who will do it? you provide them with information to think about and with that information floating around in their mind it might one day provide them the perspective they need to make a change in themselves.
themetalheadgeek All anyone can do is pass on the knowledge and share the belief they have, what that person does with that information is up to them. Hopefully they meditate on what they are taking in and come to an understanding of what is being offered. Like Penn saying other people claim there are "many paths" , he could tell them they are wrong, Jesus taught there are only TWO paths, the broad and spacious path leading off to destruction and the narrow and cramped path leading off to everlasting life. Imagine walking down a 4 lane highway with no cars on it, lots of leeway and room to not even pay attention to. Now the cramped path is like a trail in the mountains, you have to pay attention and not go off the path or it could end up badly. Matt 7:13,14
Oh, praise the Lord...finally!...a REAL Christian!
Thank you so much, dear brother-in-Christ! David, your words have strengthened me.
Thank you from the bottom of my heart!
Lakewolf Whitecrow Np sister :P, "Iron sharpens iron" Is that an idnian name you have ;)
David Foust
..not brother. Sister. :)
I'm always struck by the sheer arrogance of religious people, who when they discover that I'm an atheist, try to talk me out of it, as though my value system is somehow lesser than theirs, not carefully considered.
I really respect Penn. He is right.
Do you respect him when you disagree with him?
I'll tolerate Penn's viewpoint. :p
+Stofnun He'll feel so angry because of what you said :P
@@jimzheng4912 it’s alright, this is a CZcams comment section
@@marcar9marcar972 I like commenting on 4+ year old threads, too.
i am often busted, and rarely am i right.
You legend
" That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”. ... Christopher Hitchens.
“In other words, that the discussion about what is good, what is beautiful, what is noble, what is pure, and what is true could always go on. Why is that important? Why would I like to do that? Because that’s the only conversation worth having. And whether it goes on or not after I die, I don’t know. But, I do know that it is the conversation I want to have while I am still alive. Which means that to me the offer of certainty, the offer of complete security, the offer of an impermeable faith that can’t give way is an offer of something not worth having. I want to live my life taking the risk all the time that I don’t know anything like enough yet… that I haven’t understood enough… that I can’t know enough… that I am always hungrily operating on the margins of a potentially great harvest of future knowledge and wisdom. I wouldn’t have it any other way. And I’d urge you to look at those who tell you, those people who tell you at your age, that you are dead until you believe as they do. What a terrible thing to be telling to children. …and that you can only live by accepting an absolute authority. Don’t think of that as a gift. Think of it as a poisoned chalice. Push it aside however tempting it is. Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty and wisdom will come to you that way.” Christopher Hitchens
But I agree with on the mindless tolerance thing.
Penn says he cannot prove an objective reality exists and then goes on to say that he dislikes when people propose beliefs that cannot be proven....
When I stopped looking for God, and started to look for bits of God in me, I found great things. The Scottish Taco
You found a taco?
What`s a Scottish Taco? Is it yum? 🌮
I like how he spends 5 min talking about why unprovable beliefs are irrational, but prefaces the whole thing by establishing that he believes an unprovable axiom.
Love is mostly a form of tolerance, think about it
distorted wordly love is nearly synonymous with tolerance, but true love isn't tolerable
I can't see nor prove Love, should I then not believe in it in order to be fair? People will always have emotional and psychological experiences that will give the impression of knowledge. Afterwards it is the process of surival of the fittest idea that determines which ones remain and which die.
+El. Mejor Love is testable, measurable and demonstrable, it's the neurochemical oxytocin and is well understood. ALL emotions are neurochemicals, ALL can be measured, studied, observed, tested and demonstrated, NOT ONE mystical claim can be, not gods, not ghosts, not goblins, NONE.
NoIfsAndsOrButtsCA Hmm show me where anyone has equated a subjective experience to a chemichal. No doubt some scientists have seen a correlation between the experience of love and the presence of a chemical. But show me where the chemical stands solely for the subjective experience. Not one study has ever been able to establish a causation linkage between oxytocin and the experience of love.
