Theist Has An “Anti-Atheist” Argument | Edward (he/him) - DC | Skeptic Generation S1E22
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 10. 2021
- “Answer me these riddles three…” says this caller, leading Vi and Eric down a list of questions that “both Hitchens and the Pope would agree on.” He says that by answering these questions honestly, we’ll come to an anti-atheist conclusion. Is it real, is it fantasy, or is it an equivocation fallacy? Let’s go on this adventure together…
________
Skeptic Generation is LIVE every Sunday at 11:30am-1:00pm CT
Call on your phone: 585-LA-MURPH (585-526-8774)
Call online: tiny.cc/callSG
Love the show?
Become a patron: tiny.cc/donatetoSG
Buy merch: tiny.cc/SGmerch
Help with our studio: tiny.cc/SGwishlist
You can also join our Discord: tiny.cc/SGdiscord
To find out more, visit www.skepticgeneration.com
Copyright © 2021 Skeptic Generation. All rights reserved. - Zábava
When I hear a caller repeat “no trick questions” five or so times, you instantly know they’re going to speak rapidly and attempt to corner with trick questions.
On the plus-side... Edward has convinced me to have no interest in his book.
Lol same
Same here
Ok ok, I giggled.
Edward went on for 16 mins. and I'm still wondering what his point was.
That seems to be the point with all the callers here. Just talk in circles, but eventually stating that they know how many angels fit on the head of a pin.
So, perhaps it's not just me that somehow missed how he developed the discussion in an anti-atheist direction.
Hosts could have wrapped this thing up a lot quicker.
“I’m still wondering what his point was.”
So is he.😂
Edward's little script was vapid and Mother Nature states "THERE IS NO HELL"!
Edward - "the universe mysteriously came into being"
Eric/Vi - "well that's an assumption"
Edward - "right...cuz we really don't know!"
Edward - "so....the universe mysteriously came into being"
I think the assumption is more in the “came into being” part. There’s no evidence the Big Bang did anything other than expand already existing matter/energy, so who’s to say the matter/energy didn’t always exist?
When a theist begins with a long string of question, he is generally looking for a "Gotcha". When he wants a yes or answer, he wants to circumvent nuance.
Especially when they preemptively say "this isn't a gotcha question" it's almost always a gotcha question.
@@russellward4624
Right up there with
"I don't mean to be an asshole" and
"I got a black friend"
I think he's just trying to sell his book...
@@borisselioutsky7877 lol, I'm not buyin' it!
The only question any atheist has is: “what is the evidence for your god?” No one has yet provided any repeatable, provable evidence that their god or anybody else’s god exists. That’s it.
The only answer to these sort of leading questions: "How is this RELEVANT?"
I would have pushed back on "for some reason the universe came into being."
"The universe exists for some reason," doesn't mean that it came into being.
We don't even know that there is a reason. The existence of the universe could just be the ultimate answer to toddlers' everywhere. Because.
@@TruthSika I tend to think that "because" isnt an actual reason.
But I do tend to think that the principle of sufficient reason seems to apply to everything. So whatever the facts might be about the origin of the universe, there would be some reason. We just might never no those facts, much less the reasons for those facts.
But as far as the speculation goes about a god that exists without external cause, I think that a physical universe that exists without an external cause is a far more plausible speculation. If there was never a time when the universe didn't exist, then it cant really be described as "beginning to exist".
Maybe the universe had to age so it big banged itself so time could start?
@@johntuel2375 ok, how would we show that to be true?
I wouldn't concede that there has to be a "reason" for the universe to exist. Nore "come into existence", whatever that means.
Don't anthropomorphize abstract properties, they hate it when you do that.
😊
🤣🤣
That’s good.
Seek the Lord and you will find Him if you seek with a humble heart.
@@vapor9042 Where’s your evidence?
Edward has an anti-theist argument - apparently. Pity he never got as far as telling us what it is.
I think what he was trying to get at is he assumed all atheists claim with absolute certainty there's no god. And so he thought if he could get the hosts to admit they don't know somethings, then atheism is false.
@@johnendalk6537 I don't think his argument was even that coherant. I think Edward
was just there to plug his book and was floundering for a point.
I think it was just a bait for call screeners.
He was very likely trying to get the hosts to agree on having an inate desire for a paternal figure, to alleviate the angst of existential fears. Probably a really shite segway from "you don't believe in a God" to "but you fundamentally long for one"?