+El. Mejor that's because it's far more complicated than oxytocin. It involves a number of hormones and different chemical interactions I know nothing about as biochemistry isn't my field
+NoIfsAndsOrButtsCA You're looking at the mechanics of the brain and body and not the issue of meaning. While drugs can induce emotional states, abstract things are capable of doing it too so clearly there is a meaning component to emotion that is beyond an empirical analysis. Same can be said of the faculty of reason. Premise-logic-conclusion is abstract, whereas the electrical signals in the brain are physical. There is a correlation between the two but they are yet fundamentally different. Does no one distinguish between empiricism and rationalism anymore?
+El. Mejor You can find the signs of someone in love in brain waves. FMRI scans can pinpoint what parts of the brain are stimulated by the various types of love so yea its a tangible thing you can prove exists. That is why heart ache can occur. The chemicals in your body, mainly your brain combine with your conscious thoughts to form your emotional state. I'm sure they can track the differences as well between say a 50th anniversary couple and newlyweds.
You can also prove is from an evolutionary standpoint as something that would have been advantageous to man over the course of our development into modern humans; the more intense the pair bonding system the less likely for things like infanticide by rival males, better odds for the child surviving to adulthood with actual strength rather then being week. I mean that is basically what love is, a chemical reaction that induces pair bonding among members of that species.
What about with Deists/Deism[and offshoots like PanDeism for example}. Our belief in 'God"call it whtever you like; basically just the claim that there is a 'divine mind" and that it birthed cosmos and is imminent in cosmos; not ain a personal and anthropomorphic/centric sense, but a impersonal or transpersonal sense}. We base out view that there is or was such on reason and evidence. It is not proven by classical materialist logic, but we reasonably interpret mountains of suggestive evvidence that at least divine minds existance is probable, like scientists can'nt prove many theories yet and have'nt yet..but they have enough evidence and logic to suport their conclusions based on the evidence; say the "big bang", that's not been objectively and absolutely proven, but it is a workuing theoretical model that is absed on evidence and logic. The same is teue for the hypothesis that there is or was a divine mind and that the cosmos has principles built into that inherently push thew cosmos towards life and mind and reason and conciousness{as Physicist Paul Davies suggests in his writings, check him out, he;'s brilliant! Like purpose and meaning are inherently built into cosmos}.
Big bang has'nt been conclusively proven, but we all refer to it as a fact based on it being a workable theory backed up by mountains of evidence and sound reasoning. The theory that divine mind{God; or call it what ye will; Stephen Hawkins recently refered to it as PHI and that PhI is a 'self-collapsing wave function", the mathematical trancendent or irrational number; Hawkings colleage in science, physicst and mathmatician has postulated that 'self collapsing wave functions" are "minds"; therefore PHi would literally be a mind, in fact MIND itself and mind the basic core nature and core law of the universe..the source of it; there's alot of complex logic and mathematics and physics..especially quantum physics that give the case for "God" as valid; to complicated t get into here, I can only reccomend you check out Davies books- especially "cosmic jackpot" "mind of god: the scientific case for a rational world" and 'God and the new physics"; also comic "Dilbert" creator Scott Adams has a illuminating book out there called 'Gods Debris: a thought experiment" which I also highly reccomend, as well as "There is a God: how the worlds most notorious atheist changed his mind" by Antony Flew with Roy Abraham Varghese}
Keep thinking...and happy hunting. ;)
+Will Baker
What "logic" and evidence do you have that a God exists?
*****
Yes, he does, because I am that scientist. You're talking to Einstein 2.0 and you think, you're going to tell me what is or isn't the case with science? HA
*****
There is evidence, it's literally in every high school science class so. You can just, go back and get educated correctly instead of failing this time, kthnx.
*****
Lmao, science IS how I rely on myself. Watch Rick and Morty, scientists are the only true Gods of this world.