He was too busy with his vast array of "not trick questions here."
Gotta love the idea that "we dont know" still means "Space wizard did it" because that's essentially what he is saying....and I am less than 5min into this video.
He never said “space wizard.” God is derived as the inference to the best explanation, empirically, from several lines of evidence.
@@CCCBeaumont I'd like to know your line of reasoning and I say this honestly and humbly to you, kind youtuber.
@@hermanmeldorf7529 I am personally impressed by many of the scientific, philosophical, and historical arguments for God, but I also have direct, personal interaction with Him including His miraculous intervention in my physical world on more than one occasion. These combine to contribute to a fairly high level of certainty for me.
@@CCCBeaumont let's hear your several lines of evidence. I'm still unconvinced of the existence of your invisible cosmic wizard and his outrageous mythological escapades. Thanks.
@@CCCBeaumont first, there ARE NOT many lines of scientific evidence, philosophical evidence is nonexistent, and historical is mundane with ZERO validation of the miraculous. And good luck demonstrating personal experience claims. You'd be the very first .
FYI... HE NEVER GETS TO HIS "ANTI-ATHIEST" POINT.
He carefully phrased the question as "Why" and "for some reason" immediately dropping things into purpose.
"...had a beginning" and "for some reason" are both dubious elements of his proposition I'd never buy into. The hosts let him get too far. Matt Dilahuntys they're not.
@@donnievance1942 Technically "came to be" which technically you can apply to always existing, I think? But I definitely had the same reaction "Sneaking in purpose AND begging of existence". No way hosts didn't catch that, I wonder why they granted it.
What a lot of loaded questions - Edward just wants to guide the conversation so he can gotcha.
I feel religion and conservatism in general has greatly had back mankind. We could all be living like the Jetsons now if people would embrace science instead of fighting it
Do you agree that science and scientist can be corupted and used to facilatate an agenda?
@@74mcja Sure, however, that needs to be proven. More often than not, those stating that science and scientist are enacting a hidden agenda as a blanket statement have a fundamental lack of understanding of how science works or a real reason why they distrust science, whatever it is.
@@74mcja Do you agree that religion and the religious can be corrupted and used to facilitate an agenda?
Key word: "Could". Human tendency for greed, personal gain, and just our overall capacity for "evil" could hold that back as well.
R'amen. Personally I wouldn't put conservatism on equal footing though(not saying you are) only for the fact that religion often has far greater power to regress us BACKWARDS whereas conservatism in a strict sense holds to traditional values just for the sake of them and stifles innovation. I agree with you.
Good lord, I’m only 8 minutes in and I want to perforate my own eardrums. I’m anticipating the “gotcha” only another 11 minutes to go 🥳
9 ½ minutes for me, but I feel you
Y'all beat me. 7 mins in and I'm scrolling for someone to write his point.
@@dj_menyo839 ,
I haven't even hit "play" yet and here I am in the comment section. :D
@@aralornwolf3140 damn!!! FYI. he never gets to his point. It's all mindless ramblings.
Hell is real.
Huh. That's odd. He made me even more of an atheist.
I think his point is everyone is an agnostic.
@@BeachBumZero But his point is pointless, because atheists on the agnostic side of the compass is not at all uncommon, probably the majority of atheists out there. This means that most atheistic people already concede that we don't know everything to make ontological assertions about a god one way or the other.
If anything, Edward's "anti-atheism" argument is probably one of the most compelling reasons to BE an atheist.
These theistic arguments make me more anti-theistic.
@@BeachBumZero Then his point is wrong.😂
You're probably not bright enough for God to hold you accountable anyway.
I'm 100% with Eric in this one
He's so straight up an no bull shit with everything. It's quite impressive.
Same here. But I think Vi is using a broader definition of religion that includes mythology and StarWars, well beyond the dogmatic rigidity of Abrahamic monotheism.
In other words, she and Eric mostly agree, the problem is semantics, both reject authoritarian dictates "believe this". Most Westerners consider that part of "religion", most others don't; religion used to be quite flexible, from town to town and month to month, far more than modern Christianity or Islam.
I think both of them see a different spectrum of the idea. Vi thinks (Imo) if religion makes someone feel good and they wanna preach, let them preach.
Eric is going from the other way. Religious nutbags, preach God and shove it down people's throats. It really does indoctrinate some people and those people might end up doing something awful "for God". In that case. The less influence religion has on people the better. Because some easily manipulated people really don't need to be getting suckered into spiritual religious beliefs. 🤷🏼♂️
Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
I am not, even as Atheist, I'd say that what religious tradition has that secular tradition does not, is that they sound so genuine, confident and original. I believe that comes from devoutness and doubtlessness, which although being harmful in practical sense, might inspire communal spirit and artistic inspiration that maybe materialistic world view does not permit. It is hard for me to put into words but there is something that I feel when I experience Orthodox Church tradition, that I simply cannot explain or compare to any experience that I have with secular art, and I don't mean to say that I don't enjoy secular art as much as Orthodox (I enjoy secular art even more), it's just that it simulates different feeling that I think otherwise wouldn't be possible.
Those rules from their god come from books and are written down as their god’s rules and morals. It’s hard to get the harm out of religion when it’s sanctioned.
Yes, but the problem is that their book says all "sins" are similarly bad, but they treat the ones they dislike with more bigotry than the other ones that they are willing to "commit". Imagine if a cake decorating store owner, open on Sunday - refuses to decorate a cake for a couple that works on "the lord's day." Then petitions to pass laws to have the right to deny service only to those who work on Sunday. That would be as hypocritical, but at least consistent with their other bigotry.
I really enjoy watching this channel with VI and Eric. They're both so respectful, intelligent, calm and very lovely with the callers. I respect them a ton.
Sometimes I wish they'd be a little less respectful. 😕
How do people know the universe "came into being" I feel like thats kind of an assumption.... Like we can trace back to a sort of "first moment" but I don't know if that is same as "the universe came into being"
My layman's understanding is that right now we can't even go back to a "first moment," we don't have the knowledge, method, or tools to describe what happens past a certain point in the past.
I got the education to explain it, even though it does not make much sense. We know the universe at start expanded exponentially. We don't understand the physics during this very short period of 10^-36 seconds. (0.00{34 zeros}1) second. After 10^-35 seconds the universe changed to linear expanse during a period we do have physics. We have no clue why, but we know a couple of natural explanations to why. The Pope says "goddunit". Our best accelerator (LHC) goes back to 10^-12 seconds after the "start". It could be that exponential expansion is what every universe starts with. We simply don't know. The first 10^-36 seconds is called the Planck epoch, after Max Planck. We cant ever affort an accelerator going back to the Planck time, since it needs to be the size of a galaxy with current technology or have the mass of the supermassive black hole in the centre of Andromeda.
Yep. Whenever this is presented as a premise to an argument, I instantly reject it, because it is not possible to know if 'universe came into being' even makes sense as a statement. Our local presentation of the universe could just be an explosive offshoot of an even larger metaverse that is not bound by the laws that govern our universe. Who knows, its all speculation. You don't get to assume a creator for everything. And, even observations of our world demonstrate that thinking agents weren't involved in everything we see. Rock formations can be beautiful, but they're explained through natural processes. Does it even make sense to say these rock formations 'came into being'? It's just rock eroding over massive amounts of time. We only think of the rock formation as a singular thing we can identify because we exist in the 'now'. But if you were somehow eternal, at what point is the rock now a rock formation?
What i fond interesting is when you read the descriptions from the physicists on the subject it sounds like they are only asserting “time” began with the big bang because in order yo have a ruler to measure we need a start point. And so they are just starting from the farthest back we can rationally extrapolate and placing the “start” of “time” just so we can have a reference.
I guess what i mean to say is the more you really pay attention to what physicist are explaining, the more it doesnt at all match what theists assert about “the science.”
@@cnault3244 this is exactly what i was getting at. I suspect i didn’t articulate it well.
I love the way that Vi and Eric both respect each other so much... "I think bigotry will still exist... It'll just have on less place to hide..." Damn...
That was a total BURN on religion(s)!
It's mysterious, we don't know...therefore God! Bollocks- everybody doesn't do it .
That's a very common "answer" to the argument. Things are complex, we don't know this or this for a fact, so God. The big bang, the human eye, dna, certain things are very complex, therefore God and intelligent design. I think it's called the watch maker argument. This watch is only existing because someone made it. Therefore humans exist because someone made them. It's pretty nonsensical but very compelling of an argument for believers.
@@curbotize "It's pretty nonsensical but very compelling of an argument for believers." - especially if they are without education.