*****
You're the punk, can't adapt. Stagnant.
Tolerance walks a fine line between acceptance and ignoring. You may tolerate your that your friend has a different religious belief because you care about the friend, but you don't want any part in his beliefs or even want him to express them around you. Acceptance is saying we may not agree on these religious beliefs but i love you as a friend an this is a major part of your life so feel free to let me in.
There are certainly some evil people, and some good people, but the vast overwhelming majority fall somewhere in between. Even good people do bad things, and bad people do good things. Religion plays no part in much of that.
and people no matter what they think do not understand this.
There is so much wrong with this, I hardly know where to begin. And let me say upfront that I am not a believer and consider myself a humanist, so my objections to Penn's observations are not motivated by sympathy for any religious perspective. Okay...
The philosophical arguments for the existence of God have nothing to do with "I believe because I feel this way... or that way." Whether you accept these arguments or wish to refute them, you cannot dismiss them as being mired in subjectivism. So this nonsense about "walling yourself off" from the rest of the world is, to use a word Penn likes, bullshit. Now, when it comes to personal religious experiences or what someone might hold out as private revelations - yes, these are entirely subjective and cannot be communicated in any real way to another person. But that isn't the basis upon which religion is premised.
As for tolerance, Penn excoriates it as "condescending," but then goes on to define the essence of civic tolerance in a pluralistic society - i.e., defending the rights of those with whom you disagree. And it isn't condescending when liberal religious people say, "There are many paths to truth, and we should each be free to find our own way." Again, that is the essence of religious liberty and the integration of pluralism into the religious mentality itself. It seems to me that Penn is just looking for an excuse to argue with people and sees arguing with people as a virtue in itself, whereas someone like me is perfectly content to live and let live. That isn't condescension on my part. It's merely the recognition that very few minds are changed in arguments over religion, and therefore it's best to go your own way and let others go their way.
And I think it all boils down to what your basic goal is. For people like Penn, who is an evangelical atheist, he, like Dawkins, is actively seeking to convert people and disabuse them of their religious faith. I have no interest whatsoever in that endeavor. It's a waste of goddamn time. My goal is to defend a rigorous and fortified civic secularism and religious liberty, wherein government stays out of religious matters and religions stay out of political matters. Secularism, not atheism per se, should be our project.
I like the cut of your jib.
***** You my man, get it.
Continue being excellent.
***** I think in Penn would actually agree with you on some things. He said in the video that he can get along with Fundamentalist Christians more than Liberal ones because although he disagrees with Fundies about their beliefs, Fundies are at least concerned with objective reality and believe what they believe because they think it's objectively true. Liberal Christians, on the other hand, respond with innocuous-sounding yet dangerous platitudes about how "there is more than one path to truth." When someone like Penn brings up a piece of information or evidence that seems to contradict Christianity and a Christian responds with, "well, it's whatever, because there is more than one path to truth," what they are essentially saying is that evidence doesn't matter and objective truth doesn't matter, which is actually a very un-Christian sentiment. There are Christians out there who say, "whatever belief is true for you..." True FOR YOU. What does that even mean?
*****
Government stepping in and saying "yo, stop chopping up your children's genitals" is a touch different from government stepping in and saying "you can't hold these religious beliefs which aren't harming anyone else".
Same thing goes for religious parents that don't get their kids vaccinated or any kind of actual medical care, really.
Andrew Brookes Why does a response like that bother you? They are basically saying "agree to disagree" in a respectful manner.
There is a distinction between collaborative private enterprise and the price-fixing of essential goods ike petroleum, which the American oil companies do with gasoline, and which constitutes them as a cartel. I agree that the Silicone Valley giants including Walmart could afford to pay higher wages and offer more benefits to their employees and still make a decent profit, but their election not to as you have pointed out is part of the nature of the free market beast. Capitalism is not a perfect economic system nor is it always fair, especially when there is corrupt collusion between private enterprise and government, which is known as "crony capitalism." But it is nevertheless a better alternative than coercive collectivism.