@@freddan6fly yeah. Touche. Education most definitely helps. You would think anyway.
5:08 - the moment, even at my most patient, I couldn’t help but mumble, “just get to the damn point already”. Quit the the rambling mumble and just lay it out.
Edit - I’m now at the end of the call and I’m wondering how to get the last 16 minutes 40 seconds of my life back. This guy might have been polite, but it was beyond worthless. Furthermore, why do I get the feeling this book he’s written is 2,000 pages long, but the entire contents could be summarised in one line? 🤷🏻♂️
Definitely.
I'll bet his book is a few hundred pages of preamble building up to padding and fluff in the middle, winding down to an anticlimactic end.
Same here! Went from get on with it to why did you bother.
I'm not even sure he could summarise it. He'd take another book to do that.
I got to 2:57 by stepping forward in 10 second increments. And I'm already bored out of my mind. Get to some fucking point already! These callers have evidently never been on the lecture circuit.
We will always have myths. We don't need religion but myths will always be around. They portray basic morals and ideals to live by. Star Wars follows the classic hero's journey, good vs evil, resisting temptation, respect for life, following a mentor, not giving in to anger, self sacrifice, light sabers.
Light sabers 😆
Myths used to be religions.
@@ringo666
The only difference between religion and mythology, is how many people believe it! :)
"No trick questions I promise!" This whole rant would've made me lose interest real fast.
Love how the conversation between the hosts is more interesting and easy to follow than the string of meandering questions from the caller.
Honestly I wish there were more discussions between people who agree to use critical thinking. I find those far more interesting than listening to someone who doesn't have a clue about even how to properly form a compelling argument.
Weeeell, this caller fails to recognize that some native groups in the past literally had no gods or god, like the Huns. Also, Buddhists didn't, and don't, too. Like many others. So... what's his point?
😊
Vi thinks that we can’t have history, culture, and community in a “perfectly rational” world? What is the justification that any of these things require having some capacity of “religion”?
Do you think anything that isnt “perfectly rational” is religion? Thats not my definition of “perfectly rational” and I suspect it isnt Vi’s
@@computerflight2145 it’s not mine either. The caller was sort of conflating “no more religion” with “perfectly rational” world, but those were the words they used that Vi responded to by saying some element of religion is necessary for those things
I think they were using "religion" to mean different things. I think Vi meant it as a collection of practices, rituals, stories not solely as supernatural beliefs.
"I wrote a whole book on it" Does anyone say they wrote half a book, or maybe 3/5ths of a book these days?
He is just really proud of himself. Like a little kid, see mommy/daddy I *wrote a whole book all by myself.*
No, but you can write a book covering a range of topics and a book which covers a specific topic and then the statement is completely valid assuming his book is the latter type.
I wrote half a book
@@peterriverajr6899 🍪
I wrote a whole comment
argument from ignorance! who would've guessed?
I'm not sure where Vi is coming from here. How can you remove bigotry from religion when the very idea of religion is inherently bigoted? Every mainstream denomination I can think of is predicated on an ingroup/outgroup mentality, and the idea that their church is the "correct" one. Once you combine this frame of mind with churches' natural tendency toward authoritarianism, I really don't see how religion could ever not be a force for evil in the world no matter how much you try to sanitize it.
Thats what all the charity is for. "But who would care for the lepers if we didnt?"
Agreed. That is the underlying idea of modern day (all) religions.
I don't like you, and my interpretation of my version of my holy book tells me I'm right. That will reinforce my dislike for you so I will do everything in my power to preside over you.
I would push back only slightly for pagan and other non-deistic religions, although I don't know enough to say they don't suffer from the same issues.
@@RPGgrenade Fair enough. I really don't have any problems with pagans, UU's, or rastafarians, but we are talking about an infinitesimally small portion of the religious population even if you combine all three. I'd much rather eliminate religion completely than wait for 99.99% of it to become like the other 0.01%.
I'm not impressed when Jordan Peterson talks about essential narratives, and I'm not all that interested in that particular exercise. There are aspects to human existence that aren't rational that have value, like beauty and art, etc. I'll side step the philosophies that attempt to suggest that those aspects of our lives are in fact rational (because I think they're just wrong). But placing value on the irrational doesn't necessarily mean I'd advocate for irrational methods for examining all of our shared aspects of reality either. Searching for Truth outside of context is...kind of lazy, even if some people find it more comfortable.
When you say they are not rational, you mean that we cannot explain how we have those aspects? Or that there is irrational to have them? Im kind of lost.
I don't think a fictional narrative is irrational. Jordan Peterson talks about people wrestling with issues (moral, philosophical, political etc) by telling stories. This concept fits into the area of literature and art, not science and I don't have a problem with finding truth through it.
I agree that we shouldn't tell religious or mythological stories as though they were true events. But if we tell them as fictional stories, I would either say that rationality doesn't come into it, so it's neither rational or irrational; or I would argue that it is rational because everybody agrees they're just a made up story.
I'm not sure it's necessary to use stories to teach essential truths, but they are useful and more fun (which further enhances their utility because we remember things we enjoy, better than something we find boring).
I may have misunderstood your points though and I apologise if I have.
Neither? Certainly not the latter. I think it mostly has to how replicable the experience is. Rational methods for examining natural phenomena that we observe (e.g. the scientific method) require the observations to be repeatable in some way. Consistency is important; if we don't see consistency we can ask go back to the hypothesis for a potential revision or look for outside influences. Non-rational (maybe that's better than saying irrational?) events/subjects aren't necessarily experienced the same way and don't have to be in order to be valid. The lack of consistency may be a good thing.
@@miguelthealpaca8971 Jordan Peterson doesn't have a problem with religious writings but seems to conveniently ignore that people do, in fact, interpret them as literal Truth. Without a contextualized discussion, essential narratives are dangerous. Band saws can make life easier for carpenters (rational) but I wouldn't trust one with a child who doesn't know how to use it; doing so would be irrational.
@@michaelm8344 He does bring up that people interpret them literally and discusses that a little bit, but you may have to dig around many hours of videos to find it. He says that he disagrees with the literal interpretation and in completely dismissing the stories as nonsense that's not worth your time.
Hey! Here you are! Took me a while to find where you went! Haven't seen you on Talk Heathen in a long time. Glad I found you two again! I guess I haven't been keeping up with changes and announcements lately.
I don't think Vi truly understands the problem with religion. If you can get someone to believe in one thing without evidence, you can get them to believe in pretty much anything.
"I have amazing proof that I'm here plugging my book"
Why do they grant that the universe "came into being" when we really dont know if it did?
It seems that most such callers are just repeating proselytizing scripts that they got from some apologist or televangelist source and are repeating that script by rote without even understanding it themselves (if they cannot summarize their argument and instead must always start from the beginning of their spiel, then it's a script). Those scripts require us to give them a particular answer, so I usually go off-script to force them to have to actually think -- especially creationists really hate that. Maybe Edward had written this script himself, maybe not.
There's also a salesman tactic in which you start off getting the mark -- er, customer -- to agree with you on three or four things. Those things don't even have to directly related to what they're trying to sell you. But if you can get your customer to agree with you on three or four things, then you're guaranteed to making that sale. We have observed repeatedly how proselytizers typically employ a string of questions designed so that you would agree with the first few, thus softening you up for the kill.
And finally theists are sickeningly consistent in having no idea what atheism is, nor how atheists think, nor how we even became atheists. Like creationists knowing nothing about evolution, it would help immensely if they were to learn something about what they oppose before attacking it in public. While every atheist has a different story and different set of ideas, my own is basically that whether a particular god exists or not is not important, rather my atheism is based on my knowing what they're trying to sell and I just cannot buy it. It's not whether I can believe in "God", but rather that I don't believe THEM.
Bumper sticker: "Militant Agnostic -- I don't know AND NEITHER DO YOU!"
The universe had no "reason." The hosts let him slip that in.
Well It seems that we have been given information that helps us understand a lot about the universe and we are learning more
Edward doesn't know what my birthday is, therefore it is mysterious.
Yup. Still an agnostic atheist (The caller failed) lol
It is a very true point that religion has always made those people who don't hold it, or who don't hold the same one as a majority of others, lesser beings than the rest. This leads to all sorts of unethical and cruel behaviours, all justified by the idea that a lack of conformity is to be against God.
Define what is "to be with gaad".
@@WilbertLek Not sure of what point you are attempting.
One thing is certain, religion has no place in a science class room EVER
I can't think of one thing that religion offers, that can't be found without it.
People gathering, singing, creating a language, music and art etc does not make a religion, this is simply a society/civilisation.
When you add “mythology” to that list, THEN it becomes a religion. And we’d be better off without that mythology.