Written By: Atelston Fitzgerald Holder 1st
Did you post this on the right page? This is one of Penns atheist series, not a economics series.
MrCharles7994 Oops, my apology. I was responding to an economic/capitalism video and somehow the playlist flipped on me.
Mr Pregnant - Atelston Fitzgerald Holder 1st Damn playlists!
Mr Pregnant - Atelston Fitzgerald Holder 1st Mighty fine conclusion though, i'd have to say myself...
I feel like you don't know anything about anything. Walmart operates on about a 1% profit margin and are not at all comparable to other businesses and their various models you mention in the rest of the post.
In other words, read more and post less.
I see a big difference between believing "a higher power" is there and knowing what it wants from you.
People forget sometimes we are living on a tiny rock, orbiting round a smallish star, in a small solar system.......etc etc. One day this is all going to end. Even if humans do successfully colonise another planet, the entire universe will eventually come to an end one day.
There is probably a higher power, or purpose to our universe, however to believe in a "god" that answers prayers or cares about what you wear etc is very illogical. Enjoy what time you have on this earth don't infringe on the rights of others.
Exactly.
iamihop In my opinion there is some reason why the universe is here. Perhaps you have your own ideas on the nature of the world around us.
iamihop No there are no statistics to back up my ideas on the nature of the universe, it is simply my thoughts on the topic. What are your thoughts?
+iamihop You don't think that a race of human beings, mammals, reptiles, plants, and bacteria have SOME sort of reason for being here? I mean, I could honestly never tell and none of us ever will. Maybe we are just an accidental creation from the stars. But if we are indeed just an accidental creation from the stars, then who or what else is out there? As far as I'm concerned, we're just like ants compared to the universe. The universe is so large and expansive that we can't comprehend or even imagine what is beyond our reach. And possibly, just possibly, there's life forms larger than ourselves out there, and we humans are like the ants. Clueless and ignorant to how small we really are
iamihop I am not saying humans are special, neither do I believe in any religion, but, something must have caused the big bang. I agree, perhaps one day humans will discover why, or maybes we will never know.
To believe in any "god" that grants prayers or wishes is not really that logical imo. We are like ants on this earth, and in comparison to the universe, we are less than grains of sand.
My own belief is of a circular pattern of death and creation. Things are destroyed and are created. By definition this universe at some point in the distant future will end.
Think you need a little more information regarding quantum physics.
+PC160 What information would that be?
I know enough to know that anyone quoting quantum physics as an example for anything is completely out of their league by all accounts.
They wouldn't be wasting time discussing it in random CZcams videos with nescients...
Go play with some superstrings and stop annoying me.
A free description of yourself you're adding to the thread?
if i care enough about other people's religions, i would challenge their beliefs. but i don't care, so i "tolerate" them and leave them alone. i don't get all this fuss about Atheism or anti-religion anyway. you'll never get rid of it and people have the right to believe whatever they want. and they will. people will always believe something. nobody is capable of being 100% objective. everybody believes something.
so i don't care what they believe or what goes inside their head. sure, i can challenge them, but what would i gain from doing that? nothing. i'm a realist, so i don't care about religion or atheism or some other shit.
People have a right to believe in what they want, but do not have the right to act in any way they want. Further more, the reason you have anti-religious groups is because there are direct links between religion and conflict, or otherwise, that cause upset in this world and you have to fight it someway.
James Blackwell You do have the right to act anyway you want as well, but you can't harm others physically while doing it. There is a line I guess. ANYONE can protest views, hold meetings, even burn bibles and the Karon (which is super disrespectful, in my opinion). Freedom is sometimes offensive, annoying, and even emotionally devastating but it is the best form of tolerance we have. This is coming from a Christian!
Then you are unaware of how much influence these people - who receive untold billions in tax-free money - use to keep their power and interfere in science, education and politics.
jjaus Completely different issue! Influence on politics has to do with power in government. If the government doesn't have the power, then you can't corrupt the government. Liberal or conservative.