I just love the soothing sound of Matt's voice...
That struck me as 15 minutes where nothing of substance was ever stated. I’m still wondering what argument was “anti-atheist”
Did he mention he wrote a book? I couldn't tell.
"do you agree trees exist and that they're part of nature?"
"Since you believe in nature, therefore you believe in mother nature, therefore you believe in the matriarchy, therefore you believe in the patriarchy, therefore you believe in the father, therefore you believe in the HOLY FATHER, therefore you believe in the GOD that I believe in, therefore you're a Christian Mono-theist and need to tithe 10% of your income to me."
Fun fact, you can use your phone as a hand warmer in your coat. Just get it running something that heats it up like a game and wrap your hand around it.
@15:33 Edward states "Religions is how humans have *traditionally* organized themselves" etc.
That's just the appeal to tradition fallacy, (i.e. "this is the way it has always been done in the past so we should continue to do it.") I wish the hosts would have pointed that out instead of arguing whether the statement itself was true or not.
I agree, and think that they should also let people know that no one is obligated to be as ignorant as their ancestors.
Where was the Anti-Atheist point? Unless it was that bit about the mystery of the universe, I don't think we ever got to the point.
When religions stop having bigotry written in it's books and teachings, I will start saying the world can be okay with their presence in this world.
As an atheist, I’d like to see every religious person realize they’ve been lied to, and that they no longer participate in any organized worshipping of a deity all on their own. Religion should never be democratically legislated against, unless the religion threatens the democracy.
Your patience is astounding.
I'm glad they finally called him on the "mysterious" angle. Not knowing does not equal "mysterious". Also countries are not in fact organized around "a religion". Countries commonly contain multiple competing religions.
Summary: Edward asks questions with opinionated slants, then, despite hosts' corrections, summarizes hosts' responses incorrectly to fit his narrative. As subtle as he was, this is still disingenuous and dishonest.
Theism: The belief in extra-natural entities capable of effecting natural events.
Religion: The process by which such entities might be moved to effect natural events to human advantage.
This dude REALLY thought he was saying something 🤣
Excellent call!
how is it a 'fact' that the universe "came into being". Proof needed
I have a feeling that if this guy ever got his hand on some Joseph Campbell, it'd blow his mind.
I haven't found myself in disagreement with Vi on anything until now. Maybe it's our definition as 'religion'. To me 'religion' implies a supreme being who is a concious, thinking agent that created the universe. As Eric says; it involves mythology and obscures the 'truth'. There is an absolute 'true' answer as to whether a supreme being exists.
Your definition of religion doesn't meet the actual definition of religion. There are many religions which _don't_ have a supreme being who thought out and created reality...
@@aralornwolf3140 Can you give me an example?
@@nofaithrequired859 ,
Wicca, Buddhism, Taoism...
@@nofaithrequired859 the Greek. Things kind of formed out of chaos. And then birth other things into it
No one knows how the universe started therefore we should go ahead and assume this creation fairytale with no evidence.
A classic Argument from Ignorance.
I would be happy for all religions to exist in state of amiable stagnation.
The Big problem is that when any group of people form a community around common beliefs (I.e religion) it invariably leads to an 'us versus them' tribalistic attitude.
I would agree that it seems that the universe we know came into being but I would not agree that it came into being for any reason mystical or otherwise. It is up to those who claim there was a reason to provide arguments for that reason.
We don't even know that the universe 'came into being'. It may have always been here, and just changes forms. Theists keep trying to say that whatever 'caused' it to come 'into being' was some sort of 'Creater God'.
I'm not sure what Edward's point was. Especially the anti-theist part. All that build up to... what?
If that's the way he thinks, his book must be a hot mess.
My ding dong "reason" for the big bang is the universe needed to age so it went bang so time could start.
I'm totally pulling it out of my ass of course. It's more of a "what if" response to when I'm asked "what if god created everything?".
Then I respond with "what if the universe just needed to age and needed time for that?"
Back when I drank, I used to suggest that universes begin when black holes collapse. I felt like such a smarty mcsmarterson about it haha.
The big bang theory describes how this universe ,that we can observe , resulted but does not address the possibility that an infinite universe has always been there.
they should have stopped him cold by denying him the premise of "why"; why the universe came in to being doesnt matter. the "how" of it is what matters. by using "why", you are automatically assigning agency to the process
I normally agree with Vi, but let's get rid of religion and keep philosophy.
Yes! I was surprised that I’d find myself squarely on Eric’s side, as I normally also tend towards Vi’s take in their discussions, but in this case, Eric is totally right. Not only about a society without religion being something to strive for (by convincing people instead of persecuting them, of course), but also about the more strict definition of the word “religion”. I think Vi’s arguments are based on a very loose definition of the word, which doesn’t seem useful for this kind of discussion.
Someone commented that the bible stories could be used as teaching tools. I assume they mean for life lessons about what's wrong and what's right. Fine. But someone will have to separate out the bad ones. Like, what is the point of the Noah's ark story?
@@AlDunbar You mean that boring remake of 2012, where they had only one ship, and that was built by friggin’ giants? I didn’t quite follow that story either.
@@AlDunbar what few life stories I would like a child to take from the Bible could also just be taught...idk...secularly?
Completely hypothetically here, let's envision a world of no more religion, religion has slowly been discarded over time. What purpose would we have for the Bible's stories, outside of historical value? What knowledge is to be gained from stories in the bible that can only be accomplished in the terms of the Bible, you know?
@@sebidotorg agreed. I usually try to give religious epics a shot, because I think some stories from some religions could make a good movie.
But Noah's Ark was...hard to watch, and I cant put my finger on why. Like I wouldnt rate it a terrible movie, but I dont think it was a great movie either.
I’ve always hoped religion will become the SIM city version. No churches, temples, mosques… instead, non-profit organizations can construct a “house of worship” where anyone can come and practice their specific faith.
Well, he got them to agree to a “why” the universe came into existence, instead of “how”. Why questions imply an intent or an intelligence. I’m only at 2:40, though.
Why did the apple fall off the tree? (no intent or an intelligence required)
@@aralornwolf3140 That is a very different question than why was the universe created.
@@crispyblack8779 ,
You said "why the universe came into existence"... you did _not_ say "created"... came into existence. Don't change the question. >:(
@@aralornwolf3140 sorry. I wasn’t trying to change the conversation. It just sounded like he was trying to sneak in a creator. I’m not married to the point.
Vi's comment at the says to me that my obsession with Lord of the Rings could be classified as a religion...and I'm okay with that.
I'd suggest that's absolutely true
as long as its not like an abrahamic religion
We can have music, etc, without belief in anything supernatural. Calling any singing community a religion is false equivocation, because the lack of god-belief was was the issue in the original question.
I agree that bigotry is on the same level of “things to get rid of”.
I have an issue with the premise that the universe came into being, how did you rule out the fact that the Big Bang may not of been the beginning of the universe but a mere significant point in its infinite history.
Caller sounds like he is performing a magic act. Lol
Reason? Why is the assumption that the universe's beginning has a reason?
Pretzel twisting is a ridiculous part time.
I don't get how that was in any way an 'anti-atheist' argument.
"Come into being..."
I have no idea.
@14:20 - Edward: "Religion with authority. Versus religion that doesn't have authority."
Is there s religion without authority? If each person is left to their own devices (regarding their beliefs) there would be no reason to organize. Each person would "be their own bigot" so there's no hiding behind other people. If you have that belief you have to defend it on your own, you can't appeal to (slash "hide behind") an authority for validation.
I'm on 11 minute and this hurts my head already...
I am an atheist, but believe religion is here to stay. Like Eric, in my youth I explored the psychedelic realm. The primary thing I took away from it was that in our brains we have the hardware and software for amazing ecstatic experiences. I believe the "God sized whole in our heart" may be the desire to dive into the deep unconscious world of mythic Jungian (in the general sense) energy, and a that we have a social need for ritualistic expression. Even if we overcome superstition as a species, I believe humanity will not be able to live on rationality alone. I think as a species we need to dive into the numinous, even if not all individuals have that need.
It would be nice if the psychedelic realm would be liberated and no longer be illegal. If it were legal I would consider opening psychedelic safe haven. It have been decades since dove into that unbelievable realm, and I miss it.
There exists IQ, which correlates as "rationality", the way I see it. Mattes of the brain. Like critical thinking, knowledge of facts, knowing how to properly apply thought when determining something, for examples. There also exists EQ, which correlates to "community", the way I see it. Matters of the "heart and soul", so things like social skills, empathy, intuition, and stuff like that. Basically things that help humans work together. I cannot help but feel that IQ is over-emphasized in today's time, that EQ is often pushed to the side in favor of straight up verifiable facts. As an agnostic, I cannot help but feel that IQ and rationality is just part of the picture when it comes to the bigger picture of the betterment of humanity.