TheBuzzkill2012
Governments do have power. Therefore they are corruptible.
Tolerance many be condescending, but it beats the f*ck out of intolerance by a billion miles!
Okay, only got halfway through this. No logic to the argument. I'm out of here.
Some things take more than 30 seconds to say. His point is a good one if you'd only listen.
Octamed Yes, you are right. I could at least listen to him until the end before commenting. Lol.
Bammy Shore That being said he could have said the same thing in 2 minutes, just not 30 seconds ;)
Octamed
Well to be fair, it didn't take him the whole video to make that argument. He only started forming it towards the end.
G White I do understand Logic...I studied it at university. As well as a bit of Philosophy. I'm quite intrigued by all the controversy my one comment has generated, both publicly and privately. So, I'm going to expand on my problem with this video. And please remember, this is just my opinion.
There is a huge amount of social engineering being generated at this point in time. This video is conflating religion, with fundamentalism and with spirituality. This man, who is not a physicist, explains that he is a materialist in his approach to life and goes on to compare the philosophical discussion of collective consciousness with the possibility of a murderer's self justification or with the extreme acts of religious fundamentalism. Talk about conflating issues. This lazy, unconstructed type of argument is happening more frequently in the mass media. Schools, as a rule, generally do not teach critical thinking. Therefore, people get away with this. It's meant to confuse you. We are living in times of great change. Your belief system needs to be anchored to some solid code of ethics, philosophy, or even, dare I say it, religion. Without it you will be at the mercy of every gov't think tank, marketing executive or sales person. I do believe that there is such a thing as Absolute Truth but it is not the same as Objective Truth. Beware this current social movement whose religion is materials science. They will strip the heart out of everything.
I can't (no one can) prove my great great grand ma existed ... but i'm 100% certain she did. How can anyone look into the vast unlimited size and complexity of the universe and the laws that govern it and doubt theres a Creator?
How can they believe NOTHING "Bang" Exploded and became everything complete with rules!
Well to believe "the theory of the big bang" is illogical but to know there is scientific data that backs it up more than any other explanation that's has the foothold in reality. So Science is the cure to to ideology and religion. With science we create technology. And sorry for being facetious but the "Magic Machine" your using is technology that come from scientific research and data. Have a nice day. :)
Ty MI there's nothing "magic" about this machine you fool it was engineered by someone and parts that were already here and so were you. fortunately I'm sure. Technology CREATED NOTHING because both you and this computer will return to their "natural" state eventually, (little bits of shit that was already here)
"Science" is ALWAYS WRONG, ALWAYS. We are constantly being reminded of the fact that we are limited in our understanding on the way things work. that is why there are only scientific theories and nothing more.
Yet you MUST OBEY (what we call) laws of physics, you can't "evolve" these rules that govern all, they have to be set fourth by the creator, at best you can only over power these laws temporarily with technology before things are set right and return to its "natural" state (as it is willed into existence). as they say what goes up must come down. If it is created then there has to be a creator, period.
UNI - VERSE: One verse (even science acknowledges where it all really came from) said by God in the beginning of our time "LET THERE BE LIGHT".
the "big bang" is but a fad (a theory) the UNIVERSE is infinite.
Science CREATES NOTHING, it merely attempts to explain the process that is ALREADY THERE, we are not creators we are discoverers and explorers nothing more.
I'm using more logic than you btw.
Over come foolish pride and have a better day!
You believe in faith which is "belief that is not based on proof". I believe in proof which is "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.". So prideful in the truth i am. Foolishness is reserved for yourself, so as parent's have to explain to there kids why Santa is not real we scientist's have to explain why god is not real. You say god is infallible therefore his bible is infallible right? The Bible is inaccurate - therefore God is fallible - therefore the definition of God is incorrect - therefore God does not exist. If you need proof i can proudly provide it for you. Sorry for my condescending approach but we need more people to think for themselves there are real problems that need solutions and praying is not sufficient. :)
Ty MI
You ASSUME way too much! theres NO LOGIC whatsoever in your rant.