@@lmoral222 I would agree that IQ is Lord and master of todays culture. EQ is less understood and developed. We also can think "archetypally" or "mythologically" in a Jungian sense. We typically look at mythological data and try to interpret it with rationality. Myth and archetype encode a lot of valuable insights, but are not true in a "literal" sense.
@@davidrichardson7466 Agreed! I fancy Jungian philosophy a bit myself. The biggest part that I like, is how it takes into account human history/tradition across many, many different cultures to gain an "overall" interpretation of it all. I'm not a Carl Jung "buff", if you will, pretty casual, but I do like what I've seen so far. Are there any books you can recommend that talk about this? I read King, Warrior, Magician, Lover: The Archetypes of the Mature Masculine, and honestly, loved every bit of it. I think it explains masculinity well, and sheds light upon what seems to be a misinterpreted aspect of humanity (masculinity) in a way that explores many cultures, from tribal peoples all the way up to city slickers in the modern era. It's unlike other "man-books" that I've glossed over. In that, the things explained in that book, can apply to all men - of all backgrounds, cultures, sexual preference, etc. Women could even gain valuable insight from it as well and apply certain things, it's truly a gem and if you haven't read it, you may find it interesting as well
@@lmoral222 My favorite professor in college was into Joseph Campbell. We applied his take on archetypes to different types of art in many of his classes. He suckered me in with Introduction to the Art of Cinema... A MOVIE WATCHING CLASS MUST BE A BLOW OFF! It was a heck of a lot of fun, but definitely not a blow off. Loved The Power of Myth. Like you I am not a hard core Jung person, but love his work. I found that my primary archetype was shaman. Which is a variation on Holy fool, sage... et al. Reading about the magician archetype helped me understand myself. I never got around to reading King, Warrior, Magician, Lover... but my dad was involved in the men's movement in the 1990s. I tagged along a fair amount. I think it did help quite a few men "find their souls". It was good for Dad and me.
Enjoy what you have to say... thanks
Bigotry is 1 of over 100s of issues we have with religion.
11:30 I'm with Eric. In a perfect world, religion will be eradicated. That does not mean eliminating storytelling, but people will know the difference between fiction and truth.
His opening premise rests on the assumption that the universe ( the sum total of what exists) has not always existed. I'd like to know how he can demonstrate that at one time nothing existed. I mean how would one secure this conclusion? What kind of evidence does nothing leave behind. Blank out!
The fact that existence exists is a primary, irreducible fact. That means it can't be analyzed or broken down into more fundamental knowledge. You can't even attempt to explain how it came about because we explain things in terms of things that exist. One who attempts this is trying to explain existence by appealing to non-existence. Invalid.
I don’t have to confirm anything, however I can deny anything I can’t confirm.
This line of reasoning screams “daddy issues”...cant quite put my finger on why.
This is all a mystery.
And this is all a mystery...
And this is all a mystery...
And this is all a mystery...
Seems to be his only point since he said it throughout, over and over.
"No one knows" is an argument for non belief, not belief.
"For some reason it all came to be. Agree?" No. In fact that's impossible as everything can't have a beginning...it always existed.
If there was never a time the universe didnt exist, how did the universe "come into being"? That implies there was a time it wasnt there, followed by a time where it was there. That didnt happen? As far as I can tell, time started counting at the big bang, not "came into being" or "began to exist".
The variation of Sweetie Poo from the Ig Nobel Awards is needed:
Get to the point. I'm bored.
Get to the point. I'm bored.
Get to the point. I'm bored.
Took him ten full minutes to get to ‘We don’t know therefore God’🤦🏻♂️
No trick questions! Just trying to force you down a certain path.
Eduard is one of those people who possesses the unfortunate talent to suck out all of the precious energy that Mother Nature has bestowed on me for today. Just.get.to.the.flippin.point!
‘Which was the style at the time’
15:03 is the best question
"the universe came into being" - do we know the universe hasn't always exited in some form or other?
I believe in a divine toilet plunger. It’s name is Marvin
Is it me or is the bass/low freqs of Eric's mic turned up too high? He tas a great voice that's already naturally quite bassy, so the cranked up bass on his mic is taking away from it