First off: I don't believe because of my "Faith" thats just what people say when they don't posses enough intellect to back up their thoughts with words. I've explained previously why I logically believe in the existence of a creator.
Second: your regurgitating your arguments from something you've heard along the way you've not refuted any of the points I've made.
Third: "the bible" is man made, I didn't hold up my evidence for God with the bible I referenced "Universe" which is what both science and religion discuss as everything in existence. God stands alone without religion, without your belief and without anything ever written by man including the bible.
Fourth: You foolish people equate RELIGION with GOD, thats like saying your right to have a gun kills people. People kill people your right just simply exists no matter what others may do with theirs.
Most people are turds, they take their God given right of FREE WILL and exercise it stupidly at some point in their life/day as you've demonstrated in you "reply".
You mask your pitiful existence with a happy face emoticon because your life has no meaning, quit being angry at God for what others have done to you (and elsewhere in this world in his name) and find the truth ... guess what, you won't find it talking to people you have to find it from within when you look around. It's really obvious when you THINK about it.
The proof is you're here. A woman had to birth the next generation passing on genetic markers and so on and so forth. If she didn't exist, you wouldn't exist. She may not be known on paper or in a photo, but your DNA is the proof that she existed.
The problem is ignorance. Knowledge and reasoning ability are what are needed. I've indeed lost some of my tolerance for the ignorant. If I figured it out, why can't you? If I've put all this effort into learning, and constantly challenging my assumptions, even when I didn't want to, because I knew I needed do so to be a responsible human, why do you get to irresponsibly live in the land of ignorance and make-believe? If you're not a child, why do I accept you behaving as one?
And remember: Ignorant, not stupid. It's not that people aren't capable, it's that they are capable, but don't. That's an idea simultaneously both more hopeful, and more frustrating.
I love when people from different crafts come out to be really well rounded people with a good knowledge of things.
While I disagree very much with Penn's atheism, he is definitely one of the more respecting atheists I have come across. I agree 100% with his view here of tolerance. A question I like to pose to people who accuse me of being intolerant is simply "Aren't you being intolerant of my intolerance then..." Certainly not saying we should have anarchy obviously but it seems the modern use of the word tolerance(read PC) means you accept everyone's way could be valid unless their view IS that some view's are invalid, because that's intolerant. So tolerate only relativism. I must disagree. *Steps down from soapbox*
+Matt M He will never talk of crimes against humanity committed by Stalin. Mao. Deng, Polpot or comrade Kim but rather engage in attacking everyone and anyone who profess faith of any sort.
It is more noble (or respectful) to disagree outright than to tolerate that which you find disagreeable.
I am happy to learn someone as great as Penn shares the same values and principles as I do.
He's basically describing two different styles of human discourse:
The critical approach, where the veracity of the other person's statements are viewed as suspect in order to establish some semblance of external truth and the accommodating approach, where the person seeks to find commonalities rather than differences (tolerance, if you will) in order to preserve a social relationship.
The critical approach is statistically more prevalent in males and the accommodating/tolerant approach is more prevalent in females.
Morpheus X Obviously one of those approaches is completely retarded when it comes to finding truth. If people used the "accommodating" approach when it came to math, then we would be living in grass huts. You say 2+2=4, is say 2+2=5. So since we're not big, mean men, let's not fight about it. We'll just say that 2+2=4.5, deal?
You're completely missing the point, though. There are enough people in the world that prefer either style of thought. The survival of human societies require both truth seeking and social cohesion. People who prefer accommodating speech don't compromise over logical debates, they usually avoid them altogether. No loss. There is a time a place for both.
Look at them as the "caretakers" of the world.
I don't think tolerance is condescending. that's just how he chooses to see it. to me tolerance is more about me saying, I believe X, you believe Y, I may be right, you may wrong, or vice versa. I accept that people have a different belief than myself, and I expect the same courtesy. They're free to say I'm wrong, that's not intolerant. But as long as the dialog is respectful, that's tolerance.
+Kenneth Gay
Not all beliefs deserve respect though. Do we respect Hitler's beliefs? Of course not. We SHIT on them and hate Neo-Nazis for seriously siding with him in the modern age.
Tolerance to me means that we can actively and openly disagree but as long as neither of our believes hurt other people, we let each other live our own lives
The problem with this attitude is that people need peace of mind in order to properly concentrate on routine jobs, and an excessively confrontational environment can distract people from the stuff that actually essential to keep their lives on track. This doesn't mean you should always avoid confrontation, just that confrontation being the rule in place of tolerance may be more suited a society of philosophers rather than ordinary workers.
I hear what you're saying but... it sounds a bit condescending ;). So even if you disagree with Penn you kinda proved his point.
Personally, I prefer confrontation to tolerance just like Penn. In fact, I am sort of confronting his opinions right now. If being sensitive to the wants and needs of others is condescension, then all I can say is that I prefer truth and goodness over subjective emotional evaluations like that. If it's true that being considerate to a given group of people requires that I cut them some slack regarding their goofy beliefs, then that objective consequence is infinitely more important to me than whether my attitude might appear condescending in some lights.
I apply the same standards to religious claims that atheism is egotistical. If the claims of religion are actually false to the best of my judgement, then I don't see why I should care that denying them can be twisted to appear in a bad light, because nearly everything can. Religion can be made to appear egotistical too, as if devotees of personal gods are oh so special, though whether that criticism applies depends on individual temperaments IMO. Penn can also be made to appear condescending, as if it's obvious to all sensible people that toleration is condescending, though he's just expressing a personal opinion that he has every right to.
Of course, if a particular set of people is doing harm out of all proportion to my desire to be nice to them or if they want to challenge my beliefs sometime, then I'd be more than happy to confront them over it.
Not quite. Confrontational doesn't mean militant, i think his use is closer to objective honesty viz a vie telling a child Santa isn't real. Perpetuating an illusory world within the objective world to shield people from the truth is condescending and is an immature coping mechanism for dealing with the reality of life
“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.” ( Steven Weinberg) (Thanks Penn)
Tolerance is simply not doing harm regardless of what you think of the other person or their beliefs. You can still disagree and voice that disagreement emphatically and loudly if you like. Being respectful is being mindful of the time, place, and method of disagreement with someone. If you say don't like people who are green and tell them so you may be an ignorant jerk but you would only really be hurting their feelings, if that. A truly intolerant person would refuse to give first aid to an injured green person or could even cause a physical injury. A disrespectful person would go to the funeral of the green person and insult them and their family.
Compassion is also condescending. It is definately not a relationship of equals. Some people are in need of compassion, others get to throw it around. Consideration, of others, is the word most people are looking for. Let's all be considerate of each other.
even if I disagree with him, I love hearing him talk. I don't think everything in this video is true but he's still a very intelligent person that I respect the hell out of
He's hit the nail on its head, and he's put it in a nutshell. Evidence is essential; just because you feel something, it doesn't mean it's true.
But to hold something as either 100% true or 100% false and then getting angry at someone who doesn't have a divided 100℅ yes or no conviction [on something] is also very childish.
You can hold up a yes/no flow chart to general things. But it's not a very bright thing to do. You need to be able to perceive shades of grey to understand something entirely anyway.
For example, look at this story
"A carpenter, electrician and a woodcarver build a cupboard -
The carpenter likes the electrician more than the carver because the carver tries to interpret how to build a cupboard with his limited knowledge of woodwork, where the electrician just says he doesn't know. Afterwards, the Carpenter and the electrician went out to the pub".
Some people may not have thought about something as much as you have. Just on that basis, you can't assume you are better than them. It's not a very smart move.